Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ram Chandra And Anr. vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 September, 1989
Equivalent citations: 1990(1)WLN78
JUDGMENT S.S. Byas, J.
1. Ram Chandra and his son Balraj who are appellants before us, were convicted Under Section 302/34, IPC and each was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu by his judgment dated October 16, 1987 They have come up in appeal and challenge their conviction.
2. The victim in the case is Smt. Krishna born on 1-7-1969. She was the wife of the appellant Balraj PW 2 Om Prakash and PW 12 Mst Pana are the parents, PW 1 Dharamveer Singh is the brother and PW 15 Smt Vidhya is the sister of the victim. The prosecution case may briefly be summarised as under:
3. The marriage between Krishna and the appellant Balraj was solemnized on 26-5-1984 in Dhani Sheoran Tan Dev Road, P.S. Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu. After marriage Krishna went to live with her husband and in-laws in Jhunjhunu. Thereafter she visited her parents' house off and on. The distance between Dhani Sheorana and Jhunjhunu is of 15 or 16 Kms. On 21-3-1985 when she was living in Jhunjhunu with her husband and in-laws, she appeared in the first paper of English of the Secondary examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan. Accused Ram Chandra appeared at the Police Station, Jhunjhunu in the morning on 22-3-1985 and presented written report Ex. P-29 to the Station House Officer Mahavir Prasad (PW 21). It was stated therein that at about 4.00 a.m. on that day, he was told by his elder brother Shivraj Singh that the latrine situate in his house was in flames and the shutters were burning. He immediately went to the latrine and found a completely burnt dead body therein. Smt. Krishna was missing. The dead body could be, therefore of her. He requested the Police to make an inquiry into the matter. PW 21 Mahavir Prasad, SHO contacted the Dy. S.P. Virbhan Ajwani (PW 24) and both of them went to the house of the accused Ram Chandra. They noticed a completely burnt body of a woman inside the latrine. Accused Ram Chandra had also sent the information to the parents of Krishna, and her father Om Prakash (PW 2) also arrived there. The Police prepared the 'Ferd Surathal' Ex. P-9 and the inquest report Ex. P. 8 of the dead body in the presence of the Motbirs and Om Prakash (PW 2). The burnt body was identified to be that of Smt. Krishna. The body was sent for medico legal autopsy which was conducted by a board of three doctors viz PW 6 Dr. Ratan Singh, PW 19 Dr. Smt. Rekha and Dr. K.K. Sharma. They noticed as follows:
(1) Whole body burnt, blackened, thick soot dry and friable appearance on body surface. No clothing detected on body. Light smell of kerosene oil muscles ehurned up, metted, whole muscle mass of both upper and lower limbs neck, enest, abdomen, back burnt leaving bones exposed which are friable on randle. Scalp hairs, eyebrows, public hair not visible due to burn. Roasting and charring of parts of both limbs upper limb semiflex at elbow and shoulder, lower limb semi flexed at knee and hip joint. Dislocation of left wrist due to burn. An opening of 4" x 3" on left side of back below leastal margin present due to burn Bangles on left forearm present, a gold chain present in neck no marks of ligature detected on neck due to extensive burn.
Eye bail melted, whole external ears burn external aemtalio burnt.
(2) Scalp hair, scalp muscle burnt.
4. The Medical Board was of the opinion that the cause of death would be given after receiving the report from chemical examiner to whom asstric contents and a piece of stomach of Smt. Krishna were sent for chemical examination. The post mortem report prepared by the Medical Board is Ex. P-10. It was latter pointed that the cause of death was burning. Since the case was not found of homicidal burning, the Police after taking the proceedings Under Section 174, Cr. PC closed the chapter.
5. The parents of Smt. Krishna how ever, sensed a foul play in her death. PW 1 Dharam Singh draw up report Ex. P-3 and presented it on 28-3-1985 with a mob of seven or eight thousands persons to the Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu who was camping at Pilani. The Superintendent of Police directed the Station House Officer, P.S. Jhunjhunu to register a case and entrust the investigation to the Dy. S.P. The Police thereafter registered a case Under Section 302, IPC and took up the investigation. The Investigating Officer inspected the site and prepared the site plan Ex. P-4. He found the shutters of the latrine burnt and the walls blackened. He took a tin, two exercise copies one inland letter, plaster pieces of the latrine scretches of the walls, one drum, one gunny beg, one empty dalda tins, etc. in possession lying in the different places of the house of the accused Ram Chandra. During investigation, it transpired that Smt. Krishna was not treated kindly and cordially by her husband and in-laws because she had not brought sufficient dowry from her parents and also because she was not a well educated girl. After when the investigation was over, the Police presented a crime report against the two appellants Ram Chandra and Balraj in the court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu, who in his turn committed the case for trial to the court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges Under Sections 302, 201 and 498A, IPC against the two accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed absolute innocence. The defence taken by the husband is that he was not in Jhunjhunu throughout the night of incident. He was at Chirawa where he was carrying on his business. According to the appellants, they never demanded the dowry and the entire allegations of their mal-treating Smt. Krishna are baseless and unfounded with no truth in that. She was very cordially and sweetly treated by them and the members of their family. Smt. Krishna before her marriage and appeared in the Secondary examination of the Board of Ajmer and failed. Again she appeared in the said examination. But she did not farewell on her very first day of examination in the first paper of English. It was on account of this frustration that she committed suicide by burning herself. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 25 witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, no evidence was adduced. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the charge Under Section 302/34, IPC duly proved against the accused persons. He, how ever, found no case for the offences Under Sections 201 and 498A, IPC against them. The two acccused Ram Chandra and Balraj were, therefore, convicted Under Section 302/34 IPC and each was sentenced as mentioned at the very out-set. Aggrieved against their conviction, the accused have taken this appeal.
6. It would be proper to briefly notice the findings recorded by the court. They are:
(1) It was not a case where the victim was done to death on account of insufficient dowry;
(2) The death was homicidal and not suicidal;
(3) The two accused Ram Chandra and Balraj along with Ram Chandra's wife and daughter were not happy with Krishna. They all were in the house of Ram Chandra in the fateful night and they, therefore, had the opportunity of burning Krishna;
(4) No stranger or outsider could cause the death of Krishna; and (5) The defence taken by the appellants was palpably false.
7. The learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the cumulative effect of the circumstances 2 to 5 narrated above lead to the inevitable inference that the appellants had burnt Krishna to death.
8. We have heard Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar, learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Rizwan Ali assisted by Mr. N.L. Tibrewal, learned Counsel for the complainant.
9. Admittedly there is no direct evidence and the prosecution case squarely rests on circumstantial evidence. The circumstance relied upon by the trial court in convicting the appellants are: (1) the death was homicidal; (2) the appellants and the members of their family were not happy with the deceased; and (3) nobody else other than the appellants could cause the death of the victim by burning.
10. Here is a case where the death of the victim had occurred on account of burning. The first and foremost fact--in issue arising for deliberation is whether the death of Krishna was accidential, homicidal or suicidal.
11 It was strenuously contended by Mr. Dhankar that the court below committed a gross error in concluding that the death was homicidal. It was argued that the opinion of the doctor who conducted the medico legal autopsy of the victim's dead body did not express an opinion that the death of Krishna was homicidal. On the other hand, they expressed the opinion that it could be a case of suicidal burning. It was on the other hand contended by the learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Tibrewal that the whole body of Krishna was found burnt and blackened. No body committing immolation gets completely burnt. Krishna could not burn her whole body.
12. Whether the death of a person caused by burning was accidental, suicidal or homicidal has always been a perplexed question. On page 327 "Medical Jurispurdence and Toxicology" (1987 Edition) by Cox, the following view has been expressed:
14. Suicide, Accident or Homicide--Here there is little help that the purely medical aspects can offer, as the differentiation between these two cases is largely a matter for the Police investigation.
Jhala in his book "Medical Jurispurdence" (1988 Edition) has dealt with the problem on page 393. He observes:
The nature of burns whether suicidal, homicidal or accidental has to be established in all cases of death from burns. It is not always easy to come to a correct conclusion with date very often insufficient in such cases."
If the burns are severe and extensive, they prove fatal because of shock, dehydration and collapse in a very short time.
13. We now turn to the evidence of the doctors who conducted the post mortem examination of the victim's dead body. Dy. Ratan Singh(PW 6) in his examination in chief was asked whether the death of Krishna was suicidal and he expressed the opinion that it could be a case of self immolation. We are lured to quote his opinion in his own words:
Izk'u & D;k d`".k dh ;g ekSr vkRe gR;k tyus ds QyLo:Ik gks ldrh gS \ mRrj & og vkRegR;k dk dsl gks ldrk gS A vxj ikuh ds iqy rFkk dsjkslhu o dks;yks dk iz;ksx fd;k x;k gks A oSls dks;ys dk iz;skx vko';d Hkh ugh Fkk A vfXudkaM+ es tyrs le; ;g 'kr&izfr'kr vko';d ugh gS fd ty jgk O;fDr vko;'d :Ik ls ph[ks AdbZ ckj ph[ks fudyrh Hkh gS A dbZ ckj ugh Hkh A
14. In cross examination, he stated ghV yxus ls tyus ds dslst es ghV yxus ls 'kkd gks ldrk gS vkSj og csgks'k gks tkrk gS vkSj ckn es tyrk jgrk gS A ,slk bl dsl es Hkh laHko gS A
15. He thus stated that on account of excessive heat to the victim, he may go in shock becomes unconscious and thereafter he continues to burn. Dr. Rekha Devi (PW 19) at first stated in examination in chief that in her opinion if one commits immolation, the condition of his body would not be that as was that of the body of the deceased victim but she could not maintain in her opinion successfully and stated that on account of intensive heat, one may go in shock. She was pointedly asked to state her opinion as to whether it was a case of suicidal or homicidal burning and she expressed her inability to state any opinion on this material aspect of the case. It would be proper to reproduce the question and answer put to her in this respect:
Izk'u & bl ekeys es e`frdk dh yk'k dks ns[kdj ;g crk;k tk ldrk gS fd tyus ls e`frdk dh tks e`R;q gqbZ og vkRe gR;k dk ekeyk Fkk ;k ekuoor dk \ mRrj & e`frdk dk e`R;q tyus ls gqbZ Fkh A rFkk mlds 'kjhj ij vkRegR;k o ekuoor dks Hksn djus okys D;ks y{k.k Fks\ ;g os MkDVj gh crk ldrs gS ftUgksus yk'k dk iwjk Ikjh{k.k fd;k Fkk A
16. In cross examination, she further stated ;fn dksbZ vkneh dkQh ek=k es ikuh ds iwys] dks;ys o dsjkslhu rsy tqVkdj Loa; ejuk pkgs rks ty dj ej ldrk gS A eSus yk'k dk ftruk Hkkx ns[kk Fkk rFkk og ftl izdkj tyk gqvk Fkk A oSlk mDr izfdz;k ls vkneh Los; ty ldrk gS A eq>s irk ugh fd e`frdk dk 'kjhj tyus ls dsjkslhu dks;ys o iwys dke es vk;s gks A eSus mij c;ku es ;g ugh crk;k fd ftl efgyk dh yk'k Fkh og Loa; tydj ugh ejh A
17. She thus admitted that it could be a case of self immolation.
18. Mr. Tibrewal contended that intensive heat is required to completely destroy the human body by burning, and that is sufficient to draw the inference that it could not happen in a suicidal burning. He drew our attention to the following passage occurring on page 1000 of "Forensic Medicine" by Tedeschi:
For instance, in cremation, in which the body is exposed for one and a half hours at 1,600$dG; to 1,800$dG;F, bone fragments may still be found among the 2 to 3 lb. of ashes that constitute the residue.
19. We find not much sustance in the submission of Mr. Tibrewal, The opinion expressed above shows that a particular degree of heat is required to burn the body. This passage does not assist us as to whether such a heat cannot be caused in a case of self burning. After-all, in a case of immolation, intensive heat as mentioned in the above passage is required to burn the body. This intensive heat is not limited only to a case of homicidal burning. In a case of self burning and immolation, the same intensive heat is required.
20. The opinion of the two doctors Ratan Singh and Rekha Devi does not show that it was a case of homicidal burning. According to them it could be a case of suicidal burning.
21. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra , their Lordships were faced with the situation as to whether the case was of suicide or homicide and the possibilities indicated either way. It was observed:
On the evidence of this case two possibilities are clearly open viz. (1) that it may be a case of suicide, or (2) that it may be a case of murder, and both are equally probable; hence the prosecution case stands disproved. On this ground alone, therefore, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt resulting in his acquittal.
22. The above observations aptly apply to the instant case in our hands. The two doctors Ratan Singh and Rekha Devi did not state that it was a case of homicide. They expressed the opinion that it could be the case of suicide. If the evidence of these two doctors is read even with a wider latitude to the prosecution, there are two clear possibilities viz. (1) it may be a case of homicide; or (2) it may be a case of suicide. When these two possibilities are there, the benefit must go to the accused. It was upon the prosecution to prove that the death of Krishna was homicide and not suicide. The prosecution has miserably failed on this count.
23. The learned Sessions Judge did not take into consideration these various aspects and abruptly held that it was a case of homicide by burning. The finding is not correct and it should be reversed.
24. Mr. Dhankar also argued that the circumstances did not point out that the appellants or any member of their family could cause the death. It was argued that the appellants had no reason for doing so. Krishna was kindly and sweetly treated by them. In the letters addressed by her in her own hand writing to her parents and sister, she always praised the sweet behaviour extended to her by her husband and the in-laws. It was argued that as per finding of the Trial Judge, it was not a case of demanding the dowry. If it was not so, there was no reason for the appellants to commit her murder. Mr. Dhankar also argued that Krishna had failed on the Secondary examination before her marriage, and she did not farewell in the first paper of English of the Secondary examination on the day of incident. It was argued that the appellants have a highly educated family. It appears that Krishna got frustrated on account of her being not educated. Her not doing well in the first paper of English on the day of incident pushed her to commit self burning.
25. It was on the other hand contended by the learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Tibrewal that Krishna had failed in the Secondary examination before her marriage and, therefore, it was impossible to imagine that she would commit suicide by burning only because she did not farewell in the first paper of English on the day of incident. We have taken the respective submission into our consideration.
26. The contentions raised by Mr. Dhankar have much force and substance. The marriage of Krishna with the appellant Balraj took place on 26-5-1984. She thereafter came to Jhunjhunu to live with her husband and in-laws. PW 1 Dharamveer Singh who is the real elder brother of Krishna admitted in his cross examination that Krishna lived mostly in Jhunjhunu with her in-laws after her marriage. From Jhunjhunu she addressed some letters to her father Ex. P-1 is an inland letter addressed by her to her father on 28-7-1984. In this letter she stated that she was living happily in the house of her in laws. Of course, she stated in this letter that, in case she was educated well by her parents, she would have been in a much better position. She further stated that nobody should be worried about her as she was living happily. She advised her brothers and father that they should not visit her at Jhunjhunu because according to her in-laws, every visit incurred, the expenses of Rs. 20/- or 30/-. In another letter Ex P-2 dated 24-9-1984 addressed by her to her father she wrote that she was very very happy with her in-laws. She advised her brothers and their wives to keep her parents happy serve them well and pay proper regards to them. She further wrote that her in-laws were very loving persons and she was serving them well. We may quote the relevant passage from Ex. P-2--
esjs dks esjs lkl llqjk cgqr I;kjs yxrs gS A budh esjs ls gksrh gS oslh lsok djrh gWw vkSj izse ls jgrs gS A
27. There is no dispute that these two letters Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 are in the hand writing of the deceased Krishna If these two letters are read, it is manifest that Krishna was living happily in the family of her in-laws with no cause of grievance. There is nothing in these two letters to show that she was not treated kindly or lovingly by her in-laws. The lines quoted above leave no room for doubt that she was leading a happy married life. On the contrary, what we see in Ex. P-2 is that she advised her brothers and their wives to treat her parents with love and affection. Simply because she wrote in Ex. P-1 that in case she was educated well, she would not have look towards anybody, it cannot be said that anybody in the family of her in-laws was unhappy with her.
28. It is very easy to make any sort of allegation after the incident that Krishna was not treated well by her in-laws or husband. The two letters Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 belie the allegation made by the deceased's brother Dharamveer Singh, father Om Prakash, mother Mst. Pana and other relatives who have been examined in this case that Krishna was not treated with live and affection by her husband or in-laws. The averment that she was not liked by her in-laws and husband is a unfounded lie.
29. When Krishna was found completely burnt, Satvir who is the son of Shobha Nand was sent to the parents of Krishna to bring them to Jhunjhunu. Shobha Nand is the real brother of appellant Ram Chandra. Satvir took a car to the village of Krishna's parents to bring them to Jhunjhunu before the cremation took place If the death of Krishna who homicidal and she was done to death by the appellants, we are unable to imagine that the appellants would sent Satvir to bring her parents. The guilt conscious of the appellants would have never allowed them to do so in case the had burnt her to death.
30. PW 2 Om Prakash stated that Satvir came in a car to take him to Jhunjhunu. He accompanied him and went to Jhunjhunu in that very car with Satvir. When he reached the house of the appellants, accused Balraj came forward with a laughing face. We fail to understand that in case Krishna was burnt to death by the appellant, appellant Balraj would welcome his father-in-law Om Prakash with a laughing face. Whether the death was homicidal or suicidal, it is impossible to imagine that appellant Balraj would have a smiling or laughing face. It shows that PW 2 Om Prakash is a biased witnesss capable of introducing even the impossibilities in his testimony.
31. Om Prakash (PW 2) admittedly arrived at the house of the appellants when the Police reached there and prepare the inquest report. The inpuest report prepared by Police is Ex. D-8. PW 2 Om Prakash has been named as a motbir in the proceeding in Ex. D-8 he admitted that it was prepared in his presence and bears of his signatures 'A' to 'B'. In Ex. D-8, it has not been mentioned that the death of Krishna was homicidal. If the appellants and the members of their family were treating Krishna with contempt and Om Prakash had any suspicion about her death, he would have raised protests than and there before the Police and would have refused to append his signatures on Ex. D-8 as a Motbir. PW 2 Om Prakash could not explain as to why he observed a stoic silence when Ex. D-8 was prepared. He took part in the cremation of Krishna. A father whose daughter is burnt, never acts in the member Om Prakash (PW 2) acted.
32. There is yet one more aspect of the matter. Om Prakash (PW 2) stated that he spent nearly 50/60 thousand rupees in the marriage of his dauther Krishna. He denied the suggestion in cross examination that he threatened the appellants to return the dowry articles and demanded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation from the appellant Ram Chandra. But his denial is false. He admitted in his cross examination that on 4-4-1985, appellant Ram Chandra returned him the dowry articles and a sum of Rs. 45,000/. In total he received Rs 81,404/- in cash and kind from appellant Ram Chandra on 4-4-1985 and he issued receipt Ex. D-7 which bears his signature 'A' to 'B'. He stated that he spent rupees 50/60 thousand in the marriage on his daughter Krishna. Admittedly, he received a sum of Rs. 81,404/-in kind and cash from appellant Ram Chandra. He thus got back much more than what he had spent in the marriage of his daughter. It shows that he was keen in recovering back from the appellants the money he spent in the marriage of his daughter. in, Ex. D-7, he mentioned.
esjh vkSj jh jkepUnz cqkfu;k (appellant) dh vkilh dksbZ jaft'k ugh gS vkSj u gekjs dks bl ij eqdnek djuk gS A
33. From these circumstances, it can be safely discerned that the F.I.R. in the case was lodged after six days of the incident by the victim's brother Dharamveer Singh to bring a pressure on the appellants to return the marriage expenses along with compensation. When it was paid, PW 2 Om Prakash issued receipt Ex. D-7. It this appears a case of black mailing as suggested by Mr. Dhankar.
34. The parents and brother who have been examined by the prosecution of course stated that Krishna used to complain to them off and on about the ill-treatment of her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. The also stated that Krishna used to express her apprehension off and on before them that she would be burnt to death. If to was so, it is difficult to conceive that she would not address any letter to her parents expressing the apprehension of her being killed. On the contrary, we find the letters Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 in which she wrote that she was loving very happily in the house of her in-laws and they were treating her kindly and lovingly.
35. The learned Sessions Judge held that the false defence taken up by the appellants indicate their guilt and the false defences should be taken into consideration in assesssing their guilt. According to the learned Sessions Judge, appellant Balraj took the false defence of Alibi that in the fathful night he was at Chirawa. The learned Sessions Judge further held that appellant Ram Chandra filed a false report Ex. P-29 before the S.H.O. Jhunjhunu. We fail to appreciate the approach of the Sessions Judge. How it could be expected from the appellant Ram Chandra that he would mention in his report Ex. P-29 that Krishna was burnt to death by him and his son. The defence of Alibi comes play into only when the prosecution establishes the guilt of the culprit. Whether appellant Balraj was at Chirawa or Jhunjhunu in the fateful night is not of substance. The question of importance is whether Krishna was burnt to death by him. Unless the prosecution proved so that Krishna was burnt to death by appellant Balraj, his defence of Alibi-true or false should not have been taken into consideration by the trial court. The approach of the Sessions Judge is erroneous. In Sharda's case (supra) their Lordships observed:
Before a false explanation or false plea taken by the accused can be used as an additional link to the chain of circumstantial evidence, the following essential conditions must be satisfied:
(1) various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved;
(2) the said circumstance points to the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness, and (3) the circumstance is in proximity to the time and situation.
36. As discussed above, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution do not prove the guilt of accused. They do not point that the death of Krishna was homicidal and that she was burnt to death by the appellants As such even if the plea of Alibi was not true, it should not have been taken into consideration in assessing the guilt of the appellants. The plea of Alibi would have been relevant if the prosecution proved its case. In that eventuality, the false plea of Alibi would have been an additional factor to reinforce the conclusion of guilt.
37. The worst feature of the prosecution case is the inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report. The incident took place in the night between 21st and 22nd March, 1985. The brother and the parents of Krishna suspected a foul play in her death. And yet they remained silent and presented the typed FIR Ex. P-1 on 28-3-1985 before the S P. Jhunjhunu who was camping at Pilani. Om Prakash PW 2 the father of the victim was present when the inquest report of the victim's dead body was prepared. He also took part in the proceeding Under Section 174 Cr. PC. And yet no report was lodged at the Police Station nor any complaint was made against the Police Officers not taking any action in the matter. This delay in FIR is a serious matter and renders the prosecution story highly suspicious.
38. As we have said earlier, the prosecution case rests squarely on the circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence should be kintted like that of Spider's wed so that if the fly gets infested therein, it should have no out-let to escape. Here in the instant case, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution when taken and assimilated together even do not suggest not to talk of prove that Krishna was burnt to death by the appellants. It is true to say that the various circumstances depending on one another should be read as one integrated whole and not separately. When it is done so, they should establish that the offence was committed by the accused and none else.
39. In Sharda's case (supra), it was observed:
The following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established on circumstantial evidence:
[1] the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely 'may be' fully established;
[2] the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
[3] the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
[4] they should exclude ever possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and [5] there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
40. We may reiterate that the prosecution has failed to prove that--
(1) the death of Krishna was homicidal; and (2) she was burnt to death by the appellants.
41. For the reasons aforesaid, we unable to maintain the conviction of the appellants. They must be acquitted.
42. In the result, we allow the appeal of accused Ram Chandra and Balraj. Their conviction Under Section 302/34, IPC and the sentences awarded to them to them thereunder are set aside. They are acquitted of the said offence. They are serving the sentence in jail, and shall be immediately set forth at liberty if not wanted in any other case.