Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bholu Shah @ Jameel Shah & Another vs State Of M.P. on 2 May, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 MP 392
1 Cr.A. No. 51/2002
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
DB: SANJAY YADAV & ASHOK KUMAR JOSHI, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No. 51/2002
1. Bholu Shah alias Jameel Shah s/o Shuvrati
Shah
2. Chhotu alias Chhote Khan s/o Tasleem Ahmad
---Appellants
Vs.
State of M.P. Through
P.S. Madhoganj, Gwalior (M.P.) --Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 120/2002
Guddu alias Azad Khan s/o Babu Khan
Vs. ---Appellant
State of M.P. Through
P.S. Madhoganj, Gwalior (M.P.) --Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 318/2003
Gopal s/o Bharosi Kushwaha
Vs. ----Appellant
State of M.P. Through
P.S. Madhoganj, Gwalior (M.P.) Respondent
For Appellants.
Shri Madhukar Kulshreshtha and Shri Atul Gupta, advocates.
For Respondent/State.
Shri J.M. Sahni, public prosecutor for the respondent/State.
JUDGEMENT
(Delivered on 2nd May, 2018) Per Ashok Kumar Joshi, j:-
By this Common judgment being passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2 Cr.A. No. 51/2002 51/2002, above mentioned all three Criminal Appeals are being decided as each of these appeals arises out of same impugned judgment dated 10.1.
2002 passed by Ninth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in S.T. No. 311/1999 is assailed. By impugned judgment appellants Bholu and Chhotu have been convicted u/s. 302 of the IPC and appellants Guddu and Gopal have been convicted u/s. 302/34 of the IPC, and each appellant has been sentenced to life with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation.
3. the case of prosecution in short is that on 5.6. 1999 Wakil Khan in the night at 21=00 hours was at the house of Laxmi Narayan (PW-1), then two appellants Guddu and Gopal came there and took him away for a walk and when Wakil Khan with Guddu and Gopal reached in front of Narad Baba's temple on foot, there other appellants Bholu and Chootu Khan met them.
Appellants Bholu and Chhotu Khan told Wakil Khan that he is becoming big dada, thereafter appellants Gopal and Guddu asked other appellants to be quick, then Chhotu and Bholu who were having containers (dibbe) in their hands threw acid from those dibbas over Wakil Khan which fall on the body of Wakil Khan. On Wakil Khan's screaming Laxminarayan (PW-1) and some other persons standing nearby to flour-mill came there, then appellants fled away.
4. Wakil Khan was brought by Laxminarayan (PW-1) to Police Station Madhoganj on the same day at 21=30 hours where injured Wakil Khan lodged FIR (Ex. P-20) against four appellants wherein it was also mentioned that appellants were having previous enmity against him. On the basis of Wakil Khan's FIR (Ex. P-20), which was recorded by head constable Deevendra Singh (PW-11) crime was registered and Wakil Khan was sent 3 Cr.A. No. 51/2002 for treatment to hospital. On 5.6. 1999 in hospital Dr. Arun Raghuvanshi (PW-6) recorded Wakil Khan's dying declaration (Ex. P-9) at 10:30 pm and injured Wakil Khan was admitted in the hospital. During treatment on 13.6. 1999 at 20=50 hours Wakil Khan expired in the hospital and telephonic intimation was given by Doctor Harshvardhan to Police Station Madhoganj, on which Raghubeer Singh Bhadhoriya (PW-7) recorded merg report (Ex. P-14). This was followed by inquest and merg enquiry. Corpse was sent for postmortem and Dr. Pooran Lal Gupta (PW-10) conducted autopsy on 14.6. 1999 and recorded postmortem report ( Ex. P-19).
5. Under investigation, Veerendra Singh Tomar (PW-8) in next morning on 6.6. 1999 prepared spot map (Ex. P-1) at the instance of Laxmi Narayan and seized two small plastic containers (dibbe) having some acid therein vide seizure memo ( Ex. P-2) and he also recorded police statements of injured Wakil Khan, Laxminarayan, Anandi Bai and Rajkumar. Remaining investigation was conducted by O.P. Sagoria (PW-5). Appellants were arrested. Seized articles were sent to F.S.L., Sagar, for examination with a letter of S.P., Gwalior dated 30.8. 1999, whose report was received later on. After completing formal investigation, charge-sheet was filed before JMFC, Gwalior, who committed criminal case to Sessions Judge, Gwalior who transferred arisen Sessions trial to above mentioned trial court.
6. Each appellant abjured the charge framed u/s. 302 of the IPC framed by the trial court against him. Eleven prosecution witnesses were examined before the trial court. It was defence of the appellants before the trial court that they have been falsely implicated. Five defence witnesses including Noor Jahan (PW-3) wife of deceased Wakil Khan were examined. After 4 Cr.A. No. 51/2002 hearing, the trial court convicted appellants Guddu and Gopal u/s. 302 /34 of the IPC and appellants Bholu Shah and Chhotu u/s. 302 of the IPC.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that all the alleged eye witnesses examined before the trial court not supported the case of prosecution and on the basis of two dying declarations, one in the form of FIR (Ex. P-20) lodged by Wakil Khan in his life time and another dying declaration (Ex. P-9) recorded by Dr. Arun Raghuvanshi (PW-6) found each appellant guilty for relating offence, but there were material differences and contradictions between these two dying declarations on the points that how many appellants have took Wakil Khan with them and from which house and how many accused poured acid on him. It is further argued that in FIR (Ex. P-20) itself it was mentioned by Wakil Khan that acid had entered into his mouth and according to evidence of defence witnesses, after incident Wakil Khan was not able to speak. Therefore, trial court erred in placing reliance on such contradictory dying declarations. It is also argued that according to prosecution's case Wakil Khan was having prior enmity with appellants and it is clear from evidence that previously Wakil Khan was convicted and sentenced for committing murder of Munna Khan alias Mohd. Ali and alleged eye witness Sabu Shah (PW-3) deposed in cross-examination that he had seen younger brother Akbar of above mentioned Munna Khan running at the seen of occurrence just after the incident. Therefore, it is prayed by counsel for different appellants that appeals filed by different appellants be allowed and they be acquitted.
8. Per contra, learned public prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent/State supported the impugned conviction and sentence recorded 5 Cr.A. No. 51/2002 by the trial court against each appellant as even Shanti Devi Sarpanch (DW-
5) and other defence witnesses have also deposed that just after the incident Wakil Khan was speaking and talking at the scene of occurrence and there is no material differences and contradictions between above mentioned dying declarations, therefore, dismissal of all the appeals is prayed.
9. It is clear from the evidence of Dr. Pooran lal Gupta (PW-10) and postmortem report (Ex. P-19) that on starting of postmortem of deceased of Wakil Khan at 12=30 hours on 14.6. 1999 that deceased Wakil Khan's waist, eyes, front portion of the neck, chest and abdomen up to navel were having wounds caused by burning up to second to third degree and sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.
10. Dr. Pooran Lal Gupta's (PW-10) evidence was not materially challenged in his cross-examination. Therefore, it was proved from evidence on record that Wakil Khan met with homicidal death due to burn injuries received by him on 5.6. 1999 by throwing acid on his body.
11. FIR (Ex.P-20 ) lodged by Wakil Khan in his life time on 21=30 hours of 5.6.1999 at police station Madhoganj was scribed by head constable Devendra Singh (PW-11). Even in FIR, it is mentioned that complainant Wakil Khan reached to police station Madhoganj with Laxminarayan and complainant was considering Laxminarayan as his jeeja (brother-in-law) but alleged eye-witnesses Lala Ram (PW-2) and Sabu Shah (PW-3) and Babban (PW-4) have not supported the case of prosecution by their evidence and turned hostile. According to the case of prosecution, before incident Wakil Khan was taken out from the house of Laxminarayan by two appellants 6 Cr.A. No. 51/2002 Guddu and Gopal and just after the incident Laxminarayan (PW-1) and his mother Anandi Bai (DW-1) have reached on spot and saw the injured Wakil Khan lying in front of Narad Baba's temple Veerpur, but Laxminarayan (PW-1) not supported the case of prosecution and he was also declared hostile as he deposed that at the time of incident he was at his barber's shop and at his shop he received information that acid is thrown at Wakil Khan, who was doing business of weaving carpet (kaleen). Laxminarayan (PW-1) deposed that incident had occurred at about 7:30 pm in front of Narad Baba's garden and Hanuman Ji's temple situated at Veerpur, but before him Sarpanch Shantibai (DW-5) had given intimation to police, therefore, police came on scene of occurrence and took injured Wakil Khan to hospital and got him admitted. Laxminarayan (PW-1) though admitted his signatures on spot map (Ex. P-1) and seizure memo (Ex. P-2) prepared during investigation in next morning, but deposed that these documents were not prepared in his presence and nothing was seized before him but he admitted in his deposition that on date of incident after 9 p.m he was at his house.
12. Laxminarayan (PW-1) himself deposed (para-6) that injured Wakil Khan himself disclosed to police the names of those persons, who has thrown acid over him. In cross-examination he deposed that after the incident he has reached on scene of occurrence and saw lying injured Wakil Khan and at that time Wakil Khan intimated him and other present persons that one person has thrown acid on him and fled away and on their asking Wakil Khan replied that due to darkness Wakil Khan remained unable to identify the person who thrown acid over him. It is clear from total evidence of Laxminarayan that he was telling totally contradictory facts but it 7 Cr.A. No. 51/2002 is clear from his evidence that just after incident Wakil Khan was speaking and replying to questions asked to him.
13. Alleged eye witnesses (declared hostile) Lala Ram (PW-2) and Babban (PW-4) deposed that nothing happened before them and Wakil Khan was not known to them, but Lala Ram (PW-2) deposed that in next morning, he received information that near to Hanuman Ji's temple anyone thrown acid over anyone. But other alleged eye-witnesses and hostile declared Sabu Shan (PW-3) deposed that at the time of incident he was going with Babban (PW-4), from Gole Pahadiys area to his house, then in way, he saw that a boy was running after throwing a pot of acid over Wakil Khan, but as incident had occurred in night, he could not see that acid was thrown by whom, but he testified that after incident Wakil Khan was tossing or restless and crowd had gathered at the scene of occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellants gave much emphasis on the facts came in cross-examination of Sabu Shah (PW-3) that after the incident he saw Akbar running just after the incident and Akbar has thrown acid over Wakil Khan because earlier Wakil Khan was tried and convicted and sentenced u/s. 302 for causing murder of Munna Khan alias Mohd. Ali who was elder brother of Akbar. It is clear from total evidence of Sabu Shah (PW-3) that on same point he deposed totally different facts in his examination-in-chief and in his cross- examination, hence his evidence given in cross-examination that Akbar threw acid over Wakil Khan is contradicted by his own evidence in examination-in-chief.
14. Head constable Devendra Singh (PW-11) deposed that on 5.6.1999 when he was working as head constable (Moharrir) at police station 8 Cr.A. No. 51/2002 Madhoganj, then he scribed FIR (Ex. P-20) as lodged by the complainant Wakil Khan against all the four present appellants and the thumb impression of the complainant Wakil Khan was affixed by him and he also signed on FIR whereby crime was registered. According to evidence of Devendra Singh (PW-11) injured complainant Wakil Khan came to police station Madhoganj with his jeeja (brother-in-law) Laxminarayan (barber). In his examination
-in-chief, Dheerendra Singh (PW-11) reiterated the facts stated by complainant in his FIR (Ex. P-20). It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the FIR (Ex. P-20) in the shape of dying declaration has not been recorded by Dheerendra Singh (PW-11) in accordance with the provision of police manual for recording dying declaration. It is significant to mention here that Dheerendra Singh (PW-11) was recording FIR lodged by injured complainant and at that time he was not recording any dying declaration. Hence, arguments advanced that he has not complied with the relating rules of police manual regarding recording of dying declaration, prima facie appears to be futile and meaningless. Later on, on the same date ie. 5.6. 1999 another dying declaration was recorded by Dr. Arun Raghuvanshi (PW-6) in relating hospital. Hence, the evidence given by Dheerendra Singh (PW-11) regarding writing of FIR on complainant's information could not be doubted.
15. Dr. Arun Raghuvanshi (PW-6) deposed that on 5.6. 1999 when he was on duty of R.S.O at male surgical ward in JAH hospital Gwalior, injured Wakil Khan was brought in casualty, then he recorded the statement of injured Wakil Khan as at that time he was in a fit condition to speak, understanding and to reply and he asked several questions to Wakil Khan 9 Cr.A. No. 51/2002 and he recorded replies given by Wakil Khan and at that time Wakil Khan replied to all questions including that how he received burn injuries, where and at which time, then Wakil Khan replied that four persons, namely, Chhote, Bhole, Guddu and Gopal came to his house and took him to Veerpur's small hill nearer to Bhairo Baba's Mandir and these four persons threw acid over him near the temple, hence he received burn injuries. Dr. Raghuvanshi (PW-6) deposed that he statement (Ex. P-9) given by Wakil Khan in his own hand writing and after completing the statement he took the thumb impression of injured Wakil Khan. He also proved his signatures on hospital's treatment sheet (Ex. P-11) and (Ex. P-12) and bed head ticket (Ex. P-3) and also proved thumb impression of Wakil Khan over bed head ticket also.
16. It reveals from Ex. P-9 that in the beginning of the recording of the statement the time recorded is 10:30 p.m on 5.6. 1999 and in the end below the signature of Dr. Arun Raghuvanshi (PW-6), time 10:35 p.m is specifically recorded. The statement is recorded in question-answer format showing the questions asked by Dr.Raghuvansh (PW-6) and the reply given by Wakil Khan. It is also clear that before starting of the recording of statement of Wakil Khan, Dr. Raghuvanshi (PW-6) recorded his certification that at that time Wakil Khan was fully conscious, well oriented and not under influence of any drug, intoxication or threatening and hence was in a fit condition to give statement. Ex. P-9 is also having the signatures of it's witness Dr. Prakash Kirar and below it Dr. Raghuvanshi (PW-6) also recorded his certification that patient remained fully conscious during recording of his statement and this certification was also thereafter signed 10 Cr.A. No. 51/2002 by him mentioning date and closing time.
17. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in FIR (Ex. P-20) it is shown by complainant that two appellants Guddu and Gopal took him out before the incident from his Jeeja Laxminarayan's house, whereas in Ex. P-9 recorded by Dr. Raghuvanshi (PW-6), it is mentioned that all the four appellants namely, Chhote, Bholu, Guddu and Gopal came to his house and after calling him took him to Veerpur's hill up to a temple and near to temple all the four appellants threw acid over him, hence he got burnt, whereas in FIR (Ex. P-20) it was mentioned by the complainant Wakil Khan that only two appellants Guddu and Gopal took him out from the house for a walk and near to the temple they met with other appellants Bholu and Chhotu, who were standing nearby, and after some talk only Bholu and Chhotu threw acid over him from two containers. It is argued that there are material contradictions in these two dying declarations recorded by different persons, as trial court has convicted appellants Bholu and Chhotu u/s. 302 of the IPC and other two appellants Guddu and Gopal u/s. 302/34 of the IPC. Impliedly, it appears that learned trial court has given preference to dying declaration recorded in the shape of FIR (Ex. P/20) by relating head constable.
18. Similarly, much emphasis has been given on the facts given in evidence of Dr. Arun Raghuvanshi (PW-6) as he deposed that in (Ex. D-3) recorded on 5.6. 1999 at 11:00 p.m in the night, he himself wrote that portion that Wakil Khan was expressing his inability in speaking and he was complaining burning in his mouth and he was repeatedly omitting, but it is clear from his evidence (Ex. P-3) that above mentioned letter (Ex. D-3) burn 11 Cr.A. No. 51/2002 was recorded at 11:00 pm, whereas dying declaration (Ex. P-9) was recorded by him in between 10:30 pm to 10:35 pm on 5.6. 1999. Dr. Arun Raghuvanshi (PW-6) has also proved his hand-written R.S.O notes (Ex. P-
10) spread on five different sheets and on first sheet the time of admission of patient in the hospital is recorded as 10:30 p.m. and even in Ex. P-10 it was also recorded by him that patient complained that above mentioned four persons i.e. all the said four appellants came to his house and took him to a temple at Veerpur Pahadia and threw acid over him and fled away. In the end of first sheet of Ex. P-10 it is clear that at the time of admission, patient Wakil Khan was not having unconsciousness, bleeding or difficulty in speaking and swallowing and thereafter on second sheet of Ex. P-2 it is also recorded that patient is conscious and well oriented and responding to questions. On the same sheet, it is clearly written that general condition of patient is average. His pulse were 90 per minute and B.P. was 130/76 Hg. In Ex. D-3 letter written by Dr. Arun Raghuvanshi to R.S.O on duty, Department of E.N.T., it is recorded that now patient is complaining difficulty in speaking with burning throat and severe vomitting. Hence E.N.T specialist was intimated and asked to examine the patient for needful. If after recording of dying declaration patient was complaining some difficulty in speaking at 11:00 pm, it could not be presumed that at 10:30 pm patient would have been in same condition. It is to be remembered that complaining of difficulty in speaking by patient is not equivalent to his total inability in speaking.
19. On this point, much emphasis has been given by the learned counsel for the appellants on facts came in evidence of defence witnesses, but even 12 Cr.A. No. 51/2002 the Sarpanch, Shanti Devi (DW-5) clearly deposed in cross-examination that after giving telephonic intimation at police station, Madhoganj when she reached on spot then Wakil Khan was crying that acid entered into his mouth and he was crying to save him. Shyam Lal (DW-4) husband of the sarpanch Shanti Devi deposed that after receiving telephonic intimation given by his wife, police from police station Madhoganj had came on scene of occurrence within 15 to 20 minutes. Mohan Singh (DW-2) in his examination-in-chief (para 2) deposed that at about 8 p.m when he was closing his shop Wakil Khan came crying and screaming and fell in front doors of house of Nandlal and Ramesh and at that time his voice was stucked in his throat and he was unable to speak clearly, but Mohan admitted that his flour mill is situated near to Narad Baba's Mandir and in cross-examination (para-5) Mohan Singh (PW-2) clearly deposed that Wakil Khan was doing work of weaving of carpet at the house of Laxminarayan (PW-1) and hence he was knowing Wakil Khan and Laxminarayan. Mohan Singh (DW-2) deposed (para 6) that on hearing the of scream of Wakil Khan, he had run towards Wakil Khan. Even it it clear from the total evidence of Mohan Singh (DW-2) that Laxminarayan (PW-1) was trying to suppress the truth at the time of recording of his evidence, as even it is clear from FIR (Ex. P-20) that he had gone with injured Wakil Khan for lodging report at police station and he himself clearly deposed (para '6') that injured Wakil Khan himself has given statement to police regarding names of the persons who threw acid over him. In such circumstances, FIR (Ex. P-
20) lodged by Wakil Khan in his life time could not be doubted.
20. Anandibai (DW-1) clearly deposed in examination- in- chief that 13 Cr.A. No. 51/2002 before incident Wakil Khan was coming to his house for working and on the day of incident in the evening Wakil Khan came to his house for asking his son Dashrath whether on next day his services are required or not and after five minutes Wakil Khan left his house, then at about 8 p.m. Santosh Kushwaha intimated her that acid is thrown on Wakil Khan who used to come to her house for working, then she reached to Narad Baba's Garden with police as at same time police persons were also going in front of her house, thereafter a Metador was called by police and she also went with injured Wakil Khan, firstly to police station Madhoganj, thereafter to Madho Dispensary and thereafter to J.A. Hospital where Wakil Khan was admitted. Though Anandi Bai in her examination-in-chief deposed that at that time Wakil Khan was unable to speak as acid entered into his mouth, but in cross-examination she deposed that Laxminarayan is her son-in-law (damad) and she did not give any statement to police, whereas it is clear from the evidence of Laxminarayan (PW-1) and Anandi Bai (DW-1) that her husband Badri Prasad is father of Laxminarayan. Hence, it is clear that Anandi Bai is mother of Laxminarayan, but she was deposing her to be mother-in-law of Laxminarayan. Anandibai firstly deposed (para-4) that when Wakil Khan came to his house, Laxminarayan was not at his house, but in last lines of same para she deposed that she with Laxminarayan took injured Wakil Khan to police station Madhoganj by keeping injured in a auto. In last line she also deposed that Wakil Khan was considering Laxminarayan as his jeeja (brotheri-in-law). In her cross-examination she admitted that when injured Wakil Khan was being lifted from spot, then Laxminarayan was with her. It is clear from the evidence of investigator O.P. 14 Cr.A. No. 51/2002 Sagoria (PW-5) that he has recorded statement of Anandibai (DW-1) during investigation, but Anandibai (DW-1) deposed that police did not record his statement. Hence, it is clear from the total deposition of Anandibai (DW-1) that she was also trying to suppress the truth like her son Laxminarayan (PW-1).
21. From FIR (Ex. P-20), it is clear that appellants Guddu and Gopal took out Wakil Khan from house of Laxminarayan for walking and reached near Narad Baba's temple, where other two appellants Bholu and Chhotu met them and after some altercation Guddu and Gopal asked other appellants to do quickly, thereafter Bholu and Chhotu threw acid from two small containers, which they were having. In next morning, these small (boxes) dibbe (containers) were seized by investigator SI Veerendra Singh vide seizure memo (Ex. P-2). It is clear from the evidence of O.P. Sagoria (PW-5) that with S.P.'s letter seized articles were sent to F.S.L, Sagar and it is clear from the report of F.S.L, Sagar (Ex. P-21) that one container was having Sulfuric Acid of 44% concentration.
22. It is well settled that dying declaration alone could be the basis of conviction without any corroboration. It is clear from the total evidence of Dr. Arun Raghuvanshi (PW-6) that from 11:00 p.m. of 5.6. 1999 Wakil Khan's condition was gradually deteriorating, and the alleged contradictions or differences appearing in second dying declaration (Ex. P-9) may be the result of Wakil Khan's deteriorating condition after the incident as FIR (Ex. P-20) was lodged at 9:30 p.m. In the case of State of M.P. v. Mohan Lal and Ors. (1996 JlJ 634 SC), it has been observed by the Apex Court in para '9' of its judgment as follows:-
15 Cr.A. No. 51/2002
'9 The aforesaid evidence of PW15 clinches the matter that the assault as well throwing of acid on Mangi Lal had taken place outside the hut in the Mirch field of Mangi Las after he was dragged from his hut. The F.I.R, which had been lodged by the deceased himself also indicates the state of affairs. Therefore, non-mentioning of being dragged and assaulted outside in Exhibit P-15 had rightly been appreciated by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge that due to the deteriorating condition of the deceased the omission might have taken place and the said omission is not fatal. In our opinion the High Court was wholly in error in discarding the voluntary statement of the deceased recorded by the Magistrate on flimsy grounds which cannot be sustained. Having examined the dying declaration made by the deceased and recorded by the Magistrate, PW.10 as well as the F.I.R. which had been lodged by the deceased prior to his death and the evidence of PW.1, Abdul Rehman, to whom the deceased had narrated the incident immediately after the occurrence, we have no doubt in our mind that Exhibit P-15 is true and voluntary and had been made by the deceased while he was in a fit state of mind and there was no opportunity of either tutoring or prompting and as such the same can be easily pressed into service by the prosecution in proving the charge against the accused persons. That apart, the number of injuries found on the deceased as well as the acid injury on him corroborates the said dying declaration'.
23. In light of above mentioned citation the reason of alleged differences or contradictions between above mentioned two dying declarations are explained. It is also clear from the total evidence of Laxminarayan (PW-1) and his mother Anandi Bai and some other witnesses that incident with Wakil Khan occurred in front of temple of Narad Baba, Veerpur. Hence, the dying declaration of Wakil Khan appeared to be trustworthy and reliable in the light of so many citations referred by the trial court. It is clear that the trial court did not commit any error in placing reliance on dying declarations of deceased. Looking to different roles of appellants clearly mentioned in first recorded dying declaration in shape of FIR (Ex. 20), trial court has convicted appellants Bablu and Chhotu u/s. 302 of the IPC and appellants Guddu and Gopal under Sec. 302/34 of the IPC. It is clear from Ex. P-20 that Guddu and Gopal took out Wakil Khan from house of Laxminarayan and 16 Cr.A. No. 51/2002 took him to the place, where two other appellants namely Bholu and Chhotu were ready with acid and Guddu and Gopal asked other appellants to act quickly, thereafter acid was thrown on Wakil Khan which is indicative of common intention of all the four appellants.
24. We are of the considered opinion that the trial court has minutely examined the total evidence available on record and did not commit any error in convicting and sentencing each appellant as aforesaid. All the three appeals filed by different appellants are having no substance.
25. In the result all the three appeals filed by different appellants are dismissed and each appellant's conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial court is affirmed. Appellants whose jail sentence is suspended are directed to immediately surrender before the trial court to serve out their remaining sentence. The appellants who are serving their jail sentence be intimated with result of their appeals through relating jail superintendent.
26. The record regarding disposal of property as passed by the trial court is also affirmed. With a copy of this judgment, record of the trial court be sent back for compliance and intimation.
(SANJAY YADAV) (Ashok Kumar Joshi)
Judge Judge
02/05/2018 02/05/2018
ar
Digitally signed by ABDUR RAHMAN
Date: 2018.05.03 17:23:08 +05'30'