Chattisgarh High Court
Amit Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 August, 2016
Cr.A.Nos.319, 320 of 2013 & 654 of 2015
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 319 of 2013
Judgment reserved : 02-08-2016
Judgment delivered on : 29-08-2016
• Amit Gupta S/o Ram Aasre Gupta, Aged about 27 Years, R/o Village
Sangaon, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, Distt. Fatehpur (U.P.)
---- Appellant
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh Through Distt. Magistrate Durg (C.G.)
---- Respondent
CRA No. 320 of 2013 • Sunil Sahu @ Balikaran, S/o Kanchan Sahu, Aged about 24 Years, R/o Gopalpur, Daghora, P.S. Chandpur, Distt. Fatehpur (U.P.)
---- Appellant Versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Distt. Magistrate Durg (C.G.)
---- Respondent And CRA No. 654 of 2015 • Anshu @ Faizan S/o Nizamuddin, Aged about 24 Years, Occupation
- Student, R/o Village Sangaon, P.S. Sadar Kotwali, Distt. Fatehpur (U.P.)
---- Appellant Versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Pulgaon, Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.)
---- Respondent Cr.A.Nos.319, 320 of 2013 & 654 of 2015 2 For Appellants : Mrs. Fouzia Mirza, Advocate in Cr.A No.654 of 2013.
Shri Aman Kesharwani, Advocate in Cr.As No.319 & 320 of 2013 For State/Respondent : Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Addl. A.G. Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment (Curia Advisari Vult) 29/08/2016 The Judgment of this Court was delivered by Sanjay K. Agrawal, J: -
1. The three accused appellants namely, Amit Gupta, Sunil Sahu @ Balikaran and Anshu @ Faizan have been convicted by trial Court for commission of offence punishable under Sections 460, 394 read with Section 397 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and each of the appellants have been directed to serve sentences as under by impugned judgment dated 19-12-2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in S.T. No.120/2011 as under:
Conviction Sentence Under Section 460 of IPC Life imprisonment, to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo RI for six months additionally.
Under Section 394 read with Life imprisonment, to pay fine of Section 397 of IPC Rs.10000/-, in default to undergo RI for one year additionally.
Under Section 307 read with Life imprisonment, to pay fine of Cr.A.Nos.319, 320 of 2013 & 654 of 2015 3 Section 34 of IPC Rs.10000/-, in default to undergo RI for one year additionally.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief as unfolded during course of the trial are as under:
2.1 Complainant Sukhdas Deshlahre along with his mother Rajkumari, father Sevaram Deshlahre, brother Rajesh and his wife, children and sister of the complainant all were residing at Village Nagpura at the same house. On the date of incident intervening night of 04.05.2010 to 05.10.2010 at around 2 to 2.30 a.m. in the night, the accused persons/appellants forcibly entered the house of the complainant and by giving threatening to the family members committed marpeet with country made pistol and knife and inflicted injuries on them. They looted jewelleries of gold and silver, mobile, cash, a motorcycle and after locking them inside the room, they fled away. The complainant-Sukhdas thereafter informed about the incident to his uncle Rajendra and Gayaprasad through cell phone. After receiving the information they reached the house of the complainant and from where they took them to the Govt.
Hospital, Durg for treatment. On the report of the complainant, a Dehati Nalishi was registered on the basis of which FIR was registered at Police Station Pulgaon, Durg against three persons. Spot map was prepared. From the place of incident, one copy, Cr.A.Nos.319, 320 of 2013 & 654 of 2015 4 two empty bottles of liquor, broken bangles, shirt buttons, bloodstained bed-sheet and two steel glasses were seized. A motorcycle Hero Honda C.D. Deluxe bearing No. CG 07-H.L. 7242 in an abandoned condition 2 Km away from the place of incident was also seized. During the course of investigation, the accused/appellant along with co-accused persons were interrogated and their memorandums were recorded. At the instance of the accused/appellant, a mobile was seized. From co-accused Amit Gupta, silver jewellery was seized and during the course of investigation in Crime No.718/10, 315 bore country made pistol, an empty cartridge of 315 bore, a live cartridge of 315 bore were seized from co-accused Amit Gupta and from co- accused Sunil @ Balikaran RC book of motorcycle Hero Honda C.D. Deluxe belonging to the present complainant, one iron knife, receipt were seized. Test identification parade of the accused/appellant along with co-accused persons was conducted. Patwari prepared the spot map. Test identification of seized articles was conducted. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, sanction was received for prosecuting the accused/appellants along with co-accused persons for the offence under Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. The accused/ appellants along with co-accused persons were arrested. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination to FSL. After completing the formalities of investigation, challan was submitted Cr.A.Nos.319, 320 of 2013 & 654 of 2015 5 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg under Crime No.530/10 from where the matter being triable by the Sessions Court was committed to the Court of Sessions and from there it was transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durg for trial.
3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited documents Ex. P1 to Ex. P-
27.
4. The appellants/convicts abjured guilt and entered into defence.
They have not examined any witness in support of their defence. Their statements were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C') in which they have denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question. Learned trial Court after appreciating the ocular, medical and circumstantial evidence convicted the appellants herein and sentenced them as mentioned in the foregoing paragraph.
5. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellants herein have preferred these appeals under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. All the accused persons preferred appeals separately but for the sake of convenience and since they arise out of the common judgment rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, they were clubbed together Cr.A.Nos.319, 320 of 2013 & 654 of 2015 6 and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
6. Shri Aman Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Cr. A. Nos. 319 & 320 of 2013 would submit that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the offence against the present appellants as such there is no sufficient evidence ocular or circumstantial evidence to connect the appellants in the above stated offences and they have been falsely implicated. He would further submit that all the eyewitnesses are alleged injured witnesses, they are not reliable and trustworthy. Their statements are self serving statements and the test identification parade was not conducted in accordance with law. Even the looted articles were not identified properly and therefore, judgment of conviction recorded and sentence awarded are liable to be set aside and appellants are entitled to be acquitted.
7. Mrs. Fouzia Mirza, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Cr.A. No.654 of 2015 would submit that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court suffers from factual and legal infirmity and perversity so as to convict the person under Sections 460, 394 read with Section 397 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The learned trial Court has legally erred in convicting the appellants only on the basis of test identification parade wherein the accused/ appellants have been identified by the victims whereas as per Cr.A.Nos.319, 320 of 2013 & 654 of 2015 7 FIR and statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., no distinctive features have been mentioned by the witnesses of the accused persons so as to identify them on the basis of those distinguishing features. The test identification parade has been conducted after a lapse of more than 1 month, which itself shows the evidence is not reliable. The learned trial Court has erred in relying upon the evidence of identification of the looted articles without there being any evidence to prove that these articles belong to the complainant/injured witnesses from whom articles were looted, particularly in absence of any receipt to prove ownership of the same by the witnesses claiming to be the owner. She would further submit that the sentence awarded to the accused persons also suffers from material illegality and is contrary to the provisions of Cr.P.C., and therefore, the judgment of conviction recorded and sentence awarded deserves to be set aside.
8. On the other hand, Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State would support the impugned judgment and would submit that prosecution has brought sufficient evidence in shape of ocular, medical and circumstantial evidence which has rightly been relied upon by the prosecution to convict the appellants for the above stated offence and as such no interference is warranted to the judgment of conviction recorded and sentence awarded against the Cr.A.Nos.319, 320 of 2013 & 654 of 2015 8 appellants and the appeals preferred by them are liable to be dismissed.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also considered the rival submissions made herein above and gone through the record of the trial Court thoroughly and extensively.
10. As regards complicity of the appellants in crime in question, conviction of the appellants is based on ocular evidence and to some extent also on the circumstantial evidence. We shall first deal with ocular evidence. In the instant case, there are five eyewitnesses to the incident out of which three witnesses namely, Saraswati Deshlahre (PW-1), Rajesh Deshlahre (PW-2) and Sukhdas (PW-5) have been examined. They are also injured witnesses and have also been medically examined.
11. Saraswati Deshlahre (PW-1) who is eyewitness to the incident has stated before the Court that on the day of occurrence, three accused persons trespassed in her house and assaulted her by knife by which she suffered grievous injuries, her husband was also assaulted by accused persons and they snatched gold articles and also looted cash and they assaulted her husband's brother Rajesh (PW-2) and his wife. She identified all the three accused persons in Court and also proved Ex.P-1, Test Identification parade and further identified the looted gold articles snatched by the accused persons. Rajesh Deshlahre (PW-2), Cr.A.Nos.319, 320 of 2013 & 654 of 2015 9 who has also witnessed the incident has clearly stated that in the intervening night of 4/5-10-2010 three accused persons unauthorizedly trespassed in to his house armed with knife & pistol and attacked him, his wife, his brother's wife Saraswati, brother Sukhdas (PW-5) and looted gold articles, cash and motorcycle and in the test identification parade, he has identified those three persons and also identified all three accused persons in the Court.
12. All the above witnesses Saraswati Deshlahre (PW-1), Rajesh Deshlahre (PW-2) & Sukhdas (PW-5) have supported the prosecution case and it is a case of late night incident and injuries on the persons injured eyewitnesses have been corroborated by medical evidence. They have been subjected to extensive cross-examination and nothing has been brought to discredit their testimony. We accept their testimonies as a valid piece of evidence.
13. Dr. Akhilesh Yadav (PW-9) has examined the eyewitnesses namely, Sevaram, Rajkumari, Sukhdas, Rajesh Deshlahre and Saraswati Deshlahre wife of Sukhdas (PW-1) & Sukhdas (PW-
5).
13.1 Sukhdas (PW-5) was examined by Dr. Akhilesh Yadav.
According to him following injuries were found on the body of Sukhdas (PW-5) 1- Nkrh ij nkfgus rjQ mij dh vksj vkbZ MCY;w tks vkMk Fkk Cr.A.Nos.319, 320 of 2013 & 654 of 2015 10 6x1@4x1@4 lsaeh-A 2- nkfgus rjQ flj ij VsEiksjy ,fj;s esa ,y MCY;w 2@2 lsaeh-A vfHker%& pksVksa dh izd`fr lk/kkj.k Fkh vkSj 24 ?kaVs ds Hkhrj dh FkhA pksaV uacj 1 dMs o /kkj oLrq ls vkbZ Fkh o pksV uacj 2 dMs ,oa HkksFkjs oLrq ls vkbZ FkhA esjh ijh{k.k fjiksVZ iz 0 ih0 20 gS ftlds v ls v Hkkx ij esjs gLrk{kj gSA 4- fnukad 05-10-2010 dks lqcg 8-25 cts vkj{kd gjdjke ua- 1028 Fkkuk iqyxkWo }kjk jkts'k ns'kygjk] firk lsokjke] mez 25 o"kZ] fuoklh&uxiqjk dk eqykfgtk gsrq yk;k x;k ftlesa fuEufyf[kr pkssV Fkh%& 1- flj eaas ihNs ds rjQ ,y MCY;w 2@1 lsaeh-A 2- flj eas nkfgus rjQ QksjgsM ij ,y MCY;w 2x2 lsaeh-A 3- flj esa cka, rjQ VsEiksjy ,sfj;s ,y MCY;w 2@1 lsaeh-A vfHker%& pksV lk/kkj.k izd`fr dh Fkh vkSj dMs ,oa HkksFkjs oLrq ls vkbZ FkhA pksaV 24 ?kaVs ds Hkhrj dh FkhA esjh ijh{k.k fjiksVZ iz 0 ih0 21 gS ftlds v ls v Hkkx ij esjs gLRkk{kj gSA 13.2 Saraswati Deshlehre (PW-1) was examined by Dr. Akhilesh Yadav and following injuries were noticed on the person of the said witness.
1- nkfgus rjQ dej yEcj ,fj;k esa vkbZ MCY;w 2x2x1 lsaeh-A 2- nkfgus rjQ dej yEcj ,fj;k esa vkbZ MCY;w 2x2x1 lsaeh-A 3- nkfgus VsEiksjy ,fj;k esa ,y MCY;w 2@2 lsaeh-A 4- cka, VsEiksjy ,fj;k ij ,y MCY;w 2x1 laseh-A 5- cka, rjQ Nkrh ij ,y MCY;w 2x1 lsaeh-A vfHker%& pksV lk/kj.k izd`fr dh Fkh vkSj pksV uacj 1 o 2 dMs ,os /kkjnkj oLrq ls vkbZ Fkh rFkk pksV uacj 3 ls 5 dMs o HkksFkjs Cr.A.Nos.319, 320 of 2013 & 654 of 2015 11 oLrq ls vkbZ FkhA pksV 24 ?kaVs ds Hkhrj dh Fkh A esjh ijh{k.k fjiksVZ iz 0 ih0 22 gS ftlds v ls v Hkkx ij esjs gLrk{kj gSA 13.3 Rajesh Deshlahre (PW-2) was examined by Dr. Akhilesh Yadav and he noticed following injuries on his body:
1- flj eaas ihNs ds rjQ ,y MCY;w 2@1 lsaeh-A 2- flj eas nkfgus rjQ QksjgsM ij ,y MCY;w 2x2 lsaeh-A 3- flj esa cka, rjQ VsEiksjy ,sfj;s ,y MCY;w 2@1 lsaeh-A vfHker%& pksV lk/kkj.k izd`fr dh Fkh vkSj dMs ,oa HkksFkjs oLrq ls vkbZ FkhA pksaV 24 ?kaVs ds Hkhrj dh FkhA esjh ijh{k.k fjiksVZ iz 0 ih0 21 gS ftlds v ls v Hkkx ij esjs gLRkk{kj gSA
14. It is well settled law that testimony of the injured witness is entitled to great weight and it is unlikely that they would spare the real culprit and implicate an innocent person though the evidence of injured witness should not be mechanically accepted, it should be in consonance with probabilities. (See Mohd Ishaque & others Vs. State of West Bengal & others 1). It has further been held by the Supreme Court that testimony of injured witness requires higher degree of credibility and there has to be strong reason for discarding the same (see Pargan Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2) It has also been held by the Supreme Court that convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness (see Jodhan vs. State of M.P.3).
15. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in 1 (2013) 14 SCC 581 2 (2014) 14 SCC 619 3 (2015) 11 SCC 52 Cr.A.Nos.319, 320 of 2013 & 654 of 2015 12 above stated judgments, we have examined the testimonies of all those eyewitnesses Saraswati Deshlahre (PW-1), Rajesh Deshlahre (PW-2) and Sukhdas Deshlahre (PW-5) carefully. They have clearly stated the course of occurrence and have suffered serious injuries and injuries suffered by them have been duly corroborated by medical evidence and we do not see any reason to disbelieve their version.
16. This brings us to the circumstantial evidence. The law with regard to circumstantial evidence is well settled. In a case where the prosecution relies upon circumstantial evidence, it must not only prove the circumstances but should link them in such a fashion so as to form an unending chain i.e. the guilt of the accused. But if there is any chance of the accused being innocent or the crime has been committed by some other person, then the accused has to be given the benefit of doubt and on the basis of circumstantial evidence, he cannot be convicted.
17. The law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 4, the conditions which must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established on circumstantial evidence are as under:
"The following conditions must be fulfilled 4 (1984) 4 SCC 116 Cr.A.Nos.319, 320 of 2013 & 654 of 2015 13 before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established on circumstantial:
(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 every 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."
18. The following are the relevant circumstances which requires to be considered in the present case.
(1) The witnesses have identified the accused persons in T.I. Parade and during their examination in Court. (2) Recovery of looted ornaments/articles;
19. Identification in Court i.e. dock identification is a substantive piece of evidence and admissible in evidence. Test identification attaches only corroborative value, it is not sine qua non in every case. Test identification is a rule of prudence and caution for accusation. If dock identification is otherwise reliable, then reliance can be placed upon the same.
Cr.A.Nos.319, 320 of 2013 & 654 of 2015 14
20. In the matter of Suraj Pal and others vs. State of Haryana 5 while dealing with the same question, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the dock identification is accepted if otherwise found to be reliable. Relevant portion reads thus:-
"Before dealing with the various contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants as referred to above, we shall first state the object, purpose and importance of the test identification parade. It may be pointed out that the holding of identification parade has been in vogue since long in the past with a view to determine whether an unknown person accused of an offence is really the culprit or not, to be identified as such by those who claimed to be eyewitnesses of the occurrence so that they would be able to identify the culprit if produced before them by recalling the impressions of his features left on their mind. That being so, in the very nature of things, the identification parade in such cases serves a dual purpose. It enables the investigating agency to ascertain to correctness or otherwise of the claim of those witnesses who claimed to have seen the offender of the crime as well as their capacity to identify him and on the other hand it saves the suspect from the sudden risk of being identified in the dock by such witnesses during the course of the trial. Thus practice of test identification as a mode of identifying an unknown person charged of an offence is an age-old method and it has worked well for the past several decades as a satisfactory mode and a well-founded method of criminal jurisprudence. It may also be noted that the substantive evidence of identifying witness is his evidence made in the court but in cases where the accused person is not known to the witnesses from before who claimed to have seen the incident, in that event identification of the accused at the earliest possible opportunity after the occurrence by such witnesses is of vital importance with a view to avoid the chance of his memory fading away by the time he is examined in the court after some lapse of time."
5 (1995) 2 SCC 64 Cr.A.Nos.319, 320 of 2013 & 654 of 2015 15
21. In the matter of Daya Singh v. State of Haryana6, it has been held by the Supreme Court that delay in trial and identification of accused in Court after seven or eight years would not affect evidence of said witnesses and conviction of accused on the basis of their testimony even in the absence of test identification their statement relating to dock identification can be relied upon. Relevant portion is reproduced as under:-
"It is to the borne in mind that purpose of test identification is to have corroboration to the evidence of the eyewitness in the form of earlier identification and that substantive evidence of a witness is the evidence in the court. If that evidence is found to be reliable then absence of corroboration by test identification would not be in any way material. Further, where reasons for gaining an enduring impress of the identify on the mind and memory of the witnesses are brought on record, it is no use to magnify the theoretical possibilities and arrive at conclusion - what in present day social environment infested by terrorism is really unimportant. In such cases, not holding of identification parade is not fatal to the prosecution."
22. In the matter of Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel and others v.
State of Gujarat7, it has been held by the Supreme Court that identification of accused for the first time in court by eyewitnesses when they did not know him earlier and when no test identification parade was held, such identification is not irrelevant or inadmissible.
23 In the matter of Sampat Tatyada Shinde v. State of 6 AIR 2001 SC 1188 7 (2000) 1 SCC 358 Cr.A.Nos.319, 320 of 2013 & 654 of 2015 16 Maharashtra8 reported in, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the evidence of test identification is admissible under Section 9 of the Evidence Act. It can be used only to corroborate the substantive evidence given by the witnesses in court regarding identification of the accused. Relevant portion reads as under:-
"The evidence of test identification is admissible under Section 9 of the Evidence Act; it is, at best, supporting evidence. It can be used only to corroborate the substantive evidence given by the witnesses in court regarding identification of the accused as the doer of the criminal act. The earlier identification made by the witnesses at the test identification parade, by itself, has no independent value. Nor is test identification the only type of evidence that can be tendered to confirm the evidence of a witness regarding identification of the accused in court, as the perpetrator of the crime. The identify of the culprit can be fixed by circumstantial evidence also."
24. In the matter of R. Shaji v. State of Kerala 9, the Supreme Court has held that the evidence from a test identification parade is admissible under Section 9 of the Evidence Act. It has further been held that mere identification of an accused in a test identification parade is only a circumstance corroborative of the identification of the accused in court. Further, conducting a test identification parade is meaningless if the witnesses know the accused, or if they have been shown his photographs, or if he has been exposed by the media to the public. Holding a test identification parade may be helpful to the investigation to 8 AIR 1974 SC 791 9 (2013) 14 SCC 266 Cr.A.Nos.319, 320 of 2013 & 654 of 2015 17 ascertain whether the investigation is being conducted in a proper manner and with proper direction.
25. Recently, in the matter of Ashok Debbarama alias Achak Debbarama v. State of Tripura10, the Supreme Court has held that primary object of test identification parade is to enable witness to identify the persons involved in the commission of the offence if the offenders are not personally known to the witnesses. The whole object beyond test identification parade is really to find whether or not the suspect is really offender.
26. Shri C.P. Mishra (PW-3), Executive Magistrate has conducted the test of identification parade on 12-11-2010 in Central Jail, Durg in which Saraswati Bai and Rajesh (PW-2) identified convict Amit Gupta and Sunil @ Balikaran vide Exs. P-1 and P-2. Shri C.P. Mishra, Executive Magistrate was examined as PW-3. In cross-examination nothing has been brought to impeach the identification parade conducted by him and as such it cannot be held that the test identification parade conducted by Shri Mishra (PW-3) was not in accordance with law. Likewise, another test identification parade was conducted by Shri Ghanshyamlal Kanwar (PW-6) Executive Magistrate in which Rajesh Deshlahre (PW-2) and Sukhdas Deshlahre (PW-5) have identified convict Anshu @ Faizan (report Ex. P-3). In cross-examination nothing has been brought to impeach his testimony and as such, it 10 2014 (4) SCC 747 Cr.A.Nos.319, 320 of 2013 & 654 of 2015 18 cannot be held that the test identification parade conducted by Shri Ghanshyamlal Kanwar (PW-6) was not in accordance with law.
27. This would bring us to the next circumstance i.e. recovery of looted ornaments. Pursuant to the memorandum statement given by appellant Faizan, Nokia mobile was siezed vide Ex. P- 4 and Hero Honda Motorcycle was seized vide Ex. P-12. At the instance of accused Amit Gupta, one pair of silver payal, one silver chain and silver bichhia were seized vide Ex. P-14. The identification proceeding of seized silver anklet, silver toe-rings and silver chain was conducted by Jagesh Kumar Suryawanshi (PW-7) which were duly identified by Sukhdas (PW-5). The accused persons were identified by Saraswati Deshlahre (PW-1), Rajesh Deshlahre (PW-2) and Sukhdas Deshlahre (PW-5) in identification parade conducted by Ghanshyamlal Kanwar (PW-
6). It is well established that in the intervening night of 4/5-10- 2010, the appellants entered into the house of Sukhdas Deshlahre (PW-5) with deadly weapons and committed robbery and also caused injuries to them which was sufficient to cause death as such commission of above stated offence are duly established beyond doubt.
28. Thus, we hold that the Additional Sessions Judge has not committed illegality in accepting the testimonies of injured witnesses and also not committed illegality in holding that the Cr.A.Nos.319, 320 of 2013 & 654 of 2015 19 evidence of eyewitnesses are duly corroborated by medical evidence and chain of circumstances is duly established. All the materials were correctly analyzed and accepted by the trial Court.
29. On perusal of all the material brought by the prosecution, we hereby affirm the judgment of conviction recorded and sentence awarded by the trial Court, we do not find any illegality or valid ground to hold that the appellants have not committed any offence. We also do not find any ground for interference in the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge.
30. In consequence of the above discussion, the appeals filed by the three appellants are hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Deepak Gupta) (Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Chief Justice Judge
Kvr