Chattisgarh High Court
Devan Singh @ Guddu Agariya vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 August, 2024
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1 / 15
2024:CGHC:29562-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1884 of 2022
1. Devan Singh @ Guddu Agariya S/o Baishahan Agariya Aged About 20 Years
Caste Agariya, Village Bandhwatola Lapta, Post Office Lapta, Police Station -
Jaitahari, Tahsil- Jaitahari. District - Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh
---- Appellant
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pasaan, District Korba,
Chhattisgarh
2. District Magistrate District Korba, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
CRA No. 1088 of 2022
1. Neeraj Singh Agariya S/o Sonsai Agariya Aged About 22 Years R/o Sarartola, Village Bartrai, Post Office- Chukan, Thana- Rajnagar, Tahsil Kotma District Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh
----Appellant Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Thana- Pasaan, District Korba, Chhattisgarh
2. District Magistrate District Korba, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate in CRA No.1884 of 2022 Digitally signed by Mr. Ramayan Rajput and Mr. Rajeev Dubey, RAVI SHANKAR Advocates in CRA No. 1088 of 2022 MANDAVI 2 / 15 For Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Panel Lawyer in CRA No.1884 of 2022 Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Panel Lawyer in CRA No.1088 of 2022 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per, Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 07/08/2024
1. As both these appeals are arise out of a common judgment dated 13.06.2022 therefore, they are being heard and decided together.
2. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.06.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Katghora, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh in Special Sessions Trial No.39/2019 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner :
Sl. No. Conviction Sentence For the appellant Neeraj Singh Agariya
1. Under Section 366 of Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Indian Penal Code. Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine further 1 month rigorous imprisonment.
2. Under Section 6 of Rigorous Imprisonment for life with fine of the Protection of Rs.2,000/- in default of payment of fine further 3 Children From months rigorous imprisonment.
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 For the appellant Deven Singh alias Guddu Agariya
1. Under Section Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years with fine of 366/34 of Indian Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine further 1 Penal Code. month rigorous imprisonment.
2. Under Section 6 of Rigorous Imprisonment for 20 years with fine of the Protection of Rs.2,000/- in default of payment of fine further 3 Children From months rigorous imprisonment.
3 / 15Sexual Offences Act, 2012 All sentences will run concurrently.
3. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in both appeals are that the victim PW- 1 has lodged a written complaint (Ex. -P/1) in the Police Station Pasan, District - Korba on 13.09.2019 with the allegation that on 12.09.2019 at about 08:00 p.m. when the victim was returning to home from her friend's house the appellants/accused persons who arrived at her friend's house as guests have stopped her and one of them has gagged her mouth putting gamchha and by pulling her hand taken her towards forest situated nearby where other two persons waiting in motorcycle caught her hold and taken to village-Lapta in motorcycle. They kept her in a room and on the pretext of marriage the appellant Neeraj made physical relationship repeatedly in night. After that on the next day morning they tried to take her to some where else but due to financial crises, they took her to appellant sister's house and in evening when her guardian and other relative reached there, all the appellants/accused persons ran away. Thereafter, she alongwith her guardian and other relatives went to Police Station-Pasan and lodged a written complaint vide Ex.P/1. On receiving the written complaint of victim, the Police has registered an FIR against the appellants/accused persons namely, Neeraj, Guddu Agariya and one juvenile for the offence under Section 363, 366-A, 376(2)(n), 34 of IPC & Section 51 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and started investigation. The Police on next day on due consent of her mother, the victim was sent for her medical examination to CHC, Katghora, where Dr. Nomita Singh PW-11 examined her and gave her report Ex. P/4, in which she has reported that no any external injury present but hymen ruptured, one tear approx.. 2-3 cm at posterior vaginal wall present, slight bleeding present, felt pain during two finger test and opined that she has sexual intercourse which is not habitual. Regarding recent sexual intercourse, 2 vaginal slides 4 / 15 prepared, sealed, signed alongwith her innerwear handed over for chemical analysis. Further, regarding the age confirmation of victim was sent to Radiologist, District Hospital, Korba. Thereafter, with respect to the age of the victim, the Police has seized the School Admission and Discharge register from the Primary School, Kotmarra, Pasan, Block - Podi Uproda, Distt - Korba vide Ex.P/9 and the attested copy of School Register is Ex.P/9C, according to which the date of birth of the victim is 03.04.2002. During the Course of investigation the appellants/accused persons were arrested on 01.10.2019 and the appellant Neeraj was also sent for his medical examination to CHC, Pondi Uproda, District - Korba (C.G.), where Dr. Rajesh Kumar has examined the appellant and opined that the appellant is physically healthy and capable to perform sexual intercourse. The slides prepared from vaginal swab of the victim along with her inner wear were sent for forensic examination from where the FSL report Ex.P/25 was received and according to which the semen and spermatozoa are found present in the slides taken from the vaginal swab of the victim. The statement of the victim under Section 161 and 164 of the CrPC were recorded, the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of CrPC was also recorded and after completion of the investigation charge-sheet for the offence under Section 363, 366A, 376(2)(n), 34 of the IPC and Section 5L/6 of POCSO Act, 2012 have been submitted before the Additional Sessions Judge(FTSC), under the protection of children from sexual offences Act, 2012, Katghora, District - Korba, was filed.
4. The trial Court has framed charges against the appellant Neeraj Singh Agariya under Section 366 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and against the appellant Deven Singh @ Guddu Agariya under Sections 366/34 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act respectively. Both the appellants abjured their guilt and plead innocence.
5. In order to establish the charge against the appellants the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. The statement of the appellants under 5 / 15 Section 313 of CrPC was also recorded in which they denied the material appearing against them and stated that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellants/accused persons and sentences them as mentioned in para -1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubts. There is no legally admissible evidence with regard to the age of the victim that on the date of the incident she was minor and less than 18 years of age. The date of birth of the victim has not been determined by any documentary evidence which was recorded by Village Kotwar or Panchayat, as now a days the data's are maintained in Anganbadi Centers/hospitals for vaccination of child and the prosecution has taken into account the age of the victim based on School Admission and Discharge Register when she was admitted in class-1. The author of the School Admission and Discharge Register has also not been examined; therefore, it is of very week type of evidence. No any Kotwari register or ossification report are produced by the prosecution to determine the actual age of the victim that on the date of incident she was below 18 years of age. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Father, Mother, elder brother of her father and the Uncle of the victim have not disclosed any date of birth of her and therefore, there is no legally admissible and convincing evidence available on record to establish that the victim was minor on the date of incident. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that the victim herself went alongwith the appellant Neeraj as no alarm has been raised while the appellant gagged her mouth with gamchha and also when she was forcefully caught hold by the appellants/accused persons and dragged to nearby forest in the night at 08:00 p.m. which was stated as populated area. People are roaming there to participate in the festival. In her 164 CrPC statement (Ex.-P/01) the victim stated that she was taken to village -Lapta on motorcycle. At 6 / 15 Village - Lapta she was kept in a room locked and after some time the appellant Neeraj came and stayed with her in the night and he made physical relationship with the her thrice. Since she left her house without informing to anyone, therefore, the victim on her own will went alongwith the appellants and she was the consenting party. She has not made any complaint to appellant's sister while when she was brought to her sister's house at village Lapta and therefore the alleged offences of IPC and POCSO Act are not made out against the appellants and they are entitle for acquittal.
7. On the other hand the learned counsel for the State opposes and contended that the victim was minor and below 18 years of age at the time of incident which is proved by the School Admission and Discharge register Ex. P/9C which contains the date of birth of the victim as 03.04.2002 and date of admission in class 1 is mentioned as 22.07.2008. The school register is admissible piece of evidence to determine the age of the victim, therefore, there is no legality or infirmity in the findings of the learned trial Court. The victim was abducted by the appellants and kept away from the lawful guardianship. The appellants kept her in illegal confinement for whole night and forcefully committed sexual intercourse with her therefore the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence needs no interference.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and peruse the record with utmost circumstance.
9. In order to consider the age of the victim we have examined the evidence available on record produced by the prosecution. The prosecution relied upon the School admission and discharge register Ex. P/9C which is sought to be proved by PW-7 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, the Incharge Headmaster of the Primary School, Kotmarra Block - Podi Uproda, Distt - Korba. He has stated in his deposition that the Police has seized the School Admission and Discharge register from him in 7 / 15 which the date of birth of the victim was mentioned as 03.04.2002. He is not the author of the said register and he has prepared the true copy of the School Admission and Discharge register which is Ex.P/9C. In cross examination this witness has said that at the time of admission of the victim in the school, he was not posted there and in school also no other document with regard to the birth of victim is kept on record. He has no idea that on what basis the entry was made in the School Admission and Discharge register. PW-2, Mother of the victim have not stated any date of birth of her daughter and also stated that at the time of admission in school father of the victim has recorded the date of birth of the victim in the school. PW-4 and PW-3 who are father and elder brother of father of the victim have also stated that they could not know date of birth of the victim, likewise PW-5 who is victim's friend has also not disclosed anything about the date of birth of the victim. No other evidence of birth certificate or Kotwari register or ossification report are produced by the prosecution to prove the actual age of the victim.
10. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and evidence available on record, it emerges that the prosecution could not produce the clinching and legally admissible evidence with respect to the date of birth or age of the victim so as to hold that on the date of incident she was minor and below 18 years of age. Only on the basis of school admission and discharge register it would not be safe to hold that the victim was minor on the date of incident. The statement of the victim, her mother-father and as also the statement of PW-7 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, the Incharge Headmaster of the Primary School, Kotmarra Block - Podi Uproda, Distt - Korba are contradictory to each other and does not inspire confidence upon this Court to hold that the date of birth of the victim is 03.04.2002.
11. In In case of Ravinder Singh Gorkhi Vs. State of UP, 2006 (5) SCC 584, relying upon its earlier judgment in case of Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit, 1988 supp. SCC 604, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under : 8 / 15
"26. To render a document admissible under Section 35, three conditions must be satisfied, firstly, entry that is relied on must be one in a public or other official book, register or record; secondly, it must be an entry stating a fact in issue or relevant fact; and thirdly, it must be made by a public servant in discharge of his official duty, or any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by law. An entry relating to date of birth made in the school register is relevant and admissible under Section 35 of the Act but the entry regarding the age of a person in a school register is of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the person in the absence of the material on which the age was recorded."
12. In case of Alamelu and Another Vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police, 2011(2)SCC-385, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the transfer certificate which is issued by government school and is duly signed by the Headmaster would be admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act 1872. However, the admissibility of such a document would be of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the victim in the absence of any material on the basis of which the age was recorded.
13. In paragraphs 40 and 48 of its judgment in Alamelu (Supra), the Supreme Court has observed as under :
"40.Undoubtedly, the transfer certificate, Ex.P16 indicates that the girl's date of birth was 15th June, 1977. Therefore, even according to the aforesaid certificate, she would be above 16 years of age (16 years 1 month and 16 days) on the date of the alleged incident, i.e., 31st July, 1993. The transfer certificate has been issued by a Government School and has been duly signed by the Headmaster. Therefore, it would be admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the admissibility of such a document would be of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the girl in the absence of the material on the basis of which the age was recorded.9 / 15
48. We may further notice that even with reference to Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, a public document has to be tested by applying the same standard in civil as well as criminal proceedings. In this context, it would be appropriate to notice the observations made by this Court in the case of Ravinder Singh Gorkhi Vs. State of U.P. held as follows:-
"The age of a person as recorded in the school register or otherwise may be used for various purposes, namely, for obtaining admission; for obtaining an appointment; for contesting election; registration of marriage; obtaining a separate unit under the ceiling laws; and even for the purpose of litigating before a civil forum e.g. necessity of being represented in a court of law by a guardian or where a suit is filed on the ground that the plaintiff being a minor he was not appropriately represented therein or any transaction made on his behalf was void as he was a minor. A court of law for the purpose of determining the age of a (2006) 5 SCC 584 party to the lis, having regard to the provisions of Section 35 of the Evidence Act will have to apply the same standard. No different standard can be applied in case of an accused as in a case of abduction or rape, or similar offence where the victim or the victim although might have consented with the accused, if on the basis of the entries made in the register maintained by the school, a judgment of conviction is recorded, the accused would be deprived of his constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution, as in that case the accused may unjustly be convicted."
14. In case of Rishipal Singh Solanki Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2022 (8) SCC 602, while considering various judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para 33 as under :
"33. What emerges on a cumulative consideration of the aforesaid catena of judgments is as follows:
33.2.2. If an application is filed before the Court claiming juvenility, the provision of sub-section (2) of section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 would have to be applied or read along with sub-section (2) of section 9 so as to seek evidence for the purpose of recording a finding stating the age of the person as nearly as may be.
XXXX XXXX XXX 33.3. That when a claim for juvenility is raised, the burden is on the person raising the claim to satisfy the Court to discharge the initial 10 / 15 burden. However, the documents mentioned in Rule 12(3)(a)(i), (ii), and (iii) of the JJ Rules 2007 made under the JJ Act, 2000 or sub-
section (2) of section 94 of JJ Act, 2015, shall be sufficient for prima facie satisfaction of the Court. On the basis of the aforesaid documents a presumption of juvenility may be raised.
33.4. The said presumption is however not conclusive proof of the age of juvenility and the same may be rebutted by contra evidence let in by the opposite side.
33.5. That the procedure of an inquiry by a Court is not the same thing as declaring the age of the person as a juvenile sought before the JJ Board when the case is pending for trial before the concerned criminal court. In case of an inquiry, the Court records a prima facie conclusion but when there is a determination of age as per sub- section (2) of section 94 of 2015 Act, a declaration is made on the basis of evidence. Also the age recorded by the JJ Board shall be deemed to be the true age of the person brought before it. Thus, the standard of proof in an inquiry is different from that required in a proceeding where the determination and declaration of the age of a person has to be made on the basis of evidence scrutinised and accepted only if worthy of such acceptance.
33.6. That it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an abstract formula to determine the age of a person. It has to be on the basis of the material on record and on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties in each case.
33.7 This Court has observed that a hypertechnical approach should not be adopted when evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused in support of the plea that he was a juvenile.
33.8. If two views are possible on the same evidence, the court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be a juvenile in borderline cases. This is in order to ensure that the benefit of the JJ Act, 2015 is made applicable to the juvenile in conflict with law. At the same time, the Court should ensure that the JJ Act, 2015 is not misused by persons to escape punishment after having committed serious offences.
33.9. That when the determination of age is on the basis of evidence such as school records, it is necessary that the same would have to be considered as per Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, inasmuch as any public or official document maintained in the discharge of official duty would have greater credibility than private documents. 33.10. Any document which is in consonance with public documents, such as matriculation certificate, could be accepted by the Court or the JJ Board provided such public document is credible and authentic as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act viz., section 35 and other provisions.
33.11. Ossification Test cannot be the sole criterion for age determination and a mechanical view regarding the age of a person cannot be adopted solely on the basis of medical opinion by 11 / 15 radiological examination. Such evidence is not conclusive evidence but only a very useful guiding factor to be considered in the absence of documents mentioned in Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015."
15. Recently, in case of P. Yuvaprakash Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, 2023 (SCC Online) SC 846, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 14 to 17 as under :
"14. Section 94 (2)(iii) of the JJ Act clearly indicates that the date of birth certificate from the school or matriculation or equivalent certificate by the concerned examination board has to be firstly preferred in the absence of which the birth certificate issued by the Corporation or Municipal Authority or Panchayat and it is only thereafter in the absence of these such documents the age is to be determined through "an ossification test" or "any other latest medical age determination test" conducted on the orders of the concerned authority, i.e. Committee or Board or Court. In the present case, concededly, only a transfer certificate and not the date of birth certificate or matriculation or equivalent certificate was considered. Ex. C1, i.e., the school transfer certificate showed the date of birth of the victim as 11.07.1997. Significantly, the transfer certificate was produced not by the prosecution but instead by the court summoned witness, i.e., CW-1. The burden is always upon the prosecution to establish what it alleges; therefore, the prosecution could not have been fallen back upon a document which it had never relied upon. Furthermore, DW-3, the concerned Revenue Official (Deputy Tahsildar) had stated on oath that the records for the year 1997 in respect to the births and deaths were missing. Since it did not answer to the description of any class of documents mentioned in Section 94(2)(i) as it was a mere transfer certificate, Ex C-1 could not have been relied upon to hold that M was below 18 years at the time of commission of the offence.
15. In a recent decision, in Rishipal Singh Solanki vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. this court outlined the procedure to be followed in cases where age determination is required. The court was dealing with Rule 12 of the erstwhile Juvenile Justice Rules (which is in pari materia) with Section 94 of the JJ Act, and held as follows:
"20. Rule 12 of the JJ Rules, 2007 deals with the procedure to be followed in determination of age. The juvenility of a person in conflict with law had to be decided prima facie on the basis of physical appearance, or documents, if available. But an inquiry into the determination of age by the Court or the JJ Board was by seeking evidence by obtaining: (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available and in the absence whereof; (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof; (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat. Only in the absence of either (i), (ii) and (iii) above, the medical opinion could be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board to declare the age of the juvenile or child. It was also provided that while 12 / 15 determination was being made, benefit could be given to the child or juvenile by considering the age on lower side within the margin of one year."
16. Speaking about provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, especially the various options in Section 94 (2) of the JJ Act, this court held in Sanjeev Kumar Gupta vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors that:
"Clause (i) of Section 94 (2) places the date of birth certificate from the school and the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the 2021 (12) SCR 502 [2019] 9 SCR 735 concerned examination board in the same category (namely (i) above). In the absence thereof category (ii) provides for obtaining the birth certificate of the corporation, municipal authority or panchayat. It is only in the absence of (i) and (ii) that age determination by means of medical analysis is provided. Section 94(2)(a)(i) indicates a significant change over the provisions which were contained in Rule 12(3)(a) of the Rules of 2007 made under the Act of 2000. Under Rule 12(3)(a)(i) the matriculation or equivalent certificate was given precedence and it was only in the event of the certificate not being available that the date of birth certificate from the school first attended, could be obtained. In Section 94(2)(i) both the date of birth certificate from the school as well as the matriculation or equivalent certificate are placed in the same category.
17. In Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain Vs. State of West Bengal, this court, through a three-judge bench, held that the burden of proving that someone is a juvenile (or below the prescribed age) is upon the person claiming it. Further, in that decision, the court indicated the hierarchy of documents that would be accepted in order of preference."
16. Reverting to the facts of the present case and due consideration of the prosecution evidence we find that no any clinching and legally admissible evidence have been brought by the prosecution to prove the fact that the victim was minor on the date of incident yet the trial Court in impugned judgment has held her minor, 13 / 15 hence, we set aside the finding given by the trail Court that on the date of incident the victim was minor.
17. So far as the issue of forceful sexual intercourse by the appellant upon the victim is concerned we have carefully perused the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC (Ex.-P/01). In her 164 CrPC statement she has stated that on 12.09.2019, one of the appellants had gagged her mouth and dragged her toward nearby forest/badi at 08:00 p.m. and with other accused persons she was taken to village -Lapta on motorcycle. At village Lapta she was kept locked in a room by the appellants and after some time the appellant Neeraj came inside the room and by staying with the victim whole night made physical relation with her thrice.
18. In her 164 CrPC statement she has not stated that the appellant allured or threaten her or used any force while staying with him and while making physical relationship with her against her will or consent. Further, the victim has also not disclosed anything to the appellant's sister when next day she was taken to house of the appellant's sister where the appellant Neeraj filled her head with vermilion. When her mother-father came for her rescue, the appellants/accused persons ran away.
19. The statement of the victim is not acceptable that the appellant/s has taken her after giving threatening to her and teasing her. If, that being so, the victim would have been raised alarm on the way to village-Lagra but she stayed alongwith appellant Neeraj for whole night and she has not made any complaint to the appellant's sister or other persons of nearby locality or while staying in village Lapta.
20. The PW-4 the father of the victim have stated in his deposition that for searching her daughter at village Lapta, he has sent her wife and other relative to village Lapta as they have got information about the victim and the appellants staying at village Lapta. After recovery of victim from village Lapta, his father 14 / 15 alongwith other relatives went to Police Station-Pasan where the victim made written complaint to the police against the appellants.
21. Dr. Nomita Singh, PW-11 has examined the victim and gave her report Ex.P/04 in which no any external injuries have been found on the body of the victim and also opined that she had made sexual intercourse which indicates that she is not habitual. In the slide prepared from the vaginal swab of the victim, semen and spermatozoa were found in forensic examination vide its FSL report Ex. P/25.
22. Close scrutiny of the evidence has made it clear that the victim was a consenting party and went alongwith the appellant to village - Lapta on a motorcycle and stayed with appellant Neeraj for whole night and the appellant Neeraj made sexual intercourse with her thrice. She has not made any complaint to any of the nearby persons when she was brought to house of the appellant's sister. It indicates that neither she was taken by force nor she was abducted by the appellant/s. She herself accompanied the appellant on her own will and consent. In her 164 CrPC statement, the victim did not state about raising of any alarm while she was being allegedly abducted or any forceful sexual intercourse made by the appellant on her.
23. The law is well settled that in case of rape, conviction can be maintained even on the basis of sole testimony of the victim. However, there is an important caveat which is that the testimony of the victim must inspire confidence. Even though the testimony of the victim is not required to be corroborated, if her statement is not believable, then the accused cannot be convicted. The prosecution has to bring home the charges levelled against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, which the prosecution has failed to do in the instant case.
24. Considering the entire evidence available on record, the conduct of the victim, we are of the opinion that the victim was more than 18 years of age at the time of incident, further she was a consenting party with the appellant therefore, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the offence under Section 363, 15 / 15 366A, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(L)/6 of the POCSO Act, would not be made out against the appellants.
25. In the result, both the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13.06.2022 is set aside. The appellants stands acquitted from all the charges. The appellant Neeraj Singh Agariya is reported to be in jail since 01.10.2019 and appellant Devan Singh @ Guddu Agariya is reported to be in jail since 13.06.2022. They be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
26. Keeping in view of the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC, the each of the appellants are directed to furnish personal bonds in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with 2 reliable sureties each in the like amount before the trial Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months alongwith an undertaking that in the event of filing of special leave petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereon shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
27. The trial Court record alongwith the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Ravi Mandavi