Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravinder & Others vs The State Of Haryana on 23 May, 2011
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
Crl. Appeal No. 523-SB of 2002 -1-
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No. 523-SB of 2002
Date of Decision :23rd May, 2011
****
Ravinder & others
........ Appellants
Versus
The State of Haryana
... Respondent
*****
Crl. Revision No. 1825 of 2002
Sunil Singla
........ Petitioner
Versus
Ravinder and others
....... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present : Mr. Baldev Singh, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Anhul Singh, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Anoop Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate
for the complainant / petitioner.
****
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,J.
By this order I propose to dispose of Crl. Appeal No. 523-SB of 2002 Ravinder & others Versus the State of Haryana and Crl. Revision No. 1825 of 2002 Sunil Singla Versus Ravinder and others filed by complainant-Sunil Singla, Crl. Appeal No. 523-SB of 2002 -2- wherein he has prayed for conviction and sentence of all the accused under Section 406 IPC and for conviction and sentence of all the acquitted accused namely Naresh Jindal, Ramesh Jindal, Poonam and Sudha in accordance with law.
FIR No.417 dated 19.8.1995 under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 406, 120-B IPC, Police Station City Sonepat was registered against seven persons, including three appellants, namely Ravinder Jindal, Nathu Ram Jindal, Sushila, Ramesh Jindal, Naresh Jindal, Sudha and Poonam. On investigation Sudha and Poonam wives of Ramesh and Naresh Jindal were found innocent. However, on an application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. they both were also summoned to stand trial along with others.
On completion of the trial Ravinder Jindal son of Nathu Ram Jindal, Nathu Ram Jindal son of Shardha Ram, Sushila wife of Nathu Ram Jindal, were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven) years each under Section 304-B IPC, two years each and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 120-B IPC, in default of payment of fine further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The other four accused namely Ramesh Jindal, Naresh Jindal, Sudha and Poonam were acquitted by the trial Court, leading to the filing of the present appeal by the three convicted and sentenced appellants, wherein they Crl. Appeal No. 523-SB of 2002 -3- have challenged the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. It would not be out of way to mention here that Sushila wife of Nathu Ram Jindal died on 7.3.2011 and, therefore, her appeal stands abated and the present appeal is, thus, on behalf of two appellants i.e. Ravinder and Nathu Ram Jindal.
On a written complaint dated 19.08.1995 (Ex.PB) submitted by Sunil Singla son of Kabul Chand in the evening when he met ASI Ram Gopal, who marked the same to ASI Lilu Ram, who recorded formal FIR Ex.PB/1. It was mentioned in the complaint that Sunita daughter of Kabul Chand was married to Ravinder Jindal in the month of November, 1989 at Kalka, District Ambala according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. A sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- was spent by the parents of Sunita on her marriage, which included the dowry articles like jewellery, cash, fridge, television, VCR, scooter, furniture, saris, clothes and other articles etc. The golden articles were entrusted to Sushila, mother-in-law, whereas scooter, furniture, fridge and cash were entrusted to her husband Ravinder and his father Nathu and rest of the articles to brothers and their wives, who had agreed to return the same to Sunita on her demand.
Ravinder Jindal was residing with his parents i.e.Nathu Jindal and Smt. Sushila along with Naresh Jindal, Ramesh Jindal, who are his brothers and Sudha and Poonam, Crl. Appeal No. 523-SB of 2002 -4- their wives, in one house with joint mess. Three brothers used to run Chemist shop. After few months of the marriage, all the above accused persons started taunting Sunita on account of bringing insufficient dowry as per their status in the society and that they were expecting a car and that such like articles as have been given even class IV employee do not give. They have been defamed and humiliated in the society. Taunts were put to Sunita that accused Nathu, who was a practising Advocate at Sonepat was ashamed on seeing the dowry articles. A male child namely 'Chhotu' was born on 5.9.1990. It was alleged that Sunita was sent back to Kalka for bringing cash for Chemist shop of accused Ravinder (husbabnd of Sunita) at Sonepat and parents of Sunita gave a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on different occasions to Ravinder Jindal so that Sunita could be kept happily, which did not satisfy them and they continued to harass and torture her. About 3½ months earlier to the occurrence Ravinder left Sunita with their minor son at Kalka asking her to bring a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for running the Chemist shop and that she would be taken back after one month. Ravinder did not turn up for two months and then Sunil Singla (complainant) with his brother Ashok Singla, Atma Ram Gupta, their maternal uncle took Sunita to Sonepat along with Sunita Jindal expressing inability to give the amount at that time and sought two months' time to meet the demand. They also requested the accused persons not to Crl. Appeal No. 523-SB of 2002 -5- harass and maltreat Sunita, but there was no change in their behaviour towards Sunita. Then on 16.8.1995 in the morning Sunil Singla (complainant) received message from Sonepat that his sister Sunita was admitted in hospital. His father Kabul Chand along with his uncle Radhey Sham and mother reached Sonepat at 1:00 P.M. Complainant received a call from his father at about 1:30 P.M. that Sunita had already expired due to poisoning. Sunil Singla along with his other relations reached Sonepat at about 8:00 P.M. The body of Sunita was cremated in haste and no satisfactory reasons for her death were given by the accused persons. Complainant Sunil Singla suspected foil play as earlier they had received letter regarding maltreatment, physical and mental torture at the hands of her husband and other relations. Kabul Chand and his uncle were in a perplexed condition at the relevant time and the Police obtained their signatures on some papers for identification of the dead body. Complainant Sunil Singla then went to Local Police to register a case but he told to the Police that his father and uncle did not have any grievance against the accused persons, thus, no report was lodged and the statements of his father and uncle were not voluntary. The accused had hatched a criminal conspiracy to harass and ill- treat Sunita for bringing insufficient dowry and further making demand of dowry and that they have caused her death by administering some poisonous substance. Crl. Appeal No. 523-SB of 2002 -6-
During investigation letters dated 11.4.1991, 7.9.1991 and 16.9.1991 purported to be written by Sunita were produced.
On the basis of the FIR registered accused Ravinder Jindal son of Nathu Ram Jindal (Appellant), Naresh Jindal son of Nathu Ram Jindal were arrested on 20.8.1995, Ramesh son of Nathu Ram Jindal was arrested on 22.8.1995, Nathu Ram Jindal (Appellant) son of Shri Sharda Ram on 25.9.1995, Sushila wife of Nathu Ram Jindal on 6.10.1995. Poonam and Sudha wives of Naresh Jindal and Ramesh Jindal were found innocent and, thus, not arrested.
Challan was presented and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat vide order dated 25.11.1995 committed the case to the Court of Session and vide order dated 9.12.1995 all the challaned accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 304-B, 120-B and 406 IPC.
On a transfer application filed by the complainant in the High Court i.e. Crl. Misc. No. 21390 of 1996, Sunil Singla vs. Ravinder Jindal and others, the case was transferred from Session Division Sonepat to Additional Sessions Judge (I), Panipat. When the case, on transfer in Panipat came up for hearing on a statement made by Sunil Singla (complainant) an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved for summoning accused Sudha and Poonam to stand trial, which was allowed vide order dated 15.9.1997. Thereafter vide order Crl. Appeal No. 523-SB of 2002 -7- dated 6.11.1997 charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B,120-B and 406 IPC were framed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution examined nine witnesses. Thereafter statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. In defence accused examined Shyam Sunder, brother-in-law of Nathu Ram Jindal as DW-1.
After completion of the trial, the three appellants were convicted and sentenced as mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs.
Learned senior Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are not present and the prosecution has failed to prove the same, thus, the conviction and sentence of the appellants cannot be sustained. He contends that the conditions precedent for establishing an offence under these Sections are :-
(i) The death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances;
(ii) Such death must have occurred within 7 years of her marriage;
(iii) Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband; Crl. Appeal No. 523-SB of 2002 -8-
(iv) Such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death.
The contention that the prosecution has not been able to establish that there was a cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of dowry soon before her death. He contends that only the second ingredient i.e. death within seven years of the marriage is proved as the marriage took place in November, 1989 and the incident is of the night of 15/16-8-1995. The other two ingredients are not present. In support of this contention he relied upon the post mortem report (Ex.PD) and the report of the Chemical Examiner (Ex.PT), according to which there was no external mark of any injury on the body of the deceased Sunita and no common poison was detected from the viscera, which was sent for chemical examination. There is no evidence to suggest that there was an unnatural death. Mere opinion expressed by the Doctor that the possibility of death by poisoning cannot be ruled out, would not be enough to establish that it was an unnatural death especially when no poison was detected. His further submission is that these suggestions have not been put to the accused while recording their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and, thus, cannot be relied upon by the prosecution or can be made the basis for coming to a conclusion that the death of Sunita was an unnatural death. Crl. Appeal No. 523-SB of 2002 -9-
As regards the third ingredient i.e. with regard to the cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death, he submits that except the oral statement of Sunil Singla and his brother Ashok Kumar there is no evidence on record. Father of deceased Kabul Chand, his brother Radhey Sham and their maternal uncle Atma Ram having not been produced as prosecution witnesses and have been purposely withheld although they do find mention with specific roles in the complaint, which cast doubt on the veracity of the facts alleged in the complaint. Mother of the deceased Sunita has also not been produced, who is stated to have maintained the accounts of money given on various occasions to the appellants on their demand of dowry for running the Chemist shop of Ravinder Jindal. Making reference to the letters, which have been produced by the prosecution as Ex. PF dated 11.4.1991, Ex. PG dated 7.9.1991, Ex. PH dated 16.9.1994 and Ex. DB undated, he submits that there is no mention by Sunita in these letters about any demand of dowry, nor is there any mention of harassment or beating or cruelty, as has been alleged by the complainant Sunil and Ashok Kumar in their statements before the trial Court. These letters belies the oral evidence of the two prosecution witnesses, who had been relied upon for alleging demand of dowry by the appellants. His submission is that even as per the contents of the letters produced by the Crl. Appeal No. 523-SB of 2002 -10- prosecution what comes out is that she had a grouse against Ravinder that he was not devoting time towards her and their son and was spending most of his time in his Chemist shop. She was finding herself helpless as Ravinder was not giving her money for spending. These were grouses against Ravinder but that does not indicate that there was any harassment, beating or cruelty or demand of dowry by the appellants. The onus having not been discharged by the prosecution for bringing the offence under Section 304-B, Section 113(B) of the Evidence Act would not come into play and the reliance by the trial Court on that basis by putting onus on the appellants to prove that death of Sunita was not a natural one is totally misplaced while convicting and sentencing the appellants. In support of these contentions, reliance has been placed by him on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Baljeet Singh and another vs. State of Haryana 2004(2) RCR(Criminal) 52 as also the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Vijay Kumar and others 2003(2) RCR (Criminal) 221.
Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the occurrence is of night of 15/16-8-1995, whereas the FIR has been lodged on a complaint submitted by the complainant on 19.8.1995 evening. No explanation has been given for the delay in presenting the complaint. He submits that it is an after thought, as it has come in the statement of ASI Amit Crl. Appeal No. 523-SB of 2002 -11- Singh, Investigating Officer, PW-9 that the inquest proceedings were held from 2 to 4 P.M. on 16.8.1995, where the complainant Sunil and Ashok were also present along with Kabul Chand, Radhey Sham and Atma Ram, as also the mother of the deceased. No challenge to this statement has been made by the prosecution that these relations were present during the inquest proceedings. The assertion of Sunil Singla and Ashok Kumar that they reached Sonepat at 8:00 P.M. is, thus, unreliable and unacceptable. As there was no objection raised with regard to the death of Sunita at the time of inquest proceedings, the FIR which has been lodged after a delay of three days cannot be made the basis for convicting and sentencing the appellants. On this basis he prays for acceptance of the appeal and acquittal of the appellants of the charges framed against them.
On the other hand, counsel for the State has vehemently argued that the statements of Sunil Singla complainant, PW-4, Ashok Kumar, PW-5, brother of the complainant and the deceased Sunita, establishes the case of the prosecution with regard to the demand of dowry, harassment and maltreatment by the accused in connection with the demand of dowry soon before the death of Sunita. It is his submission that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and has on consideration of the same passed the order of conviction and sentence in accordance with law, Crl. Appeal No. 523-SB of 2002 -12- which needs to be upheld. Responding to the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellants, it has been stated by him that while admitting Sunita in hospital it has been recorded in the Treatment Chart (Ex.-PL) that she was admitted as a case of poisoning stated to have taken two tablets of insecticide by mistake.
The statement of Dr. Subhash Mathur, PW-2 and his opinion that the possibility of death of Sunita by poisoning cannot be ruled out, shows that death was an unnatural death. The ingredients of Section 304-B IPC were fully proved before the trial Court as per the evidence and, therefore, the contention of the counsel for the appellants cannot be sustained. On the arguments raised with regard to the delay in lodging the FIR, it has been submitted by him that there is a delay of just three days and it has come on record that the complainant on the day when the cremation was done i.e. 16.8.1995 itself had made an effort to lodge an FIR that was not taken into consideration on the ground that his father Kabul Chand and uncle Radhey Sham had no grouse against the in-laws of Sunita. On this basis, he submits that arguments also cannot be sustained.
Counsel for the complainant has also supported the arguments which have been raised by the counsel for the State. He has further prayed that on the basis of evidence all the accused deserve to be convicted and sentenced under Crl. Appeal No. 523-SB of 2002 -13- Section 406 IPC as there has been mis-appropriation of the dowry articles by them. His further prayer is that acquitted accused also should be convicted and sentenced under Section 304-B, 120-B IPC. Accordingly, he prayed for acceptance of the Criminal Revision No. 1825 of 2005 filed by the complainant against the accused and dismissal of the appeal.
I have heard counsel for the parties and with their able assistance have gone through the evidence and records.
The first question which needs determination by this Court is "Whether death of Sunita was unnatural death?".
The medical evidence would be determinant factor in this regard, in the absence of any evidence on record except oral with regard to beating or physical ill-treatment. Dr. Labh Singh, PW-7, who was the Medical Officer in Civil Hospital, Sonepat on 16.8.1995, who had treated Sunita deceased on her admission in casualty Ward at 12 midnight. According to him, it was an alleged history of consumption of two tablets used for preservation of grains one hour back. Gestic lavge was done but nothing was collected. The patient was declared dead at 4.25 A.M. on 16.8.1995. He could not suggest anything with regard to the cause of death except that she developed cardiorespiratory arrest at 4:00 A.M. and was declared dead at 4.25 A.M. on 16.8.1995.
Dr. Subhash Mathur, PW-2, who was posted as a Crl. Appeal No. 523-SB of 2002 -14- Medical Officer in Government Hospital, Sonepat, he along with Dr. Gujaria conducted autopsy on the dead body of Sunita. As per his statement, there was no mark of external injury seen on the body. All parts of the body were healthy. Contents of the stomach, small intestines with its contents, pieces of liver, spleen, kidney along with blood sample taken from heart, were sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis of any poison. The cause of death was not ascertained at the time of post mortem, however, viscera was taken and sent for chemical examination for detection of any poison. He, however, on the basis of the Treatment Chart (Ex.-PL) (treatment given by Dr. Labh Singh) stated that the possibility of death by any type of poison cannot be ruled out. However, in the FSL report there is a mention that no common poison could be detected in the samples sent for chemical examination.
On analysing the above medical evidence, the only conclusion, which could be drawn, is that death of Sunita was not on the basis of some poison. There was no external injury seen, nor was any internal injury pointed out by the Doctors. Merely on the basis of the treatment chart and a passing statement by Dr. Subhash Mathur, PW-2, that the possibility of death by any type of poison cannot be ruled out, would not be enough to come to a conclusion that the death was an unnatural death, especially, in the light of the fact that no Crl. Appeal No. 523-SB of 2002 -15- poison was detected in the samples sent to the Chemical Examiner. What has been stated by this Doctor is that the treatment Chart suggested that the treatment, which was given to Sunita by Dr. Labh Singh, was on the presumption that it was the case of poisoning, but in the absence of any poison detected in the samples, the same would not establish that she had died because of poisoning. Thus, the death cannot be said to be an unnatural one.
Another aspect which is of immense importance and need to be pointed out here is that the opinion as expressed by Dr. Subhash Mathur, on the basis of the Treatment Chart (Ex.-PL), where he had suggested that death by poisoning cannot be ruled out, cannot be read into evidence in the light of the fact that this was not put to the accused while their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were being recorded. Importance of putting incriminating material to the accused and seeking his explanation on it is fundamental right of the accused to clarify his position. An incriminating material, if not put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the same cannot be taken into consideration and relied upon to convict him of an offence.
In the present case, the learned trial Court has based its conclusion that the death is unnatural and is because of poisoning, on the basis of the opinion given by Dr. Subhash Mathur, PW-2, when he stated on the basis of the Crl. Appeal No. 523-SB of 2002 -16- Treatment Chart (Ex.-PL) that the treatment which was given to Sunita is given to a patient suspected of poisoning and that on the basis of this treatment chart the possibility of death by any type of poison cannot be ruled out. The conclusion as reached by the trial Court, in the light of the same, have not been put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and thus, cannot be sustained.
That apart, coming to the part of demand of dowry, cruelty and harassment in connection thereto soon before her death, except oral statement of Sunil Singla, complainant, and Ashok Kumar that about 3½ months before the occurrence Ravinder Jindal had left Sunita and their son in the parental house with a demand of Rs. 10,000/- and had said that he would come after one month thereafter but did not turn up after two months also and then Sunil Singla along with his brother Ashok Kumar and his maternal uncle Atma Ram took Sunita and her minor son to matrimonial home at Sonepat with a further request that they could not arrange Rs. 10,000/- as demanded and they would meet the said demand within a period of two months and requested them not to harass Sunita. Ashok Kumar, PW-5 has supported the case of the prosecution. Apart from this, there is no other evidence on record, which would suggest demand of dowry by the accused. It was stated by Sunil Singla in his statement that his mother was maintaining the accounts concerning the account of Rs. Crl. Appeal No. 523-SB of 2002 -17- 1,00,000/-, which was given by them on different occasions to the accused for the Chemist shop after the marriage but she has not been examined as a witness. It has been admitted by him in his statement that the dowry articles (Istridhan) of his sister Sunita were handed over to them and it was taken in possession by them from the police. It has also been admitted by him that he along with his brother Ashok Kumar, father, mother and his uncle Radhey Sham, as also his maternal uncle Atma Ram were present, when the last rites of his sister were performed on 16.8.1995. It is also admitted that on 16.8.1995 at about 5.30 A.M. a telephone call from Sonepat was received by them about the admission of his sister Sunita in Civil Hospital, Sonepat and his father, mother and uncle left for Sonepat in the morning by bus and arrived there at about 1:00 P.M. It has also come on record in his cross- examination that after some time of the marriage of Sunita, Nathu Ram Jindal had purchased a Maruti Car.
In the light of the statement of Sunil Singla, complainant, it has come to light that the parents of deceased Sunita were informed in the morning at about 5.30 P.M. on 16.8.1995 and they reached there at about 1:00 P.M. It has come in the statement of Ami Singh, Inspector, PW-9, that the inquest took place between 2 to 4 P.M. and the last rites of the deceased were performed at about 8:00 P.M. As per the statement of Ami Singh, Inspector, which has not been Crl. Appeal No. 523-SB of 2002 -18- challenged before the Court, Sunil Singla and Ashok Kumar and other relatives were present during the inquest proceedings and no objection was raised by them with regard to the death of Sunita, that it was not a natural death. In cross-examination, it has been admitted that Nathu Ram Jindal had purchased a Maruti Car after some time of marriage of Sunita. The demand of dowry and the cause of harassment having seized, there was no occasion for any further demand or harassment or torture, as has been alleged by the complainant in the FIR. Mother of the complainant, who is stated to have maintained the account concerning the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, which was given by them to the accused on various occasions to run the Chemist shop, has not appeared in Court. There are no details as to when, how much amount was paid, and on how many occasions and dates. Kabul Chand, father of the complainant, Rathey Sham, his uncle, his mother and Atma Ram, his maternal uncle, who are very important witnesses, have not been produced by the prosecution. On this basis, it can safely be said that the allegations of demand of dowry, harassment, ill-treatment, cruelty, in connection with such demand soon before her death, have not been proved by the prosecution against the accused persons.
It cannot be overlooked that the deceased was taken to hospital by the appellant Nathu Ram Jindal and others, Crl. Appeal No. 523-SB of 2002 -19- when Sunita started vomiting. A message was sent by the accused to the parents of the deceased informing them about her admission in the hospital. They waited for their arrival and the inquest proceedings were done in their presence and the dead body was also cremated in their presence. This also goes in favour of the accused and their conduct reflects that there was nothing to hide from the parents of the deceased. The most important evidence are the letters Ex.PF dated 11.4.1991, Ex. PG dated 7.9.1991 and Ex.PH dated 16.9.1991 Ex. DB undated purported to be written by Sunita. A perusal of these letters, which do reflect that she was not very comfortable in the house of her in-laws but the primary grouse of her was against her husband Ravinder and that too for his not spending time with her and their son and not giving her enough money to spend. In one of the letters, reference has been made with regard to getting his treatment done from some Muslim Baba even if he charges Rs. 5000-7000/- It has also come on record that during investigation, it was found that Ravinder was sexually weak. That apart, the time of the letters was quite near to the date of marriage. There is no mention of any demand of dowry, harassment or ill-treatment because of non-fulfilling the aspirations of receipt of dowry in marriage it does indicate that she was not happy and was suffocating in the conditions therein. But this would not be enough to bring the offence under the ambit of Section 304-B Crl. Appeal No. 523-SB of 2002 -20- IPC.
The incident is of the night of 15-16.8.1995 and the complaint was submitted only in the evening of 19.8.1995. In the cross-examination, the complainant has admitted that he did not make any complaint to the higher authorities on 17th and 18th August, 1995, after refusal of the police to register the case on 16.8.1995 in the night time. He denied the suggestion that the complaint Ex. PB was drafted by a Lawyer, however, he admits that he had gone to a Typist at Sonepat Courts, who had typed the application Ex., PB dated 18.08.1995, where the typist has mentioned the Sections of IPC in the complaint. He had just stated the facts to the Typist and he had typed the same. He also admitted that he did not dictate the contents of Ex.PB nor did he draft the application. Perusal of the application and the narration of facts therein enumerates that the ingredients of the offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Sections under which offences fall undoubtedly goes to show that this is a document which has come into existence after a lot of deliberation and consultation. His conduct of going to the Courts at Sonepat and then getting the complaint typed from there with all the details, as mentioned above, indicate that it was a deliberate attempt on the part of the complainant to involve the accused in the offences enumerated therein, which cast a doubt on the veracity of the allegations made in the same, specially in the Crl. Appeal No. 523-SB of 2002 -21- light of what has come in evidence and has been discussed by me in the foregoing paragraphs.
In view of the above, the charges framed against the appellant / accused cannot be said to have been proved by the prosecution and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the criminal revision petition preferred by the complainant deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence of the accused appellants Ravinder Jindal and Nathu Ram Jindal is hereby set aside and they are acquitted of the charges framed against them. Bail bonds furnished by them stand discharged and the Criminal Revision No. 1825 of 2002 preferred by the complainant is hereby dismissed.
23rd May, 2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 'sp' JUDGE