Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Jasubhai Haribhai Patel on 28 June, 2018
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: Harsha Devani, A.S. Supehia
R/CR.A/475/1997 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 475 of 1997
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to NO
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the NO
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law NO
as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
JASUBHAI HARIBHAI PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.L.B.DABHI, APP (2) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
DHARMESH D NANAVATY(2396) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 28/06/2018
ORAL JUDGMENT
( PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA) Page 1 of 23 R/CR.A/475/1997 JUDGMENT
1. By way of this appeal, filed under section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the appellant - State has challenged the judgment and order of Sessions Judge, Palanpur, Dist:Banaskantha (for short the "trial court"), dated 31.03.1997 rendered in Sessions Case No.107 of 1996, whereby the learned trial judge has acquitted the original accused - the respondent herein of the charges for the offence punishable under sections 498A, 306, 304B & 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the "IPC").
2. The case of the prosecution as per the charge at Exh.2 is that the accused had married the deceasedBabiben in the Year1985 in a child marriage and for the first time, she was sent to her husband's accused house prior to two years from 21.04.1996. The accused used to harass the deceased by demanding dowry such as ornaments and also caused physical and mental harassment time and again. One month prior to the date of incident i.e. on 20.04.1996, the accused assaulted the deceasedBabiben and told her to bring Rs.25,000/ from her father's home and when she went to her father's home, the accused telephonically called her 23 times to bring money. Due to such harassment, deceased Babiben Page 2 of 23 R/CR.A/475/1997 JUDGMENT committed suicide on 1920.04.1996 in the night hours. Thus, the accused has committed an offence under Sections 498A, 306, 304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. A complaint to that effect came to be lodged by the P.W.1, Laxmanbhai Haribhai Patel at Amirgadh Police Station, for, the offences under Section 498A, 306, 304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon registering the offences under Sections 498A, 306, 304B and 201 114 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused, the Investigating Officer has carried out the investigation and after following the due procedure of law, a chargesheet came to be filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur, and as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the same was committed to the Sessions Court. A charge - Exh.2 was framed against the accused respondent and the plea of the accusedrespondent was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused - respondent herein pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.
4. At the time of trial, in order to bring home the charges leveled against the original accused, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses as well as produced 10 documentary evidences. The defence has also examined two witnesses.
Page 3 of 23R/CR.A/475/1997 JUDGMENT
5. At the end of the trial and after recording the statements of the accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the trial court acquitted the accused of all the charges leveled against them. On completion of the trial, the trial court passed the judgment and order acquitting the respondent - accused. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the trial court, the appellant State has preferred the present Criminal Appeal.
6. Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State vehemently submitted that the judgment and order recorded by the trial court deserves to be set aside, as the relevant depositions of the witnesses and material available on the record have been ignored. Reliance is placed by him on the testimony of P.W.1,(brother of the deceased Babiben), P.W.2(cousin of the deceased - Babiben), and P.W.3(uncle of the deceased Babiben) of the deceased for proving harassment and cruelty by the accused on the deceased. He assailed the judgment of the trial court by contending that the incident had taken place within a short span of marriage life of two years, as her marriage had taken place in her childhood in the Year1985, and as per the Page 4 of 23 R/CR.A/475/1997 JUDGMENT custom she was sent to her husband's house, for the first time, prior to two years from the date of incident, and it is established on record that husband of the deceased Babiben used to demand articles such as jwelleary and cash. He has also submitted that in such circumstance, presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act has to be drawn and hence, the accused are liable to be convicted under the offence which are charged against him.
7. A fortiori, Mr.Dharmesh D. Nanavaty, learned advocate for the accused - respondent has submitted that a close scrutiny of the entire evidence would indicate that prior to the date of incident, no grievance was made by the deceased Babiben against the accused. He has submitted that there is no harassment proved against the present accused - respondent.
8. In view of aforesaid submissions, Mr.Nanavaty, learned advocate for the respondent accused supported the judgment and order of the trial court and has submitted that the same was passed after appreciating the evidence adduced on record by the prosecution and hence, no interference is called for by this court. He has therefore urged that the criminal appeal is required to be dismissed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court is required to be Page 5 of 23 R/CR.A/475/1997 JUDGMENT confirmed.
9. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant State and the learned advocate for the accused and have perused the material on record with their assistance.
10. It is a settled principle that while exercising the appellate powers, even if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
11. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it will be necessary to have a closer look at the testimonies of the witnesses in order to ascertain the element of harassment or cruelty meted out to the deceased. The P.W.1 Complainant - Laxmanbhai Haribhai Patel, who is brother of the deceased Babiben has been examined at Exh.13 on behalf of prosecution. In his examination in chief, he has deposed that child marriage of deceasedBabiben's was solemnized with the present accused in the Year1985 and prior to two years from the date of incident, she was sent, for the first time, at her husband's house and was also given golden ornaments such as 50 grams gold chain, locket etc. He has stated that thereafter, within 15 Page 6 of 23 R/CR.A/475/1997 JUDGMENT days, his sister returned at his father's home and was constantly crying and on inquiring from her, she had stated that her husband used to time and again caused physical and mental harassment by demanding ornaments and money. After 10 days, the complainant with his uncle Hemraj went to Amirgadh for leaving her sister at the house of accused and at that time, the accused had quarreled with them, however, in order to see that in future their relations may not be spoiled, he had left her sister at her matrimonial home. Thereafter, in the last of month of Vaishak, they had gave Rs.5000/ to the accused. Thereafter also, the accused used to torture her sister - Babiben and the accused had demanded Rs.20000/ for releasing mortgaged gold ornaments. The complainant has also further stated that when he visited Amirgadh after 10 days, at that time also, the accused demanded amount of Rs.20,000/, however, since there was no means for paying the same, the complainant had stated that he would give amount after selling of agriculture produce. On 17.04.1996, the complainant had called him for 23 occasions for demanding the money, and at that time, the complainant had stated that he could manage only Rs.5000/ which he give to his sister and rest of such amount, he would be giving within 2 to 4 days. On 19.04.1996, at about 04.00 hours in the Page 7 of 23 R/CR.A/475/1997 JUDGMENT evening, when he took his sister to drop at bus stand, at that time, she was crying and the complainant made her sit in the Bus which was going to Amirgadh and on the same day night, i.e. on 19.04.1996, his sister Babiben committed suicide. They came to know about the death of his Sister on 21.04.1996 on receiving a letter written by the father of the accused viz. Haribhai Shamlabhai Bhutaliya that his sister had departed to heaven and her Besana ceremony is held on 22.04.1996. On receiving the said letter, the complainant immediately rushed at Pasvadal at about 12.00 O'clock with other people. He met the accused and inquired from him that how she had expired though she was not suffering from any ailement. The accused informed the complainant that on 19.04.1996, his sister came to Amirgadh and committed suicide by consuming poisonous medicine. The complainant has further stated that on 20.04.1996, the accused straightway took the deadbody of his sister at Pasvadal and performed her funeral ceremony in clandestine manner without informing them. He has been cross examined extensively. In his crossexamination, he has submitted that his sister was having some marks on her body when she returned from Amirgadh and accordingly, he had taken to Dr.Hirgaudar for her treatment. He has also stated that on 26.04.1995, he had taken Babiben for treatment to Page 8 of 23 R/CR.A/475/1997 JUDGMENT Dr.Salim Shaikh, who was specialized in heart treatment, blood pressure as well as paralysis. On 15.08.1995, he had taken Babiben for treatment to Dr.Mukund B. Patel, who was Gynoclogist. Thereafter, Babiben was treated by Dr.Mukesh Sanghavi, but he does not remember the day on which he had taken to the Doctor. It is also elicited in his crossexamination that on 05.01.1996, he took his Sister Babiben to Palanpur for taking treatment of Dr.Prakash K. Desai. It is further elicited that deceased - Babiben used to take treatment from Dr.Desai for her pregnancy and on 05.01.1996, he had dropped Babiben at the dispensary of Dr.Prakash Desai. It is further elicited in her crossexamination that he got the FIR typed from one Laljibhai, who was serving in the office of Advocate and all these facts in the FIR were mentioned as per the instructions of Laljibhai and the FIR was typed at about 05.30 in the evening and accordingly, he had submitted in in the Vadgam Police Station. He has also denied the suggestion that on 20.04.1996, he was given letter by one Shri.Somabhai Hirabhai and Ramesh i.e. son of Hirabhai Shamalbhai by which he was informed that his sister's death has been occurred. He has also denied suggestion that he had attended funeral of Babiben at Siddhpur near the bank of Sarswati. He has also denied that he had attended all these Page 9 of 23 R/CR.A/475/1997 JUDGMENT ceremonies at the crematorium. He has also stated that he has not kept any note of Rs.5000/ to be given to the accused. He has also stated that when the quarrel took place with the accused, his uncle Hemraj was also present at that time. Thus, from the testimony of this witness, it emerges that he had filed the complaint after due deliberation on 04.09.1996 after the Besana Ceremony. He has referred to the letter informing him about the Besana Ceremony of his sister which was kept on 22.04.1996. The said letter is produced at Exh.14. The fact that the deceased used to remain ill and was also taken by the complainant to doctors for treatment is also established from his testimony. The analysis of the testimony of this witness reveals that the lodging of the complaint is an after thought.
12. The next witness P.W. 2 Lilaben Okhabhai Patel, cousin of the deceased Babiben has been examined at Exh.19 on behalf of the prosecution. In her deposition, she has reiterated the facts about the child marriage of deceased Babiben in her testimony. She has stated that she used to meet Babiben when ever Babiben came to Vadgam. She has stated that on 18.09.1996, at about 02.30 P.M., she received a telephone call from the husband of deceased Babiben, as her father's house was adjoining her house. She has also submitted Page 10 of 23 R/CR.A/475/1997 JUDGMENT that on 19.04.1996, at about 11.00 a.m. telephone call was received by the father of Babiben and the deceased Babiben had informed her that it was telephone of her husband and he was calling her to Amirgadh. After receiving telephone call, deceased Babiben left for Amirgadh at around 04.00 p.m. She has further stated that thereafter, she did not meet the deceased and on 21.04.1996, in the morning, a person from Pasvadal came with a letter informing the death of deceased - Babiben and her Besana Ceremony is kept on 22.04.1996. She has further stated that thereafter, she was informed by one Narsangbhai that deceased Babiben had consumed poison on the same night when she returned to Amirgadh. She has further stated that the accused had informed that they had cremated deceased on 20.04.1996, and she as well as her uncle was not informed about the cremation by the accused. She has also asserted that the accused used to torture the deceased Babiben. She asserted that the deceased Babiben had committed suicide because of the harassment meted out by the accused. In her crossexamination, she has stated that on 18.04.1996, when she attended telephone call of the accused, the accused had only asked about well being of her and her daughter. No further talk was held between them. She has further stated that deceased Babiben did not say anything further. The contradiction has been brought out in her testimony that she had not Page 11 of 23 R/CR.A/475/1997 JUDGMENT stated about harrassment meted out to Babiben in her police statement and she was stating the same, for the first time, in the Court. It is also elicited in her crossexamination that she knew that deceased Babiben was not suffering from any ailment, but she was undergoing treatment of her pregnancy. Thus, from her testimony, it emerges that she had narrated the fact about harassment given by the accused to the deceased, for the first time, before the Court and no such detail was given by her in her policestatement.
13. P.W.3, Hemrajbhai Shamalbhai Patel, Uncle of the deceased Babiben has been examined at Exh.20 on behalf of the prosecution. In his examination in chief, he has submitted that the father of Babiben i.e. his brother had gifted golden chain, earings, bangals, locket etc. to the deceased Babiben at the time of her marriage. He has stated that the accused used to beat her niece - deceased Babiben and also time and again demanded money from her. He has further stated that when deceased Babiben returned from her matrimonial home after 15 days, she had complained about the harassment meted out by the accused to her. He has submitted that thereafter, he and Laxmanbhai went to Amirgadh for dropping the deceased at the house of accused and at that time, the accused quarreled with they and also abused them. He has further stated that thereafter, the deceased frequently Page 12 of 23 R/CR.A/475/1997 JUDGMENT came to Vadgam and lastly, he stated that the accused had taken loan of Rs.20,000/ on the ornaments given to her. He has submitted that his nephew, thereafter, promised the accused to give amount after cultivation of "Raida Crop".He also reiterated the fact that them came to know about the death of the deceased on 20.04.1996 when a person from Pasvidal came at Vadgam with a letter informing abut Besana which was to be held on 22.04.1996. A contradiction has been brought out in his crossexamination regarding the fact that when they had gone to Amirgadh after 15 days for dropping the deceased, at that time, the deceased was crying and she had informed that her husband used to beat her and her husband had taken her ornaments. A contradiction is also brought out about the presence of the accused at her home when they had gone to the house of accused for dropping the deceased and the accused had quarreled with them and abused them. Further, contradictions about the fact that the deceased had informed about the constant harassment given by the accused is also brought out in the crossexamination. Thus, from the testimony of this witness, the factum of harassment meted out by the accused to the deceased Babiben cannot be relied upon.
14. P.w.4 Dr.Abbasbhai Babubhai Mansuri, who treated the deceased Babiben has been examined at Exh.24. In his deposition, in examination in chief, Page 13 of 23 R/CR.A/475/1997 JUDGMENT he has stated that on 20.04.1996, at about 09.00 a.m., the accused had brought the deceased - his wife Babiben in Jeep and his compounder has noted her name in the note, and thereafter, he had examined the patient - deceased Babiben. Further, in his deposition, he has stated that, as the accused had informed him that the deceased was unconscious, he had examined the deceased in Jeep. When he went outside and examined the deceased Babiben, she appeared to be unconscious and was lying at the back seat of the Jeep. He has stated that accordingly, he had examined her pulse, heart beats and pupils and came to know that she had passed away. He has further deposed that he had informed the accused that the deceased is unconscious and asked them to go to the Government Hospital, and thereafter, the accused had taken the patient in the Jeep. He has further asserted that he was very well known to the father of the accused since last 25 years, as his entire family used to take treatment from him. In his crossexamination, it is elicited that he knew about the death of the deceased Babiben after examining pulse, heart beats as well as her pupils. Thus, the testimony of this witness reveals that, on 20.04.1996, at about 09.00 a.m., the accused had taken the deceased immediately to the hospital for examination. A contradiction has been brought out to the effect that he had not informed the accused that the deceased Babiben is in unconscious state of mind Page 14 of 23 R/CR.A/475/1997 JUDGMENT and she should be taken to the Government Hospital. The dispensary note of the patient list bearing the name of deceased Babiben is produced at Exh.25. The same reveals the name of the deceased Babiben at Serial No.2. P.W.5, Sajjuji Ishwarji - Jeep Driver has been examined at Exh.26 on behalf of prosecution. In his deposition, he has stated that the Doctor, after examination of the deceased had informed the accused that her wife had expired. Thus, the same indicates that the accused had taken the deceased Babiben to the dispensary of the P.W.4 for her examination and they had come to know of her death after visit to the doctor.
15. P.W.7, Ujamben Haribhai Patel, mother of the deceased Babiben, has been examined at Exh.36 on behalf of the prosecution. In her deposition, She has reiterated the fact about the marriage of deceased Babiben as well as gold ornaments given to her deceased daughter at the time of her marriage. She has also narrated the fact in her deposition that the accused demanded an amount of Rs.20,000/ as well as ornaments. She has stated that the accused used to time and again harass her deceased daughter by demanding ornaments as well as money. She has stated that she came to know about the death of her daughter Babiben through a letter given by a person on 21.04.1996 that her daughter departed to heaven and her Besana ceremony is Page 15 of 23 R/CR.A/475/1997 JUDGMENT held on 22.04.1996. In her crossexamination, she has stated that her daughter used to visit her parental home occasionally and they used to go to busstand for dropping her. It is further elicited in her crossexamination that there was no dispute amongst them regarding any transaction between both the families. She has even stated that she does not know where the Babiben was staying in Amirgadh and also does not know where her soninlaw was serving. She has stated that, she had not stated in her police statement that her daughter Babiben went crying to her matrimonial home. The contradiction also comes out about the harassment meted out by the accused on her daughter. From her entire testimony, it emerges that there was no dispute between their family and she was not aware what the accused was doing and where he was staying and the contradictions regarding the harassment given by the accused to the daughter has been brought out in her testimony.
16. P.W.12, Samrathdan Gorakhdan, P.S.I., Investigating Officer, has been examined at Exh.45 on behalf of the prosecution. The testimony of this witness revealed that on 21.04.1996, at about 20.15 hours, investigating of the present case was handed over to him by P.S.O. Amirgadh Police Station vide order produced at Exh.43. On the said Page 16 of 23 R/CR.A/475/1997 JUDGMENT date, he recorded the statement of complainant, his brother and his uncle. The complainant produced one Chit with complaint. In his deposition, he has identified the said Chit produced at Exh.14. He had visited the place of incident after taking the complaint. He also recorded the statements of concerned witnesses residing near the place of incident. He has further that he has not made any investigation about the cremation of the deceased Babiben. He has further stated that during his investigation, it was found that the deceased Babiben was pregnant and was undergoing treatment. Nothing turns out from the testimony of the Investigating Officer.
17. The defence has also examined two witnesses. D.W.1, Dashrathlal Jhumakhram Soni, was examined at Exh.49. He has been examined regarding ornaments of deceased Babiben. Nothing turns out from his testimony.
18. The Defence.Witness. 2 Govindbhai Fuljibhai Dhuiliya, has been examined at Exh.54. He is the resident of Village of the accused i.e. Vadgam. In examination in chief, he has stated that he received information about the death of the Babiben on 20.04.1996 in the evening. He has stated that when he reached Pasvadal, at that time, all the relative of Babiben were present. He has stated that uncle of Babiben as well their near relatives Page 17 of 23 R/CR.A/475/1997 JUDGMENT i.e. his brother Bhagwanbhai and other villagers were present there. He has also asserted that brother of the deceased was also present. Brother of the deceased had also brought piece of cloth, as the same was necessary in the cremation ceremony. He has also stated that, at the time of cremation at Siddhpur Crematorium, Laxmanbhai, Narsangbhai, Hemrajbhai, Parthibhai Jhala and two persons were also present. He has stated that the cremation ceremony was held between 3 to 4 hours in the afternoon and at about 4.30, all these persons returned to Pasvadal in the Jeep of one Laxmanbhai Bhatol. It is also asserted that there is no custom of giving dowry or ornaments in the marriage, but, for the first time, when married woman is sent to her matrimonial home, there is custom of giving gold ornaments. He has further stated that there is custom in their society that as and when some one dies, his / her cremation is to be done at his / her native place. After performing all these rituals, Laxmanbhai has lodged the police complaint. This witness has been extensively cross examined. In his crossexamination, he has stuck to the facts narrated by him in the examination in chief. He has asserted that his brother as well as near relatives were present at Pasvadal. No contradiction or omission has been brought out in the testimony of this witness. This witness has established himself as a credible witness.
Page 18 of 23R/CR.A/475/1997 JUDGMENT
19. The overall analysis of the documentary and oral evidence reveals that the complaint filed against the accused is an afterthought. The case of the prosecution is that complainant and his family members came to know the death of the deceased through the Letter Exh.14 sent by the father of the accused informing about the Besna ceremony of the deceased scheduled on 22.4.1996. Neither the contents of the aforesaid letter are proved nor has the person who delivered the said letter on 21.4.1996 to the complainant has been examined by the prosecution. Thus, the substratum of the prosecution case that the death of the deceased Babiben was suppressed by the accused and the complainant and his family were only informed about the same on 21.4.1996 vide Letter delivered on 21.4.1996 has not been established. It is also established that the deceased was time again subjected to the medical treatment and she was not living a healthy life. The testimony of the D.W.2 reveals that the complainant and his family members were present at the place of crematorium of the accused.
20. As regards the contention raised by the learned APP Mr.Dabhi on the presumption to be drawn against the accused by virtue of section 113B of the Evidence Act, we may gainfully extract the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Biajnath Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in Page 19 of 23 R/CR.A/475/1997 JUDGMENT 2017(1)SCC 101. The same are thus:
"28. Section 113B of the Act enjoins a statutory presumption as to dowry death in the following terms:
"113B. Presumption as to dowry death. When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation. For the purpose of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)"
29. Noticeably this presumption as well is founded on the proof of cruelty or harassment of the woman dead for or in connection with any demand for dowry by the person charged with the offence. The presumption as to dowry death thus would get activated only upon the proof of the fact that the deceased lady had been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry by the accused and that too in the reasonable contiguity of death. Such a proof is thus the Page 20 of 23 R/CR.A/475/1997 JUDGMENT legislatively mandated prerequisite to invoke the otherwise statutorily ordained presumption of commission of the offence of dowry death by the person charged therewith.
30. A conjoint reading of these three provisions, thus predicate the burden of the prosecution to unassailable substantiate the ingredients of the two offences by direct and convincing evidence so as to avail the presumption engrafted in Section 113B of the Act against the accused. Proof of cruelty or harassment by the husband or her relative or the person charged is thus the sine qua non to inspirit the statutory presumption, to draw the person charged within the coils thereof. If the prosecution fails to demonstrate by cogent coherent and persuasive evidence to prove such fact, the person accused of either of the above referred offences cannot be held guilty by taking refuge only of the presumption to cover up the shortfall in proof.
31. The legislative premature of relieving the prosecution of the rigour of the proof of the often practically inaccessible recesses of life within the guarded confines of a matrimonial home and of replenishing the consequential void, by according a Page 21 of 23 R/CR.A/475/1997 JUDGMENT presumption against the person charged, cannot be overeased to glossover and condone its failure to prove credibly, the basic facts enumerated in the Sections involved, lest justice is the casualty."
21. As per the observations of the Supreme court, the proof of cruelty or harassment is sine qua non to inspirit the statutory presumption envisaged under section 113B. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove the quintessential feature of harassment or cruelty which would attract the presumption engrafted in the section. Hence, the contention raised by the learned APP does not merit acceptance.
22. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the trial court in acquitting the accused of the charge leveled against him are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. We are in complete agreement with the reasoning's given and the findings arrived at by the trial court. No interference is warranted with the judgment and order of the Trial Court.
23. In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that the trial court has committed no error in passing the impugned judgment and order.
Page 22 of 23R/CR.A/475/1997 JUDGMENT Hence, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
24. In the backdrop of the aforesaid analysis and observations, the appeal fails and is accordingly, dismissed. The judgment and order of the trial court dated 31.03.1997 stands confirmed. Bail and bail bonds of the accused, if any, stands discharged. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial court, forthwith.
Sd/ (HARSHA DEVANI, J) Sd/ (A. S. SUPEHIA, J) GIRISH Page 23 of 23