Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kailash Pyasi @ Gudda vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 January, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:827
1 CRA-7191-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN
ON THE 6 th OF JANUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7191 of 2019
BAIJNATH JAISWAL @ JHURRU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Neetesh Patel, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma, Govt. Advocate for the respondent-State.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7426 of 2019
KAILASH PYASI @ GUDDA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Brijendra Kumar Vaishya, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma, Govt. Advocate for the respondent-State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal Learned counsel for the appellant Shri Brijendra Kumar Vaishya, instead of pressing I.A.No.27830/2025, which is third application under Section 389(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code/430(1) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant-Kailash Pyasi @ Gudda in Cr.A.No.7426/2019, prays that Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI KUMAR PRAJAPATI Signing time: 08-01-2026 16:28:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:827 2 CRA-7191-2019 this appeal be heard finally.
2. Accordingly, I.A.No.27830/2025 filed on behalf of appellant-Kailash Pyasi @ Gudda is dismissed as not pressed and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these appeal are heard finally.
3. Since both these appeals arise out of common judgment, therefore, the same are disposed of by this common judgment.
4. These Criminal Appeals under Section 415(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is filed by the appellants being aggrieved of 05.08.2019, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Umariya (M.P.), in SPL Case No.21/2015, whereby appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under :-
Appellant - Baijnath Jaiswal @ Jhurru (Cr.A.No.7191/2019) Conviction Sentence Imprisonment in Section Act Imprisonment Fine lieu of fine 201/34 I.P.C. R.I. for 7 years Rs.5000/- R.I for 3 months Appellant - Kailash Pyasi @ Guddu (Cr.A.No.7426/2019) Conviction Sentence Imprisonment in Section Act Imprisonment Fine lieu of fine 302, 201 r/w 34 I.P.C. Life Imprisonment Rs.25,000/- R.I. for 01 year. 201 read with I.P.C. R.I. for 07 years Rs.5000/- R.I. for 03 months.
Section 34 SC/ST (PoA) 3(2)(v) Act Life Imprisonment Rs.25,000/- R.I. for 01 year.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI KUMAR PRAJAPATI Signing time: 08-01-2026 16:28:38NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:827 3 CRA-7191-2019
5. Learned counsel for appellants submits that prosecution story in short is that complainant Dhaniya Bai, resident of Chansura, had given a report to the effect that her second son Boddi aias Ramsiya Kol is residing separately. On Saturday, her grandson Deepak Kol reached her home at about 12:00 noon and informed her that Boddi was lying dead in a mango orchid. She had gone along with her husband and found Boddi to be dead. On communication of intimation her daughter, Ramkali and wife of Boddi, namely, Lala also reached the place of the incident and thereafter, villagers had collected. Her grand-daughter-in-law had informed her that at about 08:00 A.M., Boddi had gone to scare the animals from the fields, but he did not return back home. It is submitted that there were injury marks on the back, waist, hips, thighs and calf muscles of Boddi.
6. Shri D.L. Prajapati (PW/8), ASI, on the report of Dhaniya Bai had lodged 'Dehati' Merg Intimation, Ex.D/1, registering Merg No.0/15, under Section 174 Cr.P.C. He had produced that Merg before the SDM Manpur and body was forwarded for postmortem. After giving notice to the witnesses, 'Shav Panchayatnama' Ex.P/2 was prepared, dead body was sent for postmortem to the Primary Health Center Amarpur from where postmortem report Ex.P/20 was received.
7. D.L. Prajapati (PW/8), ASI, had lodged Merg No.30/2015 at Police Station and after investigation had lodged FIR. He had taken statements of Dhaniya Kol, Bharat Sahu, Dani Kol and had obtained short postmortem report.
During investigation it came on record that accused persons despite knowing Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI KUMAR PRAJAPATI Signing time: 08-01-2026 16:28:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:827 4 CRA-7191-2019 the fact that Boddi alias Ramsiya Kol was belonging to Scheduled Tribe community, was killed in the hands of Gudda alias Kailash Pyasi and Jhurru alias Baijnath Jaiswal through strangulation and had thrown dead body in a field away from their house. Later on, hot water was poured on the body of deceased.
8. After investigation, charge sheet was filed.
9. Learned counsel for appellants submits that present is a case based on last seen and conviction has been recorded on the basis of the evidence of last seen recorded by Lalabai (PW/4) and extra judicial confession of the present appellants.
10. It is submitted that learned trial Court itself in para 45, disbelieved the statement of Dhaniya Kol (PW/1), in regard to the aspect of last seen, but has arbitrarily recorded a finding of conviction on the basis of evidence of Lalabai (PW/4), which too is not reliable.
11. It is also submitted that in para 46, learned trial Court has dealt with the issue of extra judicial confession, but that too is not admissible in the present case and, therefore, its a fit case to record acquittal, inasmuch as, benefit of doubt is required to be accrued in favour of the appellants.
12. Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Govt. Advocate for the State, supports the impugned judgment and submits that even if the evidence of last seen is discarded, then also extra judicial confession is sufficient to record finding of conviction and, therefore, conviction be maintained without showing any Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI KUMAR PRAJAPATI Signing time: 08-01-2026 16:28:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:827 5 CRA-7191-2019 indulgence.
13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, Dhaniya Kol (PW/1), in her examination-in-chief stated that at the time of the incident, she had gone to her fields to carry out the work of weeding. Her grand-son Deepak visited Chilahri, when she asked him that her middlle son Ramsiya has not returned for a long duration and asked him to find out, then Deepak came back and informed that Ramsiya is dead and is lying dead in the fields of Parouha. Thereafter, she, her husband, daughter- in-law Lalabai (PW/4), had gone to the spot where they found Ramsiya to be dead. In cross-examination, she stated that she lodged report before the police and had put the thumb impression on the said report. Report was lodged at about 02:00 P.M. She admitted that she had not seen accused beating Ramsiya. She admits that in her report Ex.D/1, she had mentioned that her son was killed, but if this fact is not mentioned in her report Ex.D/1, then she cannot give reason for such omission. In fact, in 'Dehati' Merg intimation reason for death is mentioned as 'unknown'.
14. Dhaniya Kol (PW/1), admitted that she along with her daughter-in-law Lala Bai (PW/4), had gone to the field and she was also accompanied by her husband, then they found Ramsiya to be dead. She also stated that though she had informed the police that she had asked Deepak to look for her son who had not returned for a considerable time, but if this fact is not mentioned in the report, then she cannot give any reason for it.
15. Dhaniya Kol (PW/1), in para 5, of her cross-examination, she stated that Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI KUMAR PRAJAPATI Signing time: 08-01-2026 16:28:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:827 6 CRA-7191-2019 she cannot say as to why it is not mentioned in her information Ex.D/1, that Kailash alias Gudda had asked Ramsiya that he will pay his money at the house of Jhurru and had taken him on such pretext. Dhaniya Kol (PW/1), in para 6, admits that she had not informed the police as to how her son died. In para 8, this witness admits that Ramsiya was residing separately. Deepak is son of Ashok and not of Ramsiya. She admitted that Ramsiya was consuming alcohol.
16. In para 9, of her cross-examination Dhaniya Kol (PW/1), stated that the place where the dead body was found is about one kilometer away from the village. The path which is close to the place of finding dead body is frequented by many people.
17. Ananta Kol (PW/2), is father of Ramsiya. He stated that on 8th August, 2015, his son was murdered. In para 2 of his examination-in-chief, he stated that on 8th August, 2015, at about 08:00 A.M., Gudda alias Kailash Pyasi had reached his home and in front of him had asked Ramsiya to accompany to the house of Jhurru Jaiswal to take his one thousand rupees. Thereafter, Ramsiya had followed Gudda alias Kaialsh Pyasi towards the house of Jhurru. At about 01:30 P.M., Deepak had come to him and when informed that Ramsiya had not returned and was asked to find out, then Deepak had gone on his bicycle and came back saying that Ramsiya was lying dead in the fields of Virendra Parouha.
18. In para 2, Ananta Kol (PW/2), admits that thereafter his wife and others had reached the field where dead body was lying. He further stated that Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI KUMAR PRAJAPATI Signing time: 08-01-2026 16:28:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:827 7 CRA-7191-2019 when he, his wife and others had visited house of Jhurru, then Jhurru and his wife were running away.
19. In cross-examination, Ananta Ko (PW/2), admits that at the time of preparation of 'Shav Panchayatnama' of his son, he had not informed that accused Gudda had visited their house and had asked Ramsiya to come to house of Jhurru to take money. He admits that on the date of incident, police had not recorded any statement and, therefore, he had not given any intimation to the police. Police had also not interrogated him and the statement which is being given by him before the Court is narrated for the first time before the Court. He further admits that he had given a communication to the Superintendent of Police that wife of Jhurru, Ramkripal Jaiswal and Bharat Sahu are not being arrested by the police. This witness admits that he had given a communication to the Superintendent of Police that actual accused are roaming out whereas police is not arresting them.
20. Ananta Kol (PW/2), also admits that the place where dead body was found is a garden and main road meets that pace. There is a 'Jungle Chouki' where forest officials reside along with their family. Distance between the place where the dead body was found and hospital is about 150 feet and same is the distance of 'Jungle Chouki'
21. In para 9, Ananta Kol (PW/2), admits that if one has to visit the garden where dead body was lying, then after house of Jhurru main road shops will be found, then bus stand will come and then it will be followed by the houses Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI KUMAR PRAJAPATI Signing time: 08-01-2026 16:28:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:827 8 CRA-7191-2019 of Pandits.
22. In para 11, Ananta Kol (PW/2), admits that distance of his house from that of Jhurru is about one furlong. House of Jhurru is in a 'Basti'. His son used to drink even during day time. He had not seen on his own Ramsiya reaching the house of Jhurru. He had not seen any altercation taking place in the house of Jhurru. He admits that Ramsiya was living separately in a separate house. He admits that police had not recorded his statement. He also admits that he had not informed the police that he had seen Bharat coming out of house of Jhurru armed with a lathi and bucket.
23. Natthu Kol (PW/3), stated that he has no information as to how Ramsiya died. This witness was neither declared hostile nor any leading questions were put to him.
24. Lalabai (PW/4), is the wife of Ramsiya. She in her examination-in-chief stated that on the date of the incident at about 08:00 A.M., Gudda alias Kailash Pyasi had visited her house and had asked her husband Ramsiya that has to be paid Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) at the house of Jhurru. At about 12-12:30 hours, Deepak son of her 'Devar' (brother-in-law), informed them that dead body was lying in the garden. When she had gone to the garden, she found her husband to be dead. Accused had killed her husband, was gathered by her when her mother-in-law i.e. Dhaniya Kol (PW/1), had visited house of Jhurru. She admitted that nobody else in the village had given information to her about the incident.
25. However, in cross-examination, it has come on record that 161 Cr.P.C., Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI KUMAR PRAJAPATI Signing time: 08-01-2026 16:28:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:827 9 CRA-7191-2019 statements of Lalabai (PW/4) are available on record as Ex.P/4 and in Ex.P/4, Lalabai (PW/4) has not mentioned that Gudda had visited her house to call Ramsiya. In her 161 Cr.P.C., statements Ex.P/4, she stated that at about 08:00 A.M., her husband Ramsiya informed her that Gudda Pyasi had called him to pay his money at the house of Jhurru and, therefore, he is going to the house of Jhurru. On the contrary, in her examination-in-chief, she stated that they came to know of the incident when her mother-in-law i.e. Dhaniya Kol (PW/1), had visited the house of Jhurru.
26. Lalabai (PW/4), in para 7, of her cross-examination, she expressed her surprise that how it is mentioned in her statements Ex.P/4 from 'B' to 'B' part that "she was at home when her husband had informed her that she was going to the house of Jhurru." She admits that in her statement, she had informed police that sulphuric water was poured over her husband, but if it is not mentioned in her case diary statement Ex.P/4, then she cannot give any reason for such omission. She admits that she had not visited the house of Jhurru along with her mother-in-law. She could not give any explanation that why it is not mentioned in her case diary statement Ex.P/4 that accused had beaten her husband.
27. Kailash Jaiswal (PW/5), has turned hostile. He has not supported the prosecution case.
28. Bharat Sahu (PW/6), too has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. However, it is important to note that this very Bharat Sahu (PW/6), was admitted to be an accused by Ananta Kol (PW/2), father of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI KUMAR PRAJAPATI Signing time: 08-01-2026 16:28:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:827 10 CRA-7191-2019 Ramsiya. Ananta Kol (PW/2), admitted that he had given a letter to the Superintendent of Police that Bharat Sahu (PW/6), is not being arrested by the police.
29. Dani Kol (PW/6), is the brother of Ramsiya. He had also not supported the prosecution case. When leading questions were put to him, he stated that when he had gone to the house of Jhurru on the date of his brother's death, then he had found Jhurru and Gudda sitting together. He denied that Ramsiya had also reached house of Jhurru. He denied that his brother Ramsiya had asked for his money from Jhurru and had threatened him. He admitted that at about 03:00 P.M., nephew of Boddi had informed that Boddi was dead. He denied his case diary statement EX.P/6. He denied that he was not giving correct statements before the Court under fear and pressure of the accused persons.
30. In cross-examination, Dani Kol (PW/6), admitted that on the date of the incident his brother Boddi had neither informed him about anything nor informed him as to where he was going. Boddi had gone in a direction where several houses of villagers are situated. He admitted that on estimation and guess, he stated that Boddi had gone towards the house of Jhurru. He further admitted that when he had reached the house of Jhurru, then Jhurru had taken out his plough and had gone towards his field. He admitted that he had no conversation with Jhurru. This witness admitted that when they had reached the place of the incident, then Boddi was not dead. Mother of Boddi had given him water to drink. Boddi had not said anything.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI KUMAR PRAJAPATI Signing time: 08-01-2026 16:28:38NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:827 11 CRA-7191-2019
31. Thus, it is evident that Dhaniya Kol (PW/1), has contradicted statements of Bharat Sahu (PW/7), that when she had reached the place of incident, Boddi was dead. In para 5, this witness admits that when he had reached the house of Jhurru, he had not seen Gudda alias Kailash Pyasi sitting in the house of Jhurru.
32. D.L. Prajapati (PW/8), ASI, admitted that Dhaniya Bai (PW/1), had not informed him while giving her statements Ex.D/3, that she had gone to the house of Jhurru. He further admitted that when he recorded the statements of Bharat Sahu (PW/7) and Dani Kol, during Merg investigation, they had not informed anything about conversation between Ramsiya and Jhurru. He admitted that he had not obtained thumb impression of Ramola Kol at the place of the incident.
33. P.S. Balre (PW/9), SDO(P), stated that during investigation, he had taken statements of Kailash Jaiswal (PW/5), Dani Kol (PW/6), Bharat Sahu (PW/7), Natthu Kol (PW/3), Ramdas Choudhary, Sunita Jaiswal, and on 11.08.2015 that of Santa Kol, Dhaniya Bai (PW/1), Lalabai (PW/4), as per the statements given by them. On 10.08.2015, he had recorded memorandum statement of Jhurru alias Baijnath i.e. contained in Ex.P/13. On the same day, he had recorded the memorandum statement of Gudda aias Kailash Pyasi and had stated that he had thrown 'Tabeli' in the bushes of Gandhela. His memorandum is Ex.P/14. This witness admitted that he had searched for the 'Tabeli' in the Lantana of bushes near village Chansura, but 'Tabeli' was not recovered and Talashi Panchnama is Ex.P/7.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI KUMAR PRAJAPATI Signing time: 08-01-2026 16:28:38NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:827 12 CRA-7191-2019
34. Thus, it is evident that there is no recovery of any article in terms of memorandum statements Ex.P/13 and Ex.P/14. Thus, these memorandum statements in absence of any recovery have limited evidentiary value. P.S. Balre (PW/9), SDO(P), admitted that vide Ex.P/17, Jhurru alias Baijnath was arrested at 14:40 hours. He was arrested at Umariya Kotwali. This witness admitted that while preparing arrest memo Ex.P/17, he did not make mention place of arrest in the arrest memo. He admitted that he had not recovered any object from Jhurru alias Baijnath. He further admitted that on the first page of memorandum statement Ex.P/13, he had not obtained signatures of Jhurru @ Baijnath. He admitted that memorandum was not written in his handwriting, but was written by Reader. He also admitted that nowhere in the memorandum statement it is mentioned that it was recorded under his instructions by his Reader. He admitted that witnesses Ananta Kol (PW/2), Santa Kol, Natthu Kol (PW/3), Ramdas Choudhary, Bharat Sahu (PW/7), Dhaniya Bai, Lalabai (PW/4) had not stated in their case diary statements that Ramsiya alias Bodda had any enmity or dispute with Jhurru alias Baijnath.
35. Dr. Manish Mishra (PW/10), had conducted postmortem and stated that cause of death of Ramsiya Kol was asphyxia on account of strangulation. This doctor in cross-examination admitted that the burnt marks were whether antemortem or not, is not mentioned in his postmortem report. He admitted that throttling is a type of strangulation. He admitted that throttling word is used when somebody is strangulated with hands. This doctor admitted that in Ex.P/20, he has used word 'strangulation'. There was no abrasion in Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI KUMAR PRAJAPATI Signing time: 08-01-2026 16:28:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:827 13 CRA-7191-2019 continuity of the throat. There was just one abrasion.
36. Laxman Prasad Mishra (PW/11), who had recorded 'Dehati Nalishi' at Village Chansura and had gone to police station Indwar for its reporting vide Ex.P/21.
37. Yagyadev Pandey (PW/12), Head Constable is the person who had carried 'Dehati' Merg Intimation Ex.D/1, to Police Station Indwar, on the basis of which Merg Intimation 30/15, Ex.P/21 was recorded. He admitted that in Ex.P/12, it is mentioned that he himself thought that Boddi is alive, therefore, along with his daughter and grand-daughter-in-law, he lifted him and brought him to the mango orchid and kept him in a shadow. He does not know as to how injuries were sustained and how Boddi died.
38. Jagat Singh Maravi (PW/14), who was working as Multipurpose Health Worker.
39. After disbeliving evidence of Dhaniya Kol (PW/1), in regard to evidence of last seen as is mentioned in para 45, it is discussed in para 46, that Dhaniya Kol (PW/1), had not made any statement in her examination-in- chief in regard to extra judicial confession of Gudda alias Kailash Pyasi. She made statement during cross-examination and, therefore, when this aspect is taken into consideration, then in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh Vs. Stateof Punjab (AIR 1957 SC
637), where it is held that in a criminal case mere suspicion, however strong, cannot take place of a proof and it is also held that in a case of confession of the accused usually courts require some corroboration to the confessional Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI KUMAR PRAJAPATI Signing time: 08-01-2026 16:28:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:827 14 CRA-7191-2019 statement before convicting an accused person on such a statement. What amount of corroboration would be necessary in such a case would always be a question of fact to be determined in the light of circumstances of each case. In para 10 Hon'ble Apex Court in S arwan Singh Rattan Sing (supra) has noted that confession cannot be relied without corroboration.
40. In case of Shankaria Vs. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1978 SC 1248) , Hon'ble Apex Court has held that :-
"it is well settled that a confession, if voluntarily and truthfully made, is an efficacious proof of guilt. Therefore, when in a capital case the prosecution demands a conviction of the accused primarily on the basis of his confession recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the Court must apply a double test :
(1) Whether the confession was perfectly voluntary ? (2) If so, whether it is true and truthworthy ?
Satisfaction of the first test is a sine qua non for its admissibility in evidence."
41. In the present case, we find that confession was perfectly voluntary and it was given to Dhaniya Kol (PW/1), by Gudda alias Kailash is not made out. As pointed out, evidence of last seen as mentioned by Lalabai (PW/4), when examined in the light of her case diary statement Ex.P/4, is not corroborative.
42. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sahoo Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1966 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI KUMAR PRAJAPATI Signing time: 08-01-2026 16:28:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:827 15 CRA-7191-2019 SC 40), in para 6, has held as under :-
"6. But, there is a clear distinction between the admissibility of an evidence and the weight to be attached to it. A confessional soliloquy is a direct piece of evidence. It may be an expression of conflict of emotion; a conscious effort to stifle the pricked conscience; an argument to find excuse or justification for his act; or a penitent or remorseful act of exaggeration of his part in the crime. the tone may be soft and low; the words may be confused; they may be capable of conflicting interpretations depending on witnesses, whether they are biased or honest, intelligent or ignorant, imaginative or prosaic, as the case may be. Generally they are mutterings of a confused mind. Before such evidence can be accepted. It must be established by cogent evidence what were the exact words used by the accused. Even if so much was established, produce and justice demand that such evidence cannot be made the sole ground of conviction. It may be used only as a corroborative piece of evidence."
43. Similarly, in Sucha Singh Vs. State of Haryana [(2013) 14 SCC 552)] , it is held that though confession is a direct piece of evidence, but this evidence should not be used as sole ground of conviction. It may be used as a corroborative piece of evidence.
44. Thus, it is evident that when Dhaniya Kol (PW/1), failed to give any details of so-called confession made by Gudda alias Kailash to her in her Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI KUMAR PRAJAPATI Signing time: 08-01-2026 16:28:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:827 16 CRA-7191-2019 examination-in-chief, then only by way of a clarificatory statement seeking clarification of certain facts during cross-examination, it cannot be said that any confession was made by Gudda alias Kailash Pyasi to the witness Dhaniya Kol (PW/1).
45. When these facts are examined in totality, then firstly there is no extra judicial confession or any corroborative confessional statement. Secondly, there is no evidence of last seen and when tested, then learned trial Court apparently fell in an error in recording conviction on two wrong presumptions/hypothesis of last seen evidence of Lalabai (PW/4) and extra judicial confession given by Gudda alias Kailash Pyasi to the witness Dhaniya Kol (PW/1). Both being not available, conviction cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
46. Accordingly, appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment dated 05.08.2019 passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. The appellants be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
47. Record of the trial Court be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)
JUDGE JUDGE
A.Praj.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHWANI
KUMAR PRAJAPATI
Signing time: 08-01-2026
16:28:38