Patna High Court
Bharat Poddar vs State Of Bihar on 19 December, 2012
Author: Rajendra Kumar Mishra
Bench: Rajendra Kumar Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.257 of 2000
=============================================================
(Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 24.7.2000
passed by Sri Vikas Kumar Sharma, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur,
in Sessions Trial No.164/50 of 1994).
=============================================================
Surendra Rai, son of Lutan Rai, resident of village-Chak Haidar, Police Station-
Tajpur, District-Samastipur.
.... .... Appellant.
Versus
The State of Bihar
.... .... Respondent.
=============================================================
with
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 262 of 2000
=============================================================
(Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 24.7.2000
passed by Sri Vikas Kumar Sharma, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur,
in Sessions Trial No.164/50 of 1994).
=============================================================
Bharat Poddar, son of Sukhdeo Poddar, residents of village-Chakhaidar, P.S.
Tajpur, District-Samastipur.
.... .... Appellant.
Versus
The State of Bihar
.... .... Respondent.
=============================================================
Appearance :
(In CR. APP (SJ) No. 257 of 2000):
For the Appellant: M/s. Ashutosh Kumar, Chandramohan Jha and Dhananjay
Kumar Singh, Advocates.
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar, A.P.P.
(In CR. APP (SJ) No. 262 of 2000):
For the Appellant: M/s. Jitendra Narain Sinha, Krishna Nandan Kumar, Rohit
Kumar and Shikha Roy, Advocates.
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar, A.P.P.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date: 19-12-2012:
--------------
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.257 of 2000 filed on behalf of the
appellant, Surendra Rai, and Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.262 of 2000 filed
2 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.257 of 2000 dt.19-12-2012
2 / 18
on behalf of the appellant, Bharat Poddar, have been directed against the
judgment of conviction and order or sentence dated 24.7.2000 passed by
the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur, in Sessions Trial
No.164/50 of 1994, whereby the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge,
Samastipur, while acquitting the accused, Surendra Rai (appellant in
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.257 of 2000) and the accused, Bharat Poddar
(appellant in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.262 of 2000) for the charge under
Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code giving them the benefit of doubt,
has convicted them for the offence under Sections 366, 323 and 452 of
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for five years for the offence under Section 366 of the
Indian Penal Code, for two years for the offence under Section 452 of
the Indian Penal Code and for three months for the offence under
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. However, all the sentences were
ordered to run concurrently. Since both the appeals have been directed
against the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
24.7.2000passed by the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur, in Sessions Trial No.164/50 of 1994, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. In brief, the prosecution case is that the informant, Usha Devi (P.W.3) gave her fardbeyan at the door of Surendra Rai in village- Chak Haidar, Police Station-Tajpur, District-Samastipur, to the Sub 3 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.257 of 2000 dt.19-12-2012 3 / 18 Inspector of Police, Indradeo Prasad (P.W.11), Officer Incharge of Police Station-Tajpur on 27.7.1993 at about 5.30 A.M. to the effect that in the preceding night after taking the meal she had slept in her house. At about 12 O'clock in the night, Surendra Rai, son of Lutan Rai, Pallu Rai, son of Paltan Rai and Bharat Poddar, son of Sukhdeo Poddar, all of village-Chak Haidarpur, P.S. Tajpur, District-Samastipur, came to her house and asked her to open the door using abusive language. Due to fear she opened the door of her house, then they forcibly entered into her house and catching her hand forcibly taken her to the door of the house of Surendra Rai by dragging and causing assault. Thereafter, Surendra Rai locked her in a room and committed rape on her twice. At that time, Pallu Rai and Bharat Poddar fled away from there. She has further alleged that in the preceding night her husband was not present at her house. At that time, her Nanad (sister-in-law), Veena Devi and cousin mother-in-law were present at her house, who also raised hullah but due to fear of the accused, none rushed to save her there. Her neighbours have also seen the occurrence, who would narrate the same if they are asked.
3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Usha Devi (P.W.3), Tajpur P.S. Case No.240 of 1993 was instituted against the accused, Surendra Rai, Pallu Rai and Bharar Poddar under Sections 452, 323, 376, 504 and 342/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(X) of the 4 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.257 of 2000 dt.19-12-2012 4 / 18 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on 27.7.1993 and after submission of the chargesheet by the police on investigation under Sections 452, 323, 376 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial, where charges for the offences under Sections 376, 452 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code were explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and, accordingly, the trial proceeded. In course of trial, one accused, Pallu Rai, died, hence, the trial concluded in respect to the accused, Surendra Rai and Bharat Poddar only.
4. The court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur, on consideration of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the materials available on the record, while acquitted the accused-appellants for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code giving them the benefit of doubt, convicted them for the offence under Sections 323, 452 and also under Section 366 of the Indian Penal and sentenced them as indicated above.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined altogether 13 witnesses. They are P.W.1, Ram Prahlad Jha, P.W.2, Akhileshwar Prasad Verma, P.W.3, Usha Devi, the informant of the case, P.W.4, Raj Kumar Rai, P.W.5, Ram Sagar Mahto, P.W.6, Sumitra Devi, P.W.7, Most. Shivni Devi, P.W.8, Dr. Neelam Jamwar, who 5 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.257 of 2000 dt.19-12-2012 5 / 18 medically examined the informant-victim, Usha Devi (P.W.3), P.W.9, Veena Devi, P.W.10, Yogendra Prasad, P.W.11, S.I. Indradeo Prasad, Officer Incharge of Police Station-Tajpur, who has recorded the fardbeyan of the informant, Usha Devi (P.W.3), P.W.12, S.I. Shatrughan Singh, is the Investigating Officer of the case, who has only submitted the chargesheet in the case, and P.W.13, Prabhu Prasad Singh, who is the Investigating Officer of the case. Out of the 13 witnesses, P.W.1, Ram Prahlad Jha, P.W.2, Akhileshwar Prasad Verma and P.W.10, Yogendra Prasad, are the formal witnesses, who have respectively proved the signature of S.I. Indradeo Prasad (P.W.11), Officer Incharge of Police Station-Tajpur on formal F.I.R. as Ext.1 and his endorsement on the fardbeyan of the informant, Usha Devi (P.W.3), as Ext.5.
The defence, as appears from the trend of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses and their statements as recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is that due to land dispute, Raj Kumar Rai (P.W.4), the nephew of Saryug Rai, got implicated the accused in a false case only to put undue pressure. In fact, the accused, Surendra Rai, was caught by the police alone from his house.
6. P.W.4, Raj Kumar Rai, has stated in his evidence that on 27.7.1993 in the morning, Indradeo Prasad, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police of Police station-Tajpur (P.W.11), recovered Usha Devi from a room of the house of Surendra Rai in his presence and in the presence of 6 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.257 of 2000 dt.19-12-2012 6 / 18 Ram Sagar Mahto (P.W.5) and Yugeshwar Sharma and a seizure list in respect to that was prepared on which he put his signature and proved the seizure list as Ext.3. This witness has further stated in his evidence that Darogaji also seized the Petticoat of Usha Devi and in respect to that prepared the seizure list on which he put his signature and Ram Sagar Mahto (P.W.5) put his L.T.I. and proved the seizure list in respect to Petticoat as Ext.3/a. This witness has further stated in his cross examination that the distance in between his house and the house of Usha Devi is about 100 Laghas and about 8-10 houses are situated in between their houses. This witness has further stated that near the house of Surendra Rai, the house of Rajendra Rai is situated. This witness has further stated in paragraph-9 of his cross examination that before this case Jai Nandan Poddar, had lodged the case bearing Sessions Trial No.55 of 1981 against his father, in that case, the father of Surendra Rai, had given evidence against his father. This witness has also denied the suggestion of the defence to the effect that due to enmity between his family and the family of Surendra Rai, he has got managed to implicate Surendra Rai in a false case. From the evidence of this witness, it is apparent that he is simply the witness of alleged recovery of the informant, Usha Devi (P.W.3) from a room of the house of Surendra Rai and is also the witness of the seizure list of Petticoat of Usha Devi as seized by the police. There was an inimical term of this 7 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.257 of 2000 dt.19-12-2012 7 / 18 witness with the accused, Surendra Rai.
P.W.5, Ram Sagar Mahto, has stated in his evidence that on 27.7.1993 at about 5 A.M. in the morning Darogaji had come at the house of Surendra Rai. On hearing Hullah, he went to the house of Surendra Rai, where Darogaji recovered Usha Devi from the house of Surendra Rai and also arrested Surendra Rai. He put his left thumb impression on the seizure list as prepared regarding the recovery of Usha Devi and he also put his left thumb impression on the seizure list as prepared regarding the seizure of Petticoat of Usha Devi. This witness has admitted in paragraph-6 of his cross examination that Upendra Mahto, the husband of the informant, Usha Devi (P.W.3), is the son of his cousin brother, Khoka. This witness has also admitted in paragraph-7 of his cross examination that when Ramashray lodged the case against Surendra Rai he was outside. From the evidence of this witness, it appears that this witness is related to the family of Upendra Mahto, the husband of the informant, Usha Devi (P.W.3) and there was also litigation in between Ramashray, son of Mishri Lal and Surendra Rai and Mishri Lal is the cousin brother of this witness.
P.W.6, Sumitra Devi, has stated in her evidence that the occurrence took place at about 12 O'clock in the night about two years ago. At that time, she was sleeping in her house with her mother-in-law. On Hullah, when she came out from her house then saw Surendra Rai, 8 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.257 of 2000 dt.19-12-2012 8 / 18 Bharat and Pallu carrying the wife of Upendra Mahto forcibly, who was recovered in the morning from the house of Surendra Rai. In her cross examination, this witness has stated that she has stated the facts, which has been heard by her from the husband of the informant, Usha Devi (P.W.3). She has also stated that Darogaji had not made query about the occurrence from her. As such, this witness is hearsay witness and her statement was also not recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Investigating Officer of the case during investigation.
P.W.7, Most. Shivni Devi, has stated in her evidence that about two years ago in the night at about 11-12 O'clock, she was sleeping with her daughter-in-law. On hearing hullah, she and her daughter-in-law came at the door of their house and then saw that Surendra, Pallu and Bharat were carrying the wife of his Pattidar, Upendra, forcibly. At that time, Upendra was not present at his house, while police recovered the wife of Upendra Rai in the next morning. This witness has further stated that police had not recorded her statement and the statement of her daughter-in-law. From the evidence of this witness, it appears that her statement had not been recorded under Section under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the police and she has first time given her statement in the court.
P.W.9, Veena Devi, has stated in her evidence that the 9 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.257 of 2000 dt.19-12-2012 9 / 18 occurrence took place about two years ago in the night at about 12 O' clock. At that time, she and her sister-in-law, Usha Devi, were sleeping in the house. At that time three persons came and started abusing and got the door opened forcibly and forcibly carried her sister-in-law, Usha Devi. This witness has further stated that she did not know that what had happened in the night with Usha Devi by them. This witness has further stated in paragraph-3 of her cross examination that he did not raise hullah in the night nor she give information to the neighbours about carrying her sister-in-law, Usha Devi, by the accused. This witness has further stated in paragraph-4 of her cross examination that she has been taken from her sasural to the court by Raj Kumar Rai (P.W.4) to give evidence. This witness has further stated in paragraph-5 of her cross examination that her uncle, Swarath Mahto, had gone to the police station in the night to give information. This witness has also stated in her evidence that police has not recorded her statement. From the evidence of this witness, it appears that while she was sleeping with her sister-in-law, the informant, Usha Devi (P.W.3) on the alleged night but she did not raise any hullah and her statement was also not recorded by the police regarding the occurrence under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As such, this witness has been examined first time in the court at the instance of Raj Kumar Rai (P.W.4).
P.W.3, Usha Devi, is the informant of the case. She has stated 10 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.257 of 2000 dt.19-12-2012 10 / 18 in her evidence that the occurrence took place about one year and eight months ago at about 12 O' clock in the night. At that time, she was sleeping in her house after taking the meal. Thereafter, Surendra Rai, Pallu Rai and Bharat Poddar came and forcibly entered into her house after breaking the door and forcibly carried her to the house of Surendra Rai, where Surendra Rai kept her in his house whole night. Surendra Rai and Pallu Rai committed rape upon her while Bharat Poddar fled away from there. In the morning at about 5 A.M. police came and recovered her from a room of the house of Surendra Rai, who was also arrested from there. This witness has further stated that at the time of preparation of the seizure list regarding her recovery she was carrying pregnancy of about four months. Darogaji recorded her statement and after reading over the same, she put her thumb impression and she was sent to Samastipur Hospital by Darogaji for her medical examination, where she was treated. This witness has further stated that at the time of occurrence her Nanad, Veena Devi, and brother-in-law, Umesh, were also present in the house. While her neighbours were present but due to fear they did not come at the place of occurrence. This witness has further stated in paragraph-27 of her cross examination that police had broken the room from outside and from there she was taken to the police station. Her brother-in-law and father-in-law had also gone to the police station at that time, where they have stated about the occurrence and 11 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.257 of 2000 dt.19-12-2012 11 / 18 Darogaji noted down the same. This witness has further stated in paragraph-29 of her cross examination that she was raped in a room on a Chowki on which there was bed, which was covered with yellow coloured bed-sheet on which there was blood stained. The defence has also drawn the suggestion to this witness to the effect that there is dispute and enmity in between her Sasur (father-in-law) and Gotiya with Surendra Rai and due to that reasons, this false case has been lodged with concocted and false story.
P.W.11, Indradeo Prasad, who was posted on 27.7.1993 as Officer Incharge of Tajpur Police Station, has deposed in his evidence that on that date in the morning at about 5 A.M. he received information regarding carrying of the wife of Upendra Mahto and keeping her in the house of Surendra Rai, after making Station Diary No.488 dated 27.7.1993, he rushed in village-Chak Haider alongwith S.I. Prabhu Prasad Singh (P.W.13) and A.S.I. Md. Ishaque and raided the house of Surendra Rai and recovered Usha Devi from there. Surendra Rai was also arrested from there. The fardbeyan of Usha Devi (P.W.3) was also recorded there and on reading over and explaining the same she put her thumb impression, which has already been marked as Ext.2. This witness has also identified his endorsement on the fardbeyan, which has already been marked as Ext.5. This witness has further stated that the Petticoat wore by Usha Devi was also seized by him, on which there 12 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.257 of 2000 dt.19-12-2012 12 / 18 was spot of semen, in presence of Raj Kumar Rai (P.W.4) and Ram Sagar Mahto (P.W.5) and, thereafter, he returned to the police station, where formal F.I.R. was drawn up, which has already been marked as Ext.6. This witness has further stated in paragraph-8 in cross examination that he came to know about the residence of Surendra Rai from the witnesses of seizure list. This witness has further stated in paragraph-9 of his cross examination that in the seizure list he did not write the description of the house of Surendra Rai nor he detailed about the houses situated nearby the house of Surendra Rai. This witness has denied the suggestion of the defence saying that it is not true that Usha Devi was not recovered from the room of the house of Surendra Rai nor Surendra Rai was arrested from there. This witness has also denied the suggestion of the defence saying that it is not true that in collusion with Raj Kumar Rai (P.W.4) he has prepared the seizure list regarding the recovery of Usha Devi.
P.W.12, Shatrughan Singh, is also the Investigating Officer of the case of Tajpur P.S. Case No.240 of 1993. He has stated in his evidence that on receiving the authorization by the Officer Incharge to investigate the case, almost investigation was completed and only the Laboratory Report regarding the seized Petticoat was not received. This witness has further stated in his cross examination that he has only submitted the chargesheet in the case.
13 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.257 of 2000 dt.19-12-2012 13 / 18 P.W.13, Prabhu Prasad Singh, is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has stated in his evidence that on rumour information was received by him about forcibly carrying of Usha Devi by Surendra Rai from her house in village-Chak Haidar. Thereafter, he alongwith the Officer Incharge and other police officials rushed at the house of Surendra Rai and recovered Usha Devi from there. Surendra Rai was also arrested from there. The Officer Incharge, Indradeo Prasad (P.W.11) recorded the fardbeyan of Usha Devi and a seizure list regarding the recovery of Usha Devi was prepared. The Petticoat of Usha Devi was also seized and a seizure list was prepared by A.S.I. Md. Ishaque on which he put his signature and he proved his signature on the seizure list of the Petticoat as Ext.1/2. The Officer Incharge authorized him to investigate the case. During investigation, he recorded the re- statement of the informant, Usha Devi (P.W.3) and inspected the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of the witnesses and, thereafter, the informant, Usha Devi (P.W.3) and Surendra Rai, who was arrested, were taken to the police station, where on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Usha Devi (P.W.3), Tajpur P.S. Case No.240 of 1993 was instituted. This witness has further stated in paragraph-16 of his cross examination that when he alongwith other police officials rushed at the door of the accused, Surendra Rai, the door of the room was opened, no occasion arose to break the door. This 14 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.257 of 2000 dt.19-12-2012 14 / 18 witness has further stated in his cross examination that there was also no door at the house of the informant rather a thrashed door was found fixed, which can easily be opened. This witness has also stated in paragraph-27 of his cross examination that he had not recorded the statement of the neighbours of Surendra Rai, whose houses are situated near the house of Surendra Rai, nor had he recorded the statement of the persons, whose houses are situated nearby the house of the informant, Usha Devi (P.W.3).
7. P.W.8 is Dr. Dr. Neelam Jamwar, who medically examined the informant, Usha Devi (P.W.3). She has stated in her evidence that on 27.7.1993, she was posted as Civil Assistant Surgeon at Sadar Hospital, Samastipur. On that day at about 1.45 P.M. on the requisition of the police she examined Smt. Usha Devi, wife of Upendra Mahto of village-Chak Haider, P.S. Tajpur, District-Samastipur and found her height 4.9", weight 50 Kg, Teeth on upper jaw 15 and on lower jaw 14, total-29. Auxiliary and pubic hair dark and black, breasts well developed. The external injuries found on her person are as follows:
(i). An oblique bruise of the size of 4" X 1" on top and back of left shoulder.
(ii). Multiple small bruises on back of chest.
(iii). A horizontal bruise about 3" X 1" on and below left iliac crest anteriorly.
15 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.257 of 2000 dt.19-12-2012 15 / 18 The injuries was within 24 hours caused by hard and blunt object such as fist etc. and the nature of the injuries was simple in nature. This witness has also stated that on radiological test she assessed the age of the victim about 18-19 years. However, on the point of rape, she has stated that the victim was carrying pregnancy of 15 to 16 weeks and the pathological test of vaginal swab did not show the presence of dead or alive spermatozoa. This witness has stated in her cross examination that she did not find any sign of rape upon the informant, Usha Devi (P.W.3).
8. P.W.3, Usha Devi, who is the informant and the victim of the case, has stated in her evidence that on the day of occurrence she was carried forcibly by the accused, Surendra Rai, Pallu Rai (since dead) and Bharat Poddar, to the house of Surendra Rai, where she was kept in a room and she was raped by the accused, Surendra Rai and Pallu Rai (since dead) while the accused, Bharat Poddar, fled away from there. This witness has further stated that at the time of carrying her by the aforesaid accused from her house, her Nanad, Veena Devi (P.W.9) as well as her Dewar (broher-in-law), Umesh, and her neighbours were present there but due to fear none came at the place of occurrence. This witness has stated in her evidence about committing rape on her by the accused, Surendra Rai and Pallu Rai (since dead) at the house of the accused, Surendra Rai, where she was kept in a room but she has stated 16 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.257 of 2000 dt.19-12-2012 16 / 18 in her fardbeyan that she was raped only by the accused, Surendra Rai. Dr. Neelam Jamuwar (P.W.8), who medically examined the informant, Usha Devi (P.W.3), did not find any sign of rape on her. This witness has stated that she was recovered from the room of the accused, Surendra Rai, by the police breaking the room but P.W.13, Prabhu Prasad Singh, who is one of the Investigating Officers of the case and visited the place of occurrence on receiving information regarding the occurrence alongwith P.W.11, Indradeo Prasad, Officer Incharge of Tajpur Police Station and A.S.I. Md. Ishaque and other police officials found the room open. She has also stated in her evidence that when she was carried forcibly by all the accused from her house, her Nanad, Veena Devi (P.W.9) and her Dewar, Umesh and her neighbours were also present. Her Dewar, Umesh, has not been examined in this case and her Nanad (sister-in-law), Veena Devi (P.W.9), has stated in her evidence that she did not inform about the occurrence to any one and she did not give statement before the police earlier and she was taken for evidence in court by Raj Kumar Rai (P.W.4). P.W.7, Most. Shivni Devi, has stated in her evidence that she was examined firstly in the court and her statement was not recorded by the police earlier. Similarly, P.W.6, Sumitra Devi, has also stated in her evidence that she came to know about the occurrence from Upendra, the husband of the informant, Usha Devi (P.W.3). As such, the evidence of P.W.9, Veena 17 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.257 of 2000 dt.19-12-2012 17 / 18 Devi, P.W.7, Most. Shivni Devi and P.W.6, Sumitra Devi, cannot be safely considered for corroboration of the evidence of the informant, Usha Devi (P.W.3). P.W.4, Raj Kumar Rai, is the witness of seizure list regarding the recovery of the informant, Usha Devi (P.W.3) and also regarding the recovery of her Petticoat only and he has admitted in his evidence that there was inimical and litigating terms in between him and the accused, Surendra Rai. P.W.5, Ram Sagar Mahto, also belongs to the family of the informant, Usha Devi (P.W.3) and has stated nothing about the occurrence and he is simply the witness of seizure list. The evidence of P.W.3, Usha Devi, who is the informant and victim of the case, is full of major contradictions and her evidence cannot be relied upon safely without corroboration.
9. The learned trial court while disbelieved the allegation of rape on the informant, Usha Devi (P.W.3) but held the accused- appellants guilty for the offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code under which the charge was not framed and for the offence under Sections 323 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code.
It is true that Section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure entitles a Court to convict a person of an offence which is minor in comparison to the one for which he is tried but Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be said to be a minor offence in relation to an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code as both the offences 18 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.257 of 2000 dt.19-12-2012 18 / 18 are of distinct and different categories having different ingredients.
10. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellants and the appellants are entitled to get the benefit of doubt.
11. In the result, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellant, Surendra Rai (in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.257 of 2000) and the appellant, Bharat Poddar (in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.262 of 2000) are hereby set aside and both these appeals are allowed and they are acquitted of the charges. The appellant, Surendra Rai (in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.257 of 2000) and the appellant, Bharat Poddar (in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.262 of 2000) are on bail, so they are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./-N.A.F.R.