Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Sumit Kumar on 16 September, 2016
Bench: Sanjay Karol, Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
Criminal Appeal No. 250 of 2008
Judgment reserved on : 20.6.2016
Date of Decision : September 16 , 2016
of
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Appellant
Versus
Sumit Kumar
rt ...Respondent
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice, Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes. 1
For the appellant : Mr. V. S. Chauhan, Addl. Advocate General with
Mr. Vikram Thakur, Deputy Advocate General
for the appellant/State.
For the respondent : Mr. R. K. Bawa, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit
Dhuman, Advocate, for the respondent.
Sanjay Karol, J. (oral)
Assailing the judgment dated 29.11.2007, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:16 :::HCHP 2H.P., in Sessions Case No. 35-K/VII/2003, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Sumit Kumar, whereby accused .
stands acquitted, State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Smt. Reeta Kumari (deceased) was married to of accused Sumit Kumar sometime in the year 1997. On 26.11.2002 at about 2.30 a.m., deceased suffered burn rt injuries and was brought to Civil Hospital Kangra, where she was examined by Dr. Amar Verma (PW-2). Police was immediately informed and HC Dalip Kumar (PW-15), after reaching the hospital, recorded statement (Ext. PW-2/D) of the deceased to the effect that she sustained injuries as a result of an accidental fire. For better treatment, she was referred to another hospital and eventually admitted at Government Hospital, Sector 32 Chandigarh. However unfortunately, on 2.12.2002 she breathed her last at 4.45 p.m. and when police learnt about such fact, SI Prem Chand (PW-21) travelled to Chandigarh, where on 3.12.2002 at about 4.00 p.m., he recorded statement of complainant Vinod Kumar (PW-3), brother of the deceased, which led to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:16 :::HCHP 3 registration of F.I.R. No. 394 of 2002 (Ext. PW-17/A) in the early hours of 4.12.2002. Investigation so conducted by SI .
Pritam Singh (PW-20) and SI Prem Chand (PW-21) revealed it to be a case of murder. By sprinkling kerosene oil accused had set the deceased on fire resulting into her death.
of
3. Prima facie, on the presentation of challan, finding the prosecution to have made out its case, trial rt Court charged the accused of having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. From the testimonies of 22 prosecution witnesses, trial Court did not find the prosecution to have established the guilt of the accused and as such acquitted him of the charged offence.
4. Hence the present appeal.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record, Court is of the considered view that in the instant case no ground for interference is made out at all. Judgment rendered by the trial Court is reasoned and based on complete, correct and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) so placed on record.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:16 :::HCHP 4There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity, resulting into miscarriage of justice.
.
6. It is a settled principle of law that acquittal leads to presumption of innocence in favour of an accused. To dislodge the same, onus heavily lies upon the prosecution.
Having considered the material on record, we are of the of considered view that prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients so required to constitute the charged rt offence.
7. In Prandas v. The State, AIR 1954 SC 36, Constitution Bench of the apex Court, has held as under:
"(6) It must be observed at the very outset that we cannot support the view which has been expressed in several cases that the High Court has no power under S. 417, Criminal P.c., to reverse a judgment of acquittal, unless the judgment is perverse or the subordinate Court has in some way or other misdirected itself so as to produce a miscarriage of justice. In our opinion, the true position in regard to the jurisdiction of the High Court under S. 417, Criminal P.c. in an appeal from an order of acquittal has been stated in - 'Sheo Swarup v. Emperor', AIR 1934 PC 227 (2) at pp.229, 230 (A), in these words:
"Sections 417, 418 and 423 of the Code give to the High Court full power to review at large the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. No limitation should be placed upon that power, unless it be found expressly stated in the Code. But in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusions upon fact, the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:16 :::HCHP 5 High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses, (2) the presumption of innocence .
in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial, (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt, and (4) the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. To state this, however, is only to say that the High Court in its conduct of of the appeal should and will act in accordance with rules and principles well known and recognized in the administration of justice." "
8. rt Court below acquitted the accused for the reason that: (a) Dying declaration (Ext.PW-2/D) of the deceased was a genuine piece of evidence and worthy of credence;
(ii) testimony of close relatives of the deceased did not establish any motive for murder. Also oral dying declaration so made by the deceased with her relatives was unworthy of credence; and (iii) prosecution failed to establish by way of link evidence that the accused sustained burn injuries as a result of kerosene oil.
9. Certain facts are not in dispute. (i) That accused and the deceased were married some time in the year 1997 stands admitted; (ii) Incident took place on 25.11.2002 in the matrimonial house; (iii) deceased died within seven years of marriage.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:16 :::HCHP 610. It also stands established through the testimony of Jagdish Kumar (PW-6) and Sh. Madan Chauhan (PW-16) .
who have proved document (Ext. PW-3/D), which fact is also not disputed by the accused, as is evident from Question No. 10 so put to him during the course of his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that all was not well within the of parties. Earlier in the year 1999, parties had entered into a compromise when the accused had sworn an affidavit (Ext.
rt PW-3/D) to the effect that in future he would not beat the deceased and live with her in peace. Also the deceased would not visit her parents without his or his parents' prior permission.
11. Evidently there was dispute inter se the parties.
It was of economic dependence and behavioural attitude. It is a matter of record that though thereafter parties continued to reside together and no complaint ever came to be lodged with anyone. It is also a matter of record that deceased was working as a Patwari in the office of the Tehsildar. She was deeply in love with the accused and had wanted him to find a better job.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:16 :::HCHP 712. Identity of the deceased not being in dispute, it stands established through the testimony of Dr. Virender Pal .
Singh (PW-22), who conducted and proved the post mortem (Ext. PW-21/E), that except in the area of perineum, lateral side of left thigh, left leg and left hip deceased had sustained dermo-epidermal burns all over her body.
of
13. Even Dr. Amar Verma (PW-2) who proved the medical history sheet rt of deceased (Ext.PW-2/B) has documented the victim of suffering superficial burn injuries over the neck, interior abdomen, both arms, thigh and feet to the extent of 30%. This document also records the cause of fire. In fact it affirmatively states that "mujhe koi shak nahi hai" (I have no suspicion).
14. With these undisputed and proven facts, this court is called upon to examine six essential facts: (i) As to whether the dying declaration (Ext. PW-2/D) can be said to be the true, genuine and convincing version of the deceased? (ii) As to whether it can be relied upon to prove the innocence of the accused? (iii) Whether any dying declaration, ocular in nature, so made by the deceased to her near relatives, including brother Vinod Kumar (PW-3) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:16 :::HCHP 8 can be relied upon to convict the accused? (iv) Whether there has been inordinate and unexplainable delay of eight .
days (26th November 2002 to 3rd December, 2002) in registration of the F.I.R., rendering the prosecution case to be fatal? (v) Whether there is enough material on record to establish that after pouring kerosene oil, accused had set of the deceased on fire; and (vi) Whether accused committed murder of the deceased or not?
rt
15. In Court Munshi Ram (PW-8) who was neighbour and a colleague of the deceased states that on 25.11.2002, at about 11.00 - 11.30 p.m., he heard cries of the deceased coming from her residence. Immediately he went and knocked the door which was opened by the accused. After entering the house, he saw the deceased sitting on the bed and crying. Some kerosene like smell was there. As desired by the accused, deceased disclosed that she caught fire while preparing meals on a gas stove. Immediately he went to the Tehsildar Medh Raj Sharma (not examined) and narrated the incident. By the time he returned with the Tehsildar, Reeta Kumari had changed her clothes.
Thereafter he along with the Tehsildar and the accused, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:16 :::HCHP 9 took the deceased to the hospital. Thereafter he returned to his residence. Later on he learnt that deceased who had .
been referred to Chandigarh, died on 2.12.2002.
16. Now significantly this witness, who was the first one to have reached the spot, did not find anything unusual in the house. Except for burn injuries on the body of the of victim no other burnt article was found. He did not find any can of kerosene oil. It is not the case of this witness that the rt accused had threatened, intimidated or persuaded the deceased to narrate the cause of fire which she did to him.
This witness did not find the conduct of the accused to be suspicious or the deceased to be frightened. Significantly, despite being a revenue official, he did not report the matter to anyone, save and except the Tehsildar, who also did not take any action and remains unexamined in Court.
Though statement of this witness was recorded by the police only on 5.12.2002, but did not report anything about the kerosene oil to the police. Significantly in cross examination he admits it to be correct that "when I asked the deceased about the cause of burn, she disclosed that ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:16 :::HCHP 10 she was caught fire while preparing the meals with the gas in the kitchen".
.
17. On this count, we also find that Doctor Amar Verma (PW-2) did not notice any smell of kerosene oil when the victim was first examined by him. The Doctor observed that the deceased suffered burn injuries to the extent of of 30%. It is a matter of record that the incident came to be reported to the police when entry in the daily diary (Ext.PW-
rt 15/B) was made and when HC Dalip Kumar (PW-15) reached the hospital, he moved application (Ext. PW-2/C) seeking opinion of the Doctor as to whether deceased was fit to make any statement or not. The Doctor certified the victim to be medically fit and only thereafter, this officer recorded statement (Ext. PW-2/D) made and signed by the deceased and attested by the Doctor and Tehsildar, Kangra.
Testimony of the Doctor is evidently clear to such effect. He is categorical that in his presence, deceased made a statement which she signed. Such statement was made voluntarily without any fear, pressure or persuasion. On this count version of HC Dalip Kumar that at that time, victim was frightened is a mere exaggeration and an ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:16 :::HCHP 11 improvement which never came to be recorded in his previous statement (Mark Z-1) with which he was .
confronted. Further, from the testimony of this witness it is evident that after the family members of the victim reached the hospital, they were proclaiming that the victim was burnt. They were also quarreling with the accused. Yet, he of did not take any action in the matter and the reason is not far to seek, for as is so admitted by him in the cross rt examination part of his testimony, that statement of the victim was to the effect what was recorded in the presence of the Doctor and the Tehsildar. He also admits that the relatives of the victim were aware of such statement recorded in the hospital.
18. Conjoint reading of the statements of close relatives of the victim, namely Vinod Kumar (PW-3), Ram Krishan (PW-7), Shakuntla Devi (PW-9), Kashmiro Devi (PW-
10), Ram Chand Bhatia (PW-11), Shashi Bala (PW-12) and Karam Chand (PW-14) reveals that they were fully aware of the dying declaration (Ext.PW2/D), yet till 3.12.2002 none disputed the veracity or contents thereof.
19. Statement (Ext.PW-2/D) is to the following effect:
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:16 :::HCHP 12'Statement of Smt. Geeta Kumari w/o Sumit Kumar, Caste Dalit R/o V.P.O. Kuhna, Tehsil Dehra, P.S. Jawalaji, Distt. Kangra, Age 28 years, .
At present Patwari, Tehsil Office Kangra.
Stated that I am resident of the aforesaid address and working on the post of Patwari at Tehsil Office Kangra for the last seven years. My marriage was solemnized with Sumit Kumar s/o of Sh. Kesar Chand as per Hindu rites and customs about five and a half years back. I have a daughter namely Prekshika who is aged three rt and a half years. I reside at my official residence, Kanungo Hut, along with my husband Sumit. My husband Sumit Kumar is employed as Daily Wages Lab Attendant, Dharamshala. On dated 25.11.2002 at 9.30 p.m. when I started preparing meals on the gas stove and lit the same, then all of a sudden gas came out in large quantity as a result of which the shirt which I was wearing caught fire. At that time my husband was in the room next to the kitchen. I screamed for help and started running towards the room of my husband on which my husband tried to extinguish the fire as a result of which he also sustained burn injuries on his hands. My husband poured water on me to douse off the fire. Then my neighbour Munshi, his family members and Tehsildar Medh Ram Sharma brought me to S.D.H. Kangra for treatment. This incident ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:16 :::HCHP 13 occurred at the time of lighting the gas stove suddenly. As the result of fire my stomach, arm .
and neck have burnt. In this incident, no one is at fault.'
20. There is no evidence, even remotely suggesting that this statement came to be made under any threat, fear of or intimidation. It does not even remotely link the accused to the crime. No role whatsoever is ascribed to him. From rt the statement of Vinod Kumar (PW-3) it is evidently clear that deceased was working in the office of the attesting witness (Tehsildar). It is nobody's case that accused was in a position to or had exercised any influence over the revenue officials, Doctor or the deceased.
21. Hence, keeping in view the law laid down by the apex Court in State of A. P. vs. Shaik Moin, (2004) 6 SCC 34;
Sher Singh & another vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 265;
Amol Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 5 SCC 468;
Nanhar & others vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 11 SCC 423;
Mukehsbhai Gopalbhai Barot vs. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 224; Krishan vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 3 SCC 280;
Panchanand Mandal alias Pachan Mandal & others vs. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 9 SCC 800; Bhadragiri Venkata Ravi ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:16 :::HCHP 14 vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2013) 14 SCC 145; and Vijay Pal vs. State .
(Government of NCT of Delhi), (2015) 5 SCC 749, dying declaration (Ext. PW-2/D) which stands proven on record, being voluntary in nature, can safely be relied upon as a relevant piece of evidence.
of
22. Relatives of the victim admit that deceased was in love with the accused; both were residing alone in the rt accommodation allotted by the government; deceased who was working as a Patwari had wanted her husband to get a better job.
23. On record, two versions have emerged, as to who had locked the house, after accused took the deceased to the hospital. On the date of the incident accused first took the deceased to the hospital, Kangra and thereafter to Chandigarh where he continued to remain with her till the last breath. It is nobody's case that in between, accused ever accessed his house. HC Dalip Kumar is categorical that he immediately "locked" the "premises so as to preserve the same". This was so done when family members of the victim "proclaimed that she was burnt". SI Prem Chand (PW-
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:16 :::HCHP 1521) states that he opened the lock during the course of investigation, which undisputedly began after registration of .
the F.I.R. (dated 4.12.2002). However, when we peruse the testimony of close relatives of the victim, including that of acquaintance Ram Krishan (PW-7), we find that keys of the lock were actually with him. In fact this witness admits that of before leaving for Chandigarh, both he and his niece (here he refers to Shashi Bala PW-12) had opened the lock and rt entered the premises when he noticed smell of kerosene oil, burnt match sticks and broken bangles.
24. From the testimony of these witnesses it is evident that in the Kangra hospital itself, motive of crime came to be disclosed to them. Deceased had informed that accused had demanded money and despite her having given `900/-, he persisted with such demands. She was beaten up, and after sprinkling kerosene oil accused had set her on fire. Now all this was so disclosed not only to Ram Krishan (PW-7) but also to Vinod Kumar (PW-3), yet no recovery was effected by the police or any report lodged by anyone.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:16 :::HCHP 1625. These witnesses want the Court to believe that the cause of fire came to be narrated by the deceased also .
at the hospital at Chandigarh. Vinod Kumar wants the court to believe that only under threat of the accused that her daughter would be killed, she made the dying declaration (Ext. PW-2/D). We do not find such version to be inspiring in of confidence, for such fact never came to be recorded by the police in his statement (Ext.PW-3/A) made under Section rt 154 Cr. P.C., with which he was confronted. It is not his case that police wrongly recorded such statement. Undisputedly between 26.11.2002 and 2.12.2002, accused who was alone, was attending to the deceased. Relatives of the victim, in large number, were also there. Now if the deceased had disclosed the real cause of incident, then why is it that the matter never came to be reported to anyone, including the Doctors in the hospital; police officials at Kangra or Chandigarh. Also why is it that any one of the relatives did not lodge any protest against the illegal acts of the police officials/Tehsildar in wrongful recording of the dying declaration.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:16 :::HCHP 1726. Further, Vinod Kumar admits that for better treatment, accused had got the deceased referred to .
Chandigarh where Doctors kept on attending to her. He did not even ask anyone to have the statement of the deceased recorded afresh. In his previous statement, he does not record the date of his discussion with the deceased. He of admits that accused himself had also sustained burn injuries. His version about misconduct rt of the accused never came to be disclosed by him in his previous statement.
27. Ram Krishan (PW-7) admits that he never went to Chandigarh. Keys of the house were with him. He does not state that the room was not tampered with. His version of having learnt about the real cause of the incident from the deceased is a mere exaggeration, for it not to have been recorded in his previous statement (Ext. DX) with which he was confronted. In fact, he goes to admit that statement (Ext. PW-2/D) was signed by the deceased in his presence.
28. To similar effect is the statement of Shakuntla Devi (PW-9) mother of the deceased. She has made several ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:16 :::HCHP 18 improvements and exaggerations. Her version that accused had married the deceased out of love for money; deceased .
had (i) narrated the real cause of the incident to her; (ii) made statement out of fear for her daughter's welfare; (iii) desired that she be saved; and that accused had demanded money and thereafter set her on fire, are all exaggerations of and improvements as it is nowhere recorded in her previous statement (Ext. DW-1) with which she was confronted.
rt
29. We need not elaborately discuss, but find that the version of Kashmiro Devi (PW-10), Ram Chand Bhatia (PW-11), Shashi Bala (PW-12) and Karam Chand (PW-14) is unbelievable for the very same reason. Police has not sided with the accused or incorrectly recorded such statement.
30. Careful perusal of cross examination part of the testimonies of relatives of the deceased would only reveal that there are several improvements, exaggerations and embellishments, rendering their version to be unbelievable and witnesses to be unreliable.
31. Hence, it cannot be said that these witnesses have been able to establish the real cause of the incident to have been disclosed to them by the deceased. Dying ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:16 :::HCHP 19 declaration, ocular in nature, cannot be said to be proven on record by leading clear, cogent, consistent and reliable .
piece of evidence.
32. The delay of eight days in lodging the F.I.R. (Ext.
PW-17/A) remains unexplained by the prosecution. As already discussed, relatives of the victim did not lodge any of protest against anyone. They remained silent despite the fact that they suspected involvement of the accused in the rt alleged crime. Where is this daughter? how old is she?
remains unexplained on record. It is not the case of neighbour Munshi Ram (PW-8) that at the time of incident, child was at home. Also initially police did not register any case against the accused. In fact, spot of crime also never came to be inspected by them. Statements of the witnesses came to be recorded much after lodging of the complaint by Vinod Kumar (PW-3) which was done on 3.12.2002.
33. It is not the case of the prosecution that health of the victim was improving and the relatives wanted the marriage to be saved. Accused was alone, unable to exhibit or exercise any influence. His economic and social status was far lower than that of the deceased. Even the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:16 :::HCHP 20 colleagues of the deceased did not suspect any hand of the accused in the alleged crime.
.
34. Hence in the given facts and circumstances delay of eight days in lodging the F.I.R. is fatal to the prosecution [Rajeevan & another vs. State of Kerala, (2003) 3 SCC 355; Shankarlal vs. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 10 SCC of 632; State of Rajasthan vs. Bhanwar Singh, (2004) 13 SCC 147; and A. Shankar vs. State of Karnataka, (2011) 6 SCC rt 279].
35. Through the testimony of Madan Lal (PW-4) prosecution wants the court to believe that there was no malfunction of the regulator of the gas cylinder. Well it is not the case of the deceased that the gas cylinder had burst. It is the specific case that clothes worn by the deceased caught fire from the gas stove while preparing the meals.
36. In order to establish that the accused, after pouring kerosene oil set the deceased on fire, our attention is invited to the testimonies of Vinod Kumar (PW-3) and SI Prem Chand (PW-21). The Investigating Officer states that from the room he recovered broken bangles, burnt pieces of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:16 :::HCHP 21 cloth, hair clip, one match box and one plastic can of five litres containing drops of kerosene oil. Repetitive though, .
but it is relevant to reiterate that the Doctor did not find any smell of kerosene oil at the time of the examination of the victim. Also Vinod Kumar (PW-3) and Ram Krishan (PW-7) did not notice any can of kerosene oil (Ext. P-5), so of recovered by the police, at the time they visited the house, prior to the victim being taken to Chandigarh. Significantly rt Ram Krishan wants the court to believe that he visited the house with Shashi Bala (PW-12) who is conspicuously silent about any such visit. In fact, she is categorical of having visited the house only once i.e. on 5.12.2002. In view of the aforesaid contradictions having emerged on record, not much credence can be lent to the recovery of can of kerosene oil (Ext.P-5) or burnt match sticks from the house of the accused. None has come forward to depose that the spot of crime was kept safe and not tampered with.
37. By way of corroborative link evidence, that of the experts, accused is not linked to the crime. Report of State Forensic Science Laboratory, Shimla (Ext.PW-21/K) evidences that in the can (Ext.P-5) and pieces of cloth ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:16 :::HCHP 22 (Ex.P6 to Ex.P9), traces of kerosene oil were found. But then, how did the can reach the spot of crime, remains a .
mystery and why is it that pieces of clothes worn by the deceased not taken into possession in the hospital itself remains unexplained. No charred portions of clothes were noticed by the Doctor.
of
38. In the instant case, prosecution has failed to establish any motive. It is not a case of bride burning or rt death as a result of dowry demand. It is case of murder.
There is no spot witness to the crime. The neighbour (PW-8) who was the first one to have reached the spot, never suspected role of the accused in the alleged crime.
Deceased voluntarily made statement (ExtPW2/D) in the presence of government officers.
39. From the material placed on record, prosecution has failed to establish that the accused is guilty of having committed the offence, he stands charged for. The circumstances cannot be said to have been proved by unbroken chain of unimpeachable testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The guilt of the accused does not stand proved beyond reasonable doubt to the hilt.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:16 :::HCHP 2340. Having perused the testimony of prosecution witnesses on record, it cannot be said that prosecution has .
been able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt, to the effect that accused murdered the deceased, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable material on record.
41. The Court below, in our considered view, has of correctly and completely appreciated the evidence so placed on record by the prosecution. It cannot be said that rt the findings returned by the trial Court are perverse, illegal, erroneous or based on incorrect and incomplete appreciation of material on record resulting into miscarriage of justice.
42. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94, since it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice, no interference is warranted in the instant case.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:16 :::HCHP 24For all the aforesaid reasons, present appeal, devoid of merit, is dismissed, so also pending applications, .
if any. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. Records of the Court below be immediately sent back.
of (Sanjay Karol), Judge.
rt (Ajay Mohan Goel),
Judge.
September 16 , 2016 (PK)
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:16 :::HCHP