Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljit Singh Alias Gogu vs State Of Punjab on 6 September, 2012
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Inderjit Singh
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
(1) Criminal Appeal No.D-1145-DB of 2010
.....
Date of decision:6.9.2012
Baljit Singh alias Gogu
...Appellant
v.
State of Punjab
...Respondent
....
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Kumar Mittal
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
(2) Criminal Appeal No.D-1197-DB of 2010
.....
Shabeg Singh alias Sega and another
...Appellants
v.
State of Punjab
...Respondent
....
(3) Criminal Appeal No.D-1203-DB of 2010
.....
Sukhwant Singh alias Sukha Bangali
...Appellant
v.
State of Punjab
...Respondent
....
(4) Criminal Appeal No.D-108-DB of 2011
.....
Gurpreet Singh alias Gora
...Appellant
v.
State of Punjab
...Respondent
....
Cr. Appeal Nos.D-1145-DB of 2010 etc.
[2]
Present: Mr. Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta, Advocate for the appellant in
Criminal Appeal No.D-1145-DB of 2010.
Mr. Sanjeev Sharma and Ms. Dhriti Sharma, Advocates for
appellant No.2 in Criminal Appeal Nos.D-1197-DB of 2010 and
Criminal Appeal No.D-108-DB of 2011.
Mr. O.P. Kamboj, Advocate for the appellant in
Criminal Appeal No.D-1203-DB of 2010.
Mr. Ritu Punj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
......
Inderjit Singh, J.
This judgment will dispose of above mentioned four appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal No.D-1145-DB of 2010 filed by Baljit Singh alias Gogu; Criminal Appeal No.D-1197-DB of 2010 filed by Shabeg Singh alias Sega and Harraj Kaur; Criminal Appeal No.D-1203-DB of 2010 filed by Sukhwant Singh alias Sukha Bangali and Criminal Appeal No.D-108-DB of 2011 filed by Gurpreet Singh alias Gora as these arise out of the same judgment and order dated 19.10.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib.
These appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 19.10.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, whereby accused-appellant Shabeg Singh alias Sega has been held guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' - for short); accused-appellants Sukhwant Singh alias Sukha and Baljit Singh alias Gogu for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and accused- appellants Harraj Kaur and Gurpreet Singh alias Gora for the offences under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 302 IPC. Appellant-Shabeg Singh Cr. Appeal Nos.D-1145-DB of 2010 etc. [3] alias Sega has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of `2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Appellants-Sukhwant Singh alias Sukha and Baljit Singh have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment each and to pay a fine of `2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Appellants-Harraj Kaur and Gurpreet Singh alias Gora have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment each and to pay a fine of `2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the offence under Section 120-B read with Section 302 IPC. All the sentences of imprisonment have, however, been ordered to run concurrently.
The FIR in the present case has been registered on the statement of Dial Singh-complainant, who stated that he and his younger brother Iqbal Singh reside in their fields by constructing separate houses. For the last about four days of the occurrence, Gurmeet Singh alias Meeta was working with him on daily wages. On 2.1.2006 at about 6.30 p.m., his brother Iqbal Singh came and asked him if Gurmeet Singh alias Meeta had gone to his house or not as he had received a telephonic call from one Gora Singh son of Jagtar Singh of Pakki Tibbi and he asked whether Gurmeet Singh alias Meeta had set out for Pakki Tibbi or not. At that time, Gurmeet Singh alias Meeta came to them and then Iqbal Singh told him regarding the telephone call of Gora Singh. On hearing this, Gurmeet Singh alias Meeta told them that Shabeg Singh alias Sega of Pakki Tibbi brother of Gora Singh Cr. Appeal Nos.D-1145-DB of 2010 etc. [4] had illicit relations with his wife Harraj Kaur, to whom he had been preventing so many times from indulging in this relation. One day, Shabeg Singh came to his house early in the morning and there was exchange of hot words between them. On that day, his wife Harraj Kaur was saying to Shabeg Singh alias Sega in his presence that get rid her from him. He also told that his wife Harraj Kaur wanted to get him killed from Shabeg Singh alias Sega and Gora Singh etc., on which the complainant told him that he would accompany him to leave him at his house. Then complainant and Gurmeet Singh started on separate cycles. Gurmeet Singh alias Meeta was ahead of the complainant. At about 7.15 p.m., when they reached near the fields of Manjit Singh, then ahead of left side of passage near the cotton sticks lying on the heap of earth, Shabeg Singh alias Sega armed with `Kulhari', Sukha Bangali armed with `Dang' and Baljit Singh alias Gogu armed with `Sota', who were already known to the complainant, were standing. When Gurmeet Singh alias Meeta reached near them, Shabeg Singh alias Sega gave a `Kulhari' blow on the left eye and forehead of Gurmeet Singh alias Meeta and he fell down. On his falling, Sukha and Baljit Singh gave `Sotti' blows to him. Shabeg Singh gave another `Kulhari' blow to Gurmeet Singh which hit on his face. The complainant raised an alarm. Shabeg Singh also threatened the complainant that if he disclosed anything to any body, then he would also have to face the same consequences. Then the above accused fled away from the spot along with their respective weapons. When the complainant saw Gurmeet Singh alias Meeta, he found that he had already died. The complainant returned back to his house and narrated the entire incident to his brother Iqbal Singh, who Cr. Appeal Nos.D-1145-DB of 2010 etc. [5] suggested the complainant that information should be given to the brother of Gurmeet Singh alias Meeta (deceased), who resides in Amritsar. Then the complainant went to village of the deceased i.e. Village Sarai Amanat Khan, District Amritsar to inform the brother of the deceased and Iqbal Singh was left to guard the dead body of Gurmeet Singh. Rulia Singh, brother of Gurmeet Singh and Jarnail Singh, father of the deceased along with the complainant went to the Police Station and statement of Dial Singh-complainant was recorded by SI Ranjit Singh, SHO, Police Station Sadar, Malout at about 5.00 p.m. on 3.1.2006. `Ruqa' was sent on the basis of which FIR was registered by ASI Surjit Singh, Police Station Sadar, Malout.
Then the Investigating Officer SI Ranjit Singh, SHO along with other Police officials, complainant Dial Singh, Rulia Singh and Jarnail Singh reached the place of occurrence and inspected the spot. The dead body of Gurmeet Singh alias Meeta was lying there. Inquest report was prepared. Photographer was also called at the spot. Cycle was taken in Police possession. The dead body was handed over to HC Kashmiri Lal for getting conducted the post-mortem examination. Blood stained earth was taken from the spot in a sealed parcel. Rough site plan was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded.
On 4.1.2006, PW-9 Dr. R.K. Gupta, Senior Medical Officer, along with Dr. Sunil Bansal and Dr. G.S. Bhullar conducted the post- mortem examination on the dead body of Gurmeet Singh alias Meeta and found the following injuries:-
"(i) Incised wound on upper side of right eye brow starting Cr. Appeal Nos.D-1145-DB of 2010 etc. [6] from lateral side of right eye going upwards of size 9.0 x 2.0 cm. Skull badly fractured in area. Brain matter badly lacerated and came out from wound. (Brain matter). Clotted blood was present.
(ii) Incised wound on left side of lower lip 1.0 cm from middle line of size, 2.0 cm x 1.0 cm (lip cut in two pieces). Clotted blood was present."
In their opinion, the cause of death in this case was due to severe brain injury due to injury No.1 which alone or in combination with injury No.2 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. The weapon used was sharp edged.
On 4.1.2006, the parcel of clothes of deceased was handed over to the Investigation Officer, which was taken into Police possession. On 13.2.2006, the Investigating Officer received computer bill from Surinder Kumar and it was taken into Police possession. On 25.2.2006, the Investigating Officer was present when Baldev Singh, Sarpanch of Village Pakki Tibbi produced accused Shabeg Singh alias Sega along with the remaining four accused of the case. The accused were arrested. Then on interrogation appellant Shabeg Singh alias Sega suffered disclosure statement that he kept concealed the `Kulhari' and in pursuance of his disclosure statement he got recovered the `Kulhari'. Rough site plan of recovery was also prepared. `Kulhari' was blood stained and after preparing parcel it was taken into Police possession. After necessary investigation, challan was presented.
On presentation of challan, the trial Court finding prima facie Cr. Appeal Nos.D-1145-DB of 2010 etc. [7] charges against all the accused-appellants framed charges for the offences under Sections 120-B IPC and against accused-appellants Shabeg Singh alias Sega, Sukhwant Singh alias Sukha and Baljit Singh for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC. The accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to above charges and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dial Singh-complainant, who mainly deposed as per prosecution version. PW-2 Iqbal Singh is the brother of the complainant, who also deposed as per prosecution version. PW-3 HC Sukhwinder Singh and PW-4 HC Gurmej Singh are formal witnesses, who tendered in evidence their affidavits Exs.PB and PC respectively. PW-5 Jagmit Singh is the photographer, who mainly deposed regarding the photographs. PW-6 ASI Kashmiri Lal mainly deposed regarding getting conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Gurmeet Singh. PW-6 (again marked as PW-6) Constable Rattan Singh, is a formal witness, who tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PF. PW-7 Inspector Ranjit Singh is the Investigating Officer, who mainly deposed regarding investigation of the case. PW-8 Jugraj Singh was in the Police party of the Investigating Officer on 3.1.2006 and deposed regarding the investigation of the case. He also deposed regarding the arrest of the accused and the disclosure statement and recovery of `Kulhari' by accused- appellant Shabeg Singh alias Sega. PW-9, Dr. R.K. Gupta mainly deposed regarding conducting of post-mortem examination on the dead body of Gurmeet Singh alias Meeta. PW-10 Rulia Singh is the brother of the deceased, who deposed that Harraj Kaur was wife of Gurmeet Singh. He also deposed that Harraj Kaur was having illicit relations with Sega alias Cr. Appeal Nos.D-1145-DB of 2010 etc. [8] Shabeg Singh as told to his father Jarnail Singh by his brother Gurmeet Singh. PW-11 Surinder Kumar is the owner of PCO. He stated that the number of his PCO is 282458 at Village Pakki Tibbi. On 2.1.2006, he was in the fields. This witness had not supported the prosecution version and got declared hostile by the prosecution. PW-12 Baldev Singh is the Sarpanch of Village Pakki Tibbi. He mainly deposed that on 25.2.2006 he was present at his house. Accused Shabeg Singh alias Sega along with Gurpreet Singh alias Gora, Harraj Kaur alias Raju, Sukha Bangali and Baljit Singh came to his house. All the accused stated before him that they murdered Gurmeet Singh alias Meeta of Village Pakki Tibbi and they requested him to save them by surrendering them before the Police. Accused Shabeg Singh alias Sega stated to him that he had illicit relations with the wife of Gurmeet Singh alias Meeta (deceased) and he had seen them in compromising position whereupon Harraj Kaur, wife of Gurmeet Singh, exhorted accused Shabeg Singh to get rid of Gurmeet Singh otherwise the matter would be spoiled by him. He deposed further regarding the joint confession made by the accused.
At the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the evidence of the prosecution. They denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded themselves as innocent and have stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. Appellant-Shabeg Singh alias Sega deposed that he is innocent. He had no concern regarding death or murder of Gurmeet Singh deceased. Harraj Kaur had no illicit relations with him. All allegations levelled against him are false one. He did not make any extra-
Cr. Appeal Nos.D-1145-DB of 2010 etc. [9] judicial confession before PW Baldev Singh or any of the Police official nor make any disclosure statement alleged by the prosecution. Nothing was recovered at my instance. The Police had falsely planted the recovery of `Kulhari' and created a false evidence against him. Appellant-Gurpreet Singh alias Gora deposed that he is innocent. He did not make any telephone call to the PCO of Surinder Kumar at the `Dahni' of Iqbal Singh etc. on 2.1.2006 nor inquired anything about Gurmeet Singh. He did not make any extra judicial confession before PW Baldev Singh or any of the Police officials. He had no concern with the murder or death of Gurmeet Singh. Appellants-Sukhwant Singh and Baljit Singh deposed that they are innocent. They had no concern with the murder of Gurmeet Singh and had no concern with any Shabeg Singh etc. They did not make any extra judicial confession before PW Baldev Singh nor Baldev Singh produced him before the Police. He was already in illegal custody of the police and false arrest was shown by the Police. They had been falsely implicated in this case. Appellant-Harraj Kaur deposed that she is innocent. She had no illicit relations with Shabeg Singh nor any other person. She had no concern with the murder of her husband. In fact, the murder of her husband was a blind murder and in order to grab her property and property of her husband, her in-laws after making a fictitious story regarding illicit relations with Shabeg Singh and got registered the said FIR in connivance with Dial Singh etc. In defence, they produced DW-1 Ravi Kumar, Member Panchayat of Village Balluana, who mainly deposed that in February 2006 Baljit Singh alias Gogu was spraying in his fields. The Police came at Cr. Appeal Nos.D-1145-DB of 2010 etc. [10] Village Balluana at that time and Baljit Singh was taken away by the Police by stating that he was required for interrogation in a `Kinnu' theft case. When they went to Police Station, Malout, the Police told them that they had arrested the accused in a murder case. DW-2 Gurjit Singh also deposed that Baljit Singh was taken away by the Police when he was working in the fields of Ravi Kumar.
From the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the offences as mentioned above.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully.
At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants mainly argued that first of all neither `Sota' nor `Dang' has been recovered from accused-appellant Baljit Singh alias Gogu and Sukhwant Singh alias Sukha Bangali during the investigation nor any injury with blunt weapon had been found on the person of the deceased. The occurrence is of 2.1.2006 at 7.15 a.m. and the FIR was registered at 5.00 p.m. on 3.1.2006 after delay of 22 hours and the special report was sent to Illaqa Magistrate at 7.00 p.m. on 4.1.2006. The version of the complainant is given after due deliberations and the accused-appellants have been falsely implicated. Learned counsel for the appellants next contended that there is no cogent evidence on record of any type to show illicit relations of Harraj Kaur with Shabeg Singh alias Sega. There is no evidence of criminal conspiracy in the present case. The statement of the witnesses cannot be believed regarding the illicit relations of Harraj Kaur with Shabeg Singh. Learned counsel next contended that regarding appellant Gurpreet Singh alias Gora there is again Cr. Appeal Nos.D-1145-DB of 2010 etc. [11] no cogent evidence on record to show that he made the telephone call to Iqbal Singh as PW-11 Surinder Kumar, owner of the PCO had not supported the prosecution version. Learned counsel for the appellants next contended that the statement of Baldev Singh, Sarpanch regarding extra-judicial confession also cannot be believed as he deposed regarding the joint confession of all the accused and he had deposed some facts which were deposed by Shabeg Singh alias Sega only. Therefore, the joint extra-judicial confession is inadmissible in evidence. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that there is nothing on the record as to how the accused were identified by Dial Singh the so called eye witness.
On the other hand learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent-State argued that the case of the prosecution has been duly proved from the statements of the witnesses and by eye witness PW-1 Dial Singh-complainant. His version is supported by Iqbal Singh-his brother and from the medical evidence and investigation of the case. Further version of the prosecution is supported by PW-12 Baldev Singh, Sarpanch, before whom extra-judicial confession was made by the accused and further from the recovery of blood stained `Kulhari' from Shabeg Singh alias Sega in pursuance of his disclosure statement. The motive in the present case has been duly proved as Shabeg Singh alias Sega had illicit relations with Harraj Kaur wife of the deceased. Therefore, she argued that there is no merit in the appeals and the same are liable to be dismissed.
From the evidence on record as regards the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, we find merit as no `Sota' or `Dang' Cr. Appeal Nos.D-1145-DB of 2010 etc. [12] had been recovered from appellant-Baljit Singh alias Gogu or Sukhwant Singh alias Sukha Bangali. Secondly, as per post-mortem report, no injury was found with blunt weapon. It is specifically deposed by PW-9 Dr. R.K. Gupta in his cross-examination that except injuries No.1 and 2 there was no injury on the dead body of Gurmeet Singh alias Meeta and injuries No.1 and 2 could not be caused with blunt weapon. There was no blunt weapon injury on the body of the deceased. In view of his cross-examination, a reasonable doubt exists regarding the presence of appellants Baljit Singh alias Gogu and Sukhwant Singh alias Sukha Bangali on the spot.
There is also a delay of 22 hours in recording the FIR, therefore, there is every chance to name more persons in the occurrence. Otherwise also, there is nothing on the record to see the motive of both these appellants Baljit Singh alias Gogu and Sukhwant Singh alias Sukha Bangali to participate in the commission of the offence. They also belong to Village Balluana whereas the other three appellants are residents of Pakki Tibbi. Therefore, in view of the evidence on record and in view of the fact that no weapon of offence had been recovered from appellants Baljit Singh and Sukhwant Singh alias Sukha Bangali and no injury was found as per post-mortem report with blunt weapon, therefore, a reasonable doubt exists regarding the involvement of both these appellants in the occurrence. Further we find that there is no cogent evidence on record to show criminal conspiracy on behalf of Baljit Singh and Sukhwant Singh along with other accused.
As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants relating to appellant Gurpreet Singh alias Gora, we again find no Cr. Appeal Nos.D-1145-DB of 2010 etc. [13] cogent evidence on record to connect him with the crime. The only allegation against him is that he called upon Iqbal Singh and inquired whether Gurmeet Singh alias Meeta had started for the village or not and he rang up from telephone No.282458. The owner of the PCO PW-11 Surinder Kumar was examined by the prosecution but this witness had not supported the prosecution version and was declared hostile. This witness no where deposed that Gurpreet Singh alias Gora had made the call from his PCO. Therefore, there is no cogent evidence on record to connect Gurpreet Singh alias Gora with the occurrence. Admittedly, he was not present at the time of occurrence and there is no other cogent evidence on record regarding the criminal conspiracy regarding his involvement in the present occurrence. Therefore, a reasonable doubt also exists regarding his involvement.
As regards the next contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that there is no evidence under Section 120-B IPC against appellant Harraj Kaur and there is also no evidence to show any relation of Harraj Kaur with Shabeg Singh alias Sega. On this contention, we find that there are only oral statements of Dial Singh and Iqbal Singh. The basis of their statements is that deceased Gurmeet Singh alias Meeta told them regarding this fact. Again the statement of Rulia Singh PW-10 brother of the deceased also cannot be believed as he had deposed that these facts of illicit relations etc. were told by Gurmeet Singh to his father Jarnail Singh but in the present case Jarnail Singh-father had not been examined. There is again no documentary evidence of any type on the record nor there is any cogent evidence that Gurmeet Singh alias Meeta ever made complaint to the Gram Panchayat or any body else regarding illicit relations of Harraj Kaur Cr. Appeal Nos.D-1145-DB of 2010 etc. [14] with Shabeg Singh alias Sega.
As regards the extra-judicial confession made before Baldev Singh, Sarpanch, we find that PW-12 Baldev Singh had stated that all the accused had come to him and made a joint extra-judicial confession. Joint extra-judicial confession is inadmissible in evidence. The only fact which Shabeg Singh alone had told to him can be taken into consideration. Further more, PW-12 Baldev Singh in his cross-examination had tried to make improvements by stating that the other accused also made confessional statements individually. But this statement in cross- examination is contradictory to the statement in examination-in-chief that the accused made joint extra-judicial confession. Therefore, much reliance cannot be placed regarding the extra-judicial confession especially in view of the facts that the extra-judicial confession of appellants Baljit Singh and Sukhwant Singh gave injuries to Gurmeet Singh alias Meeta with `Dang' and `Sota' are not true as there was no blunt weapon injury on the person of Gurmeet Singh alias Meeta. Therefore, as regards appellant Baljit Singh, Harraj Kaur, Sukhwant Singh and Gurpreet Singh alias Gora this extra- judicial confession cannot be believed and is inadmissible in evidence being joint confession. Further, we find that there is also nothing on the record to prove the identity of accused as Dial Singh-complainant belongs to Village Kattianwali whereas the appellants are belonging to Village Balluana and Pakki Tibbi. There is nothing on the record as to how the complainant knew all the appellants and how he identified them. In cross-examination, he stated that he was not having any dealings with the accused persons at any time at Village Balluana which is at a distance of 5 kms. from Pakki Tibbi.
Cr. Appeal Nos.D-1145-DB of 2010 etc. [15] He has no relations at Village Balluana. Therefore, from the evidence on record, we find that a reasonable doubt exists regarding the involvement of accused-appellants Baljit Singh, Harraj Kaur, Sukhwant Singh, Gurpreet Singh alias Gora in the commission of the offence. There is no evidence regarding criminal conspiracy nor these appellants have taken any active participation in the commission of offence. Keeping in view the delay in recording the FIR, the possibility of naming them in the present case cannot be ruled out. Therefore, a reasonable doubt exists regarding the involvement of these appellants Baljit Singh, Harraj Kaur, Sukhwant Singh, Gurpreet Singh alias Gora, benefit of doubt is to go to the appellants and by giving them benefit of doubt, we hold all these appellants not guilty of the offence they were charged.
As regards appellant Shabeg Singh alias Sega, there is cogent evidence on record regarding causing injuries to Gurmeet Singh alias Meeta with `Kulhari'. He got recovered `Kulhari' as per his disclosure statement which was blood stained as per the report of FSL also. Thus, recovery of blood stained `Kulhari' also supports and corroborates the version of PW-1 Dial Singh-complainant. Again the injuries given by Shabeg Singh alias Sega with `Kulhari' are duly supported and corroborated by medical evidence and the investigation of this case. There is no enmity or motive of the PWs specially the Police officials to depose against Shabeg Singh alias Sega. In extra-judicial confession also as per PW-12 Baldev Singh, he had given some facts individually whereas the other accused are stated to have made joint statement. Therefore, they have been given the benefit of making joint confession whereas Shabeg Singh alias Sega made the extra-
Cr. Appeal Nos.D-1145-DB of 2010 etc. [16] judicial confession regarding his illicit relations with the wife of Gurmeet Singh alias Meeta. Otherwise also, the main allegations were against Shabeg Singh alias Sega, who caused the injuries and death of Gurmeet Singh alias Meeta. Therefore, the prosecution had led cogent evidence on record against appellant Shabeg Singh alias Sega.
Therefore, from the above discussion, Criminal Appeal No.D- 1145-DB of 2010; Criminal Appeal No.D-1203-DB of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.D-108-DB of 2011 filed by accused-appellants Baljit Singh alias Gogu, Sukhwant Singh alias Sukha Bangali and Gurpreet Singh alias Gora respectively are allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is set aside.
Criminal Appeal No.D-1197-DB of 2010 filed by Shabeg Singh alias Sega and Harraj Kaur is partly allowed and impugned judgment and order of sentence qua accused-appellant No.2-Harraj Kaur is set aside and she is acquitted of all the charges and appeal qua appellant No.1-Shabeg Singh alias Sega is dismissed.
Appellants, namely, Baljit Singh alias Gogu, Sukhwant Singh alias Sukha Bangali, Gurpreet Singh alias Gora and Harraj Kaur, who are in custody, be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Copy of this judgment be placed on the files of the connected appeals.
(Satish Kumar Mittal) (Inderjit Singh)
Judge Judge
September 6, 2012.
*hsp*