Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mulakh Raj And Others vs State Of Haryana on 12 September, 2012
Author: Rekha Mittal
Bench: Rajive Bhalla, Rekha Mittal
Crl. Appeal No. D-844-DB of 2007 -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Appeal No. D-844-DB of 2007(O&M)
Date of Decision: September 12, 2012
Mulakh Raj and others
---Appellants
versus
State of Haryana
---Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajive Bhalla
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal
Present: Mr.Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Ravinder Singh, Advocate,
for the appellants
Mr. Dhruv Dayal, DAG, Haryana
***
REKHA MITTAL, J.
1. The present appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1.9.2007 and 4.9.2007, respectively, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ambala, whereby the appellants namely; Mulakh Raj, Som Nath, Sher Singh, Hukmi Devi and Chandi Devi have been convicted and sentenced for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"), as detailed hereinbelow:-
Name of Under Section Sentence imposed
accused
Mulakh Raj Under Section 302 To undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine
read with Section 34 of ` 2500/-. In default of payment of fine, to IPC further undergo imprisonment for three months Som Nath Under Section 302 To undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine read with Section 34 of ` 2500/-. In default of payment of fine, to IPC further undergo imprisonment for three months.
Sher Singh Under Section 302 To undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine read with Section 34 of ` 2500/-. In default of payment of fine, to IPC further undergo imprisonment for three months.
Crl. Appeal No. D-844-DB of 2007 -2-
Name of Under Section Sentence imposed
accused
Hukmi Devi Under Section 302 To undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine read with Section 34 of ` 2500/-. In default of payment of fine, to IPC further undergo imprisonment for three months.
Chandi Devi Under Section 302 To undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine read with Section 34 of ` 2500/-. In default of payment of fine, to IPC further undergo imprisonment for three months.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 8.4.2006, Smt. Usha Rani, wife of accused Mulakh Raj, was brought to M.M.Medical College & Hospital, Mullana, with burn injuries. Ruqa, Ex. PD, was sent to Police Station, Brara. S.I. Ishwar Dass (PW-16) (then A.S.I.) reached the hospital and moved an application, Ex. PV, to seek opinion regarding the fitness of the injured to make statement. The injured was declared unfit to make statement, vide opinion Ex. PV/1 of Dr. Mohammad Rafiq Ansari. On the same day, in the evening, ASI Ishwar Dass, again sought opinion of the doctor regarding fitness of the injured to make statement. Dr. Tuffail Ahmed Saddiquie gave opinion declaring the injured fit to make statement. ASI Ishwar Dass, submitted an application, Ex. PH, before the then Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala Cantt., for recording statement of the injured. Shri N.K.Singhal, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala Cantt., (PW-8), after seeking the opinion of the doctor regarding fitness of the injured to make statement, recorded statement, Ex. PJ/2(known as dying declaration) of Smt. Usha. The statement was duly thumb marked by the deceased. ASI Ishwar Dass made endorsement on the copy of the statement of the injured and ruqa was sent to the police station, on the basis of which FIR, Ex. PM, for offence under Section 307/120-B IPC, was recorded by ASI Babu Ram, in Police Station Barar. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Rough site plan, Ex. PY, of the place of occurrence, was prepared. One stove, burnt Crl. Appeal No. D-844-DB of 2007 -3- clothes of the deceased and burnt pieces of gunny bag were taken into police possession from the place of occurrence, vide memo Ex. PU. Accused Mulakh Raj was arrested on 10.4.2006. Accused Som Nath, Chandi Devi and Hukmi Devi were arrested on 9.5.2006, while accused Sher Singh was arrested on 17.5.2006. The injured died on 14.4.2006 in PGI, Chandigarh, due to burn injuries. On receipt of information regarding death of the injured, inquest proceedings were prepared. Post mortem on the dead body was got conducted from Civil Hospital, Ambala City. On completion of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure( for short "Cr.P.C.") was submitted for the trial of the accused.
3. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala Cantt., vide order dated 6.7.2006, as offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions.
4. The accused were charge sheeted for commission of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
5. To substantiate the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses, i.e., Dr. Tina Anand, PW-1, Dr. Gurmeet Singh, PW-2, Head Constable Balkar Singh, PW-3, Constable Chiranji Lal, PW-4, Sub Inspector Ashwani Kumar, PW-5, Constable Jai Singh, PW-6, Constable Ram Saran Draftsman, PW-7, Sh. N.K.Singhal, the then Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala Cantt., PW-8, Tilak Raj, Photographer, PW-9, ASI Babu Ram, PW-10, ASI Hannu Ram, PW-11, Ratti Ram,(father of the deceased) complainant, PW-12, Rajesh,brother of the deceased, PW-13, Crl. Appeal No. D-844-DB of 2007 -4- Head Constable Rajinder Singh, PW-14, Dr. Mohammad Rafiq Ansari, PW- 15, Sub Inspector Ishwar Dass, Investigating Officer PW-16, Dr. Tuffail Ahmed Saddiquie, PW-17.
6. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused, in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., were recorded. They denied all the incriminating circumstances which appeared in evidence against them. They examined Ram Karan as DW-1, in their defence.
7. Out of the 17 witnesses which were examined by the prosecution, it is necessary to make reference in some details to the evidence of Dr. Tina Anand PW-1, Dr. Gurmeet Singh PW-2, Sh. N.K. Singhal PW-8, Dr. Tuffail Ahmed Saddiquie PW-17.
8. Dr. Tina Anand PW-1, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ambala City, along with Dr. Kailash Chaudhary, conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Usha. She observed as under:-
"Body of young female, well built measuring 5' 2'' in length. No clothes on the body, body covered all over with cotton and bandage. Rigor mortis was present all over the body. Post mortem staining could not be made out because of extensive burns. The burns were of first and second degree all over the body except for scalp, pelvic area, lower part of both the lower legs and both feet shaved amounting to 90 % of the body. Superficial slough present over the burns. Dry pus present over burn area. On opening the skull, brain is congested Spinal cord not opened. Second degree burns were present on the chest wall. Plurae B/L adherent. Both the lungs contained multiple foci of infection. Right atrium contains blood. Left side of heart empty. Central veins are dilated and are full of blood. Peritoneum, mouth, pharynx and oesophagus were congested. Stomach was congested and empty. Liver contains Crl. Appeal No. D-844-DB of 2007 -5- multiple foci of infection. Spleen and kidneys, congested. Bladder, empty. External and internal organs of generation were healthy. Uterus was healthy, multiparious in size and empty."
She proved the post mortem report, Ex. PB. The cause of death was opined to be septicemia following ante mortem 90 per cent burns.
9. Dr. Gurmeet Singh PW-2, Medical Officer, M.M.Medical College & Hospital, Mullana, medico legally examined Usha, vide MLR Ex. PC. He found following injuries on her person:-
"1)Superficial to deep burns over face, neck scalp shaves.
2)Deep burns over chest abdomen and on whole back side
3)Deep burns over both the arms.
4)Deep burns over both legs upto the level of lower half of lower legs
5)Deep burns over both hips."
10. Sh. N.K.Singhal, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala Cantt. PW-8, recorded the statement of the deceased (dying declaration), in view of application, Ex. PH, submitted by ASI Ishwar Dass, the Investigating Officer of the case. Before recording the statement of the deceased, he sought opinion of the doctor in respect of the fitness of the injured to make statement, which was recorded in the hospital. He recorded statement Ex. PJ/2, of the injured, who admitted the same to be correct and affixed her thumb impression. He deposed that after recording her statement, again fitness was obtained, vide Ex. PJ/3, and the doctor had declared her fit through out and he (N.K.Singhal) made endorsement, Ex. PJ/4, recording his satisfaction. He has further deposed that before recording the statement Crl. Appeal No. D-844-DB of 2007 -6- of the injured, he asked every body present in the hall to leave.
11. Dr. Tuffail Ahmed Saddiqquie, deposed that on 8.4.2006, he was on duty. At about 7.15 p.m., Sh. N.K.Singhal, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala Cantt., sought his opinion regarding fitness of Usha injured, to record her statement. He gave opinion Ex. PJ/1, that patient was fit and conscious. After recording of the statement, he again gave his opinion Ex. PJ/3, that patient remained fit and conscious throughout.
12. Ratti Ram, PW-12, father of the deceased and Rajesh, PW-13, brother of the deceased, failed to support the prosecution case. Both these witnesses were declared hostile and were permitted to be cross examined by the public prosecutor, representing the State.
13. We have heard Sh. Vinod Ghai, counsel for the appellants and Sh. Dhruv Dayal, DAG, Haryana, representing the State.
14. The prosecution case is primarily based on the statement of deceased which was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate on the date of occurrence (8.4.2006) at about 7-00 p.m. ( in common parlance, known as dying declaration). Smt. Usha died due to burn injuries on 14.4.2006 in PGI Chandigarh. Counsel for the appellants has been fair enough to concede that dying declaration alone can form the basis for conviction, provided that the same is reliable, truthful and inspires confidence in the mind of the Court.
15. Mr. Ghai, Advocate, has assailed the dying declaration on different counts to contend that it is not of a sterling quality to form the basis of conviction. To bring home his contention, he has raised the Crl. Appeal No. D-844-DB of 2007 -7- following points:-
(i)The first statement of the victim to the doctor while giving history during her medico legal examination is that the occurrence was accidental due to bursting of stove.
(ii) Absence of the certificate of the doctor in respect of the mental fitness of the victim to make her statement.
(iii) Mulakh Raj, accused, husband of the victim was not present at home at the time of occurrence , which rules out the possibility of her being set ablaze by him.
(iv) Mulakh Raj and his brothers alongwith their families were living separately and thus they possibly had no role to play.
(v) The subsequent conduct of the accused i.e., effort of Som Nath to extinguish the fire with dari and shifting of the injured to the hospital within a short duration of occurrence, by Mulakh Raj.
(vi)Non-supporting of the version of the prosecution by the father and the brother of the injured PW-12 and PW-13, respectively.
16 Counsel for the appellants has contended that accused-Sher Singh and his family are living in a separate house for the last about 20 years prior to the occurrence. There is no door or window of the house of Sher Singh, which opens towards the house of Mulakh Raj, wherein the occurrence took place. The Investigating Officer has stated that the door of the house of Sher Singh opens in another lane. It is submitted with vehemence that Sher Singh and his wife had nothing to do with the domestic affairs of Mulakh Raj and his family and, therefore, there was no reason for them to join hands with other accused to commit the crime.
17. Another argument advanced by counsel for the appellants is Crl. Appeal No. D-844-DB of 2007 -8- that at the most, it may be said that Smt. Usha committed suicide as there was quarrel between her and her husband-Mulakh Raj, because Usha was insisting to go to her parental house, which was objected to by her husband. The husband went to a PCO ( public call office) to inform Usha's parents about her conduct and in the meantime, in a fit of rage, she set herself ablaze. According to the counsel, keeping in view the various discrepancies, lacuna and shortcomings in the case of the prosecution, appellants Som Nath, Sher Singh, Hukmi Devi and Chandi Devi, should have been acquitted, giving them the benefit of doubt. He has further submitted that at the most, only accused-Mulakh Raj, can be convicted for offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, even though no material is available in order to record a finding that Mulakh Raj abetted the commission of suicide by Smt. Usha Rani(deceased)due to dispute between husband and wife.
18. Counsel for the State has supported the judgment passed by the trial Court. He has submitted that it has been repeatedly held by the Courts that the dying declaration alone can become the basis for recording the conviction of the accused. The learned trial Court, after proper appreciation of the evidence, had arrived at the conclusion that the dying declaration is worthy of reliance and credence and inspires confidence in the mind of the Court. It is contended that the dying declaration is a statement made without oath and the accused does not get the opportunity to cross examine the person making the statement but the sense of impending death creates a sanction equal to the obligation of an oath. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Sham Shankar Kankaria vs. State of Maharashtra 2007(2) SCC (Crl.) 663. Crl. Appeal No. D-844-DB of 2007 -9-
19. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by counsel for the parties and gone through the records.
20. There cannot be any dispute regarding the settled position of law that the statement made by the victim as to the cause of death, can become the basis for conviction even when the said statement is not made on oath and the accused does not get an opportunity to cross examine the maker of the statement. Principle on which the dying declaration is admitted in evidence, is based on the legal maxim "nemo moriturous proesumitur mentiri- a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth". It is for this reason that the requirements of oath and cross examination are dispensed with.
21. This brings us to the question whether the dying declaration, relied upon by the prosecution, is of such a quality which can safely be made the basis for recording a verdict of guilt against the accused- appellants. Before we proceed to deal with the submissions made by counsel for the appellants, we would like to reproduce the statement of the deceased, recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala Cantt. It is necessary to mention here that before starting the recording of the statement, the Magistrate concerned, sought the opinion of the doctor regarding the fitness of the injured to make her statement and the certificate given by Dr. Tuffail Ahmed Saddiquie reads as under:-
"Patient is fit and conscious to make statement regarding accident. She is compos mentis."
The Doctor after recording of the statement has again given a certificate to the effect that during the course of her statement, patient Usha remained fit Crl. Appeal No. D-844-DB of 2007 -10- and conscious throughout. The statement of Usha, recorded in Hindi is reproduced verbatim but using English alphabets:-
"Jab se meri shadi hui hai tab se meri koi ijjat nahin karta hai. Shuru se he ladai jhagra rehta hai. Mere sath mera jeth jethani va gharwala jhagra karte hain. Sohan Lal, Sher Singh mere jeth hain. Jethanion ke naam na pata hai prantu sagi behnein hain. Mujhe mere jeth, jethanion va gharwale ne sabne mil kar aaj subeh 6-7 baje jalaya. Mere pati ne mujhe peeta tha peetkar veh savere chala gaya va phone mere ghar kiya ki tumhari ladki jal gayee hai. Mere upper mitti ka tel dalkar machis se upper wale vyaktion ne jalaya. Mera pati meri jethanion ki jyada manta hai. Main jalne ke baad aangan mein dori va jamin par late gayee. Som Nath ne mere upper aag bujhane ke liye darian dali phir mujhe aspataal pati va jeth lekar aaya. Eske baad mujhe kuchh na pata."
22. Mr. Ghai, counsel for the appellants has pointed out that the statement made by the victim giving cause of her death in the earliest version is contradictory to her dying declaration which makes the statement recorded by the Magistrate not worthy of credit. We do not agree with this submission. It was accused, Mulakh Raj, who brought his wife Usha to the hospital and he must be present there while the doctor asked the deceased about the cause of injuries. It is no where mentioned in the record that what was recorded by the doctor was stated by the deceased. It is evident that what was recorded by Dr. Gurmeet Singh, could not be the version of Usha herself. Dr. Gurmeet Singh did not mention anywhere on the record, Crl. Appeal No. D-844-DB of 2007 -11- about the state of mind of Usha. In the alleged first version, contained in the MLR (Ex. PC), history of burns due to bursting of stove, has been mentioned. Counsel for the appellants has conceded that no such stove was taken into possession by the police. Rather condition of the stove which was taken in police possession, during investigation, was intact. The burnt clothes of the deceased were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. As per report (Ex. PZ) submitted by Forensic Science Laboratory, kerosene residues were detected in the partially burnt clothes of the deceased consisting of lady's underwear, salwar and jumpher. The very fact that the stove was in intact and kerosene residues were detected in the partially burnt clothes of the deceased, demolishes the correctness of the facts incorporated in the history of the patient by the doctor who conducted the medico legal examination. In this view of the matter, there remains no doubt that the factum of fire due to bursting of stove, was not the statement got recorded by the injured herself but the same was the history given by the husband in order to escape the consequences of crime.
23. The dying declaration was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate in the evening around 7-00 p.m. in respect of the occurrence, which took place in the early hours of 8.4.2006. The investigating officer visited the hospital immediately, on receipt of information with regard to the admission of the injured and sought the opinion of the doctor regarding the fitness of the injured to make her statement. The doctor opined that the injured was unfit to make statement, at about 10.20 a.m., vide report Ex.PV/1, on application Ex. PV. The investigating officer again submitted another application on 8.4.2006 itself, Ex. PX, for seeking opinion of the Crl. Appeal No. D-844-DB of 2007 -12- doctor regarding fitness of the injured to make statement. Dr. Tuffail Ahmed Siddiquie declared the patient fit for making statement. The Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the statement of the victim, was examined in the Court. During his cross examination, no such fact came on record that any of the family members from the parents side of the victim was available, at that time. The brother and father of the victim were cited as prosecution witnesses, who failed to support the prosecution. Ratti Ram, father of the deceased in his examination-in-chief, has deposed that when he reached hospital, his daughter was being treated. She did not tell him any thing as to how she caught fire. The witness was cross examined by counsel for the accused. No suggestion was put to the witness that he happened to talk to his daughter or he instigated his daughter to make statement implicating the accused in the crime. Even it has not been suggested that the statement made by the injured, before the Magistrate, was the result of tutoring by him. Similarly, other witness-Rajesh, the brother of the deceased, has deposed to the following effect:-
"My sister did not tell anything as to how she caught fire."
No cross examination was conducted on this witness much less there being a suggestion to the witness that he tutored Usha to make a statement against the accused. No such material is available on the record to substantiate the contention of counsel that the statement made by the injured was the result of tutoring.
24. An issue has been raised by the counsel that the doctor did not give any certificate regarding the mental fitness of the victim to make her statement. The doctor certified that she was fit and conscious throughout to Crl. Appeal No. D-844-DB of 2007 -13- make statement. This, includes mental fitness also and sufficient to reply to the issue raised by the counsel. Had she not been mentally fit, the doctor could not have given such a certificate. The Counsel could not invite our attention to any law or precedent that the doctor is required to give fitness certificate in a particular format and/or mentioning mental fitness separately. Reference in this context can be made to Laxman Vs. State of Maharashra (2002) 6 SCC 710.
25. There is no merit in the contention that Mulakh Raj-appellant was not present at his house at the time of occurrence. No record of the call made by Mulakh Raj to his in-laws has been proved. There is no material on record to show that on the date of occurrence Mulakh Raj contacted his in-laws' family much less made two calls i.e. one before the occurrence and the second time informing them about the burns of the deceased. Father of the deceased appeared in the witness box. No such question was put to him that on the date of occurrence, Mulakh Raj initially contacted them to complain against the conduct of the victim of quarrelling with him and on the second occasion informing them regarding the burn injuries received by her. It appears that Mulakh Raj has concocted the story of his absence from his own house at the time of occurrence in order to escape the consequences of crime. No evidence has been adduced as to how he learnt about the incident if he was away from the house
26. We have given our conscious and thoughtful consideration whether the statement of the victim can be split into parts, to examine if the said statement can be rejected with regard to the role of Sher Singh and his wife. We are not oblivious of the fact that if a part of the dying Crl. Appeal No. D-844-DB of 2007 -14- declaration is not proved to be correct, it must not necessarily result in rejection of whole of the dying declaration. However, the rejection of a part of the dying declaration would put the Court on the guard and to examine prosecution evidence with a greater degree of caution. There may be cases where part of the dying declaration, which is not found to be correct, is so indivisibly linked with the other part of the dying declaration that it is not possible to sever the two parts. In such an event, the court would reject the whole of the dying declaration. There may, however, be other cases wherein two parts of the dying declaration may be severable and the correctness of one part does not depend upon the correctness of the other part. In the last mentioned cases, the court would not normally act upon a part of the dying declaration, the other part of which has not been found to be true, unless the part relied upon is corroborated in material particulars by the other evidence on record.
27. Now reverting to the case in hand, a perusal of the material part of the dying declaration would show that it is difficult to sever one part of the dying declaration from the other part. There may be a little discrepancy or incoherence in the statement of the victim. We, however, cannot loose sight of the fact that the deceased received 90% burn injuries, as have been detailed in the statement of Dr. Gurmeet Singh, reproduced hereinabove. The deceased was bound to be in pain because of serious burns. Any minor discrepancy in giving the version by the victim is of no significance.
28. One of the brothers of Mulakh Raj, along with his family, is living in the same house, wherein the occurrence in question took place. The other brother, namely; Sher Singh, along with his family, is living in Crl. Appeal No. D-844-DB of 2007 -15- the adjoining house. The perusal of the site plan prepared by the investigating officer as well as the scaled site plan would show that there is a common wall between the house occupied by Mulakh Raj and Som Nath and the house of Sher Singh. The investigating officer of the case during his cross examination has stated that the parties have been using the stair case for going from one house to the other house of the brothers. The absence of any window or door in between the two houses, in these circumstances, loses significance. The fact that the houses are adjoining, the plea of the accused that the house of Sher Singh is at a distance from the place of occurrence, is falsified and belied. Therefore, it cannot be said that Sher Singh and his wife could not be available in the house of Mulakh Raj in the early hours on 8.4.2006.
29. Counsel has argued about the subsequent conduct of the accused of trying to extinguish fire with dari and shifting her to the hospital. This conduct does not absolve the accused from their criminal liability. This conduct is nothing but an effort by the accused to save themselves from criminal liability by creating a defence and to save themselves from social wrath.
30. Ratti Ram and Rajesh Kumar, father and brother of the deceased, respectively, did not support the prosecution and were declared hostile. Invariably, the parental family members of the deceased girl reconcile with the death of their daughter with the passage of time particularly in the interest of her children. The deceased left behind two female minor children and therefore, there is every likelihood that in the interest of children, the father and brother of the victim changed their stand Crl. Appeal No. D-844-DB of 2007 -16- during the course of their examination before the Court.
31. We have already discussed that the factum of Sher Singh and his family living in a separate house, is not sufficient to give them any benefit. It may be added that though Ratti Ram and Rakesh turned hostile, Ratti Ram denied the suggestion that after marriage of his daughter, her jethanis never used to quarrel with his daughter and that rather their behavior with his daughter was cordial since the very beginning of marriage. This statement of Ratti Ram, indicates that jethanis of Usha had been quarreling with her. This has also come on record that Hukmi Devi and Chandi Devi are the real sisters married to Som Nath and Sher Singh, respectively, brothers of Mulakh Raj. The deceased in her statement has specifically stated with regard to the role played by Hukmi Devi and Chandi Devi in respect of the treatment being meted out to her at her matrimonial house. Appellant Sher Singh and his wife Chandi Devi cannot be extended any benefit merely for the reason that they live in a separate house but adjoining to the house of Mulakh Raj.
32. Mr. Ghai, has sought to argue that the present case is a case of suicide committed by the victim. The occurrence, in question, took place in the matrimonial house of the deceased. Mulakh Raj and his family and his brother, Som Nath along with his family had been staying in the same house. The deceased left behind two minor female children aged 1½ years and 06 months at the time of occurrence. As per the plea of the accused, there was quarrel between the deceased and Mulakh Raj on the issue that the deceased wanted to go to her parental house, which was not to the liking of her husband. It is difficult to accept that a young woman would put Crl. Appeal No. D-844-DB of 2007 -17- herself on fire on such a small and insignificant issue, more particularly in the circumstances that she had two small daughters, less than two years of age. Mulakh Raj is the husband of the deceased. He was the best person to explain the circumstances under which the victim could decide to take such an extreme step. The version given by the accused does not appear to be convincing much less to uphold the plea. Therefore, we find it difficult to accept the argument advanced by counsel for the appellants that the present case is a case of suicide and not of homicide.
33. No other point has been raised.
34. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, we find no merit in this appeal. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the learned trial court are upheld. The appellants, if on bail, be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence.
( REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE ( RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE September 12, 2012 PARAMJIT