Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 945 (JHR)

Subhash Das v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)

2003-08-04

VISHNUDEO NARAYAN

body2003
JUDGMENT Vishnudeo Narayan, J.- This appeal has been directed by the appellant named above against the impugned judgment and order dated 25.7.1990 passed in Sessions ease No. 13 of 1989/4 of 1989 by Shri Om Prakash Sinha, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar whereby and whereunder the appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. 2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the EI.R. (Ext. 5) lodged before Karon P.S. on 4.6.1988 at 15.00 hours by P.W. 4, Kumari Usha Das, .the informant and the victim of alleged ravIshment, regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place two days after Id festival i.e. 21.5.1988 at about 6.00 A.M. in the verandah of the Girls High School Karon which was received in the Court empowered to take cognizance on 6.6.1998. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant is a class-VIII student of the said school and she had gone to her school at about 6 o'clock in the morning after two days of the Id festival and she was reading a book sitting in the verandah of the said school and by that time neither any student nor any teacher had come. It is alleged that appellant, Subhas Das, who is agnate of her father, Sukhdeo Das and who is by relation her nephew, came there all of a sudden and he forcibly caught her and twisted her both hands behind her back and felled her on the verandah of the school and thereafter he had ravished her. It is further alleged that she returned to her house weeping but she did not report regarding the occurrence to the members of her house as the appellant has intimidated her to be done to death. It is also alleged that prior to the occurrence the appellant used to write her love letters and she also used to write to him in reply and in the letters written by the appellants, there was always intimidation and inducement for doing illicit intercourse. The prosecution case further is that her father (P.W.1) was told about the incident through her mother (P.W. 2) when he had come to the house from his place of posting. 4. The prosecution case further is that her father (P.W.1) was told about the incident through her mother (P.W. 2) when he had come to the house from his place of posting. 4. The appellant has pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against him and he claims himself to be innocent and to have committed no offence and he has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. 5. The prosecution has in all examined eight witnesses to substantiate its case. P.W. 4, Kumari Usha Das is the informant and the alleged victim of ravishment of this case. P.W. 1, Shankar Das, P.W. 2, Bipula Das and P.W. 3, Gopal Das are the father, mother and brother respectively of the informant and they are not the ocular witnesses of the occurrence. P.W. 7, Mural Mehra has been tendered. P.W. 6, Bhola Nath Purty is a formal witness who has proved the Entry dated 14.6.1974 (Ext. 4) in the Delivery Register of the Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa to evidence the fact that P.W. 2 Bipula Das was hospitalized for delivery and she was blessed with a female child on 14.6.1974. P.W. 5, Dr. Geeti Biswas has examined P.W. 1, the informant on 5.6.1988 at 9.40 hours in the Sadar Hospital, Deoghar and her report in respect thereof is Ext. 3 in this case. P.W. 8, Shashi Shekhar Jha, the I.O. has proved the EI.R. (Ext. 5) and signature of P.W. 4, the informant thereon is Ext. 1/2. He has also proved the production-cum-seizure list (Ext. E) in respect of the twenty-five photo-stat copies of the letters written by the informant to the appellant and the Station Diary Entry No. 11 dated 1.6.1988 (Ext.F). Ext. D is the application dated 30.5.1988 of P.W. 1, Shankar Das filed before O/C. Karon P.S. and it has been proved by P.W.1. Ext. 1/1 is the birth certificate of P.W. 4, the informant granted by the Chaibasa Sadar Hospital. Ext. 2 series are the letters purported to have been written by the appellant to the informant. Two witnesses have taken oath in this case on behalf of the defence. D.W. 1, Sateshwar Prasad Singh is the Head Clerk of the said Girls High School and he has proved the Attendance Register of Class-VIII of the month of May 1988 which is Ext. Two witnesses have taken oath in this case on behalf of the defence. D.W. 1, Sateshwar Prasad Singh is the Head Clerk of the said Girls High School and he has proved the Attendance Register of Class-VIII of the month of May 1988 which is Ext. G in this case and he has also proved the signature of the head master thereon which is Ext. H. D.W. 2, Paras Nath Rai is a formal witness who has proved the character certificate dated 1.6.1988 (Ext. I) granted by the Head Master of the Rani Mandakini High School, Karogram, Deoghar regarding the appellant. Ext. B is the letter dated 27.5.1988 written by P.W. 3, Gopal Das addressed to his father, P.W. 1 and its postal envelope is Ext. C which has been sent to P.W. 1 at his official address at Deoghar. 6. In view of the oral and documentary evidence Ion the record the learned court below relied upon the evidence of P.W. 4, the informant and found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. 7. Assailing the impugned judgment as perverse and against the weight of evidence it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned court below has wrongly relied upon the uncorroborated solitary testimony of P.W. 4, Kumari Usha Das which is tainted one having embellishment therein as a result of afterthought and also not supported by the medical witness as well as the objective finding of the I.O. regarding the place of occurrence. There were love affairs between the appellant and P.W. 4, Kumari Usha Das much prior to the alleged occurrence and there were exchange of love letters between them and a critical appraisal of the love letters will give a clinching inference that there was no physical contacts between them at any point of time and the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case only with a view to deter him due to the existing love affairs between him and P.W. 4 aforesaid. It has also been submitted that the occurrence is said to have taken place on 21.5.1988 at 6.00 hours in the open verandah of the . It has also been submitted that the occurrence is said to have taken place on 21.5.1988 at 6.00 hours in the open verandah of the . Girls High School which is surrounded by several buildings including the residences of the head master and the staffs of the said school and the block office is not very faraway from there and in such a situation, the case of ravishment as alleged is highly improbable and equally unacceptable. It has further been contended that the F.I.R.was lodged on 4.6.1988 at 15.00 hours regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place on 21.5.1988 at 6.00 hours and there is no explanation forthcoming on the record regarding this inordinate delay and moreover, Ext. D. and Ext. F which are the petitions of P.W. 1, the father of the informant lodged before the O/C Karon P.S. on 30.5.1988 and the Station Diary Entry dated 1.6.1988 made by P.W. 1 do not whisper at all regarding any ravishment of P.W. 4, Kumari Usha Das by the appellant and Ext. D and Ext. F taken together, in fact, totally belie the case of the prosecution regarding the alleged ravishment of P.W. 4. Even the letter dated 27.5.1988 of P.W. 3 addressed to his father which is Ext. B also does not even whisper regarding ravishment of P.W. 4 by the appellant, rather, the contents of Ext. Bread with Exts. D and F only shows regarding the allegation of eve teasing and the entire allegation of ravishment is not only highly improbable but equally false. Lastly it has been contended that the testimony of P.W. 4 is replete with inherent improbabilities and material contradictions and it is against the averments made by her in the F.I.R. and the entire manner of occurrence has been changed in the testimony of P.W. 4, the informant and there is no ring of truth therein and her testimony is tit to be brushed aside in the facts and circumstances of the case and viewed thus, the impugned judgment is unsustainable. 7 A. It has been submitted by the learned A.P.P. that though there is delay in lodging the case by the informant but there is satisfactory explanation in respect of the said delay which is to the effect that out of shame and fear she did not disclose the said fact of her ravishment to her father earlier and when the love letters were recovered, she made the disclosure in respect thereof on 2.6.1988. It has further been submitted that she was examined by P.W. 5, Dr. Geeti Biswas on 5.6.1988 i.e. after fortnight of the alleged occurrence and that was the reason that the medical witness could not find any material regarding the ravishment of the informant in her objective finding. It has also been contended that Exts. Band F are earlier in time to the disclosure of the fact of the ravishment and as such they do not contain any averment regarding the alleged ravishment of the informant by the appellant. It has also been contended that the testimony of P.W. 4, the informant is worthy of credit to substantiate the prosecution case in the facts and circumstances of the case and the Evidence Act nowhere says that the evidence of P.W. 4 cannot be accepted unelss it is corroborated in material particulars and P.W. 4, the informant is a competent witness and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in a case of physical violence. It has also been submitted that to insist on corroboration in a case of ravishment tantamounts to an insult of the womanhood as such crimes are generally committed on the sly and whereas rarely direct evidence of a person other than the prosecutrix is available and it is to be considered that ordinary a woman, more so a young girl, will not stake her reputation by levelling a false charge concerning her chastity and viewed thus, the impugned judgment cannot be said to be unsustainable. 7B. Let us now scan the evidence on the record. P.W. 4 Kumari Usha Das was a Class-VIII student of the Girls High School, Karon on the day of the occurrence i.e. 21.5.1988 and P.W. 5, Dr. Geeti Biswas has opined in her objective finding that the age of P.W. 4 is below eighteen years on the day of the occurrence. Ext. P.W. 4 Kumari Usha Das was a Class-VIII student of the Girls High School, Karon on the day of the occurrence i.e. 21.5.1988 and P.W. 5, Dr. Geeti Biswas has opined in her objective finding that the age of P.W. 4 is below eighteen years on the day of the occurrence. Ext. 4 is the Entry in the Delivery Register of the Sadar. Hospital, Chaibasa to evidence in the fact that P.W. 2, Bipula Das who is the mother of P.W. 4, the informant, was hospitalized for delivery and she was blessed with a female child on 14.6.1974. Ext. 1/1 is the Birth Certificate, which shows that P.W. 2 Bipula Das, wife of P.W. 1, Shankar Das had delivered a female baby on 14.6.1974 in the Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa. It, therefore, appears from Ext. 4 read with Ext. 1/1 that the date of birth of P.W. 4, Kumari Usha Das is 14.6.1974 and she was aged about 14 years on the day of the occurrence. The appellant is a co-villager of the informant and he is also agnate of the father of the informant. It will admit of no doubt that there were love affairs between the P.W. 4, the informant much prior to the occurrence and there were exchange of love letters between them and the said fact is evidenced by Ext. 2 series read with Ext-A series. It is equally pertinent to mention here that a critical analysis of the love letters aforesaid does not at all whisper regarding the existence of' any physical contacts between them. The evidence of P.W. 4, the informant is that she has written the love letters (Ext. A series) to the appellant in duress and threat at the instance of the appellant is totally unacceptable in the facts and circumstances of the case read with her statement made to P.W. 8, the I.O. as deposed by him in his evidence on oath. 8. According to the prosecution case, the occurrence is said to have taken place at 6 O'clock in the morning of 21.5.1988 when she was reading a book sitting in the verandah of the said school where the appellant came and forcibly caught her and twisted her both hands behind her back and felled her on the verandah of the school and thereafter he ravished her. P.W. 4, Kumari Usha Das, the informant has deposed that she had gone to her school at 6 o'clock in the morning on 21.5.1988 and she was sitting on the stair of the school and reading and by that time neither any teacher nor any student had come to the said school. She has further deposed that the appellant came there and overpowered her and when she tried to raise alarms she was gagged and dragged under the stair, which was a partially covered place, and she was felled there. She has further deposed that the appellant removed her pant and thereafter ravished her. She has also deposed that in the course of ravishment she was crying in pains and the appellant put a dagger on her chest and intimidated her to be done to death if she makes hue and cry. Her evidence is further to the effect that after her ravishment, the appellant told her to attend the class and not to disclose regarding the incident to anyone at her house and also intimidated tier in respect thereof. She has also deposed that her pant and frock was stained with blood and she went to the hand pump of the said school and washed the bloodstains appearing on her frock. In para-9 of her cross-examination she has deposed that the building of the school is double storied and on the ground floor there is the office of the head master and there are three classrooms in the western side of the verandah and on the upper floor there are also three rooms and the said verandah is two "Haath" high from the ground floor and there are four or five steps of stair to come in the verandah from the ground. She has specifically deposed that she was neither ravished on the verandah nor on the stair but she was ravished in the vacant space below the stair which goes on the upper floor of the school building and the widths of the vacant space below the said stair is about 3'. In para-29 of her cross-examination she has deposed that in course of her ravishment injury has been caused on the back portion of her body and a bleeding injury in her vagina of the widths of two fingers has been caused due to the said ravishment. In para-29 of her cross-examination she has deposed that in course of her ravishment injury has been caused on the back portion of her body and a bleeding injury in her vagina of the widths of two fingers has been caused due to the said ravishment. She has further deposed that she did not show her pant and frock besmeared with blood as well as the injury appearing on her back to her mother, brother and father as well as to the investigation officer. P.W. 8, the I.O. has deposed to have inspected the place of occurrence which is a double storied school building facing east and the outer verandah of the ground floor of the school is from north to south and there are three rooms on the varandah in the western side and one room in the eastern side and there is a vacant space in front of the school. He has further deposed that there is a newly constructed residence of the principal of the school east of the said verandah. He has also deposed that there is stair from the verandah for going to the upper floor of the school of the building but he did not find any sign of the occurrence said to have taken place there. In para-? of his cross-examination, the I.O. has deposed that the distance of the house of the informant from the school is such where the ringing of the bell is audible. P.W. 3, Gopal. Das, the brother of the informant has deposed in para-? of his testimony that there is a road adjacent south of the said school which runs from east to west and there is the circle office and the official quarter of the B.D.O. who resides therein. He has also deposed that there are eight to ten residential quarters in between the road and the B.D.O. office. In para-8 he has further deposed that the said road is very busy road and it passes to several villages and a large number of persons pass through that road in the morning with milk and vegetable. He has also deposed that there are eight to ten residential quarters in between the road and the B.D.O. office. In para-8 he has further deposed that the said road is very busy road and it passes to several villages and a large number of persons pass through that road in the morning with milk and vegetable. D.W. 1, Sateshwar Prasad Singh is the Head Clerk of the said school and he has deposed that there is residential quarter of the headmistress of the said school adjacent to the said building and there is also Circle Office by the side of the said school building and there are several official quarters of the B.D.O., C.O. and other staffs of the block office. He has also deposed that there is a school guard in the said school. D.W. 1 has further deposed that in the month of June, it was morning session of the school and the school bell rings at 6 O' clock in the morning and thereafter there is a prayer session attended by the students and the teachers of the school for half an hour and thereafter teaching work starts at 6.30 A.M. which continues up to 11.00 A.M. P.W. 8, the I.O. in para-12 of his evidence has materially contradicted the evidence of P.W. 4, the informant. He has deposed that P.W. 4 has not stated before him that she was reaping sitting on the stair when the appellant had come and she wanted to raise alarms and her mouth was gagged by the appellant and thereafter the appellant dragged her to the vacant space under the stair and had removed her pant and the appellant had put a dagger on her chest to intimidate her. P.W. 8 has further deposed that P.W.4 has also not stated before him that she has received injury on her private) part and blood has besmeared her pant and frock and she has washed the frock on the hand pump of the school and her mother had enquired from her about the blood stains appearing on her frock. The evidence of P.W. 8, therefore, contradicts the testimony of P.W. 4, the informant as deposed by her on oath. The evidence of P.W. 8, therefore, contradicts the testimony of P.W. 4, the informant as deposed by her on oath. It, therefore, appears that P.W. 4, the informant has given a total go-bye regarding the place of occurrence and the manner of the occurrence in her evidence on oath as averred in her F.I.R. (Ext. 5). It further appears that the ravishment in the open verandah of the school in the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the topography of the said school as deposed by P.W. 8, the I.O. read with P.W. 4 and D.W. 1 appears to be highly improbable and equally unworthy of credit. P.W. 5, Dr. Geeti Biswas has examined P.W. 4, the informant on the requisition of the I.O. on 5.6.1988 at 9.40 hours and she has deposed that she did not find any external injury on the person of P.W. 4 as well as any internal injury on her private part though her vagina admitted with two fingers with difficulty and her hymen was found ruptured. She has further deposed that no spermatozoa, live or dead, was found in her vaginal swab. She has further deposed that it is not possible to say whether the rape was committed on her or not. In para-9 of her cross-examination she has specifically deposed that if an injury in vagina of the widths of two fingers is caused and profused bleeding takes place, the healing up of such injury will take about two to three weeks. The medical witness has deposed not to have found any injury of the widths of two fingers on her private part. She has also deposed net to have found regarding any sear mark of such injury on her private part. It is true that P.W. 4 was examined by the medical witness after about two weeks but in view of her evidence appearing in para-9 of her cross-examination, injury of the widths of two fingers, if caused in' vagina, takes about two to three weeks to heal up. Therefore, the objective finding of P.W. 5, the medical witness does not at all support the prosecution case of ravishment as averred in the F.I.R. or as deposed by P.W 4, the informant. Therefore, the objective finding of P.W. 5, the medical witness does not at all support the prosecution case of ravishment as averred in the F.I.R. or as deposed by P.W 4, the informant. It, therefore, appears that the evidence of P.W. 4, the informant is replete with inherent improbabilities and material contradictions as a result of embellishment due to afterthought for falsely implicating the appellant in this got up case by hook or crook. 9. It is equally pertinent to mention here that P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 are not the ocular witnesses of the occurrence and they claim to have learnt regarding the occurrence from P.W. 4, the informant when some of the love letters are said to have been recovered and on query P.W. 4, the informant had told them regarding her ravishment by the appellant. P.W. 4 in para-3 of her evidence has deposed that she has handed over some letters written by the appellant to her brother, Gopal Das on 27.5.1988 and her father was informed who came there on 29.5.1988 and he enquired from her. She has deposed that she had told them only regarding eve teasing by the appellant but she did not disclose to them the fact of her ravishment due to fear and shame. Ext. 8 is the letter of P.W. 3, Gopal Das written to his father P.W. 1 and sent through post as per Ext. C which reveals that the appellant is again creating nuisance and he has thrown some letters at his house and a request was made to his father to come at once. P.W. 3 in para-4 has deposed that the informant has shown to him seven or eight letters written by the appellant and he wrote a letter to his father on which his father came to his house and he was shown the letters and his father went to the police station and filed a petition (Ext. D) before the O/C Karon P.S. on 30.5.1988. P.W. 1 in his evidence on oath has also deposed that his son Gopal Das has shown him three letters written by the appellant thrown at his house and therafter he had filed a petition which gave rise to Station Diary Entry No. 11 dated 1.6.1988 (Ext. F).Exts. 8, D and F do not at all whisper regarding the fact of ravishment as alleged. F).Exts. 8, D and F do not at all whisper regarding the fact of ravishment as alleged. There is only reference of eve teasing by the appellant against the informant in Exts. 8, D and F. P.W. 4 Kumari Usha Das, the informant has further deposed that some construction works of the house was going on 4n the house of the informant on 2.6.1988 and P.W. 7, Mural Mahara was one of the labourers engaged in a construction work and he was cleaning the bricks and he found some letters concealed under the bricks said to have been written by the appellant and he handed over the aforesaid letters to P.W. 3; Gopal Das. She has further deposed that P.W. 3, Gopal Das enquired from her as to whether there was only eve teasing by the appellant besides writing of the love letters or as to whether the appellant has done anything else and on this query she has stated to her brother that on 21.5.1988 the appellant has ravished her and at that time her father and mother were also present. P.W. 3 in para3, P.W. 1 in para-2 and P.W.2 in para - 2 have also deposed to have learnt about the fact of ravishment on 2.6.1988 on query from the informant after recovery of the letters by P.W. 7, Mural Mahara. It is pertinent to mention here that P.W. 7, Mural Mahara has been tendered by the prosecution and in his evidence on oath it does not whisper to have recovered the love letters from under the bricks and handed over to RW. 3, Gopal Das. In his cross-examination he has deposed that his statement was never recorded by the I.O. in this case. Therefore, the very foundation of the knowledge to RWs. 1, 2 and 3 on 2.6.1988 regarding the alleged ravishment on query from the informant on the basis of the recovered letters by P.W. 7, Mural Mahara does not stand substantiated at all in the absence of the evidence of RW. 7 in respect thereof. It is equally partinent to mention here that the contents of the letter (Ext. 1, 2 and 3 on 2.6.1988 regarding the alleged ravishment on query from the informant on the basis of the recovered letters by P.W. 7, Mural Mahara does not stand substantiated at all in the absence of the evidence of RW. 7 in respect thereof. It is equally partinent to mention here that the contents of the letter (Ext. 2/3) that the informant had slept with the appellant on the floor has no relevancy with the alleged occurrence dated 21.5.1988 for the reasons that it does not bear any date thereon and the contents of the letter also do not reveal the date, months and the year of writing of this letter. It is equally relevant to mention here that P.W. 3 had not produced this letter before the I.O. in course of investigation and for the first time this letter has been brought on the record when P.W. 3 had taken oath in this case. Therefore Ext. 2/3 has no relevancy at all in this case to give an inkling of the fact that there had been any physical contact between the appellant and the informant giving an occasion to P.W. 3 to grill the informant to disclose the fact of her alleged ravishment having been taken place on 21.5.1988. According to the prosecution case, the occurrence is said to have taken place on 21.5.1988 at 6.00 hours and the F.I.R. was lodged on 4.6.1988 at 15.00 hours by the informant in the company of her father and others and prior to that two petitions dated 30.5.1988 and 1.6.1988 (Exts. D and F) were filed by P.W. 1, Shankar Das, the father of the informant before Karon P.S. in which there is no whisper at all regarding the alleged ravishment of the informant by the appellant. Even Ext. B does not reveal the fact that the informant had handed over some love letters on 27.5.1988 to her brother, which was written by the appellant. Therefore, Ext. B casts a cloud of suspicion to the very credibility of the prosecution case regarding the handing over of the love letters to Gopal Das on 27.5.1988. Therefore, the disclosure of the fact of ravishment by P.W. 4 to her father and others on 2.6.1988 is nothing but concoction with a view to explain the inordinate delay in instituting the case against the appellant. Therefore, the disclosure of the fact of ravishment by P.W. 4 to her father and others on 2.6.1988 is nothing but concoction with a view to explain the inordinate delay in instituting the case against the appellant. It is relevant to mention here that F.I.R. in a criminal case and more so in a case of ravishment is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led at the trial and the object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the F.I.R is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstance in which the crime was committed including the names of the actual culprits and the parts played by them, the weapons, if any, used as also the names of the eye witnesses, if any, and delay in lodging the F.I.R. often results in embellishment which is a creature of an after thought and on account of delay, the F.I.R. not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story. Therefore, the delay in lodging of the case regarding the alleged occurrence dated 21.5.1988 casts a cloud of suspicion to the very credibility of the warp and woof of the prosecution case. Furthermore, the belated F.I.R. has undergone almost a complete change during the course of the trial on all material points such as the place of occurrence, previous and subsequent conduct of the informant as well as the explanation for the delay in lodging the F.I.R. According to the F.I.R. (Ext. 5) the place of occurrence is verandah of the school but being conscious of the fact that the school premises is not enclosed by any boundary wall being situated on the side of the main road and close to the block office, the verandah could be visible and any such incident just before the start of the prayer session of the school could not have gone unnoticed, the informant in her evidence on oath has introduced a different place of occurrence. The testimony of P.W. 4 also does not stand corroborated by any other evidence on the record. It appears in the facts and circumstances of the case that the case of ravishment has been falsely set up at the instance of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 to implicate the appellant. The testimony of P.W. 4 also does not stand corroborated by any other evidence on the record. It appears in the facts and circumstances of the case that the case of ravishment has been falsely set up at the instance of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 to implicate the appellant. The ratio of the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain (A.I.R. 1990 SC 658) read with the ratio of the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat [ 1983 (3) SCC 217 )] relied upon by the learned court below has no relevancy in this case in view of the fact that there were unimpeachable and clinching supporting evidence of the ravishment of the prosecutrix in those cases whereas in the instant case there is total lack of any corroboration at all and the solitary testimony of the informant is replete with inherent improbabilities and material contradictions. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no legal evidence at all on the record to substantiate the prosecution case that the appellant had ravished the informant as alleged on 21.5.1988. The false implication of the appellant in this case cannot be totally ruled out in view of the fact that there was love affairs between the appellant and the informant and with a view to deter him the appellant has been roped in this case. I find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in the fact and circumstances of this case. The learned court below did not meticulously consider the evidence on the record in proper perspective and was swayed more by conjectures, surmises and emotions and not by legal evidence on the record and has erred gravely in coming to the finding of the guilt of the appellant. Viewed thus, the impugned, judgment cannot be sustained. 10. There is merit in this appeal and it succeeds. The appeal is hereby allowed The impugned judgment of the learned court below is hereby set aside. The appellant is found not guilty and he is, accordingly, acquitted and discharged from the liability of his bail bond.