JUDGMENT : 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated March 13,2002, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jhunjhunu, whereby he convicted and sentenced each of the accused, namely, Ramkishan under Section 302, IPC, and Ramotar under Section 302/34 IPC, to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' Rigorous imprisonment; accused Ramkishan under Section 326, IPC, and accused Ramotar under Section 326/34, IPC, five years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' Rigorous imprisonment; accused Ramkishan and Ramotar under Section 341 IPC, to one month's simple imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 22.9.1998, Kumari Suman d/o Shri Hazari Lal, by caste Khati, aged 18 years, r/o Lotiyan, lodged a written report (Ex. P1) with the Police Station, Surajgarh, stating inter alia, therein that on the day of the occurrence, at about 9 a.m., her brother Rahul, her mother Savitri and her younger sister were at home. Her mother was going to the field. As soon as her mother reached in front of the house of Parasram, Ramotar and Ramkishan, sons of Norangram Khati, armed with Jelly and Kulhari, came running behind her mother, stopped her in front of the house of Parasram Brahmin and started to beat her. When her mother raised hue and cry, the complainant's brother Rahul came to rescue her and the complainant also came there behind him and saw that Ramkishan and Ramotar were giving beating to her mother. Ramkishan was armed with Kulhari and Ramotar was armed with Jelly. During the course of beating, her mother fell down there. Ramkishan inflicted 2-3 Kulhari blows on the neck and mouth of her mother - Savitri. When the complainant's brother Rahul tried to save his mother, then Ramotar gave a Jelly blow on the left side of his mouth. Meanwhile, Ramniwas and Bhanaram came running on the scene of the occurrence and they rescued her brother Rahul. The complainant further stated that when she tried to go near her mother, then Ramotar ran towards her taking Jelly in his hand. Due to fear, the complainant returned to her house. Her mother died on the spot. Meanwhile, Ramniwas and Bhanaram came running on the scene of the occurrence and they rescued her brother Rahul. The complainant further stated that when she tried to go near her mother, then Ramotar ran towards her taking Jelly in his hand. Due to fear, the complainant returned to her house. Her mother died on the spot. Had her neighbours, namely, Revati, Geeta and other villagers not come to rescue her brother Rahul, they would have murdered him also. Thereafter, Ramotar and Ramkishan returned to their home. Her brother lifted her mother and came to the home. The complainant also stated that her mother had been done to death by both the brothers, namely, Ramkishan and Ramotar with Kulhari and Jelly. In order to eliminate her brother Rahul, they also gave him beating. Lastly, the complainant stated that her brother was taken to Chirawa Hospital by Ramniwas, Swamy, Suresh and Prakash Dhanak in a Jeep. Hence, report is submitted, action be taken and the guilty be punished. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, FIR (Ex.P24) under Sections 302, 307, 341, 323 and 34 Indian Penal Code was registered and investigation was taken up. 4. During the course of investigation, site plan (Ex. P2) was prepared, Post Mortem of the dead body of the deceased Savitri was got conducted by the Doctor vide Ex.P4, blood stained clothes of the deceased were seized and sealed vide Ex.P5, blood stained clothes of the injured Rahul were also seized and sealed vide Ex.P6, blood smeared and control soil were also collected and seized and sealed vide Exs. P20 to P23, inquest report of the dead body was prepared vide Ex.P6, accused Ramotar was arrested vide Ex.P25 and accused Ramkishan was arrested vide Ex.P26. In consequence to the informations of the accused Ramotar and Ramkishan, Jelly and Kulhari, respectively were recovered vide Exs. P27 and P28 injured Ramkaran was medically examined vide injury report Ex.P11 and his X-ray-plates are Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 respectively. Statements of the witnesses were also recorded, FSL Examination report was received vide Ex.P29. 5. After completing the necessary investigations, the Police filed challan for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 326, 341 and 323 IPC, against the accused persons. Charges under Section 341, 302 or 302/34 and 307 or 307/34 Indian Penal Code were framed against the accused persons. They were read over to them. 5. After completing the necessary investigations, the Police filed challan for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 326, 341 and 323 IPC, against the accused persons. Charges under Section 341, 302 or 302/34 and 307 or 307/34 Indian Penal Code were framed against the accused persons. They were read over to them. They denied the charges and claimed trial. 6. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses (PW1 to PW15) and exhibited 29 documents (Ex.P1 to P29). In support of defence, accused examined two witnesses (DW1 to DW2) and produced 9 documents (Ex.D1 to Ex.D9). The explanations of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The accused denied the allegations and alleged that they have been falsely implicated. 7. After hearing the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, as well as learned counsel for the accused-appellants and examining the material available on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jhunjhunu convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants vide his judgment dated March 13, 2002 as mentioned above. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial Court, the accused-appellants have preferred the instant appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the findings of the Trial Court are against the facts and material on record. He further contended that the learned trial Court has erred in law in not taking into consideration the proper appreciation of the prosecution witnesses in its right perspective. Apart from that, there is serious discrepancy on material point in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, which goes to the root of the case, therefore, in this situation, the conviction of the accused-appellants is bad and the same deserves to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the trial Court has erred in law in not taking into consideration the statements of Smt. Geeta Devi PW1, Suman PW4 and Rahul PW7, in their right perspective. As per the statement of Geeta Devi, she is not an eye witness of the incident and she did not find any injury on the person of Rahul, nor saw any beating alleged to have been given by the accused Ramkishan and Ramotar to Rahul. As per the statement of Geeta Devi, she is not an eye witness of the incident and she did not find any injury on the person of Rahul, nor saw any beating alleged to have been given by the accused Ramkishan and Ramotar to Rahul. She stated that Ramotar was armed with Jelly and Ramkishan was armed with Kulhari, whereas PW4 Suman and PW7 Rahul have stated that at the time of the occurrence, deceased had a Pirouette on her head, in which clothes and Ranpadi were kept. PW2 Smt. Revati Devi has also stated that she was inside the house and on hearing the hue and cry, she came outside her house and found Savitri lying in a pool of blood. In this view of the matter, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the conviction of the accused appellants is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that PW4 Suman has stated that she gave a written report to the police after the death of her mother. As per FIR (Ex.P1), Smt. Savitri was going all alone. The complainant has levelled allegations against Ramkishan of inflicting injury on the person of deceased Savitri, after the post mortem report. The complainant has made subsequent improvements in her statement in the Court. Therefore, no reliance should be placed on her statement. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that there are contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. As per the prosecution story, the incident had taken place in front of the house of Parasram, but PW5 Bhanaram has stated that the incident had taken place in front of his house and not the house of Parasram. Apart from that, the medical evidence did not get the corroboration from the ocular evidence. 13. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellants has relied on Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 3 SCC 557 , State of U.P. v. Chandra & Others, JT 2001 (10) SC 90 , Ramchandra v. State of Bihar, AIR 1999 SC 998 , and Sh. Kalachand Bhowmik and Another v. State of Tripura, JT 2000 (7) SC 304 , and contended that there is no evidence to connect the accused with the crime. 14. Kalachand Bhowmik and Another v. State of Tripura, JT 2000 (7) SC 304 , and contended that there is no evidence to connect the accused with the crime. 14. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial court and vehemently argued that it is a fool proof case, which led to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. He supported the reasons and observations given by the learned trial court. He has also referred to the statements of the prosecution witnesses to prove that the crime was committed by both the accused Ramkishan and Ramotar respectively. 15. PW7 Rahul, who is son of the deceased, has deposed that about 22 months ago, it was 9 a.m., his mother (deceased Savitri) and his sister were going to the field. Ramotar and Ramkishan came running from their house. Ramkishan was armed with Kulhari and Ramotar was armed with Jelly. They started to give beating to his mother in front of the house of Parasram Sharma. Ramotar gave a Jelly blow on the thigh of his mother, on account of which she fell down. Then Ramkishan gave Kulhari blow on the neck of his mother. Ramotar inflicted a blow on the head with Jelly. He also inflicted three blows with Jelly on chin and eye. When he went to rescue his mother, Ramkishan gave a Kulhari blow on his jaw. While Ramkishan was repeating the blow, Bhanaram caught-hold of him. Ramotar tried to inflict a blow on Bhanaram with Jelly. But, Bhanaram saved himself and he pushed Rahul into the gate of Parasram. He further deposed that on the day of the occurrence, he Bhanaram, Geeta, Revati, Ramniwas and his sister Suman were present. He also deposed that his sister Suman had followed him. When, Ramotar ran to inflict blow to his sister-Suman, Revati and Geeta told him not to beat us and not to do the injustice. Lastly, this witness deposed that he had brought his mother by lifting her in his clutches ("bath-me-bharkar-laya-tha"). He was cross-examined at length, but nothing could be elicited from his statement, which may persuade us to draw an adverse inference against his testimony. 16. PW4 Suman has deposed that about thirteen months ago, at 9 a.m. she, her brother Rahul and her mother were going to the field. He was cross-examined at length, but nothing could be elicited from his statement, which may persuade us to draw an adverse inference against his testimony. 16. PW4 Suman has deposed that about thirteen months ago, at 9 a.m. she, her brother Rahul and her mother were going to the field. Her mother was holding a 'paraat' on her head, containing chappati ("roti") and clothes, which were to be taken to the field. As soon as her mother reached in front of the house of Parasram, Ramkishan and Ramotar came running towards her mother. Ramotar was armed with Jelly and Ramkishan was armed with Kulhara. Ramotar inflicted a blow on the thigh of her mother with Jelly, on account of which she fell down. Then Ramkishan inflicted blow with Kulhara on the neck of her mother. He inflicted blow from the front side. Ramotar inflicted blows with Jelly on the chin and eye of her mother. While her brother Rahul came to rescue her, Ramkishan gave a Kulhara blow on the jaw of her brother. It may be stated that Rahul is called as Ramkaran also. Then, Ramniwas and Bhanaram came to rescue her brother. Bhanaram caught hold of Kulhara of Ramkishan. Ramotar tried to inflict a Jelly blow on him. Then Bhanaram pushed her brother into the gate of Parasram. She farther deposed that this 'maar-peet' was witnessed by Bhanaram, Ramniwas, Geeta, Revati, Rahul, in addition to herself. She also deposed that she was standing about ten pawandas (steps) away from the incident. While Ramotar tried to inflict a Jelly blow on her, she ran towards her house. When the Police came to the scene of the occurrence, she gave report Ex.P1 to the Police. This witness was also cross-examined at length, but nothing adverse could be elicited from her testimony. 17. Ramniwas (PW3) has deposed that on the day of the occurrence, at about 9-9.15 a.m., while he was taking tea in his house, he heard the noise coming towards the house of Parasram. Savitri was passing in front of the house of Parasram. Ramotar and Ramkishan followed her. Ramkishan had a Kulhari in his hand and Ramotar was armed with Jelly. Then Ramotar inflicted a blow with Jelly on the thigh of Savitri, on account of which she fell down. Thereafter, Ramotar turned himself towards the face and inflicted 2-4 Jelly blows on Savitri. Ramotar and Ramkishan followed her. Ramkishan had a Kulhari in his hand and Ramotar was armed with Jelly. Then Ramotar inflicted a blow with Jelly on the thigh of Savitri, on account of which she fell down. Thereafter, Ramotar turned himself towards the face and inflicted 2-4 Jelly blows on Savitri. Ramkishan repeatedly inflicted a Kulhara blows on the neck of Savitri, while she was lying on the ground. Thereafter, Rahul, who is also called as Ramkaran, came to the scene of the occurrence. Rahul is the son of Savitri. As soon as Rahul came, Ramkishan gave a Kulhara blow on the jaw of Rahul. Then, Bhanaram Chamar came and he caught hold of Ramkishan from behind. When Ramotar wanted a inflict a Jelly blow on Bhana Ram Chamar, he freed Ramkishan and ran towards the house of Parasram alongwith Rahul. Meanwhile, the witness felt some breathing problem. The witness further deposed with Geeta, Revati and 5-10 other people were standing there. After giving beating, both the accused returned to their house. Savitri was taking little breaths on the scene of the occurrence. Thereafter, the police came and recorded his statement. By then, Savitri had died. This witness was also cross-examined vigorously, but nothing came out from his statement, which may enable us to draw an adverse inference against his testimony. 18. PW2 Smt. Revati has also deposed that Ramotar gave a Jelly blow on Savitri and Ramkishan inflicted Kulhari blow on her. This witness restrained them, but they did not pay any heed to her. Then, according to this witness, Geeta, Bhanaram and Ramniwas came to the scene of the occurrence. They also requested the accused not to do so. Ramkaran has also received injuries. Ramkishan has given Kulhara blows to Ramkaran. She also deposed that Savitri and Ramkaran were inflicted blows in front of her house. Thereafter, Savitri was taken to the house from the scene of the occurrence. This witness was also cross-examined by the counsel for the accused, but nothing adverse came out from her statement. Her statement rather supported the prosecution case. 19. PW1 Smt. Geeta has deposed that on hearing the noise, she came out of her house and saw that Ramkishan had a Kulhara in his hand and Ramotar was armed with Jelly. They murdered Savitri. Her statement rather supported the prosecution case. 19. PW1 Smt. Geeta has deposed that on hearing the noise, she came out of her house and saw that Ramkishan had a Kulhara in his hand and Ramotar was armed with Jelly. They murdered Savitri. She also deposed that at the time of the occurrence, daughter of Savitri - Suman, her son - Rahul and Bhanaram were present. 20. PW5 Bhanaram and PW13 Parmeshwar Lal have not supported the prosecution case. Therefore, on the request of the Public Prosecutor, they were declared hostile by the trial Court. 21. PW6 Dr. Dayaram has deposed that on 22.9.1998, he was posted as Medical Officer in Government Hospital, Surajgarh. On the 'tehrir' of the SHO, he has conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Savitri w/o Hazarilal. He found the following injuries on the body of the deceased : 1. Punctured wound 1 1/2" x 0.6" x 0.5 x 1/2" from the midline with fragmented fracture of lower jaw (Rt.). 2. Punctured wound 1 1/2" x 0.4" x 0.8" on the outer and lower side of the Rt. Eye brow. 3. Punctured wound 0.2" x 0.2" x 0.2" on the lower jaw in mid line. 4. Cut wound 4" x 1 1/2" x 1 1/2" front of the neck 1" below the lower end of thyroid cartilage. 5. Scratch marks 0.4" x 0.4" and 0.3" x 0.3" outer side of Rt. forearm 1/2" above the wrist joint. 22. In the opinion of the Doctor, the death was caused by asphyxia and hemorrhage due to cut down of tracheas and carotid artery. He also deposed that the entire piece of oesphagus was not present. He stated that such kind of injuries could have not been caused by Kulhari and Jelly. The injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 23. PW8 Shanker Lal has deposed that blood stained clothes of the deceased Savitri were recovered by the police in his presence. 24. PW9 Dr. Sudhindra Bhargava has deposed that he medically examined Ramkaran on 22.9.1998 and found injuries on the left side of face angle of mandible to tags of ear 10 x 5 x 3cm. Cut wound has resulted into parotoid glands and muscle. The injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon and the duration of the injuries was eight hours. PW9 Dr. Sudhindra Bhargava has deposed that he medically examined Ramkaran on 22.9.1998 and found injuries on the left side of face angle of mandible to tags of ear 10 x 5 x 3cm. Cut wound has resulted into parotoid glands and muscle. The injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon and the duration of the injuries was eight hours. He further deposed that on 23.9.1998, Ramkaran s/o Hazari Lal was X-rayed. His x-ray plates are Ex.P12 and Ex.P13. According to the Doctor, there was a fracture of mandible and the injury was of serious nature and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 25. PW10 Sushil Sharma is a Radiographer. He deposed that he has taken X-ray of jaw of Ramkaran, as per instructions of the Doctor. X-ray plates and X-ray cover prepared by him are Exs. P12 to 14. 26. PW11 Jagdish Prasad, HC No. 12, has deposed that the eight packets, which were in sealed condition, were kept by him in the Malkhana. 27. PW15 Attar Singh, SHO, has deposed that on 22.9.1998, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Surajgarh. On receiving a telephonic message that a murder has taken place in village Lotiya, he proceeded for the scene of the occurrence. A number of villagers had already assembled there. On enquiry made by him, it was revealed that Savitri has been murdered by Ramkishan and his brother Ramotar, while she was going to her field. The written report was given to him by Kumari Suman, the daughter of the deceased - Savitri. He further deposed that he conducted the necessary investigation of the case. During the course of investigation, accused Ramotar made a disclosure statement that a Banda of the Jelly is concealed by him in his house and he can get the same recovered. So, on the basis of this information, the Banda of Jelly was recovered vide Ex.P27. Similarly, on the disclosure statement made by Ramkishan, Kulhari was recovered vide Ex.P28. He deposed that he prepared the 'panchanama' of the dead body of Savitri and he found fatal blows on the neck and other vital part of the body. The investigating officer had given sequence of events in an ad-seriatim and systematic manner, which shows that a fair investigation was conducted by him. He deposed that he prepared the 'panchanama' of the dead body of Savitri and he found fatal blows on the neck and other vital part of the body. The investigating officer had given sequence of events in an ad-seriatim and systematic manner, which shows that a fair investigation was conducted by him. The IO was also cross-examined at length, but nothing came out from his statement, which may lead us to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution case. 28. According to the result of examination of FSL Report, the blood stains on the articles were found to be of human origin and the blood group was 'A'. Apart from that, the seals of all the articles were found intact, when they were deposited in the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 29. Per contra, DW1 Sitaram has deposed that Rahul was demanding money from his mother - Savitri for purchasing a Jeep. That amount for purchasing the jeep was not paid by Savitri, therefore, a dispute took place. He further deposed that he saw that a 'Raapri' was lying in the hand of Rahul and dead body of Savitri was lying there covered with the 'chaddar'. Then according to this witness, he scolded Rahul as to what he has done. He also deposed that a 'Kulhara', fitted with 'rappat' was lying near the dead body of the Savitri. In cross-examination, he stated that he did not give any report to the police, nor this story was revealed to the police. He also stated that the police had reached the house of Parasram, but did not pick up any blood stained clothes or Kulhara etc. from there. This witness does not appear to be a credit-worthy witness. Similarly, DW2 S.C.Malhotra is a Branch Manager, SBBJ Branch, Surajgarh. He has Stated that on 13th May, 2001, he was posted as Branch Manager, in SBBJ Surajgarh. Hazarilal had opened an account in his Bank on 12.4.1980. Thereafter the name of his wife - Savitri was also added for the purpose of operating the joint account. The account was closed on 10.5.2000. He also stated that when the account was closed, there was a deposit of Rs. 3,17,248/- in the aforesaid account. Apart from that, there was an FD, bearing No. 492506 amounting to Rs. 6000/- in the name of Hazarilal Jangid. The account was closed on 10.5.2000. He also stated that when the account was closed, there was a deposit of Rs. 3,17,248/- in the aforesaid account. Apart from that, there was an FD, bearing No. 492506 amounting to Rs. 6000/- in the name of Hazarilal Jangid. He has also given details of the operation of the account, which is not relevant and is of no help to the accused. 30. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and scanned, evaluated and scrutinised the material available on record carefully. It may be stated that some contradictions were found in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, but they are of a minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material ones. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witness are not tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statements of the prosecution witnesses would not affect their testimony. 31. It may be mentioned that in the FIR, injuries inflicted by Kulhari have been assigned to Ramkishan and the Jelly blows have been assigned to Ramotar. The testimony of the eye-witnesses, namely PW4 Suman, PW7 Rahul, PW3 Ramniwas, PW2 Smt. Revati and PW1 Smt. Geeta remained unshaken during the course of examination. Apart from that, the injuries inflicted by both the accused appellants - Ramkishan and Ramotar - stand corroborated from the deposition as well as post-mortem report of Dr. Dayaram (PW6) as he has deposed that the death of the deceased. Smt. Savitri was caused by asphyxia and hemorrhage due to cut down of trachea and cartoid artery and such kind of injuries could have been caused by Kulhari and Jelly. The Doctor has also deposed that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The fact of recovery of the alleged weapons, i.e., Kulhara and Jelly, on the disclosure statements and at the instance of the accused-appellants, also stands proved from the recovery memos as well as the deposition of the Investigating Officer, Attar Singh (PW15). The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Expert also corroborates the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that the blood found on the articles was of human origin, it was group 'A' and the seals were found intact when the articles reached the Laboratory for examination. 32. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Expert also corroborates the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that the blood found on the articles was of human origin, it was group 'A' and the seals were found intact when the articles reached the Laboratory for examination. 32. The learned trial Court has given categorical findings that the common intention and motive of both the accused-appellants, namely, Ramkishan and Ramotar was to commit the murder of Smt. Savitri, which stands corroborated from the testimony of Dr. Dayaram (PW6) who has deposed that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The learned trial Court has also held that while the deceased Smt. Savitri was going to her field alone, she was stopped by both the accused and was given fatal blows with Kulhara and Jelly respectively, which resulted into her death instantaneously. This stands further proved from the statement of Rahul (PW7) that when he intervened to save his mother, accused Ramkishan inflicted a fatal blow with Kulhari on his jaw, as is evident from the injury report dated 22.9.1998 (Ex.P11). The learned trial Court also stated in its finding that the injury inflicted on Rahul @ Ramkaran was serious in nature and was inflicted with sharp-edged weapon, so his case does not fall under Section 307, IPC, but it falls within the purview of the Section 326 IPC. So, accused Ramkishan was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 326 Indian Penal Code also. 33. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that the case against both the accused appellants Ramkishan and Ramotar has been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, which forms a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellants. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused appellants with the commission of the crime and the above circumstances form a chain so complete that there was no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused appellants Ramkishan and Ramotar respectively and none else. The circumstances of definite tendency unerringly point towards the guilt of both the accused appellants. 34. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants Ramkishan and Ramotar for the offences as mentioned above. The circumstances of definite tendency unerringly point towards the guilt of both the accused appellants. 34. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants Ramkishan and Ramotar for the offences as mentioned above. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on correct and proper appreciation of evidence on record. 35. We see no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded in his judgment dated March 13, 2002. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Jhunjhunu is maintained. 36. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.Appeal allowed. *******