Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 259 (ALL)

AMIT BATHAM v. STATE OF U P

2004-02-11

S.K.AGARWAL, V.S.BAJPAI

body2004
These two connected appeals arise from the judgment passed by the Special Judge, SC/st (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kannauj on 16-8-2003. Criminal Appeal No. 4262/2003 was filed by the accused Amit Batham who was convicted under Section 302 I. P. C. simplicitor and sentenced to extreme penalty. The other accused persons were also convicted for the said offence but sentenced with lesser penalty, life imprisonment. These accused have also been convicted and sentenced under Section 452 I. P. C. to three years R. I. and a find of Rs. 1,000. In default of payment of fine three months R. I. was also imposed upon them. The other convictions are under Section 323/34 I. P. C. and were awarded six months R. I. Under Section 3 (ii) (v) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act only Amit alias Pintoo Thakur and Manoj Joshi were convicted. They are sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The appeal of other two appellants Amit Singh alias Chintu and Manoj Joshi is Criminal Appeal No. 3967/2003. 2. The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the First Information are that the informant Soni d/o Shailendra, her mother and younger sister Raj Kumari were doing menial job in the houses of the residents of Gursahaiganj to meet their both ends. This Raj Kumari was entangled with Amit Batham. Amit Batham used to tease her. It developed into their friendship. Some two and half months before the occurrence Amit Batham had made a proposal to the parents of the informant for his marriage with Raj Kumari. The proposal was spurned by her parents on account of the cast barrier. This was not liked by this appellant. Some time in between Amit Batham visited the house of the informant with his 3-4 companions in village Garihia Walidaspur where her family used to reside. A threat was extended by them that they will take away Raj Kumari forcibly. As a consequence to that the mother of the informant had sent her younger daughter to her house (husbands ). She was married to one Pappu and was living one km. away from Gursahaiganj in village Garahia Balidaspur. Raj Kumari stayed there for about two and half months. On the date of occurrence the informant alongwith her younger sister came to her parents home. During the day at about 2. She was married to one Pappu and was living one km. away from Gursahaiganj in village Garahia Balidaspur. Raj Kumari stayed there for about two and half months. On the date of occurrence the informant alongwith her younger sister came to her parents home. During the day at about 2. 00 p. m. while coming to the house of her parent they also passed through Gursahaiganj, the place of residence of Amit Batham and other accused appellant. Near Ram Lila ground Amit Batham accosted them. On the said night at about 10, 10. 30 p. m. Amit Batham, Amit Singh alias Chintu and Manoj Joshi armed with country made pistols and an unknown person armed with an axe came to her house and knocked the door on the pretext that they are members of the police force. As soon as the door was opened Soni was given an axe below on her head. The appellants started dragging her younger sister Raj Kumari out of the house. Their alarm aroused their parents from slumber who tried to resist the attempt of the accused persons. Shots were fired upon these two resulting into their instaneous death. In the meantime many people from the village and some policeman also arrived at the scene of occurrence. The policemen took both injured sisters to the hospital alongwith their parents who were declared dead at the hospital on arrival. The medical examination of these two was conducted at the hospital on the same night at about 0. 15 and 0. 45 hours. 3. The report of this incident was got scribed by the informant from one Pravin Saxena, a resident of the same village. It was taken to the Police Station by the scribe himself. The medical examination of two injured was conducted by P. W. 5 Dr. R. M. S. Tiwari. These two have suffered blunt object injuries upon their persons. 4. The post mortem examination on the corpus of the deceased persons was conducted on 13-11-2001 at 3. 45 and 4. 15 p. m. by Dr. S. P. Singh, P. W. 3. Incised wound and gunshot wound were found on the person of the deceased Ram Rati. Only gunshot wound and an abrasion was noticed by the abovesaid Medical Officer on the person of the other deceased Manfool. He was of the opinion that the incident could have occurred at the alleged time. S. P. Singh, P. W. 3. Incised wound and gunshot wound were found on the person of the deceased Ram Rati. Only gunshot wound and an abrasion was noticed by the abovesaid Medical Officer on the person of the other deceased Manfool. He was of the opinion that the incident could have occurred at the alleged time. Nothing very material and concrete to its advantage was brought out by the defence in the cross-examination of this Medical Officer. It has come in his statement clearly that most of the injuries suffered by the deceased persons were of fire-arm. Only one injury of Ram Rati deceased could be of a sharp edged weapon. The person who was armed with sharp edged weapon was never brought to book and tried as such his case is not before us in any manner. 5. The prosecution in support of its case has examined two eye- witnesses of the incident, P. W. 1 Soni, the informant and P. W. 2 Raj Kumari. The other witnesses are formal in nature. They are Dr. S. P. Singh P. W. 3, Dr. R. M. S. Tewari, P. W. 5 who have medically examined the injured and conducted the post mortem examination. P. W. 4 Narsingh Pal Singh is the Investigating Officer. He has also proved the check FIR and the relevant G. D. entries, which were transcribed by Vijendra Singh. Written report is Ext. Ka-1. The injury reports are Ext. Ka-2, and Ext. Ka-3. 6. The inquest on the body of two deceased persons, was prepared by S. I. Shyam Vir. It bears the signature of the Investigating Officer as well. 7. Shri P. N. Misra, learned senior counsel appearing for the accused-appellant Amit Batham in Criminal Appeal No. 4262/2003 alongwith Shri Vinay Saran, has made the following submissions. 8. The First Information Report in this case is anti timed. This has been proved it is urged further from the evidence of the eye- witnesses clearly. There is no mention of any source of light either in the First Information Report or in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. The presence of lamp as alleged by Raj Kumari, P. W.-1, in her testimony is clearly a gross improvement in the prosecution story to make it easy for the witnesses to identify the culprits. There is no mention of any source of light either in the First Information Report or in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. The presence of lamp as alleged by Raj Kumari, P. W.-1, in her testimony is clearly a gross improvement in the prosecution story to make it easy for the witnesses to identify the culprits. It is also contended that there is no injury of any axe which further weakened the prosecution case irretrievably. His last submission is that all the accused were arrested during night of the occurrence and were brought before the injured witnesses in the hospital the same night for fixing their identity in the offence. This has also been used as a circumstance to establish that the First Information Report would not have come into existence at the time as alleged i. e. 0. 30 a. m. on the night of occurrence itself. 9. Shri G. S. Hajela, learned counsel appearing for rest of the appellants has raised submission that there is no material on record except the statement of P. W. 2 to the effect that Amit Batham had disclosed the names of the other two appellants to P. W. 2 just two and half months before the occurrence at Gursahaiganj. It has now been so alleged for roping these appellants in the offence. There ought to be some more corroborative material than the statement of P. W. 2 to fix them in the crime. In order to appreciate the submission made by these counsels for the appellants we propose to examine closely the evidence of Soni P. W. 1 and Raj Kumari P. W. 2. 10. Taking up the evidence of P. W. 1 Soni we find that she has stated in her examination-in-chief that her sister Raj Kumari with her mother used to go for menial work to Gursahaiganj. The appellant Amit Batham used to tease her younger sister there. He also proposed to her for the marriage but that proposal was turned down by her parents just 15 days of the incident of teasing. She has nothing to gain by stating falsely about the incidence of proposal. Amit Batham, Amit Singh alias Chintu and Manoj Joshi alongwith an unknown person arrived at the house of her parents and told them that if they will not marry Raj Kumari with Amit Batham she will be lifted forcibly away. She has nothing to gain by stating falsely about the incidence of proposal. Amit Batham, Amit Singh alias Chintu and Manoj Joshi alongwith an unknown person arrived at the house of her parents and told them that if they will not marry Raj Kumari with Amit Batham she will be lifted forcibly away. To avoid this ugly situation her parents dispatched Raj Kumari to the house of the informant P. W. 1 Soni who was married to one Pappu in another village some four cose (8 miles) from her parental home. On the date of Deepawali she alongwith her younger sister proceeded for the house of her parents. In the process they passed through Gursahaiganj. Ram Lila was going on there. Amit Batham met them there. Seeing them he smiled wryly and thereafter contemptuously moved away. On the said date at about 10, 10. 30 p. m. these three alongwith an unknown companion came to her house and asked them to open the door on the pretext that they are policemen. The door was opened by the witness. As soon as the door was opened the unknown person struck a blow of Kulhari on her scalp. Amit Batham tried to drag away Raj Kumari. Fourth man who was holding an axe struck a blow upon the head of Raj Kumari also. When her parents rushed to resist the attempt they were fired upon by these three appellants. Fire-arm injuries were suffered by their parents apart from other injuries. They fell down to the ground. Alarm raised by the girls attracted Pravin Saxena, Kuldip, Gopi Chand etc. and the people of the village to their house. Pravin Saxena made a phone call to the police. The police arrived at the scene of occurrence. When the assailants saw the police arriving at the place of occurrence, they took to their heels. The police took all the injured to Gursahaiganj hospital. Her parents were declared dead. They were medically treated at the hospital. Their medical examination report as earlier pointed out is Ext. Ka-2 and Ka-3. The medical examination was conducted very promptly in the present case. She had proved her written report. It was scribed by Pravin Saxena on her dictation. The cross examination on the said date was deferred on the request of the accused persons. It was resumed on 5-7-2002. Their medical examination report as earlier pointed out is Ext. Ka-2 and Ka-3. The medical examination was conducted very promptly in the present case. She had proved her written report. It was scribed by Pravin Saxena on her dictation. The cross examination on the said date was deferred on the request of the accused persons. It was resumed on 5-7-2002. Much stress was laid upon the fact that she returned for the first time alongwith her younger sister to her parents house after two and half months. On the date of occurrence her husband did not accompany her though it is in contradiction to the statement made by P. W. 2 Raj Kumari. P. W. 2 had stated that her brother-in-law accompanied them but no material gain could be made out from the denial or the admission of the fact. He may not have stayed during night. She had stated further that these persons had visited her husbands house some 15 days before this incident. Since then she knew them. She did not know them from before. Her sister Raj Kumari had disclosed their names to her. She had seen them at her husbands house for the first time. The Investigating Officer recorded her statement in the hospital after the registration of her report. She had admitted in her testimony that there was a lamp burning inside the house at that time. The accused persons had got the door opened on the pretext that they are policemen. She had identified that from the ventilator of the house. She was cross-examined earlier on the light by the defence counsel. Her examination is that she had disclosed this fact to the Investigating Officer that the lamp was burning in the house at the time of occurrence. That night of occurrence according to her was bright night. But this fact cannot be accepted in the face of the fact that it was Deepawali night and Deepawali always falls on an Amavasya. She had claimed further that she identified the miscreants in the bright night. It has come in her testimony that the report was prepared in the hospital in the night at 1. 30 a. m. She denied the defence suggestion that this report was transcribed on the dictation of the Sub Inspector by Pravin Saxena. According to her Pravin Saxena reached the hospital 10 minutes after their arrival. It has come in her testimony that the report was prepared in the hospital in the night at 1. 30 a. m. She denied the defence suggestion that this report was transcribed on the dictation of the Sub Inspector by Pravin Saxena. According to her Pravin Saxena reached the hospital 10 minutes after their arrival. She also denied the suggestion that she fell unconscious after receiving injuries. She had also denied the defence suggestion that the accused persons were arrested on the same night and shown to her in the hospital by the Sub-Inspector immediately after their arrest for fixing identity of the culprits. The defence has given her suggestion that she and her younger sister have suffered injuries in a stampede that occurred in her house. She also denied the suggestion that she could not identify the culprits due to darkness and the report was scribed at the instance of the police. She is deposing falsely. She denied filing of an affidavit before the Superintendent of Police, Kannauj which bears her photograph in support of Ramesh who was probably picked up as the unknown accused in the incident. She denied that any enquiry was made by the Investigating Officer in connection with the said affidavit from her. This affidavit is on the record at page 19 of the paper book. The affidavit was filed by her with definite a purpose to exonerate Ramesh in the offence. This affidavit also contained at page 1 in the end of it the fact that a dacoity was committed in her house in which some jewelleries were also removed by the miscreants. 11. We have examined closely the application filed in support of this affidavit. No such mention about the dacoity is made in the application. The application shows clearly the purpose behind the making of this affidavit. 12. We are of the firm opinion that the last para of this affidavit was ingenuinity of the defence counsel who had identified her before the notary. These two persons the notary and said Advocate, have appeared as defence witnesses in the case as DW-1 and DW-2. 13. We have gone through their testimonies carefully and we are convinced that their evidence could not be relied upon. A suggestion was made to the witness with regard to a dacoity having been committed on the same night at a cold storage in her village. 13. We have gone through their testimonies carefully and we are convinced that their evidence could not be relied upon. A suggestion was made to the witness with regard to a dacoity having been committed on the same night at a cold storage in her village. This suggestion was denied by both the witnesses and the Investigating Officer also. The suggestion was advanced by the defence in order to create a situation in which participation of these appellants may become doubtful and the incident at her house may be treated as the handiwork of the dacoits. No concrete proof of the incident was brought on record by the defence except making a bald suggestion in this regard. Then it could have easily filed the First Information Report of the said dacoity at the cold storage. As earlier discussed an attempt was made to cast a doubt in our mind on the genuineness of the prosecution story in this manner by introducing this averment about dacoity in the affidavit in its last para but for the reason that we have earlier recorded the said affidavit cannot be accepted as genuine or given by the witness P. W. 1 Raj Kumari. She has denied that the report was not dictated by her to Pravin Saxena. She was also suggested that the names of the witnesses disclosed in her evidence who according to her came to the spot were not mentioned as witness in her First Information Report. In our opinion we find no merit in the suggestion. It has no bearing upon the case inasmuch as the incident had occurred inside the house and admittedly the witnesses arrived at the scene of occurrence on hearing gun shot reports and their alarm. It must take some time in their coming. It was night hour and therefore it would not be possible for them to have witnessed the actual incident. Nothing occurred in fact outside the house. These two witnesses are the best witnesses of the occurrence. Admittedly the family has two sons also but no cross-examination was made from these two witnesses regarding their presence at the relevant time and about their ages. The witness was emphatic that the report was scribed on her dictation. According to her she is illiterate. These two witnesses are the best witnesses of the occurrence. Admittedly the family has two sons also but no cross-examination was made from these two witnesses regarding their presence at the relevant time and about their ages. The witness was emphatic that the report was scribed on her dictation. According to her she is illiterate. She admitted that she has studied upto Class-V. This cross- examination was made from her in the light of the fact that there was no signature of her on it. It bears her Thumb Mark only. The explanation offered by her is that there was swelling on her hand. Therefore she had put her Thumb Mark on the written report. We see no earthly reason to discard this part of her statement. Non- examination of Pravin Saxena has no bearing in this case. Much stress has been led upon her statement at page 28 of the paper book that she knew Amit Batham only for the last 15 days and that too on account of their visit to her husbands house where her sister was residing with her at that time. It has also been urged that it is also her statement that the accused had come fifteen days before this incident. The proposal for marriage was brought to the parents by Amit Batham which was not accepted by the parents on account of cast differences. This proposal was spurned in her presence. This evidence even for the sake of argument if we accept is of no consequence inasmuch as she had been at the house of parents on the date of occurrence. It has not been disputed by the defence in her cross-examination in any manner. The sister was dispatched to her house to avoid the threat extended earlier from being accomplished. 14. In this view of the matter even if she knew the culprits only for the last 15 days there would be no difficulty for her to identify them on the fateful night. They had come in close proximity it is evident from the manner in which this incident had occurred. She had ample opportunity to identify the miscreants. Her sister Raj Kumari positively knows them before. As many as six-gun shots on the persons of the deceased and some 7-8 blunt object injuries were upon these two injured persons in the incident. They had come in close proximity it is evident from the manner in which this incident had occurred. She had ample opportunity to identify the miscreants. Her sister Raj Kumari positively knows them before. As many as six-gun shots on the persons of the deceased and some 7-8 blunt object injuries were upon these two injured persons in the incident. This will definitely take accused persons some time in their infliction. Apart from the fact so for as Amit Batham is concerned it would not be difficult for Raj Kumari to identify him even by his voice. There is clinching evidence on the record in this regard and she with stood the test of the cross- examination firmly. 15. Thus in our opinion, in her testimony there is hardly any discrepancy, which may make us disbelieve or discard her evidence. It is true that so far as Amit Singh alias Chintu and Manoj Joshi are concerned we have only a solitary piece of evidence that they had visited her own house (her husband) just 15 days ago and the second meeting of her with accused persons was only on the night of occurrence. It is not sufficient to throw away her testimony. She is an injured witness. She has no animus against the deceased persons. Moreover they went to threaten them of dire consequence. It was sufficient for her to watch them with keenness and retain their facial contours in her mind. It was something dare devil. 16. Coming to the testimony of P. W. 2 Raj Kumari who is also an injured witness we find that in her statement she denied that she bears another name Sangita. She was emphatic that no one having the name Sangita lives in her house. This cross examination was made because in the medical examination report she was referred to as Sangita but there is no clinching evidence on the record in the form of the statement of the Sub-Inspector P. W. 4 and the Medical Officer that it was this girl who was brought before him. No serious challenge to her identity was made by the defence. No such suggestion was given to P. W. 1. The doctor was also not probed on this point. 17. In this view of the matter no adverse inference could be have by the defence from the discrepancy. No serious challenge to her identity was made by the defence. No such suggestion was given to P. W. 1. The doctor was also not probed on this point. 17. In this view of the matter no adverse inference could be have by the defence from the discrepancy. It has been pointed out from the statement that she has categorically stated that she had a talk with Amit Batham two and half months ago. No one was present at that time. She did not work in the house of Amit Batham. She had stated that Amit Batham used to tease her in the presence of her mother. Generally she did not talk to Amit Batham. She further stated that except teasing her Amit Batham never had indulged into any other activity. This cross-examination was made from this witness purposely, and the witness had no option but to make this statement for the simple reason that in the First Information Report it was stated that the appellant Amit Batham and she became friendly in the course of the so-called teasing of her by the appellant. 18. So far as the other statement that there was no person present when she met Amit Batham two- and-half months ago it is concerned, it only refers to her mother because she has specifically stated that he was teasing her in the presence of her mother. She further stated that the call for opening of the door was given by Amit Batham. Her sister did not fall unconscious on receiving injuries on her head. She also denied that she became unconscious after suffering injuries. This cross- examination is of no consequence, as the medical evidence does not corroborated it. It will be fair to point out at this stage that Medical Officer stated that the injured were conscious. The prompt medical examinations lends great assurance to the time of occurrence. P. W. 2 Raj Kumari was medically examined at 0. 15 hours and P. W. 1 Soni was examined on that very night at the Gursahaiganj hospital at 0. 45 a. m. This bears ample proof to this fact that they had suffered injuries in the said incident and were conscious all along. No cross-examination in this regard was made from the investigating officer P. W. 4. He has already confirmed that the report was transcribed on her dictation. 45 a. m. This bears ample proof to this fact that they had suffered injuries in the said incident and were conscious all along. No cross-examination in this regard was made from the investigating officer P. W. 4. He has already confirmed that the report was transcribed on her dictation. No signatures from them were obtained on any paper at the hospital. She is illiterate. She also denied that these appellants were involved on account of her teasing by them. The defence had blow hot and cold in one breath at this peace of evidence that a dacoity was committed at their house and the appellants were involved on suspicion. Had it been so none else than Amit Batham should have been involved. She stated in her evidence that the police brought the accused in the night in the hospital to get them identified. P. W. 1 has denied this. We do not see anything of consequence to the advantage of the appellants in her this admission. She stated that she knew the other accused for the last 2-3 months. 2-1/2 months ago their names were disclosed to her by Amit Batham. We presume that P. W. 2 had developed some soft corner for the appellant Amit Batham and since other accused were his companions and often seen by her with her boy friend. There is no improbability in this statement of hers in our opinion. It is further assured by the averment in the First Information Report. 19. Shri P. N. Mishra, learned senior counsel has laid much stress on this peace of evidence that the other two appellants never teased her to establish that there is no material to connect the appellants with the offence. She had admitted that two and half months before the occurrence Amit Batham had disclosed the name of these two appellants Manoj Joshi and Amit Singh alias Chintu to her. This was done at Gursahaiganj. It is common knowledge that the lovers do introduce their best friends to their beloveds. This statement is when read in this context defence cannot gain anything. We find nothing unusual therein. Affinity between her and appellant Amit Batham was certain. 20. This attempt may be simple ingenuinity on the part of this witness and an attempt to help them by her. This statement is when read in this context defence cannot gain anything. We find nothing unusual therein. Affinity between her and appellant Amit Batham was certain. 20. This attempt may be simple ingenuinity on the part of this witness and an attempt to help them by her. From the assertion made by P. W. 1 Soni in her report it seems that this teasing had developed into friendship with Amit Batham, the principal accused. If this part of her statement is read in this context then no infirmity in this peace of evidence could confound us. 21. Lastly Shri P. N. Misra, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellant was minor at the time of occurrence. This has been done to avail him the benefit of the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. This Act by that time came into force repealing the Act of 1986. In this connection it is important to point out that in 1986 Act the age of a Juvenile was 16 years. In the impugned Act the age of a Juvenile is 18 years. He is still entitled to the benefit of Act if it is proved that he is a juvenile in conflict with law. 22. We have gone through the submission very carefully. Section 20 of this 2000 Act clearly makes it incumbent upon the Court to give consideration to the plea of juvenile treating the 2000 Act to be applicable if the trial is pending. 23. There is no doubt that at the relevant time the trial was pending but the difficulty is that this question was not raised at all before a the trial Court. No evidence to establish the requirements was filed there by the defence. For the first time this evidence in the form of a school leaving certificate was submitted on an affidavit in this Court. It has been pointed out that the applicants statement in trial Court under Section 313 Cr. P. C. was recorded. He has disclosed his age to be 19 years. This offence took place on 12-7-1986. School register and transfer certificate of this appellant was filed in this regard. A photocopy of the same has been filed. We had examined it. To our utter surprise the certificate contained his mothers name first and fathers name later on in the second line. He has disclosed his age to be 19 years. This offence took place on 12-7-1986. School register and transfer certificate of this appellant was filed in this regard. A photocopy of the same has been filed. We had examined it. To our utter surprise the certificate contained his mothers name first and fathers name later on in the second line. We expressed our opinion about the genuineness of this document. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants immediately expressed his desire to withdraw the affidavit. He did not press the submission further. The affidavit was allowed to be withdrawn. 24. It has been submitted for the appellant Amit Batham lastly that there is no evidence on the basis of which any distinction could be drawn in his case and the case of other accused person so as to impose or confirm the extreme penalty awarded by the Special Judge. The trial Court has attributed the following reasons for imposing the maximum sentence, the extreme penalty, upon this appellant Amit Batham. According to it this appellant had planned the incident of abducting P. W. 2 Raj Kumari, daughter of the two deceased persons. He had executed it in a most dastardly manner and when the parents of the deceased came to impede them in their nefarious cause they were done to death. First shot was also fired by him. 25. We with prefer to differ with the finding recorded by the Special Judge in this connection. We are of the opinion that there is no evidence on the record that it was Amit Batham alone who had caused these two deaths. The evidence on the other hand is that all the three persons had pistols and they had fired shots. The only distinguishing feature is that he was present amongst them and allegedly fired the first shot. It was not so alleged in the First Information or in 161 Cr. P. C. statement. Rest there is nothing to distinguish his case from others for imposing extreme penalty on him. There is evidence that these appellants were mostly seen together by witnesses. Therefore it would not be safe to fix him alone with hatching the conspiracy. All of them must have been equally responsible for the said conspiracy. Murders may not have been in their plan or mind even. All of them are young men. There is evidence that these appellants were mostly seen together by witnesses. Therefore it would not be safe to fix him alone with hatching the conspiracy. All of them must have been equally responsible for the said conspiracy. Murders may not have been in their plan or mind even. All of them are young men. The shooting might have been resorted to by them at the spur of the moment on finding themselves in the tight corner to save themselves. He is about eighteen years. 26. We in the circumstances find it sufficient to award him with the sentence of imprisonment for life instead of extreme penalty under Section 302 I. P. C. read with Section 34 I. P. C. 27. In the result we convict him under Section 302/34 I. P. C. in place of Section 302 I. P. C. simplicitor and modify his sentence to life imprisonment for causing these two deaths instead of extrreme penalty. His appeal but for the above modification is dismissed. 28. Reference made by the Special Judge in the case of Amit Batham is accordingly rejected since we have already modified the sentence of this appellant and convicted him under Section 302/34 I. P. C. in the said offence. He is in jail. He shall continue to remain there to serve out his sentence as modified by us. His sentences are to run concurrently. 29. Conviction of other appellants Amit Singh alias Chintu Thakur and Manoj Joshi do not call for any interference except conviction under Section 3 (ii) (v) SC/st Act. There is hardly anything in the evidence of these two witnesses on the strength of which their conviction under the said count could have been made and sentence awarded. Therefore we acquit these appellants under this count and set aside their sentences for life imprisonment on the said count awarded by the trial Court. Conviction and sentences of all the three appellants under the counts namely under Section 452 I. P. C. and Section 323/34 I. P. C. are also confirmed and maintained. 30. Criminal Appeal No. 3967 of 2003 filed by other appellants is hereby also dismissed. Their conviction and sentence under all counts except under 3 (ii) (v) SC/st Act which was already set aside by us are confirmed. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. 30. Criminal Appeal No. 3967 of 2003 filed by other appellants is hereby also dismissed. Their conviction and sentence under all counts except under 3 (ii) (v) SC/st Act which was already set aside by us are confirmed. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They shall be taken into custody forthwith by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Kannauj so that they may serve out their sentences. Their sentences are also to run concurrently. A report about their arrest and remand to jail be submitted to this Court within 30 days from the date copy of judgment is received. Appeal dismissed.