Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 309 (HP)

KULDEEP @ BITTU v. STATE OF H. P.

2004-11-18

DEEPAK GUPTA, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

body2004
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla in Sessions Trial No. 19/7 of 2001,whereby he has convicted the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the accused) for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C.) and Section 460 read with Section 341.P.C.They have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in case of default of payment of fine the accused have been ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. For the offence under Section 460 read with Section 341.P.C., both the accused have been sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they have been ordered to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution is based on the statement of PW-1, Smt. Sevati Devi, recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. The gist of this statement is that Smt. Sevati Devi, aged about 85 years, is a resident of village Neri. She is an agriculturist. She and her husband, Sita Ram, had no issue. Therefore, her husband had got his entire land and property entered in the name of her nephew Col. Daulat Singh, who was looking after them. She states that on 9.1.2001 they took their meals at about 7.00 P.M. and thereafter her husband listened to the news at 7.50 P.M. She heard the news briefly and went to her room to sleep. Her husband followed her and went to his room. She then switched off the lights and went to sleep. She had barely slept for about 5 minutes when her husband started screaming and called out for her by name. It appeared to her that somebody might have gagged his mouth. She then became suspicious that there may be a thief in the house and she, therefore, ran to nearby village Manyana and raised an alarm that thieves are beating the old man and please save him. Immediately 7-8 boys of the village came towards her house. She also accompanied them. The thieves switched off the lights of the house. She then became suspicious that there may be a thief in the house and she, therefore, ran to nearby village Manyana and raised an alarm that thieves are beating the old man and please save him. Immediately 7-8 boys of the village came towards her house. She also accompanied them. The thieves switched off the lights of the house. Then in her presence one of the thieves quickly jumped down from the corner of the house and fled away. The villagers chased him and then his accomplice, finding an opportunity, managed to escape. Then the villagers switched on the lights of the house. When Smt. Sevati went to the room of her husband, she found that a piece of cloth had been stuffed into his mouth and he had died. The lock of the trunk was open and the jewelry and cash lying in it had been stolen by the thieves. The keys of the cash chest were hanging from the cash chest. These keys had been taken by the thieves from the pocket of her husband. She suspected that the crime had been committed by Kuldeep Sharma of Pulbahal area in connivance with his accomplices. She was suspicious of Kuldeep Sharma since he had been working as Chowkidar in the orchard of Col. Daulat Singh and had complete knowledge about her house and also because he had come one month previously without any work and had insisted that he may be permitted to stay for a night. 3. The incident was first reported at Police Post, Deha at 8.45 p.m. by PW-2, Col. Daulat Singh on telephone. The report regarding the same was entered in the Rapat Roznamcha copy of which is Ex. PW-7/ A. Thereafter PW-18, ASI Bidhi Singh accompanied by other police officials went to the spot. Telephonic Intimation regarding the incident was also given by PW-7, H.C. Subhash Chand to Police Station, Theog which was recorded at Police Station, Theog by PW-14, lady Constable Meena. At Theog, the Rapat Roznamcha was entered at 8.40 p.m. on 9.1.2001 and copy of the same is Ex. PW-14/A. The police party from Police Post, Deha reached village Neri at about 10 P.M. and there the statement of PW-1, Sevati Devi under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded which is Ex. At Theog, the Rapat Roznamcha was entered at 8.40 p.m. on 9.1.2001 and copy of the same is Ex. PW-14/A. The police party from Police Post, Deha reached village Neri at about 10 P.M. and there the statement of PW-1, Sevati Devi under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded which is Ex. PW-1/A. The same was then sent through Constable Subhash Chand for registration of the case to Police Station, Theog and on the basis of Ex PW-1/A, PW-11, H.C. Varinder Kumar recorded the FIR, Ex. PW-11/A on 10.1.2001 at 4.05 a.m. By 12 midnight, the police party from Theog headed by PW-19, SHO Anant Ram also reached the spot. PW-19 prepared the site plan, Ex. PW-19/A. He also took into possession a Shawl, Ex. P-l and Sickle Ex. P-3 vide memos Ex. PW-4/A and Ex. PW-2/A, respectively. It is alleged that these articles belong to the accused. He also prepared the inquest papers Ex. PW-15/A and Ex. PW-15/B and sent the same along with the body of deceased Sita Ram to Civil Hospital. Theog for post mortem. 4. PW-16 Dr Jitender Chauhan, Medical Officer, working in Civil Hospital, Theog, on visual examination, was of the opinion that the deceased had died under suspicious circumstances and, therefore, he referred the body of the deceased to Indira Gandhi Medical College (IGMC), Shimla for expert opinion. He prepared the preliminary examination report Ex. PW-16/B. Thereafter PW-15, Dr. V.K. Misra, Associate Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, I.G.M.C., Shimla carried out the post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Sita Ram and his post-mortem report is Ex. PW-15/C. According to him the death of the deceased took place due to asphyxia as a result of gagging by stuffing a piece of cloth into the mouth of the deceased. 5. PW-19, SHO Anant Ram, who was Investigating Officer, after receipt of the report from CTL, Junga and completion of investigation filed a challan in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog, who committed the same to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Shimla since the case disclosed an offence under Section 302 LP.C. which was triable by the Court of Sessions. The case thereafter was transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, who framed charges against both the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 460 read with Section 34 LP.C. 6. The case thereafter was transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, who framed charges against both the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 460 read with Section 34 LP.C. 6. Prosecution in support of its case examined 19 witnesses in all. Thereafter the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused and they have been examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial Their case was of denial simplicitor. The accused did not lead any evidence in defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted both the accused for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 460 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment, as detailed above. 7. We have heard Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Amicus Curiae for the accused and Mr. S.D. Vasudeva, learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State. 8. The main ground of challenge to the judgment of conviction is that the identity of the accused has not been established and that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, especially PW-1, Smt. Sevati Devi with regard to the identity of the accused. Shri Dadwal, learned Counsel has also stressed that PW-1, Smt. Sevati Devi has weak eyesight and had initially identified accused Dheeraj Kumar as Kuldeep Sharma in Court and had only rectified her mistake later. He has also stated that it was a dark night, as admitted by PW-19 Anant Ram, and therefore no reliance can be placed on the statement of the witnesses, PW-1 and PW-3 identifying the accused. To appreciate these contentions it is necessary to refer to the relevant evidence. 9. PW-1, Smt. Sevati Devi, widow of the deceased, in her statement in Court has reiterated what she has stated in her statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. She states that after watching television she had gone to her room to sleep. She had barely slept for five minutes, when her husband called her by name "Dharaunti". He shouted "Pandtu Ne Mujhey Mar Diya". At this stage the learned trial Court has observed that the witness (Sevati Devi) identified accused Dheeraj Kumar as Pandtu. Then the witness went towards accused Kuideep Sharma and identified him as Pandtu. She stated that her eye sight is weak. He shouted "Pandtu Ne Mujhey Mar Diya". At this stage the learned trial Court has observed that the witness (Sevati Devi) identified accused Dheeraj Kumar as Pandtu. Then the witness went towards accused Kuideep Sharma and identified him as Pandtu. She stated that her eye sight is weak. She further stated that the aforesaid Pandtu was working as Chowkidar in the orchard of Col. Daulat Singh. He used to visit her house quite often. She reiterates that she had gone outside the house to seek help and 6-7 boys from Manyana village had reached the spot Then she had seen accused Pandtu jumping out of the window of her house Thereafter one other person had also jumped out of the window whom she could not recognize. Then she pointed at accused Dheeraj and stated that he was the person with Pandtu @ Kuideep Sharma accused. She has stated that both the accused had visited her house 2-3 times before the incident. The last time they visited her house was about 6-7 days prior to the incident when accused Kuideep had asked for a room to sleep in. She had asked him who is the person with him and Pandtu informed her that the person accompanying him is his neighbour. She had refused to permit them to sleep in her house. After the accused ran away she had gone back to her house, where she found that a piece of cloth had been stuffed into the mouth of her husband and he had died. Some blood had come out of his nose and some blood was on the floor. She has identified and proved her statement Ex PW-l/A. She has stated that the night of the occurrence was a moonlit night. In her cross examination she was confronted with her statement Ex. PW-l/A wherein it has not been recorded that her husband had shouted "Pandtu Ne Maar Diya". The witness explained that she had mentioned this fact to police. She has denied the suggestion that due to her weak eyesight she could not identify the accused at the time of incident She states that she can recognize a person from 10-12 feet. She has admitted that she cannot recognize the accused in Court who were at a distance of about 12-15 feet from her. 10. PW-2, Col. Daulat Singh, was not present at the time of incident. She has admitted that she cannot recognize the accused in Court who were at a distance of about 12-15 feet from her. 10. PW-2, Col. Daulat Singh, was not present at the time of incident. He has stated that he received a telephonic call from his wife on 9.1.2001 that some thieves have entered the house and may be they have killed the old man. The witness thereafter telephonically informed Police Post, Deha. He states that thereafter he also telephoned the Superintendent of Police, Shimla to inform him about the incident. Thereafter he hired a car and went to his village via Theog and on the way he informed the police at Police Station, Theog also. He reached village Neri at about 11.30 p.m. He further states that his uncle Sita Ram was lying dead. There were about 15-16 people gathered at the spot. He states that his aunt, PW-1, Smt. Sevati Devi informed him that deceased Sita Ram had been shouting that Pandtu had beat him. 11. PW-3 Rajinder Kumar states that he knew the deceased. On 9.1.2001 at about 8.30 P.M. PW-1, Smt. Sevati Devi had come near their village and was shouting that some dacoits have entered her house and were beating her husband. Thereafter he went to the house of the deceased. At that time there were many other villagers present. The lights had been switched off. However, it was a moonlit night. The villagers surrounded the house of Sita Ram, deceased. PW-3 saw two persons jumping out of the window at the comer of the house of the deceased. He states that Sevati was also alongside him at that time. He identified one person as Pandtu and states that he can recognize him because he has been working with Col. Daulat Singh and he used to often come to the house of deceased Sita Ram. He also states that he could also identify and recognize second person since he was working on the Saw-Mill of one of his relatives. He states that the name of the other person was Dheeraj which he came to know later. He further states that when these two persons jumped out of the window, he along with other villagers chased them, but could not catch hold of them. He states that the name of the other person was Dheeraj which he came to know later. He further states that when these two persons jumped out of the window, he along with other villagers chased them, but could not catch hold of them. Thereafter they had gone to the room of Sita Ram deceased who was lying dead on the floor and his mouth was gagged with a piece of cloth. In cross examination he has denied the suggestion that it was cloudy on the night of occurrence and that he could not identify the accused jumping out of the window of the house of Sita Ram. He states that the accused were only at a distance of 5-7 feet when he followed them. 12. PW-4 Mohi Ram has not seen the accused and he reached after the incident was over and he only states that he had seen Sita Ram lying dead in his room. He has proved the recovery of the Shawl Ex. P-2 vide recovery memo Ex. PW-4/A and Sickle Ex. P-3 which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PW-2/A. 13. PW-5, Dalip Singh is also resident of Manyana. He states that a few days after the incident the police had brought the accused to the spot and the accused had demonstrated how they entered the house of deceased Sita Ram. He also proved memo Ex. PW-5/A signed by the accused in which they showed the point from where they entered the upper storey from the cattle shed. 14. PW-7, HC Subhash Chand has proved the Rapat Roznamcha Ex. PW-7/A. He also states that the sons of Col. Daulat Singh had also filed an application apprehending danger to the life of Col. Daulat Singh and his family from accused Kuldeep @ Pandtu. It is not necessary to refer to the statements of PWs 8 to 14, who are just formal witnesses. 15. PW-15 Dr. V.K. Misra, Associate Professor, Department of Forensic Medicines, I.G.M.C., Shimla has proved the inquest papers Ex. PW-15/A and Ex. PW-15/B and Post-mortem report Ex. PW-15/C. He conducted the post-mortem or the body of the deceased on 12.1.2001. According to this witness the death of the deceased was caused due to asphyxia by gagging and that gagging could have been caused by a cloth, Ex. P-l being put deep into the mouth of the deceased. 16. PW-16 Dr. PW-15/B and Post-mortem report Ex. PW-15/C. He conducted the post-mortem or the body of the deceased on 12.1.2001. According to this witness the death of the deceased was caused due to asphyxia by gagging and that gagging could have been caused by a cloth, Ex. P-l being put deep into the mouth of the deceased. 16. PW-16 Dr. Jitender Chauhan is Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Theog. He states that the body of the deceased was brought to him for post-mortem on 10.1.2001. On visual examination, he was of the opinion that deceased had died under suspicious circumstances and hence he referred the body to I.G.M.C. Shimla for opinion of the expert. 17. PW-17 Narinder Chauhan is the son of PW-2, Col. Daulat Singh. He states that he is under training at I.M.A., Dehradun and he had come to his village in December, 2000. He has proved on record application, Ex. PW-17/A which is in his hand and bears his signature. In this application it is stated that his grand parents, i.e. deceased Sita Ram and PW-1, Smt. Sevati Devi had heard some suspicious sound at the night time and the unidentified persons had run away. This application is dated 14.12.2000. He has also proved on record another application, Ex PW-17/B which he states is in the handwriting of his brother Lieutenant Balwinder Chauhan. The second application is dated 16th December, 2000 and in this application it is stated that on 12.12.2000 one unidentified person entered into the house of the Sita Ram-deceased and that they suspect that this person was Kuldeep Sharma @ Pandtu. 18. PW-18 ASI Bidhi Singh was in charge, Police Post, Deha. He states that on 9.1.2001 he had received a telephonic message from PW-2, Daulat Singh that somebody had forcibly entered the house of his uncle, Sita Ram and might have killed him. After making entry regarding the same in Roznamcha, copy of which is Ex. PW-14/A, this witness along with other police officials went to the spot. Later, the police party headed by PW-19, SI Anant Ram also reached the spot. 19. PW-19, SHO Anant Ram states that at the relevant time he was SHO, Police Station, Theog. At about 8.40 p.m. a message was received from Police Post, Deha regarding the murder of deceased Sita Ram at village Neri. Thereafter he alongwith other police officials left for the spot. 19. PW-19, SHO Anant Ram states that at the relevant time he was SHO, Police Station, Theog. At about 8.40 p.m. a message was received from Police Post, Deha regarding the murder of deceased Sita Ram at village Neri. Thereafter he alongwith other police officials left for the spot. He states that he reached the spot at 12 midnight There they found the dead body of Sita Ram deceased who had been gagged with a piece of cloth. Blood was oozing out from the nose of Sita Ram. He got recorded the statement of PW-1 Smt. Sevati Devi under Section 154Cr.P.C. which is Ex. PW-1/ A. Thereafter he had sent the same through Constable Subhash for registration of FIR Ex. PW-ll/A. He prepared site plan and took into possession a Shawl and a Sickle, Ex. P-2 and Ex. P-3. He had sent the body alongwith the inquest papers for post-mortem to Civil Hospital, Theog from where PW-16, Dr. Jitender Chauhan referred the same to IGMC, Shimla. He states that he arrested accused Kuldeep @ Pandtu from Pulbahal on 14.1.2001. Thereafter PW-18 ASI Bidhi Singh was sent to Pathankot in search of the second accused, Dheeraj. Accused Dheeraj was arrested at Pathankot on 15.1.2001. After completion of formalities, he had filed the challan in Court. In cross examination he stated that he reached the spot at 12 midnight and he also admits as correct the suggestion that it was a dark on that night. 20. It is in the light of the above evidence that we have to consider the contention of Mr. Dadwal, learned Counsel for the accused. The main point which has been argued before us is that the identity of the accused has not been established and that since the Investigating Officer has admitted that it was a dark night and admittedly the eyesight of PW-1 is weak, therefore, it would not be possible for the witnesses, i.e. PW-1 and PW-3 to have identified the accused on the spot. 21. It is true that PW-1 has admitted that her eye sight is weak. However, she has also stated that she can identify a person from about 10-12 feet. She has stated in her examination-in-chief that the night of occurrence was a moonlit night. She has not been cross examined with regard to this aspect. 21. It is true that PW-1 has admitted that her eye sight is weak. However, she has also stated that she can identify a person from about 10-12 feet. She has stated in her examination-in-chief that the night of occurrence was a moonlit night. She has not been cross examined with regard to this aspect. This fact is also supported from the calendar which shows that night of the incident, i.e. 9.1.2001 was Puranmashi, i.e. full moon night. Both the witnesses, i.e. PW-1 Smt. Sevati Devi and PW-3 Rajinder, who had immediately reached the spot, have clearly stated that it was a moonlit night. PW-3 has also stated that the accused were only about 5-6 feet away and that PW-1, Smt. Sevati Devi was also standing alongside. Even for a person with weak eye sight it is possible to identify a person standing at a distance of 6 to 8 feet on a full moon night. This is especially so when the accused was known to her previously being an employee of her nephew. He had been visiting her house fairly often and she could recognize him. Similarly, PW-3 Rajinder Kumar also knew both the accused prior to the incident and could recognize them. Though he did not know the name of accused Dheeraj Kumar, he knew where he was employed. As far as accused Kuldeep @ Pandtu is concerned, he had seen him a number of times and knew who he was. 22. Mr. Dadwal, learned Counsel for the accused, has vehemently argued that in her statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C, PW-1, Smt. Sevati Devi, had not stated that her husband, deceased Sita Ram had shouted "Pandtu Ne Mujhe Maar Diya". According to him this witness has tried to improve her statement in Court and, therefore, no reliance should be placed on her statement and should be discarded. We are unable to agree with this contention of Mr. Dadwal. When confronted with this portion of the statement, the witness has clearly stated that she had informed the police about these facts, even though it is not recorded in Ex. PW-1/A. It is by now well settled that statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. does not have to give encyclopedic details about the incident. Even in the statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW-1/A. It is by now well settled that statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. does not have to give encyclopedic details about the incident. Even in the statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW-1/A, the witness, Smt. Sevati Devi has clearly stated that she suspects the involvement of Kuldeep Sharma of Pulbahal area. We cannot lose site of the fact that this witness is an old lady about 85 years of age who has lost her husband in tragic circumstances and, therefore, immediately after the incident when her statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded she may not have been able to give exact details. In her statement recorded on oath in Court, she has given the complete details and in cross examination the defence has failed to shatter her statement. Even if contention of Mr. Dadwal is accepted, at best only this portion of the statement "Pandtu Ne Mujhey Maar Diya" will have to be excluded. Even if this portion is not taken into consideration the fact remains that this witness as vvell as PW-3 have identified the accused as the persons who jumped out of the house immediately after the occurrence. In fact, if her statement recorded in Court is read as a whole it has a ring of truth about it. This old woman would not like to falsely implicate the accused when there is no enmity between the parties. 23. Similarly, there is nothing to reject the testimony of PW-3. He is a young man aged about 29 years. He has clearly identified and recognized both the accused as the persons who ran out of the house of the deceased and PW-1 on the night of the incident. In cross examination the defence has failed to bring out anything to discard his testimony. There is no reason why this witness should tell lies to falsely implicate the accused. 24. In view of the statements of PW-1, Sevati Devi and PW-3, Rajinder Kumar, we are of the view that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused who had jumped out of the window from the house of the deceased soon after the incident. 25. Once this finding is arrived at that it was the accused who had jumped out of the window, the only conclusion which can be reached is that it was they alone and none else who killed Sita Ram. 25. Once this finding is arrived at that it was the accused who had jumped out of the window, the only conclusion which can be reached is that it was they alone and none else who killed Sita Ram. Great emphasis was laid by the learned Counsel for the accused on the fact that no test identification parade was done. It was not necessary to have a test identification parade when the witnesses knew the accused from before and no purpose would have been served in holding the test identification parade. PW-1, Smt. Sevati Devi knew Kuldeep by face as well as by name whereas she knew Dheeraj accused by face since he had come to her house along with accused Kuldeep. As far as PW-3 is concerned, he knew both the accused from before. The test identification parade is only in the nature of corroborative evidence and where there is substantive evidence of eye witnesses who knew the accused; there is no need of corroborative evidence. We are supported in our view by the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported in Daya Singh v. State of Haryana (AIR 2001 SC 1188). Mr. Dadwal has relied upon Joseph alias Jose v. State of Kerala, (2003) 11 SCC 223 and Devinder Singh and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2003) 11 SCC 488. In our view these judgments are based on their own peculiar facts and are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 26. An argument was also raised on behalf of the accused that there u contradiction between the medical and ocular evidence. Mr. Dadwal, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that PW-1 has stated that they had dinner at 7.00 P.M. In the post-mortem report proved by PW-15, it has come that the contents of the stomach were empty and only two grains of Chana Daal were found in the stomach. He has relied upon a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported in Moti and others v. State of U.P. (2003) 9 SCC 444. In our view this judgment is not applicable in the present case. The Honble Supreme Court was concerned with a case where time of death was a very material factor to verify the presence of the eye witnesses. In the present case the time of death is not such a relevant factor. In our view this judgment is not applicable in the present case. The Honble Supreme Court was concerned with a case where time of death was a very material factor to verify the presence of the eye witnesses. In the present case the time of death is not such a relevant factor. Once the identity and presence of accused has been established the fact that stomach was empty or not will not be a ground to discard the testimony of PW-I. It also has to be kept in mind that deceased was aged more than 95 years and at this age a person may be having a very light meal. 27. Mr. S.D. Vasudeva, learned Additional Advocate General, has supported the reasoning given by the learned trial Court and has also relied upon the documents, Ex. PW-17/A and Ex. PW-17/B, i.e. the complaints made to Police Post, Deha on. 28. Mr. S.D. Vasudeva, learned Additional Advocate General, has supported the reasoning given by the learned trial Court and has also relied upon the documents, Ex. PW-17/A and Ex. PW-17/B, i.e. the complaints made to Police Post, Deha on behalf of the deceased and his wife, PW-1, Smt. Sevati Devi. He argued that these documents clearly show that earlier also Kuldeep accused along with his accomplice had made an attempt to commit theft in the house. We do not find any force in this contention. A perusal of Ex. PW-17/A and Ex. PW-17/B shows that they are the original applications. If they had been given to the police officials in Police Post, Deha, how could PW-17 have produced them in Court. This question has not been answered and we do not place reliance on these documents. However, even if these documents are not taken into consideration, we are of the considered view that PW-1 and PW-3 have identified the accused who jumped out of the house of the deceased immediately after the incident. The fact that they jumped out of the house can lead to only one inference that it was the accused alone who had murdered the deceased by gagging him by stuffing a piece of cloth into his mouth. 29. In view of the above discussion we find no good reason to interfere with the findings of the learned trial Court and we, therefore, uphold the conviction and sentence passed upon the accused. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 30. 29. In view of the above discussion we find no good reason to interfere with the findings of the learned trial Court and we, therefore, uphold the conviction and sentence passed upon the accused. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 30. We must place on record our appreciation for Mr. Dadwal who appeared as amicus curiae on behalf of the accused and rendered valuable assistance in helping us in deciding this case. The case property be disposed of in accordance with the directions of the learned trial Court. Appeal dismissed.