Judgment Shiva Kirti Singh and Dharnidhar Jha JJ. 1. The death Reference and the two appeals relate to the same judgment and order dated 7.9.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Katihar in Sessions Trial No. 220/2003 and therefore they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. By this judgment and order under appeal appellants Arun Mandal alias Arun Kumar Mandal and Anuj Kumar Gupta alias Sethi Gupta have been convicted for the offence under Sections 364( A) , 302, 201 and 120 (B) of the I.P.C. and awarded death sentence. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that eleven year old Chhotu Kumar Das alias Abhinav Das, son of the informant Gopal Prasad Das (RW. 6) went from his house on 21.4.2002 at about 8.15 P.M. for visiting local fair held every year on the eve of Ram Navami and became traceless thereafter. When he could not be located inspite of search, a written report was submitted by the informant at the police station on 22.4.2002 at 10.30 A.M. disclosing in brief, the circumstances in which the victim had become traceless. Neither any suspicion was raised against any person nor any one was made responsible for the disappearance of the victim. On the basis of said written report police instituted Falka PS. Case No. 39/2002 and proceeded with the investigation. In course of investigation by Sub-Inspector of Police Chandrika Chaudhary (RW. 9) it appears that some materials raising suspicion against Anuj Kumar Gupta alias Sethi Gupta who has also been described as Sethia by some of the witnesses, came into light. On that basis he was interrogated by the police on 22.4.2002 and thereafter arrested. Allegedly he made confession before the police on 23.4.2002 to the effect that he had planned kidnapping of the victim boy in conspiracy with Arun Mandal and one Sudhir Kumar Mandal (since acquitted) and in execution of the same the victim had been taken away on a Motor Cycle to some other place and when no proper place could be found for confinement of the victim till ransom could be realised, the victim was throttled to death and the deadbody was concealed in a gunny bag and thrown in the way in river known as Maldiha Dhar. The further prosecution case is that after recording confession of Anuj Kumar Gupta alias Sethi Gupta on 23.4.2002 at 2.30 hrs. the police organised a raid and managed to arrest co-accused Arun Mandal alias Arun Kumar Mandal on 24.4.2002 but could not apprehend Sudhir Kumar Mandal on that day. The confession of Arun Mandal was also allegedly recorded on 24.4.2002 at 4 A.M. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer arranged for the police force and in the company of the Officer Incharge of the Police station proceeded on a jeep to the place where deadbody had been allegedly thrown, alongwith the apprehended two accused persons, some witnesses and the police personnels. It is further case of the prosecution that on the pointing out by the two accused persons the place where the deadbody was thrown, the same was taken out of the river and the same was identified by face and by cloth by RW. 4 Tapesh Kumar Das, uncle of the victim boy. The inquest report (Ext. 6) shows that it was prepared on 24.4.2002 at 5 P.M. in respect of the deadbody found from the Dhar of Maldiha river situated south west of village Kusum Rahim. It has come in evidence that the said place falls under Barhara P.S. District Purnea. 3. After sending the deadbody for postmortem examination and recording of evidence of witnesses the Investigating Officer found the case true against four persons and submitted charge-sheet. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Sessions where charges were framed against four accused persons including the two appellants. They pleaded not guilty to the charges and hence they were put on trial. By the judgment and order under appeal two of the accused namely, Sudhir Mandal and Girendra Gupta were given benefit of doubt and acquitted whereas the two appellants were convicted and awarded death sentence. 4. From the trend of cross-examination and from the statement of accused persons under Sec. 313 Cr. P.C. it appears that both the convicted accused have simply denied their involvement in the alleged occurrence but there is no specific defence of previous enmity for false implication nor there is any explanation by them as to how they could disclose the place where the deadbody was actually recovered on the basis of their disclosure. 5. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined altogether ten witnesses. 5. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined altogether ten witnesses. P.W. 1 Natu Sah is a shopkeeper of Mouza Falka RS. Faika, District Katihar where the occurrence took place. He has deposed that on 21st, on the eve of Ram Navami Mela which was Sunday the occurrence took place. At about 8 to 8.30 P.M. he was in front of his shop which is situated at his house only. At that time Sethia was forcing his Motor Cycle into a narrow lane. The witness advised him that the lane was too narrow for a Motor-Cycle and thereupon Sethia left his Motor-Cycle at that place and went towards Thakurbani (temple) on foot and the witness went in his home after closing his shop but the witness could not say when the Motor-Cycle was taken away from that place. The witness has further deposed that on the next day when he went to the market, Sethi came to him and informed that his parents were calling him. When the witness went to his house at 3.30 P.M., Sethis father Girendra Prasad Gupta (since acquitted) asked him not to disclose before the Officer-lncharge of the Police station that Sethia had parked his Motor-Cycle at that place. He has claimed to identify the accused persons. The only question put to him in cross-examination is whether the informant is his relative which he denied and further he expressed his inability to disclose what was the particular day on 21.4.2002. He replied that he had given his statement at the police station. 6. P.W. 2 Dr. Nokhe Lal Yadav is a medical practitioner (Homeopath) at Falka. He is an acquaintance of the informant and knew the victim also. He has supported the prosecution case that the victim was kidnapped in the night of 21.4.2002 and could not be found inspite of search. He also participated in the search on 22.4.2002 and went to police station with the informant and Tapesh Das (P.W. 4) when the informant gave written information to the police in respect of kidnapping of his son. He has deposed that the deadbody of victim Chhotu Das was recovered from a river in Barhara P.S. At the time of recovery the police had taken accused Sethi Gupta and Arun Mandal with them. He has deposed that the deadbody of victim Chhotu Das was recovered from a river in Barhara P.S. At the time of recovery the police had taken accused Sethi Gupta and Arun Mandal with them. From cross- examination of this witness it appears that he is only a hearsay witness who learnt facts from others and simply participated in search of the victim. 7. P.W. 3 Pappu Kumar is elder brother of the victim. From his evidence it appears that accused appellant Sethi Gupta was well known to the family of the victim and on the date of occurrence also Sethi Gupta had visited the house of the victim for borrowing a T.V. set for running a T.V. show in fair. This witness also went with Sethi Gupta and saw T.V. show for some time and then returned home with his cousin brother. At home he was informed by his mother that the victim had also gone to the fair but had not returned. Then this witness went into the fair and entered the T.V. Hall and saw that the accused Sethi was not there. Sometime thereafter a rain storm came and the witness returned to his house and informed his father, the informant that he could not locate the victim. On the next day when the victim did not return the witness also participated in the search and came to know that Sethi was arrested and was being interrogated. The deadbody of the victim was recovered from the place indicated by Sethi Gupta. This witness identified Sethi Gupta and Girendra Gupta in dock. He did not claim to identify the other two accused. 8. P.W. 4 Tapesh Kumar Das is uncle of the victim. Besides supporting the prosecution case regarding disappearance of the victim in the night of 24.4.2002 from the fair, he has claimed that he alongwith P.W. 2 Dr. Nokhelal Yadav and some relatives searched for the victim but could not find him even after visiting neighbouring villages. When he and P.W. 2 came back from the search then on his advice the informant went to the police station and lodged the written information about disappearance of the victim boy. Nokhelal Yadav and some relatives searched for the victim but could not find him even after visiting neighbouring villages. When he and P.W. 2 came back from the search then on his advice the informant went to the police station and lodged the written information about disappearance of the victim boy. He has claimed that the acquitted accused Girendra Gupta, father of appellant Anuj Kumar Gupta alias Sethi advised him to manage a sum of 1 lac to 1.5 lac and to contact one Nandkishore Gupta alias Nunu Gupta and in that event there may be a chance of recovery of the victim boy on payment of ransom. Girendra, the father of Sethi told this witness that if he would contact some other middle man then amount of ransom may go higher and further confided that brother-in-law (Shala) of Girendra Gupta bad been recovered through the said Nandki shore Gupta only. This witness further deposed that in the evening of 23rd April when he went towards "Hat (market place) then he saw Natu Sah (P.W. 1) sitting on a wooden cot at his darwaza. The witness also sat there and thereafter people started enquiring as to how the occurrence had taken place, then he narrated to them that some woman was claiming that two persons had passed in her present on a Motor-Cycle and she had seen a child sitting between them but she could not identify them due to darkness and on this Natu Sah told that accused Sethi Gupta was going to the fair on a Motor-Cycle on Sunday but since the lane was narrow, his Motor-Cycle could not enter into the same and on forbidding of Natu Sah, Sethi parked his Motor- Cycle at that very place and went to the fair on foot. On getting such information from Natu Sah this witness went to the police station and reported the same to the Officer Incharge. The Officer Incharge then summoned Sethi and interrogated him. It was in cousse of interrogation that Sethi confessed and disclosed that the deadbody had been thrown at Maldiha Dhar. Thereafter, the Officer Incharge raided the house of accused Arun Mandal and arrested him and brought him to the police station. Thereafter this witness claims to have accompanied the Officer Incharge as well as the two accused to the place where they had allegedly thrown the deadbody. Thereafter, the Officer Incharge raided the house of accused Arun Mandal and arrested him and brought him to the police station. Thereafter this witness claims to have accompanied the Officer Incharge as well as the two accused to the place where they had allegedly thrown the deadbody. On the showing of the exact place at Maldiha Dhar by the two accused persons the deadbody was recovered and this witness identified the same to be the deadbody of his nephew Chhotu. According to this witness eyes of the body were open, tongue was protruded and there was mark of throttling on the neck. According to him the police prepared panchnama (inquest report) at that very place and the witnesses of Inquest belonged to the vicinity of Maldiha Dhar. Thereafter, the deadbody was brought to Barhara police station and from there to Falka police station and then sent for postmortem examination. This witness identified the accused persons in dock. Although this witness was cross-examined at length but nothing material has been elicited from him so as to raise any doubt regarding his trustworthiness. 9. P.W. 5 Paras Lal Mehta is a formal witness who has not denied his signature on the inquest report but has been declared hostile only because he stated in his opening sentence that he did not know anything about the occurrence. In cross-examination he has said that he did not know the contents of the papers on which he put his signature. 10. P.W. 6 Gopal Prasad Das is the informant of this case. He has given out the details as to how and when he came to know about disappearance of his son Chhotu when he had gone to see the fair and how he searched the boy without any success. He has given the details about the contact with Girendra Gupta and has disclosed that to him also, Girendra Gupta had suggested to use the good offices of Nandkishore Gupta alias Nunu Gupta as the middle man for securing the return of his son. He has deposed that on 22.4.2002 the police had called for interrogation accused Sethia and some others and had also called this witness and his son Pappu Kumar at the police station. This witness has also disclosed that on 23.4. He has deposed that on 22.4.2002 the police had called for interrogation accused Sethia and some others and had also called this witness and his son Pappu Kumar at the police station. This witness has also disclosed that on 23.4. 2002 Natu Sah (P.W. 1) told him that Girendra Gupta and his wife had asked Natu Sah that he should not tell anyone about Sethi Gupta having parked his Motor-Cycle near his place.This witness disclosed this fact to the Sub-inspector of Police at the police station on which accused Sethi was called to the police station in the evening and thereafter Sethi confessed and later appellant Sethi and Arun Mandal alongwith Tapesh (P.W. 4) and some other persons and police officials went to recover the deadbody by police jeep. According to this witness the deadbody was brought to his Darwaza and then taken to the police station and then sent for postmortem examination. In cross- examination this witness has clearly stated that he has no enmity or rivalry with any of the accused persons. In fact, nothing has been elicited to show any personal grievance between the accused persons and the informant and the witnesses. A suggestion was given to this witness that the victim Chhotu was in the habit of absconding from the house and as a result he met with an accidnet and thereafter the accused persons have been falsely implicated. The suggestion has been denied by the informant. It is relevant to notice here only that no evidence documentary or otherwise has been brought on record by the defence to show that the victim used to run away from the house earlier or that there was any accident due to which he died after his disappearance from the fair. 11. P.W.7 Sita Devi and P.W.8 Rani Devi are mother and aunt respectively of the victim boy. They have given the details as to when and how the victim boy Chhotu disappeared and could not be traced even after search. Both of them have claimed to have seen and identified the deadbody when it was brought to their house. P.W. 8 Rani Devi has also deposed that on the date of occurrence when Sethia came and she gave him a C.D. with a warning to return the same, he assured to return the C.D. but the same was never returned. 12. P.W. 8 Rani Devi has also deposed that on the date of occurrence when Sethia came and she gave him a C.D. with a warning to return the same, he assured to return the C.D. but the same was never returned. 12. P.W. 9, Chandrika Choudhary, a Sub-Inspector of Police investigated the case. He claims to have visited the house of the victim boy, the fair ground, particularly the area where T.V. show was being conducted and also the place from where the deadbody of the victim was recovered. According to his deposition, in course of investigation he arrested Sethi Gupta who on being interrogated confessed his guilt and gave confessional statement which has been proved by this witness as Ext. 4. This witness claims to have arrested accused Arun Mandal and recorded his confessional statement also which has been marked as Ext. 5. He has deposed that from the accused persons he learnt about conspiracy and the crime, particularly the fact that the deceased victim was ultimately strangulated and his deadbody was thrown in the river known as Maldiha Dhar. The I.O. has further deposed that he took the two accused persons Sethi Gupta and Arun Mandal on a jeep to the place where they had claimed to have thrown the deadbody of the victim. At that time RW. 4 Tapesh Das and the Officer Incharge Anil Kumar and armed force of the police station were also with him and the deadbody was recovered from the water of Maldiha Dhar. He has explained that since Maldiha Dhar fell in the jurisdiction of Barhara police station in the District of Purnea therefore he went to Barhara police station and called A.S.I. Jai Shankar Singh from there and prepared the Panchnama (Inquest) on which Jai Shankar Singh as well as this witness signed alongwith witness Paras Lal Mehta (RW. 5) and one Lakhan Lal Rishideo, both resident of Maldiha Dhar. The inquest report has been marked as Ext. 6. It was prepared on 24.4.2002 at 17:00 hrs. The deadbody was thereafter brought to the police station and sent for postmortem examination in the morning. The formal F.I.R. has been proved by this witness as Ext. 7. He claims to have recovered a Motor-Cycle from the house of accused Sethi Gupta at 10 A.M. on 25.4.2002. The same was a Rajdoot Motor-Cycle of black colour. The deadbody was thereafter brought to the police station and sent for postmortem examination in the morning. The formal F.I.R. has been proved by this witness as Ext. 7. He claims to have recovered a Motor-Cycle from the house of accused Sethi Gupta at 10 A.M. on 25.4.2002. The same was a Rajdoot Motor-Cycle of black colour. The seizure list has been proved as Ext. 8. He submitted charge- sheet after finding the case true and has identified the accused persons in dock. In cross-examination this witness has revealed that Tapesh ( P.W. 4) fished out the deadbody from the river stream. The deadbody was swollen but the face was clearly identifiable and RW. 4 identified the clothes of the victim also. Nothing material has been elicited in the crossexamination of this witness. An attempt was made to suggest that there was some dispute between the informant and accused Anuj Kumar Gupta alias Sethi Gupta on account of giving of evidence in a murder case but the Investigating Officer has clearly replied that no such matter was raised before him during investigation by any of the accused persons. It is relevant to note here that no such suggestion has been given by the defence to the informant RW. 6 or to any other prosecution witness. 13. P. W. 10 Dr. Ramdeo Raman held autopsy on the deadbody of the victim Chhotu alias Abhinav Kumar, the son of the informant on 25.4.2002 at 10.15 A.M. He found the deadbody partly decomposed and swollen emitting fould smell with maggot crowling, eye ball bulged and protruded. He found a bruise on front and both sides of neck 2"x4" and further bruise on both sides of face 3"x 2" each. On dissection the injuries on the neck was confirmed, In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was asphyxia due to throttling and the time elapsed since death was 3-4 days. He has proved the postmortem report as Ext. 9. In cross-examination he has specifically replied that he could say the cause of death with certainty and it was not a case of drowning. 14. The two appellants have been convicted by the Trial Court mainly in view of disclosure made by them to the police which led to recovery of the deadbody of the victim from place disclosed and pointed out by them. 14. The two appellants have been convicted by the Trial Court mainly in view of disclosure made by them to the police which led to recovery of the deadbody of the victim from place disclosed and pointed out by them. Further against appellant Anuj Kumar Gupta there are other circumstances as appearing from evidence of RW. 1 corroborated by P.W. 4 and the informant RW. 6. On behalf of Anuj Kumar Gupta alias Sethi Gupta as well as on behalf of Arun Mandal it has been submitted that the confession of the accused persons contained in Exts. 4 and 5 are in-admissible in evidence and once they are excluded from consideration then there is no legal evidence sufficient for convicting the appellants. On behalf of appellant Arun Mandal it has been further submitted thall even if some part of the confession leading to recovery of the deadbody is treated to be admissible under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act, the disclosure made by Anuj Kumar Gupta being earlier in time i.e. on 23.4.2002 at 2.30 hrs. his disclosure alone can be treated to be admissible leading to recovery and can be used only against him. In other words, on behalf of Arun Mandal it has been submitted that since Arun Mandal was arrested on 24.4.2002 and his confession was recorded on that day at 4 A.M. by that time the disclosure of the place where the deadbody was thrown was allegedly in the knowledge of the police and in view of the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case Raja Khima vs. State of Saurashtra A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 217 the discovery of incriminating article i.e., the deadbody of the victim, cannot be attributed to disclosure evidence of this appellant because by then the police already knew where the deadbody was hidden. 15. There is no difficulty in accepting the general submission on behalf of the appellants that confession alleged to have been made by the accused before the police while in police custody cannot be admissible in evidence. 15. There is no difficulty in accepting the general submission on behalf of the appellants that confession alleged to have been made by the accused before the police while in police custody cannot be admissible in evidence. However, it is well established in law that Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act is by way of exception to Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act in particular and makes admissible that place of evidence given by the accused to the police while in custody which leads to recovery of material facts in relation to the offence. It will be futile to burden this judgment with the list of all such cases in which Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act has been held to be applicable for treating a part of statement made by an accused leading to recovery of material facts as admissible in evidence. It will be sufficient to refer to a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in this respect in the case of Geejaganda Somaiah vs. State of Karnataka, (2007)3 SCC (Cri) 135, Paragraphs 26 and 27 of the aforesaid judgment disclose that the Apex Court took into consideration some earlier cases decided by the Supreme Court to hold that for the applicability of the Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act the requirements are: (i) Information must be such as has caused discovery of material fact and (ii) Information must "relate distinctly" to the facts discovered. Section 27 of the Evidence Act permits only so much of the information to be admissible as distinctly relates to the fact really thereby discovered. The Apex Court has referred to a recent judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Damu, (2006)6 SCC 269 to point out that Section 27 of the Evidence Act was based on the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. This has given the section actually an expanding meaning. In judgment the Supreme Court has further held that besides use of Section 27 of the Evidence Act for the limited purpose the Courts can also draw presumption under Sec. 114, Illustration (a) and sec. 166 of the Evidence Act in appropriate cases. This has given the section actually an expanding meaning. In judgment the Supreme Court has further held that besides use of Section 27 of the Evidence Act for the limited purpose the Courts can also draw presumption under Sec. 114, Illustration (a) and sec. 166 of the Evidence Act in appropriate cases. After discussing this aspect of the law, in para 29 of the judgment, in the facts of that case, the Court held that the disclosures were made by the accused persons on the next day of the commission of the offence and the property of the deceased was recovered at their instance from the place where they had concealed such properties, on the same day. Hence, the Court relied upon the presumption under illustration (a) of Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act to find the appellants guilty of the offence of murder and dismissed the appeal. The discussion in the aforesaid judgment also touches the issue as to what amounts to recent possession sufficient to justify the presumption of the guilt in respect of stolen articles and the Court has opined that no fixed time can be laid down to determine whether the possession is recent or otherwise and each case must be judged on its own facts. The proximity of the statement or disclosure made by the accused and recovery pursuant to the same is of essence but is not bound by any fixed time limit. At times the disclosure evidence is made quite late on account of an accused not being apprehended inspite of best efforts. Hence, there can be no fixed time frame in such matters. 16 Coming to the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants, as appears from the discussions of law made above it is clear that the disclosure made by appellant Anuj Kumar Gupta alias Sethi Sah gave knowledge to the police where to look for the deadbody. The discovery of the deadbody from that place makes the disclosure part of information given by Anuj Kumar to the police, admissible in evidence. Thereafter, the presumption under Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act will be available against appellant Anuj Kumar Gupta. The discovery of the deadbody from that place makes the disclosure part of information given by Anuj Kumar to the police, admissible in evidence. Thereafter, the presumption under Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act will be available against appellant Anuj Kumar Gupta. Regard being had to the common course of natural events and human conduct, in the facts of this case a presumption will validly arise that he was associated with the murder of the deceased whose body has been recovered by the police on the basis of his disclosure. Under Sec. 106 of the Evidence Act burden of proving mitigating facts if any which may be within special knowledge of an accused would be upon the accused and if there is any explanation of having such knowledge the accused must disclose the same when opportunity is given while recording statement under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the present case the appellants have not given any explanation as to how they got the knowledge regarding concealment of the deadbody in the river at a particular place from where it was recovered. The facts proved in the case and the presumption available against Anuj Kumar Gupta alias Sethi Gupta is sufficient to hold him guilty of the offence under Sec. 302 I.P.C. 17. So far as appellant Arun Mandal alias Arun Kumar Mandal is concerned, considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Raja Khima (supra) and the principles underlying Section 27 of the Evidence Act, we are of the considered view that in the facts of the case the police already knew the place where the deadbody was concealed, on the basis of disclosure made by Anuj Kumar Gupta alias Sethi Gupta on 23.4.2002 at 2.30 hrs. and thereafter the fact that recovery was delayed for 26 hours till Arun Mandal was arrested and taken on the same jeep to the place of recovery raises a reasonable doubt about the prosecution case that he had also made a disclosure. Since the place of concealment was already known to the police the use of Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act in respect of alleged disclosure of Arun Mandal does not appear to be safe. Since the place of concealment was already known to the police the use of Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act in respect of alleged disclosure of Arun Mandal does not appear to be safe. Besides such disclosure evidence there is nothing else against Arun Mandal and hence like other two accused acquitted by the Trial Court he also deserves the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the appeal of Arun Mandal alias Arun Kumar Mandal is allowed and by extending the benefit of doubt he is acquitted of all the charges. He should be released forthwith if not required in connection with any other case. 18. So far as appellant Anuj Kumar Gupta alias Sethi Gupta is concerned, we find there is no sufficient evidence on record to hold him guilty of the charge under Sec. 364(A) or Sec. 120(B) of the I.P.C. He is, therefore acquitted of those charges. However, as discussed earlier, he is found guilty of the charge under Sec. 302 and also under Section 201 of the I.P.C. Coming to the legality of death sentence awarded to appellant Anuj Kumar Gupta alias Sethi Gupta, we find that he is an young man whose age was assessed by the Court in July, 2005 as 25 years. It has also come in the statement recorded by the Trial Court that he has no criminal antecedent and has not been convicted in any other earlier case. On going through the entire prosecution, case it is further found that according to prosecution the murder was committed not on account of predetermination but on account of certain development such as failure to find a safe place to hide the boy perhaps with a view to negotiate for ransom. Hence, it is not possible to hold that murder was committed on account of cold blooded pre-meditation. The postmortem examination report also does not show that murder was effected with unusual brutality. Thus, the principles laid down by the Apex Court in several judgments including in the case of Machhi Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in A.I.R. 1983 SC 957 for award of death sentence are not attracted in this case. We find that no special reason for awarding the exceptional extreme penalty of death sentence to appellant Anuj Kumar Gupta alias Sethi Gupta. Hence the Reference is answered in negative. The death sentence is commuted to imprisonment for life. We find that no special reason for awarding the exceptional extreme penalty of death sentence to appellant Anuj Kumar Gupta alias Sethi Gupta. Hence the Reference is answered in negative. The death sentence is commuted to imprisonment for life. The appeal of Anuj Kumar Gupta alias Sethi Gupta is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence. As already held earlier in this judgment, the appeal of Arun Mandal alias Arun Kumar Mandal stands allowed.