Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 195 (RAJ)

Bablu @ Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan

2010-01-22

A.M.KAPADIA, GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2010
Hon'ble VYAS, J.—Both these appeals have been filed by the respective appellant Bablu @ Om Prakash and Bhinya Ram, in which, common judgment dated 22.7.2003 rendered by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur in Sessions Case No. 36/2003 is under challenge, whereby, the learned trial Judge has convicted the accused-appellants for offences under Sections 302, 364, 379/34 and 201, IPC and sentenced each of the appellants as under: 1. Convicted appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 years simple imprisonment 2. Convicted appellant under Section 364, IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 2 years simple imprisonment. 3.Convicted appellant under Section 379/34, IPC and sentenced to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's simple imprisonment. 4. Convicted appellant under Section 201, IPC and sentenced to 7 years' R.I. and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 month's imprisonment. As per the prosecution case, an FIR was filed on 30.5.2002, at about 9.15 A.M., by complainant Wali Mohammed before the Police Station Khatu Bari (District Nagaur), in which, it was stated that his son Shamsuddin is plying his own jeep bearing No. RJ 21 T/202 and, on 24.5.2002, in the morning, he went to Khatu Bari bus-stand but did not return back home till 25.5.2002, therefore, he made a report of missing. Thereafter, written complaint was filed on 30.5.2002 by the complainant Wali Mohammed, PW.2 that whereabouts of his son is not found though he has made search in nearby villages and, today, it has come to his knowledge that 3-4 unknown persons with intention to commit theft of his jeep kidnapped his son. 2. Upon the aforesaid written complaint filed by complainant Wali Mohammed, PW.2 (father of the deceased), after registering case for offences under Section 365 and 379, IPC., the investigation commenced. Later on, offence under Section 302, IPC was added when the dead-body of Shamsuddin was found in the well of one Pancha Ram S/o Pema Ram vide Ex.P/8 dated 4.6.2002. Dead body of deceased Shamsuddin was not recovered at the instance of the accused-appellant. 3. Later on, offence under Section 302, IPC was added when the dead-body of Shamsuddin was found in the well of one Pancha Ram S/o Pema Ram vide Ex.P/8 dated 4.6.2002. Dead body of deceased Shamsuddin was not recovered at the instance of the accused-appellant. 3. In the investigation, the accused-appellants were arrested on the basis of evidence of last seen vide arrest memo Ex. P/11 and Ex/ P/15 and, thereafter, as per information given under Section 27 of the Evidence Act by accused-appellant Bablu, Ex. P/38, a purse was recovered at his instance vide Ex. P/22. Likewise, upon information given by accused-appellant Bablu, Ex.-P/41 under Section 27 of the Evidence, Act, shoes (tqfr;ksa) were recovered at the instance of accused Bablu vide Ex. P/25. After arrest of accused-appellant Bhinya Ram, he gave information Ex. P/42 under Section 27 Evidence Act With regard to number-plate of the jeep and vide Ex. P/27 and number plate was recovered. Similarly, accused Bhinya Ram gave information Ex. P/39 in connection with recovery of driving licence of deceased Shamsuddin and vide recovery memo Ex. P/20 driving licence was recovered. Likewise, he gave information with regard to the place where seat-covers of the vehicle in question were burnt and site plan/inspection memo Ex. P/24 was prepared. After completion of the investigation, challan was filed by the investigating officer in the Court of Chief Judl. Magistrate, Nagaur, from where, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions at Merta and, in turn, transferred to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur for trial. 4. Before the trial Court, to prove its case, the prosecution examined, in all, 25 witnesses and, thereafter, statements under Section 313, Cr.P.C. of both the accused-appellants were recorded by the trial Judge. At the trial, as many as 45 documents were exhibited by the prosecution and defence produced 5 documents. Thereafter, the learned trial Court heard final arguments and, on the basis of the evidence of last seen and recovery of articles of late Shamsuddin convicted the accused-appellants for committing offences under Sections 369, 201 and 302, IPC vide the impugned judgment dated 22.7.2003. 5. Thereafter, the learned trial Court heard final arguments and, on the basis of the evidence of last seen and recovery of articles of late Shamsuddin convicted the accused-appellants for committing offences under Sections 369, 201 and 302, IPC vide the impugned judgment dated 22.7.2003. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the whole prosecution story is based upon the evidence of "last seen" and, for the purpose of proving the fact of "last seen," statements of three prosecution witnesses namely, PW.3 Salim, PW.8 Manga Ram and P.W. 9 Rafiq Amhed were recorded by the trial Court. 6. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants that from perusal of the statements of these prosecution witnesses it emerges that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. PW.3 Salim, in his statement, said that on 24.5.2002, accused Bablu, resident of village Chuwa, came at bus stand at about 10-10,30 A.M. along with two other persons whom he can identify by face and they came in jeep bearing No. RST 202. At the bus-stand, so many persons were sitting but he did not know who were they. It is further stated in his examination-in-chief that he knows the complainant Wali Mohammed and his son Shamsuddin who was driving the vehicle of Bablu and he does not know that after the said date Shamsuddin was found or not or had gone to village; and later on, it has come to his knowledge that jeep was recovered near village Karkedi. 7. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that it is nowhere stated by witness PW.3 Salim that accused-appellants came on spot and, before him, any conversation was made between deceased Shamsuddin and Bablu and other two persons. 8. Likewise, P.W. 8 Bhagga Ram is not corroborating the prosecution story and the facts narrated by PW.3 Salim but has narrated altogether different story that on 24.5.2002 at 10.30 A.M. when he was standing at the bus-stand the accused persons who are present in the Court came to him for hiring his jeep but he refused due to the reason that he was to go for other purpose of performing mayara (a solemn ritual). Thereafter, h went by jeep to village Pindiya. In his statement, it is nowhere stated that Shamsuddin came on the bus-stand on the relevant date, i.e. 24.5.2002 nor he is corroborating the facts stated by PW. Thereafter, h went by jeep to village Pindiya. In his statement, it is nowhere stated that Shamsuddin came on the bus-stand on the relevant date, i.e. 24.5.2002 nor he is corroborating the facts stated by PW. 3 Salim. 9. While inviting attention towards the statement of third witness PW. 9 Rafiq Ahmed, it is argued that, as per statement of PW. 9 Rafiq Ahmed, he was standing at the bus-stand Bari Khatu on 24.5.2002 at 10-10.30 A.M. where jeep taxi of Shamsuddin was standing where two persons came with Bablu and they were talking to Shamsuddin. Thereafter Bablu sat in the jeep at the front and those two other persons took seat at the rear, thereafter, all these persons sat in the jeep of Shamsuddin and, in the evening of 30.5.2002, when he came back to his village he heard that Shamsuddin and his vehicle are missing since 24.5.2002. Further, he heard that jeep was found near village Karkedi. As per learned counsel for the appellants, in the cross-examination, it is accepted by this witness that no identification parade was performed before the Magistrate. It is also stated in the cross-examination by him that he gave the identification of height and colour of those unknown persons in his statement recorded by the police but why it is not stated in the police statement is not known. He himself stated that Bablu is not present in the Court though accused-appellant Bablu @ Om Prakash was present in the Court; meaning thereby, all these witnesses of "last seen" have been planted by the prosecution to prove false case against the accused-appellants. Therefore, on the basis of testimony of such type of unreliable witnesses of the prosecution for the purpose of proving the fact of "last seen", it cannot be said that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of planted witnesses of "last seen" against the accused appellants, upon which, conviction is based. 10. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellants that body of Shamsuddin was not recovered at the instance of both the accused. The body of deceased was found in the well of the agriculture field of one Pancha Ram. 10. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellants that body of Shamsuddin was not recovered at the instance of both the accused. The body of deceased was found in the well of the agriculture field of one Pancha Ram. Likewise, the jeep in question was not recovered upon information of either of these two accused-appellants; meaning thereby, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and connected accused-appellants with the offence on the basis of evidence of "last seen" and recovery of articles which is totally baseless and unfounded story of the prosecution. 11. While attacking upon the question of recovery, it is submitted that there are two witnesses namely, PW.12 Ummed Singh and PW.14 Iqbal Ahmed, both these witnesses are motbir (witness to the procedure) witnesses of recovery of articles which is said to be made vide Ex. P/17 to Ex. P. 28. While inviting attention of the Court towards statement of these motbir witnesses PW.12 Ummed Singh and PW. 14 Iqbal Ahmed it is submitted that upon scrutiny of the testimony of both these witnesses it is revealed that their testimony is far from the truth. Recovery of licence is alleged to be made from Bhinya Ram accused from inside his dhani (hamlet) and purse was recovered from Om Prakash and further said that, "cVqvk vkseizdk'k us cjken djok;k Fkk fQj dgk Hkha;kjke us djok;k Fkk". With regard to recovery of shoes (jootiyan), it is submitted that upon perusal of the recovery memo, Ex. P./25, it is revealed that place from which the said recovery was made is open place and, admittedly, it is situated in the agricultural field behind one piyao (water-hut) and recovered after near-about more than 20 days of the occurrence. Such type of recovery cannot be treated to be proved which is made from open place, that too, after 20 days of the alleged occurrence. 12. Such type of recovery cannot be treated to be proved which is made from open place, that too, after 20 days of the alleged occurrence. 12. While inviting attention towards statement of second motbir witness PW.14 Iqbal Ahemd, before whom, articles driving licence of deceased Shamsuddin, his shoes and purse were recovered, it is submitted that as per his statement, the licence was recovered at a place where vehicle in question- jeep of Wali Mohammed (father of the deceased and complainant) was left by the accused appellants; meaning thereby, he has given contrary statement to the fact that licence was recovered in the house of Bhinya Ram accused vide Ex. P/20. In his statement, he has specifically stated that, "ogka ij vkseizdk'k us ykbZlsal cjken djok;k FkkA" whereas it is stated that licence was recovered upon the information given by accused-appellant Bhinya Ram vide Ex. P/20. With regard to recovery of purse, it is stated that one purse was recovered in which photograph of Shamsuddin was found but it is nowhere stated that from whom the recovery of purse was made; meaning thereby, the recovery of purse is also not proved. With regard to recovery of shoes (jootiyan), it is stated that recovery of shoes was made at the instance of Om Prakash and number plates were recovered at the instance of Bhinya Ram vide Ex. P.27; meaning thereby, the prosecution has tried to prove before the Court that three number-plates were recovered at the instance of Bhinya Ram. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that admittedly in this case the police has concocted the story for implicating these accused-appellants in the case and, for the same, the recovery of number-plates of the jeep, purse of deceased Shamsuddin and his shoes have been shown to have been recovered from the present accused-appellants and this story is not reliable because if the motive of the accused-appellant was for the theft of the jeep, then, obviously the jeep was to be recovered at their instance; but, here, in this, case, admittedly the jeep was recovered vide Ex. P/12 on 27.5.2002 by another Police Station Roopangarh, therefore, it was not possible for the investigating agency to fabricate the recovery of the vehicle from the accused-appellant, therefore, for connecting these accused-appellants with the offence alleged, the case of recovery of three articles has been framed. P/12 on 27.5.2002 by another Police Station Roopangarh, therefore, it was not possible for the investigating agency to fabricate the recovery of the vehicle from the accused-appellant, therefore, for connecting these accused-appellants with the offence alleged, the case of recovery of three articles has been framed. Hence, the whole prosecution story becomes doubtful because there is no evidence of motive on record. In whole of the evidence, there is no whisper that there was any personal enmity in between the accused-appellants and deceased Shamsuddin, therefore, when motive is not established by the prosecution, then, merely on the basis of recoveries it cannot be said that prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt by any cogent evidence but, in fact, the accused-appellants have falsely been involved in this case. In this view of the matter, when evidence of last seen is not proved, recovery of the articles is totally doubtful and motive is not established because no evidence is on record to prove any enmity between appellants and deceased Shamsuddin. Therefore, it can be said that prosecution has fabricated story which is totally motiveless and the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case on a very weak type of evidence of last seen. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants invited my attention towards judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1991 SC 1674 , in which, it is held that if no direct evidence to connect the accused is available and no enmity between the accused and deceased is found, then, on the basis of the only circumstance that deceased was last seen in the company of the accused person is not sufficient to convict the accused. 15. Likewise, another judgment reported in 1993 Cr.L.R. (Rajasthan) 738, decided by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in which, it has been held that motive is relevant if conviction is based upon circumstantial evidence. In the absence of motive it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved the cases on the basis of circumstantial evidence. 16. Yet another judgment reported in 2002(1) Current Judgment (Criminal) Raj. 370 is cited by learned counsel for the appellants with the submission that if there is no chain of circumstantial evidence on record to connect the accused with the offence, then, conviction cannot be sustained. 16. Yet another judgment reported in 2002(1) Current Judgment (Criminal) Raj. 370 is cited by learned counsel for the appellants with the submission that if there is no chain of circumstantial evidence on record to connect the accused with the offence, then, conviction cannot be sustained. In this view of the matter, it is argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, so also, there is no evidence of motive on record, therefore, the conviction of both the appellants deserves tobe quashed and the appellants are entitled to be acquitted of the charges framed by the trial Court against them. 17. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argue that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is sufficient evidence of "last seen" by which it can be ascertained that accused-appellants along with two other persons came at the sub-stand and hired the jeep of the deceased Shamsuddin and left the bus stand in the jeep; and, thereafter, body of the deceased was found in the well of Pancha Ram and jeep was recovered by the Police Station Roopangarh on 27.5.2002 under Section 102, Cr.P.C. Further, it is argued that purse of deceased Shamsuddin along with his photograph and shoes was recovered at the instance of accused Bablu @ Om Prakash and, likewise, number-plates of the jeep and driving licence of deceased Shamsuddin were recovered at the instances of accused-appellant Bhinya Ram and, further, at his instance, memo of place where the seat covers of the jeep inquestion were burnt was prepared in the presence of independent motbir witnesses, therefore, this evidence was sufficient to connect the accused appellants with the crime and, accordingly, while relying upon the aforesaid evidence the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused appellants for committing offences under Sections 302, 365, 201 and 379/34, IPC. It is urged that no error has been committed by the trial Court while passing the impugned judgment and order of sentence against the accused-appellants. 18. Learned counsel for the State and complainant further vehemently argue that in absence of direct evidence it is open to the prosecution to prove the case by circumstantial evidence and it has been done so in this case. 18. Learned counsel for the State and complainant further vehemently argue that in absence of direct evidence it is open to the prosecution to prove the case by circumstantial evidence and it has been done so in this case. In the present case, a young boy Shamsuddin was murdered by the accused appellants and though there is no direct evidence but all the circumstances of last seen and recovery of articles belong to deceased Shamsuddin and his vehicle loudly speak that prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court deserve to be upheld and the appeal may be dismissed. 19. Learned counsel for the complainant has invited our attention towards certain judgments reported in 2007(1)Cri.L.R. (Rajasthan) 126 = RLW 2006(4) Raj. 2664, Shakti Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and submitted that if no recovery is made at the instance of the accused-appellants, even then, the accused can be convicted and, further, while inviting our attention to another judgment reported in 2001(1) Cri. LR. (Rajasthan) 389, it is contended that conviction can be based upon circumstantial evidence and, in this case, all the circumstances of "last seen" and recovery of various articles is sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused-appellants and no error has been committed by the learned trial Court while convicting the appellants for offences charged against them. Inviting attention of the Court towards yet another judgment reported in 2006 Cri. L.R. (SC) 323, Deepak Chandrakant Patil vs. State of Maharashtra, it is submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that even if the eye-witness turns hostile on the basis of the recovery of dead-body or recovery of weapon or blood-stained clothes the conviction is required to be upheld. It is submitted that prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused-appellants have rightly been convicted. 20. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 21. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaharlal Das vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1991 SC 1388 , in criminal trial, for convicting any accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is required to fulfill following three conditions viz. 21. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaharlal Das vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1991 SC 1388 , in criminal trial, for convicting any accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is required to fulfill following three conditions viz. (i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; (ii) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; and (iii) the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else, and it should also be incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. 22. It is further held in the said judgment that in cases depending largely upon the circumstantial evidence there is always a danger that the conjecture or suspicion may taken the place of legal proof and such suspicion however so strong cannot be allowed to take the place of proof. The Court must satisfy itself that the various circumstances in the chain of evidence should be established clearly and that the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. 23. In this case, three important points were necessary to be proved by the prosecution which are as follows: (1) Evidence of last seen together. (2) Whether any evidence of motive is on record. (3) Whether on the basis of recovery of so called articles, purse, licence, number-plates, the conviction is rightly based by the trial Court. 24. On the basis of above three points, our adjudication in this case is as follows: (1) Evidence of last seen together: It is admitted case of the prosecution that there were three eye-witnesses of "last seen" viz., PW.3 Salim, PW.8 Bhagga Ram and PW.9 Rafiq Ahmed. Upon perusal of statements of all these three witnesses cumulatively, it is revealed that each of them has stated a together different story to prove the fact of "last seen" before the Court and all these three witnesses stated before the Court that they were present on the spot when deceased Shamsuddin was lastly seen along with the accused-appellants. Upon perusal of statements of all these three witnesses cumulatively, it is revealed that each of them has stated a together different story to prove the fact of "last seen" before the Court and all these three witnesses stated before the Court that they were present on the spot when deceased Shamsuddin was lastly seen along with the accused-appellants. In this case, these witnesses depose that there were four persons. PW.3, in his statement made before the Court, said that along with Bablu two other persons came at the bus-stand but, it is nowhere stated that they hired the vehicle of Shamsuddin. More so, it is stated that Bablu and two other persons were sitting in the vehicle of Shamsuddin. 25. Similarly, PW.8 Bhagga Ram stated before the Court that only one accused, out of the two accused, came to him for hiring his jeep but he refused. 26. PW.9 Rafiq Ahmed stated in his statement before the Court that on the date of last seen, the vehicle of Shamsuddin was standing and two persons along with accused Bablu came at the bus-stand and they were talking with Shamsuddin; meaning thereby, each of these three witnesses has made different statement and is not corroborating the prosecution case to prove the fact that appellants-accused kidnapped the deceased Shamsuddin forcibly on 24.5.2002 in between 10.00-10.30 AM. Therefore, in our opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove the fact of last seen with transparent clarity. There are major contradictions in the statements of all the prosecution witnesses of "last seen" before the Court. Therefore, it is not safe to rely upon such evidence of "last seen" because the prosecution has failed to prove the evidence of "last seen." (2) Whether any evidence of motive is on record.: 27. Upon perusal of statement of complainant Wali Mohammed, PW.2 (father of deceased Shamsuddin and other witnesses there is no whisper even with regard to any motive for killing deceased Shamsuddin. Further, it is also one of the important facts of the case that jeep in question bearing No. RJ 21T-202 was recovered by the Police Station Roopangarh vide Ex.P/12 on 27.5.2002 standing nearby road; meaning thereby, there was no motive of theft of the vehicle jeep. Likewise, the dead-body of the deceased was found in the well of Pancha Ram but, that, too, was not recovered at the instance of the accused-appellants. Likewise, the dead-body of the deceased was found in the well of Pancha Ram but, that, too, was not recovered at the instance of the accused-appellants. Though the dead body was recovered on 4.6.2002, but, not at the instance of either of the accused-appellants who were arrested on 8.6.2002 and post mortem was conducted on 4.5.2002 and, thereafter, accused-appellants were arrested on the basis of "last seen." In the foregoing para, we have held that evidence of "last seen" is totally untenable upon which conviction cannot be based, therefore, the chain of circumstances against the accused-appellants is not incapable of any other explanation than one of the guilt of the accused. 28. The motive of killing Shamsuddin deceased has not been proved by the prosecution because there is no evidence on record to prove motive, either personal enmity or theft. When motive is not established in this case, then, obviously as per the judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1991 SC 1674 , Inderjit Singh & Another vs. State of Punjab, we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment of Inderjit Singh & Another clearly covers the present case, in which, it has been held by the apex Court that if the motive is not established and there is no direct evidence to connect the accused-appellant with the crime, then, the sole circumstance of "last seen" in the company of accused is not sufficient to convict the accused. Therefore, it can be said that the main ingredient of murder which is motive is absent in this case. Therefore, conviction is not sustainable in the present case. (3) Whether on the basis of recovery of so called articles, purse, licence, number-plates, the conviction is rightly based by the trial Court: 29. It is true that certain articles are alleged to have been recovered at the instance of the accused-appellants and, for the same certain memo were prepared by the investigating officer, however, for the proof thereof, two independent witnesses namely, PW.12 Ummed Singh and PW. 14 Iqbal Ahmed were examined. It is true that certain articles are alleged to have been recovered at the instance of the accused-appellants and, for the same certain memo were prepared by the investigating officer, however, for the proof thereof, two independent witnesses namely, PW.12 Ummed Singh and PW. 14 Iqbal Ahmed were examined. Upon perusal of the statements of these witnesses, it is true that they did not turn hostile but upon assessing the evidentiary value of their testimony it can be said that shoes (jootiyan) were recovered from open place, the driving licence was recovered from dhani of Bhinya Ram accused and number-plates were recovered at the instance of Bhinya Ram and purse was recovery at the instance of Bablu accused. 30. Now, even if it is presumed that the prosecution has proved the recovery of these articles but upon giving thoughtful consideration to the recovery of such articles, it will be revealed that these articles are not valuable articles and, if at all, the theft of the jeep in question was the intention, why such articles were kept in their possession by the accused-appellants because these articles are not valuable articles nor such things which could be sold in the market. Of course, had the recovery of the vehicle in question been made at the instance of either of the accused, then, it could have been presumed that the purpose was theft of the vehicle; but, here, in this case, the vehicle was already recovered by other police station. Hence, it was not open or possible for the prosecution to make out a case of recovery of vehicle from the accused-appellants. 31. Likewise, when the dead body was recovered from the well of Pancha Ram prior to arrest of the accused-appellants and no evidence of motive is on the record, then, all these circumstances clearly speak that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt even if recovery of certain articles is made from the accused-appellants. In this view of the matter, we are in full agreement that prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt before the Court. Therefore, the principle laid down by the apex Court the case of Jaharlal Das vs. State of Orissa (supra) is applicable in the present case and we find that the trial Court has committed error while convicting the accused-appellant for offences charges against them without any cogent evidence. 32. Therefore, the principle laid down by the apex Court the case of Jaharlal Das vs. State of Orissa (supra) is applicable in the present case and we find that the trial Court has committed error while convicting the accused-appellant for offences charges against them without any cogent evidence. 32. In this view of the matter, both these appeals are allowed. While giving benefit of doubt to both the accused-appellants, their conviction by the trial Court is quashed. The judgment and order of sentence passed against each accused-appellant by the learned trial Court is set aside. The accused-appellants are in jail. They shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.