Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 251 (MP)

Manoj v. State of M. P.

2011-02-22

RAKESH SAKSENA, T.K.KAUSHAL

body2011
JUDGMENT : Three appellants viz. Manoj, Banti @ Purushottam and Dilip have filed appeals against the judgment dated 22nd March, 2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.84/2001 convicting them under sections 364A read with section 120-B, 364 read with section 120-B and 386 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1000/-, rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.1000/- and rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs.1000/- on each count, respectively. State has also filed Criminal Appeal No. 1366/2005 challenging the impugned judgment of acquittal of accused/respondent Amit Kumar Patel of the aforesaid charges. Since all the aforementioned appeals arise out of the common judgment passed by the trial Court, this judgment shall govern disposal of all the said appeals. (3) Cr.A.No.496/2002 Cr.A.No.598/2002 Cr.A.No.724/2002 Cr.A.No.1366/2005. 2. In short, prosecution case is that appellant Dilip was working as driver of Dr.B.K.Panshe. He used to go to drop and pick up Parijat Panshe, 10 year old daughter and Nachiket Panshe, son of Dr.B.K.Panshe from the school. Parijat Panshe was a student of Class-VI in Christ Church Girls Senior Secondary School, Jabalpur. In the morning of 25.9.2000 Dilip left both of them at school. At about 1:00 p.m. on the same day, Dilip obtained the key of the car from Lata Kashyap, assistant of Dr.Panshe for fetching Parijat and Nachiket from school, but did not bring them back. From the telephone call of Nachiket, Lata Kashyap came to know that Dilip did not go to school to pick up Parijat. Dr.Panshe and his wife went to school and searched her. On not finding Parijat there, they lodged a report about her missing at police station, Madan Mahal. In the meanwhile, Lata Kashyap received a telephone call from Dilip informing her that Parijat was with him and she would be released only after a ransom of Rs.5 lacs was paid. On getting knowledge of this fact, Dr. Panshe lodged the report Ex.P/1 at police station, Omti. On the next day i.e. on 26.9.2000 Parijat was recovered from the forest of Shahpura. She was taken to police station Shahpura by head constable Mishrilal and a report Ex.P/21 was recorded in the Roznamcha. All the documents recorded by station officer of police station, Shahpura were transmitted to police station, Omti where the case was registered. On the next day i.e. on 26.9.2000 Parijat was recovered from the forest of Shahpura. She was taken to police station Shahpura by head constable Mishrilal and a report Ex.P/21 was recorded in the Roznamcha. All the documents recorded by station officer of police station, Shahpura were transmitted to police station, Omti where the case was registered. During investigation, car was seized and accused were arrested. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and the case was committed for trial. 3. During trial, accused abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication. Mainly the defence of accused Dilip was that he was falsely implicated in the case under a conspiracy hatched by Dr. B.K. Panshe (PW-1) and other employees of his hospital. (4) Cr.A.No.496/2002 Cr.A.No.598/2002 Cr.A.No.724/2002 Cr.A.No.1366/2005. 4. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, held accused Dilip, Manoj and Banti guilty and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above, however, finding the evidence insufficient against accused/respondent Amit Kumar Patel, acquitted him of all the charges. Another accused Netram, who was charged under sections 212 and 216 of the Indian Penal Code, was also acquitted. Aggrieved by their conviction, appellants Manoj, Banti and Dilip have filed the instant appeals. State has also filed the appeal against the impugned judgment challenging the acquittal of accused Amit Kumar Patel. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the accused/appellants, however, submitted that the trial Court gravely erred in placing implicit reliance on the evidence of Parijat Panshe (PW-16), Dr.B.K.Panshe (PW-1), Lata Kashyap (PW-13) and Dr.Smt.Manik Panshe (PW-14) and failed to consider that the evidence of Parijat Panshe was doubtful and appellants were falsely implicated. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, though justified and supported the conviction of appellants, submitted that the trial Court erred in acquitting accused/respondent Amit Kumar Patel. 7. We have gone through the entire evidence on record. Parijat Panshe (PW-16), the minor victim girl of about 10-11 years of age was student of Class-VI in Christ Church Girls Senior Secondary School, Jabalpur. She deposed that she knew Dilip who was driver of her car. He used to drop and pick her up from the school daily in the car. On 25.9.2000, he dropped her and her brother at school in the morning. She deposed that she knew Dilip who was driver of her car. He used to drop and pick her up from the school daily in the car. On 25.9.2000, he dropped her and her brother at school in the morning. At about 1:30 p.m. after the school time when she came out of the school she did not find Dilip there, however, about 10-15 minutes thereafter when half of the (5) Cr.A.No.496/2002 Cr.A.No.598/2002 Cr.A.No.724/2002 Cr.A.No.1366/2005 children of the school had already left, Dilip brought her Santro Car and parked it at some distance from the gate of the school. When she opened the door of her car she saw two other persons viz. Banti and Manoj already sitting in the car. Banti was sitting on the front seat and Manoj was sitting on the rear seat. She sat in the car. When Dilip did not go towards the school of her brother she asked him as to where he was going. Dilip told her that since the Manager of the hospital met with an accident, he was going there. He assured that an Ambulance will pick up her brother from the school. After sometime car went ahead crossing stadium and sports club and reached near the river. Dilip enquired from a person about telephone booth. After some distance he stopped the car near a telephone booth and went there. Dilip then took car on Kundam road. Accused persons were talking and in suspicious manner looking behind the car for keeping watch that any other vehicle was not following them. At about 6-6:30 p.m. Dilip stopped the car at a lonely place where Banti got down from the car. On asking by Dilip, Banti told that he was going back. Though Dilip told him that if he went back he would be caught, but Banti did not say anything and went away. When she asked Dilip for going back home, Dilip told that she would be able to go home only when her father would pay Rs.5 lacs. According to Parijat, at that time, Banti was also standing near the open door of the car. At about 10-10:30 p.m. car reached Dindori. Dilip took car near a house and went inside it. There was light of the car and also of electric bulb. After sometime, Dilip came back with a boy who was accused Amit. According to Parijat, at that time, Banti was also standing near the open door of the car. At about 10-10:30 p.m. car reached Dindori. Dilip took car near a house and went inside it. There was light of the car and also of electric bulb. After sometime, Dilip came back with a boy who was accused Amit. Amit sat in the front seat of the car. She again asked Dilip about going back, but he repeated that she would go back only after Rs.5 lacs were paid by her father. After sometime, Dilip, Amit and Manoj got down from the car. They went on the back side of the car and (6) Cr.A.No.496/2002 Cr.A.No.598/2002 Cr.A.No.724/2002 Cr.A.No.1366/2005 talked. According to her, Amit told Dilip to leave the girl at Katni and come back and let money be brought and distributed there. All the three again boarded the car and left Amit in front of a house. Dilip took the car near a telephone booth and asked her to talk to her mother. She talked to her mother in accordance with the direction of Dilip and told that they were at Bhedaghat. Dilip asked her mother on telephone that she should arrange Rs.5 lacs and bring it in Maruti car at Medical College then he would return her daughter. He instructed that she should come alone. They again went to Amit but Amit did not accompany them. Dilip took the car on Katni road, where in the night, car met with an accident and fell into a pit. They came out of the car and boarded a truck. They left the truck after some distance and boarded a bus, but getting suspicious that the conductor of the bus might have read the newspaper, left the bus and went in the bushes. Dilip asked Manoj to keep her there for sometime as he wanted to bring some other clothes for her, because he apprehended that looking her in the school uniform they might be caught. After sometime hearing the sounds of vehicles Manoj left her and ran away. Police reached there and took her to police station Shahpura. Parijat (PW-16) was subjected to a very tedious and lengthy cross-examination, but she stood firm and did not deviate from her version. Her evidence appeared natural, consistent and cogent. After sometime hearing the sounds of vehicles Manoj left her and ran away. Police reached there and took her to police station Shahpura. Parijat (PW-16) was subjected to a very tedious and lengthy cross-examination, but she stood firm and did not deviate from her version. Her evidence appeared natural, consistent and cogent. It is true that some omissions in her statement were brought on record, but in our opinion, they were not material. Though she deposed that she saw Amit in the light of electric bulb, but it was found missing in her police statement Ex.D/6. According to her, she had named Amit in her police statement with certainty whereas in Ex.D/6 she mentioned that "perhaps" that boy was Amit. Such type of minor contradictions do not seem us to be material for discarding the (7) Cr.A.No.496/2002 Cr.A.No.598/2002 Cr.A.No.724/2002 Cr.A.No.1366/2005 evidence of Parijat (PW-16). Omission of the fact in her police statement that she was scared, in our opinion, is of no value. 8. Evidence of Parijat (PW-16) finds support from the evidence of head constable Mishrilal (PW-12), Virendra Kumar Jat (PW-19), station officer of police station, Shahpura and Salim Khan (PW-20), station officer of police station, Omti. 9. Mishrilal (PW-12), head constable of police station, Shahpura, deposed that on 26.9.2000 he received information that daughter of Dr. Panshe was kidnapped by Dilip from Jabalpur, therefore, he was asked to put check-barriers on Jabalpur-Dindori road. He received information that a girl in school uniform was seen with two boys and they had gone towards the forest. When he ambushed with force, he found a girl behind the bushes. She was Parijat. He prepared the recovery memo Ex.P/10 and brought Parijat to police station Shahpura and handed over her custody to her guardian. Virendra Kumar Jat (PW-19), station officer of P.S.Shahpura deposed that on getting order from Superintendent of Police he put barrier for search of Parijat, who was said to have been kidnapped by Dilip. According to him, Amit (accused) informed him that Dilip and Manoj had come to his house and after filling petrol had left for Jabalpur. When they made search towards village Pandatola, head constable Mishrilal found Parijat in the forest. He stated that on search, accused Manoj was found hiding in the bushes who was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P/20. Parijat was taken to police station and was handed over to her uncle vide Superdginama Ex.P/2. When they made search towards village Pandatola, head constable Mishrilal found Parijat in the forest. He stated that on search, accused Manoj was found hiding in the bushes who was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P/20. Parijat was taken to police station and was handed over to her uncle vide Superdginama Ex.P/2. All the steps taken by him were recorded in Roznamcha Ex.P/22. It is true that in Roznamcha entry Ex.P/21 names of the accused persons were not recorded, but according to Virendra Kumar Jat (PW-19) he did not record the statement of Parijat because there was heavy crowd and commotion and Parijat (8) Cr.A.No.496/2002 Cr.A.No.598/2002 Cr.A.No.724/2002 Cr.A.No.1366/2005 was in perplexed mental state. Roznamcha Ex.P/21 was recorded in the evening at about 7:35 p.m. In our opinion, police officer did not commit error in handing over the minor victim girl to her parents, who was away from them for about 30 hours and was under serious mental strain. It is also important to note that in the night the car in which victim was kidnapped had met with an accident. 10. Evidence of Parijat Panshe (PW-16) finds further corroboration from the evidence of Lata Kashyap (PW-13) and Dr. Smt. Manik Panshe (PW-14). According to Lata Kashyap, accused Dilip had obtained the key of car from her for going to fetch children from the school. At about 3:00 p.m. she received phone call made by Dilip on the reception counter informing that Parijat was with him. When she wanted to talk to Parijat, Dilip disconnected the phone. Again, at about 8-8:15 p.m. she received telephone call from Dilip on the telephone of Dr. Panshe. At that time, Dr. Panshe was not available in the hospital. She asked Dilip to call after about five minutes. She again received call from Dilip, but Dr. Panshe was not available. Dilip told her that she was making fool of him and Dr. Panshe was making arrangement for putting check posts against him. He told that Dr. Panshe should pay Rs.5 lacs if he wanted to get Parijat released. According to Lata Kashyap, she informed this fact to the wife of Dr. Panshe. It is true that Dilip told her about his demand of Rs.5 lacs from Dr. Panshe was making arrangement for putting check posts against him. He told that Dr. Panshe should pay Rs.5 lacs if he wanted to get Parijat released. According to Lata Kashyap, she informed this fact to the wife of Dr. Panshe. It is true that Dilip told her about his demand of Rs.5 lacs from Dr. Panshe was not mentioned by her in her police statement Ex.D/4, but from her evidence it stood established that she received phone call from Dilip informing that Parijat was with him. From the evidence of Dr. Manik Panshe (PW-14), mother of victim Parijat, it is revealed that Parijat, who was taken to school by Dilip, did not return. Lata Kashyap (PW-13) informed her about the receipt of (9) Cr.A.No.496/2002 Cr.A.No.598/2002 Cr.A.No.724/2002 Cr.A.No.1366/2005 phone call from Dilip that Parijat was with him. According to Dr. Manik Panshe (PW-14), at about 10:30 p.m., she received telephone call from Dilip informing that Parijat was in his confinement. He threatened that they should not show much intelligence by making report to police otherwise it would be dangerous for the life of Parijat. He told her that in fact he wanted to abduct her (PW-14), but Parijat fell victim. Dilip told to her that Dr. Panshe should keep Rs.5 lacs ready. Since he had fixed a bomb in the car she should not report the matter to police. He asked her to bring the cash near Medical College. He also made Parijat to talk to her. Parijat told her that there were two other persons with Dilip. PW-14 further stated that when Parijat was recovered she informed her that Banti, Manoj and Amit Patel were also with accused Dilip. Learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention to the fact that in her police statement Ex.D/5, Manik Panshe (PW-14) did not mention that accused Dilip told her that there was danger to the life of her daughter, but it hardly makes any difference because it was mentioned by the witness that Dilip told her that he had fixed a bomb in the car. 11. Similar statement was given by Dr. B.K.Panshe (PW-1), the father of Parijat. He stated that he was informed by Lata Kashyap and also by his wife that Dilip Patel had made telephone calls to them informing that Parijat was in his confinement and that he made demand of Rs.5 lacs for releasing her. 11. Similar statement was given by Dr. B.K.Panshe (PW-1), the father of Parijat. He stated that he was informed by Lata Kashyap and also by his wife that Dilip Patel had made telephone calls to them informing that Parijat was in his confinement and that he made demand of Rs.5 lacs for releasing her. He further stated that when Parijat was recovered, she narrated the story and named Dilip, Manoj, Banti and Amit. However, in para 10 of his statement, he could not explain as to why the name of Amit was not mentioned by him in his police statement Ex.D/1. 12. From the evidence of Santosh Rajak (PW-3), Rajesh Shukla (PW-4), Anand Tiwari (PW-7), Pramod Kumar Sharma (10) Cr.A.No.496/2002 Cr.A.No.598/2002 Cr.A.No.724/2002 Cr.A.No.1366/2005 (PW-8) and Pratik Dhas (PW-10), it is amply established that accused Dilip was working as driver of the car of Dr.Panshe and he used to take and bring back the children of Dr. Panshe from the school. 13. From the evidence of aforesaid prosecution witnesses, it was clearly established that on 25.9.2000, accused Dilip, Banti and Manoj had kidnapped Parijat in the car of Dr. Panshe from Christ Church school. Learned counsel for appellant-Banti @ Purushottam urged that since Banti left the car in which Parijat was kidnapped, he cannot be held liable for the offence under sections 364A,364 and 386 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. According to him, there was no evidence on record to indicate that he conspired with other accused persons for kidnapping the victim with a view to compel Dr. Panshe to pay ransom. 14. In Bhagwan Swarup Vs. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1965 SC 682 ), Apex Court observed :- "The essence of conspiracy is, therefore, that there should be an agreement between persons to do one or other of the acts described in the section. The said agreement may be proved by direct evidence or may be inferred from acts and conduct of the parties. There is no difference between the mode of proof of the offence of conspiracy and that of any other offence; it can be established by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence." In Baburao Bajirao Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra [ 1971 (3) SCC 432 ], Apex Court observed that there is seldom, if ever, that direct evidence of conspiracy is forthcoming. State of Maharashtra [ 1971 (3) SCC 432 ], Apex Court observed that there is seldom, if ever, that direct evidence of conspiracy is forthcoming. Conspiracy from its very nature is conceived and hatched in complete secrecy, or otherwise the whole purpose would be frustrated." In Kehar Singh vs. The State (Delhi Administration) ( AIR 1988 SC 1883 ) Apex Court observed: (11) Cr.A.No.496/2002 Cr.A.No.598/2002 Cr.A.No.724/2002 Cr.A.No.1366/2005 "Generally, a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. The prosecution will often rely on evidence of acts of various parties to infer that they were done in reference of their common intention. The prosecution will also more often rely upon circumstantial evidence. The conspiracy can be undoubtedly proved by such evidence direct or circumstantial. But the Court must enquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same and/or they have come together to the pursuit of the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators, but the latter is. It is, however, essential that the offence of conspiracy requires some kind of physical manifestation of agreement. The express agreement, however, need not be proved. Nor actual meeting of two persons is necessary. Nor it is necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient." 15. Keeping in view the principles laid down in the above decisions, if we consider the case of accused Banti @ Purushottam, we find that Bunti had accompanied Dilip and Manoj in the car when Parijat was picked up and kidnapped. He continued to be in the car for quite sometime, even after Parijat was taken out of township. According to Parijat (PW-16) at about 6-6:30 p.m. when Dilip stopped the car at lonely place, Banti alighted from the car. When Dilip enquired from Banti as to where he was going, Banti replied that he was going back. He did not accompany Dilip despite the fact that Dilip told him that if he went back he would be caught. According to Parijat (PW-16) at about 6-6:30 p.m. when Dilip stopped the car at lonely place, Banti alighted from the car. When Dilip enquired from Banti as to where he was going, Banti replied that he was going back. He did not accompany Dilip despite the fact that Dilip told him that if he went back he would be caught. Though Parijat stated that at that time when she asked Dilip for going back home and he replied that she would go back only if her father paid Rs.5 lacs, Banti was standing near the open door of the car, yet it seems to us that Banti did not share the idea (12) Cr.A.No.496/2002 Cr.A.No.598/2002 Cr.A.No.724/2002 Cr.A.No.1366/2005 of obtaining ransom from the father of Parijat. However, from the prosecution evidence, it is established that he actively joined Dilip and Manoj while victim was kidnapped, but there is absolutely no evidence on record for the inference that he knew or shared the plan of Dilip about obtaining ransom. It can, however, be presumed that he knew that Parijat was being kidnapped with intent to cause her to be secretly and wrongfully confined. Section 364A provides :- "364A. Kidnapping for ransom, etc. Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or [ any foreign State or international inter- Governmental organization or any other person] to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine." For holding a person liable to be convicted under section 364A, the prosecution must prove the following ingredients:- (1) The accused must have kidnapped, abducted or detained any person; (2) He must have kept such person under custody or detention; and (3) Kidnapping, abduction or detention must have been for ransom. 16. 16. In view of the above legal position, in our opinion, it has not been established by the prosecution evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Banti shared common intention or agreed (13) Cr.A.No.496/2002 Cr.A.No.598/2002 Cr.A.No.724/2002 Cr.A.No.1366/2005 with accused Dilip and Manoj to obtain ransom in exchange of release of Parijat or knew that kidnapee could be murdered or might be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered. Therefore, in our considered opinion, conviction of appellant Banti @ Purushottam under sections 364, 364A, read with section 120-B I.P.C. was not justified and was liable to be set aside. However, he was liable to be convicted under section 365 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly there being no evidence against accused Banti that he or any other accused in his presence put victim in fear or injury for dishonestly inducing her parents to deliver money to him or any other accused persons, he cannot be held liable for the offence under section 386/120-B I.P.C. also. 17. So far as acquittal of accused/respondent Amit Kumar Patel is concerned, there is no evidence that he joined other accused persons in kidnapping. According to Parijat (PW-16), Dilip went at the house of Amit in village Dindori and came back with him. Amit sat in the car with them for sometime and talked with Dilip behind the car that he should leave Parijat at Katni and come back. Money would be called there and distributed amongst them. Thereafter, Amit left. Though Dilip again asked Amit to come with him, but he did not join him. Trial Court found that evidence of Parijat in respect of Amit was not corroborated by any independent witness. Dr.B.K.Panshe (PW-1), though, stated that Parijat told to him that Amit, who was son of Dilip's aunt, was in the car, but this fact was found missing in his police statement Ex.D/1. Apart from it, from the evidence of Virendra Kumar Jat (PW-19), S.O. Police Shahpura, it was revealed that it was accused Amit only who informed him that accused Dilip and Manoj had come to his house with a girl and after filling petrol in the car left towards Jabalpur. According to trial Court, had accused Amit been involved in the (14) Cr.A.No.496/2002 Cr.A.No.598/2002 Cr.A.No.724/2002 Cr.A.No.1366/2005 conspiracy he would not have given information to police about Parijat and the accused persons. According to trial Court, had accused Amit been involved in the (14) Cr.A.No.496/2002 Cr.A.No.598/2002 Cr.A.No.724/2002 Cr.A.No.1366/2005 conspiracy he would not have given information to police about Parijat and the accused persons. Neither he participated in the commission of kidnapping nor he made any demand of ransom. The conduct of Amit seems to give indication about his innocence and creates doubt about his involvement in the crime. Merely because for sometime Dilip met Amit, who was son of his aunt, it cannot be held established that he conspired or was in agreement with accused Dilip and Manoj to kidnap or obtain ransom for the release of victim. Trial Court, therefore, rightly held that Amit was entitled to benefit of doubt. The view taken by the trial Court cannot be held to be unreasonable or without any basis. 18. In the facts and circumstances in totality, we find that the trial Court committed no error of fact or law calling for interference in the order of acquittal of accused Amit Kumar Patel. 19. After bestowing our anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and going through the record, we find that it has been amply established that appellants Dilip and Manoj conspired and kidnapped Parijat and kept her in detention giving rise to reasonable apprehension that she might be put to death or hurt in order to compel her parents to pay Rs.5 lacs as ransom. Thus, their conviction by the trial Court under section 364, 364A, 386 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code was fully justified. So far as appellant Banti @ Purushottam is concerned, his conviction under sections 364, 364A, 386 read with section 120-B I.P.C. deserved to be set aside, instead he deserved to be convicted under section 365/120-B I.P.C. The order of acquittal of accused/respondent Amit Kumar Patel deserved to be affirmed. (15) Cr.A.No.496/2002 Cr.A.No.598/2002 Cr.A.No.724/2002 Cr.A.No.1366/2005 20. For the aforementioned reasons: (i) Criminal Appeal No.496/2002 filed by appellant Manoj and Criminal Appeal No.724/2002 filed by appellant Dilip are dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence recorded against them by the trial Court is upheld. (ii) Criminal Appeal No.598/2002 filed by appellant Banti @ Purshottam is partly allowed. (15) Cr.A.No.496/2002 Cr.A.No.598/2002 Cr.A.No.724/2002 Cr.A.No.1366/2005 20. For the aforementioned reasons: (i) Criminal Appeal No.496/2002 filed by appellant Manoj and Criminal Appeal No.724/2002 filed by appellant Dilip are dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence recorded against them by the trial Court is upheld. (ii) Criminal Appeal No.598/2002 filed by appellant Banti @ Purshottam is partly allowed. His conviction and sentence under sections 364, 364A, 386 read with section 120- B I.P.C. recorded by the trial Court is set aside, instead he is convicted under section 365/120-B I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. The amount of fine shall be deposited within three months in the trial Court. The amount of fine if already deposited by him shall be adjusted in the total amount of fine. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. (iii) Criminal Appeal No.1366/2005 filed by the State against the acquittal order of Amit Kumar Patel is dismissed. His acquittal is affirmed. 21. Appeals are accordingly disposed of. 22. A copy of this judgment shall be kept in the record of Criminal Appeals No. 598/2002, 724/2002 and 1366/2005.