Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 291 (KAR)

Shyamprasad Bekal v. State of Karnataka

2011-03-09

B.V.PINTO

body2011
JUDGMENT B.V. PINTO, J.—This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 15.10.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udupi in S.C. No. 50/01 convicting the accused of the offence under Section 304B IPC and sentencing accused No. 1 to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the said offence and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further convicting accused No. 2 for the said offence and sentencing her to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further convicting both the accused for the offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and sentencing both of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs each and further convicting them for offence under Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each with a direction that out of the fine amount, a sum of Rupees One lakh shall be paid to P.W. 1. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that A1 being the husband and A2 being the mother-in-law of the deceased Geetha, at the time of marriage, the accused demanded a sum of Rupees five lakhs as dowry and 30 pawans of gold ornaments and thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 4 of the D.P. Act. 3. It is further charged against the accused that the father of the deceased agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- and accordingly, on 2.12.1999 the marriage of the deceased was performed with A1 and at the time of marriage, apart from receiving cash dowry of Rs. 1,50,000/-, the accused had accepted gold ring and thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 3 of the D.P. Act. 4. It is also further alleged that on the demand of the accused, the father of the deceased was forced to give 15 pawans of gold ornaments to deceased Geetha and also two sovereign gold chain and thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 3 of D.P. Act read with Section 34 IPC. 5. 4. It is also further alleged that on the demand of the accused, the father of the deceased was forced to give 15 pawans of gold ornaments to deceased Geetha and also two sovereign gold chain and thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 3 of D.P. Act read with Section 34 IPC. 5. It is further alleged that after the marriage of Geetha with A1, the accused have not transferred cash and gold articles to the deceased as provided under Section 6 of the D.P. Act. Therefore, they are alleged to be liable for the offence under Section 6 of the D.P. Act. 6. It is also charged against them that after the marriage, the accused were ill treating and harassing the deceased, for bringing dowry of Rs. 3,00,000/- and since the deceased has not brought the said amount of dowry, she was done to death by pouring kerosene and setting fire on her on 13.4.2000 and thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. 7. It is further charged against them since the death of the deceased was caused in an unnatural circumstance within 7 years of her marriage, as a result of demand for dowry, the accused are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 304B IPC. 8. The prosecution, in order to prove the case has examined in all 18 witnesses and has got marked Ex. P1 to P21 and produced M.Os.1 to 20. The defence of the accused was one of total denial and they have got marked Ex. D1 to D15 and examined DW1 and DW2 in their defence. However, after hearing the prosecution and defence, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the accused as aforesaid and sentenced them, accordingly. 9. Heard Sri S.P. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned HCGP for the State. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that in this case there are two complaints-one at Ex. P7 which is filed by the brother of the deceased and another complaint filed by the father of the deceased. 9. Heard Sri S.P. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned HCGP for the State. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that in this case there are two complaints-one at Ex. P7 which is filed by the brother of the deceased and another complaint filed by the father of the deceased. Both complaints came to be filed on the same day, i.e., on 13.4.2000 in the first complaint, there are no allegations of any kind and brother of the deceased states voluntarily that both the husband and wife are living happily and that he does not know as to why his sister has committed suicide. In the 2nd complaint by the father of the deceased which was received by the Police at about 9 p.m., on 13.4.2000, there are allegations of harassment and demand for dowry. He submits that the 2nd complaint is concocted and is prepared for the purpose of falsely prosecuting the accused. He further submits that the evidence on record is not sufficient in so far as ill-treatment and harassment is concerned and that the ingredients of offence under Section 304B IPC are not clearly made out by the prosecution. He submits that the defence evidence produced in this case clearly indicates that the deceased was suffering from illness and that might be the reason for committing the suicide by the deceased. He also submits that there is glaring discrepancy between the deposition before the Court and the statement recorded by the Police during the investigation. He submits that the cardinal principles of jurisprudence being the presumption that the accused is innocent until he is proved guilty, the said presumption has not been followed in this case. It is further submitted that the period of deceased living with the accused is too short to decide regarding ill treatment and harassment alleged to have been committed by the accused and therefore, he submits that the order of conviction passed by the trial Court, has resulted in miscarriage of justice and therefore, submits that the accused may be acquitted. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellants has cited the following decisions :- 1. State of Maharashtra vs. Ashok Chotelal Sukla, (1997) SCC (Crl.) 1186 2. State by C.O.D. vs. M. Narayanaswamy, 1999 (5) KLJ 94 (DB) 3. Sunil Bajaj vs. State of M.P., 2001 Cri. L.J. 4700 (SC) 4. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellants has cited the following decisions :- 1. State of Maharashtra vs. Ashok Chotelal Sukla, (1997) SCC (Crl.) 1186 2. State by C.O.D. vs. M. Narayanaswamy, 1999 (5) KLJ 94 (DB) 3. Sunil Bajaj vs. State of M.P., 2001 Cri. L.J. 4700 (SC) 4. Taruna @ Goutam Mukarjee vs. State of W.B., 2001 Cri. L.J. 4937 (SC) 5. State by A.C.P. vs. Srikanth and another, ILR 2002 Kant. 346 (DB) 6. Durgaprasad and another vs. State of M.P., (2010) 9 SCC 73 7. Narayanamurthy vs. State, AIR 2008 SCW 3931 8. State of Karnataka vs. Balappa, 1999 Crl. L.J. 3064 (DB) 9. Dr. Seetharamaiah and another vs. State of Karnataka. 2010 Cri. L.J. 3389 10. Satyajit Roy vs. State of Tripura, 2010 Cri. L.J. 3397 11. Kishore Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1990 SC 2140 12. Rajbabu and another vs. State of M.P., 2008 AIR SCW 5435 11. The learned HCGP on the other hand, submits that the brother of the deceased by name Surendra was not living with his parents and was working in Kundapura whereas the deceased has informed about ill-treatment and harassment to her father and mother, viz., P.Ws. 1 and 2. It is mentioned in Ex. P7 that he is not aware as to whether his sister has told anything to her mother and sister about the relationship of herself with accused. He submits that the evidence of prosecution witnesses more particularly. P.Ws. 1 to 6 and 8 to 12 clearly indicate that there was demand for money which was arrears of dowry as agreed upon by the complainant, the father of the deceased. The death has occurred within the short time after marriage and that there is evidence that soon before the death, there was demand for additional dowry and hence, the offence under Section 304B IPC is clearly made out. He further submits that in a case of this nature, it would be too much to expect the neighbours of the accused to depose against the accused in so far as relationship of the deceased with her husband in her matrimonial house is concerned. It is rather common practice that no neighbours would interact with the newly married bride in her husband’s house immediately after the marriage and it would take long time to mingle with the society of her husband. It is rather common practice that no neighbours would interact with the newly married bride in her husband’s house immediately after the marriage and it would take long time to mingle with the society of her husband. Under the circumstances, it cannot be found fault that there are no independent witnesses examined to speak about mental status of the deceased at or near the time of her death. The death having taken, place within three months from the date of marriage, the defence has not probabilised with any acceptable reason for the death of the deceased except committing suicide in her husband’s house. He, therefore, submits that the prosecution has been successful in bringing home the guilt, of the accused and hence the order of conviction does not call for interference. 12. It is further submitted by the learned HCGP that the accused themselves have filed an application under Section 319 Cr. P.C. for taking cognizance of the offence under the D.P. Act against P.W. 1 and others. Hence, he submits that, the accused themselves have admitted having received the dowry. Therefore, he submits the appeal may be dismissed. 13. The proceedings in this case commenced with the filing of a complaint by Surendra the brother of the deceased on 13.4.2000 at 13 hours at Kota Police Station, Kundapura taluk. In the said complaint, the brother of the deceased has stated that he is residing along with, his parents in Betttnamane village, Kundapura taluk and he is working in a travel agency in Kundapura. His sister Geetha was married 3 months before her death with A1 who belong to Bidkalkatie of Kundapura taluk. The husband and wife were apparently living in good terms. On 13.4.2000 at about 9.15 a.m. A2 Dakshyani telephoned to his travel agency and asked for him and it was informed whether he would be available at 1’O clock near the telephone and thereafter, at about 1.30 p.m., when he was in the travel agency, one Gangadhara from Bidkalkatte informed him that his sister is not well and that he would come to the place of the complainant. He immediately phoned up to his sister’s house and A2 took the phone and informed that his sister’s story is finished and therefore, he immediately reached the house of his sister. He immediately phoned up to his sister’s house and A2 took the phone and informed that his sister’s story is finished and therefore, he immediately reached the house of his sister. When he observed in the house of the accused, his sister was charred and had died on the way to bathroom. He has stated that his sister has not told anything to him so far, but whether she has told about the matter to his mother or brother is not known to him. He is also not aware as to why the deceased did the said act. He has requested for performing enquiry and release the dead body of his sister for further ceremony. 14. It is seen from the records that the father of the deceased, Manjunatha Sheregar has given another complaint which has been received at Kota Police Station at 9 pm., on 13.4.2000. In the said complaint,, the father of the deceased has named A1 and A2 and has stated that at the time of marriage, accused had demanded 5 lakhs rupees as dowry along with 30 pawans of gold ornaments and because of the pressure of the accused, he had paid Rupees one and half lakh and 18 pawans of gold jewels to the accused. After the marriage, both the accused were subjecting the deceased to cruelty on the pretext of not bringing demanded dowry and they were assaulting and abusing her. He states that he has seen the said incident in his own eyes but with a view to save the marriage life of his daughter, he has not given the complaint so far. They also demanded dowry from him. It is further stated in the complaint that on 13.4.2000 at about 2 p.m., he came to know that his daughter has been killed by the accused by pouring kerosene and setting fire on her. The accused have killed his healthy daughter by putting kerosene and setting fire on her. Though the incident has happened in the house of the accused, they have not informed him and that his daughter would have died either in the morning or on the previous night. Only the two accused are residing in the house of the deceased. Hence, he prayed for action. 15. The Kota Police registered the said case in Crime No. 46/00 for offence under Section 304B IPC and investigation was commenced. Only the two accused are residing in the house of the deceased. Hence, he prayed for action. 15. The Kota Police registered the said case in Crime No. 46/00 for offence under Section 304B IPC and investigation was commenced. P.W. 18 P. Damodar was the Dy. S.P. at Kota Police Station, during the relevant period and he has conducted investigation in this case and has filed charge-sheet against both the accused for offences mentioned above. 16. P.W. 1 Manjunatha Sheragar has stated before the Court regarding the contents of his complaint filed before the Police. He has stated that when questioned the accused as to how the incident happened, the accused did not speak. Thereafter, he went to the Police Station and gave complaint as per Ex. P1. In the evidence, he has stated that, when he had gone to the house of deceased when she was alive, the accused have stated that he is required to pay another sum of Rs. 3 lakhs and that they have stopped the construction, of the house half way. He has stated that for want of money, the accused were harassing his daughter. He has further stated the accused were threatening that they would pour kerosene on his daughter and would set her on fire. His daughter was informing that the accused were abusing and assaulting her with the demand for money. It is also in the evidence of P.W. 1 that his daughter was informing over telephone that she is not in a position to live in her husband’s house due to ill-treatment meted out to her by her husband and mother-in-law. He used to advise his daughter and pacify her and request the accused not to harass his daughter. In the cross examination, it is suggested that no amount was demanded by the accused as dowry nor any amount, has been received by the accused either in cash or in the form of gold jewels. It is elicited in the cross examination that the accused had laid foundation for constructing the house by purchasing a site and the said site is 1 km. away from the house at Bidkalkatte. It is suggested that A2 was suffering from cancer since about 10 years prior to the marriage of his daughter, but the said suggestion has been denied by P.W. 1. away from the house at Bidkalkatte. It is suggested that A2 was suffering from cancer since about 10 years prior to the marriage of his daughter, but the said suggestion has been denied by P.W. 1. He has denied the suggestion that A1 was suffering from skin disease and that he was taking treatment for the said disease. The defence has elicited certain improvements which have been made by P.W. 1 in his evidence before the Court and which is not found in the complaint, given by him to the Police as per Ex. P1. It is suggested to P.W. 1 that his daughter was mentally unstable and unable to tolerate such disease, might have committed suicide or might have subjected to accidental death. However, the said suggestions have been denied by P.W. 1. 17. P.W. 2 is the wife of P.W. 1 and mother of the deceased. Her averments are similar to that of P.W. 1. 18. P.W. 3 is a neighbour of the accused. She has stated that the deceased Geetha died two to three months after her marriage and that A1 had married Geetha and they were residing in her neighbourhood. Her house is 10 metres away from the house of the accused. When she went to the house of the accused, the dead body of the deceased had fallen on the way to the bathroom and the accused were in the house. The accused did not sustain any burn injuries. The deceased Geetha was not talking to her. In the cross examination, it is elicited that the deceased was not talking to anybody and she has not informed the Police about the deceased not talking to anybody. She is residing In the Government quarters which belong to Forest Department and there is one wall and one house between the house of the accused and their house. It is also elicited in the cross-examination, that on the date of the incident she came to know at about 10 a.m., that Geetha had sustained burn injuries and she heard noise from the house of the deceased. By the time she went Geetha had already died. 19. It is further elicited in the evidence of P.W. 3, that according to her knowledge, the deceased and her husband were cordial with each other and deceased and accused No. 2 were also living with cordial relationship. By the time she went Geetha had already died. 19. It is further elicited in the evidence of P.W. 3, that according to her knowledge, the deceased and her husband were cordial with each other and deceased and accused No. 2 were also living with cordial relationship. P.W. 4 Surendra is the brother of the deceased. He has stated in the same terms as that of P.W. 1. He has stated regarding demand of dowry and harassment, meted out to the deceased. He came to know these facts from his parents and his parents came to know the same from the deceased, when his parents went to the house of the accused. Regarding Ex. P7, it is elicited that both himself and his father were severely shocked from hearing the death of his sister and his mother had lost conscience. Ex. P7 was written by accused No. 1 and he was asked to sign the same, since he did not know what to do at that moment, and he simply signed Ex. P7 and gave. In the cross-examination, he has stated for the first time before the Court, about this fact of accused writing Ex. P7 and has not stated the same before the police during the investigation. However, he has admitted in the cross-examination, that he came to know regarding the ill-treatment given by the accused before the death of the deceased and he had categorically denied the hand writing on Ex. P7. P.W. 5 Nagaraja is another brother of the deceased. His evidence is similar to that of P.Ws. 1 and 4. P.W. 6 Devaraya is yet another brother of the deceased. He has also stated regarding demand of dowry and ill-treatment given by the accused. P.W. 7 Dr. Ramachandra Bayar was senior tuberculosis controller, Udupi who has visited the house of the deceased at the instance of accused No. 2 and has pronounced the deceased dead. P.W. 8 Dinesh Pujari has stated that the construction work of the house of the accused at Kalavara village in Kundapura Taluk was going on in the year 2000 and he was doing the masonary work to the said house. P.W. 9 is Jayaprakash Shetty, who has stated that he has visited the place where the dead body of the deceased was found. However, he has been treated hostile to the case of the prosecution. P.W. 9 is Jayaprakash Shetty, who has stated that he has visited the place where the dead body of the deceased was found. However, he has been treated hostile to the case of the prosecution. P.W. 10 Nityananda Achary has stated that he was summoned to weigh the gold articles in this case. P.W. 11 Ramesh Shetty has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. P.W. 12 Shankara Narayana Ulluru is the Manager of Molahalli Vyavasaya Co-operative Society Bank Limited, Bidkalkatte. He has stated that accused No. 1 is the meniber of the said society, so also witness Sudendra. It is further stated by him that accused No. 1 had pledged the gold chain on 25.3.2000 and had taken loan of a sum of Rs. 5,500/- from the Society. Police had later on seized the said gold chain from the Society. He has further stated that P.W. 22 Sudendra. had also pledged another gold chain on 31.3.2000 and had taken amount of Rs. 4,000/- as loan and police have also seized the gold chain subsequently. P.W. 13 Jayaram Shetty has stated that he knows both the deceased and the accused and the accused had produced a gold ring in the presence of the police as per M.O. 20. P.W. 14 Manoj Kumar Shetty is the owner of the printing press. He is the witness to Ex. P8 inquest mahazar conducted by the Thasildhar. P.W. 15 Dr. Maya has conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. He has stated, that the body was charred due to burns and the cause of the death was due to extensive burns. P.W. 16 is the Thasildar at Kundapura during the relevant period. He has conducted the inquest proceedings and had stated that the parents of the deceased were very much aggrieved and not in a position to give statement. However, he has recorded the statement of brother of the deceased. He has stated that during the enquiry, he has found that the deceased has died due to the ill-treatment given by the accused for money. P.W. 17 is the Inspector of Police who has conducted part of the investigation in this case. P.W. 18 P. Damodar is the Deputy Superintendent of Police who has conducted the investigation, arrested the accused, recorded the statement of witnesses, seized articles and finally filed the charge-sheet in this case. P.W. 17 is the Inspector of Police who has conducted part of the investigation in this case. P.W. 18 P. Damodar is the Deputy Superintendent of Police who has conducted the investigation, arrested the accused, recorded the statement of witnesses, seized articles and finally filed the charge-sheet in this case. The accused were questioned by the Court under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and accused had denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them. Accused No. 1 has filed a statement stating that he has neither accepted any dowry nor has ill-treated the deceased. He has further submitted that his mother accused No. 2 is suffering from cancer and has been operated and she is not well ever since, 1985 and he himself is suffering from skin allergy and he is treated by doctor. Further, he has stated that deceased was not having good health and she was having excess bleeding and stomach ache periodically. She was physically unwell and she was being treated by Dr. Sundara Shetty, the senior doctor of the area. 20. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the learned Session’s Judge has found both the accused guilty and has convicted them and sentenced as mentioned above. 21. On going through the materials on record it is to be observed that at the outset, the prosecution has not proved the source for having paid the cash dowry to the accused No. 1. It is seen that P.W. 1 was working as the cook in Government Hospital and after retirement he was owning two acres of land and was looking after his 4 children out of which 3 were daughters. He has got the daughters married including the deceased. P.W. 4 is the brother of the deceased and son of P.W. 1. There is nothing to show in the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 as to how they could have pooled Rs. 1,50,000/- to pay cash dowry to the accused No. 1. So far as the gold articles are concerned, it is needless to say that it is customary and there would not be any complaint regarding a father or brother gifting articles or jewels to their daughter. Under the circumstances, the case of the prosecution that accused has demanded and accepted a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as dowry is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Under the circumstances, the case of the prosecution that accused has demanded and accepted a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as dowry is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Further, it is seen that the deceased and her parents are hailing from a village back ground, it is beyond the imagination of any person that the accused No. 1 would have demanded a huge sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- immediately, after marriage. Therefore, the case of the prosecution that after the marriage, the accused demanded money to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/- also appears to be artificial. If at all there was such a demand for Rs. 3,50,000/-, when he gave the complaint as per Ex. P7, P.W. 4 Surendra would not have lost sight of such an allegation and would have definitely mentioned it in the complaint. P.W. 4 was not having a very sound resource and working in travel agency and he would definitely known the value of money. It is unnatural to say or to believe that P.W. 4 would have straight away gone to the police station without consulting the parents. Therefore, Ex. P7 comes in the way of prosecution and in believing the complaint Ex. P1 given by P.W. 1 Manjunatha Sheregara father of the deceased. 22. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the story of demand of dowry at the time of marriage and after the marriage is an after-thought and the said story is developed between 1.00 p.m., which Ex. P1 was given to the police station on 13.4.2000 and 9 p.m. when Ex. P1 was given by P.W. 1. It cannot be said that P.W. 4 is uneducated, who has lost sight of the situation of his direct sister, the deceased at the time of giving Ex. P7. Therefore, I am of the firm opinion that the contents of Ex. P1 do not exhibit the true state of affairs. It is needless to say that if there are two complaints and two versions are given to the police in respect of the same incident, the one which is favourable to the accused has to be given effect, unless it is established that the first complaint is shrouded by mala fides. In the cross-examination of P.W. 4 he has stated for the first, time that accused No. 1 has written Ex. P7 and he was made to sign the same. In the cross-examination of P.W. 4 he has stated for the first, time that accused No. 1 has written Ex. P7 and he was made to sign the same. During the intervening period from the date of filing Ex. P7, till the date of filing charge-sheet, nothing prevented P.W. 4 to approach the police and inform that Ex. P7 was actually written by the accused and in shocking state of mind his signature was put. Under the circumstances, P.W. 4 being of the age of 29 years should have been responsible while he gave Ex. P7 to the police. He would not have tried to let the real culprits escape from the grasp of law and would have actually given the complaint to the police. Under the circumstances, I hold that the entire story of the prosecution that is contained in Ex. P1 given by P.W. 1 is concocted and is made for the purpose of this case. 23. So far as the death of the deceased is concerned, it is seen that the marriage has taken place on 10.1.2000 and death has occurred on 13.4.2000, within a lapse of three months three days from the date of marriage. As has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the said period of three months and three days is too short to caste any aspersions on the conduct of accused Nos. 1 and 2. It is needless to say that independent witnesses like P.W. 3 Savitha, P.W. 14 Manoj Kumar Shetty has stated that the relationship of the accused with the deceased was cordial and was as normal as any other couple. It is brought in the evidence of the witnesses that the deceased was suffering from severe bleeding and also she was suffering from severe stomach ache during the menstrual period. It is also stated that she was missing regular menstrual periods and in this connection, she was very upset regarding her own health. Under the circumstances, the deceased could have committed suicide being unable to bear the suffering and thinking of her bad health. Though, it is stated that the accused have set fire on the deceased and thereafter, accused No. 1 has dragged the dead body and when P.Ws. 1 and 2 visited the house drag mark was found, the said allegations are not substantiated from any materials on record. Though, it is stated that the accused have set fire on the deceased and thereafter, accused No. 1 has dragged the dead body and when P.Ws. 1 and 2 visited the house drag mark was found, the said allegations are not substantiated from any materials on record. Therefore, though there was charge under Section 302 IPC, the learned Session’s Judge has found that the accused are not liable for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The conviction for Section 304B IPC is passed on the basis of presumption, the same flowing from the fact of demand of money by the accused after the marriage. From the materials on record, it is seen that on the date of incident, itself, accused No. 2 had approached the village accountant and had applied for licence for building new house and had applied for the permission to construct the house. However, that itself cannot he connected with the act of death of the deceased unless there is cogent and clear material to connect the death of the deceased for the want of money and demand for the same from parents of deceased on behalf of accused Nos. 1 and 2. It is not enough, if an offence appears to have been committed, but the Courts has to satisfy themselves that the accused have intact committed the offence. In this case, though all the circumstances indicate that the accused might have committed the offence, there is vast difference between “might have” and “must have”. In a totality of the circumstances appearing in this case, having regard to the short time within which the deceased had died of burn injuries, I am of the opinion that the accused cannot be held guilty for the death of the deceased. In that view of the matter, when two views are possible, one which is favourable to the accused is given effect by the Courts and therefore, I am of the opinion that the prosecution is not successful in bringing home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the appellants are entitled for an order of acquittal. In the result the following order is passed. ORDER (i) The appeal is hereby allowed. (ii) The judgment and order of conviction of accused Nos. 1 and 2 is set aside and they are acquitted of the offences levelled against them. In the result the following order is passed. ORDER (i) The appeal is hereby allowed. (ii) The judgment and order of conviction of accused Nos. 1 and 2 is set aside and they are acquitted of the offences levelled against them. (iii) Bail bonds executed by them is hereby cancelled and fine amount if any, deposited shall be refunded to them.