JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.: - Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment of conviction dated 27.03.2012 and order of sentence dated 28.03.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, whereby appellants were convicted and sentenced under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘the IPC’) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, in a case arising out of FIR No.142 dated 3.11.2007, registered at Police Station Chhachhrauli, under Sections 307/34 IPC and 25/54/59 of the Arms Act. However, accused- Rinku who was also charged for offence under Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, was acquitted of the same. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 3.11.2007, SI/SHO Piara Singh had come to the Court at Kurukshetra for his deposition in a case arising from FIR No.312/04, under NDPS Act, Police Station Shahabad where he received a telephonic message about gun-shot incident in village Ismailpur. Upon this, SI/SHO Piara Singh after obtaining permission from the Court reached Police Station Chhachhrauli, where ASI Raghbir Singh had given him information from village Ismailpur that Rinku son of Sham Lal, r/o Ismailpur and others had fired shot at Nittu son of Ishran Singh, r/o Ismailpur. Upon this, SI/SHO Piara Singh along with other officials reached Gaba Hospital, Yamuna Nagar in a Govt. vehicle bearing No.HR-2K-3400 driven by EHC Rai Singh where opinion of doctor was sought and there injured Nittu alias Suraj Mohan got his statement recorded. In his statement, injured-Nittu alleged that his father died about 1½ year back. They are two brothers who are married. He is elder one and Ravinder is his younger brother. He has three sisters who are also married. His mother is alive. Both brothers are living jointly and are agriculturist. The fields of Suresh son of Illam Singh and Jai Kumar son of Bhopal Singh, residents of Ismailpur are also adjacent to his fields. On that day, he went to his fields for preparing ‘DOLS’ of his fields where wheat was sown. He was returning back to his house on his black coloured Pulsar motor-cycle bearing registration No.HR 02R-6231 after preparing said DOLS. On that day, he went to his fields for preparing ‘DOLS’ of his fields where wheat was sown. He was returning back to his house on his black coloured Pulsar motor-cycle bearing registration No.HR 02R-6231 after preparing said DOLS. Suresh son of Illam Singh and Jai Kumar son of Bhopal Singh, r/o Ismailpur were also returning back after finishing their work through katcha gohar. At about 8.00/8.30 a.m, when he crossed Suresh and Jai Kumar while going towards his village near sugarcane fields, in the meantime 8/9 persons including Rinku son of Sham Lal, Barkha son of Babu, Parveen son of Inder, Sanjay son of Balbira, Parveen son of Kali Ram, Sanju son of Rodu, Chandan son of Rulia, all residents of Ismailpur and Samrat @ Sonu son of Bhola Singh, r/o Vijay Nagar Colony, Yamuna Nagar and Jagtar son of Kirpal Singh, r/o Thandro Police Station Ismailabad, District Kurukshetra came at once in front of him out of the sugarcane fields from both the sides who were already hiding themselves there in furtherance of their common object. Rinku son of Sham Lal, Barkha son of Babu Ram, Sanjay son of Balbira, Samrat son of Bhola Singh were armed with weapons whereas others were having small gandasis meant for cutting sugarcane. Rinku while giving lalkara asked to teach lesson to Nittu for getting them apprehended and said he should not be allowed to go alive. On this Rinku fired on him (complainant) with a weapon in his hand with an intention to kill him which hit on the right side of his chest. Thereafter, Barkha son of Babu Ram had also fired on him with a weapon in his hand, the pellet of which hit on his face near nose. Sanjay son of Balbira also fired on him which hit on the “show” (visor) above the head light of his motorcycle. Thereafter, Samrat fired from his weapon which hit on the left side of the oil tank of his motor-cycle. Parveen son of Inder, Parveen son of Kali Ram, Sanju son of Rodu, Chandan son of Rulia and Jagtar son of Kirpal also attacked on him with their small gandasis on both sides. He got frightened from the occurrence and as he was sitting on the motorcycle he rescued himself by giving race and also raised alarm saying bachao-bachao. Parveen son of Inder, Parveen son of Kali Ram, Sanju son of Rodu, Chandan son of Rulia and Jagtar son of Kirpal also attacked on him with their small gandasis on both sides. He got frightened from the occurrence and as he was sitting on the motorcycle he rescued himself by giving race and also raised alarm saying bachao-bachao. Suresh son of Ilam, Jai Kumar son of Bhopal Singh who were coming behind him asked him to run in the village otherwise they all would kill him. On this, he reached in his chopal by motorcycle where his uncle Sitam Singh son of Karta Ram and his brother Ravinder were sitting. He told the entire occurrence to them. Blood was oozing from his body. He was taken for treatment in Gaba Hospital by his uncle Sitam and brother Ravinder in a car where he was given treatment by the medical officer. The rancour for this present incident is that Rinku, Samrat and Jagtar were apprehended by the police for having illegal arms and ammunition. They though that the complainant had informed the police about this. Police had challaned them, therefore, they were nourishing grudge against him. Due to this reason, all the accused in furtherance of their common object had committed murderous attack on him. The whole occurrence had been witnessed by Suresh son of Ilam Singh, Jai Kumar son of Bhopal Singh, r/o Ismailpur. On this, FIR under Section 148, 149, 307 IPC and Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act was registered and investigation was carried out by SI/SHO Piara Singh. Accused Sanjay son of Balbira, Barkha son of Babu Ram, Sanjiv son of Telu Ram @ Rodu, Parveen son of Inder Pal, Parveen son of Kali Ram, Chandan Ram son of Rulia, all residents of Ismailpur were joined in the investigation who were found to be innocent. Offences under Sections 148/149 IPC were removed from this case. Accused Sanjay son of Balbira, Barkha son of Babu Ram, Sanjiv son of Telu Ram @ Rodu, Parveen son of Inder Pal, Parveen son of Kali Ram, Chandan Ram son of Rulia, all residents of Ismailpur were joined in the investigation who were found to be innocent. Offences under Sections 148/149 IPC were removed from this case. Thereafter, on 18.4.2008, accused Jagtar Singh son of Kirpal Singh, r/o Thandro, P.S. Ismailabad, Kurukshetra was arrested in a case No.58 dated 18.04.2008, under Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, Police Station Chhachhrauli who made a disclosure statement Ex.PW 1/A that about 5 ½ month back he and Samrat Singh son of Bhola, r/o Vijay Nagar Colony, Yamuna Nagar and Rinku son of Sham Lal, r/o Ismailpur, Police Station Chhachhrauli had fired on Nittu son of Isham, r/o Ismailpur with an intention to kill him and the said desi katta (country made pistol) was given to him by Samrat which has been concealed by him in a box in his residential house at village Thandro and he can get the same recovered on which the accused as well as witnesses appended their signatures. After that in pursuance of disclosure statement the accused had got a country made pistol .312 bore and seven live cartridges recovered out of an iron box from his house in village Thandro, Police Station Ismailabad which were taken into police possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW 1/B which was signed by the witnesses. After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was presented against Jagtar Singh and accused Rinku and Samrat were declared proclaimed offenders and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 3. On finding a prima facie case, accused-Jagtar was chargesheeted under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 25/54/59 of the Arms Act. At the time of recording the prosecution evidence, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Barkha Ram son of Babu Ram, Parveen son of Inder, Sanjay son of Balbir, Parveen son of Kali Ram, Sanju son of Rodu and Chandan son of Rulla Ram were ordered to be summoned to face trial as additional accused under Sections 148, 149, 307 of the IPC. After arrest of accused-Rinku and Samrat, supplementary challan was presented against them. After arrest of accused-Rinku and Samrat, supplementary challan was presented against them. The learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 148/307 read with Section 149 of the IPC against accused Rinku, Samrat Singh, Barkha, Parveen son of Inder, Sanjay, Parveen son of Kali Ram, Sanju and Chandan. Besides this, charge under Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act was also framed against accused-Rinku. 4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined ASI Ish Pal Singh as PW 1, Raj Kumar Reader to District Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar as PW 2, Constable Gurmeet Singh as PW 3, Krishan Kumar Halqa Patwari as PW 4, SI Fateh Singh as PW 5, Head Constable Om Parkash as PW 6, Head Constable Ram Pal as PW 7, ASI Satpal Singh as PW 8, Narinder Singh as PW 9, complainant-Nittu as PW 10, Suresh Kumar as PW 11, Sitam Singh as PW 12, Dr. Vandana Medical Officer as PW 13, Dr.B.S.Gaba as PW 14, Inspector Piara Singh as PW 15, ASI Bhim Singh as PW 16, ASI Shamsher Singh as PW 17 and Jai Kumar as PW 18. 5. PW 1 ASI Ish Pal Singh proved the disclosure statement of accused-Jagtar Singh on the basis of which recovery of one countrymade pistol .315 bore and seven live cartridges from the house of Jagtar Singh situated in village Thandro, Police Station Ismailabad was effected. He proved recovery memo Ex.PW1/B vide which the countrymade pistol was taken into police possession. He proved the sketch of countrymade pistol Ex.PW1/C prepared by SI Prem Chand. 6. PW 2 Raj Kumar, Reader to District Magistrate proved the sanction order Ex.PW 2/A issued by Sh. Nitin Kumar Yadav, IAS, the then District Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar. 7. PW 3 Constable Gurmeet Singh proved the factum of delivering of special report in respect to this case to the Illaqa Magistrate as well higher police authorities. 8. PW 4 Krishan Kumar, Halqa Patwari proved the site plan of place of occurrence Ex.PW 4/A which was prepared by him at the instance of Nittu. 9. PW 5 Constable Fateh Singh, Police Station, City Yamuna Nagar proved FIR Ex.PW 5/B and endorsement Ex.PW 5/A made by him on the ruqua received in the police station. 10. 8. PW 4 Krishan Kumar, Halqa Patwari proved the site plan of place of occurrence Ex.PW 4/A which was prepared by him at the instance of Nittu. 9. PW 5 Constable Fateh Singh, Police Station, City Yamuna Nagar proved FIR Ex.PW 5/B and endorsement Ex.PW 5/A made by him on the ruqua received in the police station. 10. PW 6 Head Constable Om Parkash deposed that on 3.11.2007, he joined investigation withSI/SHO Piara Singh and reached at village Ismailpur and took into possession one motor-cycle bearing registration No.HR 02-R-6227 make Pulsar, black coloured, belonging to complainant- Nittu vide recovery memo Ex.PW6/A which bears his signature as well as signature of Narinder Singh. He also proved the recovery memo Ex.PW6/B vide which a sealed parcel of clothes belonging to Nittu and an envelope for being sent to FSL, Madhuban handed over to him by the doctors were taken into police possession. 11. PW 7 HC Ram Pal deposed that he had deposited one envelope, one sealed parcel and one seal with the FSL, Madhuban and receipt thereof was handed over to MHC Satpal. 12. PW 8 ASI Satpal Singh deposed about sending of parcels to FSL and deposit of case property to Malkhana stating therein that he did not tamper with the same and not allow anybody to tamper with the same for the period during which the same remained in his possession. 13. PW 9 Narinder Singh deposed that on 3.11.2007, the police had taken into possession a motor-cycle make Pulsar, black coloured, belonging to complainant-Nittu in his presence which was parked in the baithak of Raj Kumar vide recovery Memo Ex.PW 6/A which bears his signature. He further deposed that the speedometer and front glass of the said motor-cycle were in broken condition and there was a sign of bullet on the petrol tank of the said motor-cycle. 14. PW 10 complainant-Nittu alias Suraj Mohan deposed that on 3.11.2007, at about 6.00/6.30 a.m, he was going to his fields. When he was returning to his home on motor-cycle at about 8.00/8.30 a.m and reached near sugarcane fields, he met Jai Kumar, Suresh, who were also returning from their fields. 14. PW 10 complainant-Nittu alias Suraj Mohan deposed that on 3.11.2007, at about 6.00/6.30 a.m, he was going to his fields. When he was returning to his home on motor-cycle at about 8.00/8.30 a.m and reached near sugarcane fields, he met Jai Kumar, Suresh, who were also returning from their fields. As and when he crossed them, in the meantime, 8-9 persons, namely, Rinku son of Sham Lal, Barkha son of Babu, Sanjay son of Balbir, Jagtar son of Bhola Singh, Samrat, Sanju son of Rodu, Parveen son of Kali, Parveen son of Inder, Chandan came in front of his motor-cycle. All the accused persons gave a lalkara. The accused present in Court (Rinku) fired on him with a pistol which hit him in the right side of the chest. Thereafter Barkha also fired on him, pellets of which hit on his nose. After that Sanjay also fired on him which hit head light of his motor-cycle and after that Samrat also fired, which hit on the petrol tank of his motor-cycle. The remaining accused Chandan, Parveen son of Inder, Parveen son of Kali Ram, Sanju son of Rodu and Jagtar armed with gandasi attacked on him with an intention to kill him. Suresh Kumar and Jai Kumar who were also present there told him to run away from the spot otherwise they will kill him. He reached in his village and told the whole incident to his uncle Sitam Sigh and brother Ravinder. They brought him in Gaba Hopital, Yamuna Nagar and got him admitted there. The police recorded his statement Ex.PA in Gaba Hospital on the same day. The accused tried to kill him due to enmity as he got them apprehended to police in a criminal case. He further deposed that accused Rinku, Sanjay, Barkha and Pola had also attacked on him on 16.06.2009 for which they are facing the trial. 15. PW 11 Suresh Kumar deposed that on 3.11.2007, when he and Jai Kumar were returning to their homes from fields, in the meantime, Nittu came on Pulsar motorcycle and crossed them. When he reached at a distance of 25-30 feet, 8-9 persons came from both directions of the gohar from the sugarcane fields. They were armed with pistol and gandasi etc. Some of them fired four-five times upon Nittu. When he reached at a distance of 25-30 feet, 8-9 persons came from both directions of the gohar from the sugarcane fields. They were armed with pistol and gandasi etc. Some of them fired four-five times upon Nittu. The assailants who attacked Nittu were Rinku, Samrat, Barkha, Sanjay, Parveen son of Kali Ram, Parveen son of Inder, Sanju son of Rodu, Jagtar and Chandan. 16. PW 12 Sitam Singh deposed that on 3.11.2007, at about 9.00 a.m, when he along with Ravinder was sitting in his baithak, Nittu reached reached there in injured condition and he disclosed that he had been fired in his fields. He was fired by Samrat along with 8-9 persons. He along with Ravinder and one guest took Nittu to Gaba Hospital in a car. 17. PW 13 Dr. Vandana, Medical Officer, Gaba Hospital, Yamuna Nagar tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.PW13/A wherein she deposed that on 3.11.2007, she medically examined Nittu and proved his MLR as Ex.PW13/B. PW 14 Dr. B.S.Gaba also deposed on the same lines and they proved their opinion Ex.PW13/C which bear their signatures. 18. PW 15 Inspector Piara Singh(Retd.), who is investigating officer of the present case, proved the steps of investigation conducted by him in this case. 19. PW16 ASI Bhim Singh, Armourer proved the report Ex.PW 16/A vide which he examined the countrymade pistol on 24.04.2008 and the same bears his signature. He proved the pistol Ex.P-1 and cartridges Ex.PW16/1 to Ex.PW16/7. 20. PW 17 ASI Shamsher Singh deposed that on 24.04.2008, one application written by SHO Prem Singh was handed over to him along with one parcel containing seven live cartridges and one countrymade pisotl for getting a report from the Armourer. He also deposed that he had also recorded the statement of Bhim Singh, Armourer on 24.04.2008. 21. PW 18 Jai Kumar deposed that when he and Suresh were returning to their homes from fields, in the meantime, Nittu crossed them from the back side. He was on motor-cycle. When he reached at a distance of 15-20 paces ahead, the accused persons came out from both side of the gohar from sugarcane fields. Some were having gandasis etc. and some ere having revolvers etc. They fired upon Nittu with their respective weapons. They asked Nittu to run away otherwise they will kill him. The assailants attacked on Nittu were Rinku, Barkha, Samrat, Jagtar, Sanjay, Parveen and Chandan. Some were having gandasis etc. and some ere having revolvers etc. They fired upon Nittu with their respective weapons. They asked Nittu to run away otherwise they will kill him. The assailants attacked on Nittu were Rinku, Barkha, Samrat, Jagtar, Sanjay, Parveen and Chandan. Nittu had got arrested some of the accused in the case of Arms Act, that is why they attacked on Nittu. 22. Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence and claimed innocence and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. However, no evidence in defence was led by the accused. 23. The trial Court after conclusion of trial convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 24. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 25. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the prosecution has failed to bring guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. PW10 complainant-Nittu and alleged eye-witnesses have not stated as to who fired the bullet which hit on his chest. The allegation against Barkha is that he allegedly fired a shot on complainant, a pellet of which hit his nose. So far as allegations against Sanjay and Samrat are concerned, they had fired which allegedly hit the motor-cycle of complainant. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no corresponding injury in MLR which is alleged to have been attributed to Barkha with fire-arm. The said injury has not been mentioned in the MLR Ex. PW13/B. This is clear from the statements of the doctors i.e. PW 13 Dr. Vandana and PW 14 Dr. B.S.Gaba. Besides these appellants, there were other accused, who have been acquitted by the learned trial Court. The general allegations have been levelled against the appellants. It is beyond imagination that when so many persons were surrounding the complainant and they were armed with deadly weapons, such injuries would be caused, as have been narrated in the FIR as well as in the evidence led before this Court by the complainant. The learned counsel further argued that false and fabricated injury has been created by the complainant in order to falsely implicate the appellants and others. The learned counsel further argued that false and fabricated injury has been created by the complainant in order to falsely implicate the appellants and others. In the affidavits Ex.PW13/A and PW14/A, it is mentioned that there is a blackening of wound which can only be caused if shot is fired from a distance of 5 to 8 cms. The learned counsel further submitted that the countrymade pistol has low velocity and blackening cannot be caused from a distance of about 10-12 feet. The learned counsel further contended that even no medical record in the shape of ultrasound, X-ray and bed-head ticket has been produced in the Court from which it could be shown that appellants have caused any injury and treatment was given for the same. The learned counsel further contended that there is a dispute between two groups of village, one belongs to Harijans and other belongs to Gujjars. For that reason, so many persons have been involved in the present case. The learned counsel further submitted that during the investigation, appellants Barkha and Sanjay were found innocent and they were summoned only under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 26. On the other hand, the learned State counsel vehemently opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the appellants and categorically contended that specific injury has been attributed to the appellants. The injuries to the complainant were caused by Rinku, Barkha, Sanjay and Samrat, who were armed with the respective weapons and present at the spot. The learned State counsel further submitted that oral testimony of complainant as well as eye-witnesses is corroborated with the medical evidence. The learned State counsel further submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are based on evidence which have come before the Court. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence shall be upheld. 27. I have considered the rival contentions. 28. Firstly, I would like to deal with the role of appellants-Barkha, Samrat and Sanjay. In FIR as well as in the statement made before the court by the complainant, Barkha has been alleged to have fired the pellet on the person of complainant-Nittu alias Suraj Mohan. A stray pellet is alleged to have caused injury on the nose of complainant. Firstly, I would like to deal with the role of appellants-Barkha, Samrat and Sanjay. In FIR as well as in the statement made before the court by the complainant, Barkha has been alleged to have fired the pellet on the person of complainant-Nittu alias Suraj Mohan. A stray pellet is alleged to have caused injury on the nose of complainant. Neither that injury has been shown in the medical examination by the doctors, nor the weapon has been recovered from Barkha which may connect him with the alleged crime. Furthermore, Barkha was found innocent during the police investigation. Besides this, there is no evidence against accused-Barkha. Once there is a contradiction between oral and medical evidence, then the benefit of same must go to the accused. In view of the above, this court is of the view that appellant-Barkha has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no categoric evidence against appellant-Barkha. Only evidence is that a pellet has hit the nose of the complainant, but neither the said injury has been mentioned in the MLR, nor this injury has been deposed in evidence, by the doctors concerned, in the Court. In view of the fact that there is a contradiction between the medical evidence and the oral evidence as well as the fact that no recovery of weapon has been made to connect Barkha with alleged injury and further he was found innocent during investigation. So in view of the above, appellant-Barkha stands acquitted of the charge framed against him. 29. So far as appellants-Sanjay and Samrat are concerned, only allegation against them is that they had caused some damage to motorcycle of the complainant with fire arms which is on the visor i.e. wind screen of the motor-cycle and the oil tank of the motor-cycle. Moreover, appellant-Sanjay was also found innocent during the investigation and no weapon has been recovered from him. Similarly, no recovery has been effected from Samrat. In this circumstances, there is no evidence to connect Sanjay and Samrat with the present case. The evidence against Sanjay and Samrat is not trustworthy. In view of this, benefit of doubt must go to appellants-Sanjay and Samrat and they stand acquitted of the charge framed against them. 30. Similarly, no recovery has been effected from Samrat. In this circumstances, there is no evidence to connect Sanjay and Samrat with the present case. The evidence against Sanjay and Samrat is not trustworthy. In view of this, benefit of doubt must go to appellants-Sanjay and Samrat and they stand acquitted of the charge framed against them. 30. Now, I will deal with the role played by appellant-Rinku There is a categoric evidence against appellant-Rinku that he fired a gun shot on the person of Nittu alias Suraj Mohan which hit on his chest. PW 10 complainant-Nittu alias Suraj Mohan has deposed this fact in his deposition. The ocular version of complainant is corroborated with the medical evidence in the shape of testimonies of PW13 and PW 14, who found following injuries on the person of injured-Nittu: 1. 1.4 to 1.5 cm long oblique and transverse muscle deep in mid clavicular plane in 6th-7th intercoastals space fresh blood oozing out. There was blackening and charring of skin. Advised X-ray chest PA and X-ray Abdomen. 2. Below the injury no.1, there was bruising of size 2 ½ x 2". 31. The medical officers also gave the opinion regarding weapon used in assault which is as under: 1. The possibility of sustaining injury with the weapon other than gun-shot was remote because there was near the wound blackening and charring wound. 2. It was very difficult to say regarding the distance from which the shot was fired. Expert opinion could be taken from Medical College Rohtak regarding this. 3. Minor operation debridement and stitching was done. 4. There was no bullet or pellet found in USG and X-ray chest or neither recovered during the treatment of patient. 5. There was blackening and charring of the wound as already mentioned. 32. It has also come in the evidence that there is a blackening and charring of skin. The injury has been caused from the nearby place. Since the velocity of countrymade pistol is low, so the blackening and charring of skin will only be caused if shot is fired from short distance. Otherwise also, there are minor injuries on the person of injured-Nittu. The injury has been caused from the nearby place. Since the velocity of countrymade pistol is low, so the blackening and charring of skin will only be caused if shot is fired from short distance. Otherwise also, there are minor injuries on the person of injured-Nittu. Moreover, the disclosure statement Ex.PW1/A made by accused-Jagtar Singh clearly shows that the bullet which hit Nittu was fired by accused Rinku and later on, Rinku had handed over the countrymade pistol to Jagtar which was concealed by him along with 7 live cartridges in his residential house at village Thandro which was got recovered by him vide recovery memo Ex.PW1/B. It is duly established that appellant-Rinku had fired shot on Nittu injured which hit on his chest . The evidence clearly shows that attempt was made with an intention to kill injured-Nittu. 33. In view of the above, the appeal of appeal-Rinku is devoid of merit, hence, dismissed. 34. However, the learned counsel for appellant-Rinku has raised a plea that appellant-Rinku has been facing the trial since 2007 i.e. for approximately six years and he has already undergone the sentence for more than 3 years and 10 months. 35. In view of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for appellant, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping appellant-Rinku behind the bars, as he has already faced ordeal for approximately seven years and has undergone substantial part of sentence. Ordered accordingly. The impugned judgment of sentence and order of conviction as well as default clause stands affirmed with aforesaid modification qua Rinku. If the amount is not deposited, appellant-Rinku will serve the remaining part of sentence. Appellant-Rinku will be released, if not required in any other case and on payment of the aforesaid amount of fine. The period of sentence shall stand reduced upto actual release of appellant-Rinku. 36. As observed earlier, appellants-accused Barkha, Sanjay and Samrat are acquitted of the charge framed against. They be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 37. With the observations made above, present appeal is disposed of. ---------0.B.S.0------------