Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1060 (HP)

Krishna v. State of H. P.

2014-08-07

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
JUDGMENT : - Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment, rendered on 5th October, 2012, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, District Una, H.P., in Sessions Case No.21/2010, whereby, the appellants/accused persons have been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, they have been sentenced to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 18.8.2010, complainant Shiv Kumar (PW-5) telephonically informed the Inspector/SHO, R.R.Thakur (PW-20) that Mahesh, who was his employee in the Triputi poultry farm since the year 2010 at village Raisari, had died and his dead body was lying on the lintel of the poultry farm. His other employee, namely, Deepak was also lying in an unconscious state owing to injuries on his body. After receiving the information, the Inspector, along with other police officials, reached the spot in a Government vehicle and recorded the statement of PW-5 under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ext.PW-5/A to the effect that on 17.08.2010 evening, he left for his house from the Poultry farm and on 18.8.2010 at about 6.15 a.m., he was informed by his brother, on mobile phone, about the incident. He noticed that Mahesh Kumar had sustained injuries with sharp edged weapon on the neck and shoulder and had succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Deepak had also sustained injuries on his head and neck with sharp edged weapon. Deepak was sent to Regional Hospital, Una for receiving treatment. It was found that some one had attempted to murder both Mahesh and Deepak. Thereafter, statement of the complainant Shiv Kumar was sent to the Police Station, Una, and on the basis of which, F.I.R. Ext.PW-12/B, under Section 302 and 307 IPC was registered. Thereafter, investigation of the case was commenced. 3. On conclusion of the investigation into the offence, allegedly committed by the appellants/accused, challan was filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. The accused were charged for theirs having committed offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC by the learned trial Court, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. 4. The accused were charged for theirs having committed offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC by the learned trial Court, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses. On closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of appellants/accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded by the Court in which the accused claimed false implication and pleaded innocence. In defence, the appellants/accused chose not to enter into any defence. 6. On appraisal of evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused for theirs having committed the offence, aforesaid. 7. The first witness, who stepped into the witness box, in support of the prosecution case, is, PW-1 (Dr.Ravi Sharma, M.O. R.H. Una), who deposes that on 18.8.2010, the police moved an application Ext.PW-1/A for conducting the post-mortem of deceased Mahesh along with inquest report, comprised in Ext.PW-1/B and thereafter he conducted the postmortem of the deceased Mahesh Kumar. He deposes that on examination of the body of deceased Mahesh Kumar, he recorded the following observations:- “A well built male body measuring 5 feet 6 inches, wearing black pant, red white shirt, gray undershirt, black dory in left forearm, silver colour metallic Kara in right wrist, silver colour metallic ring in left index finger, rigour mortis fully developed, P.M staining over buttocks, leg and front of lower abdomen presented fixed. Tuft of hair on dorsem of right hand, big wound over right front parietal area, triangular in shape 8 x 5 x 8 cms. Clean cut edges with fracture of underlying skull bond. Injury No.2 Deep incised wound below right pinna, cleanly cut 8 x 2 x 4 cms. Injury No. 3 An abradio lacerated wound over the front of neck started from right sterno clevicular joint and tapering towards chin 6 x 2 cms. Injury No.4 Lacerated wound over the back of right shoulder 4 x 2 cms with punctured wound. Injury No.5 A lacerated wound on the back of right shoulder 3 x 1 cm. Injury No.6 Deep incised wound at right side of root of the neck 8x2x6 cms, fracture of right ronto parietal bone into chips. Fracture of cervical vertibra.” 8. Injury No.4 Lacerated wound over the back of right shoulder 4 x 2 cms with punctured wound. Injury No.5 A lacerated wound on the back of right shoulder 3 x 1 cm. Injury No.6 Deep incised wound at right side of root of the neck 8x2x6 cms, fracture of right ronto parietal bone into chips. Fracture of cervical vertibra.” 8. PW-1 continues to depose that deceased Mahesh Kumar had died as a result of neurogenic as well hypovolemic shock as a result of fracture of scalp bone and vertibra, caused by the injury sustained, which is deposed to be ante-mortem in nature. The time between injury and death has been deposed to be instantaneous and between death and post-mortem has been deposed to be 12 to 24 hours. He proved his post mortem report Ext.PW-1/C. He also deposes that he took into possession the belongings of the deceased as well as clothes, viscera, blood sample and hair found on the hand of the deceased and cut hair from the head and after sealing them, handed over the same to the police for chemical test. All injuries, except injuries No.3 and 5, have been deposed to be caused with sharp edged weapon and injuries Nos.3 and 5 could be caused with blunt weapon like danda. This witness prepared parcels of viscera, one blood sample and two hair samples. On 6.6.2011, the police produced before him, one parcel sealed with DNA with four seals. On inspection of the parcel, as produced in Court, all the seals were found to be intact. The parcel was permitted to be opened. On the opening, dagger, Ext.P-1, kept in it, has been deposed to be the same, which was produced before him. This witness continues to depose that all the injuries, except injuries No.3 and 5 were possible with Ext.P-1. Another parcel was produced, whose seals were found intact. It was permitted to be opened. Ext.P-2 Danda, as taken out from it, has been deposed to be the same and this witness has deposed that Injuries No.3 and 5 were possible with stick Ext.P-2. He continues to depose that injury No.3 was possible with sharp as well as blunt weapon, however, injury No.5 was possible with blunt weapon like Ext.P-2. 9. Ext.P-2 Danda, as taken out from it, has been deposed to be the same and this witness has deposed that Injuries No.3 and 5 were possible with stick Ext.P-2. He continues to depose that injury No.3 was possible with sharp as well as blunt weapon, however, injury No.5 was possible with blunt weapon like Ext.P-2. 9. PW-2 (Kamal Kumar) deposes that on 22.8.2010, he was called by the police in the police station, Una, and at that time Tilak Raj was also present there. He deposes that accused Vinay, Manohar Lal and Krishna were also present in the Police Station, besides the Police Inspector and other police officials were also present. He continues to depose that the accused Vinay told the police that the dagger/Takua, with which he had inflicted injuries on the deceased, was concealed by him in a room near the office room of poultry form at village Rainsari. He further deposes that he told the police that he had concealed his blood stained clothes beneath the bed in his room, which is also situated near the office room of poultry farm. He continues to depose that the accused further told the police that he could get recovered the Takua and the clothes from the above referred places. The police recorded the disclosure statement of the accused comprised, in, Ext.PW-2/A. The said statement was read over and explained to the accused in the presence of this witness. Thereafter, he deposes that the accused signed the disclosure statement. He further deposes that he, along with Tilak Raj, signed the said statement also. He continues to depose that thereafter Manohar Lal made a disclosure statement stating that he had concealed Danda and his blood stained clothes in his room near the poultry farm beneath his bed and he could get these articles recovered. Disclosure statement comprised, in, Ext.PW-2/B, was prepared, read over and explained to the accused. Accused signed the said disclosure statement. He further deposes that he, along with Tilak Raj, singed the said disclosure statement. He further deposes that lastly accused Krishna disclosed to the police in his presence that he had concealed his clothes, which he was wearing at the time of occurrence, i.e. half pant and T-shirt in the rack of his bed at second poultry farm in village Raisari, in his room. He further deposes that lastly accused Krishna disclosed to the police in his presence that he had concealed his clothes, which he was wearing at the time of occurrence, i.e. half pant and T-shirt in the rack of his bed at second poultry farm in village Raisari, in his room. He further deposes that both the poultry farms belong to Shiv Kumar, which were situated at a distance of about 400 meters from each other. He deposes that the above statement, Ext.PW-2/C, was read over and explained to the accused in the presence of this witness. He further deposes that accused had signed the said statement. He deposes that he, along with Tilak Raj, also signed the said statement. He deposes that thereafter the police took the accused persons to the spot, as mentioned in the disclosure statements, in a vehicle. He deposes that he, along with Tilak Raj, also followed the police vehicle to the spot in his own vehicle. He proceeds to depose that in the first instance accused Vinay led the police party and both of them to the spot i.e. room adjoining to the office of Poultry Farm. He continues to depose that on entering the said room, the accused got recovered the dagger/Takua from beneath the fridge. The dagger has been deposed to have been stained with blood. The police prepared the sketch of the dagger comprised in Ext.PW2/D, which has been deposed to be bearing his signatures. He deposes that the police sealed the Dagger (Takua) in cloth parcel, sealed with seal ‘A’ and took the same into possession vide memo Ext.PW-2/E, which has been deposed to be bearing his signatures. He deposes that memo was also signed by accused Vinay and PW Tilak Raj. He further deposes that thereafter the accused Vinay led the police and this witness to his residential room and got recovered his clothes i.e. T-shirt and half pant. T-shirt was of yellow colour, half pant/underwear was of blue colour. The clothes were stained with blood. He deposes that these clothes were recovered by the police vide memo Ext.PW-2/F and sealed in a cloth parcel bearing seal impression ‘T’. He deposes that accused Vinay got recovered the said clothes from beneath the bed. He further deposes that accused signed the said memo, along with this witness and Tilak Raj. The clothes were stained with blood. He deposes that these clothes were recovered by the police vide memo Ext.PW-2/F and sealed in a cloth parcel bearing seal impression ‘T’. He deposes that accused Vinay got recovered the said clothes from beneath the bed. He further deposes that accused signed the said memo, along with this witness and Tilak Raj. Thereafter, he deposes that accused Manohar Lal led the police party, Tilak Raj and this witness to his residential room, situated about 15 meters from the room of accused Vinay. The accused got recovered a bamboo stick from beneath his bed along with pant and T-shirt. He deposes that the said articles, i.e. danda was wrapped in cloth parcel and the clothes were also wrapped in a separate cloth parcel. These parcels were sealed with seal impression ‘B’ and were taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW-2/G. He deposes that the said memo was signed by this witness, accused Manohar Lal and PW Tilak Raj. Sealed parcel was produced in Court and on the request of the learned Public Prosecutor, it was opened and found to be containing Danda Ext.P-2 having blood stains. The Danda Ext.P-2 has been identified by this witness to be the same. He further deposes that lastly, accused Krishna was taken out from the vehicle, who led the police party, along with this witness and Tilak Raj, to his residential room, situated near the second poultry farm and got recovered his clothes, i.e. blue colour jeans (half pant) and grey shirt from beneath the bed. The clothes were stained with blood and were wrapped in a cloth parcel and sealed with seal impression ‘A’. He deposes that the police had taken into possession the same vide memo Ext.PW-2/H, which has been deposed to have signed by this witness, PW Tilak Raj and the accused. The police has also been deposed to have taken sample seal in a separate cloth. Three sealed parcels, sealed with seal D.N.A Division, were permitted to be opened and on opening of this parcel, this witness on seeing the clothes of Vinay, i.e. Pant Ext.P-3, shirt Ext.P-4, clothes of Manohar, i.e. Pant Ext.P-5 and shirt Ext.P-6 and clothes of Krishna i.e. half pant Ext.P-7 and T-shirt Ext.P-8 and has deposed them to be the same as were got recovered by the accused. 10. 10. PW-3 (Satish Kumar), deposes that on 25.9.2010, he received a letter of SHO through which he identified the place Triputi Poultry farm. He deposes that Triputi Poultry farm is situated at Khasra No.1236/493. He further deposes that the police had collected information from him regarding the spot where the occurrence had taken place. He deposes that he prepared Aks Ext.PW-3/A of the spot, which has been deposed to have been prepared and signed by him. He also prepared the Jamabandi and handed over the same to the police, which has been deposed to be bearing his signatures. He deposes that he marked the poultry farm with pencil impression in Khasra number. The copy of Jamabandi is comprised, in, Ext.PW-3/A. 11. PW-4 (Dr.Sanjay Mankotia), deposes that on 18.8.2010, at about 8.20 a.m., he examined Deepak, brought by the police with the alleged history of beatings by some person. On general examination, the following injuries were found:- “Injury No.1: Slit wound on neck anteriorly (with sharp edged margins 7 cm x 3 cm). Injury No.2: Sharp edged wound present on top of head 14 cm x 6 cm wide open extending upto left ears with fracture of underline bones with mild brain matter visible. Injury No.3: Left ear is cut in many places. Injury No.4: Shap edged wound on posterior aspect of head extending upto top of it 6 cm x 2 cm.” He continues to depose that the duration of injuries was within 24 hours and the weapon of offence was sharp edged. This witness further deposes that the patient was referred to PGI, Chandigarh for E.N.T./Neurosurgery department for further treatment. Injury Nos.1 to 4, mentioned in the MLC of Deepak, has been deposed to be caused with dagger Ext.P-1, shown to this witness in the Court. During the examination-in-chief he has proved MLC comprised in Ext.PW4/A. 12. PW-5 (Shiv Kumar) deposes that he is running a poultry farm at village Raisari for the last 17-18 years and that he had engaged labourers from different States. He deposes that there are 15-16 employees in his farm. Deceased Mahesh has been deposed to be his labourer, along with Deepak, who was employed about 20 days back from the date of incident. On 17.8.2010, he had come to his residence from his poultry farm in the evening. He deposes that there are 15-16 employees in his farm. Deceased Mahesh has been deposed to be his labourer, along with Deepak, who was employed about 20 days back from the date of incident. On 17.8.2010, he had come to his residence from his poultry farm in the evening. On 18.8.2010, at about 6 a.m., his brother Rajesh telephonically informed him that Mahesh, who was employed in the poultry farm, had died and the dead body was lying on the lintel of the poultry farm. Second employee Deepak was also reported to be unconscious owing to injuries on his head. Consequently, this witness rushed to his poultry farm, where he found Mahesh to be dead and Deepak was found unconscious owing to injuries on his body. He deposes that the injuries were inflicted with some sharp edged weapons. He continues to depose that Mahesh Kumar had sustained injuries on his head and ears and also on his shoulder. He deposes that he informed the police about the incident. The police has been deposed to have arrived at the spot. The police recorded statement of this witness under Section 154 Cr.P.C. comprised in Ext.PW-5/A, which was read over and explained to him and has been deposed to have bearing his signatures. He further deposes that Deepak Kumar was sent to Regional Hospital, Una, for receiving medical treatment along with his brother Rajesh in his own vehicle. The police prepared inquest report of Mahesh Kumar on the spot comprised in Ext.PW-1/B. The accused persons have been deposed to be also employees of the poultry farm and have been deposed to be residing there. He continues to depose that the deceased Mahesh, Deepak and accused Manohar Lal used to reside in the same room and also use to cook their meals jointly. Accused Krishna used to reside in a nearby quarter along with his family members. Even accused Vinay has been deposed to have been residing in the same premises, yet, in a separate quarter. Sometimes accused Vinay used to officiate as supervisor in his poultry farm in absence of regular Munshi Piar Singh. Sometimes, accused Vinay use to complain that deceased Mahesh Kumar used to resist his command and was not serious about his duty. Even accused Vinay has been deposed to have been residing in the same premises, yet, in a separate quarter. Sometimes accused Vinay used to officiate as supervisor in his poultry farm in absence of regular Munshi Piar Singh. Sometimes, accused Vinay use to complain that deceased Mahesh Kumar used to resist his command and was not serious about his duty. He also deposes that accused Vinay complained that Mahesh Kumar deceased had a bad eye on his family members, besides, accused Krishna and Mahesh had no good intentions towards his family members. He further deposes that on the date of the incident, the deceased Mahesh and Deepak were sleeping on the lintel of his poultry farm and accused Manohar was sleeping in the room below the lintel. In his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, he feigns ignorance whether accused Vinay was married or not. He also admits the suggestion put to him to be correct of both accused Krishna and Mahesh being present at the spot and accused Vinay serving water to the people gathered on the spot. However, he omits to recall whether the accused person had helped the other person in bringing down Deepak from the lintel. He deposes that the accused Manohar accompanied injured Deepak to hospital. 13. PW-6 (Tilak Raj), has deposed, in tandem, and in corroboration to the testimony of PW-2 qua the fact, as deposed earlier by PW-2 (Kamal Kumar). 14. PW-7 (Rajesh Modgil), deposes that he was present at village Raisari at his residence, three kilometers away from his poultry farm in the same village. At about 6.00 a.m., he received a telephonic message from his Munshi Hari Mohan, apprising him that Mahesh Kumar and Deepak had sustained injuries on their persons. Thereafter, he immediately reached the poultry farm and observed that Mahesh Kumar was dead on the roof and Deepak was also lying on the roof in an injured condition. He deposes that Deepak was unconscious and was trying to speak something, yet, was unable to do so, on account of injuries. He further deposes that it appeared that somebody had inflicted injuries on them with sharp edged weapon. He deposes that he tried to inform the police from his cell phone and seek services of ambulance but the calls did not mature. Thereafter, he informed his brother Shiv Kumar and his brother-in-law Naresh Bali, about the incident. He further deposes that it appeared that somebody had inflicted injuries on them with sharp edged weapon. He deposes that he tried to inform the police from his cell phone and seek services of ambulance but the calls did not mature. Thereafter, he informed his brother Shiv Kumar and his brother-in-law Naresh Bali, about the incident. He deposes that his brother reached the spot within 5-10 minutes. After about half an hour, the police also reached the spot. The injured Deepak was taken to hospital in his vehicle. After admitting Deepak in the hospital, this witness returned to the spot. He further deposes that the police took into possession blood sample of deceased Mahesh from the nearby place and put the same into, a glass bottle and sealed, it with seal impression ‘T’. The police also took into possession piece of scalp bone lying at the distance of 7 feet from the body of Mahesh, which was put in a plastic container, sealed with seal impression ‘T’. The bunch of hair lying near the dead body of Mahesh were taken into possession by the police and the same were sealed with seal impression ‘B’. He further deposes that one blanket, stained with blood, was lying under the dead body of Mahesh Kumar and the blood stained portion of which was taken into possession by the police, sealed with seal impression ‘A’. Two pairs of Chappals, lying near the dead body of Mahesh Kumar, and remaining portion of blanket was also taken into possession and put into a plastic bag and sealed with seal impression ‘A’. The police also lifted blood sample where Deepak was lying in an injured condition and put it into a bottle and thereafter sealed with seal impression ‘T’. All these articles were taken into possession by the police vide memo Ext.PW-7/A to Ext.PW-7/E, which bears his signatures along with PW Narinder Bali. During the course of his cross-examination by the defence counsel, PW-7 deposes that at 5.00 a.m., he received a telephonic call from Hari Mohan complaining that there was no electricity in the poultry farm and subsequently another telephonic message was received by him about the incident. Thereafter, this witness rushed to the spot on his own scooter and met Hari Mohan Munshi. He deposes that when injured Deepak was taken down from the lintel of the roof, the accused Manohar was present there. Thereafter, this witness rushed to the spot on his own scooter and met Hari Mohan Munshi. He deposes that when injured Deepak was taken down from the lintel of the roof, the accused Manohar was present there. He feigns ignorance that accused Manohar had helped other workers while Deepak was being taken down from the lintel. Moreover, he, too, in corroboration with the testimony of PW-5, deposes that he, along with Manohar and Hari Mohan Munshi, accompanied injured Deepak to the hospital. He has also omitted to recall as to how many times the police recorded his statement. 15. PW-8 (Hari Mohan Chaudhary) deposes that on 5.8.2010, he joined service as Munshi in Triputi Poultry Farm at Jhalera (Raisari), owned by Shiv Kumar, etc. His duty was to awaken the labourers in the morning and to supervise their work throughout the day. On 17.8.2010, during night hours, after completing his work, he had gone to bed at about 10.00 p.m. He deposes that his residence was situated in the premises of the Poultry farm and his wife was living with him. He deposes that at about 5.00 a.m., he informed Rajesh Modgil that there was no electricity at two places in shed Nos.5 and 7. At about 6.00 a.m., he deposes that he proceeded to awake the labourers of the farm. He also deposes that he had checked the other rooms and had entered the room of accused Manohar, who was sleeping alone. He has also deposed that he asked accused Manohar that where other labourers Mahesh and Deepak were sleeping, on which he replied that they were sleeping on the lintel of the poultry farm. He continues to depose that he used to reside in a single room. When he proceeded to the lintel of the poultry farm, he saw that deceased Mahesh was lying with injury on his head and there was no movement in his body. About 3-4 feet away from the dead body of Mahesh, Deepak was lying in an injured condition having slight movement in his body. He continues to depose that he got frightened and came running down. Thereafter, he immediately telephonically apprised Rajesh Modgil about the incident. Rajesh Modgil visited the spot after some time, in the meantime, the entire labourers of the farm had assembled there. The police reached the spot after some time. He continues to depose that he got frightened and came running down. Thereafter, he immediately telephonically apprised Rajesh Modgil about the incident. Rajesh Modgil visited the spot after some time, in the meantime, the entire labourers of the farm had assembled there. The police reached the spot after some time. Injured Deepak was taken in the vehicle of Rajesh Modgil to Regional Hospital, Una. He deposes that accused Manohar had accompanied injured Deepak to Regional Hospital, Una and had kept the head of Deepak in his lap in the car. Injured Deepak, after having administered first aid at R.H.Una, was taken to P.G.I.Chandigarh. This witness further deposes that he, along with Manohar, took Deepak to PGI, Chandigarh in an ambulance where injured Deepak has been deposed to have been admitted at about 12-1 noon on 18.8.2010. Rajesh Modgil, along with two police officials, reached PGI, Chandigarh and he, along with accused Manohar, came back to Police Station, Una, with Rajesh Modgil and the police. He further deposes that he was apprised at Police Station that Deepak had died within one or two days after his admission in the PGI. During the course of his examination-in-chief, he deposes that at about 11-11.30 pm on 17.8.2010, he had gone to toilet to urinate and thereafter returned to bed and he did not see anything at that time. Since he resiled, he was permitted to be cross-examined by the learned public prosecutor and has admitted the suggestion that the police had interrogated him and had recorded his statement. This witness further deposes that his statement was read over and explained to him in the police station. He also deposes that the police had tortured him. 16. PW-9 (Constable Rajinder Singh) deposes that he had accompanied the police to village Raisari on 18.8.2010 and on the same day, SHO, R.R.Thakur, handed over the statement of Shiv Kumar Ext.PW-5/A for registration of case, which was handed over to MHC, who, after registration of case, handed over the file to this witness which he further handed over to SHO on the spot and the FIR was recorded on the basis of Ruqua. 17. PW-10 (Kamal Kumar), in his deposition, has stated that on 18.8.2010, he remained associated with the case and took photographs Ext.PW-10/1 to Ext.PW-10/12. He deposes that the photographs were developed by this witness and the same were taken with digital camera. 17. PW-10 (Kamal Kumar), in his deposition, has stated that on 18.8.2010, he remained associated with the case and took photographs Ext.PW-10/1 to Ext.PW-10/12. He deposes that the photographs were developed by this witness and the same were taken with digital camera. The said photographs were handed over to the police. 18. PW-11 (Harjeet Singh) deposes that, on, 18.8.2010, being Investigating Officer at Police Station, Una, he got medically examined injured Deepak at Regional Hospital, Una by moving an application Ext.PW-4/B. He deposes that the doctor had opined that the patient was unconscious and not fit for making any statement and the doctor issued MLC comprised in Ext.PW-4/A, from where the patient was referred to PGI, Chandigarh for treatment and this witness handed over the MLC Ext.PW-4/A to SHO. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that by the time he reached the spot, the injured Deepak was already taken to hospital by the owner of the poultry farm. He deposes that he did not notice if the clothes of accused Manohar were stained with blood and feigns ignorance that who accompanied injured Deepak to PGI, Chandigarh. 19. PW-12 (HC Ajaib Singh) has stated that on 18.8.2010, he received a telephonic message at about 7.15 a.m. and informed SHO that in village Raisari, one person had been murdered and the other is seriously injured. He further deposes that he recorded Rapat No.8 dated 18.8.2010, in daily diary, comprised in Ext.PW-12/A and at about 11.00 a.m., Ruqua, Ext.PW-5/A, was received in the Police Station through Constable Rajinder Kumar, on the basis of which he recorded FIR Ext.PW-12/B and made endorsement Ext.PW-12/C on the back of Ruqua. The FIR and endorsement were signed by LSI Susheel Kumari on the same day at 9.30 p.m. He continues to depose that Inspector/SHO R.R.Thakur deposited viscera in container, one parcel of blood of Mahesh, sealed with seal impression ‘T’, another parcel containing bone, sealed with seal impression ‘T’, one more parcel containing threads, sealed with seal impression ‘B’, one parcel containing bunch of hair of Mahesh, sealed with seal ‘D’, blood sample of Deepak. Another parcel containing piece of blanket stained with blood sealed with seal impression ‘A’, one bag containing piece of blanket, Chappal, sealed with seal impression ‘A’. One envelope addressed to FSL, Dharamshala, sealed with seal Una Mortuary. The articles of personal search were also deposited with this witness in Malkhana. Another parcel containing piece of blanket stained with blood sealed with seal impression ‘A’, one bag containing piece of blanket, Chappal, sealed with seal impression ‘A’. One envelope addressed to FSL, Dharamshala, sealed with seal Una Mortuary. The articles of personal search were also deposited with this witness in Malkhana. He further deposes that as long as the case property remained in the possession of this witness, the same remained intact. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion put to him that no case property was deposited with this witness in the present case and that he was deposing falsely, being a police official. 20. PW-13 (Constable Surinder Singh), in his deposition, has stated that he remained associated with investigation of this case and on 13.9.2010, MHC Ajaib Singh handed over to him the case property of this case to be deposited in FSl, Junga vide RC No.208/2010. He deposes that there were 19 parcels, sealed with seal impressions A, B, T, Mortuary Una, PGI Mortuary, Chandigarh and deposited the same along with dockets in FSL, Junga on the same day by handing over the receipt/RC to MHC. During the course of his cross-examination, he admits to be correct that when the case property is sent for chemical analysis, the copy of RC is retained in the Police Station and original is given to the carrier. This witness denies the suggestion put to him that no case property was handed over to him, for depositing the same in FSL, Junga. 21. PW-14 (ASI Bhagat Ram) deposes that the Investigating Officer, S.H.O. R.R.Thakur, informed him that injured Deepak had died in PGI, Chandigarh and he directed this witness to go to Chandigarh to get the post mortem of Deepak conducted. He deposes that he, along with Constable Surinder Singh, reached PGI at 9.30 a.m. and completed form No.25.35(1)(a) and (b) comprised in Ext.PW-14/A and Ext.PW-14/B, on record. He continues to depose that the body of Deepak Kumar was identified by Rajesh Modgil and Hari Mohan Chaudhary and their signatures were obtained in the above mentioned forms. He further deposes that after conducting the post mortem, the dead body was handed over to Rajesh Modgil against proper receipt. He continues to depose that the body of Deepak Kumar was identified by Rajesh Modgil and Hari Mohan Chaudhary and their signatures were obtained in the above mentioned forms. He further deposes that after conducting the post mortem, the dead body was handed over to Rajesh Modgil against proper receipt. In his cross-examination, this witness had feigned ignorance that who was with the dead body of Deepak, self stated that after this witness, along with Constable Surinder Singh, reached PGI, Chandigarh Mortuary, Hari Mohan Chaudhary and Rajesh Modgil had arrived there. 22. PW-15 (SI Susheel Kumari) deposes that on 18.8.2010, she was officiating SHO of Police Station, Una and on the same day, she received statement of PW Shiv Kumar recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ext.PW-5/A along with Ruqua written by SHO R.R. Thakur through Constable Rajinder Kumar, on the basis of which, this witness got recorded F.I.R. Ext.PW-12/B and endorsement Ext.PW-12/C which bears her signatures. In her cross-examination, she admits to be correct that the endorsement on Ruqua is not in her hand. 23. PW-16 (Constable Manoj Kumar) deposes that on 27.8.2010, he received a sealed parcel of viscera of deceased Deepak, mortuary and PMR report, wrapped in envelopes addressed to RFSL, Dharamshala from PGI, Chandigarh. The said articles were handed over to MHC Ajaib Singh in case FIR No.267/2010 dated 18.8.2010 under Sections 302, 307 IPC of Police Station, Una. The D.D. Report is Ext.PW16/A and RC is Ext.PW16/B. In his cross-examination, this witness denies that he had not received any viscera and deposited with MHC. 24. PW-17 (Constable Abhishek Pathania) in his deposition has stated that on 13.9.2010, vide RC No.208 dated 13.9.2010, one sealed parcel containing bamboo ‘danda’ and one sealed parcel containing pant and T-shirt of accused Manohar Lal, sealed with seal impression ‘B’ and one sealed parcel, containing T-shirt and pant stained with blood relating to accused Vinay, sealed with seal ‘B’ and half pant, T-shirt stained with blood relating to accused Krishna, sealed with seal ‘B’ along with sample seal were given to this witness by MHC Ajaib Singh to be deposited in FSL, Junga. The above said sealed parcels were deposited on 13.9.2010 in FSL, Junga and receipt/RC was handed over to MHC. In his cross-examination, he denies that he had not taken the case property of this case to FSL, Junga and is deposing falsely. 25. The above said sealed parcels were deposited on 13.9.2010 in FSL, Junga and receipt/RC was handed over to MHC. In his cross-examination, he denies that he had not taken the case property of this case to FSL, Junga and is deposing falsely. 25. PW-20 (R.R.Thakur) deposes that on 18.8.2010, Shiv Kumar, proprietor Tripati Poultry Farm, Jhalera telephonically informed, hence, that on the lintel of their poultry farm, Mahesh Kumar and Deepak have been injured by somebody with sharp edged weapons and they were lying there and on receiving such information, this witness, along with other police officials, proceeded to the spot. He deposes that on the spot, Shiv Kumar got recorded his statement under Section 154, Cr.P.C., comprised in Ex.PW5/A and rukka was sent through constable Rajinder Kumar to Police Station, Una, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW12/B was registered. He further deposes that photographs Ex.PW10/1 to Ex.PW10/12 were clicked and site plan Ex.PW20/A was prepared. It has been deposed by this witnesses that the piece of bone lying on the roof near dead body of Mahesh Kumar was sealed in a parcel with three seals bearing impression ‘T’ and was taken into possession and that the blood stained piece of blanket was cut with scissor and was put in a cloth parcel, sealed with five seals of impression A, hair of Mahesh Kumar lying on spot, dory black and jamuni colours were also taken into possession by the police by putting in a paper envelope and was sealed with seal A. He further deposes that pair of chappal along with one blanket were put in a sack, sealed with seal A and taken into possession. He further deposes that regarding above recoveries, memos Ex.PW7/A to Ex.PW7/E were prepared. The recovery memos were deposed by this witness to be singed by independent witnesses Rajesh Kumar Modgil and Narinder Walia. He further deposes that the dead body of Mahesh Kumar was taken to R.H., Una and that inquest papers of Mahesh Kumar were prepared. Application Ex.PW1/A has been deposed by this witness to have been moved to SMO, R.H., Una for conducting the post mortem of deceased Mahesh Kumar. He further deposes that on 19.8.2010 accused Krishna, Manohar Lal and Vinay Kumar were arrested. During their police custody, accused Mnohar Lal, Vinay Kumar and Krishna have been deposed by this witness to have made disclosure statements Ex. He further deposes that on 19.8.2010 accused Krishna, Manohar Lal and Vinay Kumar were arrested. During their police custody, accused Mnohar Lal, Vinay Kumar and Krishna have been deposed by this witness to have made disclosure statements Ex. PW2/A to Ex.PW2/C. On the basis of disclosure of accused Vinay Kumar his room was searched and on his identification, he got recovered under the refrigerator iron dragger Ex.P1, whose rough sketch on a piece of paper Ex.PW2/D was prepared and it was taken into possession by the police vide memo Ex.PW2/E and Ex.PW2/F. The clothes of accused were also taken into possession after sealing with three seals of impression T. He further deposes that on the basis of disclosure statement of accused Manohar Lal, pant, shirt and danda were recovered from his room which were sealed in different two parcels of cloth with seal B and the same were taken into possession by the police vide memo Ex.PW2/G. It has been deposed by this witness that accused Krishna in pursuance to his statement got recovered from his room, half pant Ex. P-7, T-shirt Ex.P-8, which were sealed in a parcel with seal A and were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW2/H. The witnesses Tilak Raj and Kamal Kumar have been deposed by this witness to have signed all the recovery memos. He further deposes that on 25.9.2010, demarcation of place of occurrence was got conducted from revenue official and Aks Latha Ex.PW8/A and jamabandi Ex.PW3/B were procured. The case property Ex. A1 to Ex. A7 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P.8 has been deposed by this witness to have been deposited with the MHC. The site plans of the place of recoveries Ex. PW20/A to Ex.PW20/S have been deposed by this witness to have been prepared. He deposes that after completion of investigation and on receipt of FSL reports Ex.PW12/D to Ex.PW12/G, he prepared the challan in this case and presented the same in the Court. In cross-examination he deposes that he reached at the spot at around 7.30 a.m. with other police officials and that Shiv Kumar, Narinder Bali and Rajesh Kumar were present there. He feigned ignorance about the number workers present at the spot when he reached there. He deposes that Shiv Kumar etc., were present on the lintel of poultry farm. The photographer from Kuldip Studio has been deposed by this witness to have called from the spot. He feigned ignorance about the number workers present at the spot when he reached there. He deposes that Shiv Kumar etc., were present on the lintel of poultry farm. The photographer from Kuldip Studio has been deposed by this witness to have called from the spot. He deposes that the direction of dead body was not changed for clicking photographs nor any worker was associated for this purpose. He has denied the suggestion that dead body of Mahesh was taken down by the workers of the poultry farm including the accused Krishna and Vinay. He deposes that they stayed on the spot for almost whole day. He deposes that they again visisted the spot on 22.8.2010 along with the accused persons and witnesses kamal Kumar and Tilak Raj. He admits that at the time of recovery of dragger, the accused Vinay Kumar was wearing clothes As shown in photographs Ex.PW20/N and Ex.PW20/J. He admits that photograph in the newspaper Ex. DA is correct. He deposes that he did not visit the spot 19.8.2010. He deposes that on the intervening night of 15/16.8.2010, all the accused were interrogated at the police station during night. Accused Krishna and Vinay have been deposed by this witness to have been present in the poultry farm. He deposes that during interrogation Hari Mohan disclosed that during the night, accused Krishan, Vinay and Manohar were seen by him running down from the lintel hurriedly. He further deposes that during the course of interrogation accused Manohar Lal disclosed that he along with Krishna and Vinay had killed Mahesh and Deepak. He deposes that deceased were sleeping on the lintel. He deposes that it has come in the investigation that both the deceased used to keep bad eye on the wives of accused Krishna and accused Vinay. He has denied the suggestion that Kamal Kumar and Tilak Raj were stock witnesses of the police. It is also denied by this witness that no disclosure statements were made by the accused persons during police custody. It is also denied by this witness that he has deposed falsely and that no recoveries were effected at the instances of the accused. 26. It is also denied by this witness that no disclosure statements were made by the accused persons during police custody. It is also denied by this witness that he has deposed falsely and that no recoveries were effected at the instances of the accused. 26. PW-21 (Dr.S.P.Mandal) in his deposition has stated that on 20.8.2010, he conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Deepak, on the request of ASi Bhagat Ram, Police Station, Una, who had moved application Ext.PW-14/C, along with inquest report Ext.PW-14/A and the inquest report have deposed to be bearing his signatures. He further deposes that the dead body was identified by Rajesh Kumar and Hari Mohan. He continues to depose that as per information, supplied by I.O., on 17.8.2010 during night, the deceased had sustained injuries by sharp cutting weapon at Tripati Poultry Farm, Una and rushed to Regional Hospital, Una and then referred to PGI, Chandigarh. On examination, this witness had observed the following injuries on his person:- “1. Chop incised wound 18x5cm exposing skull and bone and brain matter was present on left temporal region and pariental region of the scalp including left ear pinna. The wound was vertically placed and was stitched. The margins of the wound were clear cut, underline bone was clean cut with fracture. The wound was infiltrated with blood. 2. Incised wound (stitched) 10x 2 cm bone deep was present on both pariental regions of the scalp, 2 cm right to injury No.1. The margins were clean cut and stained with blood. Both the angles were acute and wound was obliquely placed. Underline bones were clean cut. 3. Vertically stitched incised would 6x1.5cm bone deep was present on left side occipital region of the scalp 3 cm. Left to the occipital protuberance. Both the margins were clean cut and stained with blood. Both the angles were acute. Underline bone was clean cut. 4. Oblique stitched incised wound 7x1 cm muscle deep was present on interior aspect of neck, started 3 cm above the sternam notch both above and slightly left.” He continues to depose that internal organs of chest, abdomen were pale and in his opinion, the cause of death was hemorrhage and shock owing to head and neck injuries as described above. The injuries were ante mortem and could be caused, as alleged. The weapons used have been deposed to be sharp edged. The injuries were ante mortem and could be caused, as alleged. The weapons used have been deposed to be sharp edged. The probable time that elapsed between injury and death was recent and between death and post mortem examination was 45 hours as calculated. The injuries on the person of the deceased were possible with dagger Ext.P-1 as shown to this witness in Court. He further deposes that the body of the deceased, with belongings, sealed parcel containing viscera, sealed parcel containing clothes, sealed vial containing blood, sealed vial containing hair and six photographs of dead body which were clicked at the time of post mortem examination, were given to the police. In his cross-examination, this witness deposes that the deceased was brought to PGI, Chandigarh on 18.8.2010 and died on the same day at 5.00 p.m. He has shown his inability that who had brought the patient to PGI and whether any police official was accompanying the injured. 27. It is apparent on a reading of the testimonies of PW-5, PW-7 and PW-8 that the deceased as well as the accused were engaged as labourers in the poultry farm named as Triputi Poultry Farm, at Jhalera (Raisari) owned by PW-5 as well as by PW-7. Deceased Mahesh, Deepak and accused Manohar lal have been deposed to be staying together in a room. However, the other accused Krishna and Vinay have been deposed by PW-5, PW-7 and PW-8 to be residing in close vicinity to the quarters occupied jointly by accused Manohar Lal alongwith both the deceased and within the precincts of the poultry farm. At the time the bodies of both the deceased were found on the lintel, the accused Manohar Lal was occupying his room beneath it. 28. The instant case, is, a case of circumstantial evidence as there is no ocular witness to the occurrence. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the, prosecution, is, under a bounden legal obligation, to, unfailingly and unflinchingly prove each of the links in the chain of circumstances, and even if one of the links in the chain of circumstances gets severed, the chain gets broken and the benefit of doubt ought to be given to the accused. Though, in a case of ocular evidence, motive is insignificant, yet, in a case of circumstantial evidence, it assumes immense force. It is, also, one of the links in the chain of circumstances. Though, in a case of ocular evidence, motive is insignificant, yet, in a case of circumstantial evidence, it assumes immense force. It is, also, one of the links in the chain of circumstances. The purported motive, which has been projected by the prosecution to have prodded and prompted the accused to dispense with the lives of deceased Mahesh and Deepak, is, comprised, in, and arose from accused Krishna complaining to PW-5 about the deceased Mahesh having a malafide intention towards the former’s family members. It is also urged to be comprised in and sprouted by accused Vinay complaining to PW-5 that deceased Mahesh nurses a malafide intention towards his family members. However, the purported motive arising from the aforesaid as was being nourished by the accused and which goaded them to eliminate both the deceased, is, comprised in the solitary deposition of PW-5. The vague solitary deposition of PW-5, of accused Vinay and accused Krishna, complaining to him, of Mahesh having an evil and malafide intention towards their family members, is, neither sufficient nor adequate for, lending impetus, to the formation of an invincible conclusion that, hence, the motive as projected by the prosecution to be nourished by the accused and it, having goaded them to eliminate both the deceased, stands clinchingly substantiated and proved. Moreso, when PW-5 feigns ignorance in his cross-examination whether accused Vinay is married, he also has not been able to unfailingly depose whether accused Krishna was married. Omission on the part of PW-5 to unequivocally depose qua the factum of both accused Krishna and accused Vinay being married, hence, sequels the conclusion that both were unmarried. As a corollary then when both have to be concluded to be unmarried, moreso, when documentary evidence to sustain a contrary conclusion remains omitted to be adduced, the contended purported motive nourished by both the accused against the deceased Mahesh arising from theirs perceiving the latter to be nourishing a malafide intention towards their wives stands wholly deestablished. It was enjoined upon the prosecution to adduce the best evidence qua the motive nourished by the accused to lynch both the deceased. It was enjoined upon the prosecution to adduce the best evidence qua the motive nourished by the accused to lynch both the deceased. Furthermore, even the best evidence comprised in the family members of both the deceased having complained to PW-5 qua deceased Mahesh nourishing malafide intention towards the family members of both accused Krishna and Vinay has neither been concerted to be adduced nor PW-5 has in his examination-in-chief deposed that besides accused Vinay and Krishna ventilating their grievances of deceased Mahesh nourishing evil intentions towards their family members, their aggrieved family members did also come to complain to him, renders the vague and nebulous deposition of PW-5, unspecific qua the time of such ventilation of grievances by the accused to be construable to be, hence, extremely vague, feeble and incredible evidence. For reiteration, it, cannot, form any basis, for a conclusion that, hence, it comprised the edifice for the motive purportedly nursed by both the accused Krishna and Vinay to eliminate both the deceased. Even otherwise assuming that both accused Krishna and Vinay while nursing the aforesaid purported motive against deceased Mahesh may have a strong and compelling reason to dispense with his life, yet, when no motive having been demonstrated by cogent evidence to be nursed by each of them against Deepak, as such, it is to be inferred that there could not have been any motive for accused Krishna and Vinay to eliminate deceased Deepak. Consequently, for lack of proof of a vital link in the chain of circumstances, the prosecution case is ridden with skepticism and is vulnerable to doubt. 29. The medical evidence on record, as deposed by PW-1 and PW-21, qua deceased Mahesh and Deepak, respectively, firmly articulates the factum of ante mortem injuries, noticed by the doctors on the person of the deceased, who examined them, to be attributable to the weapons of offence, recovered, respectively, at the instance of both the accused. 29. The medical evidence on record, as deposed by PW-1 and PW-21, qua deceased Mahesh and Deepak, respectively, firmly articulates the factum of ante mortem injuries, noticed by the doctors on the person of the deceased, who examined them, to be attributable to the weapons of offence, recovered, respectively, at the instance of both the accused. However, the efficacy of and potency thereof is emasculated, in, the face of recoveries of Dagger (Ext.P-1), Danda (Ext.P-2) qua proof of recovery whereby reliance is placed upon the testimonies of recovery witnesses, namely, Tilak Raj and Kamal Kumar, for, the, reason, that though the recoveries of Danda and Dagger have been demonstrated, therein, to be effected on 22.8.2010 under memos Ext.PW-2/G and Ext.PW-2/E, respectively, as also, the disclosure statements purportedly preceding their recoveries are comprised in disclosure statements Ext. Ext.PW-2/B and Ext.PW-2/A, respectively, recorded on 22.8.2010. However, the effect of disclosure statement having been recorded on 22.8.2010, is, vulnerable to doubt, in, the face of no recital, in, the respective disclosure memos of the declarant having made a narration qua the fact as detailed in it, on, 22.8.2010, as also in the face of witnesses to it having not below their signatures scribed the dates of their having signed Ext.PW-2/G and Ext.PW-2/E. Consequently, omission thereof renders the fact as recorded by the SHO in it, of, the disclosure statements having been made on 22.8.2010, to be seeped in falsity, in as much, as, the recording of the date of making of the disclosure by the declarant being invented and concocted by the SHO, so as to bring it in compatibility with the date of recovery of Ext.P-1 and Ext.P-2. Even the recoveries of items recovered under Ext.PW-7/A and Ext.PW-7/B precedes the making of disclosure statements by the accused. As a sequel then when to clothe recoveries with legal efficacy, the disclosure statements are to precede them. However, when for the reasons aforesaid, a, conclusion has been drawn that the disclosure statements as made by the accused were not made on the date on which they were purportedly made, as also when recoveries of items under memos Ext.PW-7/A and Ext.PW-7/B is palpably preceding the making of disclosure statement by the accused. However, when for the reasons aforesaid, a, conclusion has been drawn that the disclosure statements as made by the accused were not made on the date on which they were purportedly made, as also when recoveries of items under memos Ext.PW-7/A and Ext.PW-7/B is palpably preceding the making of disclosure statement by the accused. In sequel, when law mandates or enjoins recording of a disclosure statement prior to the effectuation of recovery of articles, mentioned, in, the disclosure statement made by the accused, hence, when the recovery of articles under memos comprised in Ext.PW-2/E, Ext.PW-2/F, Ext.PW-2/G, Ext.PW-2/H, for, reasons aforesaid has been concluded, to, be effectuated prior to the recording of disclosure statements, as such, the mandate of law for clothing recoveries with legal efficacy has come to be transgressed. Consequently, the said effectuation of recoveries of articles under recovery memos purportedly displaying recoveries thereof at the instance of the accused are rendered legally inefficacious as also do not enjoy any probative worth and value. In aftermath, lack of efficacy of recovery of articles, under various memos purportedly effectuated, at the instance of the accused, hence, concomitantly get tainted. As a corollary then, it has to be concluded that the various articles, purportedly recovered at the instance of each of the accused, respectively, cannot connect them with such tainted recoveries nor, hence, can they come to be connected with the commission of the offence alleged against them. As a result then, a vital link in the chain of circumstances gets severed and eroded, rendering the prosecution case to be vulnerable to skepticism. 30. The deposition of PW-5 unravels the fact that all the accused were at the relevant time present at the site of occurrence, hence, omitted to flee, portrays conduct consistent with their innocence. PW-5, PW-7 and PW-8, have all unequivocally voiced the factum of accused Manohar, having accompanied injured Deepak, to, hospital alongwith PW Rajesh Modgil for affording him medical treatment at Regional Hospital, Una. PW-8 deposes that accused Manohar had accompanied injured Deepak when he was taken to PGI, Chandigarh for being afforded treatment therein for the injuries sustained by him. PW-5, PW-7 and PW-8, have all unequivocally voiced the factum of accused Manohar, having accompanied injured Deepak, to, hospital alongwith PW Rajesh Modgil for affording him medical treatment at Regional Hospital, Una. PW-8 deposes that accused Manohar had accompanied injured Deepak when he was taken to PGI, Chandigarh for being afforded treatment therein for the injuries sustained by him. Besides, when PW-8 deposes that accused Manohar had kept the head of Deepak on his lap in the car magnifyingly portrays that, hence, the clothes of accused Manohar Lal may have been smeared with blood as was oozing out from the injury of injured/deceased Deepak, during the course of his keeping the deceased’s head on his lap, while proceeding to RH, Una for affording him treatment there. Consequently, also then, the occurrence of blood stains on the clothes of accused Manohar can be attributable to have been gained during the process of his having kept his head on his lap. Even the blood stains, if any, found on the clothes of the other accused can be attributable to the fact of theirs having been gained during the process, when they, along with others, lifted deceased Mahesh and the then injured Deepak from the lintel to the floor, in, as much, as, both PW-5 and PW-7 omit to firmly belie the suggestion put to them that all the accused had aided others in lifting the body of deceased Krishna and injured/deceased Deepak from the lintel to the floor. Cumulatively, the stains of blood of the deceased found on the clothes of the accused cannot comprised potent evidence to link the accused in the commission of offence of murder of both Mahesh and Deepak, therefore, another link in the chain of circumstances gets severed. 31. The aforesaid discussion brings to the fore the fact that the learned trial Court below omitted to pay reverence to the aforesaid infirmities. The infirmities as noticed hereinabove by this Court have broken each of the links in the chain of circumstances, with the links in the chain of circumstances getting severed, consequently, it has to be held that the prosecution has been unable to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The infirmities as noticed hereinabove by this Court have broken each of the links in the chain of circumstances, with the links in the chain of circumstances getting severed, consequently, it has to be held that the prosecution has been unable to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In sequel, it has also got to be concluded that the impugned judgment of conviction rendered by the learned trial Court suffers from the vice of mis-appreciation and non-appreciation of vital evidence on record, hence, its findings being perverse and absurd necessitate and warrant interference. 32. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned trial Court is set aside. Accordingly, the accused are acquitted of the offence charged. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused, is ordered to be refunded to them. Since, the accused are in jail, they be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 33. The Registry is directed to prepare the release warrant of the accused and send it to the Superintendent of the Jail concerned, in conformity with this judgment forthwith. Record of the trial Court be sent down forthwith.