Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2011 (HP)

Ved Prakash v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2014-12-24

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur, Himachal Pradesh, rendered on 04.07.2011 in Sessions trial No. 34-AR/7 of 2010, whereby, the learned trial Court convicted the accused for his having allegedly committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Panel Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that on 23.6.2009 a tournament was organized at village Dudh Bahali by Yuvak Mandal of Village Jahu Deem. Accused Ved Prakash was the President of the Organizing Committee and PW8 Hari Singh was invited as Chief Guest. In the tournament the team of Baragaon emerged as winner and the team of village Jahu Deem was runners up. The prizes were distributed to the winner and runner up team by PW8 Sh. Hari Singh. During the prize distribution function, an altercation had taken place between the accused and deceased Bhupinder and the accused had threatened the deceased with dire consequences. After the tournament was over deceased Bhupinder, Sunil Kumar, Satish Kumar, Raju, Jatti Ram, Kaku Ram and Pramod Kumar went to nearby fields for a party in which they consumed liquor. After the party was over, all of them came to the ground. Thereafter, Sh. Sunil Kumar and Raju went to the house of Sh. Satish Kumar for dinner and after taking their dinner they left for their houses. When they reached near the ground, they found the deceased lying there in an injured condition and he told them that he was attacked by accused Ved Prakash with “Khukhari”. Sunil Kumar and Raju got scared and both of them fled away. At about 9.30 P.M., PW12 Bela Singh, visited the house of the deceased and informed his mother and brother, Sh Surender Singh that somebody was quarreling with his brother at the place where tournament was held. Upon this Surender Singh and his mother visited the spot and found deceased Bhupinder Singh lying there with bleeding injury on his neck. Surender Singh along with Sh. Hari Singh brought the deceased to hospital at Narkanada but the doctor declared him dead. Upon this Surender Singh and his mother visited the spot and found deceased Bhupinder Singh lying there with bleeding injury on his neck. Surender Singh along with Sh. Hari Singh brought the deceased to hospital at Narkanada but the doctor declared him dead. The information about this occurrence was given by Satish Kumar in Police Station, Rampur on telephone at about 11.40 PM which was recorded in the daily diary of the police station at Sr. No.39. After receiving this information, SI Brij Lal visited PHC Narkanda where the dead body of deceased Bhupinder was lying. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and thereafter he sent the dead body to IGMC, Shimla for postmortem examination. On 24.6.2009, SI Brij Lal visited the spot where he recorded statement of Surender Kumar, brother of the deceased under Section 154, Cr.P.C., on the basis of which FIR was registered in Police Station, Rampur against the accused under Section 302, IPC. During the course of investigation chappal was recovered from the spot which the accused was wearing on the date of occurrence. The accused was arrested and on the basis of his disclosure statement, he got recovered the khukhari which was concealed by him under the stone near water kuhal below village Naula. The postmortem of the dead body of the deceased was conducted in IGMC, Shimla by Dr. A.K. Sharma and Dr. Sangeet Dhillon and they opined that the deceased died due to hemorrhagic shock as a result of ante mortem cut throat injury. 3. On conclusion of the investigation, into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and filed in the Court. 4. Accused was charged for his having committed an offence under Section 302 of the IPC by the learned trial Court. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 24 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded by the Court, in which the accused claimed innocence and pleaded false implication in the case. 5. On appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction against the accused/appellant. 6. The accused/appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court. 5. On appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction against the accused/appellant. 6. The accused/appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned defence counsel has concertedly and vigorously contended that the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court are not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, they are sequelled by gross misappreciation of the material on record. Hence, he contends that the findings of conviction be reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and be replaced by findings of acquittal. 7. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Advocate General has with considerable force and vigour, contended that the findings of conviction recorded by the Court below are based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and do not necessitate interference, rather merit vindication. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. This Court has traversed through the entire evidence available on record. The accused is alleged to have committed murder of deceased Bhupender. The entire thrust of the evidence existing on record against the accused is in its entirety circumstantial in nature. In a case of circumstantial evidence the prosecution is entailed with a heavy legal obligation to unerringly by cogent evidence prove each of the links in the chain of circumstances. On each of the links in the chain of circumstances having come to be proved by cogent and potent evidence would, hence, prop up a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Contrarily, in case any of the links in the chain of circumstances gets severed or broken then severance of any link begets disruption in the entire chain of circumstances buoying an inference that the obligation cast upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt has remained un-satiated or un-accomplished. Contrarily, in case any of the links in the chain of circumstances gets severed or broken then severance of any link begets disruption in the entire chain of circumstances buoying an inference that the obligation cast upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt has remained un-satiated or un-accomplished. Besides in a case of circumstantial evidence, proof of motive is relevant as well as necessary besides it constitutes the initial link in the chain of circumstances along with other links therein for upsurging, on proof of each of the links by the prosecution by adduction of evidence of probative worth, an inference of the guilt of the accused having been invincibly established. The motive which actuated the accused to commit the murder of deceased Bhupender is comprised in a threatening meted out by the accused to the deceased on 23.06.2009 in a tournament organized by the Yuvak Mandal, Jahu Deem. The accused was the president of the organized committee. A dispute is alleged to have erupted inter se the contestants of the tournament, inasmuch, as inter se the team of Jahu Deem and team of Baragaon. The propellant cause for the eruption of a dispute between the team of Baragaon, winner in the tournament and the team of Jahu Deem, the runners up in the tournament of which the deceased was a member, was over the amount of prize money which was to be awarded to the winners and runners up. PW-1 Surinder Singh, the brother of the deceased deposes that on termination of the altercation on his intercession though begot temporary amity, yet the accused in his presence had threatened his brother with dire consequences. The prosecution on the factum of the deposition comprised in the examination-in-chief of PW-1 wherein he deposes that an altercation ensued inter se the accused and the deceased qua the amount of prize money to be awarded to the winners and the runners up in the tournament and of the accused having threatened his deceased brother with dire consequences per se constitutes proof of motive which propelled the accused to murder the deceased. However, the fact as deposed by PW-1 of the accused having threatened his deceased brother with dire consequences has not been deposed by PW-3 Sunil Kumar and PW-4 Satish Kumar, both of whom were present at the time of distribution of prize money to the winners and runners up in the tournament. In the face of both PW-3 and PW-4 having omitted to depose in corroboration with the deposition of PW-1 in his examination-in-chief of the accused having threatened the deceased with dire consequences leaves the factum of the deposition of PW-1 comprised in his examination-in-chief of the accused having threatened the deceased with dire consequences to be for lack of inter se corroboration unproved as well as unsubstantiated. His bald testimony in proof of purported motive reared by the accused cannot stand vindication. In sequel, when the motive as attributed to the accused by the prosecution arising from the deposition of PW-1 comprised in his examination-in-chief of the accused having threatened his deceased brother with dire consequences falls apart besides become emasculated for lack of corroboration thereof by both PW-3 and PW-4, the concomitant deduction which props up is that even though an altercation did take place between the accused and the deceased over the issue of the amount of prize money to be given to the winners and runners up in the tournament, nonetheless, the said altercation did not acquire such aggravation so as to actuate or foment the accused to as solitarily deposed by PW-1 to mete a threatening to the deceased of his being beset with the peril of dire consequences. Rather, it appears on a reading of the testimony of PW-8, Hari Singh, the Chief Guest in the tournament that prize money of Rs.1000/- was initially offered by the organizing committee of which the accused was the President to the winners and Rs.600/- to the runners up. Though, an amount of Rs. Rs.600/- was offered to the runners up, however, the aforesaid offer of prize amount to the runners up when reneged, led to an altercation inter se the accused and the deceased. Though, an amount of Rs. Rs.600/- was offered to the runners up, however, the aforesaid offer of prize amount to the runners up when reneged, led to an altercation inter se the accused and the deceased. Nonetheless, when PW-1 deposes that it was put to rest and settled on the accused having handed over the full prize money to the team of the deceased rather quells besides extinguishes in wholesome and entirety, the factum of any subsisting grudge having been nursed either by the accused or the deceased which could ultimately sequel the accused to murder the deceased. More so, even PW-8 has not corroborated the testimony of PW-1 as existing in his examination-in-chief qua the fact of the accused on the fateful day when the altercation ensued inter se them qua the prize money having meted out any threat to the deceased that he would be beset with perilous consequences. Consequently, the depositions of the aforesaid witnesses i.e. PW-3, PW-4 and PW-8 undermine the efficacy of the deposition of PW-1 qua any grudge having been nursed by the accused which actuated him to murder the deceased. Consequently, when the evidence qua any motive purportedly nursed by the accused against the deceased arising from a previous altercation inter se them over the issue of amount of prize money which as deposed by PW-8, Hari Singh came to be put to rest, as such, extinguished, consequently, it is to be invincibly concluded that, hence, there was no iota of any grudge nursed by the accused against the deceased. In aftermath, it can be concluded that at no stage thereafter the accused bore any vendetta against the deceased which drove him to murder the deceased. 10. Therefore, when the prosecution has been unable to portray by consistent evidence comprised in the depositions of PW-1, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-8 of any motive having been nursed by the accused against the deceased, the initial link in the chain of circumstances stand snapped, de-linked and severed. 11. The prosecution has also anvilled its case upon the purported dying declaration made by the deceased to PW-3 Sunil Kumar, wherein he attributed to the accused the role of his having attacked him with a khukhari (Ex.P-5). 11. The prosecution has also anvilled its case upon the purported dying declaration made by the deceased to PW-3 Sunil Kumar, wherein he attributed to the accused the role of his having attacked him with a khukhari (Ex.P-5). The learned Sessions Judge while convicting the accused/appellant on the strength of the said link in the chain of circumstances has read the testimony of PW-3 in a grossly unwholesome and in a piece meal manner, as such, hence, erroneously held that it constitutes a vital and credible piece of evidence and on its strength laid the foundation for the conviction of the accused for the offence alleged. The deposition of PW-3 as garnered into play by the prosecution for proving the factum of the accused having made a dying declaration to the former is per se ridden with pervasive infirmities. The foremost and dominating infirmity which tears apart the truth of the factum of the dying declaration having been made by the deceased to PW-3 Satish Kumar whereupon the prosecution rests its case, is the factum of PW-1, who had on intimation to him by one Bellan Singh having proceeded to the site of occurrence and on arrival there having noticed his brother lying in an injured condition with copious emission of blood from the injury on his neck, having omitted to divulge in his examination-in-chief of any dying declaration having been made by the deceased to him, wherein he attributed guilt to the accused. PW-1 Surinder Singh, the brother of the deceased was the best person to whom the deceased would have made a dying declaration. The omission of the deceased to make a dying declaration to PW-1 renders suspect the factum of any dying declaration having been made by the deceased to PW-3. More so, what aggravates the factum of PW-3 having falsely deposed qua the factum of a dying declaration having been made by the deceased to him is embedded in the factum of his having not divulged the revelation made by the deceased to him of the accused having put him to death to either any family member of the deceased or to any villager. Even otherwise, the deposition of PW-3 stands wholly undermined in the face of it having been made at a stage when no potent and cogent evidence exists on record portraying the factum of the cognitive faculties of the deceased then being alive so as to empower and equip him to render a version qua the incident to PW-3, Satish Kumar. In absence thereof, it appears that PW-2 has invented the dying declaration made by the deceased to him wherein the latter inculpated the accused. The MLC qua the deceased comprised in Ex.PW21/A which brings to the fore the factum of the deceased on arrival at PHC, Narkanda having succumbed to the injuries at 11.30 p.m. However, preceding to the arrival of the deceased at PHC, Narkanada wherein he was examined by the doctor concerned and declared to be dead, the deceased at 9.00 a.m. purportedly rendered a dying declaration to PW-3 inculpating the accused in the offence alleged. However, given the demise of the deceased in quick succession to his having purportedly made a dying declaration to PW-3 and hence, when the injuries were heinous, grave and lethal, leading to the demise of the deceased in quick succession to the purported making of the dying declaration by the deceased to PW-3, obviously the factum of absence of cogent evidence portraying that the deceased then was fit to make a statement renders open an inference that the deceased was disempowered by lethal injuries on his body to make a dying declaration qua the incident before PW-3. What, for reiteration, belittles the effect of the purported aforesaid dying declaration of the deceased, is the fact of one Raju being simultaneously present with PW-3 when the purported dying declaration is alleged to have been made by the deceased to PW-3. However, the investigating officer recorded the statement alone of PW-3 and has omitted to record the statement of one Raju, who was also accompanying PW-3 when the dying declaration was made by the deceased to the latter. The recording of the statement of one Raju by the Investigation Officer, who was accompanying PW-3 at the time aforesaid and his consequent deposition before the learned trail Court would have lent strength and vigour to the testimony of PW-3 qua the fact of the deceased having made a dying declaration before him wherein he had inculpated the accused. The recording of the statement of one Raju by the Investigation Officer, who was accompanying PW-3 at the time aforesaid and his consequent deposition before the learned trail Court would have lent strength and vigour to the testimony of PW-3 qua the fact of the deceased having made a dying declaration before him wherein he had inculpated the accused. The omission on the part of the Investigating Officer to record the statement of one Raju and his consequent non-examination in Court has de-facilitated the unearthing of apposite and germane evidence to lend corroboration to the version as deposed by PW-3 qua the factum of the deceased having made a dying declaration before him in the presence of Raju, wherein he had inculpated the accused. Besides, in the aforesaid omission by the Investigating Officer, he has, hence, suppressed the relevant, admissible and best evidence for lending corroboration to the testimony of PW-3. The suppression by the Investigating Officer appears to be with an oblique motive to with ingenuity concoct a dying declaration as a link against the accused. However, an engineered and contrived link against the accused purportedly constituted by the dying declaration made by the deceased before PW-3 for the reasons aforesaid is frail, besides it capsizes. In aftermath, another link in the chain of the circumstances against the accused gets snapped, de-linked and emasculated. 12. PW-5 deposes that the accused had requested PW-5 Yash Pal on 23.06.2009 to give his chappals to the latter for wearing as he had some problem in his foot. PW-5 acceded to his request. Consequently, the accused handed over his shoes to PW-5 whereas PW-5 handed over his chappals to the accused. The chappals were found at the site of occurrence. The prosecution on the strength of deposition of PW-5 Yash Pal, who had identified the chappals as handed over by him to the accused, canvasses before this Court that with theirs being found near the site of occurrence constitutes proof of the factum of the accused being in the vicinity of the deceased at the time of the occurrence and his having fled bare foot therefrom. It is further canvassed that the fact of the chappals worn by the accused as proved by PW-5 when found in the vicinity of the site of occurrence discloses his inculpation in the offence alleged. It is further canvassed that the fact of the chappals worn by the accused as proved by PW-5 when found in the vicinity of the site of occurrence discloses his inculpation in the offence alleged. However, the factum of recovery of chappals handed over by PW-5 to the accused, is hence canvassed by the prosecution to be worn by him at the time of occurrence besides also the proved factum of its efficacious recovery under memo Ex.PW1/B, though does tentatively garner a conclusion qua the factum of its constituting proof of a link, conveying as such the inculpation of the accused, nonetheless, in the face of PW-5 in his deposition comprised in his cross-examination having deposed that the shoes which were handed over by the accused to him in exchange or in lieu of his having handed over the chappals to the former were un-torn, whereas, the shoes as produced in Court purportedly handed over by the accused to PW-5 in exchange or in lieu of the latter having handed over his chappals to the former when rather found to be in a torn condition, gives leeway to an inference, thence, that the accused had not handed over his shoes to PW-5 nor the latter on his receiving the shoes of the accused hand handed over his chappals to him. In nut shell, the factum of the production of torn shoes of the accused contrarily to the deposition of PW-5 of the accused having handed over to him shoes which were in an un torn condition conveys that neither the chappals were handed over by PW-5 to the accused nor the accused had handed over his shoes to PW-5. Besides, it is apparent on a reading of the testimony of PW-1 that at the site of occurrence whereof chappals were found blood smeared earth was in existence and was lifted by the Investigating Officer on pieces of cotton. Besides, it is apparent on a reading of the testimony of PW-1 that at the site of occurrence whereof chappals were found blood smeared earth was in existence and was lifted by the Investigating Officer on pieces of cotton. If in the vicinity of the chappals, blood as had oozed from the wounds of the deceased had found, its place on the soil and that too in the vicinity of the place wherefrom the chappals were recovered under memo Ex.PW1/B, the factum of absence of blood on chappals Ex.P-2 when construed in conjunction and entwinement with the factum of the deposition of PW-5 qua the fact of his having handed over his chappals to the accused and the latter in exchange having handed over his shoes to him having for reasons aforesaid standing effacement, hence, another purported link constituted by the recovery of the chappals worn by the accused at the relevant time from the site of occurrence gets severed and emasculated. 13. Khukhari, Ex.P-5 was recovered under recovery memo Ex.PW16/B. The factum of its efficacious recovery under recovery memo Ex.PW16/B stands convincingly proved by the testimonies of PW-10 Suresh Kumar and PW-16 Pistu Ram besides, with photographs Mark A-1 and A-2, divulging the factum of the presence of the accused along with the witnesses to its recovery though lends firmness and formidability to the factum of its hence having come to be recovered in a legally ordained manner. However, the mere factum of its recovery under recovery memo Ex.PW16/A would not constitute it to be validly proved. For it to constitute a proven link in the chain of circumstances cogent proof was ordained to upsurge conveying that preceding its recovery under memo Ex.PW16/A, the accused had volitionally and voluntarily made a disclosure statement qua the place of its hiding, keeping or concealment by him. For it to constitute a proven link in the chain of circumstances cogent proof was ordained to upsurge conveying that preceding its recovery under memo Ex.PW16/A, the accused had volitionally and voluntarily made a disclosure statement qua the place of its hiding, keeping or concealment by him. Since the accused alone would be in the know of its place of hiding, keeping or concealment by him, hence, to countervail any submission on the part of the defence that its recovery was not concocted, inasmuch as, it was kept at its place of recovery by the Investigating Officer and the accused accosted the police officials thereto along with the witnesses as a measure of a charade to connote that it was hence recovered at his instance in pursuance to a disclosure statement, Ex.PW24/G in presence of witnesses, it was imperative for the witnesses to disclosure statement Ex.PW PW24/G, purportedly preceding the effectuation of recovery of Khukhari, Ex.P-5 under recovery memo Ex.PW16/A, to depose in unison and in harmony qua the factum of the accused having volitionally in their presence recorded statement attributed to him comprised in Ex.PW24/G portraying therein his solitary knowledge qua the place of keeping, hiding and concealment of Khukhari Ex.P-5 and his willingness to get it recovered at his instance by the Investigating Officer. However, both the witnesses to Ex.PW24/G, which is the purported disclosure statement preceding the recovery of the khukhari under recovery memo Ex.PW16/A, inasmuch as PW-9 Ankush Graik and PW-23 Pinku have not supported the prosecution version of the accused having made any disclosure statement in their presence. The omission on the part of both PW-9 and PW-23 to depose in unison qua the factum of the making of in their presence the disclosure statement attributed to the accused comprised in Ex.PW24/G unflinchingly conveys that Ex. PW24/G was in-volitionally made besides, it was a concoction and an invention on the part of the Investigating Officer, in sequel to duress and compulsion exercised upon the accused. PW24/G was in-volitionally made besides, it was a concoction and an invention on the part of the Investigating Officer, in sequel to duress and compulsion exercised upon the accused. In other words, for want of the witnesses to Ex.PW24-G, inasmuch as PW-9 and PW-23 having omitted to forcefully covey in their respective depositions qua the factum of it having been prepared in their presence by the Investigating Officer in pursuance to a volitional motion of the accused renders it to be suspect or renders it to be not constituting evidence of probative worth so as to concomitantly convey to this Court that the recovery of khukhari ExP-5 under recovery memo Ex.PW16/A was in pursuance to a valid disclosure statement Ex.PW24/G. In other words, when the disclosure statement comprised in Ex.PW24/G which precedes the recovery of khukhari Ex.P-5 effected under recovery memo Ex.PW16/A is vulnerably to skepticism, as a corollary, recovery of Ex.P-5 in pursuance to Ex.PW24/G under recovery memo Ex.PW16/A is also rendered inconsequential and inefficacious. Further more, when no blood of the deceased was found on the khukhari, as such, dispels the factum of its user by the accused. 14. The presence of injuries on the person of the accused as portrayed by the deposition of PW-13 Dr. Sudesh, who has also deposed the factum of theirs having occurred within 72 hours from the time of his examination, besides the blood occurring on the sweater and T-shirts and jeans of the accused have been pressed into service by the prosecution to convey before this Court that the aforesaid evidence is a vital link in the chain of circumstances. The factum of the injuries having been found on the person of the accused and with the revelation of theirs being caused within 24-72 hours of the examination, hence, are canvassed to be linkable to the time of the occurrence, yet the mere factum of injuries when attributable to the factum of theirs having been gained on the person of the accused during the duel which he had with the deceased besides, when their existence can also be attributed to the factum of theirs having been inflicted by the police officials during the course of his custodial interrogation, obviously then the injuries on the person of the accused per se do not mark the factum of the involvement of the accused in the offences alleged. Even though the presence of blood on the clothes of the accused which blood was opined in Ex.PW14/E to be the blood of the accused does not also when, hence, the occurrence of blood is attributable to the factum of its having oozed thereon from the injuries sustained by the accused, reasons whereof has been concluded to be not during the course of the lethal blow purportedly delivered by him upon the deceased, consequently, the presence of blood on his clothes does not constitute any link in the chain of circumstances. Consequently, another link in the chain of circumstances gets severed and emasculated. 15. The prosecution concerts that prior to the said occurrence, the accused on 6.3.2009 had also attacked a shopkeeper at Jahu Deem with a Khukhari, which matter was compromised later on. However, through the aforesaid factum, the prosecution concerts that hence, the accused having a tendency towards criminality given his having pre-indulged in a criminal act is communicative of his having committed the offence. However, the said concert on the part of the prosecution is highly misplaced. Merely on the basis of a previous incident the prosecution cannot constrain this Court to conclude that, hence, the guilt of the accused in the instant case stands clinchingly proved rather it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove by cogent and reliable evidence each of the links in the chain of circumstances. Such chain of circumstances as have been adverted to hereinabove, have been concluded to be not have come to be proved by cogent evidence, rather their efficacy stands dispelled and overcome. Therefore, merely on the strength of a previous criminal act attributed to the accused by the prosecution, it does not either solitarily constitute a potent link besides also does not constitute a relevant and germane piece of evidence to on its strength succor a conclusion qua the guilt of the accused. Even otherwise the said circumstance devolves upon the character of the accused. Even otherwise the said circumstance devolves upon the character of the accused. During the entire course of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses by the learned defence counsel, it has not been portrayed therein that the accused was a person of a good character, only in the event of a portrayal having been made during the course of suggestions put to the prosecution witnesses by the learned defence counsel of the accused being a person of good character, evidence in repulsion thereof constituted by his previous purported criminal antecedents could have been brought on record as envisaged by Section 54 of the Evidence Act. Obviously, when such portrayal by the defence of the accused having good character is amiss, the factum of the previous criminal antecedents of the accused does not constitute either a link nor is relevant or germane on score whereof the prosecution can succeed. 16. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court below has omitted to appraise the entire evidence on record, in, a wholesome and harmonious manner. On the other hand, it appears that by a giving piece meal reading, to the evidence on record, it has also discarded the probative force and relevance of the facets aforesaid, hence, indulged in gross mis-appreciation of the evidence sequeling substantial mis-carriage of justice. 17. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court is set aside. The accused/appellant is acquitted of the offence charged and he be set free forthwith, if not required in any other case. Records be sent back.