Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1569 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Khem Singh

2015-10-28

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, Judge The instant appeal is directed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. rendered on 26.05.2008 in Sessions Trial No. 23/2007, whereby, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent of the charge of his having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that on 3.3.2007 Sh. Bhagat Ram, brother of Beli Ram reported the matter in the Police Station, Gohar that Beli Ram is his elder brother. They are three brothers and he is the youngest one. The family members of his brother Beli Ram is residing at Thacha-dhar, but his brother Beli Ram has also purchased land at Mub-Kotmoras and has also constructed residential house there. His brother Beli Ram is a contractor of Forest Corporation, who had taken the work at Bagodh on contract and has employed the labourers for sawing and carriage. Sh. Prem Singh S/o Sh. Parshu Ram, R/o Village Khali-dhar whose house is situated at a distance of 150-200 feet from the residential house of his brother Beii Ram at Mub Kotmoras has given information to him on telephone that on 28.2.2007 around 7.30 A.M. his brother Beli Ram had left the house alone on foot from Chandeh path carrying with him licenced gun, green colour bag and umbrella. On receiving the information on telephone on 2.3.2007 from the Police Station, Gohar that one bag of green colour was found near C.D. Block Bank at Dari in which the articles of his brother Beli Ram were found and on this he along with his relatives had gone for search of his brother Beli Ram but till date his whereabouts are not known. Mobile phone No.94181-64594 of his brother Beli Ram is not responding. Sh. Bhagat Ram has identified the bag and documents of his brother Beli Ram. He suspected that his brother Beli Ram might have been killed or kidnapped by someone as the financial condition of his brother is sound. On the report of Sh. Bhagat Ram, FIR No.39/2007 for the offence punishable under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station, Gohar. The police carried out investigation into the case. The accused was arrested on 4.3.2007 by the police. On the report of Sh. Bhagat Ram, FIR No.39/2007 for the offence punishable under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station, Gohar. The police carried out investigation into the case. The accused was arrested on 4.3.2007 by the police. During the course of interrogation he made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act to the effect that he had murdered the deceased. On 5.3.2007, the accused after visiting the jungle Jawal demarcated the place where he had hidden the dead body of Beli Ram in presence of the witnesses and the same was taken out therefrom and taken into possession by the police. The police has also taken photographs and video film while the dead body was being taken out from the pit. The dead body was identified by Bhagat Ram to be of his brother Beli Ram. On examination of the dead body, it was noticed that there was gun shot near the left eye and ear of the deceased Beli Ram. Form the spot, the blood stained leaves and earth were taken into possession by the police. The accused has also got recovered the gun and umbrella from the heap of 'Chalaru' in the field which was near his house. The khakha of gun was prepared on the peace of cloth. The accused has also recovered the gold ring, three live cartridges which were also taken into possession by the police and the same were packed in a parcel and sealed with seal K. The police got conducted the postmortem examination of the body of the deceased and the viscera which was preserved by the Doctor, Zonal Hospital, Mandi along with gun, blood stained earth were sent to FSL, Junga for chemical analysis. 3. On conclusion of the investigation, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and filed in the competent Court. 4. The accused was charged by the learned trial Court for his having committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 27 witnesses and also placed reliance on FIR Ex. 4. The accused was charged by the learned trial Court for his having committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 27 witnesses and also placed reliance on FIR Ex. PW3/A, recovery memo Ex.PW3/B, Form 25-35 (1-B) Ex.PW3/C, receipt regarding handing-over of dead body of deceased Beli Ram, Ex.PW3/D, copy of application Ex.PW4/A, recovery memo, Ex.PW4, kudali Ex.P2, umbrella, Ex.P3, gun Ex. P4, live cartridges Ex.P-5 to Ex. P-7, ring Ex. P8, empty cartridge Ex.P9, report Ex.PW4/C, naksha shazra Ex.PW4/D, statement of accused under Section 27 of Evidence Act, Ex.PW 5/A, demarcation report Ex.PW5/B, seizure memo Ex.PW5/C, Arrest notice Ex.PW5/D, signature of witness Raj Kumar Ex.PW6/A, demarcation memo Ex.PW6/B, memo regarding recovery and supurdari Ex.PW6/C, fard regarding currency note Ex.PW6/D, fard regarding Nokia mobile phone No.2600, Ex.PW6/E, recovery memo Ex.PW11/A, search memo Ex.PW14/A, copy of application Ex.PW15/A, certificate Ex.PW15/B, copies of receipt Ex.PW15/C and Ex.PW15/D, copies of ledger Ex.PW15/E and F, gun licence, Ex.PW18/A, search memo Ex.PW18/B, hexa blade Ex.PW20/A, Bag Ex. P-1, nokia mobile 2600 Ex.P-11, Nokia mobile 1100, Ex.P12, sim card Ex.P-13, application for conducting postmortem of the dead body of Beli Ram Ex.PW23/A, postmortem report Ex.PW23/B, report of FSL Ex.PW26/A, R/C of motor cycle Ex.PW27/A, search memo Ex.PW27/B, form No.25-35 (1-A) Ex.PW27/C, spot map Ex.PW27/D to Ex.PW27/J, pass book Ex.PW27/K, copy of rapat Ex.PW27/V, photographs Ex.PW25-A-1 to Ex.PW25-A-27, negative of photographs Ex.PW25/A-28 to Ex.PW25/A-54, copy of detail of calls Ex.PR, reports of chemical examiner Ex. PS-1 and Ex.PS-2 and copy of jamabandi for the year 2001-02, Ex.P-10. 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 trial Court, in which the accused claimed false implication. However, no defence evidence was adduced by the accused. 5. The learned trial Court on an appreciation of the evidence on record, returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused. 6. The State of H.P. is aggrieved by the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant/State has concertedly and vigorously contended that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court are not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record, rather, they are sequelled by gross misappreciation of material on record. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant/State has concertedly and vigorously contended that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court are not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record, rather, they are sequelled by gross misappreciation of material on record. Hence, he contends that the findings of acquittal be reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and be replaced by findings of conviction. 7. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has with considerable force and vigour, contended that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned 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. The instant case is anvilled entirely on circumstantial evidence. For the prosecution to succeed in a case anchored in its entirety upon circumstantial evidence, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to, by adducing unflinching evidence prove each of the links in the chain of circumstances. In the event of any of the link in the chain of circumstances getting dismembered, the prosecution case is rendered suspect or doubtful benefit whereof is to be meted to the accused. 10. The accused and deceased Beli Ram were both friends. On 27.02.2007 the accused telephonically invited deceased Beli Ram to come with his gun to his house on 28.2.2007. Yet later both decided that accused come on his motor cycle to Chail-Chowk whereupon both would go for hunting. Though proof of motive is not imperative in a case hinged upon direct evidence yet when the prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence, proof of motive assumes significance. Also motive is an important link in the chain of circumstances. Necessarily then the prosecution is obliged to adduce convincing proof to sustain it. The motive which was reared by the accused to murder the deceased is constituted in the fact of deceased Beli Ram at the relevant time carrying with him Rs.39,000/-, for depriving whereof besides to enrich himself, he proceeded to, by firing a gun shot from fire arm Ex. The motive which was reared by the accused to murder the deceased is constituted in the fact of deceased Beli Ram at the relevant time carrying with him Rs.39,000/-, for depriving whereof besides to enrich himself, he proceeded to, by firing a gun shot from fire arm Ex. P-4 recovered under memo Ex.5/B, on the head of the deceased near his right ear thereby causing an ante mortem injury on his person manifested in postmortem report Ex.PW23/B which injury stands opined by PW-23 Dr. Jiwa Nand to sequel his demise. Even though in the concert of the prosecution to sustain its propagation of the motive aforesaid having prodded the accused to murder the deceased, has relied upon Ex.PW6/C manifesting the factum of a sum of Rs.35,000/- having been recovered under it, from PW-10 Sh. Ganesh to whom the accused, purportedly after his depriving the accused of the aforesaid sum thereupon murdered him, had handed over the aforesaid sum. Yet, with PW-10 Sh. Ganesh not lending any support to the prosecution case of the accused subsequent to the ill fated day having handed over a sum of Rs.35,000/- to him, rather his conveying in his deposition that the accused had not visited his house on 3.3.2007 and that the money recovered under memo Ex.PW6/C was his money which the police forcibly took into possession from him when read in coagulation with the testimony of PW-6, who has lent corroboration to the version aforesaid comprised in the deposition recorded on oath of PW-10, renders frail the espousal by the prosecution that the accused while nursing a motive to deprive the deceased Beli Ram of a sum of Rs.39,000/- had proceeded to murder him. With evidence aforesaid relied upon by the prosecution to prove the preeminent link of motive nursed by the accused to murder deceased Beli Ram standing non-substantiation by prosecution witnesses, constitutes the aforesaid potent link in the chain of circumstances to stand both severed as well as dismembered. 11. With evidence aforesaid relied upon by the prosecution to prove the preeminent link of motive nursed by the accused to murder deceased Beli Ram standing non-substantiation by prosecution witnesses, constitutes the aforesaid potent link in the chain of circumstances to stand both severed as well as dismembered. 11. Furthermore, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW-12 Harbans Lal to sway this Court to on its anchor, conclude that it purveys evidence of the accused being last seen in the company of the deceased in the rain shelter at Kukali Galu where both were seen by PW-12 when they were warming themselves in front of the fire which was lit therein besides, one bike being also parked outside the rain shelter. The testimony of PW-12 Harbans Lal while purportedly proving the aforesaid link in the chain of circumstances of the accused having been preceding the occurrence last seen in the company of deceased Beli Ram would obviously carry probative sinew, especially with this witness having deposed that he had proceeded to, on the strength of the photograph of the deceased shown to him in police station, identify him to be the person who was last seen by him in the company of the accused on the day immediately preceding the occurrence. However, when he has further deposed that the photograph on whose anvil, he identified the deceased to be the person last seen by him in the company of the accused in the rain shelter at Kukali Galu was not produced in Court renders his testimony qua the fact of the stranger, who was purportedly seen by him in the company of the accused in the rain shelter at Kukali Galu on the day immediately preceding the occurrence being the deceased, being construable to be an invention, concoction besides an engineered version communicated by him in Court at the behest of the police. Necessarily, then probative sinew, if any, marshaled by his deposition faces emasculation. Necessarily, then probative sinew, if any, marshaled by his deposition faces emasculation. In case, the police had obtained identification of the deceased from PW-12 Harbans Lal on a photograph having been shown to him in the police station, obviously then it was incumbent upon the Investigating Officer for imputing sanctity to his testimony qua his having identified the stranger last seen by him in the company of the accused in the rain shelter at Kukali Galu on a day immediately preceding the occurrence, to be the deceased, to place the said photograph on the Court file. However, when it does not find existence on the Court file nor was shown to PW-12 Harbans Lal on the strength of whose testimony, the prosecution contends that the link of the accused being last seen in the company of the deceased on the day preceding the occurrence garners sustenance, its non existence on the Court file or omission on the part of the public prosecutor while examining PW- 12 to show him the photograph of the deceased rather spurs an inference that PW-12 never saw the deceased in the company of the accused. Therefore, his testimony while purportedly constituting proof of link of his having last seen the deceased in the company of the accused a day immediately preceding the occurrence loses its significance, in sequel, an important link in the chain of circumstances gets severed as well as dismembered. 12. Ex. P-1 is the bag containing articles belonging to deceased Beli Ram recovered by the police under Memo Ex.PW11/A. Bag Ex. P1 was found lying outside the premises of C.D. Block Bank, Dari. The recovery of bag Ex.P-1 containing the articles of the deceased was effected on 2.3.2007. However, the alleged occurrence took place on 28.2.2007. Given the remoteness in time inter se the ill fated occurrence and recovery of Ex.P-1 under memo Ex.PW11/A besides with Ex.P-1 having been recovered outside the precincts of C.D. Block Bank, Dari on 2.3.2007, whereto there is an uninterrupted influx of people or customers besides of passers by, cannot constrain this Court to construe that bag Ex.P-1 containing articles of the deceased Beli Ram remained lying there undisturbed throughout from 28.2.2007 till its recovery on 2.3.2007. Even otherwise it is unacceptable to normal prudence that nobody from 28.2.2007 till 2.3.2007 never visited the place outside the precincts of C.D. Block Bank, Dari wherefrom it was recovered. Even otherwise it is unacceptable to normal prudence that nobody from 28.2.2007 till 2.3.2007 never visited the place outside the precincts of C.D. Block Bank, Dari wherefrom it was recovered. If the aforesaid inference is oust able necessarily then its having been found there and its occurrence therein can be attributed to be at the instance of any person other than the accused. Apart therefrom another inference which is draw able is that it was kept at the place of its recovery at the behest of the Investigating Officer, who contrived to get the site of its recovery identified from the accused, whereas it was an invented or a concocted recovery. Even otherwise, the information purveyed to the police qua its having been found outside the precincts of C.D. Block Bank, Dari was at the instance of one Harish Chander and that too on 2.3.2007. However, the aforesaid has not come to be either cited or examined as a prosecution witness. Omission on the part of the Investigating Officer to either cite him as a witness besides, obviously his having not come to be examined as a prosecution witness, whereas, he could have lent succor to the genesis of the prosecution story of his on 2.3.2007 having purveyed information to the police agency concerned qua its existence outside the precincts of C.D. Block Bank, Dari also spurs an inference that the aforesaid factum of its location on 2.3.2007 outside the precincts of C.D. Block Bank, Dari is a mere afterthought or a concoction. If so, reinforcingly, then its recovery by the Investigating Officer under memo Ex.PW11/A on 2.3.2007 becomes highly tainted besides, inefficacious especially when the reasons aforesaid given its location at a busy place its occurrence therein can be attributed to either the Investigating Officer or to a person other than the accused. Apart therefrom the identification of the site of its recovery by the accused is also rendered vulnerable to skepticism. Therefore, the invincible inference which ensues therefrom is that the recovery of Ex.P-1 under memo Ex.PW11/A purportedly by the Investigating Officer and the site of its recovery having come to be subsequently identified by the accused while hence constituting proof of his having after murdering the deceased carried it to the place where from it was recovered loses its force as well as vigour. In aftermath, the aforesaid link in the chain of circumstances gets eroded besides severed. 13. PW-3 Shri Bhagat Ram, PW4- Sh Lachhman Dass, PW-5 Sh. Chiranji Lal and PW-6 Raj Kumar witnesses to memos Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW3/D, Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW5/B, Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW6/B, Ex.PW6/C, Ex.PW6/D and Ex.PW6/E, whereunder at the purported instance of the accused, the Investigating Officer recovered the dead body of the deceased, besides, gun and other articles have not supported the prosecution case. However, the recoveries of gun Ex.P-4 under memo Ex.PW5/B, dead body under memo Ex. PW 3/B would constitute a formidable link in the chain of circumstances for sustaining the charge against the accused only in the event of the prosecution witnesses to the recovery memos aforesaid having unflinchingly in their recorded depositions proved the factum of the recoveries of the items recited therein having come to be effected in their presence at the instance of the accused by the Investigating Officer. However, each of the prosecution witnesses aforesaid, who are witnesses to the recovery memos have in their respective depositions on oath deposed that the police officials along with the accused had proceeded to the purported places wherefrom dead body, three live cartridges of 12 bore, EX.P-5 to P-7, gun, Ex.P-4, umbrella, Ex.P-3 and Kudali, Ex.P-2 stood recovered by the Investigating Officer purportedly at the instance of the accused under memos Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW5/B, whereas each of them remained standing on the road where from they were summoned by a constable to the site of recovery, arrival whereto consumed about half an hour. Moreover, when after theirs expending half an hour to reach the site of their recovery, the items from the purported site of occurrence at the purported instance of the accused already stood recovered by the investigating officer, renders the aforesaid depositions of each of the witnesses to the recoveries purportedly at the instance of the accused of dead body, three live cartridges of 12 bore, EX.P-5 to P-7, gun, Ex.P-4, umbrella, Ex.P-3 and Kudali, Ex.P-2 under recovery memos Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW5/B, to underline the factum that the recovery of dead body, three live cartridges of 12 bore, EX.P-6 to P- 7, gun, Ex.P-4, umbrella, Ex.P-3 and Kudali, Ex.P-2 under memos Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW5/B, was effected by the Investigating Officer purportedly at the instance of the accused from the site of their purported recovery, even when the witnesses to the recovery memos aforesaid were not available at the time of their recovery by the Investigating Officer at the purported instance of the accused. Necessarily then, when each of the witnesses to the recovery memo were not present along with the accused and the police officials at the site of recovery and effectuation of recoveries therefrom by the Investigating Officer purportedly at the instance of the accused obviously renders none of the aforesaid items recited therein to be construable to have been recovered by the Investigating Officer in their presence at the instance of the accused. Recovery memos Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW5/B marking the factum of recovery of dead body, three live cartridges of 12 bore, EX.P-5 to P-7, gun, Ex.P-4, umbrella, Ex.P-3 and Kudali, Ex.P-2 thereunder would acquire immense probative vigour, besides would constitute proof of a vital link in the chain of circumstances only when the recovery thereof was carried out in the presence of witnesses, who signed recovery memos Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW5/B. Moreover, for rendering the effectuation of recoveries of dead body, three live cartridges of 12 bore, EX.P-5 to P-7, gun, Ex.P-4, umbrella, Ex.P-3 and Kudali, Ex.P-2 under memos Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW5/B to acquire a hue of imp artisanship besides to leave no scope of recoveries reflected therein being mobilized by any invention or concoction at the instance of the Investigating officer, an emphatic deposition in the testimonies of the witnesses to recovery memos of theirs being present at the time of recovery of dead body, three live cartridges of 12 bore, EX.P-5 to P-7, gun, Ex.P-4, umbrella, Ex.P-3 and Kudali, Ex.P-2 under recovery memos EX.PW3/B, Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW5/B, was imperative. However, when each of the witness to the recovery memos have in their respective depositions stated that they reached the site of occurrence after the accused along with the Investigating Officer had precedingly half an hour earlier left to the location of the site of recoveries, wherefrom recoveries of dead body, three live cartridges of 12 bore, EX.P-5 to P-7, gun, Ex.P-4, umbrella, Ex.P-3 and Kudali, Ex.P-2 stood already effectuated, rather dispels the aura of transparency besides imp artisanship, surrounding the recovery of items under recovery memos Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW5/B. In sequel, the mere existence of signatures of PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 on recovery memos aforesaid has no significance. Contrarily, the conclusion which is to be drawn by this Court is that the recoveries of dead body, three live cartridges of 12 bore, EX.P-5 to P-7, gun, Ex.P-4, umbrella, Ex.P-3 and Kudali, Ex.P-2 under recovery memos Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW5/B purportedly at the instance of the accused by the Investigating Officer are tainted besides blemished. Apart therefrom, the recoveries of the aforesaid items are ridden with the vice of concoction or invention upon which no credence can be placed by this Court. Apart therefrom, the recoveries of the aforesaid items are ridden with the vice of concoction or invention upon which no credence can be placed by this Court. Consequently, the recoveries of dead body, three live cartridges of 12 bore, EX.P-5 to P-7, gun, Ex.P-4, umbrella, Ex.P-3 and Kudali, Ex.P-2 under recovery memos Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW5/B when stand disproved or over come by lack of efficacious evidence to prove their recovery, renders another vital link in the chain of circumstances to fall apart. 14. Amplifying vigour to the aforesaid inference is lent by both PW-21 Sanjeev Kumar and PW-25 HHC Kulwant Singh, inasmuch as theirs having supported the communications qua the fact aforesaid deposed on oath by each of the witnesses to the recovery memos aforesaid. Moreover, PW-7 Devinder Kumar, witness to recovery memos Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B has not supported the prosecution case. 15. PW-23, Dr. Jiwa Nand Chauhan has proved the postmortem report Ex.PW23/B and PW26 Rajesh Kumar has proved Ex.PW26/A. Ex.PW26/A spells out the fact that Exhibit-1, Single barrel breach loading (SBBL) gun being capable of firing besides of exhibit-2 (fired cartridge) on having been compared with five test fired cartridges cases, it having been found to have been fired from SBBL gun. In addition it spells out the fact that 22 pellets found in Exhibit-6 sent for examination to him could be residue from fired cartridge and could have been fired from a single barrel gun. Though Ex.PW26/A proved by PW-26 proves the factum of fired cartridges having been fired at from a single barrel gun yet the aforesaid factum does not per se unravel unflinching evidence qua the guilt of the accused, in the absence of evidence portraying the fact that the finger prints if any existing on the trigger or barrel of the gun were sent for comparison with the admitted finger prints of the accused to the finger print expert, to enable the latter to conclude qua theirs belonging to the accused. However, the Investigating Officer omitted to concert to elicit from the finger print expert an apposite opinion after collection of the finger prints, if any, on the trigger besides on the barrel of the single barrel gun qua whether they on comparison by him with the admitted finger prints of the accused, belonged to the latter. However, the Investigating Officer omitted to concert to elicit from the finger print expert an apposite opinion after collection of the finger prints, if any, on the trigger besides on the barrel of the single barrel gun qua whether they on comparison by him with the admitted finger prints of the accused, belonged to the latter. Necessarily then when the aforesaid apt and best evidence remained uncollected, its non collection constrained their non-examination by the finger print expert. For non availability of the aforesaid best evidence, this Court is constrained to conclude that the guilt of the accused for which he stood charged and tried by the learned trial Court stands not unfailingly proved. Even otherwise there is no apt evidence on record portraying the fact that when a live fire cartridge was fired at the deceased the distance inter se the gun wherefrom it emanated and the deceased was proximate or remote. The absence of the above evidence also constrains a conclusion that the factum of the accused being allegedly in close proximity to the deceased when fired a shot at him from gun Ex.P-4, stands not grooved or grounded upon sound evidentiary material on record. Imperatively then this Court is goaded to conclude that then the distance inter se the deceased and the person, who fired at the deceased was more than the distance inter se the deceased and the one attributed to the accused, or hence the position of the person who fired at the deceased was remote vis-a-vis the position attributed to the accused besides necessarily then his while hunting in the forest mistook the deceased to be a prey, as such, accidentally fired at him. 16. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court below has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom the analysis of the material on record by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record, rather it has aptly appreciated the material available on record. 17. In view of the above, we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. In sequel, the impugned judgment is affirmed and maintained. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.