Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1086 (ALL)

RAJENDRA v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-03-29

RANJANA PANDYA

body2016
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya, J.—The appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 5.8.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Bijnor passed in ST No. 483 of 2007, (State v. Ravi and others) arising out of Crime No. 1460 of 2005 under Sections 366, 376 (2)(g), 304 IPC, PS Haldaur, District Bijnor whereby the remaining accused were acquitted; whereas accused Ravi Kumar and Rajendra were found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 (2)(g) and 304 IPC sentencing each of appellants to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 15,000/- respectively with default stipulation. 2. Filtering out the unnecessary details, the case of prosecution is that Jai Singh, husband of the deceased got lodged a written report on 28.11.2005 stating that on 27.11.2005 his wife had gone at 4:00 PM to the shop of accused Ravi Kumar to bring medicine. When she did not return home, inquiries were made and it revealed that accused appellants Ravi Kumar and Rajendra had enticed her away. On 28.11.2005, the informant, Ram Gopal, Harpal, Chandra Pal and brother of the deceased Kalwa Singh while tracing the deceased reached near the sugarcane fields near Idgah. At about 4:30 P.M., they heard the groaning voice of deceased. They reached the field and found the deceased lying in intoxicated condition. Ravi Kumar and Rajendra were beaten and apprehended on the spot. The victim was got released from them. The two accused had also raped the victim and were brought to the police station where report was lodged. On the basis of this written report, chik FIR was scribed, which was proved by PW-14 SI Sohan Singh as Ext. Ka-16. SI Sohan Singh has conducted the part of investigation, recorded the statement of the scribe, prepared and proved the site plan as Ext. Ka-14. Further, he recorded the statement of Tilak Singh, Yogesh, a pair of lady’s slipper was recovered from the spot, which were taken into the possession and the memo was prepared, which was proved by this witness as Ext. Ka-15. He also recorded the statement of Dal Chand, Ram Gopal, Chandra Pal Singh, Har Pal Singh. On 2.12.2005, the statement of one accused was recorded and he was apprehended. Ka-15. He also recorded the statement of Dal Chand, Ram Gopal, Chandra Pal Singh, Har Pal Singh. On 2.12.2005, the statement of one accused was recorded and he was apprehended. The further investigation was transferred to SO, Haldaur, District Bijnor. Chik report and GD was prepared by Sumodh Kumar, Head Constable, which was proved by him. The copy of GD was proved by this witness as Ext. Ka-17. The sealed bundle of the pair of lady’s Chappal was opened before the Court in the presence of this witness which were marked as material Ext. 10, 11 and 12. Further investigation was conducted by PW-15 ST Kushal Pal Singh. He copied the inquest report in the case diary. He recorded the statement of Constable Mal Singh, Constable Ram Kisan, witnesses Chandra Pal Singh, Naubat Singh and Prakash. He further recorded the statement of witnesses Ramesh Singh, Pooran Singh, Gopal Singh, Ram Gopal and Barfia Devi. On 13.1.2006, he recorded the statement of Dr. V.K. Goel. On 16.1.2006, he recorded the statement of SI Suresh Chandra and Head Muharrir Sumodh Kumar. The investigation ended into a charge-sheet which was proved by this witness as Ext. Ka-18. 3. The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses in support of its case. PW-1 is Jai Singh, the informant who proved the First Information Report as Ext. Ka-1. PW-2 is Kalwa singh, the brother of victim (deceased). PW-3 is Chandra Pal who is witness of the inquest report. PW-4 namely Dr. Raj Kumar conducted post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased and found the following ante-mortem injuries on the body of deceased : (i). Contusion 1 cm. x 1 cm. present over upper and posterior part of left ear, dark brown in colour. (ii). Scabbed abrasion 1 cm. x 1 cm. present over outer side of waist. 4. The brain, membranes were congested. Both the lungs were congested, 20ml. reddish brown blood was found in the intestine. The internal membrane of the intestine was found congested. Both the kidneys were also found congested. Cause of death could not be ascertained, hence the viscera was preserved. This witness proved the post-mortem report as Ext. Ka-2. PW-5 is Dr. K.K. Mehta who medically examined the victim (deceased) on 28.11.2005. She was brought by Constable Mal Singh. The victim was in semi-conscious state. She was responding to deep painful stimulation. No external injury was present on her body. This witness proved the post-mortem report as Ext. Ka-2. PW-5 is Dr. K.K. Mehta who medically examined the victim (deceased) on 28.11.2005. She was brought by Constable Mal Singh. The victim was in semi-conscious state. She was responding to deep painful stimulation. No external injury was present on her body. The hymen was old torn. The vagina was admitting two fingers easily. This witness proved the medical examination report as Ext. Ka-3 and the supplementary report as Ext. Ka-4. PW-6 is HCP Ram Kishan who carried the sealed body alongwith the Constable Ganpat for postmortem. PW-7 is ST Suresh Chandra who prepared the inquest report and the relevant documents relating to the inquest. He proved the inquest report as Ext. Ka-5, letter CMO as Ext. Ka-6, letter RI as Ext. Ka-7, photo of dead body as Ext. Ka-9. The forensic lab report is Ext. Ka-10 and Ka-11 on record. This witness also had sealed the clothes and jewellery found on the body of the deceased, which was opened before the Court and marked as material Ext. 1 to 9. PW-8 is Vijay Pal Singh who is said to be witness of the memo of recovery of the pair of lady’s slipper. PW-9 Darpan is also said to be witness of the recovery memo. PW-10 Dal Chand is said to be a witness of fact. PW-11 is said to be the witness of last seen. PW-12 is Kuldeep, the scribe of written report - Ext. Ka-1. PW-13 is Dev Raj Singh SI who conducted the part of investigation. He copied the medical report in the case diary, arrested the accused and proved the Ext. Ka-12 and Ka-13. Statements of SI Sohan Pal Singh as PW-14 and SI Kushal Pal asPW-15, Dr. V.K. Khare as PW-16, who examined the victim on 28.11.2005 and proved the copy of the Bed Head Ticket as Ext. Ka-19, have also been discussed by me. 5. After the close of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the accused while denying the occurrence stated that they had been falsely implicated. However, they did not adduce any defence evidence. 6. The learned trial Court after hearing the counsel for parties convicted the accused appellants as indicated in para -1 of the judgment. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the accused appellants have preferred the present appeals. 8. However, they did not adduce any defence evidence. 6. The learned trial Court after hearing the counsel for parties convicted the accused appellants as indicated in para -1 of the judgment. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the accused appellants have preferred the present appeals. 8. I have heard Sri Apul Misra, learned counsel appearing for appellant Rajendra, Ms. Shakshi Kesarwani, Amicus curiae who assisted the Court on behalf of appellant Ravi Kumar and the learned AGA appearing for State and perused the record. 9. The learned A.G.A. has supported the impugned judgment and order of the Court below and submitted that the findings of the fact recorded by the trial Court are based on evidence available on record which is clear, cogent and convincing. He has further contended that there was nothing to show that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 10. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the report has been filed after delay. In the report only names of accused Ravi Kumar and Rajendra have been mentioned. The names of other accused have been subsequently introduced in the matter. There is no explanation for the delay which casts a shadow of doubt on the whole prosecution case. As far as the delay in lodging FIR is concerned, initially the FIR states that accused Ravi Kumar and Rajendra, who were apprehended at the spot by the informant and his brother-in-law Kalwa Singh and other villagers, had committed the rape on the victim (deceased). As per the chik report Ext. Ka-16, the victim had gone to bring medicine from her house on 27.11.2005 at 4:00 PM. The report was lodged on the next date at 5:40 PM., the distance of the place of occurrence from the police station being one kilometer. Thus, the report is said to have been filed after 25 hours. There is an averment in the First Information Report that on 28.11.2005 when the informant alongwith other villagers were tracing the victim, she was found in a field. Both the accused namely Ravi Kumar and Rajendra were assaulted and apprehended on the spot, the report was lodged and they were brought to the police station. There is an averment in the First Information Report that on 28.11.2005 when the informant alongwith other villagers were tracing the victim, she was found in a field. Both the accused namely Ravi Kumar and Rajendra were assaulted and apprehended on the spot, the report was lodged and they were brought to the police station. As far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, no doubt in cases of rape, there could be many grounds for delay in lodging the FIR in as much as sometimes when the reputation of family is on stake as husband of the victim is hesitant in lodging the FIR, then such facts can be given weightage too. But the conduct of husband of the victim is very strange in this case in as much as PW-1 Jai Singh, the informant, has stated that when he was tracing the victim on 28.11.2005, he only could trace her. This witness had to undergo the test of cross-examination in which he has said that he does not know whether the facts mentioned in the report are correct or incorrect. Besides, the husband of victim (deceased) has stated that Kalwa Singh is his real brother-in-law who had come to his house on 27th November, 2005 since the morning. But, he met Kalwa Singh in the evening of 27th of November, 2005. Kalwa Singh is PW-2 who has stated that he reached the house of informant on 27th November, 2005 when he came to know about the illness of his sister. In cross-examination he has stated that in the evening when the victim did not return the home, then, Ram Gopal, Dal Chand and Jai Singh PW-1 and this witness had discussions with each other and after that they stepped out to trace out the victim. No reason has come forth as to why the informant kept mum for 25 hours when his wife was missing from his house. No doubt mere delay in lodging the FIR cannot be regarded by itself as fatal to the prosecution case. However, it is obligatory on the part of the Court to take notice of the delay and examine in the backdrop of the case, whether any acceptable explanation has been offered by the prosecution and if such an explanation has been offered, whether the same deserves acceptance being found to be satisfactory. However, it is obligatory on the part of the Court to take notice of the delay and examine in the backdrop of the case, whether any acceptable explanation has been offered by the prosecution and if such an explanation has been offered, whether the same deserves acceptance being found to be satisfactory. In : Ram Das v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 2 SCC 170 in para 24 the Apex Court has observed as under : “24. ......mere delay in lodging the First Information Report is not necessarily fatal to the case of the prosecution. However, the fact that the report was lodged belatedly is a relevant fact of which the Court must take notice. This fact has to be considered in the light of other facts and circumstances of the case, and in a given case the Court may be satisfied that the delay in lodging the report has been sufficiently explained. In the light of the totality of the evidence, the Court of fact has to consider whether the delay in lodging the report adversely affects the case of the prosecution. That is a matter of appreciation of evidence. There may be cases where there is direct evidence to explain the delay. Even in the absence of direct explanation there may be circumstances appearing on record which provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. There are cases where much time is consumed in taking the injured to the hospital for medical aid and, therefore, the witnesses find no time to lodge the report promptly. There may also be cases where on account of fear and threats, witnesses may avoid going to the police station immediately. The time of occurrence, the distance to the police station, mode of conveyance available, are all factors which have a bearing on the question of delay in lodging of the report. It is also possible to conceive of cases where the victim and the members of his or her family belong to such a strata of society that they may not even be aware of their right to report the matter to the police and seek legal action, nor was any such advice available to them.” 11. Thus, this unexplained delay in lodging the FIR has caused dent in the prosecution case. 12. As far as the conviction under Section 366 IPC is concerned, the Section 366 IPC is reproduced as below : 366. Thus, this unexplained delay in lodging the FIR has caused dent in the prosecution case. 12. As far as the conviction under Section 366 IPC is concerned, the Section 366 IPC is reproduced as below : 366. Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her mar­riage, etc.—”Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable as aforesaid.” 13. To convict under the provisions of 366 IPC, it was obligatory on the part of the learned trial Court to give a finding that there was intention of the accused, which is wanting in the present case. There is no iota of evidence or averment in the FIR that she was taken away by the accused appellant Ravi Kumar and Rajendra with intention as envisaged under Section 366 IPC. In fact, as per the provision of the FIR and the prosecution case the victim herself had gone to the medicine shop of appellant Ravi Kumar to bring her medicine. Thus, the ingredients of Section 366 IPC are not made out. 14. As far as conviction under Sections 376 and 304 IPC is concerned, although in cases of direct evidence, motive looses its value and no motive is needed to be proved in the cases of rape. But to examine a case under Section 304 IPC the Court would like to look into the motive. Here, in the present case, no motive has been assigned in the First Information Report by the prosecution. But to examine a case under Section 304 IPC the Court would like to look into the motive. Here, in the present case, no motive has been assigned in the First Information Report by the prosecution. In Shiv Shanker v. State of Jharkhand, (2011) 3 SCC 654 in para-15 the Apex Court has observed as under : “The legal position regarding proof of motive as an essential requirement for bringing home the guilt of the accused is fairly well-settled by a long line of decisions of this Court. These decisions have made a clear distinction between cases where prosecution relies upon circumstantial evidence on the one hand and those where it relies upon the testimony of eye-witnesses on the other. In the former category of cases proof of motive is given the importance it deserves, for proof of a motive itself constitutes a link in the chain of circumstances upon which the prosecution may rely. Proof of motive, however, recedes into the background in cases where the prosecution relies upon an eye-witness account of the occurrence. That is because if the Court upon a proper appraisal of the deposition of the eye-witnesses comes to the conclusion that the version given by them is credible, absence of evidence to prove the motive is rendered inconsequential. Conversely even if prosecution succeeds in establishing a strong motive for the commission of the offence, but the evidence of the eye-witnesses is found unreliable or unworthy of credit, existence of a motive does not by itself provide a safe basis for convicting the accused. That does not, however, mean that proof of motive even in a case which rests on an eye-witness account does not lend strength to the prosecution case or fortify the Court in its ultimate conclusion. Proof of motive in such a situation certainly helps the prosecution and supports the eye-witnesses. See Shivaji Genu Mohite v. The State of Maharashtra, (1973) 3 SCC 219 , Hari Shanker v. State of U.P., (1996) 9 SCC 40 and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kishanpal and others, (2008) 16 SCC 73 .” 15. I am aware that in a case relating to circumstantial evidence, the motive does assume a great importance but to say that the absence of motive would dislodge the entire prosecution story is perhaps giving this one factor more importance which is not due. I am aware that in a case relating to circumstantial evidence, the motive does assume a great importance but to say that the absence of motive would dislodge the entire prosecution story is perhaps giving this one factor more importance which is not due. It cannot be lost sight of that in some cases it would be difficult to establish the motive even through direct evidence; while in some cases inferences from circumstances may help in discerning the mental propensity of the person concerned. 16. Coming back to the case in hand as regards the rape and death of the deceased, there is no direct evidence. Thus, the whole case rests on circumstantial evidence. 17. The law of circumstantial evidence has been laid down in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 , the Apex Court in this very judgement has laid down five golden principles which constitute Panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence. They are as follows : 1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; 2. The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; 3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; 4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and 5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 18. Thus, the law relating to circumstantial evidence is well-settled. In Vijai Kumar Arora v. State Government of NCT of Delhi, (2010) 2 SCC 353 , the Apex Court has made the following observation on essential ingredients to prove the guilt of an accused by circumstantial evidence : “The law relating to circumstantial evidence is well-settled. In dealing with circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion lingering on mind may take place of proof. Suspicion, however, strong cannot be allowed to take place of proof and, therefore, the Court has to be watchful and ensure that conjectures and suspicions do not take place of legal proof. In dealing with circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion lingering on mind may take place of proof. Suspicion, however, strong cannot be allowed to take place of proof and, therefore, the Court has to be watchful and ensure that conjectures and suspicions do not take place of legal proof. However, it is no derogation of evidence to say that it is circumstantial. Human agency may be faulty in expressing picturisation of actual incident, but the circumstances cannot fail. Therefore, many a times it is aptly said that “men may tell lies, but circumstances do not”. In cases where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established. Each fact sought to be relied upon must be proved individually. However, in applying this principle, a distinction must be made between facts called primary or basic on the one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them, on the other. In regard to proof of primary facts, the Court has to judge the evidence and decide whether that evidence proves a particular fact and if that fact is proved, the question whether that fact leads to an inference of guilt of the accused person should be considered. In dealing with this aspect of the problem, the doctrine of benefit of doubt applies. Although, there should not be any missing links in the case, yet it is not essential that each of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence adduced and some of these links may have to be inferred from the proved facts. In drawing these inferences, the Court must have regard to the common course of natural events and to human conduct and their relations to the facts of the particular case. The Court thereafter has to consider the effect of proved facts. In deciding the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence for the purpose of conviction, Court has to consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts, each one of which reinforces the conclusion of guilt and if the combined effect of all these facts taken together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, the conviction would be justified even though it may be that one or more of these facts by itself or themselves is, or are not decisive. The facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should exclude every hypothesis, except the one sought to be proved. But this does not mean that before the prosecution can succeed in a case resting upon circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by the accused, howsoever, extravagant and fanciful it might be. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused; and where the various links in a chain are in themselves complete, then a false plea or a false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the Court.” 19. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles of law laid down by the Apex Court, a perusal of the FIR makes it clear that it has not been mentioned as to before whom the deceased left her house. Although there is shaky evidence of Kalwa PW-2 that his sister had gone to bring medicine but that’s a stray link of evidence which does not form the complete links of chain. As per the version of PW-1 Jai Singh, even if for the sake of argument, it is believed that appellants Ravi and Rajendra were found on 28.11.2005 near the victim, there is nothing on record to show that where the victim remained for 24 hours since 27.11.2005 to 28.11.2005. The prosecution has made a vague attempt to prove that witness Dal Chand PW-10 saw the accused with the deceased at 5:30 PM going towards Chamunda Temple on 27.11.2005 because this witness has subsequently denied this fact. He was declared a hostile witness by the prosecution who proceeded to cross-examine but the cross-examination too could not help the prosecution case. The informant himself is doubtful whether the averments in the report were correct or incorrect. He also could not say from where the victim had disappeared before she was recovered. Although the brother of the victim (deceased) has said that when they apprehended Ravi and Rajendra, Umare, Kalwa, Yakoob, Sante fled away from the fields. The informant himself is doubtful whether the averments in the report were correct or incorrect. He also could not say from where the victim had disappeared before she was recovered. Although the brother of the victim (deceased) has said that when they apprehended Ravi and Rajendra, Umare, Kalwa, Yakoob, Sante fled away from the fields. But this would not suffice because this witness has stated that accused have committed rape on the victim but neither the injury report supports the factum of rape nor there is an iota of evidence either about rape or murder of the deceased. Kalwa PW-2, the brother of deceased has stated that he was stating in the Court for the first time that Umare, Kalwa, Yakoob and Sante fled away on seeing this witness as well as PW-1 Jai Singh, the husband of victim (deceased). He has admitted that he neither witnessed any assault on his sister nor any rape with his sister. He only saw his sister in an unconscious state. The learned counsel for appellants have submitted that even the factum of recovery of the victim is doubtful in as much as according to the FIR the victim (deceased) was recovered in a semi-conscious condition in the fields by the husband and brother of the victim. Whereas, the informant being husband of the victim has stated that **;g lgh gS fd 28-11-2005 dks esjh iRuh xqM~Mks dks fot;iky us pkj cts fnu ykdj ns fn;k Fkk ml le; Hkh xqM~Mks csgks'k FkhA** 20. A million dollar question which remains unanswered is that when this victim was semi-conscious how could she travelled with Vijay Pal. Thus, this new story introduced by the husband of the victim (deceased) marks another dent in the prosecution case and makes the place and manner of her recovery doubtful. There is no last seen evidence of the victim. The recovery is doubtful. The learned counsel for the appellants Apul Misra, learned counsel for appellants and Ms. Shakshi Kesarwani, Amicus curiae have stated that there is no evidence on record that the deceased was done to death by the appellants and there is no circumstantial evidence too to this effect. PW-1 Jai Singh, the husband of victim (deceased) has just deposed before the Court on the ground of suspicion. He has stated that when the victim was admitted in the hospital she was unconscious. PW-1 Jai Singh, the husband of victim (deceased) has just deposed before the Court on the ground of suspicion. He has stated that when the victim was admitted in the hospital she was unconscious. Her brother Kalwa PW-2 has also admitted that he came to see his sister because she was ailing. Although PW-1 Jai Singh has denied the ailment of his wife. However, Dr. K.K. Mehta PW-5 has stated that when the victim was brought on 28.11.2005, he examined her. She was responding to only deep painful stimulation and was semi-conscious. But she did not have any external injury. This witness also did not find any mark of struggle on her body; although he opined that marks of violence and struggle can be detected on the body one week after the alleged sexual assault. Thus, the medical evidence is not supportive to the ocular evidence, according to which the sexual assault on victim (deceased) took place on 27.11.2005 and 28.11.2005. As far as the recovery of victim is concerned, Vijay Pal Singh has stated that he did not sign the recovery memo; but his signatures were obtained on plain paper. Even PW-9 Darpan has stated that neither he went to the place of incident nor anything was recovered in his presence. Dr. V.K. Khare has stated that he examined the victim on 28.11.2005. According to this witness, the victim was in dilemma. She was very serious on 30.11.2005. The patient started getting fits and due to which she was referred to Medical College, Meerut. At that time also she was serious and her pulse had come down to 22. He has also not seen any injury on the body of the deceased. The postmortem examination report Ext. Ka-2 proved by PW-4 is also very important because only two ante-mortem injuries namely one contusion and one scabbed abrasion was found on the body of the deceased. The postmortem report Ext. Ka-2 proved by PW-4 is also very important because only two ante-mortem injuries namely one contusion and one scabbed abrasion were found on the body of the deceased, which were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause her death. Hence, since the cause of death could not be ascertained, viscera was preserved. The viscera analysis report of the deceased is Ext. Ka-10 and Ka-11. Hence, since the cause of death could not be ascertained, viscera was preserved. The viscera analysis report of the deceased is Ext. Ka-10 and Ka-11. According to the viscera report of the stomach no poison was found in the stomach as per Ext. Ka-10. However, in the viscera report Ext. Ka-11 on the petticoat semen and blood were found. But this is again a very stray link which does not connect the other links to form a complete chain. Thus except for a few stray links here and there, there is nothing on record to prove that the accused persons had committed rape on the victim and had done her to death. Bed Head Ticket also does not lend support to the prosecution case. Thus, the whole prosecution story as set up by the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges levelled upon the accused appellants. 21. On the basis of what has been said and discussed above, I do not find the presence and involvement of the accused appellants in the case set up by the prosecution. As such, both the appellants are acquitted of all the charges and their conviction is set aside. Both the appeals are hereby allowed. 22. The appellants are in jail. They shall be released forthwith in this case. The provisions of Section 437 A Cr.P.C. shall be complied with. 23. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance of the order. 24. Ms. Shakshi Kesarwani, Advocate, appointed as Amicus curiae in this case on behalf of appellant Ravi Kumar shall be paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for her assistance to the Court from the Legal Services Authority, High Court, Allahabad as per rules.