Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1768 (HP)

Jhinna Ram v. State of H. P.

2016-08-24

RAJIV SHARMA, VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. 1. Learned Additional Sessions, Fast Track Court, Solan has convicted accused Jhinna Ram vide judgment dated 17.11.2012 and has sentenced to undergo imprisonment of one year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- under Sections 376, 511 IPC passed in Sessions Trial No. 8FTC/7 of 2011 in Case FIR No. 196 of 2010 dated 21.8.2010 registered at Police Station, Solan. 2. Accused Jhinna Ram has assailed impugned judgment, challenging his conviction and sentence, in Crl. Appeal No. 472 of 2012, titled Jhinna Ram vs. State of H.P. praying for setting aside the impugned judgment. 3. The State has assailed the impugned judgment seeking enhancement of sentence by filing Cr. Appeal No. 110 of 2013, titled State of H.P. Vs. Jhinna Ram. 4. A News Item of conviction and sentence of accused was published in daily news paper on 18.11.2012. On the basis of said news item, this Court has exercised power under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and had called for records for the purpose of satisfying itself as to correctness of sentence imposed upon accused and a Revision Petition No. 235 of 2012 was registered as Court on its own motion vs. Jhinna Ram and others. In this revision petition, notice was issued to accused Jhinna Ram calling upon him to show that why sentence imposed upon him be not enhanced. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents placed on record. We are deciding aforesaid both the appeals and Cr. Revision by way of a common judgment. 6. Brief facts of the case are that PW-1 Varinder Kumar father of PW-2 prosecutrix was tenant of accused. PW-1 Virender and his wife Smt. Sita were running a welding shop at Sproon Chowk near Tar Factory at Solan in the year 2010. Both husband and wife used to visit shop together. Their daughter PW-2 prosecutrix was studying in 2nd standard in Geeta Adarsh School. PW-1 used to drop his daughter at school in the morning at 7.30 a.m. and thereafter used to take her back to home at about 2.30 p.m. After reaching house his daughter used to sleep and he used to leave her daughter usually after taking lunch every day. 7. PW-1 used to drop his daughter at school in the morning at 7.30 a.m. and thereafter used to take her back to home at about 2.30 p.m. After reaching house his daughter used to sleep and he used to leave her daughter usually after taking lunch every day. 7. On 21.8.2010, prosecutrix was not sent to school due to pain in her ears and after providing her breakfast and giving medicine, her parents had left her in the room and had gone to shop situated at a distance of about one kilometer. When prosecutrix was watching T.V. at home, sitting on bed, accused had entered and bolted the room from inside. He had removed underwear of prosecutrix and his pant and has put his genital organ on the private part of prosecutrix. Suddenly, Pooja another tenant of accused had knocked the door. Accused after buttoning his pant and throwing a blanket on prosecutrix had opened the door and had gone outside. Pooja was searching charger which could not be located and therefore, she had left the room. Thereafter again, accused came in the room and bolted the door and had made to lay prosecutrix on the table and had put his penis on private part of prosecutrix. Whereupon, prosecutrix had cried thereafter accused had left the room. Accused had provided her chocolates, Rasna and Biscuits etc. Later on prosecutrix had told this to Anjali studying in K.G. Class, who in turn had told this incident to her sister Madhu PW-3. Madhu PW-3 had further disclosed this incident to Parkash PW-4. 8. At about 8 p.m. PW-4 Parkash informed PW-1 Varinder Kumar on telephone about the incident and had asked them to reach home. PW-1 Virender Kumar and his wife reached home at about 8.30 p.m. Prosecutrix had narrated entire incident to her mother and thereupon PW-1 Virender Kumar and his wife Sita had visited the shop of accused. On enquiry, accused had started quarreling with parents of prosecutrix. Parents of prosecutrix had come back to room and called some of their relatives. Son of accused Bobby had pushed PW-1 and torn his clothes and accused had slapped him. PW-1 Virender had made a telephone call to police and police reached on the spot and recorded his statement Ex.PW-1/A, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW-14/A was registered and investigation was carried on. Son of accused Bobby had pushed PW-1 and torn his clothes and accused had slapped him. PW-1 Virender had made a telephone call to police and police reached on the spot and recorded his statement Ex.PW-1/A, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW-14/A was registered and investigation was carried on. Prosecutrix was got medically examined and photographs of the spot were also taken. After completion of investigation, accused was charged under Sections 376 read with Section 511 IPC for attempting to commit rape with prosecutrix. 9. The prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses to prove its case. Whereas after recording statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused had examined three defence witnesses. 10. PW-6 Hemant Kumar, Secretary Gram Panchayat, Ochhghat, District Solan has proved date of birth certificate Ex.PW-6/A of prosecutrix, issued under Section 12/17 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and Rule 8 of the Himachal Pradesh Registration of Births and Deaths Rules 2003, in which date of birth of prosecutrix has been mentioned as 25.1.2004 and as such prosecutrix was about 6½ years old at the time of incident. 11. PW-5 Smt. Reshmi Patil, Principal at Padam Shri N.N. Mohan Geeta Adarsh Vidalaya at Thodo has proved copy of attendance register containing details of attendance of prosecutrix in the month of August, 2010. Photocopy of attendance register is Ex.PW-5/C, according to which prosecutrix had not attended class from 4th to 7th, 9th, 15th, 16th and 18th to 30th August, 2010. 12. PW-7 Dr. Rajan Sood has conducted medical examination of prosecutrix. He had given opinion Ex.PW-7/B that no anal intercourse had taken place. PW-7 had referred the prosecutrix for her vaginal examination to PW-8 Dr. Poonam Sharma. After examination and receiving FSL report, she had given opinion that sexual intercourse had not taken place. However, there is nothing to rule out the possibility of minimal penetration. Her opinion is in red circles as Ex.PW-8/A and Ex.PW-8/B on the MLC Ex.PW-7/C. In her opinion, prosecutrix was not fit for sexual intercourse as genital or genitals were not developed. 13. PW-9. Dr. N.K. Gupta had medically examined accused and had found that there is nothing to suggest that accused was not capable for doing intercourse. PW-10 LC Reena had taken the prosecutrix to hospital for medical examination. 13. PW-9. Dr. N.K. Gupta had medically examined accused and had found that there is nothing to suggest that accused was not capable for doing intercourse. PW-10 LC Reena had taken the prosecutrix to hospital for medical examination. PW-11 Constable Neel Kamal had taken statement of PW-1 Virender Kumar Ex.PW-1/A for registration of FIR in Police Station, Sadar Solan. After registration of FIR, case file was handed over to him on the spot. He had also received parcel of vaginal swab, anal swab and vaginal slide and one envelope bearing seal impression for depositing at FSL, Junga. PW-13 HHC Balak Ram had received information from Virender Kumar at about 10.30. p.m. on 21.8.2010, upon which, this witness had recorded rapat No. 24 Ex.PW-13/A. 14. PW-14 Chander Mohan had registered FIR Ex.PW-14/A and thereafter had handed over the same to PW-11 C. Neel Kamal. PW-14 had also received parcel of case property and the said parcel was sent by him to FSL, Junga through PW-11 C. Neel Kamal. PW- 15 ASI Dharam Sain had also obtained final report Ex.PW-7/B from Dr. Rajan Sood. PW-16 S.I. Maheshender Singh and PW-17 Inspector Asha Rana were Investigating Officer. PW-18 Inspector Chaman Lal had prepared the challan and has put in Court. 15. As per prosecution case, accused had attempted to commit rape by putting his private part on the private part of prosecutrix. As per medical evidence, prosecutrix was not fit for sexual intercourse and there was no evidence of sexual and anal intercourse, however, it has been opined by the doctor that the possibility of minimal penetration could not be ruled out. As per FSL report Ex.PX, no blood or semen was found or detected on underwear of prosecutrix, on her vaginal slides, anal swab, and vaginal swab. 16. It is not a case of prosecution that penetration had been taken place. Therefore, medical evidence including opinion of expert is of no help to decide the issue in present case except that the accused was capable of committing sexual intercourse. The whole case of the prosecution revolves around statement of PW-2 prosecutrix. 16. It is not a case of prosecution that penetration had been taken place. Therefore, medical evidence including opinion of expert is of no help to decide the issue in present case except that the accused was capable of committing sexual intercourse. The whole case of the prosecution revolves around statement of PW-2 prosecutrix. Other witnesses PW-3 Smt. Madhu, PW-4 Parkash Chand and PW-12 Pooja have not lent support to the prosecution case and were declared hostile and despite lengthy cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor, nothing material can be elucidated in favour of prosecution case rather these witnesses have tried to support accused by admitting suggestion put to them by defence counsel that on 21.8.2010, quarrel between PW-1 Virender Kumar, his wife (Parents of prosecutrix) and accused had taken place on the issue of lending money and repayment of the same. PW-2 prosecutrix had not narrated the incident to PW-1 Virender Kumar but to her mother Sita Devi who has not been examined. Sita Devi had narrated the incident to PW-1 Virender Kumar, therefore, deposition to PW-1 Virender Kumar is not based on his primarily information but on the information given by his wife regarding the manner in which the incident had occurred. He was also informed by PW-4 Parkash Chand on telephone regarding the incident. Therefore, there is only statement of PW-2 prosecutrix who was 6½ years old at the time of incident and 8½ years at the time of examination in the Court. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2014) 5 SCC 353 has held as under:- “18. It is a settled legal proposition of law that every witness is competent to depose unless the court considers that he is prevented from understanding the question put to him, or from giving rational answers by reason of tender age or extreme old age or disease or because of his mental or physical condition. Therefore, a court has to form an opinion from the circumstances as to whether the witness is able to understand the duty of speaking the truth, and further in case of a child witness, the court has to ascertain that the witness might have not been tutored. Therefore, a court has to form an opinion from the circumstances as to whether the witness is able to understand the duty of speaking the truth, and further in case of a child witness, the court has to ascertain that the witness might have not been tutored. Thus, the evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others tell him. The trial court must ascertain as to whether a child is able to discern between right or wrong and it may be ascertained only by putting the questions to him. 19. This Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramesh & Anr. (2011) 4 SCC 786 , after considering a large number of its judgments came to the conclusion as under (SCC p. 792. para 14): “In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that the deposition of a child witness may require corroboration, but in case his deposition inspires the confidence of the court and there is no embellishment or improvement therein, the court may rely upon his evidence. The evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully with greater circumspection because he is susceptible to tutoring. Only in case there is evidence on record to show that a child has been tutored, the Court can reject his statement partly or fully. However, an inference as to whether child has been tutored or not, can be drawn from the contents of his deposition.” 18. There is no concept of child witness in the Evidence Act. Every witness including a child witness is a competent witness, in case said witness is found to be competent to depose by the Court. However, in case of child witness, statement of said witness is to be considered with care and caution as there is possibility of tutoring child or misconceiving the incident by child due to tender age and capability to understanding. At the same time, it is also a fact that child witness may be an innocent witness, deposing truthfully. 19. However, in case of child witness, statement of said witness is to be considered with care and caution as there is possibility of tutoring child or misconceiving the incident by child due to tender age and capability to understanding. At the same time, it is also a fact that child witness may be an innocent witness, deposing truthfully. 19. In the present case after due inquiry, learned trial court has arrived at the conclusion that prosecutrix was mature to give evidence and she was considered a competent witness to depose in the Court and therefore, her testimony can be referred to and relied upon for convicting respondent. 20. Hon’ble Apex Court in Mritunjoy Biswas vs. Pranab alias Kuti Biswas and another, 2013 (12) SCC 796 has held as under: “28. As is evincible, the High Court has also taken note of certain omissions and discrepancies treating them to be material omissions and irreconcilable discrepancies. It is worthy to note that the High Court has referred to the some discrepancies which we find are absolutely in the realm of minor discrepancies. It is well settled in law that the minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. The test is whether the same inspires confidence in the mind of the court. If the evidence is incredible and cannot be accepted by the test of prudence, then it may create a dent in the prosecution version. If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter and ushers in incongruities, the defence can take advantage of such inconsistencies. It needs no special emphasis to state that every omission cannot take place of a material omission and, therefore, minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution case and should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence. The omission should create a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness. It is only the serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of the prosecution but not every contradiction or omission (See Leela Ram (dead) through Duli Chand v. State of Haryana and another, Rammi alias Rameshwar v. State of M.P. and Shyamal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, (1971) 2 SCC 75 . 31. It is only the serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of the prosecution but not every contradiction or omission (See Leela Ram (dead) through Duli Chand v. State of Haryana and another, Rammi alias Rameshwar v. State of M.P. and Shyamal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, (1971) 2 SCC 75 . 31. The High Court, as we find, has read the evidence not as a whole but in utter fragmentation and appreciated the same in total out of context. It is to be kept in mind that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper-technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. (See State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony). Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid principle, we have no shadow of doubt that the High Court has erroneously discarded the credible evidence by paving the path of totally hyper-technical approach.” 21. Testimony of prosecutrix is almost at par with an immediate witness and can be acted upon without corroboration. PW-2 prosecutrix is victim as well as eye witness to the incident. Examination-in-chief of the prosecutrix is as under:- “The witness understands the questions put to her as well as the consequences. As such, she is competent to depose on oath. In the year 2010, I was a student of 2nd standard at Geeta Adarsh Vidyalaya, Solan. In the year 2010 I used to reside with my parents in the house of accused present in the Court. My parents used to run a shop of welding. As such, she is competent to depose on oath. In the year 2010, I was a student of 2nd standard at Geeta Adarsh Vidyalaya, Solan. In the year 2010 I used to reside with my parents in the house of accused present in the Court. My parents used to run a shop of welding. My father used to drop me at school and thereafter when I returned home after lunch he also used to go for shop. My mother also used to work in the same shop. I used to stay alone in absence of my parents after lunch. “Two years before I had pain in my left year due to which I did not go to school. I was given medicine by my father. My parents left for the shop. I was watching T.V. at home. I was sitting on bed when accused entered in my room, who bolted the room from inside. Accused removed my underwear and also removed his pant and put his “Su-Su on my Su-Su”. When Pooja entered the room after knocking the door accused had already closed his pant by buttoning it and at that time blanket was thrown over me. Pooja didi was searching for charger which could not be located and thereafter she left the room. Thereafter again accused came to my room and bolted the door. I was made to lie on table and accused had put his “Su-Su on my Su-Su” and whereupon I cried then accused provided with me with chocolate, Rasana and biscuit. Accused left the place. When accused left I had again close the door. Then Anjali came, who called me for playing. I told Anjali, Anjali told Madhu, who further told to Parkash and Parkash told to my parents about the incident as stated above. My parents were late due to work at the shop. Police came at night on the same day. I was taken to hospital by police and my parents. My medical examination was conducted as my Su-Su had gone red. I was injected after checking by the doctor. I have put my thumb impression inside circle ‘A’. My mother has appended her signature inside red circle ‘B’ who was accompanying me at the time of medical examination (objected to on the ground of mode of proof). My medical examination was conducted as my Su-Su had gone red. I was injected after checking by the doctor. I have put my thumb impression inside circle ‘A’. My mother has appended her signature inside red circle ‘B’ who was accompanying me at the time of medical examination (objected to on the ground of mode of proof). Underwear Ex.P-2 is the same one which I was wearing at the time of incident and the same was taken into possession by the doctor during my medical examination. Police visited the spot and photographs mark A-1 to A-4 are of the room where I was present in the room at the time of incident.” 22. Even during the cross-examination statement of prosecutrix is natural, trustworthy and convincing. She had deposed in natural manner. There is nothing on record, on the basis of which, it can be stated that she was tutored or she was deposing to implicate the accused falsely. She had reiterated in her cross-examination that after the incident she had visited the shop of accused to procure chocolate at 7.00 O’clock and had taken chocolate free of cost. She had admitted that even she used to go to shop of accused in day hours. She had admitted that accused was treating her like a child and grand children of accused were college going and grand daughter of accused used to teach her and prosecutrix used to meet everybody in the family of the accused and accused did not meet during tution by his grand daughter and accused had not scolded her. Accused used to come every day to watch news and she used to watch cartoon films. Accused used to come and go, on her switching on cartoon films T.V. She had denied that her parents had asked her to depose against accused rather she had reiterated that she had already knowing her statement. She had further stated that three persons had come at night and had given beating to her father outside but she could not see those persons despite climbing on roof alongwith her mother. She had further stated that accused was not beaten but the son of accused had beaten her father. There is no material contradiction or discrepancies in her statement. 23. PW-3 Smt. Madhu, PW-4 Parkash and PW-12 Pooja were tenants of accused. She had further stated that accused was not beaten but the son of accused had beaten her father. There is no material contradiction or discrepancies in her statement. 23. PW-3 Smt. Madhu, PW-4 Parkash and PW-12 Pooja were tenants of accused. Family of prosecutrix had vacated the house within one month after the incident and had even shifted their place of business to Chandigarh, whereas PW-3 Smt. Madhu, PW-4 Parkash and PW-12 Pooja were tenants of accused at the time of deposition in Court. There was a reason for these witnesses for not lending support to a person who were not residing there and to support a person in whose building they were tenants. Even in absence of corroboration, the conviction can be based upon only sole witness of victim, in case her testimony is found to be cogent, liable, trustworthy and convincing. 24. Accused had taken defence that parents of prosecutrix had received Rs.80,000/- from him as a loan and he had demanding his money back and for that reason he had been implicated in false case to avoid payment of money and pressurizing him. He had examined three witnesses. DW-3 Smt. Vidya Devi is a Civil Ahlmed. She had proved copies of cheques Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-9 amounting to Rs.30,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively, Copies of notice Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-12, memo of dishonouring of cheques Ex.D-4, Ex.D-10 and Ex.D-11, summons Ex.D-6 to Ex.D-8, Ex.D-13 to Ex.D-15 and also copies of order sheet and copy of complaint Ex.D-2. During her cross-examination she had admitted that Ex.PX and Ex.PY were replies to the notices sent to advocate of accused in response to his notices Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-12. She had admitted that date of dishonouring of memos Ex.D-4 and Ex.D-10 is of 1.9.2010. She has also admitted that the presentation of complaint in the Court is 28.10.2010. 25. DW-1 Surjeet had stated that on 21.8.2010 at about 7.00 p.m. accused was standing in his shop then PW-1 Virender Kumar and his wife Sita alongwith 7-8 persons came to his shop and Jhinna Ram had been demanding Rs.80,000/- from Virender Kumar and his wife, which resulted into quarrel and persons accompanying PW-1 Virender Kumar and Sita had started beating accused. He had stated that at 8 p.m., police reached on the spot. The statement of this witness is unbelievable. He had stated that at 8 p.m., police reached on the spot. The statement of this witness is unbelievable. As per him accused has demanded Rs.80,000/- from PW-1 Virender Kumar and Sita when they came on his shop alongwith 7/8 persons and they had immediately started beating to accused meaning thereby the PW-1 Virender Kumar and his wife Sita were knowing that accused was going to demand Rs.80,000/- and therefore, they had already brought 7- 8 persons alongwith them to beat accused and accused was also asking for money when PW-1 Virender Kumar and his wife Sita were being accompanied by 7-8 persons. Moreover, 7-8 persons had beaten accused Jhinna Ram but no corresponding injuries were found on the body of accused nor any case was registered by accused Jhinna Ram against PW-1 Virender Kumar and his wife. 26. DW-2 Rahul Verma had also deposed like DW-1. Both these witnesses are residents of Deonghat i.e. the place of residence of accused. In cross-examination, DW-2 had stated that his house was at a distance of 50 meters from the spot and he reached the spot after hearing noise and he could not tell the cause of quarrel but on reaching at the spot he had learnt that quarrel was relating to money. The accused was demanding money from accused and 2-3 persons were beating accused and some had run away. He remained on spot for 2-3 hours and thereafter quarrel was ended. He had stated that he could not see who gave beatings to whom because it was dark but has again stated that he assumed that beatings might have been given to his uncle i.e. accused because 2-3 persons were carrying dandas with them and the clothes of accused were torn. He had shown his ignorance about attempt to commit rape by accused with daughter of PW-1 Virender Kumar. He had been listening the noise of quarrel for about one hour but nobody came to rescue the accused at that time. 27. Statements of defence witnesses are unbelievable. One DW-1 Surjeet has stated that 7-8 persons were beating accused whereas DW-2 Rahul Verma has stated that 2-3 persons were beating accused and some had run away. As per him, the quarrel had taken place for one hour. Accused was beaten with dandas and his clothes were torn. 27. Statements of defence witnesses are unbelievable. One DW-1 Surjeet has stated that 7-8 persons were beating accused whereas DW-2 Rahul Verma has stated that 2-3 persons were beating accused and some had run away. As per him, the quarrel had taken place for one hour. Accused was beaten with dandas and his clothes were torn. Surprisingly, accused had not lodged any complaint against PW-1 Virender Kumar and his wife Sita nor had he received any injury on his body despite being beaten with dandas by 7-8 persons. 28. From the record produced by accused through DW-3 Smt. Vidya Devi, it was also evident that cheques were dishonoured after the date of incident for direction to stop payment by Sita mother of prosecutrix. Before filing criminal complaint, accused had issued notices to Sita Devi and Sita Devi had replied those notices in detail, clearly stating that the cheques were given in security and an amount of those cheques had already been paid except Rs.10,000/- and the cheques had been presented to pressurize to withdraw the complaint/FIR lodged against accused in present case but the family of prosecutrix had decided not to concede to pressure of accused and his family members. 29. From the cross-examination of PW-2 prosecutrix, it is evident that there were cordial relations amongst the families of prosecutrix and accused. These cordial relations are further evident from the fact that there was a receipt and payment of amounting to Rs.80,000/- and it has also come in evidence that after the incident the family of prosecutrix had shifted their place of business from Solan to Chandigarh. Accused was having cheques in lieu of his money lent to Sita Devi mother of prosecutrix and not repaid by her. Therefore, there was no occasion for him to quarrel with the family of prosecutrix for repayment of amount as accused had cheques with him for recovery of his amount. Accused was having cheques in lieu of his money lent to Sita Devi mother of prosecutrix and not repaid by her. Therefore, there was no occasion for him to quarrel with the family of prosecutrix for repayment of amount as accused had cheques with him for recovery of his amount. From the statement of DW-1 and DW-2 and also surrounding circumstances evident from statements of other witnesses, the defence plea taken by accused has been proved to be false but evidence on record indicates that something had happened on the day of incident which definitely established complaint lodged against accused was neither baseless nor false as it was the case of the prosecution that after knowing about the incident, parents of prosecutrix had approached accused whereupon accused and his son had, at least, pushed PW-1 Virender Kumar and thereafter PW-1 Virender Kumar had informed the police telephonically. 30. In view of above discussion, there is no infirmity, perversity or misreading and mis-appreciation of evidence on record by learned trial Court for convicting accused. However, learned trial Court has failed to impose sentence proportionate to the gravity of offence. Accordingly, Crl. Appeal Nos. 472 of 2012 titled as Jhinna Ram vs. State of H.P. is dismissed, Cr. Appeal No. 110/2013, titled as State of H.P. vs. Jhinna Ram and Cr. Revision No. 235 of 2012, titled as Court on its own motion vs. Jhinna Ram, are accepted. 31. The accused be produced for hearing on quantum of sentence on 31.8.2016. List on 31.8.2016. 32. Registry is directed to prepare production warrant.