Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2488 (HP)

Anil Katoch v. State of H. P.

2016-11-25

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2016
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. This judgment shall dispose of the present appeal (Cr. Appeal No. 567 of 2000), Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2001 and Criminal Revision No. 155 of 2000, arising out of the judgment dated 21.8.2000, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. in Sessions Case No. 40-P/97. 2. It is the convicts, (hereinafter referred to as the accused) who have preferred this appeal in this Court. They both were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, with the allegations that on 19.10.1996 around 10 p.m. at Village Sukarna, in furtherance of their common intention to kill one Arjun Singh Katoch, they assaulted him and he succumbed to the injuries inflicted by both of them and thereby they murdered said Shri Arjun Singh. They, however, were convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala for the commission of offence, punishable under Section 304 (II) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine, each of them has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 6 months. 3. Connected Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2001 has been filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the conviction and sentence of both convicts under Section 304 (II) read with Section 34 IPC instead of under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. 4. If coming to Cr. Appeal No. 155 of 2000, the same has also been preferred against the judgment ibid by Ms. Raman Katoch, the widow of deceased Arjun Singh with a prayer to convict both accused for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and accordingly enhance the sentence passed against each of them. 5. The prosecution case, as disclosed from the report field under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the documents annexed therewith, in a nutshell, is that not only both the accused, but deceased Arjun Singh was also resident of village Nagehar under Police Station, Baijnath, District Kangra. They were cousins in relation. The deceased was working as Branch Manager in a Company, namely Golden Land in its Shimla Office. 6. On 19.10.1996, marriage of a fellow villager namely Nagesh, was being solemnized. They were cousins in relation. The deceased was working as Branch Manager in a Company, namely Golden Land in its Shimla Office. 6. On 19.10.1996, marriage of a fellow villager namely Nagesh, was being solemnized. Deceased Arjun Singh had also gone from Shimla to his village to attend the marriage. The Baraat of Nagesh had to go to village Sukarna. Deceased Arjun Singh and his friend PW-1 Suresh Dhameja, PW-10 Yudhbir Singh, PW9 Yashbir Singh and PW5 Janak Chand also went to village Sukarna as Baraties (member of marriage party) in a Maruti Car bearing registration No.CH1-0J-3572. The deceased and his friends had dinner at the place of bride. Around 10 p.m. after having dinner they planned to come back to their native place, village Nagehar. They all boarded the car. Deceased Arjun Singh was on its wheel. They were hardly 100-150 yards away from the house of bride, when noticed that other Baraties, including both the accused, were dancing on the tune of band and the band party following them. On noticing there being congestion over the road, deceased Arjun Singh stopped the vehicle in one side of the road. He switched off the engine and the lights also. He thereafter came out of the car for answering the call of nature. When he did not come back for about 10-12 minutes, other occupants of the car, including PW-1 Suresh Dhameja, who as a matter of fact, is the complainant in this case, noticed that the deceased was being beaten up by some persons. After some time, the front door of the car was opened by some one, who administered a blow on the hand of PW-1 Suresh Dhameja and also slapped him. He got frightened and fled away towards nearby fields. He hided himself in the bushes there. S/Shri Yudbir Singh, Yashbir Singh and Janak Chand, who were occupying the rear seat of the car, also got frightened and they also fled away. When the people who were present at the spot dispersed, someone started the car of the deceased and the deceased was taken to hospital at Baijnath. The complainant (PW1 Suresh Dhameja) went on foot to the hospital. They noticed the deceased in an injured condition there. They also noticed that blood was oozing out of his mouth, nose and head. When the people who were present at the spot dispersed, someone started the car of the deceased and the deceased was taken to hospital at Baijnath. The complainant (PW1 Suresh Dhameja) went on foot to the hospital. They noticed the deceased in an injured condition there. They also noticed that blood was oozing out of his mouth, nose and head. The deceased was found to have been brought to hospital by one Rani alias Dilwar and Kamal Bhushan in his own car. In the hospital at Baijnath, first aid was given to the deceased. He thereafter was referred to Civil Hospital at Palampur. He was brought in the same car to Palampur. The Medical Officer on duty there, however, had referred the deceased to PGI Chandigarh. While being removed to PGI Chandigarh, he succumbed to the injuries received on his person around 2.30 a.m. on the way to Chandigarh. His dead body was brought back to Baijnath. 7. Consequent upon the information entered in Rapat Rojnamcha Ext.PW17/A of Police Station, Baijnath, police party headed by ASI Roshan Lal PW-17 and comprising HC Uttam Chand, Constable Tilak Raj, Rumal Singh and HHG Rajinder Kumar had already swung into action. They went to the hospital at Baijnath, where the deceased was shifted immediately after the occurrence. 8. Statement of PW-1 Suresh Dhameja to the aforesaid effect was recorded under Section 154 Cr. P.C and on the basis thereof FIR Ext.PW17/B under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against both the accused in Police Station, Baijnath. The investigation was initially conducted by ASI Roshan Lal PW-17. He prepared inquest papers Ext.PW3/A, and made an application Ext.PW2/B for getting the postmortem of the dead body conducted in Sub Divisional Hospital at Palampur. He also got the dead body photographed vide photographs Exts. P-12 to P-18, the negatives whereof are Exts. P-19 to P-25. It is thereafter, he went to the spot and prepared spot map Ext.PW17/C. Blood lying on the spot and broken pieces of wind screen of the car were taken into possession by PW-7. 9. He also got the dead body photographed vide photographs Exts. P-12 to P-18, the negatives whereof are Exts. P-19 to P-25. It is thereafter, he went to the spot and prepared spot map Ext.PW17/C. Blood lying on the spot and broken pieces of wind screen of the car were taken into possession by PW-7. 9. It transpired during the investigation that on seeing the deceased driving his car to his native place after having dinner in the house of the bride and he having stopped the car on seeing the Barateis dancing on the road, both accused shouted on him that he is proud of his having the car and on this they started quarreling with each other. Accused Anil Katoch had given pushes to the deceased on account of which he fell down. Thereafter, both the accused, who happens to be real brothers, administered beatings to him with kicks and fisticuffs. The deceased fell down and became unconscious. It is Rani alias Dilwar and Kamal Bhushan, who took the deceased from the place of occurrence and brought inside the car in an unconscious condition. While the deceased was being removed to Hospital, both accused warned said Shri Rani and Kamal Bhushan to tell the doctor in the hospital that it was a case of an accident and threatened them to meet the same fate had they failed to do so. 10. When the involvement of both the accused established during the investigation of the case, they were arrested at Dehra near Court Campus on 26.10.1996. During their interrogation, they both admitted their involvement in the murder of Arjun Katoch. Accused Anil Katoch, while in custody, made a statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and pursuant to it, identified the place of occurrence to the Police and also got recovered his clothes which he was wearing at the time of occurrence. The clothes of the accused were identified by PW-1 Suresh Dhameja. Investigating Agency recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P.C. The clothes of accused Anil Katoch and that of the deceased were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. As per the report Ext.PX, received from the laboratory, human blood was found available on the clothes of the deceased, whereas blood was not found on the clothes of accused Anil Katoch. 11. P.C. The clothes of accused Anil Katoch and that of the deceased were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. As per the report Ext.PX, received from the laboratory, human blood was found available on the clothes of the deceased, whereas blood was not found on the clothes of accused Anil Katoch. 11. The investigation conducted by the police further reveals that the deceased and the accused are the descendants of a common ancestor. They were quarreling with each other right from the time of their grand father. It is on account of enmity between the families of the accused and the deceased, the accused had shifted from village Nagehar to Bandiankhopa. On account of their enmity, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Palampur in the proceedings under Section 107 Cr. P.c., had released the mother of the accused, Smt. Sayongal, their uncles Shakti Chand and Bideshwari as well as grand father Lal Singh on their personal bonds with the condition to maintain peace and law and be of good behaviour for a period of one year vide order dated 3.10.1972. It is on account of such old enmity, both the accused taking benefit of the occasion of marriage, had beaten up deceased Arjun mercilessly and as a result thereof caused his death. 12. On the completion of the investigation, report under Section 173 Cr. P.C was filed by the Investigating Agency in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala. The case was assigned to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala. 13. As noticed at the outset, learned trial Court after having gone through the Challan and the documents annexed therewith has framed charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against each accused person. Since they pleaded not guilty to the charge, therefore, the prosecution was called upon to produce evidence in order to sustain the charge so framed against the accused persons. 14. PW-1 Suresh Dhameja, is a personal friend of deceased Arjun Singh. It is on the basis of statement Ext.PW1/A, he made under Section 154 Cr. P.C., FIR Ext.PW17/B was registered in Police Station, Baijnath. PW-2 Dr. O.P. Ramdev had examined the deceased in Civil Hospital at Baijnath, where he was brought in an injured condition for medical treatment. 14. PW-1 Suresh Dhameja, is a personal friend of deceased Arjun Singh. It is on the basis of statement Ext.PW1/A, he made under Section 154 Cr. P.C., FIR Ext.PW17/B was registered in Police Station, Baijnath. PW-2 Dr. O.P. Ramdev had examined the deceased in Civil Hospital at Baijnath, where he was brought in an injured condition for medical treatment. He has proved MLR Ext.PW2/A. The endorsement Ext.PW2/B on the application made by the police was also made by this witness. PW-3 Dr. D.S. Chandel has conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased, on an application Ext.PW3/A made by the police for the purpose. This witness has proved postmortem report Ext.PW3/B. He has taken in possession shirt Ext.P2, pants Ext.P3, under-wear Ext.P4, vest Ext.P5, belt Ext.P6, golden ring Ext.P7 and other ring Ext.P8 of the deceased. The same were sealed by him in a parcel. PW-4 Dr. Jyotinder Pal, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Baijnath had examined injured Ranjit Singh vide MLR Ext.PW4/A, injured Pawan Kumar vide MLR Ext.PW4/B and also one Anish Sharma vide MLR Ext.PW4/D. According to him, the injuries mentioned in Exts. PW4/A and PW4/D could have been caused in a scuffle. 15. The star prosecution witness is PW-5 Janak Chand, who has been examined as an eye witness. PW-6 Tarlok Chand, is Patwari, who has prepared the copy of Latha Shajra Ext.PW6/A. PW-7 Ajay Kumar is photographer. He has proved photographs Exts. P-12 to P-18 and the negatives thereof Exts. P-19 to P-25. The remaining witnesses who have also been associated as eye witnesses to the occurrence are PW-8 Yogeshwar Singh, PW-9 Yashbir Singh, PW-10 Yudhbir Singh and PW-11 Sushil Kumar. PW-12 Sanjeet Kumar is running a photo studio at Paprola. This witness had covered the marriage so far as photography and videography are concerned. 16. The other eye witnesses are PW-13 Ranjit, PW-14 Jaswant Kumar, PW-18 Gareesh Sharma and PW-21 Parveen Kumar. The remaining witnesses i.e. PW-15 LHC Dhruv Singh, PW-16 LHC Tilak Raj and PW-19 LHC Trilok Chand are police officials, who remained associated in one way or the other during the investigation of the case. PW-17 ASI Roshan Lal is Investigating Officer of this case. PW-20 Durga Chand is the real brother of deceased Arjun Singh. PW-22 Shakti Chand is the then Inspector/SHO, Police Station, Baijnath, who has investigated the case partly and also filed the Challan in the Court. 17. PW-17 ASI Roshan Lal is Investigating Officer of this case. PW-20 Durga Chand is the real brother of deceased Arjun Singh. PW-22 Shakti Chand is the then Inspector/SHO, Police Station, Baijnath, who has investigated the case partly and also filed the Challan in the Court. 17. On the other hand, the statements of both the accused were also recorded under section 313 Cr. P.C. They, however, not opted for producing any evidence in their defence. 18. Learned trial Judge on appreciation of the evidence available on record and affording due opportunity of being heard to the prosecution as well as the accused, has held both the accused guilty for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and they both have been convicted and sentenced in the manner, as pointed out at the outset. 19. In this appeal, it has been averred that out of 22 witnesses examined by the prosecution to bring guilt home to both accused, none of them has supported the prosecution case and some of them even were declared hostile also. However, irrespective of it, learned trial Court has erroneously convicted the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Section 304 (II) read with Section 34 IPC. The findings recorded by learned trial Court are stated to be against settled principles in criminal administration of justice. Learned trial Court has gravely erred in recording the findings of conviction against convicts solely on the basis of few sentences in the statement of PW-5 Janak Singh, irrespective of the fact that his statement was not reliable because he allegedly tried to save his nephew Ranjit and cousin Raju from their prosecution in this case. Also that as per the prosecution case, the deceased alighted from the Car whereas other occupants remained seated inside. The occurrence was, therefore, not witnessed by anyone as such there was no question of identification of the assailants by either of the witnesses. Therefore, how PW-5 Janak Singh could have seen the accused beating the deceased. The other occupants PW-1 Suresh Kumar, PW-9 Yashbir Singh and PW-10 Yudhbir Singh have categorically stated that since the deceased had alighted from the Car after switching off its engine and lights, therefore, they could not see as to what has happened outside and when someone hit PW-1, they all ran away from the spot. The other occupants PW-1 Suresh Kumar, PW-9 Yashbir Singh and PW-10 Yudhbir Singh have categorically stated that since the deceased had alighted from the Car after switching off its engine and lights, therefore, they could not see as to what has happened outside and when someone hit PW-1, they all ran away from the spot. PW-5 Janak Singh, went to the hospital on the same day. On the next day also, he did not tell anything to the police though remained present in Police Station from 7:30 AM till 2:30 PM. He did not tell anything to the police at the time of prep ration of the inquest report. It is only on 21.10.1996, in the evening, he has improved his version and named the accused as the assailants for the first time. Therefore, his testimony was highly undependable and unreliable and hence could not have been relied upon to record the findings of conviction against the accused. It has, therefore been urged that learned trial Court has convicted both the accused by placing reliance on highly inadmissible evidence. 20. If coming to the connected appeal preferred by the State of Himachal Pradesh, the legality and validity of the impugned judgment has been questioned on the grounds, inter-alia, that the trial Court though has rightly appreciated the evidence in so far as commission of offence is concerned, however, it has gone wrong in holding that only an offence punishable under Section 304 (II) IPC is made out. The evidence available on record clearly establishes that the offence committed by the accused was punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and not under Section 304 (II) IPC. Therefore, the impugned judgment to this extent has been sought to be quashed. The deceased who had been mercilessly beaten up and injuries caused on vital parts of his body, the present was a clear cut case of intention to kill him. Therefore, the accused have allegedly committed his murder. The motive to kill him was old enmity between the two families. The evidence, oral as well as documentary, to this effect was produced by the prosecution. Therefore, it has been urged that the offence committed by both accused is punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and not under Section 304 (II) IPC. 21. The motive to kill him was old enmity between the two families. The evidence, oral as well as documentary, to this effect was produced by the prosecution. Therefore, it has been urged that the offence committed by both accused is punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and not under Section 304 (II) IPC. 21. If coming to Criminal Revision Petition No. 155 of 2000, the grouse of the widow of deceased Arjun Katoch is also similar to that of the State of Himachal Pradesh in Cr. Appeal No. 35 of 2001. As per her version, the only bread winner in the family consisting of herself and three children has been murdered by the accused, therefore, according to her, they are liable to be convicted under Section 302 IPC and not under Section 304(II) IPC. Her husband was beaten up to death mercilessly by both the accused due to enmity and lesser sentence awarded against them according to her neither commensurate with the heinous offence they committed with nor the sentencing policy. Since, learned trial Court has convicted them under Section 304 (II) of the IPC instead of under Section 302 IPC, therefore, it has been urged that while convicting them under Section 302 IPC, in the matter of awarding sentence they both be dealt with sternly. 22. Sh. Anoop Chitkara, Advocate learned counsel representing the accused has vehemently argued that the trial Court has placed reliance on the sole testimony of PW-5 Janak Chand and ignored the evidence as has come on record by way of remaining witnesses, including the complainant PW-1 Suresh Dhameja, the presence of whom on the spot is satisfactorily established and as such according to Mr. Chitkara, learned trial Court has erroneously concluded that a case punishable under Section 304(II) IPC read with Section 34 IPC is made out against them. According to Mr. Chitkara, the present is a case of no evidence and as such no findings of conviction could have been recorded against the accused. Chitkara, learned trial Court has erroneously concluded that a case punishable under Section 304(II) IPC read with Section 34 IPC is made out against them. According to Mr. Chitkara, the present is a case of no evidence and as such no findings of conviction could have been recorded against the accused. It has also been pointed out that as per the prosecution case itself, several persons were present at the place of occurrence and as nothing tangible suggesting the involvement of the accused in the commission of offence has come on record, therefore, it is not safe to place reliance on the sole testimony of PW-5 Janak Chand, who according to learned counsel is a liar and has deposed falsely. 23. On the other hand, Mr. D.S.Nainta, learned Addl. Advocate General, while repelling the arguments addressed on behalf of the accused, has urged that the sole testimony of PW-5 Janak Chand and the attendant surrounding circumstances leave no manner of doubt that the assailants were none else but both the accused. According to Mr. Nainta, both the accused have brutally murdered deceased Arjun Katoch in view of enmity between the two families i.e. the family of the deceased on one hand and that of the accused on the other. It has also been argued that both the accused were liable to be convicted and punished for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and not under Section 304(II) read with Section 34 IPC and as such the trial Court is stated to have misread and misconstrued the evidence while arriving at a conclusion that no case under Section 302 IPC was made out against the accused. It has, therefore, been urged that the judgment to the extent of the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 304(II) IPC read with Section 34 IPC be quashed and set aside with further prayer that both the accused be convicted under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced accordingly. 24. Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate representing the widow of deceased Arjun Katoch in connected Cr. 24. Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate representing the widow of deceased Arjun Katoch in connected Cr. Revision No. 155 of 2000 while adopting the arguments addressed on behalf of the State of H.P. has further urged that the manner in which the deceased has been brutally murdered and a sole bread winner snatched from the members of his family rendering thereby them to starve, the accused may be convicted and sentenced under Section 302 of the IPC. A deterrent sentence has been sought to be passed against both the accused. 25. We have carefully analyzed the rival submissions and also appreciated the entire evidence available on record. 26. Admittedly, the marriage of one Nagesh resident of village Nagehar was scheduled to be held on 19.10.1996 at his native place Nagehar, Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra. The barat of Nagesh had to go to village Sukarna. Bridegroom Nagesh was co-villager of the deceased. The deceased and both accused were successors-in-interest of common ancestor. Both families initially were residing at Village Bandiankhopan, however, on account of enmity, the family of deceased had shifted to Village Nagehar and constructed a house there. The deceased and both convicts as well as witnesses examined by the prosecution in support of its case had attended the barat of aforesaid Nagesh and they were present at the place of bride i.e. village Sukarna. 27. If coming to the prosecution case, the deceased was accompanied by his friends PW-1 Suresh Dhameja, PW-5 Janak Chand, PW-9 Yashbir Singh, PW-10 Yudhbir Singh and one Suresh Kumar Kapoor his servant. They had reached well before the arrival of barat at the place of bride. Not only this, but they also had their dinner before the baratis who reached later on in barat there. The complainant in this case is PW-1 Suresh Dhameja. He was residing at that time at Shimla. Since the deceased was also working as Branch Manager in a Company, namely, Golden Land at Shimla, therefore, they both were known to each other. It is, in this background, PW-1 Suresh Dhameja also accompanied the deceased to his native place village Nagehar in Tehsil Baijnath, Distt. Kangra and attended the barat with him at village Sukarna, the bride’s native place. 28. PW-1 Suresh Dhameja, in his statement Ext. It is, in this background, PW-1 Suresh Dhameja also accompanied the deceased to his native place village Nagehar in Tehsil Baijnath, Distt. Kangra and attended the barat with him at village Sukarna, the bride’s native place. 28. PW-1 Suresh Dhameja, in his statement Ext. PW- 1/A recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. has reported to the police that after having dinner they started their return journey to village Nagehar around 10:00 PM. While at a distance of 200 yards from the house of bride, they noticed barat proceeding towards her house and baratis in good number dancing on the tune of the band. Finding the road congested at that place, Arjun Stopped his Maruti Car bearing No. CH-01-J-3572 on road side and not only switched off its engine but also the lights in order to give safe passage to the procession. He himself opened the door and alighted from the Car to answer the call of nature. He, however, did not come back for 10-12 minutes. There was lot of commotion behind the Car. On this, he peeped out from the door of Car and noticed that out of the persons in procession/barat, few of them were beating the deceased. After some time, someone came near the window of front seat where he was sitting and gave a blow on his head on the back side and also slapped him twice or thrice. On this, he had fled away from the Car and hided himself in nearby fields. Later on, the occupants of the rear seat had also fled away from the Car. When the crowd in procession dispersed, that very car was started by someone and deceased was removed to the hospital at Baijnath in injured condition. He accompanied by PW-5 Janak Chand, PW-9 Yashbir Singh and PW-10 Yudhbir Singh also went to the hospital at Baijnath on foot and noticed the deceased lying there in injured condition and blood was oozing out from his nose, mouth and also the head. He was brought to hospital by Rani @ Dilawar, Kamal Bhushan and Om Prakash. The doctor on duty provided first medical aid to the deceased and he was referred to Sub Divisional Hospital, Palampur for further treatment. The doctor on duty there referred the deceased to PGI, Chandigarh. He, however, died on the way to PGI, Chandigarh around 2:30-3:00 AM on 20.10.1996. The doctor on duty provided first medical aid to the deceased and he was referred to Sub Divisional Hospital, Palampur for further treatment. The doctor on duty there referred the deceased to PGI, Chandigarh. He, however, died on the way to PGI, Chandigarh around 2:30-3:00 AM on 20.10.1996. It was reported by PW-1 Suresh Dhameja that Arjun died on account of the injuries he sustained in the occurrence. He requested the appellants to enquire from the baratis about the occurrence. He, however, refused for his own medical examination as no visible injuries were on his person. It is, on the basis of this statement, FIR Ext. PW- 17/B was registered in PS Baijnath and the police swung into action. 29. Besides the complainant PW-1 Suresh Dhameja, the prosecution has examined PW-5 Janak Chand another occupant of the car of the deceased, PW-8 Yogeshwar Singh, a witness to the inquest papers Ext. PW-3-A, PW-9 Yashbir Singh and PW-10 Yudhbir Singh who were also travelling in the same car being driven by the deceased. PW-11 Sushil Kumar, a member of band party, PW-13 Ranjt, PW-14 Jaswant Kumar, PW-18 Girish Sharma and PW-21 Parveen Kumar, who being in barat were present at the place of bride at village Sukarna. PW-20 Durga Chand is the elder brother of deceased Arjun Katoch. The remaining witnesses i.e. PW-6 Tarlok Chand Patwari Patwar Circle Bahi, PW-7 Ajay Kumar photographer and PW-12 Sanjeet Kumar another photographer are formal. The remaining prosecution witnesses PW-17 ASI Roshan Lal and PW-22 Insp. Shakti Chand are police officials who remained associated in one way or the other during the course of investigation of the case, hence formal. PW-17 ASI Roshan Lal has conducted the investigation of this case partly and partly by PW-22 Insp. Shakti Chand, the then Insp./SHO PS Baijnath. 30. The statements of both the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C have also been recorded. They have denied the entire prosecution case for want of knowledge or being incorrect. They both pleaded in their defence that they have been implicated by the police in a false case. 31. There cannot be any dispute qua the presence of both accused and the deceased as well as witnesses aforesaid at village Sukarna, as they had gone to attend the barat of one Nagesh. They both pleaded in their defence that they have been implicated by the police in a false case. 31. There cannot be any dispute qua the presence of both accused and the deceased as well as witnesses aforesaid at village Sukarna, as they had gone to attend the barat of one Nagesh. There cannot also be any quarrel so as to vital injuries present on the person of deceased he sustained after alighting from the Car. There cannot also be any dispute qua deceased Arjun Katoch succumbed to injuries he received on the way to PGI Chandigarh. 32. According to PW-1 Suresh Dhameja when he saw behind from the window of the Car, he found that quarrel was going on behind the Car. Few persons were giving beatings to deceased Arjun Katoch. In the meantime, somebody came and gave him fist blows. That person also gave him 3-4 slaps. PW-1 Suresh Dhameja since ran away from the spot and hided himself in fields situate nearby, therefore, nothing has come in his statement as to who were the assailants and rightly so because he had no occasion to witness as to who were administering beatings to the deceased. Similarly, PW-9 Yashbir Singh and PW-10 Yudhbir Singh who were other occupants of the car while in the witness-box have not stated anything that it is the accused who were the assailants and rather as per their version, being pitch dark, they could not witness the occurrence. As per the version of PW-9 Yashbir Singh, 40-50 persons were dancing on the tune of band whereas as per PW-10 Yudhbir Singh, the number of such persons was 20-25. If coming to the testimony of PW-11 Sushil Kumar, a member of the band party, he admitted that both the accused were also in procession. While few baratis had left for dinner, the remaining 15-20 were dancing on the band which the band party was playing. The time was 10:00 PM when a Car approached them. The Car was stopped and as the band party left for the place of bride, therefore, nothing happened in their presence. Likewise, PW-9 Yashbir Singh and PW-10 Yudhbir Singh, PW-11 Sushil Kumar is also turned hostile to the prosecution. The time was 10:00 PM when a Car approached them. The Car was stopped and as the band party left for the place of bride, therefore, nothing happened in their presence. Likewise, PW-9 Yashbir Singh and PW-10 Yudhbir Singh, PW-11 Sushil Kumar is also turned hostile to the prosecution. They all have been cross-examined at length by learned Public Prosecutor, however, their testimony that they have not witnessed the occurrence nor seen the accused administering beatings to the deceased remained un-shattered. 33. According to PW-13 Ranjit, he was having dinner when he heard about some quarrel having taken place. He had neither visited the place of occurrence nor the deceased was beaten by the accused in his presence. Similar is the version of PW-14 Jaswant Kumar. According to him, though he was present in the procession/barat and on a call to baratis to have dinner, he had gone to have dinner and nothing happened in his presence nor the deceased was beaten up by the accused in his presence. PW-13 Ranjit and PW-14 Jaswant Kumar were also allowed to be cross-examined by learned Public Prosecutor, however, nothing lending support to the prosecution case, could be elicited from their testimony. 34. Another witness PW-18 Girish Sharma, while admitting the presence of Arjun Katoch, the deceased and both the accused at village Sukarna in connection with marriage of Nagesh, has also denied any quarrel or occurrence having taken place in his presence because as per his version, he had already gone to have dinner. Therefore, the baratis present at village Sukarna in connection with marriage of Nagesh and cited as witnesses except for PW-5 Janak Chand have supported the prosecution case that it is the accused persons who have beaten up the deceased with kicks as well as inflicted fist blows and thereby caused multiple injuries, grievous in nature on his person. 35. It is seen that learned trial Court in order to record the findings of conviction against both the accused has heavily relied upon the sole testimony of PW-5 Janak Chand. 35. It is seen that learned trial Court in order to record the findings of conviction against both the accused has heavily relied upon the sole testimony of PW-5 Janak Chand. Interestingly enough, in case PW-5 Janak Chand had witnessed that it were the accused, the assailants and administered beatings to the deceased, it is not understandable as to why he did not disclose so to the police at the first available opportunity i.e. on 19.10.1996 itself in the hospital at Baijnath, where he had gone with PW-1 Suresh Dhameja and as per the evidence available on record, the police of PS Baijnath had also arrived there by that time. Neither other occupants of the Car i.e. PW-1 Suresh Dhameja, PW-5 Janak Chand, PW-9 Yashbir Singh, PW-10 Yudhbir Singh nor other baratis were examined by the prosecution who could have corroborated the testimony of PW-5 Janak Chand to the effect that it is the accused who have administered beatings to the deceased. His testimony rather stands fully contradicted from that of other occupants of the car i.e. PW-1 Suresh Dhameja, PW-5 Janak Chand, PW-9 Yashbir Singh, PW-10 Yudhbir Singh and one Suresh Kumar Kapoor. PW-1 Suresh Dhameja has even not been declared hostile nor cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW-17 ASI Roshan Lal met in Civil Hospital Baijnath with all the occupants of car, including PW-5 Janak Chand, however, none of them including this witness had revealed to PW-17 ASI Roshan Lal that it is the accused who had been quarrelling with the deceased and administered beatings to him. The statement of PW-1 Suresh Dhameja was recorded on the following morning i.e. on 20.10.1996 around 7:00 AM, after the death of Arjun Katoch, early in the morning i.e. at 2:30-3:00 AM. The police had also interrogated PW-5 Janak Chand, PW-9 Yashbir Singh and PW-10 Yudhbir Singh, however, it was not revealed by either of them that the assailants were the accused. PW-1 Suresh Dhameja has also not disclosed in his statement Ext. PW-1/A that the accused were the assailants. PW-5 Janak Chand is a witness to the inquest papers Ext. PW-3/A, however, at that time also, he did not inform the police that the assailants were the accused. He is also one of the signatory to the inquest papers. 36. PW-1 Suresh Dhameja has also not disclosed in his statement Ext. PW-1/A that the accused were the assailants. PW-5 Janak Chand is a witness to the inquest papers Ext. PW-3/A, however, at that time also, he did not inform the police that the assailants were the accused. He is also one of the signatory to the inquest papers. 36. The prosecution evidence reveals that it was during the night intervening 20-21.10.1996, PW-5 Janak Chand for the first time introduced the story that he had seen the accused quarrelling with deceased Arjun Katoch. This story to the reasons best known to the prosecution and for that matter to PW-5 Janak Chand, also is false and concocted in view of the reasons, as discussed hereinabove. When, as per the prosecution case itself, the deceased had not only turned off the engine but also switched off the head lights of the car and alighted alone there from to urinate, no doubt, the occupants of the car observed commotion at backside of the car. However, when PW-1 Suresh Dhameja was assaulted by un-identified persons, who even tried to damage the car also, all the occupants of the car alighted from it and ran away for their safety. The deceased was removed to hospital by Rani @ Dilawar, Kamal Bhushan and Om Prakash. They have not been cited as witnesses by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. 37. If coming to the testimony of PW-2 Dr. O.P. Ramdev, who had examined the deceased in CH Baijnath, aforesaid Rani @ Dilawar, Kamal Bhushan and Om Prakash had disclosed that deceased had received injuries in a road accident. It is these three persons, who could have supplied some authentic and material information qua the manner in which the incident sparked off or the deceased received injuries in an accident. However, as already pointed out, the prosecution to the reasons best known to it has withheld them from the Court. In such circumstances, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution. 38. As noticed hereinabove, the police and all occupants of the car, including PW-5 Janak Chand had reached in the hospital at Baijnath. That was the earliest opportunity to PW-5 Janak Chand to have disclosed to the police that he had seen accused quarrelling with the deceased. In such circumstances, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution. 38. As noticed hereinabove, the police and all occupants of the car, including PW-5 Janak Chand had reached in the hospital at Baijnath. That was the earliest opportunity to PW-5 Janak Chand to have disclosed to the police that he had seen accused quarrelling with the deceased. No explanation, whatsoever, is forthcoming to show as to why their statements, including that of PW-5 Janak Chand were not recorded at the earliest possible occasion which was available to the police. The testimony of PW-5 Janak Chand that he could only identify the accused and not other baratis is highly unbelievable for the reason that being a co-villager, how it can be said that he could not identify the remaining 20-25 baratis and that too his co-villagers. His testimony to the effect that other occupants except for PW-1 Suresh Dhameja also alighted from the car and PW-1 Suresh Dhameja came to them with a complaint that somebody had administered beatings to him seems to be false because in view of the testimony of PW-1 Suresh Dhameja, PW-9 Yashbir Singh, PW-10 Yudhbir Singh, they all were sitting in the car when PW-1 Suresh Dhameja was assaulted by someone from behind. It is rather they all ran away from the spot to save their lives. The time being 10:00 PM, it can reasonably be believed that there was complete darkness, how PW-5 Janak Chand could have identified the accused persons alone to be the assailants, particularly when as per the prosecution case, the engine and lights of the car were turned off by the deceased before alighting therefrom. The testimony of PW-5 Janak Chand that no one including him intervened in the fight between the accused persons and deceased could also not be believed for the reason that in case deceased was being beaten up by two persons i.e. accused in the presence of 20- 25 persons, in ordinary course of circumstances, someone would have come forward for his rescue. This witness seems to have made a tutored version while in the witness-box. This witness seems to have made a tutored version while in the witness-box. The story, he introduced, while in the witness-box that when Arjun Katoch stopped the Car, it was accused Anil Katoch who came nearer to him and started altercation with the deceased and it was on this score the deceased alighted from the car after turning off its engine and lights, is also far fetched because as per the own case of the prosecution, the car was stopped by the deceased on seeing baratis in a procession proceeding while singing and dancing towards the house of bride and there being congestion on the road at that place, he turned off the engine and also lights and then alighted from the car to call of nature and not after having altercation with accused Anil Katoch. 39. When the occurrence had taken place behind the car in complete darkness, how PW-5 Janak Chand who sitting in the car on seeing PW-1 Suresh Dhameja was assaulted by someone, ran away with other occupants to save their lives could have witnessed that it is the accused who were assailants and had beaten the deceased. The testimony of this witness that he was standing at a distance of 15 yards from the place of occurrence is again far fetched and not corroborated by any other and further evidence available on record. It is again far fetched that this witness could have identified a person up to a distance of 60-65 meters and that too when as per his own version it was not a full moonlit night nor he could see the moon. His testimony that when they returned to the spot Arjun was found to be taken to hospital by someone reveals that he had also ran away from the spot to save his life along with other occupants of the car and as such he had no occasion to witness that deceased was being beaten by the accused. PW-1 Suresh Dhameja has also stated that when he came out of the place where he had hided himself, the other occupants of vehicle, including PW-5 Janak Chand also met him and they all went to the hospital. Interestingly enough, the alleged history of road side accident given to PW-2 Dr. PW-1 Suresh Dhameja has also stated that when he came out of the place where he had hided himself, the other occupants of vehicle, including PW-5 Janak Chand also met him and they all went to the hospital. Interestingly enough, the alleged history of road side accident given to PW-2 Dr. O.P. Ramdev by Rani @ Dilawar, Kamal Bhushan and Om Prakash remained unchallenged as the prosecution did not dispute the same at any stage during the course of trial. 40. The intimation to the police was given by PW-2 Dr. O.P. Ramdev at 10:45 PM over phone. The same was entered in daily diary vide Ext. PW-17/A and the police party led by PW-17 ASI Roshan Lal reached in the hospital at Baijnath. When all the occupants of the car, including PW-5 Janak Chand were present in the hospital at that time, this witness did not disclose to the police that he had seen the accused quarrelling with the deceased. He himself admitted the presence of police in the hospital well before their arrival. PW-17 ASI Roshan Lal has admitted in his cross-examination that when he reached in hospital, PW-1 Suresh Dhameja, Dilawar and Janak Chand were present there. PW-9 Yashbir Singh and PW-10 Yudhbir Singh also reached there, however, neither of them disclosed the manner in which the occurrence had taken place nor he recorded their statements. He admitted that when the statement of PW-1 Suresh Dhameja Ext. PW-1/A was recorded, Janak Chand was also present there. Had it been so, this witness could have revealed to the police that the assailants were the accused persons. The statement of PW-5 Janak Chand, therefore, seems to be recorded after due deliberation. In case the evidence as has come on record by way of his testimony is excluded, there hardly remains any evidence to implicate both the accused in the commission of the offence. Further testimony of PW-5 Janak Chand that he did not disclose the manner in which the occurrence had taken place at 7-7:30 AM on 20.10.1996 when interrogated by the police, when the inquest papers were prepared at 2-2:30 PM nor when the post mortem of the dead body was conducted in the hospital due to afraid of from accused Anil Katoch who is an Advocate and Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat as well as a Judo crate player is unbelievable. PW-5 Janak Chand, in our considered opinion, has rather made a false statement in the Court. PW-5 Janak Chand even did not disclose the manner in which the occurrence took place to anyone also because PW-8 Yogeshwar Singh has admitted while in the witness-box that PW-5 Janak Chand did not disclose anything even to him also. 41. Taking into consideration the entire gamut, the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sat Paul vs. Delhi Administration, 1976 (1) SCC 727 , relied upon by Mr. Chitkara, learned counsel is fully attracted in the given facts and circumstances of this case and as such it would not be improper to place reliance upon the testimony of eyewitnesses who turned hostile, including that of PW-1 Suresh Dhameja that no one could witness that it is the accused who had administered beatings to the deceased. The relevant text of the judgment reads as under: “51. From the above conspectus, it emerges clear that even in a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the court, by the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of law, be treated as Washed off the record altogether. It is for the Judge of fact to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. If the Judge finds that in the process, the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken, he may, after reading and considering the evidence of the witness, as a whole, with due caution and care, accept, in the light of the other evidence on the record, that part of his testimony which he finds to be creditworthy and act upon it. If in a given case, the whole of the testimony of the witness is impugned, and in the process, the witness stands squarely and totally discredited, the Judge should, as matter of prudence, discard his evidence in toto.” 42. If in a given case, the whole of the testimony of the witness is impugned, and in the process, the witness stands squarely and totally discredited, the Judge should, as matter of prudence, discard his evidence in toto.” 42. The ratio of the judgment again that of the Apex court in Ganesh Bhavan Patel vs. State of Maharashtra, 1978 (4) SCC 371 , is also fully attracted in the case in hand because here also the I.O. has miserably failed to take down the statements, at least, of the occupants of the car at the earliest opportunity available to him and thereby rendered the entire prosecution story highly doubtful. The relevant text of the judgment reads as follows: “15. As noted by the Trial Court, one unusual feature which projects its shadow on the evidence of P.Ws., Welji, Pramila and Kuvarbai and casts a serious doubt about their being eyewitnesses of the occurrence, is the undue delay on the part of the investigating officer in recording their statements. Although these witnesses were or could be available for examination when the investigating officer visited the scene of occurrence or soon thereafter, their statements under Section 161 Cr. P.C. were recorded on the following day. Welji (P.W. 3) was examined at 8 a.m., Pramila at 9.15 or 9.30 a.m., and Kuvarbai at 1 p.m. delay of a few hours, simpliciler, in recording the statements of eyewitnesses may not, by itself, amount to a serious infirmity in the prosecution case. But it may assume such a character if there are concomitant circumstances to suggest that the investigator was deliberately marking time with a view to decide about the shape to be given to the case and the eyewitnesses to be introduced. A catena of circumstances which lend such significance to this delay, exists in the instant case.” 43. Coming to the instant case, in view of the evidence having come on record by way of the testimony of PW-1 Suresh Dhameja, PW-9 Yashbir Singh, PW-10 Yudhbir Singh, PW-11 Sushil Kumar, PW-12 Sanjeet Kumar, PW-13 Ranjit and PW-14 Jaswant Kumar, no one could witness that the accused were the assailants and caused fatal blows on the person of the deceased leading to his death. PW-5 Janak Chand is a liar and in view of the discussion hereinabove, his testimony that it is the accused who were the assailants and administered beatings to the deceased, being not corroborated by any other independent source, cannot be believed to be true by any stretch of imagination. The prosecution rather has made an effort to engineer a false case against the accused by examining this witness. It is, therefore, not at all proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the assailants were the accused alone and none else. In the criminal administration of justice, the findings of conviction can only be based on cogent, reliable and clinching evidence, which in the present case is lacking. Learned trial Court was not at all justified in placing reliance on the sole testimony of PW-5 Janak Chand while recording the findings of conviction against the accused. The present rather, in our considered opinion, is a case of no evidence. 44. If coming to the another aspect of the prosecution story that both the accused have beaten up the deceased to death on account of enmity between the two families, the prosecution has examined PW-20 Durga Chand, who is brother of the deceased. As per his version, both accused are sons of his real Uncle. They were not having cordial relations with the accused persons from the very beginning because of quarrelsome nature of their family. PW-5 Janak Chand has also admitted in his cross-examination that the accused were not having cordial relations with the deceased and his brothers nor were on speaking terms. He, however, has expressed his inability to tell that it was due to old enmity, PW-20 Durga Chand and his brother Ranvir had manipulated a false case against the accused. It is pertinent to note that the relations between the two families seems to be inimical, however, it cannot be said that the accused have killed the deceased due to enmity and rather as per the settled legal principles, the enmity is a double edged weapon and as such the possibility of the accused having been implicated in a false case by PW-20 Durga Chand and other relations of the deceased cannot be ruled out. 45. 45. Undue weightage should not have been given by the learned trial Court to the alleged recovery of the clothes of accused Anil Katoch from the place of his in-laws for the reason that this part of the prosecution case has also not been satisfactorily proved. True it is that PW-5 Janak Chand and the I.O. PW-22 Insp. Shakti Chand have deposed about the recovery of the clothes Ext. P-9 to P-12 at the behest of accused Anil Katoch, however, nothing tangible has come on record to show that these clothes were blood stained and the blood, if any, thereon was of the same group as that of the deceased. Even if the blood stains were there on the clothes, the same could have been of the own blood of the said accused as one can receive injury on his person in ordinary course of circumstances also. Above all, no evidence has come on record to show that it were the same clothes worn by accused Anil Katoch at the time of so called occurrence. No witness from the place of the in-laws of accused Anil Katoch was associated at the time of alleged recovery of the clothes. This Court in Randhir Singh alias Tira and others vs. State of H.P., 2007 (2) SLC 294, has emphasized for the necessity of association of independent witnesses from the locality at the time of recovery. Above all, the report of Forensic Science Laboratory Ext. PX is inconclusive for want of the findings that the blood found on these clothes was of same person. It is also not the case of the prosecution that accused Anil Katoch has also received injuries on his person in the occurrence. The scientific officer who has prepared the report has not been examined. Therefore, the report is not admissible in evidence, being hit by the provisions contained under Section 293 Cr.P.C. The Apex Court in Kansa Behera vs. State of Orissa, 1987(3) SCC 480 , a case where no evidence in the report of serologist about the group of blood was found during analysis of blood stained shirt/dhoti recovered at the instance of the accused, has held that on the basis of such recovery, the accused cannot be connected with the commission of the offence. The relevant text of this judgment reads as under: “11. The relevant text of this judgment reads as under: “11. As regards the recovery of a shirt or a dhoti with blood stains which according to the serologist report were stained with human blood but there is no evidence in the report of the serologist about the group of the blood and therefore it could not positively be connected with the deceased. In the evidence of the Investigating Officer or in the report, it is not clearly mentioned as to what were the dimensions of the stains of blood. Few small blood stains on the cloths of a person may even be of his own blood especially if it is a villager putting on these clothes and living in villages. The evidence about the blood group is only conclusive to connect the blood stains with the deceased. That evidence is absent and in this view of the matter, in our opinion, even this is not a circumstance on the basis of which any inference could be drawn.” 46. Similar is the ratio of the judgments of this Court in State of H.P. vs. Edward Samual Chareton, 2000 (2) Shim. L.C. 228, and Ajay Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2002 (3) Sim.L.C. 329. 47. When PW-1 Suresh Dhameja, while in the witness-box, has expressed his inability to tell the number of persons who allegedly were giving beatings to the deceased and as per that of PW-3 Dr. D.S.Chandel in his cross-examination that the injuries on the person of the deceased can possibly be sustained in an attack by mob whereas as per that of PW-2 Dr. O.P. Ramdev such injuries are possible by fist blows and kicks, the possibility of the deceased having been thrashed and assaulted by the mob cannot be ruled out. The perusal of Ext. PW-4/C reveals that Anish was one of the material witness in this case, however, he has been withheld and as such an adverse inference under Section 114 G of the Indian Evidence Act can be drawn against the prosecution on this score also. As per the own evidence produced by the prosecution, the injuries were there on the person of Ranjit Singh (PW-13), Pawan Kumar and Anish Sharma, corresponding to the period of scuffle with Arjun Singh deceased. They were medically examined by PW-4 Dr. Jyotindra Pal vide MLRs Ext. As per the own evidence produced by the prosecution, the injuries were there on the person of Ranjit Singh (PW-13), Pawan Kumar and Anish Sharma, corresponding to the period of scuffle with Arjun Singh deceased. They were medically examined by PW-4 Dr. Jyotindra Pal vide MLRs Ext. PW-4/A and PW-4/B, the possibility that they were got medically examined on account of police having suspected their involvement in the scuffle cannot be ruled out. Their medical examination vide Ext. PW- 4/A and PW-4/B find support from the testimony of PW-4 Dr. Jyotinder Pal. 48. According to PW-18 Girish Sharma, Ranjit Singh, Pawan Kumar, Kaku, Anish and K.K. Thakur had also attended the barat. PW-5 Janak Chand is the brother of Ranjit Singh aforesaid. PW-5 Janak Chand has expressed his ignorance that Raju and Ranjit were also among those baratis who were singing and dancing. According to him, he had not stated so in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He, however, when confronted with portion F to F of his statement Ext. PW-5/D it was found recorded therein that Raju and Ranjit had also attended the marriage. He has admitted that Ranjit is his real brother whereas Raju the son of his real Uncle. Though, the suggestion that it was Raju and Ranjit who were the main culprits having given beatings to Arjun Katoch is denied being wrong by PW-5 Janak Chand. However, the possibility of the said accused having deposed falsely to save both Raju and Ranjit from their prosecution in this case cannot be ruled out. The plea in defence raised by the accused to this effect appears to be nearer to the factual position. 49. Therefore, in view of the above, the prosecution story that the accused had mercilessly administered beatings to deceased and killed him on account of old enmity and that the recovery of clothes at the instance of accused Anil Katoch connect them with the commission of the offence also not substantiate the findings of conviction recorded against both the accused. On the other hand, as pointed out hereinabove, neither of the witness implicate the accused persons in the commission of the offence. It is, PW-5 Janak Chand, who alone has deposed against them. The possibility of he having deposed falsely to save his brother Ranjit and cousin Raju, in view of the detailed discussion hereinabove, can’t also be ruled out. 50. It is, PW-5 Janak Chand, who alone has deposed against them. The possibility of he having deposed falsely to save his brother Ranjit and cousin Raju, in view of the detailed discussion hereinabove, can’t also be ruled out. 50. Therefore, examining the prosecution case from any angle, no case either under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC or for that matter under Section 304(II) read with Section 34 IPC is made out against either of the accused. In our considered opinion, learned trial Court has went wrong and recorded the findings of conviction against them erroneously on the basis of the sole testimony of PW-5 Janak Chand. Being so, what to speak of the conviction and sentence of both the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, as claimed by the State of H.P. in connected Cr. Appeal No. 35 of 2001 as well as by Smt. Raman Katoch widow of deceased Arjun Katoch in Cr. Revision No. 155 of 2000, no case is made out against the accused persons and they as such deserves to be acquitted from the charge framed against each of them. 51. In view of what has been said hereinabove, Cr. Appeal No. 567 of 2000 succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 21.8.2000 is quashed and set aside and both the accused are acquitted of the charge framed against each of them. Connected Cr. Appeal No. 35 of 2001 filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh and Cr. Revision No. 155 of 2000 filed by Smt. Raman Katoch, being devoid of any merit are hereby dismissed. Consequently, personal bonds executed by both the accused are cancelled and sureties discharged.