JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar, J.—This criminal appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 11.10.1983 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar in S.T. No. 351 of 1981, convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 302 IPC read with Sections 149 IPC to life imprisonment and under Section 452 IPC to two years imprisonment. Appellants Suleman and Faiz Mohammad were also convicted under Section 148 IPC to 1 and 1/2 years R.I. and Sher Mohammad and Islam were convicted under Sections 147 IPC to one year R.I. 2. To appreciate the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be expedient to go through the facts of this case. 3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that in the intervening night of 17/18.6.1981 at about 2 O’ clock while informant Murtaza and his sister Mustufai were sleeping in the house and other family members were sleeping in Sehan of the house, appellants Faiz Mohammad, Sher Mohammad sons of Ahsan Ali, Suleman and Islam sons of Mushtaq and one unknown person entered the house. Appellant Suleman was armed with a gun whereas Faiz Mohammad with a country made pistol and other appellants with lathis. Informant and his sister Mustufai were sleeping at that time. Mustafai’s cot was beside the cot of his brother Murtaza. Hearing footsteps of the appellants, Murtaza awoke and seeing this the appellants started firing upon them. The fire hit his sister Mustafai and she died instantaneously. Hearing the noise of fire-arms informant’s brother Ziaul Hasan and his wife Rabia who were sleeping outside the house awoke and they tried to intercept, the appellants assaulted Ziaul Hasan and his wife Rabia with lathis and ran away towards the west of the house. The informant raised alarm upon which his family members and other village people came there and saw the accused appellants running outside the house. While doing so, they left a lathi and some live cartridges in the house. The incident was witnessed by the informant, his family members as well as other persons of the village. The report of incident was promptly lodged at police station Kotwali, Muzaffarnagar immediately the same day at 4.15 in early morning and was registered as Case Crime No. 644 of 1981 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452 and 302 IPC at Police station Kotwali, Muzaffarnagar. The report of incident was promptly lodged at police station Kotwali, Muzaffarnagar immediately the same day at 4.15 in early morning and was registered as Case Crime No. 644 of 1981 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452 and 302 IPC at Police station Kotwali, Muzaffarnagar. The investigating officer reached the spot with police personnel and made thorough inspection of the entire place of occurrence and prepared the site plan. Panchanama of the dead body was carried out and fard recovery of live cartridges, lathis and blood-stained ‘khesh’ (Dulai) etc. was made in presence of the witnesses. Injured Ziaul Hasan and Rabia were sent to medical examination. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against accused appellants before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate who took cognizance on the charge-sheet and committed the case to sessions Court for trial of accused appellants. Charges were framed by the trial Court against the accused appellants under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452 and 302 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To prove its case the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses, namely, PW-1 Murtaza, PW-2 Ziaul Hasan, PW-3 Sub Inspector Ram Kishor, PW-4 Dr. D.P. Arora, PW-5 Constable Ram Jent Singh, PW-6 Dr. R.K. Tandon and PW-7 S.K.Sharma who is a record keeper in the Police Office. After the prosecution evidence was over, statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded by the trial Court. DW-1 Dr. (Smt.) Amita Gupta and DW-2 Mohd. Yameen alias Yaseen were examined as defence witnesses. Analysis of evidence is as follows : 5. PW-1 Murtaza, brother of deceased Mustafai is an eye-witness, who has lodged the First Information Report of the incident, has supported the entire prosecution case and stated that at the time of incident he was sleeping on a cot and the deceased Mustafai was also sleeping in the room on a cot beside the cot of the informant. He has also proved the report as Ext.1 of the case. 6. PW-2 Ziaul Hasan is also the brother of deceased Mustafai who at the relevant time was sleeping outside the room in which the deceased was murdered. He claims to be the eye-witness of the incident and has fully supported the entire prosecution story. 7. PW-3 Ram Kishore, Sub Inspector, is the Investigating Officer. He is a formal witness. 6. PW-2 Ziaul Hasan is also the brother of deceased Mustafai who at the relevant time was sleeping outside the room in which the deceased was murdered. He claims to be the eye-witness of the incident and has fully supported the entire prosecution story. 7. PW-3 Ram Kishore, Sub Inspector, is the Investigating Officer. He is a formal witness. His testimony relates with police papers and has proved the chik FIR Ex.Ka2, copy of the G.D. Ex.Ka3, prepared panchanama Ex.Ka-4, photo lash Ex.Ka-5, challan lash Ex.Ka-6, letter C.M.O. Ex.Ka-7, letter R.I. Ex.Ka-8, carried spot inspection and prepared site plan Ex.Ka-9. Further stated that he prepared the fard recovery of simple and blood stained soil which is Ex.Ka-10, fard of empty cartridges Ex.Ka-11. He also recovered six live cartridges, lathi and blood-stained khes and prepared the memo of recovery which is Ex.Ka-12, clothes of the complainant Ex.Ka-13 and after completion of the investigation submitted a charge-sheet which is Ex.Ka-14. 8. PW-4 is Dr. D.P. Arora who conducted the post-mortem examination of the corpus of deceased Mustafai at about 4 p.m. on the same day and has submitted post-mortem report Ex.Ka-15. The relevant points of which are as under : “1.Gun short wound of cavity 2” x 1/2" right side of middle part of neck with blackening, scorching & tattooing present. This injury is going medially through the Trachea & blood vessels crushed. Multiple metallic shots are present in the (Sic) muscular region. 2. Gun shot would of cavity 1" x 1" blackening, scorching & tattooing present around it in the epigastric region 4-1/2" alone the umbilicus at its middle portion. The right side of the Serum has been punctured, lacerated and crushed. Internal examination ij Ikk;k fd brain fd Qfo;k congested Fkh peritoneum at the middle part of abdomen has puferated. The stomach of the diet was empty. Small intestines were half full & large intestine also half full the gall bladder was half full and the right lobe of the serum was lacerated & punctured and multiple metallic shots were recorded from the serum. Uterus was non grooved (sic); the cause of death was due to shock & haemorrhage as a result of gun shot injuries mentioned above. Uterus was non grooved (sic); the cause of death was due to shock & haemorrhage as a result of gun shot injuries mentioned above. e`rd dh ekSr dks djhc 1@2 fnu gqvk Fkk bldh fjiksVZ d&15 eSus mlh le; rS;kj dh Fkh tks esjs ys[k gLrk{kj esa gS bl e`rd dh ekSr 17@18-6-81 dh jkr esa 2 cts dh gks ldrh gSA 9. PW-5 Ram Gent Singh Constable, who is a formal witness, stated that he brought the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem examination. 10. PW-6 Dr. R.K. Tandon has examined Smt. Rabia and Zamil @ Ziaul on 18.6.1981 at 11 a.m. and 11.15 a.m. respectively. In medical examination of the injured Smt. Rabia found the following injuries : “1. Contusion 8 cm x 1 cm on right leg 2. Contusion 6 cm x 1 cm on left thigh” 11. Medical Examination of Zamil @ Ziaul records only one injury of contusion of 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. on right leg. Doctor has stated that the injuries found on the body of the injured Rabia and Zamil @ Ziaul were caused by blunt object like lathi and danda and had proved the medical report Ex.Ka-16 of Smt. Rabia and Ex.Ka-17 of injured Zamil @ Ziaul and in cross-examination had admitted that these injuries could be self inflicted. 12. PW-7 Sri S.K. Sharma, Record Keeper in the Police Office, has produced an application dated 16.6.1981 filed by Ziaul Hasan brother of the deceased alongwith report of the police station Kotwali to prove the prosecution story. 13. After close of the prosecution evidence, statements of all the charged accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded by the trial Court. They denied the entire prosecution case and made statement that they have been falsely implicated in this murder. They further stated that the deceased had married one Yameen which did not find favour with her family members who themselves had committed the murder of the deceased and falsely implicated the appellants in the murder of the deceased Mustafai. In support of defence case they produced DW-1 Dr. (Smt.) Amita Gupta and DW-2 Mohd. Yameen @ Yaseen. DW-2 Mohd. Yameen @ Yaseen stated in his evidence that the deceased was his legally wedded wife as he had entered into marriage with Mustafai on 20.5.1981 in Delhi. In support of defence case they produced DW-1 Dr. (Smt.) Amita Gupta and DW-2 Mohd. Yameen @ Yaseen. DW-2 Mohd. Yameen @ Yaseen stated in his evidence that the deceased was his legally wedded wife as he had entered into marriage with Mustafai on 20.5.1981 in Delhi. The defence has also produced charge-sheet of Session Trial No. 503 of 1981 against Yameen @ Yaseen, statement of the informant Murtaza and copy of the judgment of the said trial in which order of acquittal has been recorded. 14. Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that after hearing the learned counsel for the parties the trial Court found accused appellants guilty and sentence them to undergo imprisonment in charged sections as stated earlier. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the trial Court dated 11.10.1983 the present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants. 15. We have heard Shri Mohd. Wasim, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A. for the State and have given our anxious and most thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of both the parties and have also perused the judgement and order of the Court below and have also gone through the evidence on record. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the conviction and sentence of the appellants is against the weight of evidence on record. It is contrary to law and the sentence awarded to the appellants is too severe. He further contended that the learned trial judge has not appreciated the evidence produced by both the parties and passed the judgment without properly considering the evidence adduced. Further in order to substantiate the above argument, learned counsel submits that the prosecution has adduced only two witnesses of fact who are the real brother of the deceased Mustafai. No independent witness has been produced by the prosecution inspite of the fact that in FIR and the statement of P.W.1 and P.W.2 there is a mention of independent witnesses. The whole emphasis of the learned counsel for the accused appellants is that the incident is said to have taken place in the night at about 2 a.m. and there is a specific stand taken by the accused appellants that the deceased was married one Mohd. The whole emphasis of the learned counsel for the accused appellants is that the incident is said to have taken place in the night at about 2 a.m. and there is a specific stand taken by the accused appellants that the deceased was married one Mohd. Yameen which was not liked by his family members, therefore, they themselves committed the murder of the deceased and falsely implicated the appellants in the murder. It is further contended that it is established from the evidence that before this incident a criminal case under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. was lodged by the informant against the accused persons and at that time after recovery of the abducted victim Mustafai her medical examination was conducted and in her medical examination she was found to be pregnant. It is a specific case of the defence that the informant and his family members had aborted the pregnancy of the victim Mustafai and they themselves murdered the deceased Mustafai in the wake of dishonour. His submission is that this fact is established and proved by the post-mortem report as it does not indicate pregnancy of the deceased. Further on the basis of the previous FIR lodged against the accused under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., after investigation charge-sheet was filed and trial of the charged accused resulted into acquittal. The statement of informant Murtaza recorded in that trial found to be at variance. Next contention of the learned counsel for the appellants accused is that neither in FIR nor in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. source of light has been mentioned and for the first time during trial in order to fill up the lacuna, prosecution witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2, who were the real brothers of the deceased Mustafai, had stated before the trial Court about the source of light and stated that ^^djhc ,d lky vkB ekg dh ckr gS eSa o esjh cgu eqLrQkbZ vius ?kj ds vanj ysVs FksA esjk HkkbZ tekdwy o HkkHkh jkch;k ?kj ds lgu es ysVs gq, FksA jkr ds djhc nks cts vkgV ls esjh vkWa[k [kqyh A esjs ?kj esa fctyh ty jgh Fkh vkSj fctyh dk ia[kk py jgk FkkA^^ 17. This disclosure is a development of the fact in order to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution case. It was lastly argued that judgment of the trial Court is based on surmises and conjunctures. This disclosure is a development of the fact in order to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution case. It was lastly argued that judgment of the trial Court is based on surmises and conjunctures. The Court below has not given any due weight to the defence version. The trial judge has not considered the facts and relevant circumstances while passing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Therefore, the judgment of the Court below is liable to be set aside and the appeal is to be allowed. 18. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that there is cogent and reliable evidence against the accused appellants. The order of the Court below is just and legal and there is neither any illegality nor infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment which requires interference by this Court. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 19. Before embarking upon the appraisement of the prosecution witnesses, we would like to mention that perusal of the record shows that appeal filed by the appellants Suleman and Sher Mohammad had already been abated on account of their death on 17.5.2016. As per report submitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar dated 18.10.2016 the appeal filed by the appellant No. 1 Faiz Mohd. also stands abated on account of his death. There is only one surviving appellant Islam whose appeal is being considered. 20. Fact of the case is that the main accused as per prosecution story, namely, Sulenam, who was armed with a gun, and Faiz Mohd., who was armed with a pistol, had fired and killed Mustafai. The appeal filed on their behalf had already been abated and among other co-accused including Islam all were armed with lathi and as per prosecution version other co-accused were standing outside the room in which the deceased Mustafai was murdered. The allegation against other co-accused is that they were armed with lathis and caused injuries to Ziaul and Rabia, wife of the brother of the deceased. Rabia and Ziaul got simple injuries; two contusions on the body of Rabia and one contusion on the body of Ziaul which is on non-vital part of the body. 21. The allegation against other co-accused is that they were armed with lathis and caused injuries to Ziaul and Rabia, wife of the brother of the deceased. Rabia and Ziaul got simple injuries; two contusions on the body of Rabia and one contusion on the body of Ziaul which is on non-vital part of the body. 21. Further we would like to mention that it is undisputed fact that the deceased Mustafai was murdered on 17/18.6.1981 at about 2.00 a.m. It is also not in dispute that her death was caused in the house of his brother Murtaza who is an informant/complainant of this case. The date, time and place of incident is not in dispute. The time of death of the deceased is also corroborated with the post-mortem report available on record. The only point which is to be adjudicated in this case is whether prosecution was able to prove its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt about the presence, involvement and complicity of the accused in commission of the crime or whether the defence version that it is a case of honour killing is probable and proved. 22. At the very outset, we would like to mention that it is a cardinal principle that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and it is also established legal proposition that the defence version is to be decided on the basis of principle of preponderance of probabilities. It is also an established legal proposition that “man can speaks lies but circumstances never.” We have given our thoughtful consideration in this backdrop. The incident is said to be in between 17/18.6.1981 in the night at 2.00 a.m. within the house of the informant, brother of the deceased Murtaza, and the FIR was promptly lodged at 4.15 a.m. within the same day and the distance of police station from the place of occurrence is said to be 5 kms. The incident is said to be in between 17/18.6.1981 in the night at 2.00 a.m. within the house of the informant, brother of the deceased Murtaza, and the FIR was promptly lodged at 4.15 a.m. within the same day and the distance of police station from the place of occurrence is said to be 5 kms. P.W.1 Murtza in his examination-in-chief stated that : eqfYteku gkftj vnkyr gekjs xkaWo esa jgrs gSaA esjh bu ls dksbZ fj'rsnkjh ugha gSA bu yksxksa ds uke dkQh [ksrh gSA tc ls ;klhu esjh cgu dks mBk ys x;k Fkk] rc ls esjh muls nq'euh FkhA pkjks eqfYteku pkpk rkÅ ds HkkbZ gSA bl ?kVuk ls igys esjs HkkbZ ft;kmy us lqyseku ds f[kykQ ,d nj[okLr ,lih dks nh FkhA eSusa ;g Hkh nj[okLr nh Fkh fd ;g yksx fxjksg can gSA ,lih us bu dks pkj ckj can Hkh fd;k FkkA eSaUks tks nj[okLr ,lih dks nh Fkh] mldh udy esjs ikl ugha gS] [kks xbZ gSA irk ugha fdl eghus o fdl rkjh[k dks nh FkhA ;g Hkh ugh crk ldrk fd vc ls fdrus igys nh FkhA eqLrQkbZ dks Hkxk ys tkus okys eqdnesa esa ;klhu vnkyr ls NwV pqdk gSA bl Hkxkus okys eqdnesa esa ;klhu ds vykok ;g eqfYteku gkftj vnkyr Hkh EkqfYte FksaA mu ds lkFk muds ?kj dh dqN vkSjrsa Hkh eqfYte j[kh FkhA ;g xyr gS fd tc eqLrQkbZ ?kj ls HkxkbZ xbZ Fkh] rc og gey ls FkhA mlds dHkh gey ugha jgk FkkA Likewise P.W.2 real brother of the deceased has also stated that ^^lqcg dks mu yksxks ls Fkkus pyus dks dgk exj og eqfYteku ds Mj ls ugha x;sA^^ 23. Both the witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 have categorically stated that due to fear of the accused appellants none of the independent witnesses had come to depose before the Court. The statement has come to the extent that some of the villagers had fled away form the village due to the fear of the accused appellants. P.W.2 himself stated that he has also left the village due to fear and criminality of the accused appellants. Under such facts and circumstances we fail to understand that how the FIR has been lodged within two hours of the incident of murder and that too in the night. The above facts and circumstances places this prompt FIR under the cloud of suspicion. 24. Under such facts and circumstances we fail to understand that how the FIR has been lodged within two hours of the incident of murder and that too in the night. The above facts and circumstances places this prompt FIR under the cloud of suspicion. 24. The next point which we would like to mention is only two of the witnesses namely PW-1 and PW-2 have been produced by the prosecution who are the real brothers of the diseased and it is an admitted fact that prior to this incident an FIR under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. had been lodged against the accused persons. It transpires from the copy of the judgement of the Trial Court that FIR was lodged after 17 days from the abduction of victim Mustafi. It is also important to mention that in the abduction case when victim Mustafai was recovered her medical examination was conducted by DW-1 Dr. Amita Gupta who categorically stated in her medical report that the victim was pregnant. There was a pregnancy of 1 to 1 ½ months and she was aged about 19 years. This fact is proved by Ex.-Kha-1 which is available on record and it is also a fact that post-mortem report Ex.Ka-15 does not mention of any foetus of two months rather in post-mortem report uterus was non grooved. 25. PW-4 Dr. D.P. Arora proved Ex.-Ka 15 in which there is a mention of uterus non-grooved. The defence has specifically suggested about the abortion of the pregnancy of the deceased by the brothers of the deceased which was denied by the brothers who are produced as prosecution witnesses, namely, P.W.1 and P.W.2. 26. Now it is a fact that on 29.5.1981 at the time of recovery of the abducted victim Mustafai she was medically examined and doctor has proved that at that time she was having pregnancy of 1 ½ months and after a gap of 18-20 days (short time) the victim Mustafai was murdered, but the post-mortem report does not mention about the foetus. Non-explanation of elimination of pregnancy of the deceased is a question mark on the prosecution story which creates a fair and reasonable doubt with regard to the involvement of the accused in the commission of murder of the deceased. 27. Further we find substantial force in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused-appellants with regard to source of light. 27. Further we find substantial force in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused-appellants with regard to source of light. It is a fact that neither in the FIR nor in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the source of light, i.e. an electric bulb has been mentioned, but for the first time P.W.1 made statement before the Court during trial about the source of light at the time of commission of crime. 28. Another circumstance which requires reasonable consideration is that as per the prosecution story at the time of commission of the crime, the real brother Murtaza who was sleeping near the bed side of the deceased, woke up on hearing the noise of fire and fled away from the place of occurrence. It is also the prosecution version that two named and one unnamed accused persons were standing outside the place of occurrence, i.e. the room. They were armed with lathi and danda and attacked on Ziaul Hasan and his wife Rabia who were sleeping in Sahan, adjacent to the room, where the incident took place, but the injuries found on the body of injured Rabia indicate only two contusions on non vital part and another injured Ziaul, who happens to be the real brother of the deceased, got one contusion injury which according to doctor was simple in nature and the same could be manufactured and fabricated. Further it is important to mention that real brother Murtaza who was sleeping adjacent to the deceased on a separate cot got time to run away, but the other brother Ziaul and her wife Rabia who were sleeping beside the room were beaten by the other co-accused who later on fled away from the place of occurrence. On this point a very surprising statement has been given by P.W.2 Ziaul that tc iqfyl fnu esa vkbZ rc eS dksBs esa x;k rks ns[kk fd dksBs esa eqLrQkbZ ejh iMh Fkh jkr esa ?kVuk gksus ds ckn eSa dksBs esa ugh x;k Fkk pwafd esjs pksV yxh Fkh blfy, eSa jkr dks dksBs esa ugh x;k Fkk esjk o esjh iRuh dk MkDVjh eqvk;uk gqvk Fkk lqcg pkj cts eSa] esjh iRuh o eqjrtk Fkkus x;s FksaA 29. We fail to understand that P.W.2 Ziaul who is the real brother of the deceased Mustafi and as per statement he got injuries from co-accused at the time of incident. This is an admitted fact that he was sleeping adjacent to the room in which murder was committed. It is also an admitted fact that he, his wife and his brother all the three persons have reached within 2 ½ hours of the incident to the Police Station which is at a distance of 5 kms., but surprisingly he could not dare to see her murdered deceased sister. This conduct itself and facts and circumstances of the case creates a fair and reasonable doubt about the involvement of the accused persons in the commission of the murder of deceased. Lodging of the FIR itself comes under the cloud of suspicion. Moreso, no independent witness has been examined in this case and the fact that prior to this incident the report against the accused persons under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C has resulted into acquittal of the accused appellants. 30. Next point which requires consideration as argued by the learned counsel for the appellants accused is on the point of motive of the incident. On this issue it would be appropriate to refer Alaqupandi v. State of Tamilnadu, (2012) CRLJ 3363 Supreme Court wherein the Hon’ble the Apex Court held that “existence of motive for committing a crime is not an absolute requirement of law but it is always a relevant factor which will be taken into consideration by the Courts as it will render assistance of the Courts while analysing the prosecution evidence and determining the guilt of the accused.” 31. It transpires that the accused appellants had a direct enmity with the brother of the deceased Musatfi. In FIR there is an allegation that before this incident accused had abducted Mustafai, sister of the informant Murtaza, and the case was pending. There was an enmity between both the parties. Further P.W.1 Murtaza in the first paragraph of his cross-examination stated that before this incident his brother Ziaul had given an information against the accused Suleman which is an indicative of fact that the accused appellants were inimical with the brother of the deceased Mustafai. 32. There was an enmity between both the parties. Further P.W.1 Murtaza in the first paragraph of his cross-examination stated that before this incident his brother Ziaul had given an information against the accused Suleman which is an indicative of fact that the accused appellants were inimical with the brother of the deceased Mustafai. 32. On the other hand, the defence has proved two factum, one regarding marriage and second at the time of recovery of abducted victim she had a pregnancy of 1 ½ months. Under these facts and circumstances what was the occasion to kill Mustafi when the accused had an opportunity to assault Murtaza, the brother of the deceased, who was sleeping beside the deceased, and he escaped from the spot untouched and the other brother Ziaul, who was sleeping adjacent to the room where the incident took place, got a simple contusion injury. 33. Since both the brothers P.W.1 and P.W.2 were present on the spot at the time of incident and the accused persons had got an opportunity to harm them but no serious assault on them creates the prosecution version improbable being totally unnatural conduct. 34. On the basis of above discussions, perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the lower Court has not taken into consideration the relevant fact and circumstances of the case. The points which were raised by the defence counsel at the time of cross-examination and the evidence tendered by the defence to substantiate his defence version had not been properly considered. The inconsistency, embellishment as well as development of new facts during the course of examination at the trial had not been weighed in proper perspective rather the judgment is based on surmises and conjectures. 35. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances as stated above and the legal proposition as above mentioned, we have no option but to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence and to allow this appeal. 36. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the Court below dated 11.10.1983 is set aside and the appellant Islam is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Let a certified copy of the judgement be transmitted to the Court concerned for compliance.