Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 628 (HP)

Onkar Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2016-05-02

SANJAY KAROL

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. In these appeals filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C., convicts Onkar Singh, Manoj Kumar and Shiv Kumar @ Vicky have assailed the judgment dated 13.02.2013/18.02.2015, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Una, H.P., in Sessions trial No.07/2013, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Versus Onkar Singh & others, whereby they stand convicted and sentenced as under:- Name of accused Convicted under Sections Sentence imposed Onkar Singh 394, 506 & 489-C IPC. Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and pay fine of Rs.25000/- for the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 394 IPC. In default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years. He is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years for the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 506 IPC and 3 years for the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 489-C IPC Manoj Kumar 394 & 506 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and pay fine of Rs.25000/- for the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 394 IPC. In default thereof further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years. He is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years for the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 506 IPC. Shiv Kumar @ Vicky 394 & 506 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and pay fine of Rs.25000/- for the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 394 IPC. In default thereof further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years. He is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years for the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 506 IPC. 2. In short, it is the case of prosecution that complainant Bacchan Paswan (PW.2), a resident of the State of Bihar, was working as a labourer in Village Kotla Kalan, District Una, H.P. He had hired a house of one Niranjan Dass (PW.8) in the same village. Complainant also owned one Scooty (Activa) bearing registration No.HP.72-7363, which was used for travelling between Mehatpur and Kotla Kalan. On 12.11.2012, complainant had stopped at the shop of Ganesh Kumar (PW.4) at Jalgran Chowk for purchasing cigarette. Complainant also owned one Scooty (Activa) bearing registration No.HP.72-7363, which was used for travelling between Mehatpur and Kotla Kalan. On 12.11.2012, complainant had stopped at the shop of Ganesh Kumar (PW.4) at Jalgran Chowk for purchasing cigarette. When he handed over currency note of Rs.500/- it was not accepted as the shopkeeper doubted its genuineness and thought it to be a counterfeit currency. At that, the accused persons were called and the complainant was taken behind the bushes and robbed of Rs.25000/-. Also they took away his Scooty and by handing over two currency notes of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/-, asked him to leave. Prior thereto, accused also took away his mobile phone and prepared a video film. In effect, accused wanted to establish, through the said video clip, that it was the complainant, who was dealing with fake currency. Accused threatened and intimidated the complainant which prevented him from lodging the complaint with the police. 3. Out of fear, complainant left for his native place and on his return on 28.11.2012, narrated the incident to Niranjan Dass (PW.8), who approached Dr. Kamal and Praveen Kumar at Mehatpur and on their advice, made a written complaint (Ex.PW.2/A) to the Superintendent of Police, Una, who directed the matter to be investigated, in accordance with law and as such FIR No. 300/12, dated 29.11.2012 (Ex.PW.14/A), came to be registered against the accused at Police Station, Una Sadar, under the provisions of Sections 382, 506, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. SI Sanjay Kumar (PW.10) conducted investigation and arrested the accused. He took into possession fake currency notes recovered from accused Onkar Singh; as also the scooty and mobile phone of the complainant. The opinion of the expert qua genuineness of the currency notes, so recovered from the possession of the accused, was obtained and report (Ex.P-34) taken on record. Investigation revealed the complaint to be prima facie genuine and as such challan was presented in the Court for trial. 4. The accused were charged for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 394, 506 both read with Section 34 of IPC and additionally accused Onkar Singh was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 489-C of IPC, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 5. 4. The accused were charged for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 394, 506 both read with Section 34 of IPC and additionally accused Onkar Singh was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 489-C of IPC, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to establish its case, in all, prosecution examined as many as fourteen witnesses. Statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also recorded, in which they took defence of innocence and false implication. 6. Finding favour with the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, trial Court convicted accused Onkar Singh for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 394, 506 and 489-C IPC and convicted accused Manoj Kumar and Shiv Kumar @ Vicky for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 394 and 506 IPC and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence the present appeals by the convicts. 7. Having heard Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rahul Verma, Advocate, M/s Karan Singh Kanwar and Vinay Thakur, learned counsel, on behalf of the appellants as also Mr. R.S. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Puneet Rajta, learned Deputy Advocate General, on behalf of the State, as also minutely examined the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence, so placed on record by the prosecution, Court is of the considered view that trial Court committed great illegality in convicting the accused, for the reasons discussed hereinafter. Contradictions and improbabilities which are glaring, rendering the prosecution case to be extremely doubtful, if not true, stand ignored. 8. In Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and another Versus State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 , the apex Court, has held as under: “…Lord Russel delivering the judgment of the Board pointed out that there was "no indication in the Code of any limitation or restriction on the High Court in the exercise of its powers as an appellate Tribunal", that no distinction was drawn "between an appeal from an order of acquittal and an appeal from a conviction", and that "no limitation should be placed upon that power unless it be found expressly stated in the Code". … (Emphasis supplied) 9. … (Emphasis supplied) 9. The apex Court in Lal Mandi v. State of W.B., (1995) 3 SCC 603 , has held that in an appeal against conviction, the appellate Court is duty bound to appreciate the evidence on record and if two views are possible on the appraisal of evidence, benefit of reasonable doubt has to be given to the accused. 10. The trial Court found the testimonies of Bacchan Paswan (PW.2), Upender Paswan (PW.3), Smt Gudiya (PW.7) and Niranjan Dass (PW.8) to be inspiring in confidence and the police officials to have established the factum of recovery of counterfeit currency notes as also the mobile phone and the scooty of the complainant from the possession of the accused. 11. The genesis of the prosecution story of the complainant having purchased the cigarette from the shop of Ganesh Kumar (PW.4), appears to be doubtful. Despite extensive cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor nothing fruitful could be elicited from the testimony of this witness. It could not be established that the compla inant stopped at the shop of the witness and offered currency note of Rs.500/- for purchase of a cigarette. In fact, if the version of the complainant is to be believed, then this witness ought to have been arrayed as an accused, for according to the witness, it was the shopkeeper, who had called three boys, who took him to the nearby bushes, and robbed him of his money, mobile phone and scooty. In Court, who is this shopkeeper, complainant does not state. It is not the case of this witness either that he took the investigating officer to the shop of Ganesh Kumar. 12. Further, in Court, complainant narrates the incident to the effect that on 12.11.2012, when three boys took him to the nearby bushes, he was not only robbed but by handing him two currency notes of the denomination of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- prepared a video graph, so as to establish that in fact it was the complainant who was in effect dealing with the fake currency notes. But where is this video? Absence thereof renders his statement to be doubtful. 13. This witness further states that the accused robbed him of Rs.25000/-, but gave him a currency note of Rs.10/- as a bus fare for returning to his room. The accused also threatened him with dire consequences. But where is this video? Absence thereof renders his statement to be doubtful. 13. This witness further states that the accused robbed him of Rs.25000/-, but gave him a currency note of Rs.10/- as a bus fare for returning to his room. The accused also threatened him with dire consequences. His request for returning the scooty prompted the accused to raise further demand of Rs.70,000/-. He did not narrate the incident to anyone. He states that though the matter was not reported to anyone, but he took one Upender Paswan (PW.3) to the accused and requested them to hand over his belongings. This was so done on 16.11.2012. Witness further states that soon thereafter, he went to his native place and on his return on 28.11.2012, approached Niranjan Dass (PW.8) as also Dr. Kamal and Praveen Kumar, to whom, he narrated the entire incident. On their advice, he reported the matter to the Superintendent of Police, Una, vide complaint dated 29.11.2012 (Ex.PW.2/A). The matter was investigated by the police officer whose name he does not disclose. He further states that the police recovered 24 currency notes of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- denomination from the pocket of accused Onkar Singh and also recovered his scooty and mobile phone. 14. Court does not find such version of the witness to be inspiring in confidence at all, rather it is full of improbabilities and falsehood. When Court peruses his complaint (Ex.PW.2/A), it finds the facts so narrated by him in Court, not to have been recorded therein. In fact, in the complaint, he is categorical of not knowing the identity of the accused persons. The complaint (Ex.PW.2/A) is dated 29.11.2012, if that be so, then how is it that on 16.11.2012, i.e., four days after the incident, and 13 days prior to the lodging of the complaint, did he go to the accused, demanding return of his belongings. Witness is not a poor rustic villager. He was a worldly wise and a man of means. He owned a scooty and had access to people at all places. He knew Upender Paswan (PW.3) and was in consultation with him. He also knew Niranjan Dass (PW.8), his landlord. Why is it that the incident was not reported either to Niranjan Dass or the police? remains unexplained. He was a worldly wise and a man of means. He owned a scooty and had access to people at all places. He knew Upender Paswan (PW.3) and was in consultation with him. He also knew Niranjan Dass (PW.8), his landlord. Why is it that the incident was not reported either to Niranjan Dass or the police? remains unexplained. He was consulting not only Niranjan Dass but also his Advocate as has come in the cross-examination part of his testimony. His version that out of fear he went to his nat ive place does not appear to be true. It is not the case of prosecution, much less of this witness, that the accused followed him upto his native place. Having reached his native place, complainant could have brought the matter to the notice of either his family members and/or sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Una, directly from there, which he failed to do so. If he was under fear, then what prompted him to return on 28.11.2012 and by the way who is Dr. Kamal or Praveen Kumar? Court does not know, for neither they were associated during investigation nor examined in Court. Further witness admits that at Una bus-stand there is a Police Post. He could have easily gone to lodge the report immediately after the occurrence of the incident. He does not explain the delay of more than 17 days in lodging the complaint with the police. Significantly in the complaint (Ex.PW.2/A), it is nowhere recorded that immediately after the occurrence of the incident, out of fear he went to his native place. The witness admits that at the spot of crime, there are not only houses but also shops on both sides of the road. His version of having been beaten up by the accused does not appear to be true, for he was not medically examined nor was such fact recorded in his complaint (Ex.PW.2/A) and his wife did not find any marks of injury either. 15. Court has perused the testimony of Upender Paswan (PW.3), who has not only contradicted the version of complainant Bacchan Paswan (PW.2), but also contradicted the prosecution case. The witness wants the Court to believe that on 16.11.2012, complainant had approached him and narrated the incident. 15. Court has perused the testimony of Upender Paswan (PW.3), who has not only contradicted the version of complainant Bacchan Paswan (PW.2), but also contradicted the prosecution case. The witness wants the Court to believe that on 16.11.2012, complainant had approached him and narrated the incident. Further both he and the complainant went to accused Onkar Singh and requested him to return the scooty, when an illegal demand of Rs.70,000/- was made. But he does not explain as to why the matter was not immediately reported to the police. In fact, version of this witness stands belied from the contents of complaint (Ex.PW.2/A). Witness, on the question of sealing of currency notes, mobile phone and scooty recovered by the police from the shop of Onkar Singh, has contradicted the version of SI Sanjay Kumar (PW.10). 16. The Investigating Officer, wants the Court to believe that not only recovery of such items stood effected from the shop of accused Onkar Singh, in the presence of Upender Paswan (PW.3), Ganesh Kumar (PW.4) and Kuldeep Singh (PW.5), but they were also sealed on the spot. 17. But Upender Paswan (PW.3) in his unrebutted testimony has categorically deposed that “the police took mobile phones, scooty and currency notes to police station, where they wrapped the mobile phones in pieces of cloth. The parcels were sealed at police station and the police also obtained my signatures on 3-4 papers. The currency notes were also put in a parcel and thereafter, the parcel was sealed. The envelope was taken into possession vide recovery and seizure memo Ex.PW-3/A which bear my signatures with red circle. The police before sealing the currency notes, prepared inventory and noted down the serial numbers. I am illiterate, however, I can put my signatures”. Such statement stands corroborated by independent witnesses Ganesh Kumar (PW.4) and Kuldeep Singh (PW.5). They have also explained the circumstances under which they signed the blank papers. Assuming that these witnesses are not telling the truth, but testimony of Upender Paswan, as reproduced earlier, remains unrebutted. 18. Versions of Smt. Gudiya (PW.7), wife of the complainant and Niranjan Dass (PW.8) also do not advance the case of the prosecution in any manner. In fact, she is specific of not having noticed any injury on the body of her husband. 19. 18. Versions of Smt. Gudiya (PW.7), wife of the complainant and Niranjan Dass (PW.8) also do not advance the case of the prosecution in any manner. In fact, she is specific of not having noticed any injury on the body of her husband. 19. At this juncture, it be also observed that from the testimonies of Rajinder Chaudhary (PW.1), HC Sanjeev Kumar (PW.6) and SI Sanjay Ku mar (PW.10), prosecution case cannot be said to have been proven, beyond reasonable doubt, to the effect that the case property was kept in safe custody. The original seals were not produced in Court. Even the link evidence in the shape of authenticity of malkhana register is missing in the present case. 20. When one peruses the testimonies of HC Sanjeev Kumar (PW.6) and SI Sanjay Kumar (PW.10), one finds the same to be self contradictory. SI Sanjay Kumar states that on 29.11.2012, he alongwith the complainant went to the shop of accused Onkar Singh, where accused Manoj Kumar and Shiv Kumar were also present, who stood identified by the complainant. From the shop of accused Onkar Singh, scooty, fake currency notes and mobile phone were recovered. Significantly this witness admits that search was carried out after Sun set. He admits not to have associated any independent witnesses from the nearby shops as well as from the nearby residential colony, commonly known as Jagdish colony, which is thickly populated. He also did not obtain any permission from the Magistrate. The search conducted was of an enclosed space. Thus, there is statutory violation (Section 100(4) Cr.P.C.), which in the given case is fatal. The witnesses to the seizure memo have not supported the prosecution. Apart from his bald statement, there is nothing else on record to establish recovery from the possession of accused Onkar Singh. In none of the recovered items, finger prints of the accused were found. Also there is nothing to link the accused with the same. 21. HC Sanjeev Kumar (PW.6) has tried to corroborate the version of his superior officer, but then the contradictions are material, rendering the version of both the police officials to be extremely doubtful and false. The witness, in any event, cannot be said to be reliable. 22. Also there is nothing to link the accused with the same. 21. HC Sanjeev Kumar (PW.6) has tried to corroborate the version of his superior officer, but then the contradictions are material, rendering the version of both the police officials to be extremely doubtful and false. The witness, in any event, cannot be said to be reliable. 22. According to SI Sanjay Kumar (PW.10), proceedings on the spot continued till late in the evening and police party was able to return to the Police Station only at 3.30 AM. Whereas, according to HC Sanjeev Kumar (PW.6), it was so done on the previous day, and that too at 7.30 PM. Further, according to this witness, police party left for village Jalgran at 3.30 PM. Whereas, according to SI Sanjay Kumar, police party reached village Jalgran at 5.00 PM. The contradiction stands amplified from the fact, emerged on record, that the police party allegedly left the Police Station on motorcycles and the distance between the Police Station and the spot of crime is just 2 kms. What took the police party half an hour to reach the spot, remains unexplained. That apart, version of this witness of having left the Police Station itself appears to be in doubt, for no departure or arrival report has been proven on record. As is admitted by this witness, there is no entry in the log book to such effect. 23. According to SI Sanjay Kumar (PW.10), complaint (Ex.PW.2/A) reached him through the office of the Superintendent of Police, Una. Whereas, according to complainant Bacchan Paswan (PW.2), Superintendent of Police returned the complaint to him and asked him to approach the SHO concerned to whom he personally handed over the same. Version of SI Sanjay Kumar of having visited the spot alongwith the complainant and effected recovery from the shop of accused Onkar Singh stands falsified from the version narrated by the complainant, according to whom “SHO sent two Constable with me to Jalgran to the house of Onkar”. According to this witness, SHO never went to the spot. Now this unrebutted testimony totally shatters the version of the Investigating Officer (PW.10) rendering his statement of having effected recovery of counterfeit currency notes as also other articles from the shop of accused Onkar Singh to be absolutely false. According to this witness, SHO never went to the spot. Now this unrebutted testimony totally shatters the version of the Investigating Officer (PW.10) rendering his statement of having effected recovery of counterfeit currency notes as also other articles from the shop of accused Onkar Singh to be absolutely false. HC Sanjeev Kumar (PW.6) is the official, who went to the spot for effecting recovery is also not corroborated by Bacchan Singh (PW.2). 24. To establish the charges of robbery and criminal intimidation, prosecution is required to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, the fact that accused in furtherance of common intention had voluntarily caused hurt and taken away the property of the complainant. 25. The apex Court in Venu alias Venugopal & others Versus State of Karnataka, (2008) 3 SCC 94 , has held that violence must be during the course of robbery and not subsequently. In fact, actual commission of crime of violence is not necessary, but even an attempt in that regard would be sufficient. Robbery is an exaggerated form of theft particularly when it is with violence and use of force. 26. The apex Court in Harish Chandra Versus State of U.P., 1976(2) SCC 795 has culled out following three essential ingredients to constitute an act of robbery (i) theft; (ii) while committing such an act voluntarily caused or attempted to cause death, hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of instant death/hurt/wrongful restraint; and (iii) such attempt must be with an intent to cause hurt. 27. Now, in the instant case, there is nothing on record to establish wherefrom the complainant had got Rs.25000/-. Significantly police also did not effect any recovery thereof. Why so? remains unexplained. With regard to recovery of mobile phone and scooty, Court has already held the prosecution version to be extremely doubtful, if not false. Smt. Gudiya (PW.7), has categorically deposed that no marks of injury were found on the body of her husband and the version of oral threats and intimidation, so disclosed by the complainant has already been held to be uninspiring in confidence. 28. Insofar as criminal intimidation is concerned, for the aforesaid reason, again it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to establish its case. Also common intent of all the accused to commit the alleged crime cannot be inferred from record. 28. Insofar as criminal intimidation is concerned, for the aforesaid reason, again it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to establish its case. Also common intent of all the accused to commit the alleged crime cannot be inferred from record. The alleged acts attributable to the accused, were only on the asking of Ganesh Kumar (PW.4), who is a witness and not a co-accused. 29. Similarly, Court does not find version of the Investigating Officer (PW.10) of having recovered counterfeit currency notes from the conscious possession of accused Onkar Singh, to have been proven on record. As already discussed, Court has expressed serious doubt with regard to the correctness of the statement of the Investigating Officer of having recovered the counterfeit currency notes from the shop of accused Onkar Singh. He committed an illegality in searching the premises. Also report (Ex.P-34) of the Scientific Officer could not be linked to the currency notes recovered from the possession of the accused. Assuming that the currency notes were actually recovered from the custody of the accused, their safe custody from the time of recovery till the conduct of scientific analysis, has not been established on record. What is intriguing is that the Investigating Officer failed to recover that currency note of Rs.500/-, which the complainant had given to Ganesh Kumar (PW.4). Where is that currency note, acceptance of which was refused on the ground of it being fake, has not been proven on record. 30. At the cost of repetition, it be also observed that the complainant has not been able to satisfactorily explain the delay of 17 days in lodging the complaint with the police, though, if he were to be believed, he had already contacted Upender Paswan (PW.3) and disclosed him the incident four days thereafter. 31. Trial Court mis-appreciated the testimony of Ganesh Kumar (PW.4), who had turned hostile and despite extensive cross-examination did not support the prosecution, but states that “he was not expected” to state against his village fellows is preposterous. He has unduly reflected upon the conduct of Ganesh Kumar and while doing so, erred in relying upon the statement of the Investigating Officer (PW.10), who had recorded his previous statement. 32. Trial Court further erred in relying upon the self contradictory statement of Bacchan Paswan (PW.2) by stating that corroboration of an independent eye witness was not necessary. He has unduly reflected upon the conduct of Ganesh Kumar and while doing so, erred in relying upon the statement of the Investigating Officer (PW.10), who had recorded his previous statement. 32. Trial Court further erred in relying upon the self contradictory statement of Bacchan Paswan (PW.2) by stating that corroboration of an independent eye witness was not necessary. Trial Court grossly misapplied the provisions of law, particularly the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, by holding that accused had threatened the complainant with knife, which in fact was even n ever put to the complainant at the time of his examination in Court. From where the knife was recovered? Who identified the same? are the questions which remained unexplained by the prosecution and trial Court by adopting presumptuous approach relied upon such circumstances. 33. It is no doubt true that FIR need not be an encyclopedia, but the Court in paras 27 & 28 of its judgment, in the given facts, erred in holding that mere absence of a particular fact in the FIR cannot be a ground for disbelieving the testimony of the complainant or throwing away the prosecution case. In the instant case, facts are otherwise. The statement of the complainant itself, is contrary to material fact, of having disclosed the incident at least 13 days prior to the report being lodged, or the complainant having obtained legal assistance, which was material and germane for explaining the delay, which was not so done. The intent of the complainant of not initially filing the complaint, as has been held by the trial Court is also not borne out from the record. 34. While lending credence to the testimonies of Bachhan Paswan (PW.2) and Smt. Gudiya (PW.7), in the discussion, in paras 34 to 39 of the judgment, trial Court conveniently forgot the factum of the complainant disclosing the incident to his wife which was nowhere disclosed in the complaint, so drafted on the advice of an Advocate. It is not that an illiterate rustic villager had gone to report the matter to the police. The complainant under legal advice took the complaint right to the Superintendent of Police and presented it to him. He was certainly familiar with the procedural formalities and aware of his rights and could easily access the authorities. It is not that an illiterate rustic villager had gone to report the matter to the police. The complainant under legal advice took the complaint right to the Superintendent of Police and presented it to him. He was certainly familiar with the procedural formalities and aware of his rights and could easily access the authorities. The impugned judgment, which on first brush appears to be convincing is not based on clear, cogent and consistent testimonies of the witnesses, but personal mindset, which is presumptive in nature, of the Judicial Officer. 35. The trial Court misapplied the ratio of law laid down in Karamjit Singh Versus State (Delhi Administration), (2003) 5 SCC 291 , wherein it is held that testimony of a police official, even in the absence of corroboration by any independent witness can be relied upon, if it is found to be reliable and his testimony is clear, cogent and consistent. 36. In the instant case, as already discussed (supra), testimony of police officials is not only self contradictory, but falsified from the version of the complainant. 37. From the material placed on record, prosecution has failed to establish that accused are guilty of having committed the offence, they have been charged with. The circumstances cannot be said to have been proved by unbroken chain of unimpeachable testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The guilt of the accused does not stand proved, beyond reasonable doubt, to the hilt. 38. Findings returned by the trial Court, convicting the accused, cannot be said to be based on correct and complete appreciation of testimonies of prosecution witnesses. Such findings cannot be said to be on the basis of any clear, cogent, convincing, legal and material piece of evidence, leading to an irresistible conclusion of guilt of the accused. Incorrect and incomplete appreciation thereof, has resulted into grave miscarriage of justice, inasmuch as accused stand wrongly convicted for the charged offence. 39. Hence, for all the aforesaid reasons, appeals are allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 13.02.2013/18.02.2015, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Una, H.P., in Sessions trial No.07/2013, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Versus Onkar Singh & others, is set aside and convicts Onkar Singh, Manoj Kumar and Shiv Kumar @ Vicky are acquitted of the charged offences. Convicts, who are in jail be released forthwith, if not required under any other process of law. Release warrants be prepared accordingly. Convicts, who are in jail be released forthwith, if not required under any other process of law. Release warrants be prepared accordingly. Amount of fine, if deposited by the convicts, be refunded to them. Appeals stand disposed of, so also pending applications, if any.