Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1131 (ALL)

KARAN SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-04-28

BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, RAGHVENDRA KUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Virendra Singh assisted by Sri Deo Anand, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Saghir Ahmad, Ms. Manju Thakur and Sri Hasan Abidi, learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. Under challenge in the appeal is the judgment and order dated 25.4.1988 passed by learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad in S.T. No.395 of 1987 (State vs. Karan Singh and others) under section 302 I.P.C. read with 34 I.P.C., Police Station Kurhfatehgarh, District Moradabad arising out of Case Crime No. 118 of 1987 whereby the accused appellants were convicted for the offence under section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order the instant appeal is before this Court. 3. The proceedings of the appeal stand abated against appellant No.1 Karan Singh and appellant No.4 Gangaram vide order dated 13.12.2016. 4. Briefly stated the prosecution case is as follows : According to the FIR version, on 25.8.1987 at about 10.00 a.m. Sri Mangali Prasad lodged an FIR that his son Sriram was going from the Shiv Temple situate at Dhobia Talab after the prayer and when he reached near Pakhar tree, one Karan Singh equipped with pharsa, Rameshwar equipped with pharsa, Ram Prakash equipped with lathi and Gangaram equipped with spear (bhala) surrounded him and thereafter all the aforesaid four accused assaulted him with their respective weapons assigned to them. On an alarm being raised by Sriram son of the informant-complainant, the witnesses Nauratan, Nandlal and others from the village reached on the spot. The accused persons fled away towards the West. Sriram died on the spot. Karan Singh earlier launched a prosecution under section 307 I.P.C. against complainant's side which was decided in favour of the complainant. The incident took place at 10.00 A.M. on 25.5.1987 and the FIR of the incident was lodged at the police station on the same day at 12.10 P.M. 5. After registration of the FIR, the inquest proceedings were drawn in accordance with law. The sample of plain and blood stained soil was taken by the investigating officer during the course of investigation. Certain documentation was done after inquest proceedings for the purposes of autopsy examination. The autopsy was conducted on 26.5.1987 at 2.30 P.M. I.O. recorded the statement of witnesses and prepared site plan during the course of investigation. The sample of plain and blood stained soil was taken by the investigating officer during the course of investigation. Certain documentation was done after inquest proceedings for the purposes of autopsy examination. The autopsy was conducted on 26.5.1987 at 2.30 P.M. I.O. recorded the statement of witnesses and prepared site plan during the course of investigation. The investigation of the case culminated into fling of police report in the shape of charge sheet. 6. After taking cognizance and complying with procedural formalities, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Learned Trial Court after hearing both the sides and perusal of evidence available on record framed the charge against the accused for the offence under section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. The charge was read over and explained to the accused who denied the charge and claimed trial on merits. 7. The accused-appellants claimed themselves to be innocent and have taken defence of false implication on the ground of enmity. 8. To substantiate the charge/guilt, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 Mangali Prasad who is the father of the deceased Sriram, P.W.2 Nauratan, P.W.3 Ganga Sahai, P.W. 4 Nand Lal,who are witnesses of fact. 9. P.W.5 Head Constable Akram Ali who has proved the execution of chik FIR and relevant entries in G.D. P.W.5 has also proved the special report and proved the documents relating thereto. P.W.6 Constable Suresh Pal Singh has given an affidavit to the effect that he has taken the corpus of the deceased for the purpose of post-mortem examination in the condition in which it was given by the Sub Inspector after completing all the necessary formalities of the inquest proceedings. He is a formal witness. 10. P.W. 7 Janardan Arora who has conducted the investigation from 28.5.1987 and filed the charge sheet against the accused appellants and proved the execution thereof. 11. P.W.8 Suresh Chandra is the first investigating officer who conducted the investigation prior to P.W.7. P.W.8 Suresh Chandra has conducted the inquest proceedings and proved the documents. He has also proved the exhibited documentation done for the purpose of post mortem examination of the deceased Sriram. He has prepared the site plan and has also prepared the recovery memos of plain and blood stained soil and proved the execution of the documents so prepared. He has taken the statements of the witnesses and thereafter he has conducted investigation upto 27.5.1987. 12. P.W.9 Dr. He has prepared the site plan and has also prepared the recovery memos of plain and blood stained soil and proved the execution of the documents so prepared. He has taken the statements of the witnesses and thereafter he has conducted investigation upto 27.5.1987. 12. P.W.9 Dr. A.K. Jain has conducted the autopsy on the person of the deceased Sriram and has noted 32 injuries, which are being extracted herein below :- 1. Lacerated wound 3.0 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep over right side head 9.0 cm above right ear behind and 3 cm from mid line. 2. Incised wound 2.0 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep 6 cm behind injury no.1 3. Contused abrasion in an area of 7.0 cm x 6 cm over frontal area on right side touching the right eyebrow. 4. Incised wound 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep 7 cm. above and behind left ear over scalp. 5. Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x bone deep, 2 cm. Behind injury No.4 over scalp. 6. Incised wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm x cranial cavity deep 0.5 cm above upper attachment of left ear. Brain matter was coming out of this wound. 7. Contusion in an area of 5 cm x 3 cm over left side head, 2 cm behind injury no.6. 8. Lacerated wound 4 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep over left ear extending 2 cm. Behind the attachment of left ear. 9. Lacerated wound 1 cm. X 0.5 cm. X bone deep over left side face just below attachment of left ear. 10. Contusion 7 cm x 6 cm over left side face and upper part neck extending upto injury no. 9. 11. Incised wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep over upper part on neck on left side 2 cm behind injury no.10. 12. Incised wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep, 2 cm. behind injury no. 11. 13. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep over left shoulder. 14. Contused abrasion in an area of 22 cm x 10 cm multiple irregular linear abrasions over upper arm left side on outer side. 15. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep 10 cm. below lip of left shoulder over outer side of left upper arm. 16. 14. Contused abrasion in an area of 22 cm x 10 cm multiple irregular linear abrasions over upper arm left side on outer side. 15. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep 10 cm. below lip of left shoulder over outer side of left upper arm. 16. Contusion 7 cm x 4 cm over left upper arm in lower part extending upto 2 cm above left elbow joint. 17. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep 1 cm below injury no. 16. 18. Punctured wound 0.3 cm x 0.2 cm x muscle deep 13 cm. above left elbow joint on outer side of left upper arm. 19. Abrasion 6 cm x 4 cm over outer side of left fore arm, 6 cm below left elbow joint. 20. Abrasion 1 cm x 0.5 cm on outer side of right upper arm 7 cm above right elbow joint. 21. Contusion with multiple abrasion in an area of 6 cm x 4 cm over outer side of right forearm 8 cm below right elbow joint. 22. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep irregular over outer side of right thumb over M.P.Joint. 23. Punctured wound 0.3 cm x 0.2 cm over lower part of chest on left side 11 cm from left nipple and 3 cm from mid line. 24. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep 6 cm below injury no. 23. 25. Punctured wound 0.3 cm x 0.2 cm over lower part of chest on right side 10 cm from Rt. nipple 12 cm from mid line right pleura cavity deep. 26. Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm over lower abdomen on left side 4 cm above groin and 10 cm from mid line. 27. Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep over left side on back 6 cm from mid line on upper part. 28. Abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm over mid line on back, 4 cm below nape of neck. 29. Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep 1 cm left of mid line in middle of back. 30. Abrasion 5 cm x 2.5 cm on 5 cm. Right of mid line on back in middle. 31. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep 1 cm.below injury no.30 32. 29. Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep 1 cm left of mid line in middle of back. 30. Abrasion 5 cm x 2.5 cm on 5 cm. Right of mid line on back in middle. 31. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep 1 cm.below injury no.30 32. Incised wound 0.4 cm x 0.2 cm x bone deep in mid line on back 6 cm above cleft. 13. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, all the incriminating materials/evidence appearing during the course of trial were placed before the accused-appellants extending them an opportunity to render explanation, if any. The accused-appellants have stated in reply of some of the questions relating to the prosecution case as false and with respect to some of the questions disclaimed knowledge and have categorically stated enmity the cause for prosecution. The reference of litigation has also been mentioned by accused-appellants Karan Singh. Rameshwar, Ram Prakash and Ganga Ram have also given the identical reply in their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. Further accused-appellants Rameshwar, Ganga Ram and Ram Prakash have stated that they were prosecuted because of being sons of Karan Singh. 14. It has been submitted on behalf of the accused-appellants that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated due to enmity. Further submission is that the testimony of P.W.1 is of formal nature. He is not an eye witness. He has simply lodged the FIR. Further submission is that the P.W.1 is said to be the informant-complainant. 15. Further submission is that the P.W.2 Nauratan Singh, P.W. 3 Ganga Sahai, P.W.4 Nand Lal, all are related and interested witnesses. P.W.2 is the chance witness. There is no independent witness. Earlier, one of the accused had launched the prosecution under section 307 I.P.C. against the complainant's side which resulted into acquittal. One civil litigation for cancellation of will executed by wife of Santu in favour of Karan Singh is also pending and because of aforesaid reasons the accused appellants have been falsely implicated. 16. Per contra, it has been submitted by learned A.G.A. that it is a case of broad day light murder. P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 have supported the prosecution version. There is no material contradiction in their testimony. Merely being related or interested or P.W.2 being a chance witness, their testimony cannot be discarded outrightly. 16. Per contra, it has been submitted by learned A.G.A. that it is a case of broad day light murder. P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 have supported the prosecution version. There is no material contradiction in their testimony. Merely being related or interested or P.W.2 being a chance witness, their testimony cannot be discarded outrightly. The prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused appellants hence the trial court has not committed any error in recording the finding of conviction and consequently awarding the sentence. 17. It can safely be discerned through catena of decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court that the High Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction in appeal is expected to critically appraise the evidence available on record and, to draw an inference independently without being influenced by the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court, bearing in mind the basic principle of criminal jurisprudence about the innocence of the accused until otherwise is established from cogent evidence available on record(Ref : Padam Singh vs. State of U.P., 2000(1) SCC 621 ; Rama & others Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2002 (4) SCC 571 ; Majjal vs. State of Haryana, 2013 (6) SCC 798 ; Kamlesh Prabhudas Tanna and Anr. vs. State of Gujarat, 2014 Cr.LJ 443). 18. Time and again it has been propounded by the apex court that the plea of enmity can be used either way. It may be the cause for false implication but at the same time, it may be the cause for commission of the offence. The question of false implication on the strength of enmity can be decided only in the light of facts and circumstances of the case as well the evidence on record. 19. The matter of appreciation of evidence of related or interested witness was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court time and again through a catena of decisions. 20. So far appraisal of evidence of related witness is concerned, the matter has time and again been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Shiv Ram and Anr. vs. State of U.P., (1998)1 SCC 149 , Kuria and Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 10 SCC 433 , Gurjit Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2015) 4 SCC 380 and Veer Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 455 . vs. State of U.P., (1998)1 SCC 149 , Kuria and Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 10 SCC 433 , Gurjit Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2015) 4 SCC 380 and Veer Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 455 . Merely on the ground of witnesses being interested their testimony cannot be discarded outrightly as been held in Nagappan vs. State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 660. 21. So far as inimical witness is concerned, the matter has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Suresh Sitaram Surve v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 10 SCC 28 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1392, Dharamveer vs. State of U.P. (2010) 4 SCC 469 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 872, Ramashish Rai vs. Jagdish Singh, (2005) 10 SCC 498 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1611. 22. The requirement of law is that the testimony of inimical witness has to be considered with utmost care and caution. If the testimony of witnesses appears to be genuine and reliable their testimony cannot be thrown out on the pretext of witness being inimical, as such there is no legal impediment to place reliance upon such testimony. 23. The matter of consideration of testimony of a chance witness has time and again been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the case of Vikram Singh and others vs. State of Punjab reported in (2010) 3 SCC 56 . Reference may also be made to the pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Thangaiya vs. State of Tamil Nadue reported in (2005) 9 SCC 650 also. 24. The legal position has been crystallized through the aforesaid catena of decisions that the testimony of the related or interested or inimical or chance witness cannot be discarded outrightly but in such contingency an onerous duty has been cast upon the court to scrutinize the testimony of interested/related/inimical/chance witnesses with utmost care and caution. 25. The plea of false implication has been stated due to prosecution of the complainant's side by the accused under section 307 I.P.C. and further cause of pendency of civil suit filed by the complainant side against the accused-appellant Karan Singh for the cancellation of will deed alleged to have executed by wife of Santu in favour of accused appellant Karan Singh. 26. P.W.1 Mangali is not an eye witness. 26. P.W.1 Mangali is not an eye witness. He has lodged the FIR and proved its execution. His testimony is of no avail so far as the manner of commission of the offence is concerned. 27. Now the testimony of P.Ws.2, P.W. 3 and P.W.4 is being evaluated by the Court with respect to draw an inference about culpability or complicity of the accused persons with respect to the incident. 28. The testimony of Nauratan has been challenged on the ground that he was sitting on the chabutara of Mandir and his animals were grazing in the nearby field. It has been submitted on behalf of the accused appellants that he is a chance witness. There was no occasion for him to come to the temple for the purpose of grazing of the animals to a place leaving the pasture (the place specially allotted for grazing of the animals along with small pond located thereby).By way of cross examination the explanation has been rendered by the witness for grazing his animals in the field which belongs to him in paragraph 10 of the cross examination. Even presuming the witness to be related or interested now his testimony is required to be examined critically. 29. P.W. 2 Nauratan Singh had deposed that at about 10.30 hours the deceased Sriram came to the temple for worship from the Milak side and after worship when he came out, Nand Lal witness entered into the temple for making prayer. Sriram hardly moved 30 paces from the temple, the accused persons Karan Singh, Rameshwar, Ganga Ram and Ram Prakash had surrounded him and made assault. The accused persons Karan Singh and Rameshwar were equipped with pharsa, Ram Prakash was equipped with lathi and Gangaram was equipped with spear (Bhala). On alarm raised by Sriram, P.W.2, Nandlal and P.W. 3 Ganga Sahai came on the spot, when the witnesses tried to rescue the deceased, the accused appellants extended the threat and when the witnesses made exhortation the accused appellants fled away from the place of occurrence. Sriram (deceased) died at a distance of 30 paces from the temple. The witness was put to lengthy cross examination and he reiterated his earlier version of examination-in-chief. 30. Sriram (deceased) died at a distance of 30 paces from the temple. The witness was put to lengthy cross examination and he reiterated his earlier version of examination-in-chief. 30. P.W.2 Nauratan Singh has been put to grilling cross examination but nothing could be elicited by the witness by way of cross examination of the witness which may create a doubt about his presence on the spot on the date, time, place of occurrence. More so, nothing could be elicited in the cross examination so as to establish that the witness has not seen the incident. From the critical appraisal of the testimony of this witness in his examination-in-chief and cross-examination it is revealed that there is no material contradiction which may discredit his testimony. 31. P.W.3 Ganga Sahai has categorically stated that he had seen the accused Karan Singh, Rameshwar, Gangaram and Ram Prakash fleeing from the spot. He has identified the accused persons in the Court. He has assigned pharsa to Karan Singh and Rameshwar, Spear to Ganga Ram and Lathi to Ram Prakash. P.W.3 has further stated that his brother Sriram was lying dead. If his testimony, for argument sake is taken to be true, he has not given any description about the manner of commission of offence by accused appellants. If his testimony is appreciated in the light of testimony of P.W.2 it is established that Ganga Sahai P.W.3 had come on the spot after ten minutes of fleeing away of the accused appellants. The P.W.2 has further stated that Ganga Sahai did not see the accused appellant. If his testimony is taken to be true, the presence of Ganga Sahai on the spot is doubtful. His statement that he has seen the accused fleeing away from the spot also does not inspire confidence. 32. Now the Court has to see whether the deposition made by P.W.2 finds corroboration from the testimony of any other witness. 33. P.W.4 is alleged to be the eye witness. His testimony has been assailed on the ground that he being the brother of the deceased is related and highly interested witness. On the principles for appreciation of the testimony of related or interested witness the testimony of P.W.4 Nand Lal is being critically appraised. 34. P.W.4 Nand Lal is not the real brother of the deceased. His testimony has been assailed on the ground that he being the brother of the deceased is related and highly interested witness. On the principles for appreciation of the testimony of related or interested witness the testimony of P.W.4 Nand Lal is being critically appraised. 34. P.W.4 Nand Lal is not the real brother of the deceased. The parentage of P.W.4 Nand Lal is not identical to the parentage of the deceased Sri Ram. P.W.4 Nand Lal has claimed himself to be the eye witness. He has stated that he had gone to a temple situated at Dhobia Talab for worship. The deceased Sriram worshipped in the temple prior to him and came out and this witness entered thereafter. He has categorically stated that Nauratan Singh of his village was sitting on the chabutra. The witness has further stated that as he entered into the temple he heard the alarm, immediately he came out from the temple. He along with Nauratan P.W.2 heard the alarm then P.W.2 moved forward and saw that Karan Singh, Rameshwar, Gangaram and Ram Prakash. The witness has stated that Karan Singh and Rameshwar were equipped with pharsa, Ram Prakash was equipped with Lathi and Gangaram was equipped with spear. All the four accused were assaulting the deceased Sriram so as to take revenge of previous enmity. As they tried to rescue the deceased Sriram, the accused appellant extended threat to life. After assault, the accused fled towards West. Sri Ram was found dead by the witness P.W.4 when he reached at the place of incident. This witness has been put to a detailed cross examination. He has also revealed in his testimony that the assault took place about 30 paces away from the temple. The testimony of the witness has been assailed on the ground of enmity emanating from litigation launched under section 307 I.P.C. with regard to firing upon Karan Singh. This litigation resulted into acquittal. This litigation was launched five years prior to the incident. The plea of enmity has become stale. Even if it is presumed then an onerous duty is cast upon the Court to critically appreciate the testimony of the witness with utmost care and caution. This litigation resulted into acquittal. This litigation was launched five years prior to the incident. The plea of enmity has become stale. Even if it is presumed then an onerous duty is cast upon the Court to critically appreciate the testimony of the witness with utmost care and caution. Nothing could be elicited in the cross-examination of this witness which may create doubt in his description about the date, time, place and the manner of occurrence and by whom the alleged offence was committed. After the detailed cross examination nothing could be extracted by way of cross examination from the witness which may be termed as material contradiction and may discredit his testimony. There is complete symmetry on all material points in the examination-in-chief and cross examination of this witness. 35. After ignoring the testimony of P.W.3, the testimony of P.W.2 and P.W.4 remains on record for inter-se scrutiny to draw the interference about the date, time, place and the manner of the incident and the weapons were used by the accused appellants in commission of the offence. On inter-se assessment of the testimony of P.W.2 and P.W.4, we find that there is complete coherence and consistency in their testimony with respect to the date, time, place and the manner of commission of the offence as well as the weapons which were used by the accused appellants for committing deadly assault on Sriram (deceased) who succumbed to the injuries caused by the assault. 36. Even if for argument sake, it is presumed that minor contradictions are there in their testimonies, we are of the opinion that the contradictions, if any, are of trivial nature, do not go to root of the prosecution case or dent the prosecution case materially or substantially. If the testimony of any witness is free from any sort of contradiction, then the witness may be placed in the category of tutored witness. It has time and again been appreciated in a catena of decisions that natural variations or contradictions of trivial nature are bound to occur in the testimony of a natural witness. 37. From a cumulative assessment of the testimony of P.W.2 and P.W.4, their presence is established on the spot and their status as eye witnesses is not shaken . 38. Now the Court is required to assess the testimony of P.W.2 and P.W.4 in the light of medical evidence. 37. From a cumulative assessment of the testimony of P.W.2 and P.W.4, their presence is established on the spot and their status as eye witnesses is not shaken . 38. Now the Court is required to assess the testimony of P.W.2 and P.W.4 in the light of medical evidence. Karan Singh, Rameshwar were assigned Pharsa, Ram Prakash was assigned Lathi and Ganga Ram was assigned ballam (spear). 39. A perusal of injury report reveals that injuries on the person of the deceased are in the nature of lacerated wound, incised wound, contused abrasion, contusions, punctured wound and abrasions. The total number of the injuries caused to the deceased were 32 in number. The nature of the injuries disclosed in the injury report is indicative of use of weapons which have been assigned to the accused appellants. The injuries in the nature of incised wounds can be caused by the sharp edged weapon like pharsa, injuries in the nature of contusion or lacerated wound may be caused by use of lathi and punctured wound can be caused by spear (Bhala). 40. P.W.2 and P.W.4 have given the description about the assault of the deceased by accused appellants by weapons which were assigned to them. The ocular evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4 finds full corroboration from the medical testimony. 41. No suggestion has been given to P.W.9 Dr. A.K.Jain so as to prove that the injuries in the nature as referred in the post mortem report could not have been caused by the weapons assigned to the accused-appellants. The doctor has also corroborated the time of death and has denied suggestion about the death taking place in the night. It is pertinent to point out here that nothing could be elicited from the doctor which may discredit the authenticity of post mortem examination report. Cumulative assessment of the medical evidence and ocular evidence further fortifies the prosecution story. 42. P.Ws.5, 6, 7 and 8 are the formal witnesses. Their testimony is confined to the documents they have executed or to their role during the course of investigation. 43. The plea of FIR being ante-timed has been raised on behalf of the appellants. The inference for ante-timed of the FIR is to be drawn on the basis of totality of circumstances appearing in the case. 44. The appellant has suggested P.W.8 that the FIR was not ready at the time of inquest proceedings. 43. The plea of FIR being ante-timed has been raised on behalf of the appellants. The inference for ante-timed of the FIR is to be drawn on the basis of totality of circumstances appearing in the case. 44. The appellant has suggested P.W.8 that the FIR was not ready at the time of inquest proceedings. This suggestion was denied by P.W.8. From the perusal of the inquest report it is clear that the inquest proceedings commenced at 1.15 P.M.and concluded at 3.45 P.M. The case crime number is also mentioned on the inquest proceedings. The FIR bears the endorsement of Circle Officer and it was dispatched from the police station through the post. All the documents which were prepared immediately after the registration of F.I.R.during the course of investigation on 25.5.1987 bears the case crime number. The argument was raised on the strength of the endorsement of C.J.M., the date below the signature is not legible. To substantiate the plea of ante-timed FIR the register of FIR maintained at the office of C.J.M.was not summoned during the course of trial so as to clearly establish the date of receipt of the FIR in the court and date on which it was placed before the C.J.M.for perusal. The documents which were executed on 25.5.1987 go to prove that the FIR was in existence at the time of execution of the documents referred to above. 45. We are not impressed upon the submission made in this regard. As such we are of the opinion that the plea raised is not sustainable. 46. We are of the considered opinion that the findings of conviction recorded by the trial court are reasoned one and are substantiated from the material available on record. The learned Trial Court has not committed any error of misappreciation of evidence. The evidence has rightly been appreciated by the learned Trial Court and the findings of conviction do not require any interference. 47. The incident took place on 25.5.1987 at about 10.00 A.M. The statement of accused Ram Prakash under section 313 Cr.P.C.was recorded by the Court on 28.3.1988. His age in the statement has been recorded as 16 years, meaning thereby the accused appellant Ram Prakash was about 15 years at the time of incident. This fact has not been disputed by the prosecution. His age in the statement has been recorded as 16 years, meaning thereby the accused appellant Ram Prakash was about 15 years at the time of incident. This fact has not been disputed by the prosecution. It appears that the attention of the Court was not drawn about the juvenility of the accused Ram Prakash otherwise it could not have sent him to jail which is made for the adults. It has also been brought to our notice that the appellant Ram Prakash has been in jail for about more than a year. Considering the juvenility, which is established from the record and not disputed by the prosecution,we are of the considered opinion that the appeal requires interference on the point of magnitude of sentence awarded to the accused appellant Ram Prakash. 48. Consequently, the appeal deserves to be allowed partly with respect to the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant Ram Prakash who was Juvenile-in-conflict with law at the time of incident. 49. The finding of conviction recorded against the appellants by the learned Trial Court vide its judgment and order dated 25.4.1988 is hereby maintained and affirmed. The quantum of sentence awarded to the accused appellant Rameshwar does not require any interference. The sentence awarded to the accused-appellant Ram Prakash is modified to the imprisonment already undergone. He be set at liberty. His personal bonds are cancelled and his sureties discharged. 50. The appeal is partly allowed in the light of the aforesaid observations. The conviction and sentence awarded to appellant Rameshwar is maintained and affirmed. The conviction of accused Ram Prakash is maintained but he be released as directed above. 51. The accused appellant Rameshwar is reported to be on bail. He is directed to surrender before the Trial Court forthwith to undergo the sentence awarded to him by the learned Trial Court. 52. Let a copy of this order along with lower court record be transmitted to learned trial court for information and necessary compliance within two months from the date of the order under intimation to this Court.