JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajiv Gupta, J.—The present appeal arises against the judgment and order dated 27.1.1989, passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act)/, Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai in S.T. No. 9 of 1988, (State v. Khem Raj and another), by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that a First Information Report has been lodged by Rajendra Singh alleging that his brother Ajit Singh @ Indrapal Singh was married one Guddi @ Urmila daughter of appellant-Khemraj about a year back and the marriage deed was registered with the Sub-Registrar, Konch, District Jalaun at Orai. On account of said fact, Khemraj started bearing enmity with the deceased Ajit Singh and he left the village and started living in District-Jhansi. It has been further alleged that on 24.8.1987 at 2:30 P.M, he alongwith his brother Ajit Singh was returning back to their house from their field (haar) and as soon as they reached in front of the door of Lalaram, Khemraj and Lalaram, both sons of Nanhai armed with country made pistols, came there and challenged them by saying that they have forcibly kept his daughter and dare to pass through his door and asked to shoot him, sensing danger, both of them tried to make their escape good and from the back Suresh Nai and Narain Singh, who were also present there, challenged them. However, Khemraj with an intention to kill his brother opened fire, due to which his brother Ajit Singh received injuries and fell down. In the meantime, a large number of villagers had assembled and on being challenged, both the assailants made their escape good with the country made pistols. The said incident is said to have been witnessed by the first informant-Rajendra Singh, his brother Narain Singh and Suresh Nai. On account of firing made by the appellant, the victim received serious injuries and thereafter he was taken by the complainant-Rajendra Singh to police station Konch, District-Jalaun on a tractor and Majroobi-chitthi was prepared by the police of police station-Konch. The victim was taken to the Joint Government Hospital by constable Shyam Yadav, where he was medically examined. The Medical Examination Report is Exbt. Ka-3. In the meantime, Rajendra Singh, brother of the victim lodged written report at police station-Konch, which is marked as Exbt. The victim was taken to the Joint Government Hospital by constable Shyam Yadav, where he was medically examined. The Medical Examination Report is Exbt. Ka-3. In the meantime, Rajendra Singh, brother of the victim lodged written report at police station-Konch, which is marked as Exbt. Ka-1 and on the basis of which the First Information Report was lodged, which is marked as Exbt. Ka-13 and necessary entries were made in the G.D, copy of which is marked as Exbt. Ka-14. Soon-after medical examination, the victim Ajit Singh had died and letter was sent from the hospital to the police station-Konch informing about his death, which is marked as Exbt. Ka-4. After receiving said letter, the police of police station-Konch converted the case under Section 302 IPC and necessary entries were made in the G.D, which is marked as Exbt.-Ka 15. 3. Since the case was related to police station-Rendhar, as such all relevant papers were sent to the police of police station-Rendhar where the case was registered vide G.D. Report No. 27, which is marked as Kxbt. Ka-17. The investigation of the said case was entrusted to S.I. Sukhram Verma, who reached the place of incident. However, on account of dark hours, the place of incident could not be inspected. Consequently, on 25.8.1987, the Investigating Officer inspected the place of incident and prepared the site-plan, which is marked as Exbt. Ka-18. The inquest was also held on 25.8.1987 by S. I. B.S. Rana (P.W.-5), which is marked as Exbt. Ka-7 and thereafter body was wrapped in a sheet of cloth and was sealed. S.I. B.S. Rana (P.W.-5) also prepared the Photo-lash, Exbt. Ka-8, challan lash Exbt. Ka-9, letters to Medical Officer, Incharge Joint Government Hospital, Exbt. Ka-10 and Exbt. Ka-11 and specimen impression of seal, Exbt. Ka-12 and thereafter sent the body for post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. R.S. Kushwaha, which is marked as Exbt.-Ka-5 and its carbon copy is Exbt.-Ka-6. 4. The Investigating Officer thereafter recorded the statements of the witnesses, Suresh Nai, Balvir and Urmila on 28.8.1987 and on 17.9.1987 recorded the statements of S.I. Bani Singh Rana, constable Lal Chandra and thereafter on 24.9.1987 recorded the statement of constable Shiv Lakhan and constable Ram Sajivan of police station-Konch. On 28.9.1987 the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the appellant which is marked as Exbt-Ka-19. On 28.9.1987 the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the appellant which is marked as Exbt-Ka-19. Consequently, accused Khemraj and Lalaram appeared before the Court and charges were framed against accused Khemraj under Section 302 IPC, whereas charge under Section 302/34 IPC was framed against accused Lalaram. Both of them did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. Rajendra Singh (P.W.-1), who is the real brother of the deceased and claimed himself to be eye-witness of the murder of the deceased-Ajit Singh. Narain Singh (P.W.-2) claims himself to be eye-witness of the incident and he is also brother of the deceased. Suresh Kumar (P.W.-3) is an independent witness and claims to be an eye-witness of the incident. 6. Rajendra Singh (P.W.-1) has lodged First Information Report and has stated that the deceased Ajit Singh was his real brother and he had married Guddi @ Urmila daughter of accused Khemraj and marriage was registered in the Court, on account of which Khemraj started bearing animosity against his brother. It is further alleged that on the date of incident, he alongwith Ajit Singh was returning back to his house and when they reached near the house of Khemraj and Lalaram, then they armed with country made pistol came there and challenged them by saying that he has forcibly married his daughter and dare to pass through his door, as such he be killed. Consequent thereto on the exhortation of Lalaram, Khemraj has opened fire, which hit the victim Ajit Singh, who fell down and thereafter the appellant made their escape good. The victim Ajit Singh thereafter was taken to police station, from-where he was sent for medical examination to the hospital where he died. In the cross-examination, he has stated that after taking his meal, he had gone to his fields and thereafter was returning back to his home. He has further stated that in village-Koilari, Khemraj was having a house and he had sold the same to one Maan Singh and has given its possession and started living at Jhansi. It has further been stated that when they reached near the house of Khemraj and Lalaram, they were 6-7 paces away from Ajit Singh and when he turned to run away, the firing started, due to which he fell down. It has further been stated that when they reached near the house of Khemraj and Lalaram, they were 6-7 paces away from Ajit Singh and when he turned to run away, the firing started, due to which he fell down. He had heard the sound of single firing at the place of incident. It has further been stated that for providing medical aid to the victim, he had taken to him to Konch whereas the place of incident falls within the range of police station Rendhar. On the way in order to inform the police, the victim was taken to the police station-Konch and from where he was sent to hospital through a police constable. He had orally informed the incident to Sub-Inspector. However, the same was not reduced in writting and thereafter he scribed the report and handed over to the police who registered the First Information Report and thereafter he left for the hospital, where his brother breathed his last. 7. Narain Singh (P.W.-2), who is also the brother of the deceased, has also supported the prosecution story in all material particulars and has stated that on the date of incident at about 2:30 P.M., he was going to his house alongwith one Suresh Nai. Ahead of him, Ajit Singh and Rajendra Singh were also going and when he reached near Mahavir Temple, Ajit Singh and Rajendra Singh reached near the house of Khemraj, who came out and challenged Ajit Singh that he had married his daughter, as such be killed. Alongwith Khemraj, Lalaram has also emerged from the place and Khemraj abused Ajit Singh and opened fire, due to which deceased fell down. It has further been stated that they challenged the accused persons and after taking the tractor had taken Ajit Singh to police station-Konch. In the cross-examination he had stated that as soon as the accused persons challenged Ajit Singh, he turned around and at that very moment, firing was resorted to by Khemraj. He was interrogated by the Investigating Officer and after conducting the Panchayatnama, the body was sent for post-mortem. He has further stated that Ajit Singh was first taken to the police station where Rajendra Singh had lodged the report and thereafter he alongwith Rajendra Singh and the police constable had taken him to the hospital, where Ajit Singh died. He was interrogated by the Investigating Officer and after conducting the Panchayatnama, the body was sent for post-mortem. He has further stated that Ajit Singh was first taken to the police station where Rajendra Singh had lodged the report and thereafter he alongwith Rajendra Singh and the police constable had taken him to the hospital, where Ajit Singh died. After death of Ajit Singh, Rajendra Singh returned back to the village and he stayed with the dead body. 8. Suresh Kumar (P.W.-3) is also an eye-witness and he has stated that on the date of incident at 2:30 P.M., he alongwith Narain Singh were returning back to his house from the bus-stand and ahead of him, Rajendra Singh and Ajit Singh were also going and when he alongwith Narain Singh reached near the Hanuman Temple, then Rajendra Singh and Ranjit Singh had reached at the house of accused Khemraj and from his house, Khemraj and Lalaram emerged armed with country made pistol and Khemraj opened fire by country made pistol, which hit Ajit Singh. Prior to opening of fire, Khemraj had stated that he had taken revenge of his daughter’s marriage, being hit by firing made by Khemraj, he fell down and on being challenged, the accused persons tried to make escape good and on the next day, he came to know that Ajit Singh had expired. In his cross-examination, he stated that he runs the shop of barber and his house is half a Kilometer from the motor stand and on the date of incident he had gone to the motor-stand and was returning back. It has further been stated that he had not gone to the police station alongwith Ajit Singh and had returned back to his house from the place of incident and on the next day in the morning, a chaukidar came to his house and informed that the Sub-Inspector had called on for him and he went to the house of Narain Singh, where he was interrogated by the police and thereafter he returned back to his house. He has further stated that his house is situated at the distance of 10-15 paces from the house of Narain Singh and at the same distance the house of Rajendra Singh is also situated. He has further stated that his house is situated at the distance of 10-15 paces from the house of Narain Singh and at the same distance the house of Rajendra Singh is also situated. He has further stated that Hanuman Temple from-where he had seen the incident, is the house of one Ram Kishan and thereafter the house of Mansha Ram is situated. He has further stated that as soon as the accused persons challenged Ajit Singh, he tried to escape, but he could not run away and could only travel 2-3 paces. It has further been stated that the place where Ajit Singh fell down after being shot, the house of one Teli is situated, however he does not know his name, though the name of his son is Raghuvir and on the north side of house of Raghuvir, the house of Mansha Ram is situated. P.W.-4 Dr. R.S. Kushwaha had medically examined the victim Ajit Singh on 24.8.1987 at 4:45 P.M. and found the following injuries on the person : “Fire-arm wound of entry 5.2 c.m. x 4 c.m. X depth could not be noted to avoid probing on the back left side 29 c.m. below left shoulder wound bleeding in horizontal direction close to post axillary line with six holes 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. in circular fashion. Injury is caused by fire-arm. Injury is fresh and under observation as the patient is in agony and shock.” 9. The victim Ajit Singh thereafter died in the hospital and an autopsy was conducted on the person of the deceased on 25.8.1987 at 10 A.M. by P.W.-4 Dr. R.S. Kushwaha, who has noted the following anti-mortem injuries : (1). Fire-arm wound of entry 5.2 cm x 4 cm x depth not probed, on the left side of back 29 cm below the left shoulder wound bleeding, in horizontal direction close to axillary line with six holes 1 cm x 1 cm in circular. (2). R.S. Kushwaha, who has noted the following anti-mortem injuries : (1). Fire-arm wound of entry 5.2 cm x 4 cm x depth not probed, on the left side of back 29 cm below the left shoulder wound bleeding, in horizontal direction close to axillary line with six holes 1 cm x 1 cm in circular. (2). Fire-arm wound of entry 5.2 cm x 4 cm on the left back 29 cm below left shoulder with six wounds 1 cm x 1 cm dimensions spread in circular fashion horizontal direction penetrating lower chest wall from the back at the level of 6, 7, 8 and 9th ribs causing laceration of muscles of thoracic cage, intercostal muscles latissimus dorsi with fractures of 8th and 9th ribs from the back and post axillary line with fractures of 6th and 7th ribs in interior axillary line with effusion of blood in pectorals major left side and latissimus dorsi-5, 6 and 7th intercostal muscles. Three shots found in chest wall 5, 6 and 7 intercostal level in mid axillary in latissimus dorsi muscle. Three shots found just below nipple line found in 8th and 9th intercostal muscles anterior axillary line. (3). On internal examination skin, subcutaneous tissue and muscle lacerated under ante-mortem injury with fractures of 6, 7, 8 and 9th ribs. Pleura torn, dark coloured blood present in the left pleural cavity, upper lobe of left lung had two holes 1 cm x 1 cm causing laceration of the tissue lung, 3 holes on the lower lobe causing laceration from the sides penetrating the at the front. 10. Mr. B.S. Rana (P.W.-5) was posted as S.I. of police station-Konch on 24.8.1987 who received the memo from the Joint Government Hospital about the death of the victim and proceeded to the hospital for conducting the inquest, however on account of insufficient light the panchayatnama could not be conducted on the same day and was conducted on 25.8.1987 at 6 A.M. And after preparation of the necessary police papers the body was sent for post-mortem through police constables. 11. Ram Sajeewan (P.W.-6) prepared the chick FIR and G.D., which is marked as Exbt. Ka-13 and Ka-14. 11. Ram Sajeewan (P.W.-6) prepared the chick FIR and G.D., which is marked as Exbt. Ka-13 and Ka-14. He also prepared the G.D. of the information received from the hospital confirming the death of Ajit Singh and since the case related to police station-Rendhar, as such the investigation of the said case was entrusted to police station-Rendher by G.D. Report No. 29 dated 24.8.1987, which is marked as Exbt. Ka-16. Bhagwati Prasad (P.W.-7), who had received the aforesaid relevant papers from the police station-Konch and made the entry by G.D. Report No. 27, dated 24.8.1987 at 9:30 P.M, which is marked as Exbt. Ka-17. Sukhram Verma (P.W.-8) is the Investigating Officer of the case, who interrogated the witnesses and inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site-plan and tendered the report of Scientific Officer, which is marked as Exbt. Ka-2. 12. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the appellants were recorded in which Khemraj stated that he had sold his house, which Ranjit Singh and Suresh wanted to purchase and since he did not sold the house to them, they started bearing enmity. It has further been stated that he has only one daughter and Rajendra Singh has no agricultural land in the haar. Further, accused Lalaram had stated that the complainant forcibly wanted to take possession of his house and as such he has been falsely implicated and has further stated that Rajendra Singh has no agricultural land in the haar. The accused-appellant in his defence has filed extract of Khatauni, which is marked as Exbt. Kha-2. 13. Heard Sri Virendra Singh Parmar, Advocate assisted by Sri Om Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P.S. Yadav, learned AGA for the State. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant but the trial Court has illegally convicted and sentenced the appellants. P.W.-2 Narain Singh and P.W.-3 Suresh Kumar are chance witnesses and there was no occasion for them to remain present at the place of occurrence. Motive attributed to the accused was not established by the prosecution. P.W.-1 Rajendra Singh is the real brother of the deceased and he is highly interested and partisan witness and as such his testimony cannot be relied upon. Motive attributed to the accused was not established by the prosecution. P.W.-1 Rajendra Singh is the real brother of the deceased and he is highly interested and partisan witness and as such his testimony cannot be relied upon. The incident has taken place in village-Koilari, which lies within the circle of police station-Rendhar, District-Jalaun. However, the First Information Report was lodged at police station-Konch after making consultation and deliberation with legal brain. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the FIR has not been lodged at the time, when it alleged to have been lodged, but it has been prepared subsequently and lodged by making it anti-time. 15. The place of incident has also not been established by the prosecution. There are medical inconsistencies in the prosecution case, which creates serious dent and renders the prosecution story unbelievable. Two most important witnesses, namely Balveer and Urmila have not been produced by the prosecution and has been deliberately withheld. The two police constables, who have taken the dead body for post-mortem examination has also not been examined, which makes the prosecution case highly doubtful and renders the conviction illegal. On the contrary, learned AGA Sri P.S. Yadav has supported the prosecution story and has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and has supported the judgment passed by the trial Court convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him for life imprisonment. 16. From the careful perusal of the prosecution case and the evidence adduced, it is evident that both P.W-1 Rajendra Singh and P.W.-2 Narain Singh in their statements have categorically stated that one year prior to the occurrence, the deceased Ajit Singh has performed marriage with Guddi daughter of accused Khemraj, in respect of which, a marriage deed was registered with Sub-Registrar, Konch. Due to this reason, accused-appellant Khemraj had left the village and started living at Jhansi. This was the bone of contention between Khemraj and his brother Lalaram on one hand and the complainant on the other. Both the aforesaid witnesses have been subjected to lengthy cross-examination, however, nothing has come out which may rule out the motive of the accused persons in commission of the crime. Moreover, it is well-settled principle of law that in case of direct evidence, motive is not much of significance. Both the aforesaid witnesses have been subjected to lengthy cross-examination, however, nothing has come out which may rule out the motive of the accused persons in commission of the crime. Moreover, it is well-settled principle of law that in case of direct evidence, motive is not much of significance. The prosecution has produced as many as three eye-witnesses of the incident, who have supported the prosecution case to the hilt and as such motive pales into insignificance. 17. The next submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the incident in question has taken place in village-Konch, which falls within the circle of police station-Rendhar, District-Jalaun. However, report was lodged at police station-Konch, which clearly shows that the First Information Report has been lodged in consultation with legal brains. However, the said submission of appellant does not hold much water as from the bare perusal of the First Information Report, it is evident that it contains simple narration of the facts described in a most natural way and not a result of any deliberation or consultation. The FIR has also been lodged with all promptitude which further rules out any consultation and deliberation. 18. From the careful perusal of testimony of Rajendra Singh (P.W.-1), it is evident that the victim Ranjit Singh on receiving gun shot injury was in a precarious condition and therefore, the first intention of his brother was to save his life and as such he was being taken to Konch, where better medical facilities were available and the said hospital was also at a shorter distance from the place of occurrence and as such in the natural course, the first informant in his wisdom has rightly taken him to the police station-Konch for giving information to the police about the incident lodged the report at P.S. Konch and on the basis of Chitthi-Majroobiand he was rushed to the hospital for treatment. From the said chain of events, it is evident that the first informant had no evil intention to take the victim to Konch for lodging the report in consultation with legal brains and in his testimony he has given reasonable explanation for taking his brother to Konch, which cannot be doubted and there was no oblique motive for the same. 19. 19. The next submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the First Information Report is an anti-timed and has not in fact been lodged when it is purported to have been lodged. From the careful perusal of the post-mortem report, it is evident that the First Information Report has been lodged with all promptitude as the incident is said to have been taken place at about 2:30 P.M. and the First Information Report has been lodged at 4:15 P.M. The distance between the place of incident and police station-Konch is said to be 11-12 kms. and the FIR has been lodged 4:15 P.M. and there is absolutely no delay in lodging the First Information Report, which completely rules out the possibility of FIR being anti-timed. Moreover, the defence has not been able to point out any other discrepancies, which may be indicative of the fact that the First Information Report has been lodged by making it anti-time. 20. Further-more, from the careful perusal of the record, it is evident that as soon as the victim reached the police station-Konch, the police prepared a Majroobi-chitthi as the victim was in a precarious condition and immediately rushed him to the hospital for his medical treatment. The said Majroobi-chitthi is available on record and has been proved as Exbt.Ka-3 and the victim has been medically examined at 4:45 P.M. after registration of First Information Report. 21. Ram Sajeewan (P.W.-6) in his testimony has specifically stated that the victim was sent for medical examination through constable Shyam Dutt, after preparation of the Majroobi-chitthi, which was handed over to constable Shyam Dutt and on the back of which, medical examination report has been prepared, which has been marked as Exbt-Ka-3. 22. Thus, from the entire evidence adduced and discussed by the trial Court, we are of the opinion that by no stretch of imagination, the said FIR can be said to be anti-timed. 23. 22. Thus, from the entire evidence adduced and discussed by the trial Court, we are of the opinion that by no stretch of imagination, the said FIR can be said to be anti-timed. 23. The next submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that since from the place of incident, no blood was found by the Investigating Officer when he visited the place of occurrence, therefore, prosecution has failed to prove the place of incident and to buttress his argument has relied upon the case in State of U.P. v. Bhagwant, 2003 (3) MPWN (SC) and Deo Raj and another v. State of U.P., 2012(9) ADJ 129 , however, from the evidence adduced in the present case, it is clear that the present incident has taken place on 24.8.1987 at 2:30 P.M. and the Investigating Officer has inspected the place of occurrence on 25.8.1987 and prepared the site plan. From the perusal of the site plan, it is evident that the incident has taken place on a ‘rasta’, which is situated in front of the house of accused. Being the ‘rasta’ number of persons may have passed through that way resulting in removal/wiping out of blood under the circumstance, failure of the Investigating Officer in not finding the blood on the place of incident is not of much consequence and in no way discredit the prosecution story. 24. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited the case in State of U.P. v. Bhagwant, 2003 (2) MPWN (SC) and Deo Raj and another v. State of U.P., 2012(9) ADJ 129 . Thus, the facts of the case cited by the appellant’s counsel are quite distinguishable from the present case as such are of not much help to the appellant as the place of incident has also been established by the occular version. 25. The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the medical evidence do not support the prosecution story. From the evidence adduced during the course of trial, it is clear that it was the appellant Khemraj, who had fired shot upon the victim-Ajit Singh, which hit him on the left back 29 c.m. below left shoulder. 25. The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the medical evidence do not support the prosecution story. From the evidence adduced during the course of trial, it is clear that it was the appellant Khemraj, who had fired shot upon the victim-Ajit Singh, which hit him on the left back 29 c.m. below left shoulder. As per the site plan, the fire is said to have been made from the point ‘B’ and is said to have hit the victim-(Ajit Singh) when he was standing at point ‘A’ and the distance between ‘A’ to “B’ has been noted 4 paces and no blackening and tattooing or scorching have been found around the wound. 26. Dr. R.S. Kushwaha (P.W.-4), who prepared the injury report has stated that there is a possibility of wound being caused to the victim by a country made pistol from a distance of more than 6 feet and no wad piece have been found inside the body, which shows that firing have been done from a distance of more than 3 feet and therefore, from the testimony of the doctor and the site plan, the firing is said to have been made from 4 paces i.e. about 10 feet as such absence of blackening, tattooing and scorching does not render the prosecution case doubtful. 27. The next submission made by learned counsel for the appellant is that the investigation has not been made in a fair manner as the statements of witnesses Suresh Nai, Balvir and Urmila have been recorded on 28.8.1987 and as such there is a vital delay in recording their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. However, from the evidence adduced by the Investigating Officer, it is clear that the Investigating Officer has given reasonable explanation in recording the statements of the said witnesses on 28.8.1987. As per the statement of I.O, on 26.8.1987 he was in search of the accused Lalaram and on 27.8.1987 he did not make any investigation of the said case and on 28.8.1987 he recorded the statement of the said witnesses and therefore, there has not been any vital delay in recording the said statement and delay, if any, has been reasonably explained by the Investigating Officer. 28. 28. The next argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the most material witnesses namely Balveer and Urmila have not been produced before the Court and as such adverse inference to be drawn against the prosecution. It is well-settled principle of law that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. Moreover, the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to demonstrate in any manner as to how non examination of said witnesses caused any prejudice to the accused. Moreover, from the testimony of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 the case of the prosecution stands established to the hilt as the defence has not been able to point out any material inconsistencies or discrepancies in their statements which may go to the root of the case in making prosecution story doubtful. 29. The prosecution story also finds corroboration with the medical, which further cements the prosecution case and learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any contradiction or inconsistency in the occular testimony viz-a-viz the medical evidence. 30. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court is well considered and discussed and the trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubts and as such the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court is liable to be upheld and appeal having no force is liable to be rejected. 31. The criminal appeal is, hereby, dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant-Khemraj vide impugned judgment and order dated 27.1.1989 is hereby confirmed. The accused-appellant is on bail, his bail is cancelled. The Sessions Judge, Jalaun/C.J.M, Jalaun shall cause the appellant Khemraj to be arrested and lodged in jail to serve out the sentence. 32. A copy of the judgement alongwith trial Court record be sent to Sessions Judge, Jalaun/C.J.M, Jalaun for necessary compliance. 33. Judgment be certified and placed on record.