Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 993 (ALL)

BARDANI @ KADHORA v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-04-12

ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA I, BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA

body2017
JUDGMENT : B.K. Narayana, J. Case called out in the revised list. None appears on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal. 2. Record shows that this appeal is of the year 1989 and Bardani @ Kadhora sole appellant in this appeal is on bail since December 1989. 3. Record further shows that when this appeal was taken up in the revised list on 13.01.2017 neither the appellant nor his counsel had appeared before this Court to press the appeal, as a result following order was passed by us on 13.01.2017. "Case called out in the revised list. None appears on behalf of the appellant-Bardani @ Kadhora to press this appeal, even though Sri A.N. Mulla, Sri Sagir Ahmad, Sri J.K. Upadhyay and Kumari Meena, learned AGAs are present for the State. This appeal is of the year 1989. Record shows that the appellant-Bardani @ Kadhora is on bail. In view of above, issue non-bailable warrant against accused-appellant through Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur returnable at an early date. In case the appellant surrenders and/or are arrested, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the undertaking that he shall appear before this Court on the next date fixed. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur shall submit his report along with copies of bail bonds and sureties furnished by the appellant. List this appeal on 20.02.2017. Let a copy of this order shall be given to learned AGA within 24 hours. " 4. When this matter was taken up again on 07.3.2017, even then no-one had appeared to press this appeal and after perusing the report of CJM dated 17.02.2017 which indicated that appellant Bardani @ Kadhora was no longer residing at the address mentioned by him in the memo of appeal and he had shifted somewhere else after selling his entire movable and immovable properties, we passed an order on 07.03.2017 directing the CJM, Hamirpur to proceed against the sureties of the appellant and submit his report within three weeks. The matter was directed to be listed again on 03.04.2017. 5. The matter was directed to be listed again on 03.04.2017. 5. In compliance of the order of this Court dated 07.03.2017 CJM, Hamirpur submitted his report 25.03.2017 before this Court stating therein that he could not proceed against the sureties of the appellant as the bail bonds furnished by his sureties at the time of his being released on bail were not available as the same had been transmitted to this Court vide RR no. 33/29.03.1989. We therefore passed an order on 03.04.2017 directing the office of this Court to search out the bail bonds furnished by the sureties of the appellants before CJM, Hamirpur at the time of his being enlarged on bail and place the same on record within a week and this appeal was directed to be listed again on 10.04.2017. 6. Office report dated 10.04.2017 indicates that on careful examination of the lower court record bail bonds of the sureties of the accused appellant were not found available in the lower court record. In view of the above, in our opinion giving of any further direction to the CJM, Hamirpur to make further efforts to trace out the appellant Bardani @ Kadhora and produce him before us would be an exercise in futile and will lead to further delay in the disposal of this appeal. It is apparent that neither the appellant nor his counsel are interested in the disposal of this appeal. 7. Faced with the aforesaid contingency, the question which arises before us is that whether we are bound to adjourn the hearing of the appeal in the absence of both the appellant or his counsel. It is apparent that neither the appellant nor his counsel are interested in the disposal of this appeal. 7. Faced with the aforesaid contingency, the question which arises before us is that whether we are bound to adjourn the hearing of the appeal in the absence of both the appellant or his counsel. Under identical circumstances of the Apex Court after a comprehensive analysis of previous decisions on the issue has distilled the legal position into six propositions in paragraph 19 of its judgement delivered in the case of K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka (2013) 3 SCC 721 : 19.1 That the High Court cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter without examining the merits; 19.2 That the Court is not bound to adjourn the matter if both the appellant or his counsel/lawyer are absent; 19.3 That the court may, as a matter of prudence or indulgence, adjourn the matter but it is not bound to do so;" 19.4 That it can dispose of the appeal after perusing the record and judgement of the trial court; 19.5 That if the accused is in jail and cannot, on his own, come to court, it would be advisable to adjourn the case and fix another date to facilitate the appearance of the appellant-accused if his lawyer is not present, and if the lawyer is absent and the court deems it appropriate to appoint a lawyer at the State expense to assist it, nothing in law would preclude the court from doing so; and 19.6 That if the case is decided on merits in the absence of the appellant, the higher court can remedy the situation. 8. Thus, in view of the legal position propounded by the Apex Court in the case of K.S. Panduranga (Supra), we do not find any good reason to adjourn the hearing of this appeal suo motu in the absence of the appellant or his counsel and we proceed to examine this appeal on merits with the assistance of Sri A.N. Mulla, Km. Meena learned A.G.A. and Smt. Manju Thakur, Sri Syed Hasan Shaukat Abidi and Sri Ravindra Mani Pal, learned brief holders for the State. 9. Meena learned A.G.A. and Smt. Manju Thakur, Sri Syed Hasan Shaukat Abidi and Sri Ravindra Mani Pal, learned brief holders for the State. 9. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.12.1988 passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act) Hamirpur in Sessions Trial No. 125 of 1986 convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302 IPC for life imprisonment and three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 326 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 10. The prosecution case as spelt out in the FIR is that :PW-4 Badri lodged a written report Ext.Ka-2 at P.S. Karwai, Mahoba, Hamirpur on 24.04.1986 at 09.45 a.m. alleging therein that when he returned to his house on 14.04.1986 at about 8.00 p.m. after attending a religious function he saw Paan Kunwar @ Gulabrani, wife of Ganesha and the appellant Bardani @ Kadhora son of Bhaunia Kachhi Kadhora in the house of Bhaunia Kachhi Kadhora (deceased) father of the appellant. On noticing him the appellant went inside his house and wife of Ganesha came out of his house. Both of them were seen by Radharani wife of Thakurdas who chided Paan Kunwar @ Gulabrani for having been seen alone in the house of the appellant and also for having relation with him. She also threatened to expose her clandestine relationship with the appellant. Due to the chiding and the threat given by Smt. Radharani, both Radharani and Gulabrani quarreled with each other. Bhaunia, father of the appellant also did not approve his son's illicit relationship with the wife of Ganesha which was a talk of town and derogatory for the family. He scolded his stray son and to resolve the aforesaid dispute a panchayat was convened. Bhaunia, father of the appellant also did not approve his son's illicit relationship with the wife of Ganesha which was a talk of town and derogatory for the family. He scolded his stray son and to resolve the aforesaid dispute a panchayat was convened. On 24.04.1986 at 8.00 a.m. a heated argument took place between Bhaunia and Kadhora which was followed by Bhaunia leaving his house which had become a den of unpleasantness with his grand son Babulal (son of Kadhora) with him at about 8.15 a.m. While he was passing in front of the house of Ram Krishna, Kachhi Kadhora @ Bardani came from behind with an axe in his hand, abused his father and called him to be an obstacle in his way and while uttering these words he dealt an axe blow on the neck of his father and when his son Babulal attempted to rescue his grand father, he was also assaulted by the appellant causing injuries to him. Bhaunia father of the appellant succumbed to the injuries inflicted on him by hi son. The incident was witnessed by Badri son of Sudarshan, Jagannath son of Baddoo and many others. The accused on being challenged by the persons present near the place of occurrence and fled away with his axe leaving behind the dead body of the deceased in a pool of blood and injured Babulal PW-4 Badri went to lodge the FIR of the incident after getting the same scribed by PW-2 Ram Swaroop. It was also stated in the FIR that the incident was witnessed by PW-4 complainant Badri, Jagannath son of Baddoo and many others. 11. On the basis of written report Ext. Ka-2 check FIR and the relevant G.D. entry vide Rapat no. 24 at 09.45 a.m. dated 24.04.1986 Ext. Ka-6 and Ext.Ka-7 were prepared by PW-6 Badri Prasad. Case crime no. 52 of 1986 under Section 302 IPC was registered against the appellant at P.S. Kavrai, Mahoba, District Hamirpur. 12. After the registration of the case the investigation started at 11.15 a.m. on the same day. The Investigating Officer reached the place of occurrence and conducted the inquest and prepared the inquest report Ext.Ka-3 and other related documents; photo lash in form no. 379 along with percept Ext.Ka-8 and Ext.Ka-9. 12. After the registration of the case the investigation started at 11.15 a.m. on the same day. The Investigating Officer reached the place of occurrence and conducted the inquest and prepared the inquest report Ext.Ka-3 and other related documents; photo lash in form no. 379 along with percept Ext.Ka-8 and Ext.Ka-9. Thereafter the dead body of the of the deceased was sealed and entrusted to Constable Komal Singh of P.S. Kabrai for being taken to the Government Hospital for conducting the post mortem. 13. The post mortem of the dead body of the deceased Bhaunia was conducted on 25.04.1986 at 10.30 p.m. by Dr. Gurunam Singh, Surgeon at Govt. Hospital, Mahoba. He after completing the post mortem prepared the post mortem report of the deceased Ext.Ka-5. The doctor who had conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased had noted following features and found following ante mortem injuries on his dead body:- External Examination:- Thin built oldman. Rigor mortis present all over the body. Hairs gray. Purification setting in parraties. Ante-mortem injury Incised wound 4 cm x 3 cm x vertebra deep on the back of the neck. Semi digested food material coming out from mouth and nostrils. Eyes semi open. Mouth semi open. Internal Examination Ligament and bone cut at Second and Third vertabra with cut of spinal cord underneath. The doctor opined that the cause of death was the injury caused to him. 14. The injuries of the injured Babulal were also examined on the same day. The doctor who had examined his injuries advised x-ray of his injury in District Hospital, Hamirpur X-ray of the injuries of injured Babulal was done by PW-1 Dr. K.C. Gupta on the same day, who also prepared his x-ray report which is on record as Ext.Ka-1. X-ray report of his injuries indicated fracture in his Occipital Bone and his right forearm. 15. The Investigating officer also collected samples of blood stained pieces of stones and gamchha from the place of occurrence and sealed the same in two different containers and prepared recovery memo Ext.Ka-4 of the recovered articles. After inspecting the place of occurrence the Investigating Officer prepared the site plan of the same Ext. Ka-10 along with site plan of the house in the vicinity Ext.Ka-10. After inspecting the place of occurrence the Investigating Officer prepared the site plan of the same Ext. Ka-10 along with site plan of the house in the vicinity Ext.Ka-10. The Investigating Officer allegedly arrested the accused- Bardani @ Kadhora on the same day from a Dharamshala situated in village Dariya at Pakka Road at about 9.00 p.m.. After being arrested the accused appellant expressed his willingness to get the crime weapon recovered. On this material information, the Investigating Officer started along with the accused and reached the place known as Bhawani Talaiya in Kavrai. When they reached the culvert on the road and went under the culvert the appellant took out an axe which was lying there hidden under stone slabs and blade of which was stained with blood. Recovery memo of axe Ext. Ka-11 and the site plan of the place of recovery Ext. Ka-12 were prepared by the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation submitted charge sheet under Section 302/307 IPC against the accused-appellant before the CJM, Hamirpur. 16. Since the offences mentioned in the charge sheet were triable exclusively by the court of Sessions C.J.M., Hamirpur committed the case for trial of the accused to the court of Sessions Judge Farrukhabad where it was registered as S.T. No. 125 of 1986 and made over for trial to the Court of Special Judge, E.C. Act Hamirpur. Learned Special Judge, on the basis of the material on record and after hearing the accused on the point of charge, framed charge under Section 302/307 IPC against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 17. The accused appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied having committed the murder of his father and imputed his prosecution to his enmity with PW-4 complainant Badri. He also asserted that his arrest was made from his house and the recovery was false and the alleged recovery of the crime weapon ("axe") by him was fabricated by the police. 18. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as eight witnesses of whom injured PW-2 Babulal, PW-3 Ram Swarup, scribe of the FIR, PW-4 complainant Badri, PW-5 Jagannath and PW-6 Badri Prasad were examined as witnesses of fact while PW-1 Dr. K.C. Gupta, who had done x-ray of the injuries of the Babulal, PW-7 Dr. 18. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as eight witnesses of whom injured PW-2 Babulal, PW-3 Ram Swarup, scribe of the FIR, PW-4 complainant Badri, PW-5 Jagannath and PW-6 Badri Prasad were examined as witnesses of fact while PW-1 Dr. K.C. Gupta, who had done x-ray of the injuries of the Babulal, PW-7 Dr. Ramesh Chandra who had conducted the autopsy of the dead body of the deceased and PW-8 Jai Dayal Singh, Investigating Officer of this case were examined as formal witnesses. 19. Learned Special Judge (E.C. Act) after considering the submissions advanced before him by learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary convicted the appellant and awarded aforesaid sentences to him. 20. Hence this appeal. 21. The only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is that whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused appellant beyond all reasonable doubts or not. 22. The prosecution has come with a specific case that Bardani alias Kadhora had a very strong motive for committing the murder of his father. In this context it has been set out by the prosecution that the accused-appellant Bardani alias Kadhora was carrying on an illicit connection with one Smt. Pan Kunwar alias Gulab Rani, the wife of Ganesha, resident of the same locality. Since his father Bhaunia (deceased) wanted to maintain the honour and reputation of his family he chided his son Bardani for having such connection which was derogatory to the family. The attitude of the father was not relished by Bardani who regarded his father to be an obstacle in his way. The F.I.R. (Ext.Ka.2) mentions that while Bardani came with an axe in his hands and after abusing his father he called him to be an impediment in his way, and thereafter gave axe an blow to his father Bhaunia and when his son Babulal tried to rescue his grand father he assaulted him also with axe leaving him injured. The F.I.R. also recapped an incident of 14.04.1986 which was a day of rejoicing in the village as tableaux of Goddess was to be taken out in the village and the villagers had gathered to have a glimpse of their Godess, perform worship and chant devotional songs. The F.I.R. also recapped an incident of 14.04.1986 which was a day of rejoicing in the village as tableaux of Goddess was to be taken out in the village and the villagers had gathered to have a glimpse of their Godess, perform worship and chant devotional songs. On that day PW-4 Badri s/o Bihari saw the wife of Ganesha at the house of Kadhora alias Bardani and when he saw Badri he wanted to conceal his identity and went inside his house. The wife of Thakurdas, namely, Radha Rani saw this and asked Gulab Rani as to why she had gone alone to the house of Bardani alias Kadhora. Radha Rani had threatened that she will make it public and this led to a brawl between the two and the villagers decided to hold a panchayat. These are bare facts on which it has been sought to establish that when Bhaunia had chided Bardani for his alleged relationship, it had become unpalatable to him and he decided to grind his axe against his father. In support of this motive there is evidence of Badri s/o Bihari examined as PW-4. 23. PW-4 Badri is a resident of same locality. He stated that Kadhora alias Bardani was seen with Gulab Rani at his house at 9 p.m. There was only one house in between the house of Badri and that of Bardani. According to him 4 or 5 days before this incident Smt. Pan Kunwar was seen with Kadhora at his house and when they had seen PW-4 Badri they wanted to conceal their identities and went inside the house. Radha Rani who was her husband's younger brother's wife had entered inside the house of Gulab Rani and she raised hue and cry about the affair between the two. The villagers assembled there and decided to hold a panchayat about the matter and in the presence of those people also Radha Rani confirmed that Gulab Rani and Kadhora were on the wrong track and panchayat should take place. The witness further testified that Bhaunia came to know about this affair and prevented him from having contact with the lady. This was not relished by the accused. According to PW-4 Badri, Bhaunia knew about the affair since the last two or three years preceding the date of incident. This witness is the sole witness of the motive for the incident. This was not relished by the accused. According to PW-4 Badri, Bhaunia knew about the affair since the last two or three years preceding the date of incident. This witness is the sole witness of the motive for the incident. However considering the fact that as per the prosecution case itself deceased who was considered by the appellant to be an obstacle in his way of cementing his romantic relationship with Radharani had himself left his house with his grand son and no one was left in his house to object to his relationship and hence there was no occasion or any compelling reason for appellant to commit the murder of his father. Thus the motive suggested by the prosecution for the appellant to commit the murder of his father does not appear to be of such magnitude so as to compel the appellant to commit his father's murder and cause injuries to his son. 24. Record shows as regards the testimony of PW-4 Badri, the objection of the defense before the court below was that his evidence is wholly unreliably and untruthful, in view of the fact that he had become inimical towards the appellant and his family members after the appellant's father Bhaunia has sold his land to one Chittu Kachhi for Rs. 500/- in which PW-4 Badri had interest and it was for this purpose he had given false evidence against the appellant after someone had committed the murder of appellant's father and caused injuries to his son in the hope of grabbing the aforesaid land after the conviction of the appellant and his being sentenced to imprisonment for life. 500/- in which PW-4 Badri had interest and it was for this purpose he had given false evidence against the appellant after someone had committed the murder of appellant's father and caused injuries to his son in the hope of grabbing the aforesaid land after the conviction of the appellant and his being sentenced to imprisonment for life. It is true that the aforesaid suggestion which was given by the defense counsel, PW-4 Badri was denied by him but at the same time we cannot accept the facts stated by him in the written report of the incident Ext.Ka-2 and as testified by him in his evidence of PW-4 as gospel truth in the absence of corroboration of his testimony by any other eye witnesses specially in view of the fact that out of the three witnesses of fact produced by the prosecution injured PW-2 Babulal and PW-6 Badri Prasad were declared hostile after they failed to support the prosecution case as spelt out in the FIR while from the facts deposed by PW-5 Jagannath in his cross examination it is fully established that he had supported the prosecution case in his examination in chief under police pressure and duress. More over from the facts stated by PW-4 on page 32 of the paper book in paragraph 4 of his examination-in-chief it is fully established that the FIR of the incident was scribed by PW-5 Ram Swarup on dictation of PW-4 Badri after holding due deliberations and discussion with the residents of the villagers and whatever he had told to Ram Swarup was scribed by him in the written report. The relevant paragraph 4 of his examination-in-chief is being reproduced herein below:- ^^eSusa xkao eqgky ds yksxksa ls lykg djds jkeLo:i ikBd ls fjiksVZ fy[kkbZ Fkh tSlk eSus cryk;k Fkk oSlk mlus fy[k fn;k Fkk i<+dj lquk fn;k Fkk rc eSusa nLr[kr fd;s FksA Ext. Ka2 rc eSus nLr[kr fd;s FksA** 25. Thus the aforesaid piece of evidence gives rise to a very strong suspicion with regard to the truthfulness and the correctness of the facts stated by PW-4 Badri in the written report of the incident which was scribed by PW-3 Ram Swarup on the dictation of PW-4 Badri and the credibility of the FIR of this case stands totally shattered. Thus the aforesaid piece of evidence gives rise to a very strong suspicion with regard to the truthfulness and the correctness of the facts stated by PW-4 Badri in the written report of the incident which was scribed by PW-3 Ram Swarup on the dictation of PW-4 Badri and the credibility of the FIR of this case stands totally shattered. It is true that an attempt to salvage the FIR was made by PW-4 by trying to explain and clarify the facts stated by him in paragraph 4 of his examination-in-chief by deposing on page 45 of the paper book in paragraph 17 of his cross-examination that by deposing that discussion which had taken place between him and the villagers after the occurrence and before the lodging of the written report of the incident was confined to the issue whether the report of the incident should be lodged first or precedence be given to take the injured to the hospital for treatment. However we do not find the clarification given by the PW-4 Badri with regard to the statement made by him before the trial court in his examination in chief that the written report of the occurrence was scribed after due deliberation and discussion with the villagers to be trustworthy and the same appears to be an after thought and we find that the FIR in this case is not at all trustworthy. 26. It is further noteworthy that PW-3 Ram Swarup, the scribe of the FIR has categorically deposed on page 29 of the paper book in his cross-examination that he had arrived at the place of occurrence at about 9.30 a.m.- 9 a.m. on 24.04.1986 and scribed the written report of the incident on the dictation of PW-4 Badri. Thus it is established that PW-3 had not witnessed the crime and he had written only those facts in the written report which were narrated to him by PW-4 Badri. 27. PW-2 Babulal the injured witness in this case, who was examined as PW-2 Babulal has in his evidence tendered before the trial court failed to support the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief and deposed that he had not been able to see the person who had assaulted him and his grand father. 27. PW-2 Babulal the injured witness in this case, who was examined as PW-2 Babulal has in his evidence tendered before the trial court failed to support the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief and deposed that he had not been able to see the person who had assaulted him and his grand father. PW-2 was declared hostile on the request of DGC (criminal) and cross examined by him with the permission of the court but he could not elicit anything from him which can be said to lend any credence to the prosecution case that appellant had caused injuries to his father resulting in his death and to his son Babulal PW-2. In fact he has categorically denied the suggestion given to him by DGC (criminal) on page 25 of the paper book that he was giving false evidence to save his father at the behest of Ram Autar. 28. PW-5 Jagannath the other so called eye witnesses of the occurrence produced by the prosecution during the trial although supported the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief but in his cross-examination paragraph 6 of his cross-examination on page 51 of the paper book he spilled the beans and exposed the hollowness and falsity of the prosecution case by deposing as hereunder :- "Sahi baat yeh hai ki maine mulzim Bardani ko Bhaunia ka katal karte nahi dekha aaj police ka pairokar mere saath aaya aur na mujhe dhamkaya mai akele aaya hu isliye sahi baat keh raha hu". 29. It is noteworthy that the prosecution did not reexamine PW-5 Jagannath to seek clarification from the PW- 5 with regard to the facts deposed by him in the last paragraph of his cross examination and from his evidence alone it is established he had supported the prosecution case in his examination in chief under threat of police and duress and the prosecution story was concocted with the object of falsely implicating the appellant for the murder of his father and causing injuries to his own son by PW-4 Badri in collusion with the police. 30. PW-6 Badri Prasad another eye witness of the occurrence was also failed to support the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief by deposing that he had not seen the appellant committing the murder of his father and causing injuries to his son PW-6. 30. PW-6 Badri Prasad another eye witness of the occurrence was also failed to support the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief by deposing that he had not seen the appellant committing the murder of his father and causing injuries to his son PW-6. He was declared hostile on the request of DGC (criminal) and cross examined by him with the permission of the court but he stuck to his evidence given by him in his examination-in-chief. 31. Thus upon a wholesome evaluation of the testimonies of the witnesses of fact produced by the prosecution during the trial, we find that out of four so called eye witnesses PW-2 Babulal, PW-5 Jagannath, (in his cross examination) and PW-6 Badri Prasad failed to support the prosecution case and PW-2 and PW-6 were declared hostile. Although PW-4 complainant Badri supported the prosecution case as spelt out in the FIR but we do not consider it safe to maintain the conviction of the appellant on the basis of the testimony of this solitary eye witness in the absence of any corroboration from any other witness as his presence at the time and place of occurrence appears to be extremely doubtful, neither PW-2 nor PW-3 or PW-6 have spoken about the presence of Badri at the time and place of occurrence. It is true that PW-2 and PW-6 were declared hostile but even PW-5 Jagannath who had supported the prosecution case in his examination in chief but had deposed in his cross examination hat he had supported the prosecution case under police pressure and duress had not deposed that at the time of incident Badri was present at the place of incident. From the last line of the testimony of PW-4 complainant Badri in which he has stated that when the incident had started he was inside his house and he had witnessed the incident from inside his house and then after coming out of his house also creates a doubt about his presence at the time and place of incident. 32. From the last line of the testimony of PW-4 complainant Badri in which he has stated that when the incident had started he was inside his house and he had witnessed the incident from inside his house and then after coming out of his house also creates a doubt about his presence at the time and place of incident. 32. It is further apparent from the facts deposed by PW-4 in his examination-in-chief that the FIR in this case was scribed after due deliberations and consultation and in view of the above, the possibility of false implication of the appellant in the present case at the behest of PW-4 Badri who is the cousin brother of the appellant and a highly interested witness who stood to benefit from the possible conviction of the appellant and his being sentenced to life imprisonment cannot be ruled out. 33. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the recorded conviction of the appellant under Section 302 and 326 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. The appeal is allowed, the appellant Bardani is acquitted of all the charges. 34. The appellant Bardani is on bail, he need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and his sureties are discharged. The appellant Bardani shall however comply with the provisions of Section 437A within one month. 35. There shall however be no order as to costs. 36. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial court for intimation and necessary follow up action.