Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1491 (ALL)

LALLA @ LAL SINGH THAKUR v. STATE

2018-07-06

NAHEED ARA MOONIS, SIDDHARTHA VARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT : (Delivered by Siddhartha Varma.J.) The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 14.7.2014 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC & S.T.Act)/Additional Sessions Judge Court No.2 Farrukhabad in Sessions Trial No. 38 of 2013 arising out of Case crime No. 382 of 2009 under section 436 IPC read with section 3 (2) (5) S.C. & S.T.Act Police Station Rajepur District Farrukhabad whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to serve out additional imprisonment of six months. On deposit of fine, half of the amount was directed to be paid to the complainant as solatium. The emanation of facts from the prosecution in a short conspectus is that the complainant Vedpal son of Chhavinath hailing to Jatav caste resident of Gram Khandauli Police Station Rajepur unravelled that he has a thatched dwelling at Gram Khandauli in which he in association with his family members was living. The complainant had also set his household articles in that dwelling. On the fateful day of 26.6.2009 the complainant and his family members were lying in the said dwelling. At about 10.00 "O" clock at night Lalla son of Brijpal resident of village Seere Chakarpur set ablaze to his dwelling from behind. The fire took horrible shape and looking to the flames of the fire ,the complainant and his family members came out from the dwelling and saw that the appellant was fleeing after torching his dwelling. The complainant raised alarm and scream that Lalla had torched his habitant. On hearing the shriek and shrill of the complainant and his family members, his neighbours Kunnoo Singh son of Pratap Singh and Rajveer Singh son of Mahendra Pal Singh came on the spot with torches. They had also seen the appellant Lalla fleeing from the placing of occurrence after setting ablaze to his inhabitant. The household articles of the complainant was also reduced to dust. The fire was doused with great resistance. They had also seen the appellant Lalla fleeing from the placing of occurrence after setting ablaze to his inhabitant. The household articles of the complainant was also reduced to dust. The fire was doused with great resistance. On this information, the first information report was lodged against Lalla (appellant) by the complainant vide Case Crime No. 382 of 2009 under section 436 IPC read with section 3 (2) (5) S.C. & S.T.Act Police Station Rajepur District Farrukhabad on 4.7.2009 at about 13.30 hours with respect to the incident dated 26.6.2009 occurred at 10.00 'O' clock at night. On being interrogated by the Head Constable to which community the appellant was hailing, the complainant answered that the appellant was belonging to the caste of Thakur.After registration of the first information report , the investigation was entrusted to Yogendra Prasad Gautam (P.W.5). He proceeded to investigate the place of occurrence in the presence of witnesses on 4.7.2009 and prepared the site plan portraying the place from where the accused fled away after setting ablaze the thatched dwelling of the complainant. He also marked the place of occurrence "A" in the site plan proved as Ext.Ka.5 .The investigating officer recorded the statement of the complainant and the witnesses. He completed necessary formalities and after collecting the clinching and credible evidence, he submitted charge sheet against the accused appellant showing his complicity in the commission of the said offence. The charge sheet was duly marked as Ext. Ka.6 . On the basis of material on record, charges were framed against the appellant under section 436 IPC read with section 3(2)(5) S.C. & S.T.Act. The accused appellant abjured all the charges levelled against him and pleaded for innocence. To substantiate the prosecution case, the learned trial court examined Ved Pal (P.W.1), Rajveer (P.W.2), Rajpal (P.W.3), H.C. Dinesh Kumar (P.W.4), retired Dy. Superintendent of Police Yogendra Prasad Gautam (P.W.5) . After examination of the prosecution witnesses, the accused appellant had not produced any other evidence in rebuttal of his charges in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. He pleaded that he has been entrapped in the present case on account of personal vendatta and animus. According to the statement of Ved Pal (P.W.1), he unravelled that at about 5'1/2 years ago in the night of summer at about 10 'O"clock, he was lying in the courtyard of his thatched dwelling. According to the statement of Ved Pal (P.W.1), he unravelled that at about 5'1/2 years ago in the night of summer at about 10 'O"clock, he was lying in the courtyard of his thatched dwelling. From the back of the inhabitant, the accused appellant Lalla hailing to the Thakur community set ablaze his thatched dwelling. On account of the horrendous and horrible shape of the fire, the complainant and his family members came out of the dwelling. The accused appellant was recognized in the flame of the fire running from the place of occurrence after setting ablaze his inhabitant. Hue and cry was raised by the complainant that the accused appellant Lalla had set ablaze his thatched dwelling. On hearing the alarm, his neighbour Kunnu Singh and Rajveer Singh came at the place of occurrence with torch. They had also identified the appellant Lalla in the light of torch. On account of setting ablaze his thatched dwelling, the household articles of the complainant was reduced to ashes. With help of the villagers, the fire caught in the thatched dwelling of the complainant was extinguished. The complainant divulged himself to be the member of Jatav community hailing to scheduled caste. Lalla Singh was already nurturing animus and grudge against the complainant all along. He proved that the first information report was got scribed by Indresh Kumar and had put his signature,thereafter it was handed over at the police station for registration of FIR thus he proved the FIR which was marked as Ext.Ka.1. In his cross examination he has only stated that while the accused appellant was fleeing away from the place of occurrence, he fell down and was seen from behind as the complainant was near to him. The complainant further divulged that the accused Lalla Singh had fallen about 20 metres away from his inhabitant. It was also unearthed by the complainant that the accused Lalla Singh used to come at his inhabitant in an inebriated condition prior to the ensuing of incident. The accused appellant was earlier got apprehended on the issue of taking liquor. The inhabitant of the complainant is all alone in the said village hailing to scheduled caste and the remaining inhabitants are belonging to Thakur Community. The household articles including the grains, clothes etc. were reduced to dust but the cash was not burnt. The investigating officer recorded his statement. The inhabitant of the complainant is all alone in the said village hailing to scheduled caste and the remaining inhabitants are belonging to Thakur Community. The household articles including the grains, clothes etc. were reduced to dust but the cash was not burnt. The investigating officer recorded his statement. The witness Kunnoo Singh had departed from universe anterior to one year. Rajveer Singh (P.W.2) who is stated to be the ocular witness was examined as witness of the incident. He retracted from his earlier statement and turned hostile. He unfolded in his statement that on the fateful day of occurrence i.e. 26.6.2009 at about 10.00 p.m. (night) he was neither present in village Khadauli nor had witnessed the incident. On the decisive day of occurrence, he had gone to Delhi. He had not witnessed the said incident. On being cross-examined Rajveer (P.W.2) narrated that when he was living at his house, he used to have land of others on exchange otherwise he was doing work at Delhi. It had come to his knowledge after two and half months that the dwelling of Ved Pal was burnt. When he came back from Delhi ,he came to know that such incident had occurred in his locality. Rajpal (P.W.3) who is the brother of the complainant while supporting to the prosecution version stated that he as well as his brother hails from Jatav community . The jatav community comes within the periphery of scheduled caste. Prior to five years during the season of summer at about 10.00 p.m. (night) some flames were vibrating in the dwelling of his brother (complainant) , he rushed towards his house ,he saw that Lalla Singh Thakur living in the adjacent village Sherchakarpur was fleeing away from the place of occurrence after setting ablaze the dwelling of his brother. He saw the miscreant in the flames of fire and identified him. When his brother raised alarm, Kunnoo Singh, Rajveer and other persons of the locality gathered on the place of occurrence who had also witnessed the incident. The inhabitant of his brother was erected with thatched. He used to have rest and comfort in the said dwelling with his family members. Even the food was also cooked in the said dwelling. On account of catching of fire ,his entire household articles were reduced to dust . The inhabitant of his brother was erected with thatched. He used to have rest and comfort in the said dwelling with his family members. Even the food was also cooked in the said dwelling. On account of catching of fire ,his entire household articles were reduced to dust . He had also divulged the entire facts to the investigating officer during the course of interrogation. Dinesh Kumar (P.W.4) had proved the FIR and GD entry which was marked as Ext. Ka.2 and Ka.3. Since the original G.D. was weeded out, the certified copy of the G.D.was proved and marked as Ext.Ka.4. He stated that after registration of the first information report, the investigation of this case was entrusted to Circle Officer Amritpur. Yogendra Prasad (P.W.5) was entrusted the investigation of this case on 4.7.2009. He recorded the statement of the complainant under section 161 Cr.P.C. On his pointing out, site plan was prepared which is marked as Ext.Ka.5 which was proved by the investigating officer. On 5.7.2009, the investigating officer recorded the statement of the witness Rajveer and declared him hostile. The P.W. Rajveer had earlier supported the prosecution version and later on retracted from his own statement . The investigating officer after collecting the clinching and credible evidence against the accused appellant submitted the charge sheet in the court which was marked as Ext. Ka.6. On the basis of testimony of the witnesses , the learned trial court arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt againt the accused appellant hence convicted and sentenced him under section 436 IPC read with section 3 (2) (5) S.C. & S.T.Act to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused appellant had to serve out six month additional simple imprisonment. The appellant who was set at liberty during trial was directed to be taken into custody and the appellant has been languishing in jail since 14.7.2016. We have heard Sri Ramesh Rai, learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant and Sri A.N.Mullah, learned AGA on behalf of State. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that from the perusal of the first information report, it emerges out that the first information report has been lodged after due consultation and deliberation. We have heard Sri Ramesh Rai, learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant and Sri A.N.Mullah, learned AGA on behalf of State. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that from the perusal of the first information report, it emerges out that the first information report has been lodged after due consultation and deliberation. There is inordinate delay in lodging the first information report as the first information report with respect to the incident occurred at about 10.00 p.m. (night) on 26.6.2009 has been lodged on 4.7.2009. There is no plausible explanation about the delay in lodging the first information report.There is substantial delay in lodging the first information report and no plausible explanation has been put forward covering the delay. The delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought and on account of delay in lodging the FIR creeps the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report must be satisfactorily explained otherwise it is fatal to the prosecution case. The judgment and order passed by the learned trial judge is per se illegal and erroneous whereby the appellant has been awarded life imprisonment merely on suspicion while there are serious irregularities and lapses on the part of the prosecution. Not only this the case was committed to the court of sessions on 17.10.2013 and the charge was framed against the appellant on 31.10.2013.Ved Pal ( P.W.1) was examined on 17.2.2014.All the witnesses produced by the prosecution were highly partisan and interested who wanted to satiate their lust of grudge. The investigation was also done in a very perfunctory and casual manner. Most of the witnesses are claiming themselves to be present at the crucial juncture of incident but none of them have come forward to apprehend the culprit. There is material inconsistency in the prosecution version and the statement of the witnesses which itself creates doubt about its veracity. The presence of the witnesses is highly doubtful. No strong motive has been attributed for committing the said incident. The motive assigned to the appellant for committing the gruesome and hellish act of setting ablaze the inhabitant of the complainant does not inspire any confidence corroborating its verity and truthfulness. The presence of the witnesses is highly doubtful. No strong motive has been attributed for committing the said incident. The motive assigned to the appellant for committing the gruesome and hellish act of setting ablaze the inhabitant of the complainant does not inspire any confidence corroborating its verity and truthfulness. It is conspicuous from the site plan prepared by the investigating officer that the complainant chased the accused appellant but the accused appellant ran away from the place of occurrence without unleashing any reign of terror which itself creates doubt about the veracity and truthfulness of the occurrence. There was no occasion for the complainant to see from his house while the accused appellant was fleeing away after setting ablaze his inhabitant and to identify him from the back. There is no inkling that prior to the lodging of the first information report, the complainant had moved any application for registration of the first information report while in cross examination he had stated that he had moved an application before the concerned police station on 4.7.2009 and on that application enquiry was done but the complainant did not adduce any document in that regard. The complainant had for the first time disclosed the motive that the appellant had asked him to do his work but he refused to do his work. The complainant had succeeded in his nefarious design of getting the appellant roped in the present case. According to the prosecution version, the villagers reached at the place of occurrence after 15 minutes and the entire thatched dwelling was reduced to dust . It is not possible that they could have seen the appellant when he had immediately fled away from the spot. It has also been averred that the complainant had received solatium to the tune of Rs. 6250/- from the government which clearly shows that in order to get the reparation, false story has been set up against the accused appellant. The investigating officer also not prepared any inventory with regard to burnt articles when the complainant distinctively stated that his grains ,clothes etc. were burnt. Cash was not burnt. 6250/- from the government which clearly shows that in order to get the reparation, false story has been set up against the accused appellant. The investigating officer also not prepared any inventory with regard to burnt articles when the complainant distinctively stated that his grains ,clothes etc. were burnt. Cash was not burnt. It is also significant to allude that Rajveer (P.W.2) who is the ocular witnesses of the alleged incident has discarded the entire prosecution story that he was not present in the village on the fateful day of occurrence and did not have any information with regard to that. He was working in Delhi and had come to know about the said incident after arriving at his village which itself proves that the entire prosecution version is a bundle of concoction and fabrication so as to put the appellant inside the jail. The prosecution version also stands falsified that the appellant must have fled away immediately after litting the fire. It was not possible for the witnesses to recognize the culprit in the illumination produced by the burning of the inhabitant because the illumination must have taken some time and before that the culprit had disappeared. There are major discrepancies in evidence which would absolve the accused appellant from the charge of conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial court. There is no reliable and convincing evidence on record to connect the accused appellant with the said offence. All the circumstances surrounding the act of the accused appellant would lead to the inference that the accused appellant was not involved in the present case at all. The eye witnesses testimony was not duly corroborated by the material evidence. The overt act of the accused appellant could not be proved that he had committed the act of litting fire in the thatched dwelling of the complainant. To attract the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) mere knowledge that the aggrieved person belonged to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe community or mere intention to commit an offence against a member of a Scheduled Cast or Scheduled Tribe is not sufficient but something more is needed i.e. a graver kind of mens rea denoted by the phrase "on the ground" in the provision. The provision of Section 3(2)(iv) or (v) of the SC/ST Act, provides that a person can be punished under these provisions only when he commit such offence against person of SC/ST community on the ground that atrocities have been committed upon the person who is a member of SC/ST community. From the evidence in present case, it is proved that the incident of alleged igniting the fire upon the thatched dwelling of the complainant had been committed by accused-appellant only due to personal vendatta. There is no evidence from prosecution case that offence was committed because the complainant belongs to scheduled-caste community hence accused-appellant cannot be punished for the offence punishable under Section 3 (2) (v) S.C. & S.T. Act. The sine qua non for application of 3 (2) (5) of S.C. & S.T. Act is that an offence must have been committed against a member of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes community on the ground of atrocities. In the instant case no evidence has been led to establish this requirement. It is not case of the prosecution that the inhabitant of the complainant was set ablaze since he was a member of Scheduled Caste. In the absence of evidence to that effect,section 3 (2) (v) of the S.C. & S.Act has no applicability. To buttress his submission learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Das & others versus State of Maharastra 2007 (2) SCC 170 in which it has been held that the victim of first information report happened to be scheduled caste did not mean that section 3 (2) (2) (5) S.C. & S.T.Act would be automatically attracted. It has to be proved that the victim was subjected to atrocities in the cloak of hailing to scheduled caste. The falsehood and contradictions are so evident that it would obliterate the verity and truthfulness of the entire prosecution version. It is an axiom fact that the thatched dwelling of the complainant was burnt but who was the real assailant cannot be deduced by implicating the innocent person merely in the guise of suspicion. The falsehood and contradictions are so evident that it would obliterate the verity and truthfulness of the entire prosecution version. It is an axiom fact that the thatched dwelling of the complainant was burnt but who was the real assailant cannot be deduced by implicating the innocent person merely in the guise of suspicion. The learned trial judge has erroneously passed the impugned judgment and order attaching pivotal significance to the prosecution witnesses while Rajveer (P.W.2) has discarded the prosecution version and has specifically averred that the incident of setting ablaze of the inhabitant of the complainant has come to his notice after 2'1/2 months. The inference drawn by the learned trial judge without vetting and weighing the material inconsistency in the prosecution version and the statement of the witnesses is untenable in the eyes of law. The conviction and sentence of the accused appellant placing reliance on the eye witness account is not proper as the presence of the eye witnesses on the spot is highly doubtful. The entire prosecution story is rested on uncorroborated and unsupported facts and evidence and the guilt of the appellant not having been proved to the hilt by the prosecution, the appellant is entitled to be given benefit of doubt and his conviction and sentence may be set aside. Per contra learned AGA confronted the contention of the learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant that the delay in lodging the first information report will not wipe out the entire prosecution version. The complainant was belonging to the scheduled . The delay occurred because of the intervention of the non-cooperation of the Police officials. The complainant approached the police officials for registering the first information report and after hectic efforts the first information report has been lodged, thus, no fault can be found with the prosecution case as delay in lodging FIR stood explained. There are several factors which weigh in the mind of the complainant before coming to the police station to lodge the first information report. In a tradition bound society prevalent more particularly in rural areas, it would be quite unsafe to throw out the prosecution case merely on the ground that there is some delay in lodging the FIR. The delay in lodging the first information report cannot be a ground for rejecting the evidence which is otherwise reliable. In a tradition bound society prevalent more particularly in rural areas, it would be quite unsafe to throw out the prosecution case merely on the ground that there is some delay in lodging the FIR. The delay in lodging the first information report cannot be a ground for rejecting the evidence which is otherwise reliable. Mere delay in lodging the FIR may not prove fatal in all cases. In the present facts & circumstances of the case, delay in lodging the FIR can not be a factor which corrodes the credibility of the prosecution version. The motive behind the commission of the offence is conspicuous as the complainant had refused to work at the field of the appellant which caused extreme and intense irate and ire to him as a result of which he took drastic step of ostracizing him from the village by litting his thatched dwelling. The minor discrepancy and variation in the evidence of the witnesses cannot be a solid ground to thwart the entire prosecution version. The presence of the eye witnesses cannot be doubted. There is no reason to implicate the applicant falsely leaving to the actual culprit who had burnt his inhabitant. The motive behind the commission of the crime has been divulged in a very natural and unbleached manner. There is consistent testimony showing the complicity of the accused appellant. It would not be proper to overshadow the entire prosecution story due to retraction of Rajveer (P.W.2) who has turned hostile. No adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution with regard to probability if any suggested by the learned Amicus Curiae. There is no improvement or prevarication on the part of the prosecution witnesses. There is no reason to negate the evidence of the witnesses on the ground of conjectures and surmises as well as preponderance of probabilities. So far as the applicability of section 3 (2) (V) of S.C. & S.T.Act is concerned the accused appellant has knowledge that the complainant belongs to SC/ST community, then the charge of Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act is attracted. Mere knowledge of the accused-appellant that the person upon whom the offence is committed belongs to SC/ST community suffices to bring home the charge Under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. Mere knowledge of the accused-appellant that the person upon whom the offence is committed belongs to SC/ST community suffices to bring home the charge Under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. It is clear that the statute laid stress on the intention of the accused in committing such offence in order to cause chagrin and anguish to the person who is belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community. The allegation with respect to the offence under section 436 IPC is also proved by the ocular testimony thus the judgment and order passed by the learned trial judge is just and proper and deserves to be maintained. We have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned AGA and have taken through the entire materials on record. Before expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it would be compatible and congruent to analyze the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the prosecution version and the defence taken by the accused appellant. It has been emphasized by the learned counsel for the appellant that the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial judge is not tenable in the eyes of law. It has come in the deposition of the complainant that the accused appellant was bearing animus and grudge against the complainant as the complainant had refused to work in his field which itself demonstrates that the accused appellant has been made focal point in the present case for wreaking the personal vengeance and the incident was seen by the complainant and the other witnesses. In addition to this, it has also come in the light that the accused appellant used to come at the inhabitant of the complainant in an inebriated state. Prior to happening of this incident, the accused appellant was got apprehended by the villagers on the issue of consuming liquor and was sent to jail. It is also noticeable that witness Kunnu Singh was not examined. He is stated to have departed prior to the cross examination. The investigation has also not been done in a fair and impartial manner. Even the charges have also not been framed following the procedure of law. It is also noticeable that witness Kunnu Singh was not examined. He is stated to have departed prior to the cross examination. The investigation has also not been done in a fair and impartial manner. Even the charges have also not been framed following the procedure of law. The evidence on record does not demonstrate that the offence under the Indian Penal Code was committed against the complainant on the ground that he is a member of the Scheduled Caste. Since the appellant belongs to the upper caste and the complainant belongs to Scheduled Castes is not sufficient to bring the case within the purview of section 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST Act and therefore, the conviction of the appellant under section 3 (2) (5) SC/ST Act is unwarranted and bad in law. On the other hand, learned AGA stressed that there is sufficient evidence showing the complicity of the appellant. The learned trial judge has dealt with all the issues in a very wary and cautious manner,. The minor discrepancy and aberration in the statement of prosecution witnesses will not drift away the ocular account of the witnesses. The appellant cannot derive any benefit controverting the factum of the first information report without placing any convincing and trustworthy material in rebuttal. In the light of verbose and prolix discussion, it emerges out that the matter is limited to the proper punishment for the offence u/s 436 IPC, and we have to consider about the appropriate sentence for the appellant in this case. For examining the aggravating circumstances relating to the crime, the mitigating circumstances relating to the crime has to be considered. From facts and circumstances of the case before us, it is clear that the inhabitant of the complainant was reduced to dust by setting it aflame which resulted into substantive loss. Taking note of various factors, this contention of learned Amicus Curie for the appellant cannot be ignored, that during trial and then after conviction appellant had suffered sufficient time in incarceration which would have taught him appropriate lesson to refrain from such act. We see substance in the argument raised on behalf of the appellant that keeping in view the prosecution evidence, the above mentioned aggravating and mitigating attending circumstances, the ends of justice would be met if the punishment awarded to the appellant is reduced. We see substance in the argument raised on behalf of the appellant that keeping in view the prosecution evidence, the above mentioned aggravating and mitigating attending circumstances, the ends of justice would be met if the punishment awarded to the appellant is reduced. We see no reason to differ with the findings recorded by the trial court regarding charged offence of section 436 IPC. So, it appears appropriate that in present case the sentence should not be more than ten years under section 436 IPC. In respect of the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, the appellant had been sentenced to life imprisonment. The gravamen of Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act is that any offence, envisaged under Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more, against a person belonging Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, should have been sentenced on the ground that "such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, the words used in Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act are on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe". So for as section 3 (2) (V) of the Act is concerned, there is no whisper that atrocities have been committed upon the complainant because of being a member of scheduled caste community hence passing of an order of sustaining conviction and sentence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act cannot be said to be just and legal. In view of above facts and discussion, the order of conviction u/s 3(2)(iv) Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 is set aside but the conviction u/s 436 IPC imposed on the appellant is hereby confirmed. For the charge u/s 436 IPC, the punishment of sentence of life imprisonment is modified to rigorous imprisonment of ten years. With this modification of sentence, the appeal stands partly allowed. The appellant shall undergo his remaining point of sentence as directed above and shall pay fine to the tune of Rs. 5600/- as reparation to the complainant failing which he shall serve out additional sentence of six months. Let the copy of this judgment be sent to Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad of ensuring compliance. Judgment be certified and be placed on record. A sum of Rs. 5600/- as reparation to the complainant failing which he shall serve out additional sentence of six months. Let the copy of this judgment be sent to Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad of ensuring compliance. Judgment be certified and be placed on record. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- be paid to Sri Ramesh Rai, Amicus Curaie for assisting the Court.