Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2028 (ALL)

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U. P.

2018-09-19

K.P.SINGH, PANKAJ NAQVI

body2018
JUDGMENT : K.P. Singh, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been filed against a judgment and order dated 31.3.1984 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No. 209 of 1983, whereby the learned Judge convicted appellants Rajesh Kumar and Vipin Kumar under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. 2. However, by the same order, learned Judge acquitted accused Brijpal of the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that a written report was handed over by the first informant Jhabbu Lal, son of Jograj Singh, resident of Kunjalpur (Sahara), police station Bhogaon, district Mainpuri to the effect that on 26.1.1983 at about 10.00 AM, he along with Chet Ram (deceased) and Dharam Singh were going from Bhogaon to Etah to match for his daughter. From Bhogaon, Rajesh Singh, Vipin, Brijpal Singh alias Lallan and one unknown person, to whom he can identify, boarded the bus from Bhogaon. Chheda Lal Dhobi, Dr. Shriram Shakya, resident of Bhogaon, Teeka Ram and Laxman, resident of Babina also boarded the bus from Bhogaon. At 10.15 AM, when bus reached in front of Bichhwa Inter College, Brajpal Singh alias Lallan got the bus stopped. Thereupon Rajesh Singh and Vipin got down. Rajesh Singh, with an intention to kill, fired at Chet Ram from outside the glass of window. In the meantime, Vipin came inside the bus and fired at Chet Ram. Thereafter, Brajpal Singh alias Lallan and unknown person also fired and fled. It is further alleged in the FIR that in addition to the aforesaid persons, the occurrence was also witnessed by all the passengers of the bus. Old enmity is alleged behind the occurrence. While being brought to hospital, Chet Ram succumbed to the injury. 4. After the registration of the case, the investigation of the case was entrusted to PW-6 SI Ramji Lal Sharma, who inspected the spot and prepared site plan (Ext. Ka-9). He also collected bloodstained and plain earth from the place of occurrence and after keeping in two separate container, sealed them and prepared its memo (Ext. Ka-10). He also recorded the statements of PW-1 Jhabbu Lal and PW-2, Chheda Lal. 5. Thereafter, investigation of the case was transferred to PW-3, SI Ameer Chand, SO, Kurawali, district Mainpuri, on whose directions inquest (Ext. Ka-10). He also recorded the statements of PW-1 Jhabbu Lal and PW-2, Chheda Lal. 5. Thereafter, investigation of the case was transferred to PW-3, SI Ameer Chand, SO, Kurawali, district Mainpuri, on whose directions inquest (Ext. Ka-11) of the body of deceased was conducted by PW-7, SI Durvijay Singh, who also prepared necessary documents and after getting the dead body sealed, handed over the same to Constables Member Singh and Ramveer Singh. After completing the investigation and making necessary formalities charge sheet against accused-appellants (Ext. Ka-4) was submitted by PW-3 Ameer Chand. 6. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions where case was registered as ST No. 209 of 1983 and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri vide order dated 01.7.1983 framed the charges against the appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. To bring home guilt of appellants, prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses, out of whom PW-1 Jhabbu Lal, PW-2 Chheda Lal were the witnesses of facts and remaining formal. 8. PW-1, Jhabbu Lal is the first informant of the case. He reiterated the version given in the FIR. 9. PW-2, Chheda Lal deposed in his examination-in-chief that on the date of incident, he was going to Etah. He boarded the bus from Bhogaon at 10.00 AM. When bus reached Bichhwa at 10.15 AM, some passengers, requested for a halt. After the bus stopped, four passengers alighted, out of whom, he recognized three of them, i.e. Lallan, Vipin and Rajesh. Deceased was sitting on the seat besides the driver's seat. Passengers, who alighted from the bus, fired at the deceased. He further deposed that he could not tell as to who fired the first shot at the deceased. First shot was fired from outside the bus. The fire hit the deceased through the glass of window. Thereafter a man entered the bus from the window of the driver, who dragged the driver down and fired at the deceased, which hit him. There were several persons present on the bus including Jhabbu Lal. 10. PW-3, Ameer Chandra is the second investigating officer of the case, who submitted charge sheet against accused-appellants. 11. PW-4, Dr. D.P. Mishra deposed in his evidence that on 27.1.1983 he was posted as Medical Officer at Mainpuri. There were several persons present on the bus including Jhabbu Lal. 10. PW-3, Ameer Chandra is the second investigating officer of the case, who submitted charge sheet against accused-appellants. 11. PW-4, Dr. D.P. Mishra deposed in his evidence that on 27.1.1983 he was posted as Medical Officer at Mainpuri. On that date at 4.00 PM, he conducted autopsy on the body of deceased and found the following ante-mortem injuries on his person: 1. Gun shot wound of entry 5 cm x 5 cm x muscle deep on the left side neck 7 cm below the left ear. Margins are lacerated and inverted. No bleeding, scorching or tattooing around the wound. Direction is right and slightly backwards and downwards. Large vessels of neck lacerated. 2. Gun shot wound of exit 1.5 cm x 1 cm x through and through injury No. 1 on the right side neck 11 cm below right ear. Margin lacerated and averted. 3. Lacerated wound 10 cm x 3 cm x bone deep on the dorsum of left hand involving roots of thumb, index and middle finger. 12. PW-5, HC Shiv Karan Singh in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 26.1.1983, a constable from Kurawali Police Station brought a check report of the informant and another report in respect of this incident, which was entered by him in GD (Ext. Ka-6). 13. Evidence of PW-6, SI Ramji Lal Sharma, the first investigating officer has already been discussed above. 14. PW-7, Durvijay Singh, in his examination-in-chief, deposed that on 26.1.1983 he was posted as Sub-inspector at PS Kurawali. He conducted inquest on the dead body of deceased, which he proved as Ext. Ka-11. He also prepared necessary documents and after getting the dead body sealed, he handed over the same to Constables Member Singh and Ramveer Singh for autopsy. 15. In this case conductor of the bus in which the occurrence took place was examined as CW-1. He deposed that on 26.1.1983 bus was going to Meerut from Bewar. At Bhogaon, bus reached at about 9.30 AM. where some passengers boarded the bus. When the bus reached Bichhwa, one passenger requested for a halt as he wanted to alight. When he got the bus stopped, one or two persons alighted from the front door and 2-3 persons from the rear door. He was sitting on the rear seat of the bus. where some passengers boarded the bus. When the bus reached Bichhwa, one passenger requested for a halt as he wanted to alight. When he got the bus stopped, one or two persons alighted from the front door and 2-3 persons from the rear door. He was sitting on the rear seat of the bus. As soon as he gave whistle for starting the bus, he heard noise of fire. Some person fired at the person sitting in the bus. After the fire people started running helter skelter. As he was having cash bag, he also ran after getting from the back door of the bus. He further deposed that he did neither know the deceased nor assailants. 16. After closure of prosecution evidence, statements of accused-appellants were recorded, who denied their participation in occurrence and claimed false implication due to enmity. However, Rajesh Kumar further stated that he had been falsely implicated due to enmity with PW-1, Jhabbu Lal. 17. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing and assessing the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated above. 18. Hence, this appeal. 19. Heard Shri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri A.N. Mulla, learned Additional Government Advocate. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated. It was further submitted that there was no motive for the accused-appellants to commit the murder of the deceased. It was also submitted that PW-1, Jhabbu Lal and PW-2 Chheda Lal are interested and inimical witnesses, therefore, their testimony cannot be relied upon and in addition thereto, there is no evidence on record to hold the culpability of appellants. It was also submitted that the prosecution has not examined any independent witness. Lastly, it was submitted that no bullet is alleged to have been recovered from the person of the deceased and the weapons attributed to the appellants from which they fired shot have not been recovered. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellants relied on the following judicial pronouncements: 1. Badam Singh Vs. State of M.P., AIR, 2004, SC 26. 2. Mehraj Singh Vs. State of U.P., (1994) 5 SCC 188 . 3. Ganesh Bhavan Patel and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra (1978)4 SCC 371 . 4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellants relied on the following judicial pronouncements: 1. Badam Singh Vs. State of M.P., AIR, 2004, SC 26. 2. Mehraj Singh Vs. State of U.P., (1994) 5 SCC 188 . 3. Ganesh Bhavan Patel and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra (1978)4 SCC 371 . 4. Ravulappalli Kondaiah and others Vs. State of A.P. (1975) 3 SCC 752 . 5. Anil Phukan Vs. State of Assam, (1993) 3 SCC 282 , 6. State of Punjab Vs. Mukhtiar Singh and another, (1995)4 SCC 590. 7. A. Shankar Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2011 SC 2302 . 8. Masalti and others Vs. State of U.P. (1964) 8 SCR 133 . 9. Dalip Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab (1954) SCR 145. 10. Mani Ram and others Vs. State of U.P., 1994 (Supp) 2 SCC 289. 11. Mohar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1981 AIR (SC) 1578. 12. Purshottam Vs. State of MP, 1980 AIR (SC) 1873. 21. On the other hand, Shri A.N. Mulla, learned Additional Government Advocate refuting the submissions of learned counsel for appellants submitted that it was a broad day light murder witnessed by PW-1, Jhabbu Lal and PW-2 Chheda Lal. He further submitted that testimony of PW-1, Jhabbu Lal is intact without any material contradiction and there is no legal impediment in placing reliance upon his testimony. It was also submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of appellants beyond all reasonable doubt and learned Trial Court rightly recorded the findings of conviction against accused-appellants. 22. Before coming to the merit of the present case, we would like to refer to the pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants. 23. Badam Singh Vs. State of M.P., AIR 2004 (SC) 26 was a case in which Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere fact that the witnesses are consistent in what they say is not a sure guarantee of their truthfulness. The witnesses are subjected to cross-examination to bring out the facts, which may persuade a Court to hold that though consistent their evidence is not acceptable for any other reason. The witnesses are subjected to cross-examination to bring out the facts, which may persuade a Court to hold that though consistent their evidence is not acceptable for any other reason. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the conduct of the witnesses is such that it renders the case of the prosecution doubtful or incredible, or that their presence at the place of occurrence as eye witness is suspect, the Court may reject their evidence. 24. Mehraj Singh Vs. State of UP, (1994) 5 SCC 188 and Ganesh Bhavan Patel and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1978)4 SCC 371 were the cases in which Hon'ble Apex Court held that strange conduct of eyewitness, which is inconsistent with the normal conduct of an eye-witness, may come in the way of accepting his story as true. 25. Ravulappalli Kondaiah and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1975) 3 SCC 752 , State of Punjab Vs. Mukhtiar Singh and another, (1975) 4 SCC 590 were the cases in which Hon'ble Supreme Court held that testimony of interested and inimical witnesses is to be relied upon after corroboration. 26. In Anil Phukan Vs. State of Assam (1993) 3 SCC 282 , Hon'ble Apex Court held that mere relationship with the deceased is no ground to discard the testimony of the witness. 27. In Masalti and others Vs. State of UP (1964) 8 SCR 133 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mechanical rejection of evidence on sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. 28. Shanker Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2011 SC 2302 was a case in which Hon'ble Apex Court observed that in all criminal cases normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the deposition of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omission amounts to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the Court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. 29. Where the omission amounts to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the Court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. 29. In Dalip Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, (1954)1 SCR 145, Hon'ble Apex Court held that a witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause such as enmity against the accused to which to implicate him falsely. 30. In Mani Ram and others Vs. State of UP, 1994 (Supp)2 SCC 289, Mohar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1981 (Supp) 1 SCC 18 and Purshottam Vs. State of MP, 1980 AIR (SC) 1873, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where there are conflict between eye-witness account and medical evidence, it will not be safe to convict the accused on such evidence. 31. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments are not foreign to us. Criminal cases are decided on the facts, circumstances and evidence adduced by the prosecution in that particular case. However, we proceed to decide the case keeping in view the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as other judgments on the subject. 32. In the present case, incident is alleged to have taken place on 26.01.1983 at 10.15 AM and FIR of the case was lodged promptly on the same day at 11.42 AM, i.e. only after one hour and 27 minutes of the incident. The incident took place when PW-1 Jhabbu Lal along with deceased and Dharam Singh were going from Bhogaon to Etah by bus to find match for his daughter. Accused-appellants also boarded the same bus from Bhogaon. It is noteworthy to mention that promptness in filing the FIR has not been challenged by the appellants. A prompt FIR lends credence to the case of the prosecution. 33. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jai Prakash Singh Vs. State of Bihar (2012)4 SCC 379 held that promptness in filing FIR gives assurance of veracity of information and reflects first hand account of occurrence and persons responsible therefor. A prompt FIR lends credence to the case of the prosecution. 33. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jai Prakash Singh Vs. State of Bihar (2012)4 SCC 379 held that promptness in filing FIR gives assurance of veracity of information and reflects first hand account of occurrence and persons responsible therefor. Object to insist upon prompt FIR is to obtain information regarding circumstances in which crime was committed, names of actual culprits, parts played by them as well as names of eye witnesses. FIR is valuable piece of evidence though not substantive evidence. So in this case prompt FIR has been lodged making the appellants as accused in this case. 34. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nanhe Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1973 (3) SCC 317 , held that a prompt FIR eliminates the chances of cooking up of a false story. 35. So far as the aspect of motive is concerned, it was mentioned in the FIR that there was old enmity behind the occurrence. PW-1, Jhabbu Lal in his examination-in-chief has brought the factum of enmity. It is a case of direct evidence. PW-1, Jhabbu Lal, who is eye-witness of the occurrence specifically stated the role of each accused appellants and have also disclosed the manner in which the offence has been committed as alleged by the prosecution, particularly fire arms have been assigned to accused-appellants whereby assault was made. In a case of direct evidence, motive does not have vital role, thus it becomes insignificant. 36. In a catena of judgment, the Supreme Court has held that where there is direct evidence, motive looses its importance. 37. In Sheo Shankar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2011)3 SCC 654 , the Apex Court has held as under: "Proof of motive, however, recedes into the background in cases where the prosecution relies upon an eye-witness account of the occurrence. That is because if the court upon a proper appraisal of the deposition of the eye-witnesses comes to the conclusion that the version given by them is credible, absence of evidence to prove the motive is rendered inconsequential. Conversely even if prosecution succeeds in establishing a strong motive for the commission of the offence, but the evidence of the eye-witnesses is found unreliable or unworthy of credit, existence of a motive does not by itself provide a safe basis for convicting the accused. Conversely even if prosecution succeeds in establishing a strong motive for the commission of the offence, but the evidence of the eye-witnesses is found unreliable or unworthy of credit, existence of a motive does not by itself provide a safe basis for convicting the accused. That does not, however, mean that proof of motive even in a case which rests on an eye-witness account does not lend strength to the prosecution case or fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion. Proof of motive in such a situation certainly helps the prosecution and supports the eye-witnesses." 38. In Darbara Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012)10 SCC 476 , the Apex Court held thus: "So far as the issue of motive is concerned, it is a settled legal proposition that motive has great significance in a case involving circumstantial evidence, but where direct evidence is available, which is worth relying upon, motive loses its significance. In the instant case, firstly, there is nothing on record to reveal the identity of the person who was convicted for rape, there is also nothing to reveal the status of his relationship with the appellant and further, there is nothing on record to determine the identity of this girl or her relationship to the co-accused Kashmir Singh. More so, the conviction took place 20 years prior to the incident. No independent witness has been examined to prove the factum that the appellant was not on talking terms with Kashmir Singh. In a case where there is direct evidence of witnesses which can be relied upon, the absence of motive cannot be a ground to reject the case. Under no circumstances, can motive take the place of the direct evidence available as proof, and in a case like this, proof of motive is not relevant at all. 10. Motive in criminal cases based solely on the positive, clear, cogent and reliable ocular testimony of witnesses is not at all relevant. In such a fact-situation, the mere absence of a strong motive to commit the crime, cannot be of any assistance to the accused. The motive behind a crime is a relevant fact regarding which evidence may be led. The absence of motive is also a circumstance which may be relevant for assessing evidence. (Vide: Gurcharan Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 460 ; Rajinder Kumar & Anr. The motive behind a crime is a relevant fact regarding which evidence may be led. The absence of motive is also a circumstance which may be relevant for assessing evidence. (Vide: Gurcharan Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 460 ; Rajinder Kumar & Anr. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1966 SC 1322 ; Datar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 1193 ; and Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2000 SC 160 )." 39. Next issue to be considered is the evidence of two eye-witnesses. Presence of two eye witnesses PW-1 Jhabbu Lal and PW-2, Chheda Lal and accused-appellants at the time of incident is established from the testimony of PWs 1 and 2. PW-2 Chheda Lal has not stated that he had seen the assailants who had fired at the deceased. He only stated that when bus stopped, four passengers alighted, out of whom, he recognized accused-appellants. PW-1, Jhabbu Lal has fully supported the prosecution story and stated that accused Rajesh Singh fired at the deceased through a glass window. Accused Vipin came inside the bus and he also fired at the deceased. PW-1, Jhabbu Lal may be an inimical witness. Enmity is a double edged weapon, it may be a ground for motive to commit the offence as well as for false implication. The evidence in such a case has, therefore, to be scrutinized with care and caution so that neither the guilty person escapes on pleas of enmity nor innocent person gets convicted on that basis. 40. We have gone through the testimony of PW-1. Jhabbu Lal. He has undergone a lengthy cross-examination, but there is nothing in his cross-examination which makes his statement unreliable. 41. In Arjun and others Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1994 Suppl. (1) SCR 616, it was argued before the Apex Court that as the parties were on inimical terms and some criminal proceedings were pending between them even at that time when the occurrence took place. Further PW-1 in that case was the brother of the deceased and informant in that case was son of the deceased. 42. (1) SCR 616, it was argued before the Apex Court that as the parties were on inimical terms and some criminal proceedings were pending between them even at that time when the occurrence took place. Further PW-1 in that case was the brother of the deceased and informant in that case was son of the deceased. 42. Apex Court brushed aside the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants therein and has held as under: "We are not convinced by the aforesaid argument that either on account of animosity or on account of relationship, the witnesses did not divulge the truth but fabricated a false case against the appellants. It is needless to emphasise that enmity is a double edged sword which can cut both ways. However, the fact remains that whether the prosecution witnesses are close relatives of the deceased victim or on inimical terms with the deceased involved in the crime of murder, the witnesses are always interested to see that the real offenders of the crime are booked and they are not, in any case, expected to leave out the real culprits and rope in the innocent persons simply because of the enmity. It is, therefore, not a safe rule to reject their testimony merely on the ground that the complainant and the accused persons were on inimical terms. Similarly the evidence could not be rejected merely on the basis of relationship of the witnesses with the deceased." 43. The Supreme Court in Ramashish Rai Vs. Jagdish Singh, (2005) 10 SCC 498 , has held that the requirement of law is that the testimony of inimical witnesses has to be considered with caution. If otherwise witnesses are true and reliable their testimony cannot be thrown out on the threshold by branding them as inimical witnesses. By now, it is well-settled principle of law that enmity is a double-edged sword. It can be a ground for false implication. It also can be a ground for assault. Therefore, a duty is cast upon the court to examine the testimony of inimical witnesses with due caution and diligence." 44. By now, it is well-settled principle of law that enmity is a double-edged sword. It can be a ground for false implication. It also can be a ground for assault. Therefore, a duty is cast upon the court to examine the testimony of inimical witnesses with due caution and diligence." 44. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that Dharam Singh, Dr Shri Ram Shakya, Teeka Ram and Luxman, who were alleged to be present inside the bus when incident took place, but none of them have been examined and their non-examination gives rise to an adverse inference against the prosecution. This submission has no legs to stand. Law is settled on the point that it is quality of evidence that has to be looked into. There is no law which requires that a particular number of witnesses must be examined to prove particular fact. Law insists on quality of evidence rather on quantity of evidence. Even if evidence of only one eye witness is found wholly reliable, then conviction can be based on solitary testimony of that witness and non-examination of other witness would not adversely affect the case of prosecution. 45. Moreover, it cannot be denied that independent person avoid to become witness in such cases as they do not want to invite enmity of the accused persons. The manner in which this crime was committed, no independent person can dare to come forward and depose against appellants. 46. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shiv Ram Vs. State of U.P. 1998 SCC 149 , has observed thus: "Nowadays it is a common tendency that no outsider would like to get involve in a criminal case much less in the crime of present magnitude. Therefore, it is quite natural that no independent witness will come forward to assist the prosecution. It is well settled that the evidence of witnesses cannot be discredited only on the ground that they are close relatives of the deceased persons but what is required in such situation is that the Court must scrutinize the evidence of such witnesses with utmost care and caution." 47. In view of authorities cited by the learned counsel for the appellants and other pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court, we have determined the individual role of the appellants and accordingly given findings that they are guilty of committing murder of Chet Ram, the deceased. In view of authorities cited by the learned counsel for the appellants and other pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court, we have determined the individual role of the appellants and accordingly given findings that they are guilty of committing murder of Chet Ram, the deceased. There is sufficient ocular evidence to the fact that present appellants had fired at the deceased which hit him. This fact is further corroborated by the medical evidence, according to which gun shot ante-mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants that the evidence of PW-1, Jhabbu Lal and PW-2 Chheda Lal are not acceptable as PW-1 Jhabbu Lal is an inimical witness and PW-2, Chheda Lal has not fully supported the version of the prosecution, we have also seen that PW-1, Jhabbu Lal is eye-witness of the incident and was found wholly reliable witness and from testimony of PW-2, Chheda Lal, it is established that when bus stopped at Bichhwa, appellants got down and passengers who got down from the bus fired at the deceased, though he has not named the appellants. According to the testimony of PW-1, Jhabbu Lal appellants had fired at the deceased. Although, the weapons attributed to the appellants by which they fired have not been recovered and no bullet was recovered from the person of the deceased but this should not be fatal to the case of prosecution and it cannot be a ground for acquittal in view of the evidence available on record. 48. Thus, keeping in view the afore-mentioned legal position and after scrutinizing the evidence in the perspective of the afore-mentioned case laws, we are of the considered view that prosecution was successful in proving its case against the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court are well substantiated from the material available on record. The Trial Court has not committed any error in appreciation of evidence. The findings are based on correct appreciation of evidence and no interference in the impugned judgment is warranted. 49. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. 50. The appellants are on bail. They shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded to them by the learned Trial Court. 51. The findings are based on correct appreciation of evidence and no interference in the impugned judgment is warranted. 49. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. 50. The appellants are on bail. They shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded to them by the learned Trial Court. 51. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned for compliance and compliance report be submitted to this Court within two months.