Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 332 (ALL)

NANDU v. STATE OF U. P.

2018-02-07

KRISHNA MURARI, RAVINDRA NATH KAKKAR

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A. and Sri U. N. Singh Kushwaha holding brief of Sri Ajay Kumar for the complainant-first informant. 2. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 15.09.1983 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi in Sessions Trial No. 5 of 1983 (State Vs. Nandu & Ors.) convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant Dileram to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 I.P.C. Two other accused-appellants Nandu and Lautu have been convicted under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. Accused-appellants Nandu, Lautu, Dileram have been further convicted under Sections 323/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to two months rigorous imprisonment. Accused-appellant Babu Lal has also been convicted under Sections 323/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to two months rigorous imprisonment. 3. During the pendency of the appeal accused-appellant no.1 Nandu S/o Vishvanath died as such the appeal filed by him has been abated vide order dated 23.11.2015. 4. As per prosecution story the incident is dated 06.08.1982 at about 07:30 A.M. (morning). Its special report has been sent on 07.08.1982. The distance of the police station from place of occurrence is about 4 K.M. The informant is Rammurat S/o Punna Ram. The accused named in the F.I.R. are Nandu, Dileram, Babu Lal and Lautu. Deceased Punna Ram Chauhan was the father of the informant. Accused-appellants Dileram, Babu Lal and Lautu are the sons of the accused-appellant Nandu as mentioned in the F.I.R. 5. Prosecution version is that on 06.08.1982, deceased Punna Ram and his son Rammurat went to their field at about 7:00 A.M. (morning) to mend the boundary which is situate at a distance of about 1 K.M. South to Parokha village. At about 07:30 A.M. the named accused-appellants reached the spot and asked them why they were cutting the Med (boundary) to which the deceased replied that they were removing gross from the Med. Altercation took place between them. Accused-appellant Nandu was armed with a Gadasha (heavy knife), accused-appellants Dileram and Babu Lal were armed with spears and accused-appellant Lautu was armed with lathi. On the instigation of the accused-appellant Nandu all the four accused-appellant assaulted the deceased with their arms. Rammurat (informant) raised an alarm on which all the accused persons with their weapon assaulted him. Accused-appellant Nandu was armed with a Gadasha (heavy knife), accused-appellants Dileram and Babu Lal were armed with spears and accused-appellant Lautu was armed with lathi. On the instigation of the accused-appellant Nandu all the four accused-appellant assaulted the deceased with their arms. Rammurat (informant) raised an alarm on which all the accused persons with their weapon assaulted him. Hearing the noise, the witnesses Param Hans and Chhedi Singh, who were present in their fields adjacent to the field of the deceased, rushed to the place of incident whereupon all the accused persons ran away from the place of occurrence. Thereafter, deceased was taken to the hospital but in the way when they reached in front of the house of the complainant, the deceased was succumbed to his injuries. 6. On the basis of written report, F.I.R. was lodged at the PS-Ram Nagar, District-Varanasi. It transpires from the evidence that deceased Punna Ram had purchased a house which was adjacent to the house of accused-appellant Nandu from Shakal and Sitaram who are the pattidar (shareholders) of accused-appellant Nandu. Only a lane intervened between two houses and accused-appellant Nandu did not like this transfer of the house in favour of the deceased Punna Ram. Therefore, the intervening lane was closed by accused-appellant Nandu. Further, the family members of the deceased were restrained from fetching water from the well. Further, the immediate cause of the incident as alleged in the F.I.R. is the dispute with regard to the Med as the agricultural field of the accused-appellant Nandu and deceased Punna Ram are adjacent to each other and on the date of incident the deceased alongwith his son were repairing their Med. At that point of time the accused persons armed with their weapons reached the spot and objected. Altercation took place between them and on instigation of accused Nandu all four accused attacked Punna Ram and his son Ram Murat. 7. In support of the prosecution story PW1 Param Hans, PW2 Ram Murat, PW3 Chhedi were examined as a fact witnesses. They narrated the eye version account of the incident. PW4 Dr. C. B. Tripathi and PW6 Dr. Ram Raj Rai were examined to prove the medical evidence. PW5 constable Ram Chij Ram and PW7 I.O. Shiv Dhari Singh were examined and they proved the police papers tendered in support of the prosecution story. 8. PW4 Dr. They narrated the eye version account of the incident. PW4 Dr. C. B. Tripathi and PW6 Dr. Ram Raj Rai were examined to prove the medical evidence. PW5 constable Ram Chij Ram and PW7 I.O. Shiv Dhari Singh were examined and they proved the police papers tendered in support of the prosecution story. 8. PW4 Dr. C. B. Tripathi had conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased Punna Ram on 07.08.1982 at about 01:30 P.M. He found that deceased was aged about 50 years and he died one and quarter day (1 ¼ day) before the examination. At the time of post-mortem, he was bearing a Lungi and a towel (Gamchha) was tied up on his chest. Further, he found that lower limb and front of abdomen were thoroughly covered with dry mud. He found following ante mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased:- 1. Stab-wound 3 cm X ¾ cm X chest cavity deep, transversally placed over front of left side chest in the third inter-costal space, 11 cm outer to mid line and 1 cm below the nipple. 2. Lacerated wound 3 cm X ½ cm X scalp deep, over vortex of head 8 cm above the right eye brow and 11 cm above the right ear. On reflexion of scalp, contusion of skull 4 cm X 1 ½ cm in area was found. 9. On internal examination he found injuries on scalp corresponding to the injury no. 2 while on the thorax wall he found injury no. 1. Further, he found left side pleura perforated. Left lungs lower lobe was punctured and it was collapsed. He had mentioned in his report that he found semi digested food in the stomach in which rice and pulse were identified while the small intestines contained digested food and larger intestines contained fecal matter. The cause of death was mentioned as shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury to the lung. 10. Dr. Ram Raj Rai, PW6 who had medically examined injured Rammurat (PW2) and found the following injuries:- 1. Lacerated wound 0.5 cm X 0.3 cm on left side head, 9 cm behind left ear. 2. (a) Lacerated wound 1 cm X 1 cm X 0.5 cm round in shape. 10. Dr. Ram Raj Rai, PW6 who had medically examined injured Rammurat (PW2) and found the following injuries:- 1. Lacerated wound 0.5 cm X 0.3 cm on left side head, 9 cm behind left ear. 2. (a) Lacerated wound 1 cm X 1 cm X 0.5 cm round in shape. (b) abrasion 1.5 cm X 0.5 cm (c) abrasion 0.5 cm X 0.5 cm all above wounds a, b, c were in an area of 15 cm X 11 cm which was contused. 3. Contusion 14 cm X 2.5 cm, on back lower part, transverse in position. 4. Contused traumatic swelling 10 cm X 10 cm on right buttock upper part. 5. Red contusion 18 cm X 2.5 cm on outer aspect of right thigh, middle and lower part. 6. Traumatic swelling, 10 cm X 7 cm on right knee, front. 7. Contused traumatic swelling, 16 cm X 8 cm on right leg, outer aspect, upper part. 8. Contusion, Red 11 cm X 2.5 cm on medial aspect of left upper part. On the same day Dr. Ram Raj Rai has conducted the medical examination of the accused Dile Ram and found the following injuries on his body:- 1. Lacerated wound 2.5 cm X 0.5 cm X scalp deep, on right side head 7.5 cm above right ear. 2. Red contusion 18 cm X 2 cm on back, middle part, oblique in direction. 3. Red contusion 3.5 cm X 1.5 cm on right side back upper part. 4. Contused traumatic swelling 3 cm X 4 cm on right shoulder top outer part. 5. Contused swelling 7 cm X 10 cm, on left buttock. 6. Lacerated wound, 4 cm X o.5 cm X scalp deep, on right side head, 6 cm above right eye brow. 11. Further, it transpires that this witness after medical examination of the injured/victim Ram Murat on 06.08.1982 at about 8.30 AM opined that all the injuries are simple and fresh and caused by a blunt object. He advised X-ray of the knee and shoulder. After medical examination of the accused-appellant Dile Ram on 6.8.1982 at 11:00 AM in the same hospital he opined that injuries found on the body of the accused-appellant Dile Ram were simple in nature and caused by blunt object. 12. He advised X-ray of the knee and shoulder. After medical examination of the accused-appellant Dile Ram on 6.8.1982 at 11:00 AM in the same hospital he opined that injuries found on the body of the accused-appellant Dile Ram were simple in nature and caused by blunt object. 12. PW5 is the constable Ram Chij Ram who stated that he alongwith constable Bhusi Ram had taken the sealed body to the mortuary with some relevant police papers and handed over the same to the Medical Officer. He has identified the dead body in the presence of Medical Officer. He had brought the medical examination report as well as sealed bundle of the cloths to the police station which were handed over to him by the said doctor. 13. PW7 Sri Shiv Dhari Singh who is the Investigating Officer has stated that he was present at the police station at the time of registration of criminal case. He made an Inquest Report of the dead body and prepared necessary documents and then sent the dead body for post-mortem. He also made an inspection of the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan Ex. Ka-13. He had also taken the blood stained and sample of earth from the spot and prepared its Fard Ex. Ka-11. After completion of investigation he submitted the charge sheet Ex. Ka-12. 14. After close of the prosecution evidence the accused persons had been examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the prosecution allegations and as per defence version accused-appellant Lautu does not belong to the family of the other co-accused and he is the son of Fakir and who has never been called by the name of Nandu. Further, the accused-appellant Nandu, Babu Lal and Lautu denied their presence at the place of incident. The accused-appellant Dile Ram put his defence that he has seen the deceased Punna Ram and his son Rammurat were proceedings towards their field alongwith farsa and kudal at the fag end of night. He followed them armed with lathi apprehending that they would cut down the common Med adjacent to his agricultural field. He stated that when he asked the deceased not to cut the boundaries both son and father assaulted him. He followed them armed with lathi apprehending that they would cut down the common Med adjacent to his agricultural field. He stated that when he asked the deceased not to cut the boundaries both son and father assaulted him. He defended himself with his lathi and at that point of time large number of persons arrived at the spot and while he was defending himself someone has inflicted blow with spear on deceased Punna Ram in the darkness. 15. Accused-appellant Babu Lal in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that he has been living in his Nanihal since his childhood and was not present at the spot at the time of occurrence. In order to substantiate his defence he has examined one Dhannu Singh resident of Village-Hindwari, PS-Alinagar, District-Varanasi who has stated that one Bahal Chauhan of his village has gifted his entire property to accused-appellant Babu Lal and accused-appellant Babu Lal has been living with him since the childhood. He further stated that accused-appellant Nandu is the son-in-law of Bahal Chauhan and was annoyed with the above said gift which according to him should have been shared by all the brothers of accused-appellant Babu Lal. He further stated that since then Babu Lal never visited Village-Parokha which is at a distance of 3 miles from Village-Hindwari. 16. In order to substantiate the defence the accused-appellant Lautu has filed documents which are revenue papers. 17. Learned trial judge after hearing the parties and considering all the oral as well as documentary evidence passed the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence, aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the present appeal has been preferred. 18. It is contended on behalf of learned counsel for the accused-appellants that trial judge convicted the accused-appellant Dile Ram under Section 302 I.P.C. and the accused-appellants Nandu and Lautu under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to life imprisonment. It is further contended that accused-appellant Babu Lal had been acquitted under Section 302/34 I.P.C. by the trial judge convicted him alongwith other three co-accused-appellants under Section 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. for rigorous imprisonment of 2 months. It is further contended that accused-appellant Babu Lal had been acquitted under Section 302/34 I.P.C. by the trial judge convicted him alongwith other three co-accused-appellants under Section 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. for rigorous imprisonment of 2 months. At the very outset learned counsel for the accused-appellants submitted that the period of sentence of two months rigorous imprisonment had already been served by the accused-appellant Babu Lal and further due to death of accused-appellant Nandu the appeal filed by him against the impugned judgement and order of sentence has already been abated. It is mainly contended by learned counsel for the accused-appellants that the time of death of deceased Punna Ram is not established in this case. It is further contended that the arrest memo of accused-appellants had been falsely prepared. It is also contended that the medical evidence tendered does not support the eye version account stated by the fact witnesses of the case. F.I.R. is anti timed and the general role has been assigned to the accused in the F.I.R. and the story has been developed lateron and there is exaggeration in the statement of the fact witnesses, the injuries sustained by the accused-appellant Dile Ram had not been explained which goes to doubt the very genisis of the prosecution story. Place of the presence of the witnesses had not been specifically and categorically mentioned in the sketch map prepared by the Investigating Officer. The nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased and alleged witness PW2 Rammurat is stated to be inflicted by some hard blunt weapon. No recovery of weapon has been proved from the place of occurrence by tendering cogent and believable evidence. Further, no serological chemical report had been obtained. Testimony of the fact witnesses is challenged on the ground of being interested and partisan. All the witnesses as per contention of learned counsel for the accused-appellants are inimical to the accused persons. He lastly argued that there is material contradictions, improvement, exaggeration as well as inconsistency in inter se statements of the fact witnesses. Under these facts and circumstances, the charged offences against accused-appellants have not been proved without any fair and reasonable doubts so appeal deserves to be allowed. 19. He lastly argued that there is material contradictions, improvement, exaggeration as well as inconsistency in inter se statements of the fact witnesses. Under these facts and circumstances, the charged offences against accused-appellants have not been proved without any fair and reasonable doubts so appeal deserves to be allowed. 19. Rebutting the above arguments the learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant/informant have stated that the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence is well reasoned and discussed. This fact has been proved from evidence adduced by the prosecution during trial that accused persons were annoyed and had a grudge with the deceased on account of transfer of the house of their pattidar (shareholder) and the closure of the entrance of the lane to the well. The female members of the deceased had tried to had an access to the well which increased strained relation between them. It is further submitted that prosecution has proved the mode and manner of the incident which took place at the alleged date, time and place of occurrence by independent eye version account. Further, corroborated by the medical evidence, the independent witnesses who were working at that time in their fields which is 40 to 50 paces from the place of occurrence. The presence of the witnesses are highly natural and probable, their testimony being consistent and is corroborated with the prosecution story in all material particulars. The informant PW2 who was injured in the incident had also been examined by the prosecution and he had fully supported the prosecution version as alleged in the F.I.R. Lastly it is contended that the arguments raised in this appeal are of not worthy of credence and under the fact situation the appeal deserves to be dismissed and the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be confirmed. 20. In the light of above arguments as raised by learned counsel for both the parties, we have perused the oral as well as documentary evidence available on the record. It transpires from the record that before the incident altercation took place between the parties on the point of repairing of the Med in the field of complainant. 20. In the light of above arguments as raised by learned counsel for both the parties, we have perused the oral as well as documentary evidence available on the record. It transpires from the record that before the incident altercation took place between the parties on the point of repairing of the Med in the field of complainant. Further it transpires from the evidence of the fact witnesses that at the time of incident, accused-appellant Nandu was armed with a Gadasa, his son accused-appellant Dile Ram and Babu Lal were armed with spears (ballam) and accused-appellant Lautu was armed with lathi. At the time of altercation accused-appellant Nandu exhorted and instigated to kill both father and son on which accused-appellant Lautu gave the first blow to the deceased on his head which was followed by the fatal stab wound by accused-appellant Dile Ram and while two other accused persons continued to beat Rammurat. So far as presence, involvement and complicity in the commission of crime by these accused persons are concerned, it would be relevant to mention that identity of the accused-appellant Lautu is under cloud of doubts. His parentage in the F.I.R. is mentioned as a son of accused-appellant Nandu whereas it is an admitted fact to both the parties that he is son of Fakir. Although the fact witnesses improved it by making statement before the trial court that Fakir is also known as Nandu in the village. The explanation which coming out of the evidence of the fact witnesses does not find any support from any of the documentary evidence adduced in this case. On the contrary the defence documents (revenue records) shows that accused-appellant Lautu does not belong to the family of accused-appellant Nandu. So prima facie it is established that accused-appellant Lautu does not belong to the family of the accused-appellant Nandu. The explanation about the parentage of the accused-appellant Lautu as son of Nandu does not find any support from the evidence available on record. 21. With regard to the presence of co-accused-appellant Babu Lal, we find from material available on record that his brothers and the father had strained relation with him because of the fact that he has received entire property by way of gift from his maternal grandfather. This fact also transpires that accused-appellant Babu Lal has been living in another Village-Hindwari. 21. With regard to the presence of co-accused-appellant Babu Lal, we find from material available on record that his brothers and the father had strained relation with him because of the fact that he has received entire property by way of gift from his maternal grandfather. This fact also transpires that accused-appellant Babu Lal has been living in another Village-Hindwari. Witness Dhannu Singh has supported the aforesaid fact who has been examined before the trial court as a defence witness. The documents Kutumb register (family register) and voter list of Village-Hindwari does support this fact. It has also come in the evidence that distance between Hindwari and Purokha (the place of incident) is 3 miles which is admitted by both the parties. So the presence of accused-appellant Babu Lal at the time of incident is found to be doubtful. 22. Considering the fact situation, it would be pertinent to mention that as we have already noticed that Lautu does not belong to the family of other co-accused-appellants, is further proved by the revenue extract tendered in the defence. The motive part becomes relevant in this case which requires elaborate discussion. The prosecution asserts that deceased Punna Ram had purchased a house from the pattidar of accused-appellant Nandu and that house was adjacent to the house of accused-appellant Nandu. The lane intervening between these two houses was closed and family members of the deceased were stopped from fetching water from the well which seems to be bone of contention between both the parties and further the immediate cause of the incident as alleged by the prosecution is that on the date of incident at the alleged time the deceased alongwith his son Rammurat were repairing the Med of their agricultural field to which accused persons objected and altercation took place between them and on the instigation of accused-appellant Nandu, accused-appellant Lautu had given lathi blow on the head of deceased Punna Ram and accused-appellant Dile Ram had given a fatal blow by his spear (ballam) and all the accused persons assaulted and injured Rammurat. As we have already noticed that accused-appellant Lautu does not belong to the family of accused-appellant Nandu, his parentage mentioned in the F.I.R. was later on improved by the explanation of the fact witnesses which is not cogently established and further accused-appellant Babu Lal although is son of accused-appellant Nandu but is found to be having strained relation with his brothers and father as property was exclusively in his name. Further, accused-appellant happens to reside in the village of Hindwari which is at a distance of 3 miles from the village of Purokha which is the place of occurrence. So the presence of accused-appellant on the spot at the time of incident appears to be under cloud of suspicion. Further, to add the motive and genesis of the cause of incident as alleged by the prosecution is found to be doubtful as the reason of strained relation between the parties was that accused-appellant Nandu had closed the entrance to the intervening lane and further stopped the family of the deceased from taking water from the well and also misbehaved with the wife of the deceased. If this fact is taken to be true on its face value then it is but natural that deceased and his family must be having a deep feeling of annoyance and taking of revenge in the mind of the deceased and his family members and not in the mind of accused-appellants' side. Under these facts and situation the motive of causing murder of the deceased could not be said to be attributable to the accused persons. So far as immediate reasons for causing injuries to the deceased and his son as stated in prosecution story with regard to the repairing of Med is concerned we find that it has come in evidence of the fact witnesses that prior to the incident the Med intervening the fields of the complainant and accused was irregular and was not in a straight line and it was the deceased and his son who who were bringing it in a straight line. In this way we find the motive is not established and found to be highly improbable. 23. In this way we find the motive is not established and found to be highly improbable. 23. Other relevant factor with regard to the time of the incident and non-explanation of the injuries on the body of the accused-appellant Dile Ram is concerned we find that the prosecution has alleged that injuries to the deceased, informant and accused-appellant Dile Ram were caused almost at the time of the incident i.e. 7:30 A.M. whereas defence has taken plea that accused-appellant Dile Ram was assaulted at Bhor of the day of the incident. It is relevant to mention that PW-7 Dr. Ram Raj Rai has medically examined the accused-appellant Dile Ram on 6.8.1982 at about 11:00 A.M. and injuries of the prosecution witness PW2 Rammurat at 8:30 AM on 6.8.1982. The Medical Officer who had conducted the medical examination of both the victim Rammurat and the accused-appellant Dile Ram, had stated that injuries of both the injured were caused within six hours. In this way we find that injuries on the body of the accused-appellant Dile Ram could have been of about at 5:00 A.M. and the injuries of the injured/victim Rammurat could have been in between 2:00 to 3:00 A.M. On this point PW4 Dr. C. B. Tripathi who prepared the post-mortem examination report has stated in his report Ex. Ka-2, the duration of the death of deceased could be of 1 ¼ hours. Post-mortem examination was conducted on 6.8.1982 at 1:30 A.M. Taking his opinion into consideration the death of deceased could have been caused at any time from 1:30 A.M. to 7:00 or 7:30 A.M. The next relevant factor is that the internal examination of the corpus of the deceased, the doctor has found both semi digested and digested food in the dead body. The semi digested food found was rice and pulse in the stomach of the deceased. PW4 Dr. C. B. Tripathi has stated that the presence of the semi digested food could be said to be of the last meal which would been taken at least one hour or at the most six hours before the death. Now we come on to the second point of non-explanation of the defence injuries at the time of incident, we find that medical report prepared by PW6 Dr. Now we come on to the second point of non-explanation of the defence injuries at the time of incident, we find that medical report prepared by PW6 Dr. C. B. Tripathi shows two lacerated wound, two red contusion and two contused swelling on the body of accused-appellant which cannot be said to be simple and superficial. The explanation of the injuries of the accused-appellant Dile Ram as stated by the eye witnesses were caused by the villagers who chased the accused persons while they were running from the place of incident after making fatal assault but this explanation to our mind is found to be not sufficient as none of the fact witness were able to give the name of the person who inflicted the injuries on the body of the accused-appellant Dile Ram. Even none of the witness was able to disclose the name of the person who caused these injuries with lathi. Further, there is inconsistency in the testimony of the fact witnesses with regard to the aforesaid fact. Some chasers of the village have been named by the witnesses PW1 Param Hans and PW2 Rammurat but the other facts witness PW3 Chhedi had denied their presence who were named. On the other hand during investigation the efforts had not been made to identify the person who inflicted the injuries on the body of the accused-appellant Dile Ram. To add further F.I.R. does not mention about the injuries of accused-appellant Dile Ram. Injured/victim PW2 Rammurat while he was under treatment at Hospital came to know about the injuries of accused Dile Ram and could not notice the injury on the body of the accused-appellant Dile Ram at the place of occurrence. The aforesaid facts and circumstances goes to show that prosecution has deliberately suppressed the mode and manner by which the accused-appellant Dile Ram received the injuries. In this way the genesis of the whole prosecution story comes under a great suspicion. We are of the view that the injuries inflicted on accused-appellant Dile Ram at the place of occurrence has not been sufficiently and properly explained. The genesis of the incident is being suppressed by the prosecution and non-explanation of the defence injury is found to be fatal and creates a heavy doubt on the prosecution version. We are of the view that the injuries inflicted on accused-appellant Dile Ram at the place of occurrence has not been sufficiently and properly explained. The genesis of the incident is being suppressed by the prosecution and non-explanation of the defence injury is found to be fatal and creates a heavy doubt on the prosecution version. The other relevant circumstances which we would like to mention is that it is an admitted fact that prior to the incident deceased Punna Ram, his son Rammurat had gone to their fields for repairing the Med and they were having Kudal (grub ax) and Spade at the time of the incident but did not use the same in defence when the accused persons were assaulting the deceased as well as the injured/victim Rammurat and further the Kudal (grub ax) and spade which were admittedly on the spot, had not been recovered nor exhibited before the trial court. These circumstances itself are unnatural. No recovery had been made from the accused persons nor any serological or chemical report is available on the record to substantiate the prosecution story. 24. In view of the aforesaid reasons we conclude that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the accused-appellants without reasonable doubt. We find that prosecution has deliberately suppressed the material facts by not explaining the injuries on the body of the accused-appellant Dile Ram which we find to be the fatal to the prosecution case. Therefore, the impugned judgement of the trial court is liable to be set aside and appeal deserves to be allowed. 25. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The appellants are on bail. They need not required to surrender. Their bail bonds and sureties bonds are hereby discharged. 26. Let a certified copy of the judgement and order along with lower court record be sent to the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial court for compliance.