Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 343 (ALL)

Javed Khan v. State Of Uttar Pradesh

2019-02-08

ANANT KUMAR, MANISH MATHUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Manish Mathur, J. This appeal has been filed against the common judgment and order dated 15th April, 2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri in Sessions Trial No. 199 of 2007 in Case Crime No. 1937 of 2005 under Section 302 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and in Sessions Trial No. 200 of 2007 in Case Crime No. 1950 of 2005 under Sections 3/25 Arms Act in Police Station Kotwali Sadar, Kheri (State v. Javed Khan). 2. By means of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 15th April, 2008, the appellant was found guilty under Section 302 IPC and was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of which, he was to undergo further imprisonment of one year's rigorous imprisonment. The appellant was also found guilty and convicted under Sections 3/25 Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both sentences were to run concurrently. 3. Heard Sri Karuna Kant Gupta learned counsel for appellant and Sri. Hari Shanker Bajpai, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record. 4. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.9.2005, the complainant (P.W.-1) along with his mother Smt. Raj Dei (P.W.-2) and his sister Kiran Singh (deceased) were returning from market in the evening after making purchases with the complainant following his mother and sister at some distance. At about 6.00 p.m. when they reached in front of the house of the appellant, he suddenly fired upon his sister, Kiran Singh with a country made pistol with intention to kill, which struck her in the neck where after she fell down. The complainant's mother started shouting while the complainant also ran towards the appellant shouting but the appellant made good his escape after threatening the complainant with the country made pistol. The occurrence was seen by the complainant, his mother Smt. Raj Dei and his aunt (Bua) Smt. Champa Devi along with many other people. The complainant's sister Kiran Singh was thereafter admitted by the complainant, his mother and other people in the district hospital Lakhimpur for treatment,' whereafter the complainant came to the police station for registering of first information report (hereafter referred to as 'F.I.R.'). The complainant's sister Kiran Singh was thereafter admitted by the complainant, his mother and other people in the district hospital Lakhimpur for treatment,' whereafter the complainant came to the police station for registering of first information report (hereafter referred to as 'F.I.R.'). It is also the case of prosecution that the entire motive of the appellant for the incident happened due to an old incident of teasing the deceased by the appellant about which she had complained to her parents where after the complainant and his father had warned him not to tease the deceased any more and therefore the appellant who was bearing enmity with the deceased had committed the offence. 5. It has also been submitted that after the complainant reached the police station, he lodged a written report (Exhibit Ka-1) upon which the then Constable Brij Lal Saroj of Police Station Kotwali, Lakhimpur Kheri (P.W.-7) prepared the Chick F.I.R. (Exhibit Ka-9) on the same day at 7.10 p.m. and an entry to this effect was made in G.D. rapat No. 57 at 19/10 on 27.9.2005 and a case was registered against the appellant under Sections 307/506 IPC. Subsequent to the registering of F.I.R., the then S.S.I. of Police Station Kotwali, Lakhimpur, Sri Siya Ram Tiwari went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the complainant and his mother but received information that during recording of statement, the injured Kiran Singh had died where after he went to the place of occurrence along with the complainant and his mother and prepared a site plan (Exhibit Ka-13). At the site of incident Sri. Tiwari collected the blood stained earth as well as plain earth and sealed it into two separate containers and prepared the memo(Exhibit Ka-14). On the same night he examined the third eye-witness Smt. Champa Devi, the aunt of the complainant and visited the mortuary on the next day and prepared an inquest (Exhibit Ka-15). After sealing the dead body and preparation of other relevant documents such as photolash (Exhibit Ka-16), sample seal (Exhibit Ka-17), Form No. 13 (Exhibit Ka-18) etc., the dead body was sent for post mortem examination by Constable Shravan Kumar. 6. The post-mortem examination on the deceased was conducted by Dr. After sealing the dead body and preparation of other relevant documents such as photolash (Exhibit Ka-16), sample seal (Exhibit Ka-17), Form No. 13 (Exhibit Ka-18) etc., the dead body was sent for post mortem examination by Constable Shravan Kumar. 6. The post-mortem examination on the deceased was conducted by Dr. S.K. Shukla (P.W.-4) at District Hospital Lakhimpur Kheri on 28.9.2005 at 3.00 p.m. and as per the Post Mortem Report, the following injuries were found on the body of the deceased:-- (i) Fire arm wound of entry 1.00 cm. x 1.00 cm x chest cavity deep on left side of neck, 6.00 cms. below left ear. Margins inverted, irregular, ecchymosed, blackening, tattooing present, 5 cms. around the wound. On dissection, underlying muscles, vessels, right pleura, right lung found lacerated and one conical bullet was recovered from inner muscle of right side of back of chest. Direction of wound was from left to right downwards. One litre clotted and fluid blood was present in chest cavity. (ii) The internal position of the body was that: stomach contained 100 gms. pasty material. Small intestine contained slimy material and gases. Large intestine contain fecal material and gases. Gall bladder was half full. Pancreas was NAD, Spleen was NAD and pale. Kidneys were NAD and pale. Bladder was NAD, empty. 7. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem fire arm injury. 8. Upon completion of the post-mortem examination, the post-mortem report (Exhibit Ka-2) was prepared and sealed and due to the fact that Smt. Kiran Singh had died, the case was converted into one under Section 302, IPC on 29.9.2005 and investigation was commenced by then Station House Officer Kotwali, Lakhimpur by Sri. Veer Singh (P.W.-5). It is also the case of the prosecution that on 30.9.2005, the police received information at about 3.00 p.m. about the presence of the appellant near the Mazar of Sahid Mard Baba whereupon a team comprising police constables Ram Pratap Verma, Randheer Singh, Raghvendra Singh, SSI Sri. Siya Ram Tiwari and public witnesses Ram Shanker, son of Tilak Ram Pashi and Jaskaran Lal, son of Ram Swamp Kumhar resident of village Sikandarpur, Police Station Kotwali Lakhimpur District Kheri went to the place indicated by the informant from where the appellant was arrested. Siya Ram Tiwari and public witnesses Ram Shanker, son of Tilak Ram Pashi and Jaskaran Lal, son of Ram Swamp Kumhar resident of village Sikandarpur, Police Station Kotwali Lakhimpur District Kheri went to the place indicated by the informant from where the appellant was arrested. Upon interrogation, the appellant allegedly confessed to having murdered of the deceased on account of the fact that she did not reciprocate his feelings for her. He further disclosed the place where he had hidden the country made weapon used by him for committing the murder. On such disclosure, he was taken. To the place, identified by him from where he picked out a country made pistol of 315 bore from a bush. The country made weapon so recovered was found to have an empty cartridge in the barrel and a recovery memo of the said pistol and empty cartridge (Exhibit Ka-2) was prepared along with a site plan of the place of recovery (Exhibit Ka-4). Subsequent to the investigation, a charge sheet (Exhibit Ka-5) was filed by the inquiry officer against the appellant. 9. Due to the recovery of the country made pistol and empty cartridge, another F.I.R. was registered against the appellant on 30.9.2005 under Section 3/25 Arms Act which was investigated by Sri Rajnish Kumar Maurya of Police Station Kotwali Sadar. After concluding the investigation, a charge sheet (Exhibit Ka-7) was filed against the appellant under Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act. The appellant was thereafter charged and found guilty under Section 302, IPC and Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act by means of the common judgment and order dated 15th April, 2008 against which the present appeal has been filed. 10. Sri Karuna Kant Gupta on behalf of the appellant has raised the following submissions:-- (a) The motive indicated against the appellant of old enmity is totally inadequate and in fact the deceased was killed by her in-laws on account of family disturbance due to demand of dowry by the in-laws of the deceased. (b) The F.I.R. against the appellant is anti timed which would be apparent from the sequence of events and deposition of P.W. -1 which clearly indicates that the F.I.R. was lodged after father of the deceased came from Lucknow and after consultation with him. The said fact is also proved since the inquest was not held in time. (b) The F.I.R. against the appellant is anti timed which would be apparent from the sequence of events and deposition of P.W. -1 which clearly indicates that the F.I.R. was lodged after father of the deceased came from Lucknow and after consultation with him. The said fact is also proved since the inquest was not held in time. (c) No dying declaration was recorded of the deceased despite the death having taken place one hour after the alleged lodging of F.I.R. (d) Alleged eye-witnesses were not present at the time of occurrence of the incident and further that there were no independent witnesses produced against the appellant to corroborate their statements. (e) The alleged injury is not corroborated by evidence because the point of entry of bullet differs in a comparison of site plan with statements of witnesses. 11. Lastly learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a case law of this Court for the alternative prayer of remission under Section 432, Cr.P.C. 12. With regard to the first submission raised on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is insufficient motive attributed to the appellant since the incident on the basis of which enmity of the appellant with the deceased is claimed to have happened more than two and half years ago was only a minor incident where after the deceased had got married to one Pratap Singh of village Saiyapur, Police Station Mohammadi. He has invited attention of this court to the cross-examination of the complainant, P.W. -1 wherein it has been admitted that the deceased got married two and half years prior to the incident and a complaint with regard to demand of dowry had been registered against the in-laws of the deceased by her parents. It was also admitted that the in laws of deceased used to treat her badly on account of the fact that the demand for dowry could not be fulfilled by the complainant and his family. He has further admitted that the criminal case with regard to dowry demand is still pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Mohamaddi. It was also admitted that the in laws of deceased used to treat her badly on account of the fact that the demand for dowry could not be fulfilled by the complainant and his family. He has further admitted that the criminal case with regard to dowry demand is still pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Mohamaddi. On account of the aforesaid admission by the complainant, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in fact it was the in-laws of the deceased who had a direct motive for committing the murder of the deceased instead of the appellant who had hardly any motive to perpetrate the alleged offence. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant while elaborating the second ground of the F.I.R. being anti timed has submitted that the said F.I.R. was actually prepared and lodged after 7.10 p.m. with due consultation and deliberation with the father of the deceased and as such the F.I.R. is ante timed. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the statement of the complainant, P.W. -1 that he had informed his father, Ram Narain Singh about the incident who upon receiving such information reached the hospital at about 10-11 p.m. on the same day. When the time of his arrival in the hospital is compared with the statement of Constable Brij Lal Saroj (P.W.-7) that no cognizable offence was registered on 27.9.2005 and that no inquest report was prepared prior to visit of S.S.I., Sri. Siya Ram Tiwari in the hospital, then the conclusion is apparent that the F.I.R. was lodged some time after 11.00 p.m. with due deliberation and consultation with the father of the deceased, Ram Narain Singh and that a false and concocted story implicating the appellant was prepared with the lodging of anti timed F.I.R. Learned counsel for the appellant has also sought to project the anti timing of the F.I.R. with the submission that the F.I.R. was received in the office of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 6.10.2005 although it is said to have been registered in the police station on 27.9.2005 itself and was therefore highly belated which also supports the fact of the F.I.R. being anti timed. 14. 14. The third limb of the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the veracity of the entire accusation against the appellant is doubtful in view of the fact that no dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by the Magistrate despite the fact that it is admitted that the deceased died in hospital one hour after the alleged lodging of the F.I.R. at 7.10 p.m. It has been next argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the eye-witnesses i.e. the complainant, P.W. -1 and his mother Smt. Raj Dei, P.W. -2 were actually not present at the time when the alleged incident is said to have taken place. No independent witnesses have been examined or produced against the appellant to corroborate the statements given by the said complainant and his mother who were interested witnesses. He has also drawn attention to the statement of P.W. -1 and P.W. -2 to the effect that the blood of the deceased was on her clothes when she brought the deceased to the hospital but neither any blood sample was taken from the clothes of P.W. -2 nor was any such blood report prepared or submitted. He has further submitted that as per the statements of P.W. -1 and P.W. -2, there was no occasion for them to have accompanied the deceased to the market because the very purpose of their accompanying the deceased i.e. a visit to the tailor did not happen. 15. Lastly the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the injuries are not corroborated by the evidence on record on account of the fact that as per the site plan, the appellant is said to have been on the left side of the deceased at the time of the incident whereas as per the statement of the P.W.-2, the appellant had fired upon the deceased from her back i.e. south. The post-mortem report also indicates a fire arm wound on the left side of the neck and as such the entry of bullet as per the evidence is not corroborated. 16. The post-mortem report also indicates a fire arm wound on the left side of the neck and as such the entry of bullet as per the evidence is not corroborated. 16. After making his legal submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a case of Sonu alias Shashank Tiwari v. State of U.P. reported in 2017 (98) ACC 97 for issuance of necessary direction regarding remission of sentence of the appellant under Section 432, Cr.P.C. in view of his long incarceration. 17. Per contra learned Additional Advocate General has sought to defend the conviction and sentence of the appellant primarily on the basis of eye-witness account and the arrest and recovery of the country made pistol at the instance of the appellant-accused. 18. We have considered the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 19. So far as the first argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that motive attributed to him is insufficient is concerned, the said argument is not sustainable in view of the statement of the appellant himself under Section 313, Cr.P.C. admitting that he has been falsely implicated on account of enmity. Since apart from the incident of teasing of the deceased by the appellant, he has not been able to indicate any other enmity with the family of the deceased, it can be safely said that the only enmity referred to by the appellant is the said incident of teasing the deceased about which the deceased had complained to her parents and the appellant was thereafter warned by the family of the deceased which can safely be said to be an adequate motive for the appellant to have committed the said crime and therefore can not be said to be an inconsequential motive on account of the humiliation that the appellant suffered on his being warned by the family of the deceased. The appellant has been unable to provide any explanation with regard to any other motive for wrongly implicating him in the said incident which also goes to prove the allegation of eve teasing against him with all the consequential action said to have taken place resulting from such teasing. 20. The appellant has been unable to provide any explanation with regard to any other motive for wrongly implicating him in the said incident which also goes to prove the allegation of eve teasing against him with all the consequential action said to have taken place resulting from such teasing. 20. So far as the other argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned that it was actually the in-laws of the deceased who had a clear motive for committing the incident in view of the case registered against them under the Dowry Prohibition Act, that argument also would not be any help to the appellant in view of the fact that there is absolutely no evidence either direct or circumstantial that any of the in-laws were involved in the killing of the deceased. It is also relevant to indicate that a comparison of the statements of both the eye-witnesses i.e. the complainant Rajesh Kumar P.W. -1 and his mother Smt. Raj Dei P.W. -2, it would be evident that the statement of both the witnesses completely corroborate each other although both were cross-examined at length by the defence counsel without any adverse statement being elicited from them in support of the appellant. 21. We next examined the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the F.I.R. being anti timed and find that even the said submission is not worthy of being acceptable. As per the F.I.R., the incident is said to have taken place at about 6.00 p.m. on 27.9.2005 while the F.I.R. has been registered at 7.10 p.m. on the same day and therefore it can not be said that there was any delay in the registration of the F.I.R. Since subsequent to the incident, Smt. Kiran Singh was very much alive, therefore, there was no occasion for the F.I.R. to have been registered under Section 302, IPC and could have been registered under the said Section only after 8.10 p.m. when she breathed her last. As per the statement of SSI, Sri S.S. Siya Ram Tiwari, P.W. -8, he was present in the police station at the time of registration of the case and started investigation immediately thereafter. As per the statement of SSI, Sri S.S. Siya Ram Tiwari, P.W. -8, he was present in the police station at the time of registration of the case and started investigation immediately thereafter. He has stated that he reached the hospital at 7.50 p.m. but Smt. Kiran Singh was unconscious at that time but while he was recording the statements of complainant and his mother, he was informed that Smt. Kiran Singh had died whereafter keeping the dead body in the mortuary, he went to the site of the incident where he prepared site plan. On the next day the inquest report of the deceased was prepared along with other documents. 22. The statement of the Investigating Officer regarding his time of arrival at the hospital is fully corroborated by the statement of P.W. -2 and the sequence of events narrated by P.W. -1, P.W. -2 and P.W. -8 clearly corroborate the fact that P.W. 8 had reached the hospital much before the arrival of the father of the deceased. Nothing to the contrary could be elicited from these witnesses in the detailed cross-examination which confirms the fact that the F.I.R. was lodged at 7.10 p.m. and not after 11.00 p.m. i.e. after the arrival of the father of the deceased. So far as the delay with regard to inquest is concerned, the P.W. -8 has clearly stated that due to the fact that death of Smt. Kiran Singh occurred during the night therefore the inquest was postponed for the morning. The holding of inquest on the next date also in our opinion has not held the F.I.R. to be and timed since it could be a natural consequence for the inquest to be held on the next date in view of the fact that P.W. -8 after recording the statement of P.W. -1 and P.W. -2 in the hospital went to the site of the occurrence and was busy in collecting of samples and preparation of site plan which took time. From a perusal of documents on record it appears that the F.I.R. was received in the office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 6.10.2005, which has been taken as a ground by the learned counsel for the appellant for the F.I.R. being anti timed although the time and date of dispatch of the F.I.R. has not been recorded. From a perusal of documents on record it appears that the F.I.R. was received in the office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 6.10.2005, which has been taken as a ground by the learned counsel for the appellant for the F.I.R. being anti timed although the time and date of dispatch of the F.I.R. has not been recorded. We are in full agreement with the reason recorded by the Trial court that since the F.I.R. had to be sent to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate through the Circle Officer, it would definitely have taken time to reach the concerned court and therefore this fact itself would not be enough to prove that the F.I.R. was anti timed. In view of the said reasons, it can not be said that the F.I.R. lodged against the appellant was anti timed. 23. As per the third ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, a cloud has been sought to be put on the case of prosecution on the ground that no dying declaration of the deceased was recorded despite the death having taken place one hour after the alleged lodging of the F.I.R. The said ground also does not hold the prosecution case to be improbable in view of precarious health of Smt. Kiran Singh at the time when she was brought to the hospital having sustained a bullet injury in her neck which was profusely bleeding. In view of such a serious condition of Smt. Kiran Singh it is but natural that all the efforts of the doctor concerned would have been diverted towards saving the life of the injured and bringing her to a stable level, which however could not be achieved and Smt. Kiran Singh passed away within two hours of the incident. The physician concerned naturally could not have permitted Smt. Kiran Singh to have given any statement before she was stable enough to have given any dying declaration worthy of being believed. There is no evidence on record to indicate that Smt. Kiran Singh had achieved the degree of stable health which was good enough for her to have given a dying declaration. In view of such circumstances, it can not be said that the non recording of the dying declaration of Smt. Kiran Singh can have any adverse impact upon the prosecution case. 24. In view of such circumstances, it can not be said that the non recording of the dying declaration of Smt. Kiran Singh can have any adverse impact upon the prosecution case. 24. The fourth argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the alleged eye-witnesses were not present at the time of incident and that the said accident was not corroborated by any independent witness also does not help the case of the appellant. A clear reading and comparison of statements recorded by the complainant Rajesh Kumar, P.W. -1 and Smt. Raj Dei, P.W. -2 will make it clear that there is no difference in the statements recorded by both the persons. Even in the lengthy cross-examination by the defence counsel, nothing could be elicited which would be contrary either to the statements given before or even of their examination in chief. The mere fact that both the witnesses are family members of the deceased and are therefore interested witnesses would not be enough to cloud their testimony since they were the only persons who were close enough to the deceased at the time of the incident and were therefore the best and natural witnesses. The testimonies of P.W. -1 and P.W. -2 when read together clearly corroborate each other and therefore not only inspires confidence in the prosecution case but can also be held to be trustworthy enough to be believed. 25. Their testimony is also corroborated by the injury report as well as the site map which clearly proves that there is no dispute about the happening and place of the incident therefore also the submission that the prosecution case is liable to be disbelieved merely on account of the fact that no blood samples were taken from the clothes of the eye-witnesses also does not hold good because the said omission on the part of the investigation is not so material so as to be fatal to the prosecution case in view of the statements of the eye-witnesses which are corroborated by other documentary evidence such as the site plan and the injury report. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the presence of the eye-witnesses at the time of incident is unbelievable since they had no occasion to accompany the deceased to the market also is not worthy of acceptance since no motive or explanation can be attributed to a family member for accompanying other family members to the market. 26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kuriya and another v. State of Rajasthan, reported in ( AIR 2013 SC 1085 para 25) has clearly held in paragraph 34 that 'The testimony of an eye-witness, if found truthful, cannot be discarded merely because the eye-witness was a relative of the deceased. Where the witness is wholly unreliable, the court may discard the statement of such witness, but where the witness is wholly reliable or neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable (if his statement is fully corroborated and supported by other ocular and documentary evidence), the court may base its judgment on the statement of such witness.' In me light of the principles annunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the fact that the testimony of P.W. -1 and P.W. -2 are corroborated by other documentary evidence such as the site plan and the injury report, it can be safely said that these two witnesses were present at the time and place of occurrence and that the statements are reliable. 27. So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no independent witness is concerned, we are of the view that such non-examination of other witnesses would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution in view of the fact that the eye-witness account of P.W. -1 and P.W. -2 is fully corroborated by other documentary evidence. 28. Last submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the alleged injury is not corroborated by evidence in view of difference on the position of the appellant as compared to the point of entry of the bullet. 29. Reliance has been placed on the statement of P.W. 2 in which he has stated that at the time of incident, the appellant had fired from the south of the deceased whereas the injury report at the site plan indicates the appellant to be standing on the west side of the deceased. 30. 29. Reliance has been placed on the statement of P.W. 2 in which he has stated that at the time of incident, the appellant had fired from the south of the deceased whereas the injury report at the site plan indicates the appellant to be standing on the west side of the deceased. 30. We have considered the aforesaid submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant but find that the testimony of P.W. 4, Dr. S.K. Shukla read with the site plan and the post-mortem report clearly corroborate the fact that the appellant was towards the west side of the deceased when she was fired upon. In our opinion the only contradictory statement of the P.W. -2 with regard to the situation of the appellant viz-a-viz the deceased at the time of incident would not be so material a difference so as to discard the prosecution case in view of the specific and conclusive identification by both the eye-witnesses (P.W.-1 and P.W. -2) to the incident with regard to the identity of me appellant as the person who had fired upon the deceased which ultimately resulted in her death. A relevant factor to be borne in mind would be the mental condition of the P.W. -2 at the time of the incident when her daughter suddenly collapsed in front of her eyes due to her being fired upon and it can not be said that she could remember the entire incident in a perfect manner. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the mere non-corroboration of the statement of P.W. -2 with the site map and the post-mortem report is inconsequential and the submission by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the same deserves to be rejected. 31. Lastly the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in view of the fact that the appellant has been in jail for the past more than 14 years, he is therefore entitled to the benefit of Section 432, Cr.P.C. i.e. the remission of sentence and for this purpose he has relied upon the case of Sonu alias Shashank Tiwari v. State of U.P. reported in 2017 (98) ACC 97. 32. 32. We have perused the aforesaid judgment which is of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and in which benefit of Section 432, Cr.P.C. was granted keeping in view the long incarceration of the appellant. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, we consider it appropriate to follow the same and issue necessary direction to the Jail Superintendent to send a proposal for remission of sentence of the appellant to the appropriate authority, which shall be considered expeditiously in accordance with law. 33. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the trial court as well as the material on record. The trial court has vividly considered the entire facts of the matter and has rightly considered the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and has recorded the conviction of the appellant based on relevant considerations of fact and law. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show any infirmity in the judgment of the trial court which could warrant any interference by the appellate court. Hence, we are of the considered view that the judgment of the trial court is liable to be upheld and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 34. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, present appeal is dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.4.2008 is upheld. 35. Let a copy of the judgment along with lower court record be sent to the learned Trial court forthwith by the office to ensure compliance of this judgment.