Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 960 (PAT)

Mahesh Sah v. State of Bihar

2019-07-11

HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH

body2019
Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J. – Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence order dated 16.08.1995 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 28 of 1994 by which and whereunder the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra (hereinafter referred to as “trial court”) convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. 3. Briefly stated prosecution case is that PW-6, namely, Braj Bhushan Pandey gave his ferdbeyan to PW-11, namely, Vijay Kumar Singh, the then Officer in charge of Ekma police station, on 11.10.1992 at about 8:45 P.M. at Block Road, Ekma to this effect that on the same day at about 6:00 P.M., his brother, namely, Shashi Bhushan Pandey left his home having a novel in his hand and he (informant) also left his home to take tea in market and while he was going to market and reached in front of tea shop of Mahesh Pandit at about 7:00 P.M., he saw that some persons were quarreling in front of house of Gautam Giri. The informant also went near the place where quarrel was going on and when he reached near the aforesaid place, he saw that his younger brother, namely, Shashi Bhushan Pandey was being assaulted by Mahesh Sah, Sheonath Sah and three to four unknown persons by iron rod and lathi. He raised alarm and asked the aforesaid persons as to why they were assaulting his brother upon which Sheonath Sah ordered the others to kill him and having got the aforesaid order, the remaining persons made attempt to assault him but he fled away towards market out of fear and reached near the hotel of Deo Narayan Sah and raised hue and cry which attracted his neighbours and several other persons. He, further, claimed that again he along with aforesaid persons came near the place of occurrence where he found his brother Shashi Bhushan lying dead on earth. He claimed that he had narrated the entire occurrence to his neighbours and other persons. He, further, claimed that again he along with aforesaid persons came near the place of occurrence where he found his brother Shashi Bhushan lying dead on earth. He claimed that he had narrated the entire occurrence to his neighbours and other persons. PW-6 claimed that above stated persons committed the murder of his brother because of that they wanted to grab the land of the deceased which was situated adjacent to their land and when deceased refused to buckle upon the pressure of the aforesaid persons, they committed the alleged occurrence. 4. On the basis of aforesaid ferdbeyan, Ekma P.S. Case No. 91 of 1992 for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. was registered on 11.10.1992 and on the same day, formal FIR against the appellants and others was drawn up. However, the formal FIR was put up before the learned Magistrate on 16.10.1992. 5. PW-11 took charge of investigation and in course of investigation, he inspected the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of witnesses and after completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet against the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C whereas investigation in respect of others was kept pending. However, the cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions, in usual way. 6. The appellants stood charged for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. to which they denied and claimed to be tried. 7. In order to substantiate the charge levelled against the appellants, prosecution examined, altogether, eleven witnesses and also got exhibited certain documents. The statements of appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and appellants claimed that on the alleged date of occurrence deceased had committed theft in their house but he was caught by the villagers and the villagers had beaten him as a result whereof deceased died on the spot. 8. The appellants got examined two defence witnesses in their support and also got exhibited formal FIR of Ekma P.S. Case No. 90 of 1992 as Ext. A, ferdbeyan recorded in Ekma P.S. Case No. 90 of 1992 as Ext. B, ferdbeyan of Ekma P.S. Case No. 136 of 1990 as Ext. C and formal FIR of Ekma P.S. Case No. 136 of 1990 as Ext. D. 9. A, ferdbeyan recorded in Ekma P.S. Case No. 90 of 1992 as Ext. B, ferdbeyan of Ekma P.S. Case No. 136 of 1990 as Ext. C and formal FIR of Ekma P.S. Case No. 136 of 1990 as Ext. D. 9. The evidence adduced by the appellants as well as statements made by them under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. go to show that the appellants claimed that on the alleged date of occurrence, deceased had committed theft in their house but he was caught and assaulted by a mob as a result whereof deceased died. The above stated defence of the appellants goes to show that appellants have denied the prosecution story. 10. The learned trial court having analyzed the materials available on the record came to conclusion that it were appellants who committed the murder of the deceased and accordingly, the learned trial court passed the judgment of conviction and sentence order in the manner as we have already stated. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order arguing that the learned trial court failed to appreciate the evidences available on the record in proper manner. He submitted that the learned trial court completely ignored the version of the defence and also ignored this fact that Ekma P.S. Case No. 90 of 1992 was lodged by Lalbabu Sah son of appellant Sheonath Sah and after institution of Ekma P.S. Case No. 90 of 1992, the present case i.e. Ekma P.S. Case No. 91 of 1992 was lodged. He, further, submitted that PW-11 admitted in his deposition that Ekma P.S. Case No. 90 of 1992 was lodged by Lalbabu Sah son of appellant Sheonath Sah and in his ferdbeyan, Lalbabu Sah had, specifically, stated that deceased was killed by the villagers when he was fleeing after committing theft. He also submitted that according to prosecution case, the ferdbeyan was recorded on 11.10.1992 but the formal FIR and ferdbeyan were put up before the concerned court on 16.10.1992, particularly, in the circumstance when the formal FIR and ferdbeyan were sent to concerned court through special messenger. He submitted that prosecution could not succeed to explain the aforesaid delay and, therefore, the aforesaid delay creates a doubt regarding the genuineness of ferdbeyan of the present case. He submitted that prosecution could not succeed to explain the aforesaid delay and, therefore, the aforesaid delay creates a doubt regarding the genuineness of ferdbeyan of the present case. He submitted that as a matter of fact, when Lalbabu Sah son of appellant Sheonath Sah lodged Ekma P.S. Case No. 90 of 1992, the informant in collusion with higher police officials got prepared his ferdbeyan and got registered the instant case. 12. He, next, submitted that there are several contradictions in the depositions of prosecution witnesses and the contradictions occurred in the statements of prosecution witnesses make the prosecution case doubtful but learned trial court ignored the aforesaid fact. 13. He, next, submitted that the learned trial court has not properly recorded the statements of appellants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. as no relevant question was put before the appellants which caused serious prejudice to them. 14. He, next, submitted that according to prosecution case, the alleged occurrence took place on a public road and there were several houses near the place of occurrence but not a single independent prosecution witness came forward to support the prosecution story rather almost all the prosecution witnesses are either interested witness or partisan witness and, therefore, no reliance can safely be placed upon the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. 15. On the other hand, learned Additional Public prosecutor supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order arguing that eye witnesses very clearly stated that it were appellants, who assaulted the deceased and the aforesaid fact is corroborated by the postmortem report of the deceased. He, further, submitted that so far as delay in sending the FIR to concerned Magistrate is concerned, the same is not fatal to the prosecution case unless it is proved that the aforesaid delay has caused serious prejudice to the defence. 16. As we have already stated that prosecution has examined, altogether, eleven witnesses to prove the charge framed against the appellants. Out of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses, PW-1 Saroj Kumar Sharma, PW-3 Prem Prakash Sharma and PW- 6 Braj Bhushan Pandey, the informant of the case, claimed themselves to be eye witness of the alleged occurrence. PW-2 is a formal witness who has proved inquest report of the deceased Shashi Bhushan Pandey. PW-4 is wife of deceased Shashi Bhushan Pandey and she claims that she came to know about the alleged occurrence from PW-6. PW-2 is a formal witness who has proved inquest report of the deceased Shashi Bhushan Pandey. PW-4 is wife of deceased Shashi Bhushan Pandey and she claims that she came to know about the alleged occurrence from PW-6. PW-4 also claims that appellants wanted to grab her land which was situated in front of house of the appellants. She also claims that the appellants had given threatening to kill the deceased one month prior to the alleged occurrence. PW-7 is also a formal witness and this witness claims that he took the dead body of deceased Shashi Bhushan Pandey to Sadar Hospital, Chapra for postmortem examination. PW-8 and PW-9 are hostile witnesses whereas PW-10 was tendered by the prosecution. PW-11 is investigating officer as we have already stated. Therefore, it is obvious from the above stated fact that only PW-1, PW-3 and PW-6 are said to be eye witness of the alleged occurrence. 17. PW-5 Sanat Kumar Singh is a doctor and this witness claims that on 12.10.1992 he was posted as CAS at Sadar Hospital, Chapra. This witness also claims that he had conducted postmortem examination on dead body of the deceased on 12.10.1992 at about 9:50 A.M. and had found following ante mortem injuries on his body: – (i) One linear abrasion on the left temporo-frontal area of skull size about 7”x 1” (ii) One linear abrasion below the left ear near angle of mendible size about 4”x 1” (iii) One linear abrasion on back of chest on left side, size about 6” x 1” (iv) One linear abrasion on the loin size about 5” x 1” left side. (v) Two linear abrasions on the left gluteal region size of each about 5”x 1” (vi) Two linear abrasions on the left side of lateral side size about 5” x 1” each (vii) One lacerated wound on the frontal area of scalp on left side size about 2” x ½” x scalp deep (viii) One lacerated wound on the left parietal area of scalp size about 3” x ½” x scalp deep. On dissection, communited fracture of the squamos part of the left temporal bone with laceration of temporal lobe of the brain with clotted blood around the fracture. 18. On dissection, communited fracture of the squamos part of the left temporal bone with laceration of temporal lobe of the brain with clotted blood around the fracture. 18. The deposition of PW-5 establishes this fact that deceased Shashi Bhushan Pandey died of his injuries which were found on his person at the time of postmortem examination and the aforesaid injuries were sufficient to cause his death in the ordinary course of nature. Moreover, there is no dispute regarding the death of the deceased and it is also not in dispute that deceased had sustained injuries on the alleged date of occurrence and due to aforesaid injuries he died on the place of occurrence. The only controversy is who had assaulted the deceased. According to prosecution case, it were appellants and their associates who assaulted the deceased by means of iron rod and lathi whereas according to defence, it was a mob who assaulted the deceased when deceased was caught by the aforesaid mob. 19. PW-1 Saroj Kumar Sharma appears to be a chance witness. This witness claims that he had gone to flour mill where he heard noise and came in front of house of Gautam Giri where he saw the appellants and two to three unknown persons who had surrounded the deceased. Furthermore, PW-1 claims that appellant Mahesh Sah gave iron rod blow causing injury on the head of the deceased Shashi Bhushan Pandey whereas appellant Sheonath Sah assaulted the deceased Shashi Bhushan by means of lathi. PW-1, further, claims that appellants gave several blows to deceased Shashi Bhushan who having sustained injury fell down on the earth. PW-1, further, claims that after the aforesaid occurrence, appellants fled away from there. On being cross-examined by the defence, this witness claimed that he had not made statement before the police to this effect that at the time of alleged occurrence, he was going to village Rajapur. However, PW-11 at para 12 of his cross examination stated that PW-1 had claimed before him that at the time of alleged occurrence he was going for grinding wheat. PW-1, has, further, stated that deceased having sustained one injury by iron rod and another injury by lathi fell down on the ground and after that he sustained the remaining injuries. However, PW-11 at para 12 of his cross examination stated that PW-1 had claimed before him that at the time of alleged occurrence he was going for grinding wheat. PW-1, has, further, stated that deceased having sustained one injury by iron rod and another injury by lathi fell down on the ground and after that he sustained the remaining injuries. This witness, further, admitted at para 6 of his cross examination that appellant Sheonath Sah had lodged a dacoity case in which his younger brother Ranjan and deceased Shashi Bhushan were accused. This witness, further, claimed that he had made statement before the police that appellant Mahesh Sah had given rod blow on the head of the deceased whereas appellant Sheonath Sah assaulted the deceased by means of lathi. However, PW-11 admitted that PW-1 had not made statement to this effect that appellant Mahesh had assaulted the deceased by means of rod and appellant Sheonath Sah assaulted the deceased by means of lathi. The perusal of statement of PW-1 goes to show that he has inimical term with appellant Sheonath Sah as younger brother of PW-1 as well as deceased were made accused in a dacoity case lodged by appellant Sheonath Sah. 20. PW-3 Prem Prakash Sharma also claims himself to be eye witness of the alleged occurrence and stated in his deposition that at the time of alleged occurrence, he was returning to his home after giving tuition and reached near betel shop of Awadhesh. He, further, claimed that he saw 5 to 6 persons who had encircled deceased Shashi Bhushan Pandey in front of house of Gautam Giri. This witness, further, stated that he identified Mahesh Sah (appellant) who was carrying iron rod as well as appellant Sheonath Sah who was carrying lathi. This witness, further, claimed that appellants Mahesh Sah and Sheonath Sah gave lathi blows on the head of the deceased Shashi Bhushan as a result of which Shashi Bhushan Pandey fell down on the ground and thereafter, appellants again assaulted him. This witness, further, claimed that PW-1 Saroj Kumar Sharma and PW-6 Braj Bhushan Pandey were present there. This witness, further, stated that while the occurrence was going on he left the place of occurrence. This witness, further, claimed that PW-1 Saroj Kumar Sharma and PW-6 Braj Bhushan Pandey were present there. This witness, further, stated that while the occurrence was going on he left the place of occurrence. This witness admitted in his cross examination that his brother, namely, Bhupendra was accused in a case along with deceased Shashi as well as brother of PW-1 and in that case his brother had gone to jail. This witness also admitted that aforesaid case was lodged by Sheonath Sah (appellant). This witness also admitted that there was serious land dispute and litigation between deceased as well as appellants. This witness has stated that appellants had given blow of iron rod and lathi on the head of the deceased while he was standing and when deceased fell down on the ground, the other persons assaulted him by means of lathi. However, again this witness stated that when the deceased fell down on the ground, the appellants, too, assaulted him by means of lathi. This witness also stated that when deceased fell down on the ground, his face was towards ground and the appellants were assaulting by rod and lathi on the back of the deceased. The attention of this witness was drawn towards his previous statement and this witness stated that he had made statement before the police that appellant Mahesh Sah was carrying rod whereas appellant Sheonath Sah was carrying lathi at the time of alleged occurrence and both the aforesaid persons assaulted the deceased on his head. This witness, further, claimed that he had made statement before the police that when the deceased fell down on the ground, the appellants had assaulted him. The perusal of statement of this witness goes to show that he has inimical term with the appellants as prior to the alleged occurrence, appellant Sheonath had lodged a case of dacoity against the deceased as well as brother of PW-3. It is also obvious from the statement of this witness that this witness is a chance witness as he reached on the place of occurrence while he was returning after giving tuition. 21. PW-6 Braj Bhushan Pandey is informant of this case. This witness states that his brother Shashi Bhushan Pandey went to market to take tea and he also followed him. 21. PW-6 Braj Bhushan Pandey is informant of this case. This witness states that his brother Shashi Bhushan Pandey went to market to take tea and he also followed him. This witness, further, states that when he reached in front of house of Mahesh Pandit, he saw that quarrel was going on in front of house of Gautam Giri. He also states that he saw the appellants and some others who were assaulting his brother. This witness, further, states that he saw that appellant Mahesh Sah gave rod blow on the head of the deceased whereas appellant Sheonath Sah gave lathi blow on the temple of his brother. This witness, further, states that when he tried to intervene into the scuffle, the appellant Sheonath Sah made attempt to assault him and thereafter, he fled away from there and after sometime he again came at the place of occurrence and found his brother lying dead. This witness, further, states that appellants were pressurizing to transfer his land which was situated in front of house of the appellants and deceased Shashi Bhushan Pandey had raised objection in transfer of the aforesaid land and that was the reason the appellants committed the alleged crime. This witness, further, admitted in his examination in chief that DAROGA of Ekma police station had come at the place of occurrence and had recorded his statement. This witness expressed his ignorance in respect of the case filed by the appellant Sheonath as well as his sons against the deceased. This witness also expressed his ignorance regarding the Ekma P.S. Case No. 136 of 1990 as well as Ekma P.S. Case No. 79 of 1999 which had been lodged against the deceased Shashi Bhushan Pandey. This witness admitted in his cross examination that when he reached at the place of occurrence, near about 40 to 50 persons were present there. This witness also claimed that he reached on the place of occurrence after falling of Shashi Bhushan Pandey. This witness also admitted that there were several shops and houses near the place of occurrence. This witness could not state the plot number and khata number of the land which is said to be situated in front of house of the appellant. This witness also admitted that there were several shops and houses near the place of occurrence. This witness could not state the plot number and khata number of the land which is said to be situated in front of house of the appellant. This witness further stated that he had made statement before the police that appellant Mahesh had given rod blow on the head whereas appellant Sheonath had given lathi blow on the temple of the deceased but PW-11 admitted at para 15 of his cross examination that PW-6 had not claimed before him that appellant Mahesh had given rod blow on the head whereas appellant Sheonath had given lathi blow on the temple of the deceased. Furthermore, this witness stated that he had made statement before the police that appellants were demanding land and the deceased Shashi used to make protest in respect of transfer of the aforesaid land but PW-11 admitted at para 15 of his cross examination that PW-6 had not made such statement before him. 22. Now, PW-11 Vijay Kumar Singh is another important witness. This witness had investigated the case. This witness has stated in his cross examination that there were several shops and houses near the place of occurrence. This witness also admitted that on 11.10.1992 at about 6:30 P.M., the son of appellant Sheonath Sah had given information regarding dacoity which was committed in his house and son of appellant Sheonath had also disclosed this fact that deceased Shashi Bhushan Pandey was caught by the villagers while he was fleeing after the above stated dacoity and he was assaulted by the villagers as a result of which he died. This witness further admitted that he had recorded the ferdbyean of Lalbabu Sah, son of appellant Sheonath Sah, by the order of Superintendent of Police. This witness also admitted that the case lodged by Lalbabu Sah was numbered as Ekma P.S. Case No. 90 of 1992 under Section 392 of the I.P.C. against the deceased and others. This witness denied the suggestion of the defence that while deceased was fleeing after committing dacoity in the house of the appellants, he was assaulted by the mob as a result whereof he died. However, this witness stated that Ekma P.S. Case No. 90 of 1992 was investigated and after proper investigation final form was submitted. 23. This witness denied the suggestion of the defence that while deceased was fleeing after committing dacoity in the house of the appellants, he was assaulted by the mob as a result whereof he died. However, this witness stated that Ekma P.S. Case No. 90 of 1992 was investigated and after proper investigation final form was submitted. 23. As we have already stated that two defence witness were examined in course of trial. DW-2 Jagarnath Sah claims that on the alleged date of occurrence having heard the noise of CHOR-CHOR, he went near the door of Lalbabu Sah and saw the deceased Shashi Bhushan Pandey and two others fleeing from there and they were being chased by the villagers. This witness further claims that deceased Shashi Bhushan Pandey was caught by the villagers in front of house of Gautam Giri and thereafter, deceased Shashi Bhushan Pandey was badly assaulted by the mob as a result of which he died. He, further, claims that he had not seen appellants Mahesh Sah and Sheonath Sah in the aforesaid mob but subsequently, PW-6 implicated the appellants in the present case on account of previous enmity. This witness admitted in his cross examination that appellants are his nephews. This witness also admitted that he had not made any statement before the police in course of investigation as the police had not asked from him to give statement. 24. Certified copy of ferdbeyan of Lalbabu Sah recorded in Ekma P.S. Case No. 90 of 1992 was brought in evidence by the defence and the said certified copy of ferdbeyan of Lalbabu Sah was marked as Ext. B. It is admitted case of the prosecution that Ekma P.S. Case No. 90 of 1992 was lodged on the same day at 7:30 P.M. Ext. B goes to show that ferdbeyan of Lalbabu Sah was recorded at the place of occurrence by PW-11. It further goes to show that above stated Lalbabu Sah claims that on the alleged date of occurrence while he was sitting at his OSARA, deceased along with two unknown persons came there and made attempt to commit dacoity. B goes to show that ferdbeyan of Lalbabu Sah was recorded at the place of occurrence by PW-11. It further goes to show that above stated Lalbabu Sah claims that on the alleged date of occurrence while he was sitting at his OSARA, deceased along with two unknown persons came there and made attempt to commit dacoity. However, in the meantime, the female folk of his house raised alarm which attracted villagers and seeing the villagers deceased Shashi and his associates started fleeing but they were chased by the villagers and subsequently, deceased Shashi Bhushan was caught in front of house of Gautam Giri whereas his associates managed to escape from there. The villagers assaulted Shashi Bhushan Pandey as a result of which he died then and there. The above stated Lal Babu Sah further claimed that after sometime of the aforesaid incident, appellants came to their home and they disclosed that they got information of the aforesaid dacoity in market and they had also given information to police. Ext. B makes it clear that ferdbeyan of Lalbabu Sah was recorded on 11.10.1992 at 7:30 P.M. at the place of occurrence itself whereas ferdbeyan of present case i.e. Ekma P.S. Case No. 91 of 1992 was recorded on 11.10.1992 at 8:45 P.M. at the place of occurrence. Therefore, it is obvious that ferdbeyan of PW-6 i.e. ferdbeyan of Ekma P.S. Case No. 91 of 1992 was recorded after more than two hours of the alleged occurrence whereas ferdbeyan of Ekma P.S. Case No. 90 of 1992 (Ext. B) was recorded within one and half hours of the alleged occurrence. Furthermore, Ext. B goes to show that PW-11 reached at the place of occurrence prior to 7:30 P.M. and PW-11 has admitted in his deposition that he reached at the place of occurrence just after the alleged occurrence. Furthermore, it is also obvious that when ferdbeyan of Lalbabu Sah was recorded, PW-6 was not present on the place of occurrence. No doubt, PW-6 claimed in his deposition that when appellants and others started assaulting deceased and he tried to intervene into the quarrel, the appellants gave threatening to him and thereafter he fled away from the place of occurrence and again returned to the place of occurrence after sometime but Ext. No doubt, PW-6 claimed in his deposition that when appellants and others started assaulting deceased and he tried to intervene into the quarrel, the appellants gave threatening to him and thereafter he fled away from the place of occurrence and again returned to the place of occurrence after sometime but Ext. B as well as ferdbeyan of PW-6 goes to show that PW-6 reached at the place of occurrence near about after one and half hours of the alleged occurrence. 25. As we have already stated that first information report of present case i.e. Ekma P.S. Case No. 91 of 1992 was put up before the concerned Magistrate on 16.10.1992 i.e. after five days of registration of the case and no sufficient explanation was given by the prosecution in respect of the aforesaid delay. It is true that PW-11 has not been cross examined by the defence on the point of delay but if the aforesaid delay is taken with testimony of PW-11, certainly the aforesaid delay creates doubt about the genuineness of ferdbeyan of informant. 26. As we have also stated that only PW-1, PW-3 and PW-6 claimed themselves to be eye witness of the alleged occurrence and admittedly, PW-1 and PW-3 had inimical terms with appellants and both the aforesaid witnesses are chance witnesses and, therefore, no reliance can confidently be placed upon the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-3. So far as PW-6, informant is concerned, he claims that when appellants gave lathi and rod blow on the head of the deceased, he fled away from there and again returned to the place of occurrence when the occurrence ended. The combined reading of depositions of PW-6 and PW-11 goes to show that PW-6 improved his statement in course of trial because in course of investigation, he had not claimed that appellant Sheonath Sah gave lathi blow on the temple of the deceased but before trial court he claimed that appellant Sheonath Sah gave lathi blow on the temple of the deceased. No doubt, one injury on left temple of the deceased was found in postmortem examination but it is obvious that PW-6 improved his statement in course of trial. Moreover, long standing enmity and litigation between PW-6 and appellants is an admitted fact and, therefore, taking note of above stated improvements and enmity, it is difficult to place reliance safely on the testimonies of PW-6. 27. Moreover, long standing enmity and litigation between PW-6 and appellants is an admitted fact and, therefore, taking note of above stated improvements and enmity, it is difficult to place reliance safely on the testimonies of PW-6. 27. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, we are of the opinion that prosecution could not succeed to prove its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts and the appellants are entitled to get benefit of doubt. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order is, hereby, set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge giving benefit of doubt to them. The appellants are on bail. They are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.