Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1171 (KAR)

Devanna v. State By PSI(ADC), Cod Bengaluru

2020-06-22

B.A.PATIL, M.G.UMA

body2020
JUDGMENT B.A.Patil, J. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 20.06.2011 passed by the learned Fast Track Court-III, Hosapete in S.C.Nos.28/2009 and 51/2009 whereunder, accused Nos.2 and 3 were acquitted for the charges leveled against them and accused No.1 was held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 304-B and 302 of IPC and also Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition act. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri.T.Hanumareddy and the learned Additional SPP Sri.V.M.Banakar for the respondent- State. 3. The genesis of the case in brief is that; the marriage between the deceased and the appellant/accused took place about 10 months back. They lived happily for two months. During the marriage talks, the parents of the deceased agreed to give cash of Rs.10,000/-, half tola gold ring and Jhumki as well as ear studs. In pursuance of the said agreement, Rs.10,000/- cash and half tola gold was given. Because of financial crises, the parents of the deceased were not able to give Jhumki and ear studs, at the time of marriage. After two months of the marriage, accused No.1 being the husband of the deceased, accused No.2 brother-in-law and accused No.3 the wife of accused No.2, started ill-treating and harassing the deceased both physically and mentally to bring cash of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of Jhumki and ear studs from her parents house. On account of non fulfillment of the said dowry demands, accused persons with an intention to take away the life of the deceased, on 07.04.2008 at about 7.00 pm, accused No.1 poured kerosene on the deceased-Deepa and other accused persons pushed her towards the hearth and as a result of the same, fire caught to her saree and she started making hue and cry and came out. The neighbors and others tried to drowse the fire but, by that time she sustained burn injuries. She had been immediately taken to the hospital. Accused No.1 has also sustained burn injuries to his hands and knees. He was also treated in the hospital. During the course of treatment, the ASI recorded the statement of the deceased and on the basis of the said statement, a case has been registered in Crime No.56/2008 and subsequently after her death, Sections 304-B and 302 of IPC have been included. He was also treated in the hospital. During the course of treatment, the ASI recorded the statement of the deceased and on the basis of the said statement, a case has been registered in Crime No.56/2008 and subsequently after her death, Sections 304-B and 302 of IPC have been included. On the basis of the complaint, police investigated the case and filed the charge sheet. The learned Magistrate committed the case to Sessions Court. 4. Thereafter the sessions Court secured the presence of the accused and the charge was prepared, read over and explained to the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As such, trial was fixed. 5. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution got examined 15 witnesses, got marked 19 documents and 4 material objects. After closure of the prosecution case, statement of the accused was recorded by putting all incriminating materials as against them. They denied the same. Accused persons got examined 1 witness as DW1 and they have also submitted their written statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with explanation. 6. After hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the trial Court came to the conclusion that there is material as against accused No.1 and convicted him. Insofar as accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, the trial Court had acquitted them. 7. It is not in dispute that against the order of acquittal, the State has not preferred any appeal and the same has been reached its finality. Accused No.1 alone is before this Court. 8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Fast Track Court Judge is contrary to law, evidence and materials placed on record. It is his further submission that the entire case of the prosecution rests on three dying declarations recorded by the police as well as the Taluk Executive Magistrate. They suffer from material contradictions and omissions. It is his further submission that, immediately after the incident on 07.04.2008, the parents of the deceased came there and they have not asked any reason for the death or even they have not suspected the conduct of the accused. They suffer from material contradictions and omissions. It is his further submission that, immediately after the incident on 07.04.2008, the parents of the deceased came there and they have not asked any reason for the death or even they have not suspected the conduct of the accused. It is only on 13.04.2008 the ASI has recorded further fresh dying declaration as per Ex.P16 and the trial Court without considering contradictions and earlier dying declaration, has come to a wrong conclusion and has wrongly convicted the accused/appellant. It is his further submission that no independent witnesses including the neighbors by the side of the house of the accused have been examined and that itself creates a doubt in the case of the prosecution. 9. It is his further submission that in the evidence of PWs.1 to 5, there is no consistency insofar as the demand of dowry is concerned. It is a fact that the deceased is the sister's daughter and with this relation they have got married. It is his further submission that the demand of dowry of Rs.10,000/- itself creates doubt. It is his further submission that, if all the materials are analyzed, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused and even there is no proper certification of doctor with regard to health condition of the deceased to give dying declaration. Even though the said material was not available, the trial Court has wrongly convicted the accused. On these grounds he prays for allowing the appeal and to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 10. Per contra, learned Addl. SPP vehemently argued and submitted that the evidence produced clearly goes to show that there was demand of dowry. An amount of Rs.10,000/- has been paid and the Jhumki and ear studs were not given and in that light the accused have demanded Rs.10,000/- more and when arrangement has not been made because of the financial crises, parents of the accused persons have taken law into their hands and have poured kerosene on the deceased and lit fire with an intention to do away with the life of the deceased. It is his further submission that, in the first instance dying declaration was recorded by ASI and she has declared that, when she had been to prepare tea on the stove, the flame of the stove caught to her saree and as a result of the same she sustained injuries. In the subsequent dying declaration she has very clearly stated that because of the threat given by one of the brothers of the accused, the said statement has been given and lastly she has given the right statement. Even the medical evidence clearly goes to show that she was in a fit state of mind to make the declaration. It is his further submission that the accused persons have taken a false defence that the deceased caught fire while preparing the tea and accused No.1 also tried to extinguish fire and in that light he has also suffered with the injuries. But the FSL report at Ex.P17 clearly goes to show that the piece of the saree which has been seized contains the particles of kerosene and that itself clearly goes to show and substantiate the case of the prosecution rather than the case of the accused. It is his further submission that, if really the incident had taken place as alleged by the accused, then definitely while drawing the spot mahazer Ex.P19, they could have noticed the gas stove, but the stove has not been either seized or noticed at the time of drawing the mahazer. It is his further submission that, during the course of crossexamination of PW1, a suggestion has been made that while preparing tea the flames caught to her saree. The said witness explained that, in their house there was no stove and they were using hearth which is flamed with fire wood. It is his further submission that, when once the prosecution on preponderance of probabilities establishes the fact that there was illtreatment and harassment for demand of dowry, then the Court has to draw a presumption as contemplated under Section 113(B) of the Evidence Act (hereinafter called as 'the Act') and then the burden lies upon the accused to substantiate the said defence. If he fails to substantiate his defence, then the defence of the accused has to fail and the case of the prosecution has to be accepted. If he fails to substantiate his defence, then the defence of the accused has to fail and the case of the prosecution has to be accepted. The trial Court after considering all the materials and after proper appreciation of the records, has came to a right conclusion and has rightly convicted the accused. There are no good grounds to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. Hence he submitted that the judgment of the trial Court deserves to be confirmed. 11. The prosecution in order to prove its case got examined 15 witnesses. PW1 is the father of the deceased. In his evidence he has deposed with regard to the relationship of the deceased and accused persons. He has submitted with regard to the marriage talks and deposed that, at the time of marriage, the accused have demanded Rs.25,000/- and two tolas of gold and as they were relatives, at the intervention of the elders, he agreed to pay Rs.10,000/- and half tola gold and they agreed for the same and 2-3 days prior to the marriage, an amount of Rs.10,000/- has been paid through CW7 to accused No.1 and when the accused No.1 asked Rs.4,000/- instead of half tola of gold ring, he paid Rs.4,000/- to accused No.1 at the time of marriage. He further deposed that, because of financial crises he did not give Jhumki and ear studs at the time of marriage, but he agreed to give it during Ugadi festival. He further deposed that, when his daughter came to their house for Deepavali festival, she told him that the accused persons are asking to give Rs.10,000/- in lieu of Jhumki and ear studs and they are also ill-treating, harassing and also assaulting her. He further deposed that, he had agreed to give the said amount during Ugadi by selling the sheep and thereafter he left the deceased to the matrimonial home. It is his further submission that, the father of the deceased had not visited the house of the deceased for three to four months and on the date of incident he received a telephonic call from CW10 stating that his daughter and son-in-law have suffered with burn injuries and have been taken to the hospital at Hospete and immediately he went and saw his daughter. He deposed that, when he visited the hospital, his daughter was not in a position to speak and thereafter they have been sent out. It is his further deposition that, subsequently the Tasildar came to the hospital and recorded the statement of his daughter and he do not know what she has deposed before the Tahasildar. He further deposed that, when the treatment failed, she succumbed to burn injuries after eighteen days and next day he has given statement before the Tahasildar. During the course of cross-examination, he has admitted that the house of accused Nos. 1 and 2 are separate in Janata colony and his son-in-law, daughter and mother-in-law used to stay in one house. It has been further elicited that, when they were in the hospital, after two or three days when his daughter gained consciousness, he did not talk with her and he talked with her on the fourth day and he has not revealed the said fact to the police. During the course of cross-examination, when it is suggested that while his daughter was preparing the tea on the stove, the flame caught to her saree and she suffered with burn injuries, this witness has volunteered that in their house there is no stove and they were using the hearth. The other suggestions made to him have been denied. 12. Pw2 is the person who was present at the time of marriage talks and he has deposed that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were present at the time of marriage talks and he has been partly turned hostile. During the course of cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he admitted that he is the member of Raita Sangha and accused Nos. 1 and 2 demanded dowry and two tolas of gold and it was agreed to pay Rs.10,000/- and half tola gold ring. He admitted that, prior to the marriage PW10 paid cash of Rs.10,000/- in the hands of Chandrappa and the said Chandrappa handed over the same to accused No.2. He has further admitted that, PW1 was unable to give ear studs. During the course of cross-examination of this witness, nothing has been elicited so as to discard the said evidence. 13. Pw3 is the doctor who has conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased Deepa. He has further admitted that, PW1 was unable to give ear studs. During the course of cross-examination of this witness, nothing has been elicited so as to discard the said evidence. 13. Pw3 is the doctor who has conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased Deepa. In her evidence, she has explained about the burn injuries and has opined that the cause of death is septicemia as a result of the burns and time since death is within 16 hours prior to the post mortem examination. She has further deposed that, she has issued the postmortem report as per Ex.P4. Nothing has been elicited during cross-examination to discard her evidence. 14. Pw4 is the doctor who examined the injured to ascertain her fitness to give the dying declaration. He has deposed that he had examined the injured and opined that the patient was fit to give her statement and thereafter PW6 recorded the dying declaration of patient Deepa in his presence and thereafter he read over and explained the contents of the dying declaration in kannada language to Deepa and she admitted the same as true and correct and her thumb impression was affixed to the dying declaration. He further deposed that, thereafter he put his signature on the Dying Declaration and also certified at the foot of the Dying Declaration. During the course of cross-examination of this witness, nothing has been elicited so as to discard his evidence. 15. Pw5 is the uncle of the deceased who was also present at the time of marriage negotiations and he has also spoken with regard to the agreement for demand of dowry of Rs.10,000/-, half tola gold ring, Jhumkhi and ear studs. He was also partly treated as hostile and in his cross-examination a suggestion has been admitted that on 23.04.2008 Taluka Executive Magistrate conducted the inquest mahazer and also recorded his statement. 16. Pw6 is the Tahasildar who recorded the Dying Declaration as per Ex.P5 and he has also conducted the inquest over the body of the deceased as per Ex.P7. PW7 is the Engineer who has prepared the sketch as per Ex.P9. PW8 is the PDO of Gram Panchayat and he has issued the copy of the house property extract as per Ex.P10. PW9 is the PSI who has recorded the statement of the injured Deepa and registered the case and thereafter he has partly investigated the case. PW7 is the Engineer who has prepared the sketch as per Ex.P9. PW8 is the PDO of Gram Panchayat and he has issued the copy of the house property extract as per Ex.P10. PW9 is the PSI who has recorded the statement of the injured Deepa and registered the case and thereafter he has partly investigated the case. PW10 is the PSI who received the death note and gave an application to adopt 304B of the IPC. PW11 is the doctor who examined accused No.1 who has suffered with burn injuries and has issued wound certificate as per Ex.P14. He is also a witness who has given the treatment to the deceased. PW12 is the PSI who has recorded the statement of the deceased as Dying Declaration as per Ex.P16 and registered the case. PW13 is the Dy.SP who has partly investigated the case. PW14 is the CPI who further investigated the case and filed the charge sheet as against the accused. PW15 is also the Investigating Officer who has partly investigated the case. 17. From the above evidences, let us consider whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there are so many contradictions in the Dying Declarations which have been recorded as per Exs.P5, P11 and P16. There is no consistency in the said Dying Declarations and the same are not reliable. As per Ex.P16, on 07.04.2008 at 7.00 pm, when the deceased went for preparing tea to her husband, she used the pump stove and after lighting the stove she has kept the vessel and at that time she was wearing polyester saree and the same came in contact with the flames of the stove and she suffered with burn injuries and when she made hue and cry, her husband came to extinguish the fire and when she came out, the neighbors came to drowse the fire. But subsequently when the Dying Declaration at Ex.P5 was recorded by the Tahasildar, it indicates that there was ill-treatment and harassment caused by the accused persons for payment of Rs.10,000/- cash in lieu of Jhumkhi and ear studs. On perusal of Ex.P11, there also she has clearly stated with regard to the demand of dowry and she has also given her explanation about why she has given different statement at Ex.P16. On perusal of Ex.P11, there also she has clearly stated with regard to the demand of dowry and she has also given her explanation about why she has given different statement at Ex.P16. She has given statement to the effect that her husband's brother has threatened her to give such statement and accordingly she has given her say. 18. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that the certification of the doctor about the fitness of the declarant itself is doubtful and the same cannot be relied upon. It is his further submission that PW1 himself has clearly stated in his evidence that the injured was not in a position to speak. Under these circumstances, recording of the Dying Declaration either by the Tahasildar or by the police also creates doubt. It is well settled proposition of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court that, the absence of certification of the doctor as to the fitness of the mind of the declarant would render the dying declaration unacceptable. It is further observed that the certification by the doctor is a rule of caution. If the voluntary statement and the truthful nature of the declaration is established otherwise, then the same can be acceptable by the Court. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxman Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2002) AIR SC 2973 . At para 5 of the judgment, it has been observed as under: "5. The court also in the aforesaid case relied upon the decision of this court in Harjeet Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1999) 6 SCC 545 case wherein the magistrate in his evidence had stated that he had ascertained from the doctor whether she was in a fit condition to make a statement and obtained an endorsement to that effect and merely because an endorsement was made not on the declaration but on the application would not render the dying declaration suspicious in any manner. For the reasons already indicated earlier, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the observations of this court in Paparambaka Rosamma and Ors. For the reasons already indicated earlier, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the observations of this court in Paparambaka Rosamma and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1999) 7 SCC 695 to the effect that " .in the absence of a medical certification that the injured was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the declaration, it would be very much risky to accept the subjective satisfaction of a magistrate who opined that the injured was in a fit state of mind at the time of making a declaration" has been too broadly stated and is not the correct enunciation of law. It is indeed a hypertechnical view that the certification of the doctor was to the effect that the patient is conscious and there was no certification that the patient was in a fit state of mind specially when the magistrate categorically stated in his evidence indicating the questions he had put to the patient and from the answers elicited was satisfied that the patient was in a fit state of mind whereafter he recorded the dying declaration. Therefore, the judgment of this court in Paparambaka Rosamma and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1999) 7 SCC 695 must be held to be not correctly decided and we affirm the law laid down by this court in Koli Chunilal Savji and Anr. v. State of Gujarat, (1999) 9 SCC 562 case." 19. Keeping in view the ratio laid down in the above said decision, on perusal of the evidence of the Tahasildar PW6 and the ASI - PW12, it clearly go to show that they have ascertained with regard to the fitness of the mental condition of the injured and thereafter the said Dying Declarations have been recorded. Even in the evidence of PW4 - the doctor, he has clearly deposed with regard to the fitness of the injured to record her statement and thereafter they recorded the Dying Declaration. Even in the evidence of PW4 - the doctor, he has clearly deposed with regard to the fitness of the injured to record her statement and thereafter they recorded the Dying Declaration. On perusal of the Dying Declaration - Ex.P16, admittedly in the said dying declaration, it has been stated by the deceased that on 07.04.2008 at about 7.00 pm, when she tried to prepare the tea for her husband, she lighted the pump stove and kept the vessel after putting the water in the vessel and at that time her saree caught fire, as a result of the same she suffered with burn injuries. On perusal of Ex.P11, explanation has been given by the declarant to the effect that, because of the threat given by the brother of accused No.1 she has stated the said fact and as now she gathered courage as her parents came and as such now she is telling the truth. Even as could be seen from Ex.P5, the declaration which is recorded by the Tahasildar, there she has clearly stated that because of the demand of dowry to the extent of Rs.10,000/- the accused persons poured kerosene and pushed her towards the hearth and as a result of the same she caught fire and has suffered with burn injuries. Insofar as mental condition of the declarant is concerned, during the course of cross-examination of PW12 - ASI, it has been suggested that, when he recorded the statement of the deceased she was conscious and he has obtained the certification of the doctor and the doctor advised that she is in a fit state of mind and the said suggestion has been admitted by the said witness. So also the suggestions made to the doctor - PW11 also indicates that the declarant was in a fit state of mind to give the said Dying Declaration. On perusal of the Dying Declarations Exs.P5 and P11 and if the explanation given in Ex.P11 is taken into consideration, then it appears that there is no influence over the mind of the deceased so as to give such declaration. Even during the course of crossexamination of these witnesses, it has not been suggested why the Tahasildar - PW6 and the ASI - PW12 have nurtured the animosity or ill-will to record the said Dying Declaration of the deceased as against the accused. 20. Even during the course of crossexamination of these witnesses, it has not been suggested why the Tahasildar - PW6 and the ASI - PW12 have nurtured the animosity or ill-will to record the said Dying Declaration of the deceased as against the accused. 20. Be that as it may, even on perusal of the evidence of PW1 - father of the deceased, PW2, who was also present at the time of marriage negotiations and PW5 uncle of the deceased, there is consistency with regard to the fact that there was demand of dowry and ill-treatment and harassment caused to the deceased for demand of dowry. This is also corroborated with the CD - MO4 which has been recorded as caution, because there were three declarations. The said explanation appears to be proper, truthful and justifiable. 21. It is not in dispute that the deceased died an unnatural death in the matrimonial home that too within ten months after the marriage. It is trite of the law that, if the deceased died unnatural death within 7 years after her marriage, then the Court has to presume that the deceased died a dowry death and a presumption has to be drawn under Section 113B of the Act. Under Section 113B of the Act, it is a statutory presumption of guilt against the accused on satisfaction of the ingredients stated in Section 304-B of IPC. The progression of the events from before the marriage till the unnatural death of the helpless deceased, not only provides inseverable link inter se, but also unambiguously demonstrates the build-up of the intolerable mental and physical torture on her, driving her either to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life. It is well settled proposition of law that, if the basic ingredients as stated in Section 304B of IPC have been satisfied, the Court has to presume that it is a dowry death. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M. Narayan Vs. State of Karnataka, (2015) 6 SCC 465 . At paras 26 and 29 of the said judgment, it has been observed as under: "26. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M. Narayan Vs. State of Karnataka, (2015) 6 SCC 465 . At paras 26 and 29 of the said judgment, it has been observed as under: "26. Whereas under Section 304-B defining "dowry death", there will be a statutory presumption against the husband for having caused the death of a woman resulting from burns or bodily injury or occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage accompanied by the proof that soon before her death she had been subjected to cruelty or harassment by him or any of his relatives form, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, Section 498-A provides for punishment to the husband or his relative, if the woman has been subjected to cruelty. As per the Explanation attached to Section 498-A IPC, "cruelty" has been defined to mean any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (Whether mental or physical to her or harassment of the woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet such demand." 29. A combined reading of the above provisions attests the salutary legislative intendment of not only discouraging any demand for dowry either directly or indirectly but also penalizing any such act. The obvious concern of the legislature on this growing social menace based on demand for dowry, and the resultant macabre fallouts eventuated in the incorporation of Sections 498- A and 304-B by successive amendments of the Penal Code by Act 46 of 1983 and Act 43 of 1986, respectively. Not only Section 304-B enjoins a statutory presumption of the guilt of the husband on the proof of the eventualities as mentioned therein, Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 fortifies such presumption in the probative perspectives. Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1972, do supplement each other to effectuate the legislative mandate of statutory presumption of guilt, the contingencies warranted being present." 22. It is not in dispute that the deceased died due to the burn injuries. PW3 is the doctor who has conducted the post mortem over the body of the deceased. It is not in dispute that the deceased died due to the burn injuries. PW3 is the doctor who has conducted the post mortem over the body of the deceased. She has clearly stated in her evidence that the deceased was found with burn injuries on both the upper and lower limbs and 90% burns were present. She has further opined that the cause of death is septicemia as a result of the burns. It is also not disputed by the accused that the deceased Deepa died because of the burn injuries. 23. The accused has taken up a defence during cross-examination as well as in his 313 statement to the effect that, when the deceased was preparing tea for her husband, flames of the pump stove has caught to her saree and she suffered with burn injuries. In the Dying Declaration the deceased has also gave explanation that it was not a fact. Apart from that, when the spot mahazer was drawn as per Ex.P19, it does not place on record that any pump stove was there and the same has been seized by the police during drawing the spot mahazer. If really the incident has taken place as alleged by the accused, then definitely the stove and other materials could have been traced at the place of incident and the same could have been seized at the time of drawing the mahazer. Though during the course of arguments it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that deliberately the Investigating Officer not mentioned about the presence of stove and the same has not been seized, but on going through the evidence of the Investigating officer - PW15, not even a suggestion has been made to that effect. Under these circumstances, the said contention is not acceptable. Even on perusal of Ex.P19 - the spot mahazer, it clearly goes to show that there was hearth and not a stove for preparing the food. 24. Be that as it may, even the piece of the saree which was worn by the deceased has been sent to FSL and on perusal of Ex.P17 - the FSL report, it shows that the sample formed in article No.1 contains the contents of kerosene. 24. Be that as it may, even the piece of the saree which was worn by the deceased has been sent to FSL and on perusal of Ex.P17 - the FSL report, it shows that the sample formed in article No.1 contains the contents of kerosene. If really the deceased caught fire due to flame while preparing the tea, then how she has been found with the kerosene on her saree has not been explained by the accused. In the absence of any such explanation, the defence put forth by the accused is not acceptable. 25. We are conscious of the fact that the rebuttal has to be made on preponderance of probability and no strict proof beyond reasonable doubt is required. But even on the face of it on perusal of the entire material, which has been placed on record it indicates that a false defence has been taken, even when accused No.1 was taken to the hospital for the treatment for the injuries with which he has suffered. On perusal of Ex.P14 - wound certificate issued by the doctor, it indicates that he has only stated that 'Accidentally caught fire while lighting the gas stove in home'. If this doctor's certificate is seen again it goes contrary to the defence which has been taken up by the accused. Nowhere the case has been made out that the gas stove was used for the purpose of preparing the tea. 26. Taking into consideration the above said facts and circumstances, the trial Court after taking into consideration the materials placed on record has come to a right conclusion and rightly acquitted the remaining accused and convicted accused No.1. There are no good grounds made out by appellant/accused to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. The judgment of the trial Court deserves to be confirmed. 27. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the trial Court. There is no perversity, illegality and misapplication of mind in coming to the conclusion that the accused No.1 has committed the alleged offence. In that light the same is confirmed. The appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits. We appreciate the able assistance of both the learned counsel.