JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The instant appeal is directed against the judgment rendered, on 25.07.2013, by the learned Special Judge(1), Una, District Una, H.P., upon, Sessions case No. 03 OF 2012,, and, wherethrough(s), the accused/appellant herein became convicted, for, a charge, drawn under Sections 15(c), of, the Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances Act, and, also consequent therewith sentence of rigorous imprisonment, extending, for a period of 12 years, and, also a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- became imposed, upon him, and, in default, of, payment of fine, he stood further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for, a period of one year. 2. Brief facts of the case, are, that on 28.01.2012 at about 5.00 p.m., a police party headed by SI Harjeet Singh went towards Santoshgarh-Jatpur side in connection with patrolling and Excise raid duty on his personal car along with other police officials. When the police party reached at Jatpur, at about 5.00 p.m., then PSI Nishant Kumar, and, C. Jarnail Singh met the patrolling party, who had already laid Nakka as per the instruction of the SHO Police Station, Haroli. The police party checked four light vehicles, two motorcycles and in the meantime, one truck came from Santoshgarh side having registration No. HP-12D-5137. HC gave signal to truck driver to stop the truck but the driver did not stop the truck and fled away from that place. The police party chased the truck on a private car and blocked the road of the truck by coming in front of the truck at about 200 meters away from the Nakka. The moment truck stopped then one person jumped from conductor seat side and ran towards the fields. PSI Nishant and HC Vipan Kumar chased the person who fled away from the spot but they failed to apprehend him as that man boarded a maruti car No. HP-19-4500 already parked there. The truck driver disclosed his name as Jeewan Kumar and also disclosed the name of the person who fled away from the truck as Sanju. He also disclosed the name of the driver of the maruti car as Rohit, a resident of Rajasthan, who was escorting the truck. The police party checked the body of the truck by lifting the tarpaulin sheet and found white plastic bags in it. He also disclosed the name of the driver of the maruti car as Rohit, a resident of Rajasthan, who was escorting the truck. The police party checked the body of the truck by lifting the tarpaulin sheet and found white plastic bags in it. The bags were brought down and on the physical verification; the SI came to know that the accused were transporting poppy husk/straw in the truck. The 23 plastic bags containing poppy husk were weighed by the help of electronic scale. The total poppy husk in total 23 bags found to be 6 qunital 82 kg. 550 gms. The poppy husk plastic bags were sewed with the help of a needle and thereafter the plastic bags were sealed with five seals of seal impression "T" each. SI Harjeet Singh filled up NCB-1 form in triplicate and also prepared sample seals on pieces of cloth. All 23 plastic bags were taken in possession in the presence of UP Pradhan Mohinder Mohan of Gram Panchayat, Chatarpur. The seal after use entrusted to PSI Nishant Kumar. The plastic bags, truck along with its documents, DL of Jeewan Kumar, and, the keys of truck were taken into possession. Recovery and seizure memo was signed by Rakesh Saini and Mohinder Mohan along with HC Albel Singh. The special information/grounds of belief under Section 42 were sent through C. Sanjay Kumar to Supervisory Officer. The SI also sent rukka through HC Santosh Kumar, on the basis of which FIR was registered and investigation started. The SI prepared site plan, recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., and, formally arrested accused Jeewan Kumar at 11.40 p.m. The case property and the custody of accused were handed over to officiating SHO, PS, Haroli. The officiating SHO resealed all 23 plastic sacks with five seals each of seal impression "N". All 23 bags were sent to FSL, Junga through C. Sanjay on 31.01.2012 but the case property was returned by the FSL with the objection to send homogeneous representative samples. The case property was produced before JMIC(2), Una. The 23 samples of 500 grams each from each plastic bag were drawn and sealed with four seals each of the Court. The sample parcels were marked as P-1 to P-23. The sample parcels were sent to FSL, Junga on 9th Feb., 2012, through C. Virender Kumar and HC Santosh Kumar. The case property was produced before JMIC(2), Una. The 23 samples of 500 grams each from each plastic bag were drawn and sealed with four seals each of the Court. The sample parcels were marked as P-1 to P-23. The sample parcels were sent to FSL, Junga on 9th Feb., 2012, through C. Virender Kumar and HC Santosh Kumar. The special report under Section 57 of the Act was also sent to S.P., Una. During the investigation, the police came to know that accused Rohit alias Udey and accused Sanju fled away on car No. HP-19A-4500, and, that car was owned by Satish Kumar son of Naseeb Chand resident of Arniala (Una). Satish Kumar sold that car to Udey alias |Rohit by executing affidavits. During the investigation, police came to know that Udey Lal alias Rohit was escorting the truck on the fateful day. He on seeing the police stopping the truck, fled away to Rajasthan via Garshnakar. The said Udey alias Rohit was declared proclaimed offender, however, he was was arrested at Ludhiana on 16.09.2012 in ND & PS case and on the basis of production warrant he was produced before the court on 29.10.2012. During the police remand, Udey Lal alias Rohit disclosed to the police that he was escorting the truck No. HP-12D-5137. He further disclosed to the police that he does not know any Sanju. He further disclosed to the police that the car No. HP-19-4500 has been damaged in a road side accident and the same has been purchased by some junk dealer. He has duly identified the spot wherefrom he fled away with his car on 28.01.2012. 3. The accused/appellant herein was charged for committing, an, offence punishable, under Sections 15, of, the ND & PS Act. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses. On conclusion of recording, of, prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused, under, Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, by the trial Court, wherein, he claimed false implication. 4. On an appraisal of evidence on record, the learned trial Court, recorded findings, of, conviction against the accused/appellant herein. 5. The appellant, is, aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, and consequent therewith sentence(s), recorded upon him, by the learned Special Judge(1), Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh. 4. On an appraisal of evidence on record, the learned trial Court, recorded findings, of, conviction against the accused/appellant herein. 5. The appellant, is, aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, and consequent therewith sentence(s), recorded upon him, by the learned Special Judge(1), Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has concertedly, and, vigorously contended qua the findings of conviction, recorded by the learned Special Judge, standing not, based on a proper appreciation, by him, of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation, by him, of the material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of conviction being reversed by this Court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs being replaced by findings of acquittal. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General, has with compatible force and vigour, contended that the findings of conviction became recorded by the Court below, standing based, on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence, on record, and, theirs not necessitating any interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 7. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel, on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 8. Through memo, drawn in Ext. PW1/D, 23 plastic sacks containing, therewithin(s) 6 quintal, 82 kg, 550 gram of poppy straw, became recovered, from the truck, bearing No. HP-12D-5137, hence driven by the accused/appellant herein. As evident, on a reading, of, the proven NCB form, embodied in Ext. PW19/A, the Investigating Officer, through signatured recital(s), made thereins, hence embossed respectively, upon, the afore plastic sacks, containing therewithin(s), the afore quantity of recovered contraband, hence five seals, each of, English alphabet "T". The afore made embossing(s), respectively, upon, the afore 23 plastic sacks, containing therewithins the recovered contraband, were made, at the site of occurrence. The afore made embossing(s), hence respectively upon, the afore 23 plastic sacks, containing therewithins, the recovered contraband, and, at the site, of, occurrence, do, carry, as imminent on a reading, of, the seizure memo, borne in Ext, PW1/D, all the apposite congruities, hence, qua therewith, as, become, echoed, in, Ex.PW19/A, and, specifically appertaining to the numbers, of, seal impressions, as well as, the designations, of, English alphabet, to the seal impression(s), hence embossed, upon, them. Upon, the afore 23 plastic sacks, containing therewithins the recovered contraband, hence becoming transmitted, to the Police Station concerned, thereat, as evident on a reading, of, the proven NCB form, borne in Ext. PW19/A, the SHO concerned, respectively, made/pasted thereupon(s), five re-seal impression(s), each carrying thereon(s), the English alphabet "N". Through road certificate, borne in Ext. PW15/C, on 31.01.2012, the afore 23 plastic sacks containing therewithin the recovered contraband, became transmitted to the FSL concerned, for an opinion being rendered thereon. However, the FSL concerned through Ex.PW15/A returned the afore case property with a request to send, a, homogeneous representative sample(s), of, the contraband recovered. Thereafter the case property was produced, before the JMIC(2), Una, and, thereat 23 samples, of, 500 grams each, from each plastic sack, were drawn, and, sealed with three seals each, of, the court concerned, and, the samples were marked, as, Ex. P-1 to P-23. Thereafter, these sample parcels respectively marked as Ext. P-1 to P-23 were sent, to FSL concerned, through, Road Certificate, embodied in Ex.PW7/A, and, thereon(s), the chemical examiner, working thereat, rendered an opinion thereon, vis--vis, the contents borne in all the afore sealed parcels, being poppy straw. Furthermore, in the report, of, the FSL, borne in Ext. 19/S, (a) there occurs a narration, vis--vis, the seal impression(s), as, became embossed, on the afore parcels, and, as became sent thereat, for examination, each carrying thereon hence the number(s) thereof(s), and, also the English alphabet(s), embossed thereon(s), and, rather all whereofs, bearing compatibility, with, the narration(s), qua therewith, as, borne, in Ex.PW20/C, exhibit whereof is an order recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.II, Una, on an application moved therebefore, by the Investigating Officer concerned, for certifying the inventory, henceunder, Section 52 of of the ND & PS Act, hence, in, the extant case; (b) all congruities relating reiteratedly, both with respect to the numbers, of, seal impressions, as echoed therein(s), and, also, vis--vis, the numbers, of, re-seal seal impressions, made thereon, and, besides, vis--vis, the English alphabet(s), embossed thereon(s), and, as become(s) echoed in NCB form, borne in Ext. PW19/A, and, in Ex.PW20/C. Even though, proof, vis--vis, the afore memo(s), becomes testified hence by the Investigating Officer, and, also by PW-15, who had authored the afore road certificate, whereupon, an obvious inference becomes aroused, vis--vis, (i) qua upto the arrival, of, the case property at the FSL concerned, hence all the afore congruities, and, similarities, inasmuch as, vis--vis, the numbers, of, seal(s), made upon each, of, the cloth parcel(s), and, vis--vis, the number(s), of, re-seal, seal impression(s), borne upon each, of, the afore two cloth parcel(s), (ii) besides qua the English alphabet(s), respectively made thereon(s), by the Investigating Officer, and latter by the SHO concerned, rather all hence remaining alive, and, intact. However, the afore connectivity(s), hence commencing from the stage, of, recovery, of, case property, from the site, of, occurrence, through memo borne in Ext. PW1/D, upto its travelling, to the FSL concerned, would not perse erect, any firm and formidable opinion, qua therethrough(s), hence the prosecution invincibly discharging the onus, of, efficaciously proving the charge, against the accused, (iii) unless upon production of, the case property, in Court, and its' thereafter becoming shown, to the prosecution witnesses concerned, the apposite cloth parcels, rather make vivid voicing(s), hence, appertaining to all the occurrence(s) thereat, of, the afore apposite congruities and similarities. However, all the official prosecution witnesses, in their respectively made testification(s), made un-equivocal echoing(s), where through they proved, the, afore apposite compatible echoing(s), borne in Ext. PW1/D, and the one(s), borne in NCB form(s), hence embodied in Ext. PW19/A. Furthermore, upon the production, of, the case property in Court, and thereat, it becoming shown to PW-20, the learned trial Court, recorded qua therewith, the hereinafter, extracted observation(s): " At this stage, 23 bluk sacks produced. Ld. PP seeks permission of the court to open the same. The individual sacks contain 5 seal each of T and N and 2 seal each of seal K. The seals are intact. Permission granted. The sacks Et. P2 to P24 were identified by the witness. The sacks were opened which contain alleged contraband poppy straw/husk. The poppy straw/husk in the respective sack is Ext. P48 to P-70." 9. A perusal, of, the hereinabove extracted Court observation(s), as made, during the course, of, recording, of, the deposition of PW-20, do un-earth, vis--vis, the cloth parcels, respectively, borne in Ext. P-2, to P-24. The sacks were opened which contain alleged contraband poppy straw/husk. The poppy straw/husk in the respective sack is Ext. P48 to P-70." 9. A perusal, of, the hereinabove extracted Court observation(s), as made, during the course, of, recording, of, the deposition of PW-20, do un-earth, vis--vis, the cloth parcels, respectively, borne in Ext. P-2, to P-24. P-4, rather upon each(s) becoming opened, hence, therefrom(s) poppy straw, becoming un-earthed, (i) and, also upon each(s) of the afore cloth parcel(s), hence occurring, five seal impression(s),of, English Alphabet "T", and also, thereon(s), seal(s), of, the FSL, becoming embodied. Despite the afore Court observation(s), becoming made, during the course, of, recording of the deposition, of, PW-20, and, observations, whereof, palpably, link the existence(s), thereat, of, the apposite congruities, and, connectivities, appertaining to the numbers, of, seal impression(s), made on each, and also qua designation(s) thereon, of English alphabet "T", besides appertaining to, the number(s), of, seal impression(s), hence embossed thereon, by the FSL concerned, (i) yet the learned defense counsel, despite his being present, at the afore stage, did not, contest the afore apposite similar thereat occurrence(s), thereon, nor contested the authenticity, of, the afore made Court observation(s), and, appertaining to the afore seal impression(s), becoming respectively, pasted upon each(s), of, the afore cloth parcels, and, (ii) nor vis--vis, one seal impression, of, the FSL, becoming made thereon, nor obviously, was able to make any voicing(s), vis--vis, the afore cloth parcels, in contemporaneity, vis--vis, theirs becoming produced, theirs being tampered or un-intact. In aftermath, this Court is constrained to conclude, that, the apt connectivity, vis--vis, the afore, imperative, factum, becoming un-flinchingly proven, and, the, afore connectivity, as, commencing from the date of seizure, of, the case property, at the site of occurrence, and, its surviving upto its production, in Court. All the official witnesses supported the testification, rendered by PW20. 10. However, nowat, the effect, of, independent witnesses, to, the drawing, of, recovery memo Ext.PW-1/D, reneging from their respectively made previous statement(s) in writing, is, to be construed alongwith, the factum of their, in their respective cross-examination(s), whereto they stood subjected, to, by the learned Public Prosecutor, "on" theirs, standing declared hostile, hence admitting the factum of their authentic signatures occurring thereon. Consequently, when they admit the occurrence, of their, authentic signatures, on the relevant memo(s), and, also upon the afore 23 plastic sacks hence containing therewithin(s), the recovered contraband, thereupon the mandate of Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, becomes attracted, (i) whereupon they "on" admitting occurrence of their signatures thereon, hence become statutorily estopped to renege, from, all the recital(s) borne thereon, (ii) thereupon the effect of their orally deposing in variance or in detraction, of, the recitals which occur therein, rather gets statutorily belittled, (iii) rather when they naturally hence emphatically rather statutorily, prove(s) all the recitals, comprised, in, the apposite memo(s), (iv) thereupon theirs orally reneging, from, the recitals borne thereon "holds no evidentiary clout" nor it is legally apt to outweigh, the creditworthiness of the testimony(s), of, the official witnesses, qua the recovery of contraband, as, made under recovery memo Ext. PW1/D, and, its making bespeaking(s), vis--vis, it standing effectuated, from, the conscious and exclusive possession, of, the accused. In sequel, the uncontroverted factum, of their authentic signatures, occurring on the relevant exhibits, and, upon the afore 23 plastic sacks, rather containing therewithin(s) the recovered contraband, concomitantly renders the apposite recitals borne thereon(s) rather to hold, the, gravest probative worth. The ensuing sequel thereof, is that with the statutory estoppel constituted in Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, barring, the, independent witnesses' concerned to orally resile, from, the contents of Ext.PW-1/D, (v) especially when they admit qua their authentic signatures occurring thereon, rather renders unworthwhile besides insignificant, the factum qua their orally deposing, in variance, vis--vis, its recorded recitals, (vi) thereupon per se an inference stands enhanced qua dehors theirs reneging from their previous statement(s) recorded in writing, a, deduction(s) standing capitalized qua thereupon their rather proving the genesis of the prosecution case. 11. 11. Be that as it may, the vigour of the aforesaid conclusion, would stand benumbed, only when evidence exists on record, with respect to the independent witnesses concerned, standing pressurized or coerced, by the Investigating Officer concerned, "to" emboss their signatures, upon, seizure memo Ext.PW-1/D. However, the independent witnesses concerned, through their testification(s), make an attempt to communicate, that, their signatures thereon rather were obtained, despite, contents thereof being not read over to them, yet, the aforesaid communication, "is bereft of any vigour", especially when they "do not" make, any unveilings in their respective testification(s), (i) that, in the Investigating Officer concerned, purportedly omitting to read over to them, the contents, of, the aforesaid exhibits, "besides", hence theirs obviously without understanding their contents, theirs appending their signatures thereon, and, the embossing(s) thereon by them, of, their signatures, "hence spurring" from compulsion or duress, standing exerted upon them, by the Investigating Officer (ii) "importantly" omissions thereof(s), and, also when in respect thereof, they omitted to record a complaint, with the Officer(s) superior, to, the Investigating Officer concerned, rather begets an inference, vis--vis, the effect of the aforesaid communications, occurring in the testification(s), of, the independent witnesses, hence, naturally not, belittling the hereinabove drawn inference, anvilled upon attraction, "upon" the admitted factum, of their authentic signatures, hence occurring on Ext.PW-1/D, rather "the" mandate of Section 91 and 92, of, the Indian Evidence Act, (iii) thereupon dehors their making the aforesaid, frail attempt(s), rather for belying the recitals, borne in Ext.PW-1/D, theirs rather hence statutorily proving, all the recitals occurring therein. 12. Conspicuously, the deposition of, PW-15, as occurring in his examination-in-chief, makes echoing(s), bearing, the, completest concurrence, vis-- vis, (a) the case property, comprising, 23 plastic sacks, hence becoming deposited before him, by SI Baldev Ram, (i) however, thereonwards, he also deposes, vis--vis, on each, of, the plastic sacks, five seal impression(s),of, English alphabet "T", and, five re-seal impression(s), of, English alphabet "N", becoming embossed thereon. Prominently, when he also echoes, in his examination-in-chief, vis--vis, upon, each, of, the afore plastic sacks, the afore seal impressions(s), besides, re-seal, seal impression(s), bearing compatibility, vis--vis, the corresponding thereto hence echoing(s), made in the seizure memo, embodied in Ext. PW1/D, also rather becoming borne thereon(s). Furthermore, with PW-15, proving the abstract, of, Mallkhana Register, borne in Ext. PW15/B, and, his also testifying qua his making the endorsement, encircled, upon, the NCB form, embodied in Ext. PW1/D, also rather becoming borne thereon(s). Furthermore, with PW-15, proving the abstract, of, Mallkhana Register, borne in Ext. PW15/B, and, his also testifying qua his making the endorsement, encircled, upon, the NCB form, embodied in Ext. PW19/A, ii) thereupon, the defense cannot coax this Court, to, infer qua, at any stage, their occurring tampering(s), with the case property. 13. In addition, the personal jamatalashi, of, the accused, became conducted through memo drawn, on, 28.1.2012, embodied in Ex.PW19/O, and, therethrough the items reflected therein, became recovered, and, in the presence of witness(es), thereto(s), and, after conclusion(s) thereof, no, incriminatory material became recovered, upon, the jamatalashi, of, the accused, being made, or upon, the respective jamatalashies, of, the police officials, becoming conducted, hence in the presence of independent witness(es). The effect thereof is especially when the defence, does not make, any projection, vis--vis, any fragment, of, incriminatory item(s), becoming recovered during, the course of conducting jamatalashies of the police officials, and, thereafter it becoming, disingenuously planted or part or fragment, of, the recovered items, becoming planted upon the accused. Besides, when no further projection is meted, by the defence, inasmuch as, the police officials thereafter disingenuously planting, them, on the accused; (a) thereupon, there was no prior statutory necessity of any consent, within, the ambit of Section 50, of, the, NDPS Act, becoming elicited, from, each of the accused. Even otherwise, since the cache, as became recovered, from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused persons, was a huge one, thereupon, even the effect of non-elicitations or non-meteings, of, the apposite consent, is, irrelevant, (b) as obviously and reiteratedly, given its size, it is unamenable, to be carried, either upon person of the accused or by upon persons of each of the police official(s) concerned; (c) nor also the defence can make any valid espousal, vis--vis, the police planting inside the relevant truck, the afore made recoveries, as made under, memo borne in Ex. PW-1/D, unless cogent evidence qua therewith, stood adduced; (d) since the afore evidence is grossly amiss, thereupon, the defence cannot make any valid argument, vis--vis, the afore recovery(ies) being contrived or being, a sequel, of, disingenuous planting(s), hence, within the truck driven by the accused, at, the relevant time, rather by the Investigating Officer. 14. PW-1/D, unless cogent evidence qua therewith, stood adduced; (d) since the afore evidence is grossly amiss, thereupon, the defence cannot make any valid argument, vis--vis, the afore recovery(ies) being contrived or being, a sequel, of, disingenuous planting(s), hence, within the truck driven by the accused, at, the relevant time, rather by the Investigating Officer. 14. Since, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in, a, judgment rendered, in case, titled Jeet Ram vs. The Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh , case whereof, became assigned, bearing Criminal Appeal No.688 of 2013, has, made expostulation, of, law, vis--vis, (a) the onus became rested upon the convict, to, explain, the, apposite possession, and, (b) in absence of the afore onus, being discharged, thereupon, the, presumption, under Section 54 of the NDPS Act, becomes attracted against the accused. Since, the convict, has not efficaciously discharged the onus, inasmuch as, his failing, to, explain his apposite possession, within, or of, the truck, thereupon, the presumption, cast, under Section 54 of the NDPS Act, became aroused against him, and, disables him, to, contend that he was never, in de facto possession, of, the relevant contraband. 15. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court has appraised the entire evidence, on record, in a wholesome and harmonious manner, and, the analysis thereof, by the learned trial Court, hence does not suffer, from, a perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non-appreciation, of evidence, on record. 15. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the convict, has made a submission, before this Court that the imposition of sentence of rigorous imprisonment, upon, the accused/convict, extending upto 12 years, and, also imposition of fine, borne in a sum of Rs. One lac, and, in default whereof, he also became sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the commission of offence punishable under Section 15(c) of the ND&PS Act, is, harsh, and, excessive, and, prays, that the degree, of, the afore sentences hence imposed upon the convict/accused, be reduced or relaxed. He further submits that the mitigating factors, hence, for, relaxing or reducing, the imposition of afore sentence(s), upon him, arise from the factum, of, his being a first time offender, and, also obviously, his not holding any previous criminal antecedents. He further submits that the mitigating factors, hence, for, relaxing or reducing, the imposition of afore sentence(s), upon him, arise from the factum, of, his being a first time offender, and, also obviously, his not holding any previous criminal antecedents. Since, the afore made prayer of the learned counsel appearing, for the convict/appellant, is not demonstrated, by cogent material, in opposition thereto, being placed on record, by the prosecution, to be fallacious, (a) thereupon, in consonance with the verdict rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Shahejadkhan Mahebubkhan Pathan vs. State of Gujarat, (2013) 1 SCC 570 , this Court reduces the sentence of imprisonment, as imposed, upon, the convict/appellant herein, for his holding commercial quantity, of, the relevant seized contraband, from 12 years to 10 years, of, rigorous imprisonment. However, the fine amount as becomes imposed upon the convict/appellant herein, is, sustained, yet, upon, his omitting to liquidate, the afore fine amount, the default sentence, of his, suffering imprisonment, for one year, is, reduced to a term, of, six months. The period of detention undergone by the convict shall be set off, as per the provisions contained under Section 428, of, the Code of Criminal Procedure. 16. Consequently, with the afore observations/directions, the extant appeal stands disposed of. The judgment of the learned trial Court convicting the accused for the charged offence is upheld, however, the sentence(s) stand partly modified, hence, in the afore terms. All pending applications also stand disposed of. The records be sent down forthwith.