JUDGMENT Shailendra Shukla, J. - This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, preferred against the judgment dated 11.11.2010, passed by the ASJ, (Special Electricity Act, 2003), Indore, in S.T.No.333/2007, wherein the appellants Durgesh and Manish, have been convicted as under :- 2. The prosecution story in short was that on 20.5.2007 at around 11.00 PM to 11.45 PM while deceased Anil was talking to his brother Sachin (PW4) at Ambe Square, Indore, appellant Durgesh came with two other co-accused persons and started abusing Anil. When Anil protested, one of the accused caught hold of Anil and appellants Durgesh and Manish, inflicted knife injuries on Anil. When Anil shouted, witnesses Sonu (PW9), Rajkumar (PW18), Manoj (PW6) and Naresh (PW13) arrived at the spot. Injured Anil was taken to the M.Y. Hospital, Indore where he died and police was intimated by telephone operator of M.Y. Hospital. Merg was instituted on the basis of information received. Thereafter FIR was lodged in the MIG police station by Sachin against Durgesh and two unknown persons and after due investigation, a charge sheet was filed against Manish, Durgesh and Ritesh. The trial court framed charges under Section 294, 302 read with Section 34 of IPC against all three accused persons. Charge under Section 25(1)(b)(b) of the Arms Act were framed against Manish and Durgesh. The accused abjured their guilt and prosecution proceeded to examine its witnesses. In all 20 witnesses were examined by the prosecution in its support. 3. The appellants did not lead any defence evidence in their support. The trial court after considering the evidence pronounced its judgment on 11.11.2010 whereby accused Ritesh was acquitted of all the charges and appellants Durgesh and Manish were acquitted from the charge under Section 294 of IPC. However, they were convicted and sentenced as described in para 1 of the judgment. 4. The grounds for appeal are that the trial court committed an error in relying upon the evidence of witnesses Sachin (PW4), Satish Kushwah (PW5) and Manoj (PW6). However, they were convicted and sentenced as described in para 1 of the judgment. 4. The grounds for appeal are that the trial court committed an error in relying upon the evidence of witnesses Sachin (PW4), Satish Kushwah (PW5) and Manoj (PW6). Even though there are number of contradictions and omissions in their depositions and in the identification parade, the complainant had identified only one accused, both of them have been convicted; FIR was in the name of unknown persons and the value of identification parade assumed great importance; FIR was ante timed which was not considered by the trial court; the trial court failed to see that the articles seized were recovered from the open space and that witnesses are chance witnesses who are unreliable. Incident had occurred in the night and it was pitch dark and there was sudden fight. It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed and conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant be set aside. 5. In their accused statements, the appellants have stated that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. 6. The question before this court that whether in view of the grounds contained in the appeal memo, trial court has wrongly convicted the appellants and whether the appellants deserve to be acquitted. 7. The questions for determination in this appeal are as follows:- (1) Whether death of Anil was a result of culpable homicide ? (2) Whether Anil died as a result of injuries caused to him by the appellants ? ( 3) Whether culpable homicide of Anil amounted to murder ? (4) Adequacy of sentence after findings proved against the appellants. 8. Regarding question No.1 - Dr. A. K. Lanjewal (PW-11) states that on 21.05.2007, he was posted in M. Y. Hospital at Indore and on that day, dead body of deceased Anil S/o Tarachand was brought by Constable for postmortem and the body was identified by Naresh, brother of Anil. It was found rigor mortise spread over the whole body and there was hypostasis present on the whole body. There were six distinct injuries found on the body which were stab wounds, which are as follows:- (a) Stab incised wound 10cms below left of sternum - size 2 x 1 x 8 cm by which left lung had been affected and there was one litre blood clotted in thoracic cavity. There were six distinct injuries found on the body which were stab wounds, which are as follows:- (a) Stab incised wound 10cms below left of sternum - size 2 x 1 x 8 cm by which left lung had been affected and there was one litre blood clotted in thoracic cavity. (b) Stab incised wound present anteriorly 7 cm right of upper border right superior iliac spine size 2 x 1 x 9 cm. On dissection, large retroperitonial hematoma was visible and part of small intestine affected along with blood vessels and abdominal cavity contained 2 litres of partly clotted blood. Ecchymosis was present. (c) Stab incised wound present over tip of left shoulder skin deep - size 3 x 0.5 x. 0.2 cm. Ecchymosis present. (d) Stab incised wound present 23 cms below superior iliac crust of left-side thigh. In the middle anteriorly, which goes through and through affecting muscles, blood vessels with exit wound present. Size of entrance wound 5 x 1.5 x 4cm and exit wound 5.5 x 2 x 4cm. (e) Stab incised wound oblique in nature size 4 x 1.5 x 9cm to the left and 15 cm of C-7 vertebra. This injury passed through the lower part of 8th rib and upper part of 9th rib due to which inter---- muscles and left lung become impacted. (f) Stab incised wound size 1.5 x 1.5cm present on the right superior iliac spine which has affected muscles. The stomach contained some semi digested food because of death was excessive bleeding and the resultant shock. 9. The injuries were caused with a hard sharp and penetrating object and the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and the death has been caused within 24 hours and was homicidal in nature. The postmortem report is Exhibit-P/5 carrying signatures of the witness from B-B part. This postmortem examination conducted on 21.05.2007 at 11.25 AM shows that the death was caused within 24 hours. The same witness was sent the seized knives and in his query report at Exhibit-P/33, the witness had stated that the injuries can be caused by such knives. The conclusion drawn from the report clearly shows that cause of death of Anil was culpable homicide due to injuries caused with sharp and penetrating hard object and the death was caused within 24 hours of the postmortem examination conducted on 21.05.2007. 10. The conclusion drawn from the report clearly shows that cause of death of Anil was culpable homicide due to injuries caused with sharp and penetrating hard object and the death was caused within 24 hours of the postmortem examination conducted on 21.05.2007. 10. Regarding question No.2 - The prosecution story hinges on the eye-witness account and also on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has examined Sachin (PW-4), Manoj (PW-6), Sonu (PW-9), Naresh (PW-13), Vijay (PW-17) and Rajkumar (PW-18) as eye-witnesses. However, barring Sachin (PW-4), all other witnesses have been discredited by the Trial Court. Manoj (PW-6) has been discredited in para-13, Sonu (PW-9) has been discredited in para-31, Naresh (PW-13) has been discredited in para-32, Vijay (PW-17) has been discredited in para-33 and Rajkumar (PW-18) has been discredited in para-34 of the impugned judgment. The evidence of Sachin (PW-4) however, has been relied upon in convicting the appellants. 11. The prosecution agency has not controverted the findings of the Trial Court regarding discrediting the aforesaid witnesses hence, it would be futile to discuss evidence of these witnesses. It would be appropriate to see as to whether reliance of Sachin (PW-4) by the Trial Court was proper or not. 12. Sachin (PW-4) is the eye-witness who has stated that on 20.05.2007 at around 11.00 to 11.30 PM, while he was strolling after taking dinner along with his deceased brother near Ambe square, appellant Durgesh along with his two other associates came and started abusing and Durgesh abused Anil saying that he was threatening his men (Durgesh's men). Deceased denied such accusation and told him to stop abusing. The accused then pushed the deceased and took him near a housing apartment and one of the associates of Durgesh caught hold of Anil and Durgesh and another co-accused stabbed Anil with knives. The deceased suffered injuries on his left and right side of stomach and also on his thighs. The witness states that after committing crime, all the three accused persons fled in a motorcycle bearing registration No.MP08 L 2911. The witness states that registration number of the motorcycle was given to him by Satish and it was Satish who told names of two witnesses Manish and Gudda @ Ritesh. The witness states that thereafter, he went to Police Station MIG for lodging report and Satish Kushwah and others took his brother to M. Y. Hospital. The witness states that registration number of the motorcycle was given to him by Satish and it was Satish who told names of two witnesses Manish and Gudda @ Ritesh. The witness states that thereafter, he went to Police Station MIG for lodging report and Satish Kushwah and others took his brother to M. Y. Hospital. The report lodged by the witness is Exhibit-P/9 carrying his signatures from A-A part. The next day, police came and drew spot map which is Exhibit-P/10. He further submits that on 04.08.2007, he had participated in the identification parade and identified two of the accused persons. Their identification report is Exhibit-P/11 carrying signatures of witness from A-A part and B-B part. 13. As already stated Sachin (PW-4) had stated that all the three accused persons fled from the spot in a motorcycle bearing registration No.MP08 L 2911 and this number was told to him by Satish. Satish Kushwah (PW-5) has stated that on the night of the incident, he had seen all the three accused persons fleeing from the spot in a motorcycle bearing registration No.MP08 L 2911. The witness states that he saw the accused persons while he came back from the house of Anil. The witness states that he knew all the three accused persons since 20 years. He narrated the same to Sachin who was with injured Anil. This witness states that he took Anil to M. Y. Hospital and during treatment he died. Sachin had told him that three accused persons had abused his brother and stabbed him. Sachin (PW-4) in para-11 of his cross-examination, states that within two minutes of he and his brother arriving at the temple, the accused persons came over and Durgesh immediately indulged in abusing. The witness states that at the time of incident, his brother Anil was sitting near Ambe temple and the witness had gone to fetch pouch for him to a kirana shop and as the witness proceeded towards his brother with pouch, he saw the accused persons abusing his brother and assaulting him. The witness states that he did not run to rescue his brother. He states that just before arriving near his brother, accused had taken his brother to a building of Housing Board. He states that near the building of the Housing Board, no one else was there apart from three accused persons, he himself and his brother. The witness states that he did not run to rescue his brother. He states that just before arriving near his brother, accused had taken his brother to a building of Housing Board. He states that near the building of the Housing Board, no one else was there apart from three accused persons, he himself and his brother. He states that his brother was assaulted, he shouted and then the accused persons fled from the spot. It was at that point of time when Satish arrived and told him that the three accused persons had fled in a motorcycle and then he proceeded towards police station for lodging the report and after lodging report, he went to M. Y. Hospital and found his brother to be already dead. 14. Satish Kushwah (PW-5) also states that he saw Anil in an injured condition along with Sachin and then he told Sachin about the accused persons. Such statement also shows that Sachin was near the spot of incident and he lodged an FIR immediately after the incident in which he has stated to have seen the incident and also stated that Rajesh has taken his brother to MYH Hospital, thus no doubt remains that Sachin (PW-4) was with his BrotherAnil when the incident had taken place. 15. The evidence of Sachin (PW-4) is thus complimented by Satish Kushwah (PW-5). The evidence of Satish Kushwah regarding him having seen the appellants immediately after the incident is a relevant piece of evidence under Section 8 of Evidence Act, 1872 showing subsequent conduct of appellants. Further, there are no such contradictions and omissions in the cross-examination of Sachin (PW-4) so as to render his evidence as not reliable. Learned counsel has submitted that the police statements have been recorded belatedly and has referred to the citation of Laxman & others vs. State of M. P. , 1995 JLJ 639 and the case of Arun Kumar Sharma vs. State of Bihar , 2009 SAR (Cri.) 1038 , as also the case of Krishna Sevak vs. State of M. P. , 1988 JLJ 321 in which it has been laid down that the police statements were recorded belatedly, such delay dents prosecution story. As far as the present matter is concerned, FIR of Sachin has been recorded on the same day of the incident had taken place. As far as the present matter is concerned, FIR of Sachin has been recorded on the same day of the incident had taken place. His police statements have been recorded on the very next day, ie., on 21.5.2007. Thus, there is no delay in recording his statements. The statements of Satish Kushwah has been recorded on 21.7.2007, ie., two months after the incident. However, his reference has been made in the FIR by Sachin, which was recorded on the same day when the incident took place. Therefore, belated recording of his police statement would not be detrimental to the prosecution story. 16. FIR Exhibit-P/9 was lodged by Sachin (PW-4) which shows that the same has been lodged at 11.45 PM on 20.05.2007 and the accused Durgesh has been named while other two co-accused persons have not been named and it has been stated that Anil was stabbed with knives by Durgesh and one another accused. FIR has been recorded by S.D. Tiwari (PW-15). He states that on 20.05.2007, he was posted at Police Station MIG on the post of ASI and Sachin had come to the police station and had lodged report which is Exhibit-P/1 which carries his signatures from B-B part while Sachin (PW-4) has exhibited this FIR as Exhibit- P/9 and PW-15 in his deposition has shown FIR as Exhibit- P/1 however, both exhibits are in respect of same document and it appears to be an inadvertent mistake on the part of the Presiding Officer. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that FIR was infact anti-timed and has referred the citation Mehrajsingh vs. State of U. P. , 1995 Cr.L.J. 457, in which it has been laid down that if it is found that there has been ante-timing of FIR, it is a serious lacuna in the prosecution. Learned counsel has pointed out that B. R. Sisodia, ASI (PW-14) has stated that on 21.05.2007, an intimation was received from M. Y. Hospital and on the basis of which merg was registered. Learned counsel has pointed out that B. R. Sisodia, ASI (PW-14) has stated that on 21.05.2007, an intimation was received from M. Y. Hospital and on the basis of which merg was registered. He further states that merg was registered on 21.05.2007 and on the basis of which further investigation ensued and therefore, it can clearly be said that FIR was deliberately anti-timed shown to be recorded at 11.45 PM on 20.05.2007 and therefore, the deliberate effort on the part of the prosecution agency to show that FIR was recorded soon after the incident whereas, FIR could have been recorded only after receipt of merg intimation the next day i.e. on 21.05.2007. 18. The witness B. R. Sisodia (PW-14) has been crossexamined on this point. In para-7, the witness admits that merg was instituted on 21.05.2007 at 1.40 AM. However, this witness clarifies that even before receiving merg intimation, information was already there with Police Station MIG. This witness was then asked question that if FIR has been received at 11.45 PM, then immediately whether any effort was made to determine regarding whereabouts of the deceased and his condition or not? The witness replied that it had come to be known that the deceased was admitted in M. Y. Hospital and the doctors were asked orally about his condition, who told that the condition was serious and after making such enquiry, further investigation ensued. In para-8 of his cross examination, he further states that even prior to the institution of merg, the witness had knowledge as to who were the accused who had committed the offence and submits that there was only accused Durgesh named in the FIR (Exhibit-P/1) but the report does not depict the names of two other accused persons. 19. A clear position thus emerges from the evidence of this witness that there is no anti-timing of FIR. The FIR was duly recorded at 11.45 PM and meanwhile, deceased had been admitted to the hospital where he expired soon after and then intimation was sent from the hospital regarding his death and merg was registered. 19. A clear position thus emerges from the evidence of this witness that there is no anti-timing of FIR. The FIR was duly recorded at 11.45 PM and meanwhile, deceased had been admitted to the hospital where he expired soon after and then intimation was sent from the hospital regarding his death and merg was registered. Had the deceased been brought to the hospital by a policeman and the FIR had not been recorded, then after death of the deceased FIR could have been recorded after institution of merg but in this case, FIR was lodged immediately by Sachin (PW-4) subsequent to which deceased died and his merg was instituted. Thus, it cannot be stated that FIR was anti-timed. Learned counsel states that there has been delay in lodging the FIR and has cited the case of Praveen Mondal & another vs. State of West Bengal , 2009 SAR (Cri.) 1045 in which it was laid down that when the FIR was lodged belatedly and victim did not inform the doctor as to how the incident has happened, the accused was liable to be acquitted. In the case in hand, the incident had occurred on 20.5.2007 at around 11.00 PM to 11.15 PM and the FIR was lodged at 11.45 PM thus, there was no delay at all. 20. Learned counsel has also pointed out that the identification proceedings were doubtful and unreliable as the same were conducted very belatedly. He has cited the case of Jarapala Deepala & others vs. State of A. P. , 2006 Cr.L.J. 267 (Andra Pradesh High Court) . The identification parade (Ex.P/11) has been conducted by Sanjay Sharma (PW-7) who is Naib Tehsildar. He states that on 04.07.2007 that he had conducted the identification proceedings of the accused and Sachin identified the accused-Manish by putting his hand on the head of accused-Manish. The identification proceedings are at Ex.P/11. These proceedings were carried out in the jail premises. The witness states that at the time of conducting identification parade, there was no one present apart from him in the area where the proceedings were conducted. In para-6, he denies the suggestion that Sachin had told him as to how he will identify the accused. Ex.P/11 shows that number of persons had been made to wait to stand along with accused and such persons were ten in number. In para-6, he denies the suggestion that Sachin had told him as to how he will identify the accused. Ex.P/11 shows that number of persons had been made to wait to stand along with accused and such persons were ten in number. The evidence of this witness could not be impeached in crossexamination appropriately. Ex.P/11 shows that while accused-Manish was correctly identified by Sachin (PW-4), the other co-accused-Ritesh could not be identified by Sachin. 21. Learned counsel has submitted that before the identification proceeding, the faces of accused had not been covered from the date of their arrest to the date of identification proceeding. Learned counsel submits that after the arrest, memorandum and seizure proceedings were carried out and during this period the faces of the accused were uncovered and therefore there was an ample opportunity to see the faces of accused by the complainant and therefore the subsequent identification proceeding carry no meaning. Learned counsel has referred to the evidence of B.R. Sisodia (PW/4) who admits in para-21 that in the arrest memo in Ex.P/31 and Ex.P/32, there is no mention that the faces of the accused had been covered. He however denies the suggestion in para-20 that from the date of the arrest on 23.05.2007, till the date of the identification parade on 04.07.2007, the faces of the accused were kept uncovered so that they could be easily identified at the time of identification parade. This suggestion has been denied by the witness. 22. Learned counsel, although, submits that there is clear indication that the faces of the accused were not covered from the date of arrest from 23.05.2007 to identification proceeding on 04.07.2007, however, there is no evidence to show that the complainant had seen the accused prior to the date of identification proceeding. The arrest memo and seizure document do not mention the complainant as one of the witnesses. Further, if the complainant had seen both the accused persons before the date of identification proceeding then he would have identified both the accused i.e. Manish and Ritesh but as the situation emerges, Sachin (PW/4) had identified only accused-Manish and not Ritesh. This amply shows that any doubt in this respect is misplaced. Thus, the eye-witness account of Sachin (PW-4) is unimpeachable and has been supported by identification proceedings which have been carried out properly. This amply shows that any doubt in this respect is misplaced. Thus, the eye-witness account of Sachin (PW-4) is unimpeachable and has been supported by identification proceedings which have been carried out properly. The identification proceedings were carried out on 4.7.2007 whereas the incident had occurred on 20.5.2007. Thus, there was not much gap between these two occurrence. In the case of Jarapala Deepala & others vs. State (supra) , the identification parade was carried after a gap of 2 years. Hence, no leverage can be given to the appellants on the ground of delay. 23. As far as the circumstantial evidence is concerned, Mr. B.R. Sisodia (PW-14) has stated that after lodging of report on 20.05.2007, he carried out the proceeding for inspection of the dead body on 21.05.2007 and on 23.05.2007, on receiving secret information regarding the whereabouts of the accused, he arrested the three accused who were then interrogated and they provided information regarding weapons used by them in committing the offence and on the basis of memorandum of these accused persons, knives were recovered from the places shown by them. The witness states that memorandum statements of Durgesh is Ex.P/24 on the basis of which knife was recovered from a culvert near 'Somnath Ki Juni Chhal' . The seizure memo is Ex.P/26. From the same place, a motorcycle bearing registration No.MP08L-2911 was seized. This was the same motorcycle on which three accused had fled from the spot and similarly on the basis of memorandum statement of Manish (Ex.P/25), a knife was recovered from the Ambedkar Square, Ex.P/27. 24. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the place from which knives were recovered are open spaces accessible to the members of public and therefore it cannot be stated that they were discoveries of facts when these knives were recovered. He has pointed out towards para-22 of the statement of Mr. B.R. Sisodiya (PW-14) in which he has admitted that Ambedkar Garden has open space where one can come easily. Further, this witness in para-24 states that 'Somnath Ki Juni Chhal' has a vast area and in para 25, the witness admits that this area was accessible to all. 25. Considered these submissions. 26. It is quite clear that both the areas i.e. 'Ambedkar Garden' and ' Somnath Ki Juni Chhal' are vast areas which are accessible to all. If accused could take the Police Officer Mr. 25. Considered these submissions. 26. It is quite clear that both the areas i.e. 'Ambedkar Garden' and ' Somnath Ki Juni Chhal' are vast areas which are accessible to all. If accused could take the Police Officer Mr. B.R. Sisodia at a particular spot where the weapon was lying then it was clear that the accused had definite knowledge as to the spot where the weapon was lying in such a vast area. The question is whether these weapons were ordinarily visible to others or not ? No such suggestion has been given to Mr. B.R. Sisodia (PW-14) that weapons could have been ordinarily visible to others. In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs Jeet singh reported in 1999 4 SCC 370 it has been held that crucial question is not whether the place was accessible to others or not but whether it was ordinarily visible to others. If it is not, then it is immaterial that the concealed place is accessible to others. Thus, it is found that pursuant to information revealed by the accused, there was discovery of weapon on investigation. These weapons were sent to Dr. A.K. Lanjhewar (PW-11) who in his query report at Ex.P/33 has admitted that the injuries could have been caused due to these weapons. Of-course, there has been a lacuna on the part of prosecution agency as there is no FSL report regarding human blood traces on these weapons. Mr. B.R. Sisodiya (PW-14) who has caused out the investigation, has submitted that no explanation was there as to why the weapons were not sent to the FSL. This shows negligence on the part of Investigating Officer in not carrying out the residual investigation tasks. However, eye-witness account of Sachin (PW-4) and evidence of Rajesh (PW-5) whose evidence is relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, 1872, identification proceeding (Ex.P/11) and discovery of weapons on the basis of information revealed by the accused and query report by Dr. Lanjhewar (PW-11) as also recovery of motorcycle used for escaping at the instance of appellant-Durgesh together form a chain of circumstances which conclusively point at guilt of accused and are sufficient to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. It is thus found proved that deceased-Anil was stabbed to death by appellants-Durgesh and Manish. Lanjhewar (PW-11) as also recovery of motorcycle used for escaping at the instance of appellant-Durgesh together form a chain of circumstances which conclusively point at guilt of accused and are sufficient to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. It is thus found proved that deceased-Anil was stabbed to death by appellants-Durgesh and Manish. The identity of third assailant has not been established and it is thus found proved that accused committed culpable homicide of deceased-Anil. 27. The question No.2 is also thus answered in affirmative. 28. Regarding question No.3 - Learned counsel has submitted that this was an incident of sudden fight and in view of judgment of Jeet Singh (supra) , this matter can at best to be considered under Section 304 (Part-II) IPC and that the accused/appellants could not have been sentenced to more than ten years of imprisonment and the appellants have already completed twelve years in jail. Hence, they should be directed to be set-free. 29. Learned counsel has submitted the citation of Atul Thakur vs. State of Himachal Pradesh , 2018 Cr.L.R. (SC) 152 in his support and has argued before this Court is under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC is reproduced under for reference: Exception 4. -- Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 30. On due consideration, it is found that the accused had come to the spot armed with weapons with an intention to settle the score with deceased-Anil with whom they had grudge that Anil was threatening their men. The deceased- Anil was dragged to a place which was isolated and darker. It also shows the intention of the accused that Anil be assaulted at a place where no one can see the incident. In such circumstances, it cannot be stated that there was no premeditation. Sudden fight also involves both the parties assaulting each other which is not the case here, therefore, the benefit of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC cannot be granted to the accused/appellants. 31. Dr. In such circumstances, it cannot be stated that there was no premeditation. Sudden fight also involves both the parties assaulting each other which is not the case here, therefore, the benefit of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC cannot be granted to the accused/appellants. 31. Dr. Lanjhewar PW-11 has found that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death which attracts thirdly of Section 300 IPC and these injuries were struck on vital parts of the body of deceased-Anil and there were multiple stab wounds which clearly shows the intention to commit murder. Hence, the appellants were rightly convicted under Section 302 IPC by the trial Court. The conviction under Section 302/34 IPC is thus affirmed. 32. In the given circumstances and evidence, the sentence imposed upon the appellants by the trial Court cannot be termed to be inappropriate. Hence the quantum of sentence is also affirmed. Consequently, this criminal appeal stands rejected. 33. Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court along with original record of the case.