Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 633 (JHR)

Shiv Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2021-08-16

RATNAKER BHENGRA, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2021
JUDGMENT : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. 1. Jagannathpur P.S. Case No. 36 of 2010 was lodged on 14.08.2010 against 13-14 unknown persons. In the night of 13.08.2010, at about 11:30 P.M. unknown criminals committed dacoity in the house of Pradeep Kumar Prasad at village Jaintgarh and while leaving the village they exploded bombs to scare the villagers for their easy escape. On their way when Rajesh Kumar grappled with them the dacoits threw bomb on him and Rajesh Kumar got seriously injured. The fardbeyan of Pradeep Kumar Prasad was recorded in the early morning at 05:00 A.M. on 14.08.2010 at his village but before that an information was sent to the police station and accordingly sanha entry was made at 01:15 A.M. on 14.08.2010. The informant has stated that several unknown criminals were exploding bombs and threatening the villagers. They entered his house, committed marpit with him and on the gun point asked to hand over cash and jewelleries. After collecting valuables they left his house and on their way to escape caused injury to Rajesh Kumar by exploding a bomb and his chowkidar Chetan Pradhan was also seriously injured in the incident. The informant has further stated that the dacoits took away his Nokia 1210 mobile set with Aircel SIM No. 9853690631 and claimed that he can identify the dacoits and looted articles. 2. The investigating officer collected CDRs and on that basis came to village Khajouli at district Madhubani in the state of Bihar and got information from the officer-in-charge of Khajouli police station that Deepak Sarhan, Naresh Sahni, Rajendra Sah, Luxman Singh, Shiv Kumar Singh, Kamlesh Singh, Baidnath Singh, Kunal Singh and Jitendra Singh were involved in loot-pat at village Jaintgarh. On the basis of such information Deepak Sarhan and Naresh Sahni were arrested and they suffered disclosure statements. At the pointing of Deepak Sarhan one silver chain, one golden nose pin and one mobile phone set bearing IMEI No. 354534010609642 with SIM No. 9631384605 were recovered from his house. On disclosure of Naresh Sahni one set of rold-gold bangle and one mobile phone set bearing IMEI No. 359559016834645 with SIM No. 8873765699 were recovered and seized in the presence of two independent witnesses. On disclosure of Naresh Sahni one set of rold-gold bangle and one mobile phone set bearing IMEI No. 359559016834645 with SIM No. 8873765699 were recovered and seized in the presence of two independent witnesses. After the investigation charge sheet was submitted against Deepak Sarhan, Bablu Nishad, Manik Chand Nishad @ Sahani and Naresh Sahni on 23.11.2010 under sections 396 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act keeping the investigation pending against Rajendra Sah@ Raziya, Luxman Singh, Shiv Kumar Singh, Kamla @ Kamlesh Singh, Jitendra Chaudhary, Kunal Singh and Bidnath Singh. Three supplementary charge sheets were submitted thereafter - supplementary charge sheet dated 31.03.2011 against Jitendra Chaudhary, Rajendra Sah @ Raziya, Luxman Singh, Kamla @ Kamlesh Singh and Kunal Singh; supplementary charge sheet dated 31.10.2011 against Shiv Kumar Singh, and; supplementary charge sheet dated 31.07.2013 against Baidnath Singh. By an order dated 08.08.2012 charges were framed against Deepak Sarhan, Naresh Sahni, Bablu Nishad, Manik Chand Nishad @ Sahani, Kamlesh Singh, Kunal Singh, Jitendra Singh and Shiv Kumar Singh under sections 396 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act. Similar charges were framed against Baidanath Singh for committing the aforesaid offences, vide order dated 12.12.2013. The prosecution has examined nineteen witnesses to prove the aforesaid charges in the trial and after the prosecution evidence was closed one accused, namely, Jitendra Singh jumped the bail and did not appear for examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; Kamlesh Singh who was in custody in Madhubani Jail inspite of production warrant and several letters for his production was not produced in this case and Kunal Singh, another accused, died during the trial and accordingly the case records of Kamlesh Singh and Jitendera Singh were separated while the trial against Kunal Singh abated. 3. The learned trial Judge has held that the prosecution could not establish the charges framed under sections 396 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act against Baidnath Singh and, accordingly, he was acquitted. Shiv Kumar Singh was held guilty under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act. Shiv Kumar Singh was held guilty under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act. The other four accused, namely, Manik Chand Nishad, Bablu Nishad, Naresh Sahni and Deepak Sarhan were held guilty under sections 396 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act. The accused, namely, Manik Chand Nishad @ Sahani, Bablu Nishad, Naresh Sahni, Deepak Sarhan and Shiv Kumar Singh were convicted and sentenced to RI for life and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code with a default stipulation to undergo RI for further one year and; RI for life and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each under section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act with a default stipulation to undergo RI for one year. Except Shiv Kumar Singh, other accused are also convicted and sentenced to RI for life and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each under section 412 of the Indian Penal Code with a default stipulation to undergo further RI for one year. 4. According to the prosecution, PW-1 Shiv Kumar Gupta, PW-2 Annapurna Devi, PW-4 Pradeep Kumar Prasad, PW-11 Vimla Devi and PW-19 Pragti Kumar Prasad are eyewitnesses who claimed before the investigating officer that they have seen unknown criminals committing dacoity and murder of Rajesh Kumar. Deepak Sarhan, Naresh Sahni, Bablu Nishad and Manik Chand Nishad were arrested on 28.08.2010 from their house and they were put on Test Identification Parade on 07.09.2010. Pradeep Kumar Prasad, the informant identified them in the test identification as amongst those unknown criminals who had committed dacoity in his house. PW-19, Pragti Kumar Prasad also identified Bablu Nishad, Naresh Sahni and Manik Chand Nishad in the test identification. On 05.09.2010, Test Identification Parade of one silver chain, golden nose pin, silver looking key ring, chain and one pair of rold-gold bangles was conducted and these articles were identified by PW-4 and PW-19 as belonging to ladies of their family. 5. The learned trial Judge has held that identity and involvement of Bablu Nishad, Deepak Sarhan, Naresh Sahni and Manik Chand Nishad @ Sahani were established on the strength of testimony of PW-4 who has identified them in Test Identification Parade as well as in the dock. 5. The learned trial Judge has held that identity and involvement of Bablu Nishad, Deepak Sarhan, Naresh Sahni and Manik Chand Nishad @ Sahani were established on the strength of testimony of PW-4 who has identified them in Test Identification Parade as well as in the dock. The learned trial Judge has held as under: “The cumulative effect of evidence available on record, being the identification of accused persons Manik Chand Nishad, Babloo Nishad, Shiv Kumar Singh by the PW-1 Shiv Kumar Gupta and further, the identification of accused persons Babloo Nishad, Manik Chand Nishad, Deepak Sarhan and Naresh Sahni by the PW-4 Pradeep Kumar in T.I.P. and further before the Court also, the evidence collected by I.O. during the investigation, being the recovery of looted articles from the houses of accused persons Manik Chand Nishad, Babloo Nishad, Deepak Sarhan and Naresh Sahni and its identification by the PW-4 Pradeep Kumar and PW-19 Pragti Kumar Prasad in the T.I.P. of articles conducted by the B.D.O. the factum of selling of looted golden chain by the accused Babloo Nishad to the PW-17, the recovery of four country made pistols and cartridges from the house of Babloo Nishad and the recovery of two country made pistols and cartridges from the house of the accused Manik Chand Nishad, on the basis of disclosure statement given by the accused persons Deepak Sarhan and Naresh Sahni goes to prove beyond the reasonable doubts that these were the above named accused persons (1) Manik Chand Nishad, (2) Babloo Nishad, (3) Shiv Kumar Singh, (4) Deepak Sarhan and (5) Naresh Sahni who along with the other miscreants, had committed dacoity in the house of informant on the date, time and place of occurrence and in course of committing the said dacoity, they had committed murder of one Rajesh Kumar by pelting bomb upon him and using firearms. The accused persons (1) Manik Chand Nishad, (2) Babloo Nishad, (3) Deepak Sarhan and (4) Naresh Sahni had retained the looted articles, knowing it to be transferred by the commission of Dacoity. The remaining of the bombs were collected by the I.O. from the place of occurrence and the same were sent to the S.F.S.L. Ranchi also and the report of State Forensic Science Laboratory (Ext.18) indicates that the said contents were remnants of explosive home made bomb.” 6. The remaining of the bombs were collected by the I.O. from the place of occurrence and the same were sent to the S.F.S.L. Ranchi also and the report of State Forensic Science Laboratory (Ext.18) indicates that the said contents were remnants of explosive home made bomb.” 6. On recovery of the looted articles, country made pistols and cartridges from the house of the accused, the learned trial Judge has held as under: “The factum of recovery of looted articles and four country made pistols and cartridges from the house of accused Bablu Nishad and recovery of two country made pistols and cartridge as well as the looted articles from the house Manik Chand Nishad has been fully supported by PW-8 Ram Charitra Ram also Further, it has also come on record from the oral testimony of PW-15 Ram Lal Ram that on the basis of call detail report of looted mobile No 9853690631 when he reached to the village Khajauli P.S. Madhubani and arrested accused persons Deepak Sarhan and Naresh Sahni on basis of secret information, the looted silver chain and golden Nose-Pin and the Sim No. 9631384605, I.M.E.I. No. 354534010609642 was recovered from the house of Deepak Sarhan, whereas a looted gold like Bala of rol gold was recovered from the house of Naresh Sahni also. The TIP Chart of articles (Ext.14) also goes to show that the articles, recovered from the houses of accused persons were put into T.I.P. And the same were identified by the PW-4 Pradeep Kumar and the 19 Pragati Kumar Prasad also. Further, it has also come on record from the oral testimony of PW-17 Kamal Bikash Bera and the PW-18 Dayanand Ajad that the accused Bablu.Nishad had sold the. looted golden chain to this PW-17 in Kolkatta and had obtained Rs 10,800/- from this PW-17. Thus, if all these things are taken together there remains no scope for any doubt on the point of involvement of the accused persons (1) Naresh Sahni, (2) Deepak Sarhan, (3) Shiv Kumar Singh (4) Manik Chand Nishad and (5) Babloo Nishad in the said incident of dacoity with murder.” 7. Thus, if all these things are taken together there remains no scope for any doubt on the point of involvement of the accused persons (1) Naresh Sahni, (2) Deepak Sarhan, (3) Shiv Kumar Singh (4) Manik Chand Nishad and (5) Babloo Nishad in the said incident of dacoity with murder.” 7. The learned trial Judge has finally held as under: “Thus, on the basis of aforesaid discussion, I find that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges leveled against the above named accused persons (1) Manik Chand Nishad, (2) Babloo Nishad, (3) Deepak Sarhan and (4) Naresh Sahni under section 396, 412 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act beyond the all shadows of reasonable doubts and the charge leveled against the accused Shiv Kumar Sngh under sections 396 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act beyond the all shadows of reasonable doubts and they are liable to be convicted for the same.” 8. Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that (i) identification of the appellants in Test Identification Parade is useless evidence as the accused were shown to the witnesses in the police station; (ii) dock identification of the appellants after about three and half years by PW-1 and PW-4 without any corroborative evidence is not sufficient to convict them and (iii) recoveries allegedly made from the house of the appellants at their instance are not proved and their confessional statement cannot be used against them. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants has referred to and relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh vs. Republic of India, (2011) 2 SCC 490 and Mahabir vs. State of Delhi, (2008) 16 SCC 481 . 10. Mrs. Priya Shreshtha and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, the learned Spl. PP and APP have supported the judgment of conviction of the appellants in the sessions trial by saying that (i) delay in Test Identification Parade and recovery of the looted articles are quite normal in case of dacoity; (ii) even where the seizure witnesses do not support the prosecution the conviction can be recorded and (iii) the appellants were correctly identified in the dock and they have failed to explain possession of the incriminating articles more particularly the mobile phone set of the informant. 11. Mrs. 11. Mrs. Priya Shreshtha, the learned Spl. PP has referred to and relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Monoranjan Bhattacharjya vs. Emperor, AIR 1932 Cal. 818, Narayan Prasad vs. State of M.P. (2005) 13 SCC 247 , Ghurelal vs. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 469, Arjun Mahato vs. State of Bihar, (2008) 15 SCC 604 and Wasim Khan vs. State of U.P. AIR 1956 SC 400 . 12. Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that the facts establishing identity of the accused are relevant. There is no statutory requirement in India to conduct a prior Test Identification Parade to identify an accused and it is by virtue of section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act that the evidence regarding identity of an accused and verification of an accused in the Test Identification Parade is admitted during a criminal trial. 13. In Malkhansingh vs. State of M.P. (2003) 5 SCC 746 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained the law on the subject as under: “16. It is well settled that the substantive evidence is the evidence of identification in court and the test identification parade provides corroboration to the identification of the witness in court, if required. However, what weight must be attached to the evidence of identification in court, which is not preceded by a test identification parade, is a matter for the courts of fact to examine. In the instant case the courts below have concurrently found the evidence of the prosecutrix to be reliable and, therefore, there was no need for the corroboration of her evidence in court as she was found to be implicitly reliable. We find no error in the reasoning of the courts below. From the facts of the case it is quite apparent that the prosecutrix did not even know the appellants and did not make any effort to falsely implicate them by naming them at any stage. The crime was perpetrated in broad daylight. The prosecutrix had sufficient opportunity to observe the features of the appellants who raped her one after the other. Before the rape was committed, she was threatened and intimidated by the appellants. After the rape was committed, she was again threatened and intimidated by them. All this must have taken time. This is not a case where the identifying witness had only a fleeting glimpse of the appellants on a dark night. Before the rape was committed, she was threatened and intimidated by the appellants. After the rape was committed, she was again threatened and intimidated by them. All this must have taken time. This is not a case where the identifying witness had only a fleeting glimpse of the appellants on a dark night. She also had a reason to remember their faces as they had committed a heinous offence and put her to shame. She had, therefore, abundant opportunity to notice their features. In fact on account of her traumatic and tragic experience, the faces of the appellants must have got imprinted in her memory and there was no chance of her making a mistake about their identity....” 14. The probative value of the evidence of a witness who identifies an unknown criminal for the first time in the Court and that too after a long time is substantially diminished and, therefore, it is considered not safe to rely on such a piece of evidence and that is where comes the necessity of a prior test identification to corroborate identification of an unknown accused in the Court. This is not an absolute law and the evidence of such a witness is accepted by the Court provided his evidence does not suffer from any inherent improbability and inspires confidence of the Court. 15. It is a well-known practice that in Test Identification Parade several persons of similar height, body built and complexion are lined up and the witness is asked to identify the suspect in the lineup of similar looking persons. 16. In Holland vs. Her Majestry's Advocate (Devolution), (2005) UKPC D1 the Privy Council has observed as under: “47.......that identification parades offer safeguards which are not available when the witness is asked to identify the accused in the dock at his trial. An identification parade is usually held much nearer the time of the offence when the witness's recollection is fresher. Moreover, placing the accused among a number of stand-ins of generally similar appearance provides a check on the accuracy of the witness's identification by reducing the risk that the witness is simply picking out someone who resembles the perpetrator. An identification parade is usually held much nearer the time of the offence when the witness's recollection is fresher. Moreover, placing the accused among a number of stand-ins of generally similar appearance provides a check on the accuracy of the witness's identification by reducing the risk that the witness is simply picking out someone who resembles the perpetrator. Similarly, the Advocate Depute did not gainsay the positive disadvantages of an identification carried out when the accused is sitting in the dock between security guards: the implication that the prosecution is asserting that he is the perpetrator is plain for all to see. When a witness is invited to identify the perpetrator in court, there must be a considerable risk that his evidence will be influenced by seeing the accused sitting in the dock in this way. So a dock identification can be criticised in two complementary respects: not only does it lack the safeguards that are offered by an identification parade, but the accused position in the dock positively increases the risk of a wrong identification.” 17. PW-4 who has identified Deepak Sarhan, Naresh Sahni, Bablu Nishad and Manik Chand Nishad in the Test Identification Parade has said that he had seen the dacoits at the police station about 15-20 days prior to his visit in jail to identify the suspect in Test Identification Parade. He has further admitted that the persons lined up in test identification were of different height and complexion. A similar suggestion was given to PW-19 who has however denied that the accused were shown to him in the police station, but he has admitted that the accused were brought to the police station. He claimed to have identified three accused in the test identification but in the Court he has flatly refused to identify any accused. Now what remains on record is identification of Deepak Sarhan, Naresh Sahni, Bablu Nishad and Manik Chand Nishad @ Sahani by PW-4 in Test Identification Parade which was apparently vitiated on account of the aforesaid infirmities noted by us. 18. It has come in the prosecution evidence that it was not possible for PW-4 to see the accused from his house. 18. It has come in the prosecution evidence that it was not possible for PW-4 to see the accused from his house. The explosion of bomb would emit lots of smoke and dust and that is another reason it would have been quite impossible for the witnesses to identify anyone of the accused who according to him was passing through the passage/lane near his house. The evidence of PW-4 who was shown the accused in the police station about 15-20 days before Test Identification Parade lost credibility. He has stated in the cross-examination that the distance between his house and road where the bomb exploded was 30-40 feet and he did not see who amongst the accused was firing and who were exploding bombs. He has also admitted in his cross-examination that from his house it is not possible to identify a person standing on the road and he did not see the person who killed Rajesh Kumar. In his evidence in the Court the informant has not given description of the unknown accused who committed dacoity in his house in the night of 13.08.2010. 19. State vs. Sait, (2008) 15 SCC 440 is a case different on facts. The witnesses admitted in the Court that they saw the photographs of the accused and read their names in the newspaper prior to the Test Identification Parade. The High Court did not believe their evidence regarding identification of the accused in the Test Identification Parade and the view taken by the High Court acquitting the accused was not interfered with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 20. In Ravi vs. State, (2007) 15 SCC 372 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “14. Objections were taken by the accused that their photographs had been taken in the police station. It has further been accepted that whereas Accused 1 was short in stature, the appellant was tall. The age of the persons who had been selected for test identification parade had not been noted by the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade. No person having similar scar mark on his hand was put on the test identification parade. 15. PW-2, who had come to identify after the first witness was sent to the same place, where PW-1 was sent immediately after the test identification parade, chance of their disclosure about the appellant to PW-3 and others cannot be ruled out. No person having similar scar mark on his hand was put on the test identification parade. 15. PW-2, who had come to identify after the first witness was sent to the same place, where PW-1 was sent immediately after the test identification parade, chance of their disclosure about the appellant to PW-3 and others cannot be ruled out. He had identified one Raju, who was not connected with the case. Similarly, Usman Ali (PW-3) had identified one Arun who was not involved in the case. He in the second and third identification had identified one Raju, apart from the said Arun, who was again not connected with the case. ............. 18. It is no doubt true that the substantive evidence of identification of an accused is the one made in the court. A judgment of conviction can be arrived at even if no test identification parade has been held. But when a first information report has been lodged against unknown persons, a test identification parade in terms of Section 9 of the Evidence Act, is held for the purpose of testing the veracity of the witness in regard to his capability of identifying persons who were unknown to him. The witnesses were not very sure as to whether they had seen the appellant before. Had the accused been known, their identity would have been disclosed in the first information report. PW-1 for the first time before the court stated that he had known the accused from long before, but did not know their names earlier, although he came to know of their names at a later point of time.” 21. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the foundation of its case inasmuch as no remnants of explosive substances were recovered from the place of occurrence, there is no evidence to connect the country made pistols with the alleged crime and neither the postmortem nor FSL report was laid in evidence during the trial. 22. The case of the prosecution is that at the pointing of Deepak Sarhan one silver chain, one golden nose pin and one mobile set bearing IMEI No. 354534010609642 with SIM No. 9631384605 were recovered at around 08:15 AM on 28.08.2010. PW-13 and PW-14 are the witnesses who have signed the seizure memo. 22. The case of the prosecution is that at the pointing of Deepak Sarhan one silver chain, one golden nose pin and one mobile set bearing IMEI No. 354534010609642 with SIM No. 9631384605 were recovered at around 08:15 AM on 28.08.2010. PW-13 and PW-14 are the witnesses who have signed the seizure memo. These witnesses have however not accepted in the Court that any seizure was made in their presence. PW-13 has gone one step ahead and said in the Court that his signature on the seizure memo was obtained at the police station under threat. PW-7 and PW-18 have also not supported the prosecution regarding recovery of the looted article from the house of the appellants. PW-4 has said that he could identify his silver key ring in the Test Identification Parade of looted articles, but no witness has stated that a silver key ring was looted by the dacoits from the house of the informant. 23. The seizure of an article may not be disbelieved merely because similar looking articles are available in the market, but then, in the circumstances of the case it is highly improbable that PW-4 and PW-19 could identify jewelleries of the female members of their family. The entire prosecution evidence appears highly doubtful and does not inspire confidence. 24. In “Narayan Prasad”, on which the learned counsel for the State has placed heavy reliance, the recovery witnesses did not support the prosecution but the accused was identified by the complainant at Test Identification Parade and huge quantity of ornaments were recovered at the instance of the accused persons duly identified by two witnesses. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the evidence discloses commission of dacoity by the accused no other view is possible. Similarly, the judgment in Lalli @ Chiranjib Bhowmick vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1986 SC 990 and Shiv Charan vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 1 are distinguishable on facts and the judgment in “Wasim Khan” is altogether on a different aspect and does not help the case of the State. 25. In the ultimate analysis what remains on record is identification of four accused Deepak Sarhan, Naresh Sahni, Bablu Nishad and Manik Chand Nishad by PW-4 in the dock but as noticed above his evidence was rendered useless on account of his admission that the accused were shown to him in the police station. 26. 25. In the ultimate analysis what remains on record is identification of four accused Deepak Sarhan, Naresh Sahni, Bablu Nishad and Manik Chand Nishad by PW-4 in the dock but as noticed above his evidence was rendered useless on account of his admission that the accused were shown to him in the police station. 26. As regards silence of the appellants, we observe that section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives a valuable right to accused to offer explanation to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him. But where the prosecution evidence is on sloppy grounds and does not connect the accused with the crime silence of the accused when he was examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be used against him. 27. In Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “25. An adverse inference can be drawn against the accused only and only if the incriminating material stands fully established and the accused is not able to furnish any explanation for the same. However, the accused has the right to remain silent, as he cannot be forced to become a witness against himself.” 28. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the appellants. 29. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 19.12.2017 and the order of sentence dated 23.12.2017 passed in Sessions Trial Nos. 64 of 2012 and 65 of 2012 and 267 of 2013 against the appellants, namely, Shiv Kumar Singh, Naresh Sahni, Deepak Sarhan, Bablu Nishad and Manik Chand Nishad @ Sahani are set-aside. 30. Mrs. Priya Shreshtha and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, the learned Spl. PP/APP state that the appellants are in custody. 31. Accordingly, the appellants, namely, Shiv Kumar Singh, Naresh Sahni, Deepak Sarhan, Bablu Nishad and Manik Chand Nishad @ Sahani shall be set free forthwith, if not wanted in connection to any other case. 32. In the result, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 253 of 2018, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 272 of 2018, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 311 of 2018 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 724 of 2018 are allowed. 33. I.A. No. 1064 of 2021, I.A. No. 3296 of 2021, I.A. No. 3295 of 2021, I.A. No. 3339 of 2021 and I.A. No. 3292 of 2021 stand disposed of. 34. Appeal (DB) No. 272 of 2018, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 311 of 2018 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 724 of 2018 are allowed. 33. I.A. No. 1064 of 2021, I.A. No. 3296 of 2021, I.A. No. 3295 of 2021, I.A. No. 3339 of 2021 and I.A. No. 3292 of 2021 stand disposed of. 34. Let lower Court records be transmitted to the Court concerned, forthwith. 35. Let a copy of the Judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned through FAX. Appeals allowed.