JUDGMENT : 1. This jail appeal arises out of a judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Mirzapur in Session Trial No.276 of 2001, dated 09.09.2002, whereby the appellant Suresh Viyar has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default thereof to undergo fifteen days additional imprisonment. The appellant has also been convicted and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 IPC with a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default thereof to undergo seven days additional imprisonment, with the stipulation that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the first informant Raghuveer Viyar (PW-1) worked in a mining site at Mirzapur and was living in a hutment near Sonpur Pahadi. Other workers resided nearby including accused appellant Suresh Viyar son of Chan Dev. It is alleged that on the eventful night i.e. on 25.02.2001, at about 10.00 PM, the accused appellant Suresh Viyar had a fight with his wife and he also beat her. Being a neighbour of Suresh Viyar, the first informant (PW-1) intervened and objected to the accused beating his wife and also scolded him. This act of PW-1 is stated to have annoyed the accused appellant, who turned inimical. The accused appellant threatened the first informant that he would finish his family. The first informant, accordingly, asked his son Arjun to sleep that night in the hutment of PW-2 Rameshwar (nephew of PW-1). In the early morning when PW-1 enquired about his son from PW-2 he informed the first informant that Suresh Viyar, Puttu Viyar and Button Viyar came to his hutment armed with knife, iron rod and stone etc. at about 12.00 in the night and took away his son, who was killed by these persons and his dead body has been hidden in a plastic sack and thrown in the Arhar field (red gram) of Shyam Narayan Pandit. 3. A first information report, on the basis of oral report of first informant PW-1, was lodged at 04.40 PM on 26.02.2001 at Police Station Ahraura, District Mirzapur. Distance of the place of occurrence from the police station was 05 kilometers. The Investigating Officer reached the spot and retrieved the dead body from plastic sack and prepared recovery memo (Ex. Ka.14) of dead body; bloodstained plastic bag; bloodstained earth and plain earth. Distance of the place of occurrence from the police station was 05 kilometers. The Investigating Officer reached the spot and retrieved the dead body from plastic sack and prepared recovery memo (Ex. Ka.14) of dead body; bloodstained plastic bag; bloodstained earth and plain earth. The samples collected were sent for forensic examination. The inquest followed. The inquest witnesses were of the view that the deceased died on account of ante-mortem injuries caused to him and his dead body was packed in a plastic bag and thrown in the agricultural field and that the death is homicidal. The dead body was accordingly sealed and sent for postmortem. Dr. Captain Ashutosh Kumar (PW-5) performed the autopsy on the cadaver. The autopsy doctor opined the cause of death to be asphyxia due to haemorrhage as a result of following antemortem injuries:- "1. A lacerated wound on back of head 1x.5, .5x.5 cm. 2. Multiple contusion injuries variation dimension for an area of 21x16 cm on right side of back upper half. 3. Contusion injury on left side of scapula 10x3 cm. 4. Contusion injury on left side chest, front Neck, face left side. Blue to blackish colour 25x8 cm. 5. An incised wound on neck right side platysma fascia cut elliptical margin clean everted, gapping 6x1”2 cm 2cm below chin. 6. A lacerated wound on chin 1x.5 cm 4 cm below lower lip." 4. Statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded of first informant, Rameshwar (PW-2) and Gulbadan (PW-3) mining licencee, for whom they worked. In the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. Gulbadan (PW-3) disclosed that the accused appellant confessed having murdered the deceased and requested him utilize his connections to save him. After concluding the investigation a charge sheet has been filed against the accused appellant Suresh Viyar under Section 302/201 IPC. 5. The concerned Magistrate took cognizance in the matter and committed the offence to the court of sessions, which got registered as Session Trial No.276 of 2001. The Presiding Officer charged the appellant of murdering the son of PW-1. The accused appellant denied the charge and consequently trial commenced. 6. The prosecution in order to establish the charge of murder against accused appellant produced oral testimonies of Raghuveer Viyar PW-1 (first informant), Rameshwar PW-2 and Gulbudon PW-3. PW-3, however, turned hostile during trial. Dr. Captain Ashutosh Kumar appeared as PW-5 and the Investigating Officer has been adduced as PW-6. The accused appellant denied the charge and consequently trial commenced. 6. The prosecution in order to establish the charge of murder against accused appellant produced oral testimonies of Raghuveer Viyar PW-1 (first informant), Rameshwar PW-2 and Gulbudon PW-3. PW-3, however, turned hostile during trial. Dr. Captain Ashutosh Kumar appeared as PW-5 and the Investigating Officer has been adduced as PW-6. The scribe of FIR, namely, Constable Ram Naresh Sharma has been adduced as PW-4, who has proved the Chik FIR. 7. PW-1 has supported the prosecution case in his deposition by stating that he was staying next to the hutment of other workers, including Suresh Viyar, and on the preceding night the accused appellant had a fight with his wife at about 10.00 PM when he physically assaulted her. The first informant objected to it and scolded the accused appellant. He has deposed that only for such reason his son has been done to death by the accused appellant. He has also disclosed in his examination-in-chief that a threat was extended by the accused appellant of killing his family and for the fear of life of his son he had asked him to sleep in the hutment of PW-2 Rameshwar. PW-1 also deposed that when he went looking for his son early in the morning he was informed by PW-2 that at about 12.00 in the night Suresh Viyar, Puttu Viyar and Button Viyar came to his hutment armed with knife, iron rod and stone etc. and took away the deceased towards Sonpur Pahadi and thereafter killed him. His dead body was also hidden in a plastic sack and thrown in the field of Shyam Narayan Pandit. PW-1 further deposed that he tried to look for his son but could not trace him and even the accused persons were not present in their hutments. PW-1 claims to have given oral intimation of the incident to the police and that his report was scribed by the concerned Sub Inspector on the basis of facts narrated by him. The written report was also read out to the informant who affixed his thumb impression upon it. Copy of the Chik FIR was also given to the first informant. He has also stated that the place where the dead body was found has been shown to the concerned Investigating Officer, who had also drawn a site plan on his instructions. The written report was also read out to the informant who affixed his thumb impression upon it. Copy of the Chik FIR was also given to the first informant. He has also stated that the place where the dead body was found has been shown to the concerned Investigating Officer, who had also drawn a site plan on his instructions. In the examination-in-chief PW-1 has clearly stated that when he went towards Sonpur Pahadi looking for his son he found the body of his son lying in a plastic sack in the field of Shyam Narayan Pandit whereafter he lodged the report at the police station. He also disclosed that the Investigating Officer reached on the spot thereafter and retrieved the body from the plastic sack whereafter inquest report was prepared. 8. PW-2 is the nephew of PW-1 and has also supported the prosecution story about the incident of 10.00 PM in which accused appellant beat his wife and was objected to by the first informant. He has stated that because of threat extended to PW-1 he sent deceased to sleep in his hutment. He also deposed that at about 12.00 in the night Suresh armed with knife, Puttu armed with iron rod and Putton armed with stone (patthar thoka) came to his hutment and took the deceased and while returning were discussing that the boy be done to death and out fear he did not object and kept lying. He has also stated that for such reason it is only the accused persons who have killed the deceased and have hidden the body in a plastic sack in the agricultural field of Shyam Narayan Pandit. He has also deposed that he has seen injury on the neck of the deceased. 9. PW-3 has also appeared as prosecution witness who was confronted with his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. that accused appellant had admitted his guilt before him but he has denied having given such statement to police and has turned hostile. 10. Documentary evidences have also been adduced by the prosecution consisting of FIR; statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. as Ex.Ka. 16; recovery memo of blood stained, plain earth and blood stained plastic sack as Ex. Ka. 14; postmortem report Ex.Ka. 3; laboratory Report as Ex. Ka. 18, inquest report as Ex. Ka.4; and charge sheet as Ex. Ka.1. 11. 10. Documentary evidences have also been adduced by the prosecution consisting of FIR; statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. as Ex.Ka. 16; recovery memo of blood stained, plain earth and blood stained plastic sack as Ex. Ka. 14; postmortem report Ex.Ka. 3; laboratory Report as Ex. Ka. 18, inquest report as Ex. Ka.4; and charge sheet as Ex. Ka.1. 11. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, thus adduced, the trial court has found the accused appellant guilty of murdering the deceased beyond reasonable doubt, and has consequently convicted him. 12. Aggrieved by the judgement of conviction and sentence the accused appellant has preferred this appeal from jail. The accused appellant has been enlarged on bail during pendency of appeal. Since none had appeared for the appellant previously, this Court had appointed Sri Ankur Singh Kushwaha as Amicus Curiae, who has argued this jail appeal on behalf of the accused appellant. 13. Learned Amicus Curiae for the accused appellant states that prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt of accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt, inasmuch as chain of events required in a case of circumstantial evidence has not been proved pointing only to the hypothesis of guilt of accused and that inconsistencies in the statement of two witnesses of fact, namely PW-1 and PW-2, have been overlooked. He further argues that the case setup by the prosecution witnesses is self-contradictory and hence are not reliable. 14. Learned Amicus has placed the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 to submit that they are consistent on the factual aspect that the accused appellant also accompanied PW-1 and PW-2 to the police station for lodging the report, where accused appellant was detained and challaned, but, on the contrary the Investigating Officer has not shown the presence of accused appellant alongwith PW-1 and PW-2 at the time of lodging of the FIR. Instead, the accused appellant is shown to have been arrested from Chunar after two days i.e. on 28.02.2001. 15. It is also argued that the FIR is anti-timed since PW-1 and PW-2 in their statement claim to have lodged report in the morning itself, whereafter the Investigating Officer came on the spot at about 03.00 PM, but the prosecution case is totally contrary to it. 15. It is also argued that the FIR is anti-timed since PW-1 and PW-2 in their statement claim to have lodged report in the morning itself, whereafter the Investigating Officer came on the spot at about 03.00 PM, but the prosecution case is totally contrary to it. It is also stated that the prosecution story is full of contradictions and the trial court has failed to advert to such omissions which renders the judgement and order of conviction bad in law. It is also argued that there are various cuttings in the inquest report which shows that the timing of the incident has been subsequently changed. 16. Sri Arunendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State, per contra, states that the prosecution has established the guilt of accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 are consistent that the deceased was taken by three accused persons from the hutment of PW-2 at 12.00 in the night and that there is strong motive for the accused appellant to commit the offence. Learned A.G.A. further argues that no credible defence has otherwise been put forth by the accused appellant in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. and thus the judgment and order of conviction suffers from no illegality. 17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records brought on record. We are required to consider in this jail appeal whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing guilt of accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt, on the basis of circumstantial evidence adduced, and the chain of event points exclusively to the hypothesis of guilt attributed to the accused appellant? 18. The charge against the accused appellant under section 302/201 IPC is sought to be established by the prosecution on the basis of circumstantial evidence. There is no eye witness who has otherwise seen the occurrence of murder. 19. Motive for the offence assumes importance in a case of circumstantial evidence. According to prosecution, it was the incident of preceding night when accused appellant beat his wife after a fight and was objected to by the first informant on account of which the accused appellant became inimical to him. PW-1 for the safety of his son accordingly asked the deceased to spend the night in the hutment of PW-2. According to prosecution, it was the incident of preceding night when accused appellant beat his wife after a fight and was objected to by the first informant on account of which the accused appellant became inimical to him. PW-1 for the safety of his son accordingly asked the deceased to spend the night in the hutment of PW-2. It is then asserted by the prosecution that the accused appellant alongwith two other accomplice came to the hutment of PW-2 at 12.00 in the night and took away the deceased from the hutment of PW-2, who did not raise an alarm as the accused persons were armed with knife, iron rod and stone etc. and informed of it to PW-1 in the morning, when PW-1 enquired about his son. 20. PW-1 in his cross-examination has stated that he knew the three accused (including the accused appellant) all of whom were working with him in the mining site of PW-3 Gulbadan. 21. In the morning of 26.02.2001 PW-1 enquired about his son, from PW-2, before sunrise and received information about disappearance of his son from PW-2 at 05.00 AM. PW-2 also informed PW-1 that he was terrified at seeing the accused persons armed with knife etc. and, therefore, did not raise an alarm when they took away the son of PW-1, and later killed him and have hidden the dead body in a sack in the agricultural field of Shyam Narayan Pandit. 22. PW-1 further claims that he and PW-2 searched the deceased and reported the incident to police 2-3 hours later. 23. The prosecution story, however, is different on this count. As per the prosecution witness PW-6 (Investigating Officer) the information about the offence was received at police station at 04.40 PM only and not before it. PW-1, however, claims to have lodged the report 2-3 hours after getting information of crime from PW-2 at 05.00 AM. The approximate time for lodging report with police as per PW-1 would thus work out to 7-8 AM. The anomaly with regard to time of lodging of report with the police is not explained, nor is dealt with by the court below. 24. The approximate time for lodging report with police as per PW-1 would thus work out to 7-8 AM. The anomaly with regard to time of lodging of report with the police is not explained, nor is dealt with by the court below. 24. The statement of PW-1, in this regard, is extracted hereinafter:- ^^?kVuk LFky ls Fkkuk 5&6 fdyksehVj dh nwjh ij gSA jeslj ds crkus ds ckn djhc 2&3 ?kUVs ds ckn eSa Fkkus ij igqWapkA ftl le; jeslj vtqZu ds ckjs esa crk;s ml le; lqcg 5 ct jgk FkkA lqjs'k fo;kj Hkh esjs lkFk Fkkus x;s FksA Fkkus tkdj jiV cksydj fy[kok;sA jiV ds ckn lqjs'k fo;kj dks njksxk th us pyku dj fn;k FkkA jiV njksxk th us fy[kk FkkA eSa nhoku th cksyk rc nhoku th jiV fy[ks FksA jiV djus ds mYVh;k Vkbe 'kke dks 4 cts ds yxHkx njksxk th igqWaps FksA** 25. PW-1 and PW-2, moreover, have stated categorically in their statement that accused appellant Suresh Viyar also accompanied them to police station for lodging the FIR, where he was challaned by the police. This statement of PW-1 and PW-2, who are the only witnesses of fact remains unexplained by the prosecution. 26. The deposition of prosecution witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 about accused appellant accompanying them to the police station, for lodging the report also contradicts the prosecution version, inasmuch as PW-1 was already informed by PW-2, by then, that the deceased was taken by accused appellant; and killed; and his dead body was hidden in the agricultural field of Shyam Narayan Pandit. There was thus no occasion for PW1 and PW-2 to take the accused appellant with them to the police station for lodging the report. There was thus no occasion for PW1 and PW-2 to take the accused appellant with them to the police station for lodging the report. Statement of PW-2, in this regard, is extracted hereinafter:- eSaus j?kqohj ls crk;k Fkk fd vkids yM+ds dks eqyfteku mBk ys x;s gSaA ;g eSaus lqcg crk;k FkkA eSaus 6 cts lqcg crk;k FkkA ft; le; eSaus crk;k ml le; vfHk;qDr lqjs'k fo;kj vius Msjs esa FkkA ogka ls ge yksx ;g ckr crkus ds fy;s Fkkus x;kA esjs Msjs ls Fkkuk ,d dksl dh nwjh ij gSA ge yksx iSny Fkkus x;sA lqjs'k fo;kj Hkh lkFk esa Fkkus x;k FkkA Fkkus tc lqjs'k fo;kj x;s rc njksxk th us idM+ fy;k Fkkus tkus esa vk/kk ?k.Vk yxk FkkA eSa vtqZu dks eqfYte }kjk ekjrs gq;s ugha ns[kk FkkA Vkax dj ys tkrs ns[kk FkkA eSa Mj ds ekjs dks lks x;k FkkA bl okd;k dks eSaus dsoy j?kqohj fo;kj ls crk;k Fkk vkSj fdlh ls ugha crk;k FkkA jkr esa ys x;s rks ekjsxs dkSuA** 27. A question also arises as to why accused appellant would accompany PW-1 and PW-2 to police station for lodging the report when he has himself taken the deceased from the hutment of PW-2, in his presence, for murdering him. It is difficult to conceive as to why would an accused go to police station for lodging report of a crime committed by him, particularly when he knows that his complicity in the crime is known to PW-1 and PW-2. This clearly puts a serious doubt on the prosecution story. 28. There is also a clear contradiction in the stand of prosecution witnesses as to when was the dead body seen first, and by whom? 29. PW-1 claims to have received information from PW-2 about accused persons murdering his son and hiding his dead body in the agricultural field of Shyam Narayan Pandit whereas in his cross-examination, PW-2, to the contrary, has stated that he had not seen the dead body in the field of Shyam Narayan Pandit and he could thus not have shown the dead body and he had also not accompanied PW-1 for searching the dead body. He has clearly stated that he saw the dead body only at 03.00 PM and then taken PW-1 to the place of dead body. 30. He has clearly stated that he saw the dead body only at 03.00 PM and then taken PW-1 to the place of dead body. 30. It remains unexplained as to how PW-2 came to know at 05.00 AM in the morning that the deceased was already killed by accused appellant and his dead body was hidden in the agricultural field of Shyam Narayan Pandit when he saw the dead body only at 03.00 PM? 31. PW-2 has otherwise stated clearly that he had not seen the killing of deceased and, therefore, a question arises as to how he could know about the murder and place where dead body was hidden early in the morning at 05.00 AM? 32. The testimony of PW-2 is otherwise shaky when he states that accused persons took away the son of PW-1 from his hutment at 12.00 in the night and due to fear he did not raise an alarm. This is so as PW-2 had his hutment near the cluster of hutments belonging to other mining workers and there is no reason why PW-2 could not raise an alarm when the deceased was being taken or soon after the accused appellant left and why he waited the entire night before informing PW-1 about the incident that occurred at 12.00 in the night. 33. According to the statement of prosecution witnesses as also the site plan the workers engaged in the mining site were living in adjoining hutments and the deposition of PW-2 that he did not inform any of the neighbours about such a serious incident also raises a doubt. 34. In a case of circumstantial evidence it is by now well settled that onus to establish that the chain of events pointing only to the hypothesis of guilt of accused rests upon the prosecution. The prosecution is also expected to prove that no other hypothesis is available and that the evidence adduced is such that it leads to only one hypothesis i.e. guilt of accused. 35. Law with regard to the principles to be followed for conviction in a case of circumstantial evidence has been summed up by the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , which has acquired the status of a locus classicus on the issue. 35. Law with regard to the principles to be followed for conviction in a case of circumstantial evidence has been summed up by the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , which has acquired the status of a locus classicus on the issue. The judgment has been followed recently by the Supreme Court in Nagendra Shah vs. State of Bihar, (2021) 10 SCC 725 for applying the five golden principles to observe as under in paragraph 17 of the judgment:- "17. As the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence, we may make a useful reference to a leading decision of this Court on the subject. In [Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 487], in para 153, this Court has laid down five golden principles (Panchsheel) which govern a case based only on circumstantial evidence. Para 153 reads thus : (SCC p. 185) "153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in [Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033] wherein the following observations were made : (SCC p. 807, para 19) ''19. ... There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in [Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033] wherein the following observations were made : (SCC p. 807, para 19) ''19. ... Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between "may be" and "must be" is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.' (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 36. It is in the above settled legal position that this Court is required to examine as to whether prosecution has discharged its burden in the facts of the present case of establishing the guilt of accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt? 37. On facts, there are only two witnesses who have supported the prosecution story i.e. PW-1 and PW-2. Both the witnesses were consistent with regard to the incident of previous night in which accused had a fight with his wife. PW1 resisted/objected to such conduct of the accused appellant which irritated/annoyed the accused appellant and he extended threat to the family member of PW-1. On account of such threat PW-1 asked his son to sleep in the hutment of PW-2. The deceased accordingly slept in the hutment of PW-2 and upto this stage the version of PW-1 and PW-2 are consistent with each other. The prosecution story thereafter is not consistent and leaves behind many loose ends. Many questions remain unanswered, as has been noticed above. 38. The deceased accordingly slept in the hutment of PW-2 and upto this stage the version of PW-1 and PW-2 are consistent with each other. The prosecution story thereafter is not consistent and leaves behind many loose ends. Many questions remain unanswered, as has been noticed above. 38. Anomaly in the prosecution version with regard to the time when police was informed of the offence; inconsistency in the statement of prosecution witnesses about the time of lodging of FIR; the source of knowledge to PW-2 about murder of deceased and throwing his body in a plastic sack in the field of Shyam Narayan Pandit early in the morning; who had seen/spotted the dead body and when; conduct of accused appellant in accompanying PW-1 and PW-2 to police station for lodging the report knowing well that his guilt is known to them; inconsistency in the stand of PW-1 and PW-2 about the time when dead body was found etc. etc. remains unanswered. Possibility of existence of an alternative hypothesis thus cannot be ruled out and it cannot be said that chain of events lead only to hypothesis of guilt on part of accused appellant. 39. Trial court while holding the prosecution to have proved the guilt of accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt has not noticed the anomalies, referred to above, in the prosecution story. Rather, the trial court has brushed aside such issues by observing that the prosecution version is not rendered unreliable on such grounds. 40. In view of the aforesaid discussions we find ourselves unable to accept the view taken by the trial court that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of circumstantial evidence placed on record by the prosecution and that the chain of events leads only to hypothesis of guilt of accused appellant. It is, otherwise, settled that mere suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot be a ground for convicting the accused in the absence of cogent evidence pointing to the guilt of accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 41. We, therefore, have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The accused appellant is thus held entitled to the benefit of doubt and consequently, this appeal succeeds. 42. Accordingly, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. 41. We, therefore, have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The accused appellant is thus held entitled to the benefit of doubt and consequently, this appeal succeeds. 42. Accordingly, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. Conviction and sentence of the appellant Suresh Viyar, vide impugned judgment and order dated 09.09.2002, passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Mirzapur in Session Trial No.276 of 2001, under Sections 302, 201 IPC arising out Case Crime No.13 of 2001, Police Station Ahraura, District Mirzapur is hereby set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charges noticed above. Since the appellant has been enlarged on bail on 25.10.2016 as such his sureties and bonds shall stand discharged. 43. Learned Amicus Curiae has ably assisted the Court in deciding the appeal and we fix a sum of Rs.15,000/- as remuneration payable to him by the High court Legal Service Authority.