JUDGMENT : 1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 14.06.2011 and the order of sentence dated 15.06.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 289 of 2007, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted all the appellants under Sections 341, 342, 448 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant No.4, namely, Chandan Nayak has further been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo RI for one month with a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code; RI for six months and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code; RI for six months and a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code; RI for one year and a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo SI for one month for each Section. The appellant No.4, namely, Chandan Kumar has been further directed to undergo RI for eight years with a fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine, he has been directed to further undergo SI for six months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case leading to this Criminal Appeal are that the informant-victim gave the written information with the police station concerned with these allegations that on 09.06.2007, her father, mother, brother and sisters all after having taken dinner gone to sleep in the house. At 12:00 O’clock of night, Chandan Nayak, Babu Chand Nayak, Mokho Nayak and Jhalit Nayak all came to her house and knocked the door of the house asking to open the same. The mother of the informant-victim opened the door. Babu Chand Nayak and Chandan Nayak both intruded in her house. Both forcibly dragged her out of the house. Her father also came out. On being resisted by the mother and father both Babu Chand Nayak and Chandan Nayak assaulted to the parents of the informant-victim. Chandan Nayak forcibly took her to his house, thereafter, all criminally intimidated her. Ultimately, Babu Chand Nayak and Mokho Nayak both went to their house. Chandan Nayak kept her to his own house. Her father also came out. On being resisted by the mother and father both Babu Chand Nayak and Chandan Nayak assaulted to the parents of the informant-victim. Chandan Nayak forcibly took her to his house, thereafter, all criminally intimidated her. Ultimately, Babu Chand Nayak and Mokho Nayak both went to their house. Chandan Nayak kept her to his own house. On 10.06.2007 in the night, he raped her in one east facing room of his house. Chandan Nayak detained her for six days in his house and he raped her many times. On 7th Day, she left the house of Chandan Nayak and went to her house to see her ailing mother. Thereafter, she along with her ailing mother went to the house of her maternal uncle at Chainpur, Nawatoli, where she looked after her ailing mother and could not inform the police and ultimately on 19.07.2007, the FIR was lodged, which was registered as Case Crime No.55 of 2007 under Sections 376, 341, 342, 448, 504 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and against all the accused persons. 3. The Investigating Officer after having concluded the investigation, filed charge-sheet against all the four accused persons under Sections 376, 341, 342, 448, 504 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate concerned took cognizance on the charge-sheet and committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge. 4. The Court of learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against all the accused persons for the offence under Sections 504, 448, 341 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and against the accused Chandan Nayak the charge was framed separately in addition for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code also. All the accused persons denied the charge and claimed to face the trial. 5. On behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused in oral evidence examined altogether ten witnesses i.e. P.W.-1, Sugiya Devi; P.W.-2, Basant Ram @ Nayak; P.W.-3, Muni Devi; P.W.-4, Ram Lagan Ram; P.W.-5, Pati Devi, P.W.-6, Anita Kumari; P.W.-7, Ram Dev Nayak; P.W.-7B, Dr. Pratibha Narayan; P.W.-8, Santu Nayak and; P.W.- 9, Anand Tirkey and in documentary evidence the prosecution has filed Exhibit-1 Signature of the victim on written information; Exhibit-2, Written information; Exhibit-3, Medical Examination Report and; Exhibit-4, Formal FIR. 6. Pratibha Narayan; P.W.-8, Santu Nayak and; P.W.- 9, Anand Tirkey and in documentary evidence the prosecution has filed Exhibit-1 Signature of the victim on written information; Exhibit-2, Written information; Exhibit-3, Medical Examination Report and; Exhibit-4, Formal FIR. 6. The statement of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, in which, they denied the incriminating circumstances in evidence against them and stated themselves to be innocent. 7. On behalf of the accused in defence in oral evidence produced D.W.- 1, Amsit Lakra and; D.W.-2, Manoj Bega and in documentary evidence on behalf of the accused filed Exhibit-A1, affidavit of victim; ExhibitA1/1, Signature of victim on the affidavit; Exhibit-A Dakhila Bahi and; Exhibit-B, Panchyat paper. 8. The learned trial Court after hearing the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the accused and learned counsel for the State, passed the impugned judgment of conviction dated 14.06.2011 and the order of sentence dated 15.06.2011 holding all the accused persons guilty for the offence 341, 342, 448 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant No.4, namely, Chandan Nayak has also been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as stated hereinabove. 9. Aggrieved from the impugned judgment of conviction dated 14.06.2011 and the order of sentence dated 15.06.2011, this Criminal Appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellants on the ground that the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned Court below is based on wrong appreciation of the evidence. The learned Court below did not take into consideration the major contradiction in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. There is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and despite no explanation on behalf of the prosecution while residing the victim at the house of appellant Chandan Nayak for six days no one of the family member or village persons went to know the whereabouts of the victim. Indeed, the victim was consenting party and the learned Court below did not take into consideration this major fact. Though the age of the victim is shown 14 years in the FIR; yet the victim was major. She was having affair with Chandan nayak. The marriage was also solemnized on affidavit and this FIR was lodged at the instance of maternal uncle of the victim. Though the age of the victim is shown 14 years in the FIR; yet the victim was major. She was having affair with Chandan nayak. The marriage was also solemnized on affidavit and this FIR was lodged at the instance of maternal uncle of the victim. The learned Court below did not take into consideration the defence evidence, which could have been appreciated on the touchstone of preponderance of the probabilities to rebut the prosecution version; and prayed to allow this Criminal Appeal & set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence and acquit the appellants/ convicts from the charges levelled against them. 10. The appellant No.4, namely, Chandan Nayak had died in the year 2016 during pendency of this Criminal Appeal, therefore, this appeal was abated against the appellant No.4, namely, Chandan Nayak vide order dated 19.09.2023. 11. Heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and learned APP for the State and perused the materials available on record. 12. In order to decide the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court, this Court diverts to the evidence oral as well as documentary adduced on behalf of the parties on record, which are reproduced hereinbelow: 12.1 P.W.-1, Sugiya Devi, in her examination-in-chief, says that the occurrence was of seven months ago. It was Saturday. The time was 12:00 O’clock of night. Chandan Nayak came and dragged the victim to his house. The victim resided there for six days and when she came back to her house, she told that Chandan Nayak had forcibly established physical relation with her. In cross-examination, this witness says that Daroga Ji did not interrogate her. The house of the victim and the house of the accused Chandan Nayak is in the same village and the distance between both the houses is 500 yards. During her stay at the house of Chandan Nayak, the victim also did household works. The victim is her sister-in-law. 12.2 P.W.-2, Basant Ram @ Nayak, who is the cousin of the informant victim, in his examination-in-chief, says that the occurrence was of six months ago. It was Saturday. Time was 12:00 O’clock of night. Babu Chand Nayak, Mokho Nayak, Chandan Nayak and Jhalit Nayak came and took the victim to their house. The victim is his cousin sister. 12.2 P.W.-2, Basant Ram @ Nayak, who is the cousin of the informant victim, in his examination-in-chief, says that the occurrence was of six months ago. It was Saturday. Time was 12:00 O’clock of night. Babu Chand Nayak, Mokho Nayak, Chandan Nayak and Jhalit Nayak came and took the victim to their house. The victim is his cousin sister. She resided at the house of Chandan Nayak for one week. When she came back to the house, told that she was raped by Chandan Nayak. In cross-examination, this witness says that there is a common yard between the house of victim and his house. During this period of one week, no complaint was made to any authority. Even no complaint was made in writing to the panchayat. The victim came from the house of Chandan Nayak at her own will. 12.3 P.W.-3, Muni Devi, who is the aunt of the informant-victim, in her examination-in-chief, says that the occurrence is of nine months ago. It was night of 12:00 O’clock of Saturday. Mokho Nayak, Jhalit Nayak, Babu Chand Nayak and Chandan Nayak all took the victim to the house and after seven days, victim came back and told that she was raped by Chandan Nayak. In cross-examination, this witness says that she is not aware whether any panchayat was held. She is also not aware whether any marriage was solemnized between Chandan Nayak and the victim by way of any notarized affidavit. After the occurrence, the victim went to the house of her maternal uncle Nawatoli, Chainpur and she resided there for one month. 12.4 P.W.-4, Ram Lagan Ram, who is the uncle of the informant-victim, in his examination-in-chief, says that the occurrence was of 10 months ago. It was night of 12:00 O’clock of Saturday. Chandan Nayak, Jhalit Nayak, Babu Chand Nayak and Chandan Nayak all came to the house of victim and took her with them. Victim resided at the house of Chandan Nayak and when she came back, she was told that she was raped by Chandan Nayak. On the day of occurrence, the age of victim was 14 years. In cross-examination, this witness says that police had interrogated him. The victim was studying at the time of occurrence in G.E.L. Primary School. 12.5 P.W.-5, Pati Devi, who is the mother of the informant-victim, in her examination-in-chief, says that the occurrence was of 10 months ago. On the day of occurrence, the age of victim was 14 years. In cross-examination, this witness says that police had interrogated him. The victim was studying at the time of occurrence in G.E.L. Primary School. 12.5 P.W.-5, Pati Devi, who is the mother of the informant-victim, in her examination-in-chief, says that the occurrence was of 10 months ago. It was 12:00 O’clock of night of Saturday. Chandan Nayak, Mokho Nayak, Jhalit Nayak and Babu Chand Nayak all asked to open the door and she opened the door and all the accused persons dragged her daughter from her house. She and her husband resisted, but they criminally intimidated. Her daughter also resided at the house of Chandan Nayak for seven days and when she came back to the house, she told that she was raped by Chandan Nayak. In cross-examination, this witness says that at the time of occurrence all the family members were present at the house. During this period of week when the victim resided at the house of Chandan Nayak, neither any panchayat was called out nor the police were informed. After the victim came back to the house, she came to know in regard to the occurrence. On the next day, she went to her parental house along with victim. It is wrong to say that her brother Raghunath Nayak did not like the relation between Chandan and the victim and this FIR was lodged at the behest of Raghunath Nayak. 12.6 P.W.-6, the victim herself, in her examination-in-chief, says that the occurrence was of 10 months ago. It was Saturday and time was 12:00 O’clock of night. The accused Chandan Nayak, Mokho Nayak, Babu Chand Nayak and Jhalit Nayak knocked the door of her house and the same was opened by her mother. All the accused persons intruded in the house and they took her with them. Chandan Nayak took her at his house. She resided there for seven days. Chandan Nayak raped her. The written information was written by whom, she is not aware; but the same bears her signature, which is marked as Exhibit-1. In cross-examination, the victim says that she and the accused persons belong to the same village. Amid the way, she raised the alarm but no one paid any heed. She resided at the house of Chandan Nayak for seven days. Her parents did not come there due to fear. In cross-examination, the victim says that she and the accused persons belong to the same village. Amid the way, she raised the alarm but no one paid any heed. She resided at the house of Chandan Nayak for seven days. Her parents did not come there due to fear. Chandan Nayak raped her. She was raped for six days. No person of their village came there. She went to her house at her own will in the very cloths, which she had worn on the very date of occurrence. The cloths were not handed over by her to the police. The accused persons were armed with tangi and had criminally intimidated. When she left from the house of Chandan Nayak, all the family members of the house were present there. It is wrong to say that she was having love affair with Chandan Nayak and wanted to marry with him and the same was opposed by her maternal uncle. 12.7 P.W.-7, Ram Dev Nayak, who is the maternal uncle of the informant victim, in his examination-in-chief, says that on the date of occurrence he came to know that on 9th July in night, Chandan had dragged the victim from the house of her parents and victim lived at the house of Chandan for seven days, where she was raped by Chandan Nayak. In cross-examination, this witness says that he came to know in regard to the occurrence from the victim and her family members. 12.8 P.W.-7B, Dr. Pratibha Narayan, in her examination-in-chief, says that on 19th July 2007, she was posted as Civil Assistant Surgeon at Sadar Hospital, Gumla. She examined the victim girl at 04:00 pm and in internal examination, she found the hymen to be raptured with tag present. The girl was having menses. The vaginal swab on the microscopic examination showed no spermatozoa and RBC present thereof. The girl was about 16-17 years old. The medical examination report of the victim is in her writing and signature, which is marked as Exhibit-3. In cross-examination, this witness says that the very rapture that she was in the hymen cannot be caused on account of hard labour. The girl was about 16-17 years old. The medical examination report of the victim is in her writing and signature, which is marked as Exhibit-3. In cross-examination, this witness says that the very rapture that she was in the hymen cannot be caused on account of hard labour. 12.9 P.W.-8, Santu Nayak, who is the father of the informant-victim, in his examination-in-chief, says that all the accused persons Chandan Nayak, Mokho Nayak, Jhalit Nayak and Babu Chand Nayak came to the house of the victim and took the victim with them. The victim resided for seven days at the house of Chandan Nayak, where she was raped. At that time, she was 14 years old. In cross-examination, this witness says that neither he went to the house of Chandan Nayak to bring back his daughter nor told to any person of the village in this regard. His daughter resided there for seven days. It is wrong to say that the marriage of the victim was solemnized with Chandan Nayak by way of affidavit and in that marriage, the persons of the village and he was present. 12.10 P.W.-9, Anand Tirky, who is the Investigating Officer of this case, in his examination-in-chief, says that investigation of Case Crime No.55 of 2007 registered under Sections 376, 341, 342 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons was handed over to him. First of all, he recorded the statement of informant-victim. Thereafter, also recorded the statement of Santu Nayak, Pati Devi, Ram Dev Nayak, Basant Ray, Sugiya Devi, Ram Lagan Ram, Muni Devi and Jag Mohan Ram as well and he got the medical examination of the victim. The formal FIR is in the signature of Dinesh Yadav, which is marked as Exhibit-4. He inspected the place of occurrence. After having received the medical examination report concluded the investigation and filed charge-sheet. In cross-examination, this witness says that the occurrence was of 09.06.2007 and the written information was given on 19.07.2007. In the meantime, no reason for information was received with the police station concerned. He did not record the statement of the persons of that locality nearby the house of the victim. 13. As per the prosecution case, the occurrence is of 19.06.2007 at 12:00 O’clock of night. In the meantime, no reason for information was received with the police station concerned. He did not record the statement of the persons of that locality nearby the house of the victim. 13. As per the prosecution case, the occurrence is of 19.06.2007 at 12:00 O’clock of night. All the four named accused had come to the house of informant-victim, knocked the door of her house the door was opened by her mother and the accused persons intruded in the house and dragged the victim with them and handed over to Chandan Nayak, who took the victim to his own house. She remained stayed at the house of Chandan Nayak for seven days and during this period, Chandan Nayak raped her every day. After one week, she herself came to her house, thereafter, she went to the house of her maternal uncle, where she lived for one month and after having come from the maternal uncle’s house, she lodged this FIR. 14. As per the FIR allegations, the age of victim is shown as 14 years. So far as the occurrence of 19.06.2007 at 12:00 O’clock of night is concerned, P.W.-5, Pati Devi in her statement stated that on the fateful night Jhalit Nayak, Chandan Nayak, Mokho Nayak and Babu Chand Nayak all came her house and knocked the door at 12:00 O’clock of night, she opened the door and all the accused persons intruded in the house and dragged her daughter i.e. the victim. She resisted them but the accused persons criminally intimidated them and also stated that her daughter remained at the house of Chandan Nayak for seven days. When she came back to her house, she said that Chandan had raped her. In cross-examination, this witness says that in regard to the occurrence of 19.06.2007, neither she made any complaint to any police station concerned nor any person of the village nor the panchayat was called for. She did not go to the house of Chandan to know the welfare of her daughter. After one week having resided at the house of Chandan Nayak, her daughter came back to her house and, thereafter, she went to her maternal uncle’s house where her daughter remained for one month and after coming from the maternal uncle’s house, the FIR was lodged. 15. After one week having resided at the house of Chandan Nayak, her daughter came back to her house and, thereafter, she went to her maternal uncle’s house where her daughter remained for one month and after coming from the maternal uncle’s house, the FIR was lodged. 15. P.W.-8, Santu Nayak, who is the father of victim, stated that on the fateful night of 19.06.2007 at 12:00 O’clock of night, the accused Chandan Nayak, Babu Cband Nayak, Jhalit Nayak and Mokho Nayak came to their house and knocked the door, after the door was opened by his wife, all the accused persons intruded in the house and took with them his daughter without their consent. On being opposed by them, all the accused persons criminally intimidated them and his daughter remained at the house of Chandan Nayak for one week and after having come back to her house, she told that she had been raped by Chandan Nayak. In his cross-examination, this witness also stated that in regard to that occurrence he did not give any information to the police officer or any panchayat member. When his daughter came back after seven days, she went to the house of her maternal uncle’s house and after having come from there, this FIR was lodged. 16. P.W.-6, the victim herself has stated that on 19.06.2007 at 12:00 O’clock of night, Chandan Nayak, Jhalit Nayak, Mokho Nayak and Babu Chand Nayak all came to her house, the door was opened by her mother and they forcibly took her to the house of Chandan Nayak, where she was resided for seven days. During that seven days, Chandan Nayak raped her many times. During seven days, no one of her family member came to rescue her. She came from the house of Chandan Nayak at her own will. 17. From the testimony of all these three witnesses including the victim, it is found that on 19.06.2007 at 12:00 O’clock of night, the victim was dragged by all four named accused persons from the house of the victim and, thereafter, she was handed over to Chandan Nayak, where she remained for one week. 17. From the testimony of all these three witnesses including the victim, it is found that on 19.06.2007 at 12:00 O’clock of night, the victim was dragged by all four named accused persons from the house of the victim and, thereafter, she was handed over to Chandan Nayak, where she remained for one week. There is no in evidence that during these seven days the victim was confined by the accused Chandan Nayak in any room rather she did household work as well and she also stated that during these seven days the accused Chandan Nayak had established physical relations with her. 18. In corroboration of testimony of these eyewitnesses on behalf of the prosecution also examined P.W.1, Sugiya Devi; P.W.-2, Basant Ram @ Basant Nayak; P.W.-3, Muni Devi; P.W.-4, Ram Lagan Ram and; P.W.- 7, Ramdev Nayak all these witnesses stated that they came to know from father and mother of the victim and the victim herself that that the victim was forcibly dragged from her house on fateful night of 19.06.2009 and the victim was taken to the house of Chandan Nayak and the victim resided at the house of Chandan Nayak for seven days. After seven days, she came back to her house where she told to her family members and all these witnesses that she was raped by Chandan Nayak. 19. Although in the FIR, age of the victim is shown 14 years, yet no documentary evidence has been adduced in regard to the age of victim. The victim was medically examined by P.W.-7, Dr. Pratibha Narayan, who gave his opinion that the victim was about 16-17 years old. This opinion of doctor is based on ossification test. Therefore, two years plus/minus benefit to the age would go to the accused taking into consideration the average age of the victim which is about 16 years. 19.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Suresh Singh Vs. Prabhat Singh @ Chhotu Singh & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 681 and Jyoti Prakash Rai Vs. Therefore, two years plus/minus benefit to the age would go to the accused taking into consideration the average age of the victim which is about 16 years. 19.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Suresh Singh Vs. Prabhat Singh @ Chhotu Singh & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 681 and Jyoti Prakash Rai Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2008) 15 SCC 223 held that the bone ossification test is not conclusive in nature for the age determination as it does not reveal exact age of the person; but leaves margin is of two years on either side of age range which after a lot of deliberation the Hon’ble Apex Court held that all things being equal, benefit of doubt in age estimation by bone ossification test is to go to accused. 20. Herein the conduct of the victim and her parents also become relevant at the time of commission of offence and after commission of offence. 20.1 Neither the father nor the mother nor any family member nor any relative of the victim nor even victim herself did inform to the police officer or any member of the panchayat in regard to the commission of alleged offence against all the accused persons. 20.2 The victim resided for seven days at the house of Chandan Nayak willingly, where she also did household works. Admittedly she was not confined any room and lived there at her liberty. She came to her house on her own will from the house of Chandan Nayak. 20.3 During seven days no family member of the victim went to the house of Chandan Nayak and no one made any complaint to the police authority or any member of panchayat. 20.4 After seven days, when the victim came her house she did not lodge the FIR rather she went with her mother to her maternal uncle’s house, where she resided for one month. This thorough conduct of the victim, her father and her mother appear to be consenting party. 20.5 After one month having come from the house of maternal uncle, she lodged the FIR with the police station concerned on 19.07.2007 i.e. just more than one month ten days. There is no cogent explanation of this delay. This thorough conduct of the victim, her father and her mother appear to be consenting party. 20.5 After one month having come from the house of maternal uncle, she lodged the FIR with the police station concerned on 19.07.2007 i.e. just more than one month ten days. There is no cogent explanation of this delay. 20.6 In view of the conduct of the victim and her family members, the whole prosecution story appears concocted & afterthought and the same makes the prosecution case doubtful. 21. The prosecution story is also rebutted from the defence evidence. On behalf of the accused persons in defence evidence adduced affidavit of victim verified by the Notary Public in which it is deposed that she had accepted Chandan Nayak as her husband. She had been having physical relation with him for last six months. This affidavit is dated 04.06.2007, on this affidavit, the victim had admitted her signature though denied its content. 22. There is minutes of the meeting of the panchayat, which is signed by one Chairman of Gramsabha, on which, there are signature of ten members of Gramsabha. In this, it is stated that no one appeared in this panchayat from the side of the victim. This panchayat was held at the request of the accused persons. It is stated that on the queries made by the Chairman of gramsabha and other members of gramsabha, victim had told that she had gone to the house of Chandan Nayak at her own will and no force was applied upon her by anyone. This panchayatnama is also proved by D.W.-2, Manoj Benga who stated that this panchayatnama was in his handwriting and signed by him and the victim stated that she wanted to reside with Chandan Nayak. 23. On behalf of the defence also filed the Dakhilabahi, U.P. Pathshala, Jarjata, which is marked as Exhibit-A. From the perusal of this document, it is found that the date of birth of victim is shown as 04.05.1987, this document has also been proved on behalf of the defence by producing witness as D.W.-1, Amit Lakra, who is the Head Master of GEL Primary School, Jarjata, Gumla. This witness has proved the entries made in the register and also exhibited as Exhibit-A and stated that the date of birth of victim is shown as 04.05.1987. This witness has proved the entries made in the register and also exhibited as Exhibit-A and stated that the date of birth of victim is shown as 04.05.1987. Taking into consideration this School Register Entry in regard to the age of victim 04.05.1987, on the date of occurrence, the age of victim is determined to be 20 years. 24. From the cumulative analysis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and also the evidence adduced on behalf of the defence, I am of considered view that the prosecution evidence is found rebutted by defence evidence. The prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused persons beyond all shadow of doubt. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned Court below needs interference and this Criminal Appeal deserves to be allowed. 25. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction dated 14.06.2011 and the order of sentence dated 15.06.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 289 of 2007 are set aside. 26. This Criminal Appeal has been abated against the appellant No.4, namely, Chandan Nayak due to his death in the year 2016 during pendency of this appeal. 27. The appellant No.1, namely, Mokho Nayak; the appellant No.2, Babu Chand Nayak and; the appellant No.3, namely, Jhalit Nayak all these three are being acquitted from the charges levelled against them. Their bail bonds are hereby cancelled and the sureties are discharged from their liabilities. 28. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the learned Court below along with a copy of this judgment.