High Court
Legal Reasoning
Cri Appeal No.1214.2019.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1214 OF 2019Shankar Vitthal Khare,Age : 25 years, Occ. Labour,r/o. Yellam Galli, Renapur,Dist. Latur..AppellantVs.The State of Maharashtra..Respondent----Mr.A.K.Bhosale, Advocate for appellantMr.S.V.Hange, APP for respondent---- CORAM: R.G.AVACHAT AND NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ. RESERVED ON :JUNE 06, 2024 PRONOUNCED ON:JUNE 19, 2024JUDGMENT (PER R.G.AVACHAT, J.) :- The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment ofconviction and order of consequential sentence dated 30.10.2018,passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, Dist. Beed, inSessions Case No.32 of 2015. Vide the impugned order, the appellantwas convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 392of Indian Penal Code and therefore, sentenced to suffer lifeimprisonment and R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-and Rs.5,000/-, respectively, with default stipulation. 2Cri Appeal No.1214.20192.PW 3 – Manik (informant) was resident of villageDadahariwadgaon, Tq. Parali, Dist. Beed. He holds two agriculturallands at two different places in the very village. One land was knownas “Ruka”. It was adjoining to the land of one Kamalbai Pawar.Meenabai (deceased) was his wife. On every early morning, shewould go to Rehabilitation Colony to sell vegetables and milk. On07.01.2015, as usual, she went to Rehabilitation colony. By little past09.30 a.m., he went towards the field Ruka. The work of sugarcanecutting was underway in the field of Kamalbai. A few of the workersof sugarcane harvesting, came running to inform that a lady in aninjured condition was lying in the sugarcane field. He (PW 3 - Manik)went there to find that it was his wife Meenabai. He, immediately,approached his brother-in-law Dnyanoba Gutte and asked him tocome in auto-rickshaw. He came. Meenabai was rushed to Dr.Gutte'shospital at Parali-Vaijnath. Dr.Gutte, in turn, directed them to shifther to Government Hospital, Parali. The Medical Officer at theGovernment Hospital told PW 3-Manik that Meenabai was passedaway. Inquest panchnama (Exh.32/C) was conduced at the hospitalat Parali. The mortal remains of Meenabai were subjected to postmortem examination (P.M. report Exh.54/C). PW 3 – Manik receivedthe dead body. He first conducted funeral and then, approachedRural Police Station, Parali, and lodged First Information Report 3Cri Appeal No.1214.2019(Exh.34/C). Since the post mortem report (Exh.54/C) indicates thatdeceased died of strangulation with asphyxia with head injury, crimevide C.R. No.6 of 2015 came to be registered for the offencepunishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. PW 3 – Manik,seven days after registration of the crime, gave supplementarystatement that deceased Meenabai was sporting gold and silverornaments. The ornaments on her person were found to have beenmissing. Section 392 of Indian Penal Code, therefore, came to beinvoked. During investigation, it was revealed that the appellant wasseen coming from the very sugarcane field in the morning of thefateful day. The timing of his coming from the sugarcane field wasclose to the timing, by which Meenabai (deceased) met with someincident, wherein she was killed.3.The appellant was serving with a Dhaba owned by PW 6 –Prakash. On the very day, the appellant took leave. His involvement,therefore, was very much suspected. When the employer (PW 6 -Prakash) was asked to call the appellant back to hotel, the appellantreturned. He was arrested. He made a disclosure statement(Exh.39/C), pursuant to which some gold and silver ornaments cameto be seized from the place belonging to his real brother. PW 3 -Manik identified those articles to have belonged the deceased. The 4Cri Appeal No.1214.2019clothes on the person of the appellant were also seized. Thestatements of the persons acquainted with the facts andcircumstances of the case were recorded. Upon completion of theinvestigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant in thecourt of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parali. Learned Magistratecommitted the case to the Court of Session. The case, in turn, wasassigned to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Ambajogai (trialcourt), for trial in accordance with law.4.The trial court framed Charge (Exh.7/C). The appellantpleaded not guilty. His defence was of false implication. Theprosecution, in order to bring home the Charge, examined tenwitnesses and produced in evidence certain documents. The trialcourt, on appreciation of the same, convicted and consequentially,sentenced the appellant, as stated above.5.Heard learned counsel for the parties.6.Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that thecase is based on the circumstantial evidence. The FIR is silent tostate that there were ornaments on the person of deceasedMeenabai. PW 3 – Manik received the dead body along with theornaments on the person of the deceased. The appellant, 5Cri Appeal No.1214.2019admittedly, used to visit the place nearby the crime scene, to answerthe nature's call, in the early morning and for fetching grass forcattle of his employer. It was, therefore, nothing unusual that theappellant was seen coming from that place. According to learnedcounsel, the seized ornaments were not subjected to testidentification. PW 3 – Manik identified them before the court for thefirst time. In short, according to learned counsel, none of thecircumstances relied on by the prosecution, have been conclusivelyestablished to reach to the conclusion that it was the appellant andnone other, has committed murder of Meenabai for gold ornaments.He, therefore, urged for allowing the appeal.7.Learned APP would, on the other hand, submit that theconduct of the appellant itself indicates his involvement in the crime.He was seen coming out of the sugarcane field at the material time.He bowed the head down. The appellant talked with PW 5 –Mahadev @ Bandu, with whom he first met after coming out of thatfield and took that person aside. Same indicates that the appellanttried to deflect the attention of the said person. The evidence of theemployer of the appellant (PW 6 - Prakash) was then adverted to.Learned APP would submit that PW 6 - Prakash had not asked theappellant to fetch grass for his hares. The appellant lied before PW 5 6Cri Appeal No.1214.2019– Mahadev @ Bandu in stating to have been to the place nearby thecrime scene to collect grass at the instance of his employer. LearnedAPP then adverted our attention to the fact that on arrest of theappellant, he made disclosure statement and led to the house of hisreal brother. Gold and silver ornaments were hidden underground inthe house of the appellant's real brother. He pointed out the saidplace. The ornaments were taken out. PW 3 - Manik (husband of thedeceased) identified those articles. Learned APP further submittedthat the appellant had left the village very day under the pretext ofpaying money of Bhishi to one of his relatives. According to learnedAPP, the evidence on record establishes each and everycircumstance relied on by the prosecution. The same completes thechain of circumstances to reach to the conclusion that it was theappellant and none else, who committed the crime in question withthe motive of robbery. He, therefore, urged for dismissal of theappeal. 8.Considered the submissions advanced. Perused theevidence on record. Also perused the impugned judgment. Let usadvert to the evidence on record and appreciate the same.9.Admittedly, Meenabai met with homicidal death. PW 2 –Dattatraya is witness to the inquest panchnama (Exh.32). Same 7Cri Appeal No.1214.2019indicates the deceased to have suffered head injury. PW 9 – Dr Sk.Arshad conducted post mortem examination. In his opinion,Meenabai died due to “strangulation with asphyxia with head injury”.Moreover, the crime scene panchnama (Exh.27/C) indicates that abunch of vegetables, three milk-cans, a log of neem-tree, Chappaland blood stains were noticed in the sugarcane field belonging toKamalbai. All this evidence indicates Meenabai met with homicidaldeath.10.The question is whether, it is the appellant and none elseto have committed murder of Meenabai. The case is based oncircumstantial evidence. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand SardaVs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, the Apex Court hasobserved thus :-“153. A close analysis of this decision would showthat the following conditions must be fulfilled beforea case against an accused can be said to be fullyestablished: (1) The circumstances from which the conclusionof guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.(2) The facts so established should be consistentonly with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused,that is to say, they should not be explainable on anyother hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,(3) The circumstances should be of a conclusivenature and tendency, 8Cri Appeal No.1214.2019(4) They should exclude every possible hypothesisexcept the one to be proved, and11.The prosecution relies on the following circumstances tobring home the Charge:-(i)The motive was to rob the deceased of the ornaments onher person;(ii)The appellant was seen coming from the sugarcane field of Kamalbai at the material time, by which time the deceased met with homicidal death;(iii)The appellant lied to have been there to collect grass for his employer (PW 6 – Prakash);(iv)The appellant left the village with the leave of his employer, PW 6 – Prakash. He returned back to the village only after his employer asked to come;(v)On his arrest, he made disclosure statement pursuant to which gold and silver ornaments came to be recovered from the place belonging to his real brother. The ornaments were concealed underground.(vi)The seizure of clothes on the person of appellant at the relevant time. 9Cri Appeal No.1214.201912.PW 3 - Manik, husband of deceased Meenabai, lodgedthe FIR (Exh.34). It is in his evidence that he owned land (Ruka) atvillage Dadahariwadgaon. Said land adjoins the land of KamalbaiPawar. It is further in his evidence that Meenabai would leave thehouse early in the morning everyday, for sale of vegetables and milkat Rehabilitation colony in the nearby. On the given day, i.e.,07.01.2015, Meenabai had left the house for the same. Little past09.30 a.m., he went to his field (Ruka). The work of sugarcanecutting was underway in the field of Kamalbai. Two-three workersengaged in the work of sugarcane cutting, came shouting from thefield. They informed him that a lady was lying in the injuredcondition in the sugarcane field. He (PW 3-Manik) went there to findthat it was his wife Meenabai. He, immediately, approached hisbrother-in-law Dnyanoba Gutte and asked him to come in auto-rickshaw. He came. Meenabai was rushed to Dr.Gutte's hospital atParali-Vaijnath. Dr. Gutte, in turn, directed them to shift her toGovernment Hospital, Parali. The Medical Officer at the GovernmentHospital told PW 3 that Meenabai was passed away. Inquestpanchnama (Exh.32/C) was conduced at the hospital at Parali. Themortal remains of Meenabai were subjected to post mortemexamination (P.M. Report Exh.54/C). PW 3 – Manik received the deadbody. He first conducted funeral and then, approached the Rural 10Cri Appeal No.1214.2019Police Station, Parali and lodged First Information Report (Exh.34/C).13.It is true that PW 3 – Manik pointed out the crime-scene.He identified the silver and gold ornaments shown to him before thecourt. According to him, those articles were on the person of thedeceased Meenabai when the incident took place. He, therefore,gave supplementary statement in this regard. PW 3 – Manik wassubjected to the searching cross-examination. It has been broughton record through his cross-examination that there was only onefoot-way in the village, which passes through the field of KamalbaiPawar, to go outside of the village. He admitted that there wascompound-wall to the village. Said foot-way meets Parali-Gangakhedroad. According to him, the sugarcane cutting work started little past08.30 a.m. on the given day. He, admittedly, visited the field whensugarcane cutting was underway. He was confronted with his FIR(Exh.34). Admittedly, the FIR did not contain the matter that thedeceased was sporting gold ornaments like Mangalsutra, ear-studs,Jodve, silver bangles and Patlya. This is the material omission inthe FIR, which amounts to contradiction so as to disbelieve theevidence of PW 3 – Manik to certain extent. It is only on 14.01.2015,i.e. seven days after the incident, he gave the supplementarystatement to the police, stating therein the description of the gold 11Cri Appeal No.1214.2019and silver ornaments on the person of the deceased. According tolearned APP, the value of the ornaments was not very much. Most ofthem were silver articles. Those could have been kept by theappellant in his pocket and therefore, was not seen carrying in a bag.He may be correct in his submissions but the evidence is other wayround.14.PW 5 – Mahadev @ Bandu's evidence is to the effect thaton the given day, he was at his Akhada. He performed daily morningwork including, feeding of his cattle and milking. He then proceededto meet his employer. He was passing from the field of Kamalbai. Itwas post 07.30 a.m., he saw the appellant coming out of sugarcanefield with his head bowed. PW 5 – Mahadev @ Bandu questioned theappellant as to how he was there. The appellant, in turn, replied himto have come to take grass for hares of his employer Prakash (PW 6).Then, both parted ways. PW 5 – Mahadev went to the place of hisemployer. The appellant went to the Dhaba, since he was working asa Waiter with the Dhaba (roadside hotel/eatery) belonging to PW 6 –Prakash. PW 5 – Mahadev @ Bandu was confronted with his previousstatement. He admitted to have had not disclosed that he saw theaccused came out of the sugarcane field by bowing down head(omission is to the extent of word “bowed”). 12Cri Appeal No.1214.201915.Then, we have evidence of PW 6 – Prakash, employer ofthe appellant. It is in his evidence that he runs a hotel (HotelRaigarh) at Parali – Gangakhed road. The appellant was serving as aWaiter in his hotel. He went to the hotel on the given day, i.e.07.01.2015. He woke the appellant up and asked him to milk thebuffalo. Then, he returned back his home with milk. He againreturned to the hotel at 08.30 a.m. The appellant was present in thehotel. The appellant told him to have learnt from some other peoplethat in the sugarcane field, a lady was killed. PW 6 - Prakash,therefore, went to the field (crime-scene). It was 09.45 am. Hewent to the hotel, since he learnt the lady to have been shifted tothe hospital. He then went to the hospital and remained there untilpost mortem was conducted. He also attended the funeral. He wentback to his house and again, returned to the hotel. It was about06.00 p.m. It is further in his evidence that the appellant told himthat he wanted to visit his village in order to pay money of Bhishi tohis maternal aunt. The appellant also assured to return to the hotelwithin 4-5 days. PW 6 - Prakash, therefore, dropped the appellant atParali Railway bridge. It is further in his evidence that the policecame to the hotel after two days and inquired about the appellant.He called the appellant back to the hotel at the instance of thepolice. The appellant, accordingly, came back after two to four days.
Legal Reasoning
13Cri Appeal No.1214.2019PW 6 – Prakash, during his cross-examination, was confronted withhis police statement dated 21.01.2015, wherein, it has beenrecorded that the appellant told that he wanted to go to his village topay money of Bhishi to his maternal aunt. It is he (PW 6-Prakash),who handed over the appellant to the custody of the police. 16.There is evidence of PW 7 – Arun. It is in his evidencethat he was proceeding towards his field at 07.30 a.m. on07.01.2015. He saw one boy was talking with Mahadev @ Bandu(PW 5). He identified the appellant before the court as that boy.17.PW 4 – Anil is witness to the disclosure statement(Exh.39) made by the appellant on 18.01.2015, pursuant to which hetook the police and panch witness to a particular place in thecompound of a house at a distance of 35 kms. away from villageDadahariwadgaon. The appellant gave call as “Jyoti”. A lady openedthe door. Just outside the said house but within the compound, therewas hearth (Chulha). The appellant pointed out a place nearby theChulha. The place was dug up. A plastic bag containing gold andsilver ornaments, i.e. gold beads, black beads, gold pendant, twogold ear-tops, two silver bangles, two silver Patlya, two silver leg-chains were found. Those were seized under panchnama (Exh.40). 14Cri Appeal No.1214.201918.On the same lines, is the evidence of PW 10 –Vishwambar (Investigating Officer). We, therefore, do not propose torefer to his evidence in extenso.19.PW 9 – Dr.Sk. Arshad is witness to the panchnama ofrecovery of clothes of the appellant, pursuant to his disclosurestatement (Exh.47 and 48). Since the clothes seized did not bearany blood stains or there was nothing to indicate that the veryclothes were on his person when the incident took place, saiddisclosure statement would not be relevant under Section 27 of theEvidence Act.20.Let us appreciate the aforesaid evidence. Admittedly,the dead body of Meenabai was found in the field of Kamalbai Pawar.Sugarcane crop was standing in the said field. The work ofsugarcane cutting was underway. There is no exact evidence toindicate, whether the work of sugarcane cutting had started earlymorning. The evidence of PW 3-Manik, however, indicates that samehad started by 08.30 a.m. Kamalbai’s field adjoins the land of theinformant (PW 3 Manik). Admittedly, the village Dadahariwadgaonhas its boundary wall. It is also an admitted fact that to go out of thevillage Dadahariwadgaon, there is a footway (pathway) that goesthrough the land of Kamalbai. That was the only way to go out of the 15Cri Appeal No.1214.2019village. That footway ends at Parali-Gangakhed road. As such, it isbut natural for all the villagers and inhabitants of that locality to goby that footway. There is also evidence to indicate that the appellantwould visit Kamalbai’s field almost everyday morning to answer thenature's call and/or to collect grass for cattle of his employer. True,there is evidence of PW 5 – Mahadeo @ Bandu to have seen theappellant coming out of the field of Kamalbai. The appellant told himto have had been there to collect grass for hares of his master(employer). There is no evidence to indicate whether there wasgrass in his hand or not. The evidence of his employer, PW 6 –Prakash, is silent to state to have had asked the appellant to go tothe field of Kamalbai and collect grass. PW 7 – Arun’s evidenceindicate that he saw that the appellant was talking with PW 5 –Mahadeo @ Bandu. Admittedly, PW 7 – Arun was not knowing theappellant. His evidence indicates that he saw one boy in thecompany of PW 5 – Mahadeo @ Bandu. The Investigating Officer didnot hold test identification parade to establish identity of the boy,who was seen by PW 7 – Arun, in the company of PW 5 - Mahadeo @Bandu, at the relevant time. It is for the first time, PW 7 – Arunidentified the appellant before the court to be the said boy who wasseen with PW 5 – Mahadeo @ Bandu at the relevant time. 16Cri Appeal No.1214.201921.One must take judicial notice of the fact that in the casein hand, the appellant was the only accused. In the trial court, thereis separate dock meant for the accused to seat. It is, therefore, easyfor a witness to identify the accused before the court. PW 7 – Arun’sidentification of the appellant for the first time before the courtwould, therefore, be of little consequence. Even if we accept theevidence of PW 7 – Arun as it is, what he had seen was that theappellant was in the company of PW 5 – Mahadeo @ Bandu. PW 5’sevidence indicates that he had seen the appellant coming out of thefield of Kamalbai and on meeting him, the appellant told him to havecome to collect grass for the hares of his employer. The evidence ofPW 6 – Prakash (employer) is silent to state that he had asked theappellant to collect grass. His evidence indicates that he had askedthe appellant to milk the buffalo. His evidence is, however, silent orit can be said that the prosecution has not brought on record throughhis evidence that he had not asked the appellant to fetch grass forhis hares. If we rely on the evidence of PW 5 – Mahadeo @ Bandu asit is, what has been proved that the appellant had come out of thesugarcane field of Kamalbai in the morning (little past 07.30 a.m.)and he told PW 5 – Mahadeo @ Bandu to have come to collect grass.True, a little later, the dead body of Meenabai was found in the verysugarcane field wherefrom the appellant was seen coming out. 17Cri Appeal No.1214.2019There is, however, evidence to indicate that the work of sugarcanecutting was underway. It started by 08.30 in the morning. It wasaccording to PW 3 – Manik (informant). There is nothing concreteinvestigation as to when the work of sugarcane cutting hadcommenced. There is further evidence to indicate that for the workof sugarcane cutting not less than 15-20 workers were residing at thefield of Kamalbai, since before the fateful day.22.True, the evidence of PW 6 - Prakash, employer of theappellant, proves that the appellant took leave from his job to visithis relative’s house but the appellant was there all the day on07.01.2015. It was only by 06.30 p.m., the appellant left the hotel togo to the village of his maternal aunt for paying money of Bhishi toher. On his returning back to the hotel, his clothes came to beseized from a particular place in the hotel. Same indicates that hehad not left the village taking along all his belongings namely,clothes. The appellant remained in the village all the day, whichindicates that his conduct was not inconsistent with his innocence.23.The material evidence, which the prosecution has heavilyrelied on to connect the appellant with the crime, is his disclosurestatement and recovery of gold and silver ornaments, pursuantthereto under panchnama (Exh.39/C). The evidence in that regard of 18Cri Appeal No.1214.2019PW 4 – Anil and the Investigating Officer has been referred to above.There is no evidence to indicate that the place wherefrom thosearticles were seized, belonged to the appellant’s brother. Neither hisbrother nor the lady by name, Jyoti, has been examined by theprosecution. We have every reason to find that the allegeddisclosure statement made by the appellant might be a fabricatedevidence.24.PW 3 – Manik, informant, was confronted with the receiptdated 07.01.2015, whereunder, he received the dead body of hiswife, which reads as under:-“कारणे पावती लि(cid:12)हून देतो किक, एम.ए(cid:12).सी. पत्रक आ. मृत्यू नंबर................. मयत नामे मीनाबाई माणिणक मुंढे, वय ५० वर्ष$, रा.(बा)वडगाव, ता. परळी, यांचे प्रेतावर पोस्टमाट,म (P.M.) झा(cid:12)ेनंतर प्रेतमयताचे अंगावरी(cid:12) कपड्यासह आणिण सव$ चीजवस्तूसह मयताचे प्रेतावरअंत्यकिवधी करणेसाठी माझे ताब्यात किमळा(cid:12)े. त्याबद्द(cid:12) माझी काही एकतक्रार नाही. किह पावती लि(cid:12)हून किद(cid:12)ी खरी व बरोबर आहे.”The receipt is given by him to the police officer acknowledging tohave received dead body of Meenabai along with the ornaments. Itwould, therefore, does not stand to reason to rely on the evidence ofPW 3 – Manik, informant, that lateron he realised that there wereornaments on the person of the deceased and those went missing orrobbed while she was killed. We are not in agreement with thefindings of the trial court in this regard. According to the trial court, 19Cri Appeal No.1214.2019there were other ornaments as well and the receipt must bepertaining to few ornaments, which were there on the dead body ofMeenabai. The trial court relied on the post-mortem report(Exh.54/c) in this regard. We have examined column no.6(II) in thepost-mortem report. It pertains to what has been noticed onexternal examination of the dead body. It reads thus:Female, appr. 50 yrs., Hindu, wearing greenishcoloured saree, black coloured blouse, brownbangles, silver coloured Jodve on both legs and toe,golden coloured ring in right hand index finger,golden coloured nathni (small) and ear ornaments(small) – stained with blood and mud.25.The same suggests that there was a gold-ring in one ofthe fingers of the deceased. Ear ornaments were also there. Whenmany of the gold and silver ornaments were said to have beenrobbed by the culprit while committing murder of the victim, thepost-mortem examination report indicates that all were found on thedead body while it was subjected to autopsy. When the ear-ornaments/studs were very much there, we are surprised to find inthe list of the recovered ornaments, pursuant to the disclosurestatement of the appellant, mention of articles recovered as ear-studs. How the ear-studs came to be recovered pursuant to thedisclosure statement made by the appellant. One would not be 20Cri Appeal No.1214.2019sporting two gold ear-studs at the same time in one ear. Sameindicates that PW 3 – Manik lied that while lifting the dead body ofMeenabai, he found that her ornaments were not on her person. Hisevidence in the examination-in-chief is conspicuously silent to comeclean to admit to have had received gold and silver ornaments,which were there on the person of the deceased, along with the deadbody. 26.Even if we accept the disclosure statement of theappellant, pursuant to which the gold and silver ornaments came tobe recovered, the FIR was silent to mention therein what kind ofornaments the deceased was sporting and their description. All thedescription finds place in the supplementary statement of theinformant dated 14.01.2015. Same was recorded post arrest of theappellant. The Investigating Officer, on alleged seizure of thosearticles, pursuant to the so called disclosure statement made by theappellant, did not subjected them to test identification. Surprisingly,the evidence indicates that all the ornaments were returned to PW 3– Manik, informant, along with the dead body. For not conductingtest identification of those articles and the FIR being conspicuouslysilent to record that all the ornaments on the person went missing orrobbed while Meenabai was murdered, it would not be justifiable on
Decision
21Cri Appeal No.1214.2019our part to rely on the said disclosure statement and recovery ofarticles pursuant thereto and to connect the appellant with theoffence of robbery with murder.27.The circumstances relied on by the prosecution, even iftaken individually and/or cumulatively, did not conclusively establishto conclude that the appellant and none else, has first robbed thedeceased and then committed her murder.28.On re-appreciation of the evidence, we find theprosecution to have failed to establish the guilt of the appellantbeyond reasonable doubt. Interference with the impugned order ofconviction and consequential sentence is, therefore, warranted.29.In the result, the appeal succeeds. Hence, the followingorder:-(i)The appeal is allowed.(ii)The impugned order dated 30.10.2018, passed bylearned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, Dist. Beed, in SessionsCase No.32 of 2015, convicting and sentencing the appellant for theoffences punishable under Sections 302 and 392 of Indian PenalCode, is set aside. The appellant stands acquitted thereof. 22Cri Appeal No.1214.2019(iii)The appellant be released forthwith, if not required in anyother case.(iv)Fine amount paid by the appellant, if any, be refunded tohim. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.][R.G. AVACHAT, J.]KBP