Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 2013 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16027 CRL.A No. 80 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 80 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MADHU S/O. KODILINGEGOWDA @ RAJU AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/O. KADABAHALLI VILLAGE BINDIGANAVILE HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.R.LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BINDIGANAVILE POLICE STATION (REP. BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) (BY SMT. K.P.YASHODA, HCGP) …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 12.12.2012 PASSED BY THE IN SPL.C.C.NO.87/2010 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 417 OF IPC AND RULE 3 SUB RULE (1) AND 12 OF SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989. JUDGE, MANDYA ADDITIONAL SESSIONS THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16027 CRL.A No. 80 of 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 2. This appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 417 IPC imposing sentence of one year with fine of Rs.2,000/- and also for the offence under Section 3(1)(12) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 imposing sentence of two years with fine of Rs.2,000/-. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that accused had promised that he would marry the victim and with the said promise subjected her for sexual act, as a result, she became pregnant and gave birth to a child and he did not come forward to marry her and instead caused life threat. A panchayath was held and he had agreed to pay amount of Rs.80,000/- and made payment of Rs.2,500/- and did not comply with the assurance that he had given to pay amount of Rs.80,000/-. Since, the victim also belongs to schedule caste - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16027 CRL.A No. 80 of 2013 and invoked the offence against the appellant for the offence under Section 417 and 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) and (12) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The police have registered the case and investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet . 4. The accused did not plead guilty and examined the witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked the documents as
Legal Reasoning
Exs.P1 to P9. The Trial Court having considered the material on record, convicted the accused for the above offences and imposed sentence of one year and two years and imposed fine of Rs.2,000/- each for both the offences. 5.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that the Trial Court committed an error in passing the order of conviction and sentence. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that High Court while granting anticipatory bail for the appellant in Crl.P.No.3918/2010 made an observation that at the time of occurrence, the victim was aged about 19 years, apparently she did not have reasons to believe that petitioner would standby his promise. The victim has given birth to a child. The paternity of child should not remain an - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16027 CRL.A No. 80 of 2013 uncertain fact for all times to come. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a memo stating that appellant would subject himself to DNA examination if it is required by the Investigating Officer and for the purpose of investigation and also for the purpose of DNA examination shall appear before the Investigating Officer whenever called upon to do so. Inspite of the said direction was given, he appeared and gave his blood samples. But, the victim did not come forward to give blood samples and the Trial Court failed to take note of this aspect while appreciating the material on record as well as very conviction and sentence is not sustainable in the eye of law. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that author of complaint Ex.P2 is one Ramesh and also in the cross- examination, she categorically admits that she does not know where the complaint was prepared and also she does not know contents of the complaint and she was not in a position to say whether she has put her signature in the complaint and this admission has not been considered by the Trial Court while appreciating the evidence. It is contended that only on political rivalry, said Ramesh created the complaint by manipulating the signature of the complainant and filed a false complaint and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16027 CRL.A No. 80 of 2013 also there is an admission that complaint was given at the instance of said Ramesh. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that before the Doctor, she gave the name of one Girish, but the accused name is Madhu. The statement was recorded by concerned Nurse on 07.06.2010 at about 7.00 p.m. Subsequently, the complainant seeks progress report from the Doctor, who treated her, in that report, the complainant again states the name of one Girish had fathered the child by giving her false assurance regarding marriage, the said progress report was given by one Dr.Hishma H. Shetty, Assistant Professor of OBG Department, who is responsible person to file complaint against Mr.Girish, which facts are very clear from Ex.P5(d), but the Court below without considering the same has blindly convicted the appellant. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, but in respect of this appellant, there is no circumstances which point out towards appellant’s guilt is proved against him. 6. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that C.W.3 is mother of the complainant, who is examined before the Trial Court. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that Investigating Officer has utterly failed to find out the real - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16027 CRL.A No. 80 of 2013 person, who committed the offence and contend that admittedly on 04.09.2010, the Investigating Officer seeks for extension of time from his higher officer to find out real culprit Girish, as such the time was extended for further 30 days, but the Investigating Officer has not found out Girish, on this issue the Court below has kept silent without giving any finding. It is contended that appellant is leading a happy life as he is an Archak at Beereshwara Temple and he performs his duties without any remarks and on 10.08.2008, he has married to one Smt. Arunakumari and on 10.02.2010, his wife gave birth to a female child by name Aishwarya K.M., but the complainant herein with a bad intention just to defame the status of the appellant and his family members in the locality has implicated him in the false case. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that the appellant has disputed the very conducting of panchayath held in his village and admittedly, neither the complainant nor her parents have participated in the panchayath alleged to have been conducted by the Villagers and there is no proof regarding conducting of panchayath and participation of the appellant and his family members, but the Court below has wrongly arrived at a conclusion that - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16027 CRL.A No. 80 of 2013 panchayath was held in the village and the father of the appellant agreed to pay Rs.80,000/- to the complainant and made payment of Rs.2,500/- and the Trial Court committed an error in coming to such conclusion, in the absence of any cogent evidence and it requires interference of this Court, since the witnesses have not supported the case to the full extent and both the mother and the victim have been treated as hostile and their evidence is also not credible. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his argument relied upon the judgment in A. VENKATESH VS. STATE OF A.P. (NOW STATE OF TELANGANA) reported in AIRONLINE 2023 SC 125 and in the similar set of facts, in paragraph Nos.7 and 8, the Apex Court taken note of the evidence in the said case and observed that the charge as alleged against the appellant in fact was not made out and the Trial Court had erroneously arrived at the conclusion to convict the appellant. The High Court had also not properly re- appreciated the evidence to arrive at its conclusion and acquitted the accused. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16027 CRL.A No. 80 of 2013 8. The counsel also relied upon the judgment in DIPANWITA ROY VS. RONOBROTO ROY reported in AIR 2015 SC 418 regarding invoking Section 114 of Evidence Act and brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.11 that drawing of inference under Section 112 of the Evidence Act was enacted at a time when the modern scientific advancements with Dioxy Nucleric Acid (DNA) as well as Ribonucleic Acid (RNA) tests were not even in contemplation of the legislature. The result of a genuine DNA test is said to be scientifically accurate. But even that is not enough to escape from the conclusiveness of Section 112 of the Act, e.g., if a husband and wife were living together during the time of conception but the DNA test revealed that the child was not born to the husband, the conclusiveness in law would remain unrebuttable. It is also important to note that DNA test is not ultimate for consideration of the biological father. But, Court has to take note of other evidence on record. But, in the case on hand, the evidence is not consistent and not inspires the confidence of the Court with regard to the act of the accused to come to such a conclusion to convict the accused. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16027 CRL.A No. 80 of 2013 9. The counsel also relied upon the judgment in VIJAYAN VS. STATE OF KERALA reported in AIR 2008 SC (SUPP) 1022, wherein also the Apex Court held that no evidence available except statement of prosecutrix, DNA test to prove that accused was responsible for child delivered by prosecutrix was not conducted, accused cannot be convicted on sole testimony of prosecutrix. No doubt, in the case on hand, prosecutrix had deposed before the Court that with a false promise that he would marry subjected her for sexual act, but, in the case on hand, the evidence of P.W.2 not inspires the confidence of Court and there are material contradictions regarding conducting of panchayath and accused agreeing to pay the amount and the evidence of the victim is not consistent. Even subsequent to the incident, categorically agreed that complaint was lodged by one Ramesh and she is not aware of the contents of the complaint and what is written and after having received the copy of the complaint, she came to know as to what is written in the complaint. 10. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State would vehemently contend that the very case of the prosecution is that with a false - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16027 CRL.A No. 80 of 2013 promise, the accused subjected the victim for sexual act and brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.25 of the judgment, wherein the Trial Court has taken note of evidence available on record and discussed the same in detail and comes to the conclusion that the evidence of P.W.2 is natural and her evidence cannot be doubted. She would vehemently contend that the accused belongs to schedule caste community and accused has subjected a girl, who belongs to scheduled caste community to sexual act and though the victim not subjected herself for giving samples for DNA test, the very evidence of the victim girl is very clear that the accused on the promise that he would marry her subjected her for sexual act. She also brought to notice of this Court that Trial Court also in paragraph No.27 discussed the material on record, even inspite of the fact that accused was married, he had promised the victim with an intention to contract second marriage. With regard to discrepancy about mentioning the name of one Girish, the same is clarified by the victim P.W.2 that she did not mention the name of one Girish, but wrongly mentioned the name as Girish, but clear evidence is given that one Madhu is responsible for her pregnancy. She also contend that Trial - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:16027 CRL.A No. 80 of 2013 Court while convicting and sentencing the accused taken note of the material on record and imposed fine of Rs.2,000/- each and also ordered to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and it does not requires any interference. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent- State and also principles laid down in the judgment referred by the learned counsel for the appellant, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: (1) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused for the charges leveled against him for the offence under Section 417 IPC and also for the offence under Section 3(1)(12) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989? (2) What order? Point No.(1) 12. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent- State, the case of the prosecution is that taking advantage of - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:16027 CRL.A No. 80 of 2013 the fact that accused belongs to scheduled caste community, subjected the victim for sexual act with a false promise that he would marry her and also caused life threat and this Court has to re-appreciate the material on record. 13. P.W.1 is the panchayathdar, who says that villagers conducted panchayath and directed accused to marry C.W.1 i.e., P.W.2 and he replied that already he is married and will not marry her. However, he agreed to pay Rs.80,000/- and made payment of Rs.2,500/- and the same was given to C.W.1, since she was admitted to Adi Chunchanagiri Hospital. It is also his evidence that he was witness to mahazar, since mahazar was conducted near the pond at Kadabahalli. At that time, C.Ws.1, 3 and 15 were also present and he identifies his signature in the mahazar Ex.P1. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, he admits that at the time of panchayath, no writings were made and at the time of panchayath, either the accused or C.W.2 were present and he cannot tell how many days, she was in the hospital. However, she gave the statement that panchayath was held. He does not remember whether police have taken signature or not and also he was not having property near the land of the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:16027 CRL.A No. 80 of 2013 accused and says that his statement was recorded near Kadabahalli Pond and thereafter, they have not recorded any statement. He also states that he cannot tell, who all accompanied when she went to the hospital. 14. The main witness is P.W.2, who is the victim. In her evidence, she says that she used to go to graze the buffalo and at that time, accused used to visit his garden land and with a promise that he would marry her subjected her for sexual act and as a result, she became pregnant. It is also her evidence that when she was seven months pregnant, he promised her that he would marry her and later on, she gave birth to a child at B.G. Nagar Hospital and even panchayath was conducted, he promised to pay the amount and made payment of Rs.2,500/-, but he did not make the payment as agreed. Hence, complaint was lodged in terms of Ex.P2 and police came and conducted mahazar at the spot and the same was signed by herself, Ramesha and Nagaraju and her signature is marked as Ex.P1(b). It is also her evidence that she gave the statement that the name of the accused is Madhu. This witness was treated as hostile and suggestions are made with regard to causing of threat and she admits the same. It is also her - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:16027 CRL.A No. 80 of 2013 evidence that she is not aware of any person by name Girish, but she have the name as Madhu and her mother also gave the name as Madhu. But, by mistake, Doctor has noted the name as Girish and also states that she gave further statement that this accused is responsible for her pregnancy. It is her explanation that she was called for drawing blood sample, since panchayath was arranged, she did not go to police for giving blood. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. She admits that she pursued her education upto 9th standard and also she does not know educational qualification of the accused. In the cross-examination, she admits that accused is married and is having a son and admits that one prior to lodging of complaint the accused had married and she did not attend the marriage. She also admits that the accused was married when he was having relationship with her. It is also elicited that she did not disclose about the relationship with the accused to anyone and one Jayalakshmi had witnessed when they were together. It is elicited that police took her and gave the copy of the complaint and asked her to read the same and also told her what she has to depose before the Court and accordingly, she has deposed before the Court. It is also admitted that she was - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:16027 CRL.A No. 80 of 2013 called to give blood samples, at that time, father was also there and both of them did not go to give blood and admits that she stated that she will not subject herself for any examination and she will not believe the same and admits that there is no difficulty to subject herself or the child for drawing the blood. She cannot tell whether the complaint was written by hand or got it typed, where it was written and who wrote the same. It is also elicited that she does not know the contents of the complaint and cannot tell which documents she has signed. However, she admits that one Ramesh had taken responsibility to lodge complaint and till the police showed the complaint to her, she was not aware of the factual aspects of the case. It is suggested that she was having relationship with one Girish and the same was denied and also she admits that there was dispute between one Hemanth Kumar and also accused, since both of them are neighbours and suggestion was given that said Hemanth Kumar got lodged the complaint through him against the accused and the same was denied. However, she once again reiterates that one Ramesh took responsibility to give complaint. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:16027 CRL.A No. 80 of 2013 15. The other witness is P.W.3, who is the father of the victim P.W.2, who deposed that he himself and his wife took the victim to the hospital and says that panchayath was held and the accused agreed to pay Rs.80,000/- and made payment of Rs.2,500/- and he did not repay the balance amount. This witness was treated as hostile and suggestion was made that he gave the statement before the police that accused was having physical relationship with his daughter on the promise that he would marry her. But, he refused to marry and P.W.3 says that he does not know one Girish. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, he admits that there are 2,000 houses which belongs to Vokkaliga community and there are 36 houses which belongs to our community in the village. It is suggested that one Girish, who belongs to Dabbeghatta Village was secured to panchayath and he was tied in front of his house and the said suggestion was denied. He admits that Ramesh and Malaiah went and gave complaint along with him and complaint was got it written through one Nagaraju and all of them have signed the same. He admits that he has not participated in the panchayath and also he cannot tell, who were present in the said panchayath - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:16027 CRL.A No. 80 of 2013 and also admits that they did not question the accused or their father with regard to non-admission of the amount and also he did not disclose the name of the accused in the hospital or with the Doctor and also he did not disclose about his daughter to anybody. It is suggested that no payment of Rs.2,500/- was made and the same was denied. He admits that his daughter did not go to police station and lodged any complaint and her statement was not recorded and did not make any enquiry after lodging of the complaint. 16. The other witness is P.W.4, who is the mother of the victim. In her evidence, she says that she observed the pregnancy when her daughter was taking bath and then she revealed that accused promised to marry her and he was responsible for her pregnancy. The daughter was taken to the hospital and she gave birth to a boy baby and also says that panchayath was held. C.Ws.4, 5, 7, 9 and 11 participated in the panchayath and the accused gave Rs.2,500/-. This witness was also cross-examined and admits that she knows reading and writing, since she has studied up to high school. But, in the cross-examination, she says that till going to hospital, she was not aware that her daughter was pregnant and daughter also - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:16027 CRL.A No. 80 of 2013 did not disclose anything till going to hospital. After lodging the complaint only, police came near the house and also she has not given any instructions to give complaint, but Ramesh, Gudigowda and Kempegowda did not informed her that they will lodge complaint and they did not speak anything with her daughter. She also admits that she is not aware anything about conducting of panchayath and Ramesh has not participated in the panchayath and he only told her to give complaint, but she claims that after six months of lodging of complaint, marriage of accused was performed. It is suggested that accused has not given amount of Rs.2,500/- and also not agreed to pay any amount. 17. P.W.5 is panchayathdar. In his evidence, he says that panchayath was held near Umashree gate in the garden land of Ramesh. In the panchayath, discussion was made with regard to pregnancy of the victim and when they insisted to marry her, he stated that already he is married and he cannot marry, hence, he asked to give compensation and demanded Rs.3 lakhs. But, agreed to pay Rs.80,000/- and accused gave Rs.3,000/- to the hands of C.W.11 and agreed to pay the balance amount to them, but did not give any balance amount. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:16027 CRL.A No. 80 of 2013 This witness was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross- examination, he admits for what reason complaint was given against the accused and distance between his house and C.W.1 is 1½ Kms. and not having any land near the land of the accused. But he says that he was not called to panchayath and he voluntarily went there and 10 to 12 persons gathered there and also admits that police have not called him and he did not mention anything about arranging of the panchayath and he did not disclose anything about conducting of panchayath. 18. P.W.6 has turned hostile. The other witness is P.W.7, who says that police came near the house of C.W.2 to draw the blood of C.W.1 and she refused to give blood. 19. P.W.8 is the Doctor. In her evidence, she says that victim was admitted to hospital and victim said that she was not married and was seven months pregnant and on the very same day, she gave birth to a child and she identifies Ex.P5 and details are mentioned in Ex.P5. 20. P.W.9 is the Police Inspector. In his evidence, he speaks about receipt of complaint and also conducting of investigation and mahazar which was drawn from 11.00 a.m. to - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:16027 CRL.A No. 80 of 2013 11.45 a.m. and also request was made to the hospital to give details and also obtained Caste Certificate from the complainant and accused. This witness was subjected to cross-examination and suggestion was made that he did not conduct any mahazar and the same was denied and he admits that before him she did not mention that one Girish was responsible for her pregnancy. 21. P.W.10, who is also Inspector and when he was in the Station, he received the complaint and registered the case and forwarded the same to the Court and also identifies his signature. In the cross-examination, he says that complainant came to police station and suggestion was made that he has not given any complaint in person and the same was denied. 22. P.W.11, who is also Inspector. He conducted further investigation in the matter and he recorded the statement with regard to wrongly mentioning the name as Girish, instead of Madhu and also requested to draw blood for conducting DNA test and she has refused to subject herself for DNA test. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross- examination, suggestion was made that he has not recorded - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:16027 CRL.A No. 80 of 2013 any statement of witnesses and the same was denied. It is suggested that in the village, there are two groups and the same was denied. 23. P.W.12 is the Assistant Commissioner of Police. In his evidence, he says that he has taken further investigation in the matter and also collected Birth Certificate of the victim and made search of the accused and he was not found in the village and collected the documents from the hospital and also Caste Certificate of accused. This witness was subjected to cross- examination and in the cross-examination, suggestion was made that he did not secure the record Ex.P5 and the same was denied. 24. Having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, P.Ws.1 and 5 are panch witnesses to the panchayath conducted. Having considered the evidence on record, particularly the evidence of P.W.2, her evidence is not consistent and she only says that the accused with a false promise that he would marry her sexually assaulted her. In one breath, she says that she was aware of the fact that he was married and in another breath says that he was already - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:16027 CRL.A No. 80 of 2013 married one year prior to lodging of complaint. P.W.4, mother of the victim admits that after six months of lodging of complaint, the accused married and with regard to panchayath is concerned, there is no consistent evidence i.e., P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 and also for having made the payment also, no consistent evidence. P.W.5 says that accused gave Rs.2,500/- to C.W.5, but case of the prosecution is that amount of Rs.2,500/- was paid. But, P.W.5 says that father of the accused and friend of the accused also came to panchayath, but P.W.3-father says that accused and father did not attend the panchayath. It is also seen from the records that even P.W.2 is not aware of the contents of the complaint and says that when she saw the complaint, then only she came to know about the contents of the complaint. In the medical records also, she gave the name of one Girish as the person, who is responsible for her pregnancy. 25. No doubt, she has given explanation that she has mentioned the name of one Girish before the Doctor, but Doctor has wrongly mentioned the name as Girish, in the examination of Doctor, who has been examined as P.W.8, nothing is stated that victim gave the name of Madhu, but she - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:16027 CRL.A No. 80 of 2013 wrongly mentioned the name as Girish. But on perusal of Ex.P5, it is specifically mentioned the name as one Girish. Having considered the evidence in its entirety, there is no credible evidence before the Court. It is important to note that it was ordered to conduct DNA test while granting anticipatory bail, but the very victim, did not subject herself for drawing blood for DNA test and only explanation is that since panchayath was arranged, she did not give blood and the said reason cannot be accepted and what prevented her from giving blood, there is no explanation and in order to come to a conclusion that accused was responsible for her pregnancy, except oral say no material is available on record. When the victim she did not come forward for subjecting herself for DNA test, it creates doubt in the mind of the Court. 26. No doubt, the counsel relied upon the judgment in VIJAYAN VS. STATE OF KERALA reported in AIR 2008 SC (SUPP) 1022, in the case on hand, prosecutrix had deposed before the Court that the accused with a false promise that he would marry her subjected her for sexual act. But, in the case on hand, the evidence of P.W.2 not inspires the confidence of Court and there are material contradictions regarding - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:16027 CRL.A No. 80 of 2013 conducting of panchayath and agreeing to pay the amount and the evidence of the victim is not consistent and even subsequent to the incident, categorically agreed that complaint was lodged by one Ramesh and she is not aware of the contents of the complaint and only when the police showed the copy of the complaint, she came to know what is written in the complaint. When such being the case, the evidence on record not inspires the confidence of the Court and the judgment of the Apex Court in VIJAYAN’s case reported in AIR 2008 SC (SUPP) 1022 is aptly applicable to the case on hand and there must be cogent evidence before the Court while invoking criminal prosecution and unless there is corroborative evidence, question of convicting the appellant for the above offences does not arise. The Trial Court only on presumption and assumption that victim would have been subjected by the accused for sexual acts has come to such a conclusion and reasoning given by the Trial Court is only on the presumption that she might have been subjected to sexual act and she belongs to scheduled caste and the same cannot be a ground to come to a conclusion to convict the accused, unless there is a cogent evidence before the Court. Hence, the Trial Court failed to - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:16027 CRL.A No. 80 of 2013 appreciate the material on record in a proper perspective and it requires interference of this Court. Accordingly, I answer point No.(1) as ‘negative’. Point No.(2) 27. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following:
Decision
ORDER (i) The criminal appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is hereby set aside. Consequently, the bail bond executed by the appellant stands cancelled. (iv) If the appellant has deposited any fine amount, the same is ordered to be refunded in favour of the appellant on proper identification. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50