High Court
Case Details
1 Reserved on 19.05.2023 Delivered on 23.05.2023 In chamber Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2595 of 2011 Appellant :- Lala Rama And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- S. D. Dwivedi,Apul Mishra,Navin Singh,R.B.Singh,Raja Ullah Khan Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate With Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1712 of 2011 Appellant :- Lala Ram Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- S.D. Dwivedi,Apul Mishra,Atul Kumar Tiwari,Navin Singh,R.B.Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate And Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1918 of 2011 Appellant :- Rajendra Bhurji And Anr. Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- R.L. Verma,Apul Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. (Delivered by Justice Deepak Verma) 1. As these three appeals have been filed against the common judgment and order dated 28.02.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C.) Act, Shahjahanpur, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common order. 2. These appeals have been preferred by the appellants, Lala Ram S/o Fakirey Lal, Hari Shankar S/o Moti Ram, Lala Ram S/o Balak Ram, Rajendra Bhurji and Lakhan Kisaan @ Sagar against judgement and order dated 28.02.2011, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Shahjahanpur in S.T. No.855 of 1994, whereby appellants have been convicted for offence under sections 302/149 IPC. They have been sentenced to undergo 2 imprisonment for life under section 302/149 IPC and fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, the appellants to undergo further one year additional simple imprisonment. 3. Facts giving rise to these appeals as borne out from First Information Report are that deceased, Sri Ram (father of informant) was Pradhan of the village and Lala Ram S/o Fakirey Lal was tenant of his house. When father of informant got information that Lala Ram S/o Fakirey Lal wanted to occupy his house, he kicked him out from his house. Due to this, Lala Ram S/o Fakirey Lal harboured enmity with father of the informant (Sri Ram). Apart from this, father of informant had been falsely implicated in Chotey Lal’s murder case by Lala Ram S/o Fakirey Lal, Lala Ram S/o Balak Ram and Hari Shankar S/o Moti Ram. On 12.03.1993 at 3:30 pm. when informant,
Legal Reasoning
Gayadin, Sri Ram (father of informant), Ved Prakash (cousin) and Ram Murti and others were returning from Nigohi market on a Tonga. When they reached Kolhu of Gokaran, near Patrajpur, accused appellants, Lala Ram S/o Balak Ram armed with lathi, Lala Ram S/o Fakirey Lal armed with Tamancha, Hari Shankar S/o Moti Ram armed with DBBL gun and two unknown armed with single barrel gun and Tamancha came to place of incident. Lala Ram S/o Balak Ram came out from toor field and stopped the Tonga and exhorted that apprehend Sri Ram (deceased) and kill him. Lala Ram S/o Fakirey said that Sri Ram must be punished for kicking him out from his house and he shot Sri Ram in the neck. Thereafter, two unknown persons pulled down Sri Ram (deceased) form Tonga and Hari Shanker S/o Moti Ram fired at the chest of deceased by DBBL gun. Sri Ram succumbed to his injury. On alarm raised by informant and other passengers, unknown accused fired upon them, while fleeing towards toor field. 4. The F.I.R. (Ext. Ka 13) was lodged at P.S. Nigohi, District Shahjahanpur on 12.03.1993 at 4:45 pm. under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C. against the appellants. 3 5. After registration of F.I.R., on 17.03.1993, S.O. R.K. Singh and S.I. Sri Mohd. Babar Khan arrested appellants, Hari Shankar S/o Moti Ram and Lala Ram S/o Fakirey. From the possession of accused Hari Shankar, one D.B.B.L gun, twelve bore No.15703-91 and two live cartridges and from the possession of accused appellant, Lala Ram S/o Fakirey, one Tamancha of 315 bore and one live cartridge were recovered. Memo of arrest and weapons have been marked as Ext Ka-14. I.O. collected plain soil and blood stained soil in packets and it has been marked as Ext. Ka-10. From the place of occurrence, two empty cartridges of 315 bore and one 12 bore cartridge were recovered and the same were sealed and marked as Ext. Ka-11. The shoes of deceased were recovered from the place of incident and sealed and marked as Ext. Ka-12 and inquest was conducted on 12.3.1993. 6. Investigation culminated in filing of charge sheets (Ext. Ka-4, Ka-19 and Ka-16). 7. The case was committed to the court of Sessions and was registered as Sessions Trial No.855 of 1994. The Sessions Court after considering the material available on record framed charges against the appellants, Lala Ram S/o Fakirey Lal, Hari Shankar Rajendra and Lakhan under Sections 148, 302/149 I.P.C. and 27 Arms Act and Lala Ram S/o Balak Ram was charged under Sections 147, 302/149 I.P.C. and Appellant Lala Ram was charged under Section 25/27 of Arms Act. Accused appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. 8. To substantiate the charges levelled against the accused appellants, prosecution examined altogether seven witnesses, out of which P.W. 1. Gayadeen, informant (son of deceased), P.W. 2 Ram Murti, co-villager and P.W. 3 Ved Prakash, nephew of deceased, are witnesses of fact; P.W. 4 Dr. R.C. Asthana conducted autopsy on dead body of deceased Sri Ram and has proved the postmortem report, Ext. Ka-2. P.W. 5 Constable No 868 Shanker Lal, P.S. Nigohi, 4 District Shahjahanpur. As documentary evidence, prosecution produced written report Ext. Ka-1, postmortem report Ext. Ka-2, panchayatnama Ext. Ka-5, F.I.R. Ext. Ka-13, charge sheet Ext. Ka- 4,16&19 memo of recovery of weapon, blood stain, empty cartridge and shoes Ext. Ka-10-12 & 14, challan lash report Ext. Ka-7 and photo lash Ext. Ka-9. 9. P.W. 1 Gayadeen, son of deceased and the first informant stated in his testimony that ten years ago, Lala Ram S/o Fakirey Lal was residing with his wife in his house. When, they tried to get possession over the house, they were ousted from the premises by village panchayat. Since then Lala Ram harboured enmity with them. Lala Ram S/o Fakirey and Lala Ram S/o Balak Ram are cousins (mausere bhai). He stated that a year before this incident, co-villager Chote Lal was murdered and on advice of appellant Hari Shanker, appellant Lala Ram S/o Fakirey and Lala Ram S/o Balak Ram implicated his father in Chote Lal’s murder case which is pending in the court. He reiterated the version of F.I.R. and averred that on 12.03.1993, he went to Nigohi Market with his father, Ved Prakash and Ram Murti and other villagers by Tonga. When they were returning from Nigohi market and reached near Patrajpur, Lala Ram S/o Balak Ram armed with lathi, Lala Ram S/o Fakirey Lal armed with Tamancha, Hari Shankar S/o Moti Ram armed with DBBL gun and others, namely, Rajendra and Lakhan @ Sagar armed with single barrel gun and Tamancha, respectively, came there and Lala Ram S/o Balak Ram stopped the tonga and exhorted that apprehend Sri Ram (deceased) and kill him. Lala Ram S/o Fakirey said that Sri Ram should be punished for getting him (Lala Ram S/o Fakirey) out from his house and he shot Sri Ram in the neck. Thereafter, Rajendra and Lakhan @ Sagar dragged down Sri Ram (deceased) from tonga. Hari Shanker S/o Moti Ram fired upon chest of deceased by DBBL gun and the injured succumbed to his injury. Thereafter, accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence, while resorting to indiscriminate firing. P.W. 1 has proved written F.I.R. 5 as Ext Ka-1. He further averred that a case under Section 376 I.P.C. is pending against the deceased and witness Ram Murti was co- accused in that case. It is wrong to say that there are two parties in the village regarding 376 I.P.C. case and one party is opposing to me. During Cross examination, P.W. 1, Gayadeen has stated that residential address of Lala Ram S/o Fakirey, in voter list, was deceased home address and it is wrong to say that at the time of incident, Lala Ram S/o Fakirey was living in his house and was not vacating the house, therefore, to pressurise him to vacate the house, he was falsely implicated. He further stated that Chote Lal, was murdered one year before this incident. Chote Lal was distant relative of deceased (brother-in-law). Chote Lal was residing at some distance from his house. He stated that his father (Sri Ram) was accused in Chote Lal’s murder and he was in jail for 2-3 months. It is wrong to say that Hari Shanker has been implicated due to village party bandi. He stated that Ved Prakash is his cousin (Mamere Bhai). 10. P.W. 1, Gayadeen further stated that investigating officer recorded his statement and he told the I.O. about Rajendra Bhurji and Lakhan Kisaan @ Sagar. He could not give reason, why the I.O. had not written their names. He also stated that Rajendra Bhurji and Lakhan Kisaan @ Sagar pulled his father from Tonga; Lakhan Kisaan @ Sagar fired from his single barrel gun, if it was not written in his statement by I.O., he cannot give reason. No test identification parade was made in jail. He stated that he did not inform the I.O. that he knew Rajendra Bhurji and Lakhan Kisaan @ Sagar from before incident. He averred that Nigohi market is five kilometers from his village and they went there by Tonga which was in the shape of Baggi wherein 15-20 persons could sit. Bheekham was the Tonga owner. He stated that he had no idea how many people were in Tonga at the time of incident. It is wrong to say that he did not go to market by Tonga and had not purchased anything. In this incident, P.W. 1 and his cousin Ved Prakash had not received any injury. He said that 6 Patrajpur road goes through Isapur where robbers lived. He further stated that he had no information that robbers committed robbery or not. P.W. 1 averred that he went to the police station alone. He submitted written information. It is wrong to say that he lodged the F.I.R. after taking advise. He stated that before this incident, the election of the Pradhan was held in his village and in this election, there was no partybandi in village. 11. P.W. 2, Ram Murti, co-villager has not supported the prosecution case and had been declared hostile. 12. P.W. 3, Ved Prakash stated that deceased was his uncle (Phupha) and his house was adjacent to his uncle’s house. On the date of incident i.e. 12.03.1993, he, Sri Ram (deceased), Gayadeen (P.W.1), Ram Murti (P.W.2) and others were coming back by Tonga from Nigohi Market and at 3:30 pm. when they reached Kolhu of Gokaran, near Patrajpur, accused persons, namely, Lala Ram S/o Balak Ram had lathi, Lala Ram S/o Fakirey Lal had country made pistol, Hari Shankar S/o Moti Ram had DBBL gun and Rajendra had country made pistol and Lakhan @ Sagar had single barrel gun, came out from toor field and Lala Ram S/o Balak Ram stopped the Tonga with a lathi and instructed Lala Ram S/o Fakirey to shoot Sri Ram. Lala Ram S/o Fakirey shot with a fire arm. Thereafter, appellants, Rajendra and Lakhan pulled Sri Ram to ground and appellant Hari Shanker shot the deceased in the chest. He further deposed that after shooting, accused persons fled away from the spot and his uncle Sri Ram died on the spot. 13. In his cross examination, P.W. 3 has stated that one and a half years ago in murder of Chote Lal, deceased was named as accused in the F.I.R. He stated that at 12 noon, they went to market and at 2:30 pm. they left Nigohi market for home by Tonga. Five persons were involved in murder of his uncle Sri Ram. He did not lodge F.I.R./ complaint and deposed that 10-12 passengers could sit over the Tonga and he was not familiar with other passengers. The incident 7 took place at 3-3.30 pm. and apart from him, Ram Murti (P.W. 2) was the eye witness of the incident. Two persons fired shots from a distance of one feet. He further deposed that it is wrong to say that he did not see the incident and on account of implication of deceased Sri Ram in murder of Chotey Lal, Lala Ram had been falsely implicated in the present case. He did not go to jail for test identification parade. It is also wrong to say that being nephew of deceased, he was deposing falsely. 14. P.W. 4., Dr. R.C. Asthana has stated in his testimony that on 13.03.1993, he was posted as Senior Medical Officer at District Hospital, Shahjahanpur. He examined dead body of deceased at 4:30 pm. The deadbody was brought by constable Mohd. Aslam Khan and constable Satish Chand. He averred that at the time of death, deceased was aged about fifty years and had died one day before the postmortem. Rigor mortis was present in the lower part of the body. He found following ante mortem injuries on his person: “(i) A Gunshot wound of entry 25 cm x 2.00 cm x through & through on the Right side of chest 4 cm below the Rt. nipple at 5 O' Clock position. Margins sic. Blackening & tattooing present around the wound. (ii) A Gunshot wound of Exit 3 cm x 2.5 cm x through & through and connected with wound No.1 Cut margin everted on the lower part of Rt. side chest sic above the sub coastal margin 12 cm above the Rt. side iliac crest lateral aspect. (iii) Gun shot wound of entry 1.5 cm x 1.0 cm x through & through on the back upper part of Rt. side neck 3 cm below the sic margin inverted. No blackening tattooing charring seen. (iv) Gun shot wound of exit 2 cm x 1.5 cm x through & through and connected with injury No. 3 on the Rt. side of lower lip at the level of Rt. Canines, margins everted. (v) Abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm on Rt. side of forehead 2 cm above the Rt. eye brow. (vi) Abrasion 1.0 cm x 0.5 cm on the lower part of tip of nose. (vii) Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on the Rt. side of cheek 3 cm below the Rt. eye. (viii) Abrasion 4 cm x 2 cm on the front of Rt. Knee.” 15. During internal examination, base was found fractured and 5th, 6th 10th & 11th ribs were also found fractured. Pleura was found torn and right lung was lacerated. 500 ml blood was present in right thoracic cavity. Left lung was pale. Heart was empty. Abdominal wall and peritoneum were found lacerated. About 300 ml blood was present in cavity. Pharynx was found lacerated. Right maxilla was 8 fractured and tongue was lacerated. 13/14 teeth were present. Two canine of right side long jaw bones were found fractured. Oesophagus was found lacerated. Intestine was empty. Gases were present in small intestine. Liver was found lacerated. Spleen and both Kidneys were pale and weighed 120 gms. and 220 gms, respectively. The witness (P.W. 4) opined that death occurred due to shock and haemorrhage from ante-mortem injury and that death occurred at 03:30 pm on 12.03.1993. Autopsy report was marked as Ext. Ka-2. 16. P.W. 5, constable, Shanker Lal deposed that in the year 1993, he worked with S.I. Ravindra Kumar Singh, investigating officer of the present case in district Udham Singh Nagar, district Nainital and he recognised the handwriting of investigation officer. He stated that site plan (Ext.-3) and charge sheet (Ext.-4) are in handwriting of Ravindra Kumar Singh. Inquest report (Ext.-5) is in handwriting of I.O. Mohd. Babar. 17. Accused appellants denied prosecution story under Sections 313 Cr.P.C. and stated that they had been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity. Both appellants, namely, Lala Ram and Hari Shanker had been implicated in the present case as they had named the deceased Sri Ram in murder of Chotey Lal. Appellants Rajendra and Lakhan said that due to village rivalry, they have been falsely implicated in the present case 18. Accused appellants also examined D.W. 1 Bheekham Lal in support of their defence. D.W. 1, Bheekham Lal, Tonga puller stated that on the date of incident, Sri Ram was travelling in his Tonga with passengers of other villages. Witnesses in the present case were not travelling in his Tonga. He averred that in his Tonga 20-22 persons could sit and at the time of incident, there were 21-22 passengers in his Tonga. The passengers were unknown to him. He heard sound of shots. On looking back, he found unknown persons shooting the deceased. All passengers ran away from the spot. Deceased fell on the road. He also left the Tonga and fled away from the spot and 9 informed the family of deceased Sri Ram. He deposed that Gayadeen (P.W.1), Ram Murti (P.W. 2) and Ved Prakash (P.W.3) were not travelling on his Tonga. Lala Ram and Hari Shanker are of the same village and were not involved in murder of Sri Ram (deceased). He stated that some unknown persons killed the deceased, Sri Ram. 19. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced accused appellants. 20. We have heard Sri Apul Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and Mrs. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A. for the State- respondents. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that: (i) There is motive for false implication as deceased was implicated in murder case by appellants. This fact is admitted and therefore, chances of false implication of appellants to take revenge, cannot be ruled out. (ii) Trial court should have placed some reliance on defence witness, the Tonga puller, who was the sole eye witness of the incident. The court below has not considered the testimony of D.W. 1 Bheekham Lal (Tonga Pullar). In his statement he has stated that when he looked back, he found that deceased Sri Ram was shot but further stated that the shots were not fired by appellants. The Trial court has not given any reason for discarding the testimony of D.W. Bheekham Lal. (iii) counsel for the appellants argued that place of incident is certain but it is not certain as to who shot the deceased. In the statement of witnesses, it has come out that the area where murder took place, was infested with dacoits/murderers. Village Ishapur is notorious village where a criminal tribe resides. 22. Counsel for the appellants also submitted that the two witnesses, who were examined during trial, are brothers. They have concocted a story as motive for such concoction exists. Prosecution witnesses are 10 not wholly reliable. 23. It is further submitted that there was no unlawful assembly and conviction of appellants for the charge under Section 302 with the aid of Section 149 I.P.C. is wholly unsustainable. Findings recorded by the trial judge are contrary to the weight of evidences on record. At places, learned trial judge has misread the evidence and has convicted the appellants without dispassionately examining the record and therefore, impugned judgment is unsustainable. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal be allowed and conviction and sentences recorded through the impugned judgement be set aside and appellants be acquitted of the charges against them. 24. Per contra, learned A.G.A. Mrs. Manju Thakur vehemently opposed the argument raised by the counsel for the appellants and argued that judgment passed by the trial court does not contain any infirmities and it is based on evidence and testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Trial court has rightly convicted the appellants after considering and evaluating the facts and law. There is direct evidence against the appellants regarding their involvement in the crime. The evidence is corroborating with the facts of the case, F.I.R. and statement of witnesses. Though, there is minor contradiction in testimony of witnesses but the same is to be expected as the statements of witnesses had been recorded eighteen years after the incident. Learned A.G.A. has supported the judgment, conviction and sentence. 25. Having considered the arguments raised by counsel for the appellants; learned A.G.A. and perused the record, the Court finds that prosecution has placed reliance over two eye witnesses, who are relatives being maternal cousins. The trial court considered the testimony of the witnesses and convicted the appellants. It is possible that there may be some exaggeration on account of prior enmity. 11 26. In the present case, five persons are said to be involved and sentenced under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. Two accused, namely, Lala Ram S/o Fakirey (A2) and Hari Shanker (A3) came to the place of incident with tamancha and rifle and fire one each on deceased as a result deceased Sri Ram succumbed to his injuries. Role of shooting from tamancha and rifle have been given to A2 -A3. The prosecution has collected blood stained soil from the spot and thereafter, recovery of tamancha and rifle have been made from the possession of the appellant nos. 2 and 3. Prosecution has also collected two khokhas and one cartridge of 315 bore and 12 bore. 27. Deceased had received two gun shot injuries, two entry and two exit wounds and injuries nos. 5, 6, 7and 8 are abrasion over right forehead, lower side nose, right side cheek and right side knee. The nature of injuries indicate that deceased was dragged over rough surface after falling from Tonga. From the statement of eye witnesses, it emerges that Rajendra (A4) and Lakhan (A5) pulled the deceased down to the ground from the Tonga. Such pulling down from a height would have entailed different injuries from those actually suffered. The injuries on the body of the deceased are more consistent to those likely to be suffered due to dragging on a rough surface and do not appear to be those suffered due to a hard fall from a height. Therefore, the statements of the eyewitnesses that appellant no. 4 and appellant no. 5, namely, Rajendra and Lakhan pulled the deceased from the Tonga to the ground, appears unreliable especially when prior enmity with appellant no. 4 and appellant no. 5 is admitted. Besides, these two appellants who belong to the same village have not been named in the F.I.R. which again belies their presence at the time of occurrence and supports the contention regarding their false implication. In any case, their presence and their involvement in the crime, is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and they are entitled to the benefit of doubt. 12 28. Besides D.W. 1 Bheekham Lal (Tonga Pullar) in his testimony states that on the date of incident, the witnesses were not accompanying the deceased. When he looked back after hearing the shots, he saw Sri Ram was shot by unknown passengers and had fallen on the ground. The remaining passengers ran away. D.W. 1 immediately, went to the village and informed P.W. 1 Gayadeen regarding murder of his father. Bheekham, who was an eye witness of the incident, has not been produced as a prosecution witness but as a defence witness. 29. The argument of the appellants that the place where incident occurred is the area of residence of a criminal tribe and there is every likelihood that the deceased was murdered during a dacoity and the appellants have been falsely implicated due to enmity. This argument of appellants lacks force as no other passengers was robbed or murdered. Only a single individual has been targeted in the incident. As such, argument raised by counsel for the appellants has no force and same is hereby repelled. 30. Since the presence of appellants no. 4 and 5 is not proved beyond reasonable doubt as held above, Lala Ram S/o Balak Ram cannot be convicted with the aid of Section 149 I.P.C. Moreover, the appellant no. 3 Lala Ram S/o Balak Ram has not been assigned any role of causing injuries to deceased. He is alleged to have stopped the Tonga by holding his lathi before Tonga and of having exhorted other accused. Thus, no offence under Section 302 I.P.C. is made out against Lala Ram S/o Balak Ram nor as offence under Section 149 I.P.C. is not made out. The presence of five persons on the scene of occurrence for committing the crime is not proved. 31. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kalicharan and others Vs. State of U.P. (2023) 2 SCC 583 has held that for considering the applicability, Sections 148 and 149 I.P.C. in a case, there has to be an unlawful assembly, which means an assembly of five or more persons. As per charge sheet, there were five accused including the four appellants. 13 Since, one of the appellant was acquitted by the Supreme Court in the judgment noted above, it was held that there was no unlawful assembly. Resultantly, charge under Sections 148 and 149 I.P.C. was held, not sustainable. In the instant case, appellants no. 4 and 5 are found liable to be acquitted as their presence is not proved. As such, case of appellant Lala Ram S/o Balak Ram would not come within the
Decision
purview of Sections 148 and 149 I.P.C. In view of the above, Lala Ram S/o Balak Ram is also liable to be acquitted. 32. The F.I.R. of the incident was lodged promptly and the incident has been fully proved by the testimony of eye witnesses, which is corroborated by the medical evidence. 33. Deceased received two gun shot injuries; two entry and two exit wounds and eye witnesses, namely, Rajendra and Lakhan and P.W. 3, Ved Prakash in their testimony have specifically stated that appellants, Lala Ram S/o Fakirey Lal and Hari Shanker have fired the two shots. The injuries received by deceased corroborate with the statement of the eye witnesses, P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 and the version of the F.I.R. There is no contradiction in testimony of the prosecution witnesses which is fully supported by medical report and other prosecution evidence. 34. Hence, applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in aforesaid judgment and having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of case, nature of offence and the manner in which it was committed, we are clearly of the view that punishment imposed upon accused-appellants, namely, Lala Ram S/o Fakirey and Hari Shanker, by court below is proportionate to the gravity of offence and, therefore, impugned judgment of Court below dated 28.02.2011 passed in S.T. No.855 of 1994, under Section 302/149 I.P.C., does not deserve to be interfered with so far as appellant Lala Ram S/o Fakirey and Hari Shanker are concerned. Their conviction is confirmed/affirmed. The criminal appeal No.2595 of 2011 filed on behalf of appellants Lala Ram S/o Fakirey Lal and Hari Shankar is 14 dismissed. The appellant Hari Shankar was on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. He be taken into custody forthwith to serve out his sentence. 35. The criminal appeal Nos. 1712 of 2011 and 1918 of 2011 filed on behalf of Lala Ram S/o Balak Ram, Rajendra Bhurji and Lakhan Kisaan @ Sagar are allowed. Their conviction and sentence is set aside and they are acquitted of the charges against them. 36. A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned Trial Court by Fax for immediate compliance. 37. The Lower Court's record be also sent back alongwith a copy of this judgment. Order Date :- 23.05.2023 Meenu Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad