advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Thursday, September 4, 2014

Sec.302 r/w 34 & 120 (B) of I.P.C.- mere presence of Accused No.3 present out side of the house - no offence made out- trial court and High court convicted - Apex court held that There is no evidence of his having played any part in the crime. He was merely seen by the witness as standing outside the house when the witness came home. Mahesh did not even act as a guard; he did not prevent Anil Kumar (PW-21) from entering the house. There is no evidence of the formation or sharing of any common intention with the other accused.There is no reference to a third person in the FIR; no evidence that he came with the other accused or left with them. No weapon was seized from him, nor was any property connected with the crime, seized. Having regard to the role attributed to him and the absence of incriminating factors we find that it is not safe to convict Mahesh of the offence of murder with the aid of Sections 34 and 120(B). We therefore, hold that the accused Mahesh (accused no. 3) in Criminal Appeal No. 867 of 2013 is innocent and the conviction against him is set aside.= CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 822 OF 2012 RAJU @ DEVENDRA CHOUBEY …. APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF CHHATISGARH …. RESPONDENT = 2014 - Aug.Part - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41835

  Sec.302 r/w 34 & 120 (B) of I.P.C.-  mere presence of Accused No.3 present out side of the house - no offence made out- trial court and High court convicted - Apex court held that There is no evidence of his having  played  any  part  in the crime.  He was merely seen by the witness as standing outside the  house when the witness came home.  Mahesh did not even act as a guard; he did  not prevent Anil Kumar (PW-21) from entering the house. There is no evidence  of the formation or sharing of any common intention  with  the  other  accused.There is no reference to a third person in the  FIR;  no  evidence  that  he came with the other accused or left with them.  No weapon  was  seized  from him, nor was any property connected with the crime, seized.   Having  regard to the role attributed to him and the absence of  incriminating  factors  we find that it is not safe to convict Mahesh of the  offence  of  murder  with the aid of Sections 34 and 120(B). We therefore,  hold  that  the  accused  Mahesh  (accused  no.  3)  in Criminal Appeal No. 867 of 2013 is innocent and the conviction  against  him is set aside.=

  MERE PRESENCE OF ACCUSED - WITH OUT ANY CONTRIBUTIONS NOR IN ACCOMPANY OF OTHER ACCUSED - ENTITLED FOR ACQUITTAL

 In particular it  was  submitted  that  the  role  attributed  to  the
accused was that he merely stood outside the house.
He did not even act  as
a guard because when the witness Anil Kumar (PW-21) came to  the  house,  he
was not even stopped by the accused from entering the  house.  
The  learned
counsel for Mahesh (accused no.3) relied on several decisions of this  Court
in Suresh Sakharam Nangare Vs.  State of Maharashtra (2012) 9 SCC  249,  Jai
Bhagwan Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1999 SC 1083 and Ramashish Yadav Vs.  State
of Bihar (1999) 8 SCC 555.

21.   It is settled law that common intention and conspiracy are matters  of
inference and if while drawing an inference any benefit of doubt creeps  in,
it must go to the accused vide Baliya Vs. State of M.P. (2012) 9 SCC 696.

22.   On a careful conspectus of the facts and the law, we are of  the  view
that the prosecution  has  failed  to  prove  the  guilt  of  Mahesh  beyond
reasonable doubt.
There is no evidence of his having  played  any  part  in
the crime.  
He was merely seen by the witness as standing outside the  house
when the witness came home.  
Mahesh did not even act as a guard; he did  not
prevent Anil Kumar (PW-21) from entering the house. 
There is no evidence  of
the formation or sharing of any common intention  with  the  other  accused.
There is no reference to a third person in the  FIR;  no  evidence  that  he
came with the other accused or left with them.  
No weapon  was  seized  from
him, nor was any property connected with the crime, seized.   
Having  regard
to the role attributed to him and the absence of  incriminating  factors  we
find that it is not safe to convict Mahesh of the  offence  of  murder  with
the aid of Sections 34 and 120(B).

23.   We therefore,  hold  that  the  accused  Mahesh  (accused  no.  3)  in
Criminal Appeal No. 867 of 2013 is innocent and the conviction  against  him
is set aside. His bail bonds stand cancelled and sureties are discharged.

2014 - Aug.Part - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41835

                                                          REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 822 OF 2012




RAJU @ DEVENDRA CHOUBEY                             …. APPELLANT



                                   VERSUS



STATE OF CHHATISGARH                           …. RESPONDENT



                                    WITH

                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  867 OF 2013

                                    WITH

                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  589 OF 2014

                                    WITH

              CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.      1781            OF 2014
                [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3737 OF 2014]



                                 1 JUDGMENT



S. A. BOBDE, J.



Leave granted in SLP (Crl.) No. 3737/2014.

2     These appeals  are  preferred  by  four  accused  against  the  common
Judgment of the High Court  of  Chhattisgarh  at  Bilaspur,  confirming  the
Judgment  of  the  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Bemetara,  District   Durg,
convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Sections 34  and  120B
of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred to as “IPC”]  and  sentencing
each of them to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine  of  Rs.  1,000/-,
and in default,  to  undergo  additional  rigorous  imprisonment  for  three
months.  These appeals have been taken up for disposal together  since  they
arise from a common judgment of the High Court deciding the appeals  of  the
accused.

3.    The appellant - Raju @ Devendra Choubey  (accused  no.  4)  has  filed
Criminal Appeal No. 822 of 2012.  The appellant -  Mahesh  (accused  no.  3)
has filed Criminal Appeal No. 867 of 2013.  The appellant - Beenu @  Chandra
Prakash (accused no. 2) has filed Criminal Appeal  No.  589  of  2014.   The
appellant - Smt. Shashi Tripathi (accused no. 1) has filed  Criminal  Appeal
arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3737 of 2014.

4.    PW-1 – Dr. Sharda Prasad Tripathi is the  husband  of  accused  Shashi
Tripathi.  On 25.11.2003, when PW-1 – Dr. Sharda Prasad Tripathi  came  home
from his clinic, found that his daughter-in-law  Bhavna  Tripathi  has  been
murdered.  He lodged a First Information Report (F.I.R.)  on  25.11.2003  at
about 20:45 hours.  The crime was registered. He deposed in  court  that  on
25.11.2003, when he returned home, he found servant Anil Kumar  (PW-21)  was
weeping.   When he went inside, he found his daughter-in-law  -  Bhavna  and
wife - Shashi  lying  in  the  courtyard.   Bhavna  was  dead.   Shashi  was
unconscious.  There were numerous  injuries,  including  incised  wounds  on
Bhavna, none on Shashi.

5.    After registration of the crime, inquest was conducted over  the  dead
body of Bhavna on 26.11.2003.  Post  mortem  was  conducted  by  Dr.  Naresh
Tiwari and Dr. M. Deodhar, who gave their report which is marked as  Exhibit
P/18.  Spot map was prepared  by  the  Inquiry  Officer  (IO);  bloodstained
cloth of accused Shashi  Tripathi  was  taken  into  possession  along  with
broken bangles; bloodstained cement mortar  and  plain  cement  mortar  were
also taken into possession.  Shashi Tripathi,  Mahesh  and  Binu  @  Chandra
Prakash were arrested on 29.11.2003.  A bloodstained knife  was  taken  into
possession.  The accused Raju @ Devendra Choubey was taken into  custody  on
22.12.2003 and a Suzuki motorcycle was also taken into possession.

6.    A test identification was conducted by  the  Executive  Magistrate  in
the Sub Jail, Bemetara on 13.12.2003.  A similar  identification  parade  of
Raju @ Devendra Choubey was conducted on 26.12.2003 after his arrest.

7.    A sealed packet containing hair found in the grip of the deceased  and
another sealed packet containing bloodstained cloth  of  the  deceased  were
taken into possession vide Exhibit P/35.

8.    After committal, the Trial Court  framed  charges  under  Section  302
read with Sections 34 and 120B of the  IPC.   The  prosecution  examined  32
witnesses.  No defence witness was examined  after  the  statements  of  the
accused were recorded under Section 313  of  the  Criminal  Procedure  Code,
1973.

9.    According to the prosecution the accused Shashi Tripathi is  the  step
mother-in-law of deceased Bhavna Tripathi.  Bhavna was married to  her  step
son – Jitendra Kumar in July, 2003.  Shashi  Tripathi  used  to  be  annoyed
with Bhavna Tripathi on account of some domestic dispute.  She  engaged  the
other accused for murdering Bhavna.  Bhavna was murdered  on  25.11.2003  at
about 18:30 hours in the house where she resided with Shashi Tripathi.

10.   There is  no  dispute  that  Bhavna’s  death  is  homicidal.   Dr.  M.
Deodhar, who conducted the postmortem, opined that cause of  her  death  was
neurogenic and hemorrhagic shock.  The  injuries  found  on  person  of  the
deceased were as follows:


“External Injuries:


(1) incised wound on left scapular region of size 3 cm x 1 cm;


(2) incised wound on left scapular region of size 4 cm x 1 ½  cm x 1 ½  cm;


(3) one incised wound on left auxiliary region on  the  posterior  auxiliary
region of size 3 cm x 2 cm x 3 cm;


(4) incised wound on lower costal region left of size 3 ½  cm x  2  cm  x  1
cm;


(5) incised wound on lower costal  region  right  side  on  right  epigestic
region of size 3 ½  cm x 3 cm with punctured wound;


(6) incised wound over right costal region of size 3 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm;


(7) incised wound on right supra mammary region near middle of size 4  cm  x
1 cm x 1 ½  cm;


(8) incised wound on right supra mammary region lateral aspect of size 3  cm
x 1 ½  cm x 1 ½  cm;


(9) incised wound on radial aspect of left forearm near wrist joint of  size
2 ½ cm x ½ cm x ½ cm;


(10) incised wound on forearm left hand radial side dorsal aspect  on  lower
2/3rd region;


(11) incised wound on left forearm middle l/3rd   region,  radial  side  and
posterior aspect of size 2 ½ cm x 1½  cm x 1 cm;


(12) incised wound on left hand dorsal aspect on 2nd   and  3rd   metacarpal
region of size 2½ cm x ½ cm x 1½ cm;


(13) incised wound on ulna region of left hand on  lower  1/3rd   region  of
size 1 cm x ½ cm x 1 cm; and


(14) incised wound over left side of neck, on anterior triangle  of  size  2
cm x ½ cm x 1 ½ cm.


Internal injuries:

Brain membrane pale; lungs, trachea pale, punctured wound on right and  left
lungs of size 2 cm x 1 cm, 2 ½ cm and 1 cm x 3 cm; lobe was  cut  and  there
was 3 cm punctured wound. Incised wound was also present on the  right  lobe
of size 3 cm x 1/3 cm x 3½ cm. Liver,  kidney  and  spleen  were  pale.  The
deceased was carrying fetus of two months.”

11.   The sole eyewitness was a boy of 13 years of age  –  Anil  Kumar  (PW-
21), who worked as a servant with the family.  Shashi Tripathi  had  brought
him home from Bilaspur.   He  participated  in  the  identification  parade,
which was held in Sub Jail, Bemetara, and identified the accused persons  in
the court by touching them.

12.   We have carefully examined the  manner  in  which  the  identification
parade was conducted and the manner in which the boy –  Anil  Kumar  (PW-21)
identified the accused  in  Court  and  we  have  no  reason  to  doubt  the
identification of the accused, which assumes importance in this  case  since
the boy did not know the accused before the incident.

13.   It is Anil Kumar (PW -21), who first informed the head of  the  family
Dr. Sharda Prasad Tripathi (PW-1),  the  complainant,  about  the  incident,
when he came home after closing his clinic.  He  deposed  before  the  Court
that Shashi Didi (accused) brought him to village  –  Jevra  from  Bilaspur.
He lived in the house of Shashi Didi.  He ate his food there and studied  in
a school.  He deposed that Doctor Sahab is her  husband  and  Shivendra  and
Jitendra are her sons.   Jitendra is her step-son and  the  deceased  Bhavna
is the wife of Jitendra.  She resided with  Shashi  Didi.    Jitendra  is  a
doctor, resided and practiced at  Khamaria,  whereas  his  wife  resided  at
Jevra.   His brother – Shivendra studies at Calcutta. He referred to  Bhavna
as Bhabhi.  He  stated  that  Shashi  Didi  and  Bhavna  sometimes  used  to
quarrel.

14.   About the assault, he deposed that Devendra caught Bhavna and  Chandra
Prakash attacked her with knife 3  to  4  times  and  she  fell  down.   The
incident occurred in the courtyard  and  Shashi  Didi  was  present  in  the
passage.  Mahesh, the  fourth  accused,  was  standing  outside  the  house.
After the assault, Chandra Prakash went to the TV  room  where  Shashi  Didi
had kept some money in a rubber band on the table.  The  accused  –  Chandra
Prakash had threatened him not to disclose anything about  the  incident  to
anyone.  Thereafter all the three  accused  fled  from  there.   He  further
deposed that Shashi Didi took him upstairs to the terrace and asked him  not
to disclose the truth to anyone but to say that thieves came into the  house
and committed the crime.  Shashi Didi  thereafter  started  shouting.   Then
she lay down on the courtyard near Bhavna Bhabhi.

15.   This deposition clearly implicates accused  Nos.  1,  2  and  4.   The
picture that emerges is that Shashi Tripathi caused Bhavna to be killed  and
for this purpose  engaged  Chandra  Prakash  (accused  No.  2)  and  Raju  @
Devendra Choubey (accused No. 4) by paying them money.  She  also  seems  to
have had a scuffle with Bhavna, which is apparent from  the  fact  that  her
hair was found in the grip of  the  deceased  during  investigation.  It  is
obvious that accused nos. 2 and 4 did  not  enter  the  house  to  commit  a
robbery and had a single mission, namely, to  kill  Bhavana.   There  is  no
evidence that  they  had  any  previous  animosity  with  the  deceased  and
appeared to have acted as contract killers.

16.   The prosecution has found it difficult  to  pinpoint  the  motive  but
Shashi Tripathi’s husband Dr. Sharda Prasad Tripathi (PW-1)  deposed  before
the Court that she tried to create a hindrance in the marriage  of  his  son
Jitendra since she wanted her daughter Abhilasha to marry him;  however,  he
went ahead with  the  marriage  of  Jitendra  to  Bhavna,  whereupon  Shashi
Tripathi remained silent.

17.   The credibility of the evidence of Anil Kumar (PW-21) was attacked  by
the learned counsel for the appellants, who submitted  that  the  boy  is  a
tutored witness, who has been influenced by the police with whom he spent  a
lot of time.  In fact, he even came to the Court in the company of a  police
constable after being served summons  at  Allahabad.   The  learned  counsel
submitted  that  the  evidence  of  a  child  witness  must   be   carefully
scrutinized before acceptance since a child can be easy  prey  for  tutoring
and the court must insist on corroboration from other evidence.

18.   On a careful perusal of the deposition of this child witness, we  have
not found any reason why he would have lied.   He was brought to  the  house
by Shashi Tripathi (accused), who apparently took care of him  and  sent  to
school and gave him food and  residence.   He  had  no  grouse  against  her
neither any ulterior  motive  in  identifying  the  accused,  who  were  not
acquainted to him.  There was no reason for the sole eye witness - Anil (PW-
21) to implicate anybody falsely.  Merely because he has been some  time  in
the company of the police at the police  station  his  testimony  cannot  be
discarded as untrue. The incident occurred within  the  four  walls  of  the
house of the accused - Shashi Tripathi and the only witness was  the  boy  –
Anil (PW-21).  His statement that the accused Chandra Prakash  attacked  the
deceased is corroborated by the recovery of knife from Chandra  Prakash.  It
must be remembered that the boy comes from a rural back ground  and  was  13
years of age when the incident occurred.   His  presence  in  the  house  is
entirely natural and we have no reason to discard his testimony.

19.   The  learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  forcefully  attacked  the
conviction of the other accused viz. Mahesh, Chandra  Prakash  and  Devendra
Kumar, who admittedly were not known to the child witness  Anil  Kumar.   It
was submitted that the test  identification  parade  were  delayed  and  the
identification of these accused by the witness in Court  was  not  reliable.
It is not possible for us to accept this  contention.   Mahesh  and  Chandra
Prakash  were  arrested  on  29.11.2003,  their  identification  parade  was
conducted on 13.12.2003 - (within a fortnight or so).  The accused  Devendra
Kumar  was  arrested  on  22.12.2003  and  his  identification  parade   was
conducted on 26.12.2003- (within  four  days).   There  is  no  evidence  on
record to show that the child witness had an opportunity to  see  and  study
the features of the accused between their  arrest  and  test  identification
parade to enable a tutored identification.  In any case, the period  between
the arrest and the identification parade was not large enough to  constitute
inordinate delay.  The learned counsel for the appellants  relied  upon  the
Judgment of this Court in Budhsen and Anr. Vs. State of U.P.  (1970)  2  SCC
128 where this Court made the following observations:-

            “7. Now, facts  which  establish  the  identity  of  an  accused
person are relevant under Section  9  of  the  Indian  Evidence  Act.  As  a
general rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is a statement  made  in
court. The evidence of mere identification of  the  accused  person  at  the
trial for the first time is from  its  very  nature  inherently  of  a  weak
character. The evidence in  order  to  carry  conviction  should  ordinarily
clarify as to how and under what circumstances  he  came  to  pick  out  the
particular accused person and the details of  the  part  which  the  accused
played in the crime in question with reasonable particularity.  The  purpose
of a  prior  test  identification,  therefore,  seems  to  be  to  test  and
strengthen  the  trustworthiness  of  that  evidence.  It   is   accordingly
considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look  for  corroboration  of
the sworn testimony of witnesses in court as to the identity of the  accused
who  are  strangers  to  them,  in  the  form  of   earlier   identification
proceeding. There may, however, be exceptions to  this  general  rule,  when
for example, the court is  impressed  by  a  particular  witness,  on  whose
testimony it can safely rely,  without  such  or  other  corroboration.  The
identification  parades  belong  to  the  investigation  stage.   They   are
generally held during the course of investigation with  the  primary  object
of enabling the witnesses to identify persons concerned in the offence,  who
were not previously known to them. This serves to satisfy the  investigating
officers of the bona fides of the prosecution witnesses and also to  furnish
evidence  to  corroborate   their   testimony   in   court.   Identification
proceedings in their legal  effect  amount  simply  to  this:  that  certain
persons are brought to jail or some other place and make  statements  either
express or implied that certain individuals whom they point out are  persons
whom they recognise as having been concerned  in  the  crime.  They  do  not
constitute substantive  evidence.  These  parades  are  of  the  essentially
governed by Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code.  It  is  for  this  reason
that the identification parades in this case seem to have  been  held  under
the  supervision  of  a  Magistrate.  Keeping  in  view   the   purpose   of
identification parades the Magistrates holding them  are  expected  to  take
all possible precautions to eliminate any suspicion  of  unfairness  and  to
reduce  the  chance  of  testimonial  error.  They  must,  therefore,   take
intelligent   interest   in   the   proceedings,   bearing   in   mind   two
considerations: (i) that the life and liberty of an accused  may  depend  on
their vigilance and caution and (ii) that justice  should  be  done  in  the
identification. Those proceeding should  not  make  it  impossible  for  the
identifiers who, after all, have, as a rule, only fleeting glimpses  of  the
person they are supposed to identify.  Generally  speaking,  the  Magistrate
must make a note of every objection raised by an  accused  at  the  time  of
identification and the steps  taken  by  them  to  ensure  fairness  to  the
accused,  so  that  the  court  which  is  to  judge  the   value   of   the
identification  evidence  may  take   them   into   consideration   in   the
appreciation of that evidence. The power to identify,  it  may  be  kept  in
view, varies according to the power of observation and memory of the  person
identifying and each case depends on  its  own  facts,  but  there  are  two
factors  which  seem  to  be  of  basic  importance  in  the  evaluation  of
identification. The persons required to identify an accused should have  had
no opportunity of seeing him after the commission of the  crime  and  before
identification and secondly that  no  mistakes  are  made  by  them  or  the
mistakes made are negligible. The identification to be of value should  also
be held without much delay. The number of persons mixed up with the  accused
should be reasonably large and their  bearing  and  general  appearance  not
glaringly  dissimilar.  The  evidence   as   to   identification   deserves,
therefore, to be subjected to a close and careful scrutiny by the Court…….”


The observations of this Court undoubtedly lay down the correct law  and  we
have no reason to doubt them.  We, however, do not see how the  observations
help the appellants.  In the present case, the child witness has been  found
to be reliable.  His presence is not doubted,  since  he  resided  with  the
family for whom he worked.  He had no  axe  to  grind  against  any  of  the
accused.  He became  the  unfortunate  witness  of  a  gruesome  murder  and
fearlessly identified the accused in Court.  In his deposition he  specified
the  details  of  the  part  which  the  accused  played   with   reasonable
particularity.  In such a  situation,  it  is  considered  a  safe  rule  of
prudence to generally look for  corroboration  of  the  sworn  testimony  of
witness in Court as to the identity of the  accused  who  are  strangers  to
them, in the form of earlier identification proceeding, as observed by  this
Court in  Budhsen’s  case  (supra).   This  Court  has  not  laid  down  the
requirement in general that all identification parades  must  be  under  the
supervision of a Magistrate as  in  Budhsen’s  case  (supra).   The  learned
counsel for the appellants also relied upon the Judgments of this  Court  in
Subash and Shiv Kumar Vs. State of U.P. (1987) 3 SCC 331,  and  Mohd.  Abdul
Hafeez Vs. State  of  Andhra  Pradesh  AIR  1983  SC  367.   The  facts  and
circumstances of the cases are however different and it is not necessary  to
consider those  cases  in  detail  while  dealing  with  the  present  case.
Suffice it to say that those cases do not create any doubt  as  regards  the
conviction in this case.

20.   Mr. P.C. Agrawala, learned senior counsel  for  the  appellant  Mahesh
(accused no. 3), vehemently submitted that this accused ought  not  to  have
been convicted under Section 302 with the aid of Sections 34 and 120 (B)  of
IPC.  In particular it  was  submitted  that  the  role  attributed  to  the
accused was that he merely stood outside the house.  He did not even act  as
a guard because when the witness Anil Kumar (PW-21) came to  the  house,  he
was not even stopped by the accused from entering the  house.   The  learned
counsel for Mahesh (accused no.3) relied on several decisions of this  Court
in Suresh Sakharam Nangare Vs.  State of Maharashtra (2012) 9 SCC  249,  Jai
Bhagwan Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1999 SC 1083 and Ramashish Yadav Vs.  State
of Bihar (1999) 8 SCC 555.

21.   It is settled law that common intention and conspiracy are matters  of
inference and if while drawing an inference any benefit of doubt creeps  in,
it must go to the accused vide Baliya Vs. State of M.P. (2012) 9 SCC 696.

22.   On a careful conspectus of the facts and the law, we are of  the  view
that the prosecution  has  failed  to  prove  the  guilt  of  Mahesh  beyond
reasonable doubt.  There is no evidence of his having  played  any  part  in
the crime.  He was merely seen by the witness as standing outside the  house
when the witness came home.  Mahesh did not even act as a guard; he did  not
prevent Anil Kumar (PW-21) from entering the house. There is no evidence  of
the formation or sharing of any common intention  with  the  other  accused.
There is no reference to a third person in the  FIR;  no  evidence  that  he
came with the other accused or left with them.  No weapon  was  seized  from
him, nor was any property connected with the crime, seized.   Having  regard
to the role attributed to him and the absence of  incriminating  factors  we
find that it is not safe to convict Mahesh of the  offence  of  murder  with
the aid of Sections 34 and 120(B).

23.   We therefore,  hold  that  the  accused  Mahesh  (accused  no.  3)  in
Criminal Appeal No. 867 of 2013 is innocent and the conviction  against  him
is set aside. His bail bonds stand cancelled and sureties are discharged.

24.   In view of the above, Criminal Appeal No. 867 of 2013 is  allowed  and
Criminal Appeal Nos. 822 of 2012, 589 of 2014 and  Criminal  Appeal  arising
out of SLP (Criminal) No. 3737 of 2014 are dismissed.




                                                 ………………………….…..........…..J.
                                                               [DIPAK MISRA]


                                      .................................………J.

                                                       [S.A. BOBDE]


NEW DELHI,
AUGUST 21, 2014


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.