[2026:RJ-JP:21430-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 208/2021

1. Kallu @ Yogendra Son of Shri Mool Chand, Resident of

Falen, Police Station Kosi Kalan, District Mathura (U.P.)

2. Sonu Son of Shri Mool Chand, Resident of Falen, Police

Station Kosi Kalan, District Mathura (U.P.) At Present

Lakhan Ki Kothi Ke Pichhe, Officer Colony, Kosi Kalan,

District Mathura (U.P.)

3. Sachin Panchal Son Of Shri Devendra Panchal, Resident of

House No. 551, Bajrang Chowk, Sector-37, Sarai Khwaja,

Faridabad, Haryana

4. Vinod Panchal Son of Shri Narottam Lal, Resident Of

Sector 37, Sarai Khwaja, Faridabad, Haryana.

Accused-appellants are confined in Central Jail, Alwar.

----Appellants

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Surendra Singh, Adv. with

Mr. Anoop Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Deepak Soni, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

For Complainant(s)

:

:

Mr. Amit Kumar Punia, PP with

Ms. Divyangana, Adv. &

Ms. Neha Goyal, Adv.

Mr. Parth Sharma, Adv. &

Mr. Yatharth Agarwal, Adv. for

Mr. Sudhir Jain, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Judgment

1. Date of conclusion of arguments : 20.05.2026

2. Date on which the judgment was reserved : 20.05.2026

3. Whether the full judgment or only the

operative part is pronounced : Full Judgment

4. Date of pronouncement : 27.05.2026

****

[2026:RJ-JP:21430-DB] (2 of 17) [CRLAD-208/2021]

(Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Upman)

1.The instant Criminal Appeal has been filed by the accused-

appellants under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved of the

judgment dated 05.10.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions

Judge No.1, Tijara, District Alwar in Sessions Case No.85/2014

whereby they have been convicted for offences punishable under

Sections 302 & 302/34 of IPC and Section 3/5 of Arms Act and

sentenced as under:

Offences Sentence Fine Default

Sentence

U/s 302 &

302/34 of IPC

Life imprisonmentRs.10,000/-6 months’ SI

U/s 3/5 of Arms

Act

2 years Rs.2,000/-2 months’ SI

2.Both sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.

3.The brief facts of the case are that the complainant, Baney

Singh (PW-2), filed a report (Ex-P/2) stating that on 07.05.2014,

between approximately 7:30 and 8:00 AM, his brother, Mahendra

Tanwar, was returning home after dropping his nephew at the bus

stop for school. During this time, Mahendra Tanwar was shot and

killed by unknown assailants, who were standing near an ironing

shop located in the Chowk of Sector 7. According to the

complainant, there were three accused, one of whom appeared

stout while the other two appeared to be childlike. They were

reportedly riding a black Pulsar motorcycle without a number

plate. On the basis of said report, an FIR No.162/2014 (Ex.P/51)

was registered at the Police Station, Bhiwari Phase-III for offence

[2026:RJ-JP:21430-DB] (3 of 17) [CRLAD-208/2021]

punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC and investigation was

commenced.

4.After thorough investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet

against the accused-appellants before the concerned Court for the

offences under Sections 302, 120B & 34 of IPC and Section 3/25

of Arms Act.

5.Thereafter, the case was committed for trial to the Court of

Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Tijara, District Alwar (hereinafter

referred to as the ‘learned trial Court’). Learned trial Court framed

charges against the appellants under Sections 302 or 302/34 &

120B of IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms, which were denied and

trial was claimed.

6.The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as

19 witnesses and got exhibited 67 documents. Details of which are

reproduced as under:

List of witnesses:

PW-1 Omprakash

PW-2 Baney Singh (Complainant)

PW-3 Bhagat Singh

PW-4 Dayaram

PW-5 Surendra Singh

PW-6 Mahipal

PW-7 Rahul

PW-8 Devendra

PW-9 Ravindra

PW-10 Dr. Satpal Yadav

PW-11 Dr. Shiv Kumar Gupta

PW-12 Deepu

PW-13 Praveen Kumar

PW-14 Keshar Singh

PW-15 Rakesh Kumar

PW-16 Tej Singh

PW-17 Kailash Choudhary

[2026:RJ-JP:21430-DB] (4 of 17) [CRLAD-208/2021]

PW-18 Suresh Kumar

PW-19 Ravindra Kumar

List of documents:

Exhibit-P/1 Seizure memo of two sealed Jar containing

sample

Exhibit-P/2 Written report lodged by Baney Singh

Exhibit-P/3 Memo of Panchnama of deceased Mahendra @

Pappu

Exhibit-P/4 Site plan of place of incident

Exhibit-P/5 Seizure memo of blood smeared clothes of

deceased Mahendra @ Pappu

Exhibit-P/6 Seizure memo of simple Grit (Rodi) and blood

smeared Grit (Rodi) taken from the Coltar road

Exhibit-P/7 Seizure memo of shell of cartridge and bullets

Exhibit-P/8

to

Exhibit -P/18

Identification parade of accused Sonu Panchal,

Kallu @ Yogendra, Sachin and Vinod Panchal

Exhibit-P/19 Post-mortem report of deceased Mahendra @

Pappu

Exhibit-P/20 to

P/31

Photographs of deceased Mahendra @ Pappu

Exhibit-P/32 Seizure memo of various mobile SIMs and

articles

Exhibit-P/33 Seizure memo of one Desi Katta .315 bore and

nine live cartridge

Exhibit-P/34 Seizure memo of one Desi Katta .315 bore and

one live cartridge

Exhibit-P/35 Seizure memo of one Motorcycle Pulsar No.HP

SI-R-8932

Exhibit-P/36 Seizure memo of one Desi Pistol and three live

cartridge

Exhibit-P/37 Seizure memo of one Motorcycle Hero Honda

SPL+ No.HR SI-S-1052

Exhibit-P/38 Seizure memo of one Desi Pistol and four live

cartridge

Exhibit-P/39 to

P/42

Arrest and personal search memo of accused

appellants

Exhibit-P/43 Memo of site plan of the place of incident

Exhibit-P/44 Memo of site plan of the place of recovery of

one pistol and cartridge

Exhibit-P/45 Memo of site plan of the place of recovery of

one desi katta .315 bore

[2026:RJ-JP:21430-DB] (5 of 17) [CRLAD-208/2021]

Exhibit-P/46 Memo of site plan of the place of recovery of

one pistol at the instance of accused Sonu

Exhibit-P/47 Memo of site plan of the place of recovery of

one desi katta at the instance of accused Vinod

Kumar

Exhibit-P/48 Verification memo and site plan of the place of

incident

Exhibit-P/49 Acknowledgment receipt of SFSL, Jaipur, Raj.

Exhibit-P/49A Extract copy of Malkhana Register

Exhibit-P/50 Acknowledgment receipt of SFSL, Jaipur, Raj.

Exhibit-P/51 FIR No.162/14 registered at PS Bhiwadi, Alwar

Exhibit-P/52 to

P/61

Information memo u/s 27 of Evidence Act

given by the accused persons

Exhibit-P/62 &

P/63

Report of SFSL, Jaipur, Raj.

Exhibit-P/64 Letter from Cumulative Inspector, Police Line,

Alwar to SHO, PS Bhiwadi, Alwar

Exhibit-P/65 Charge-sheet No.266/14

Exhibit-P/66 Supplementary charge-sheet No.266A

Exhibit-P/67 Order of sanction for prosecution

7.The accused-appellants were examined under Section 313

Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the allegations levelled by the

prosecution and stated that they had been falsely implicated in

this case.

8.At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court, vide

impugned judgment dated 05.10.2021 found the accused-

appellants guilty for offences under Sections 302 & 302/34 of IPC

and Section 3/25 of Arms Act and as a consequence, convicted

and sentenced them as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal.

9.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-

appellants submitted that the learned trial Court failed to properly

appreciate the evidence available on record and that the findings

of conviction recorded against the accused-appellants are not

supported by any proper or judicious assessment of the evidence

[2026:RJ-JP:21430-DB] (6 of 17) [CRLAD-208/2021]

adduced during trial. Rather, the conclusion arrived at by the trial

Court seems to be based on surmises, conjectures, and

assumptions unsupported by reliable and cogent evidence.

Counsel submitted that the complainant is not an eye-witness of

the incident and the so-called eye-witnesses of the case namely

Rahul (PW-7), Devendra (PW-8) & Ravindra (PW-9) had deposed

in their testimony that at the time of alleged incident, they were

present in a park situated near the place of alleged incident.

Counsel submitted that no park was situated near the place of

alleged incident. The three so-called eye-witnesses are the

relatives of the deceased and they gave false testimony just in

order to implicate the appellants in the alleged crime. If these

three eye-witnesses were present at the place of alleged incident,

they would have participated in the panchnama proceedings, but

they did not participate in the same. Thus, their testimony as well

as their presence at the place of alleged incident is very doubtful

and unreliable. The trial Court failed to take notice of the material

inconsistencies, omission and improvements in the testimony of

these eye-witnesses. Counsel submitted that instead of

scrutinizing the evidence with the caution required in a criminal

trial, the trial Court appears to have drawn adverse conclusions

against the accused-appellants on the basis of speculative

reasoning, thereby rendering the findings of conviction

unsustainable in the eyes of law.

10.Learned counsel further submits that the identification

parade of the appellants is also doubtful as before identification

parade, the Police had already shown the appellants to the

witnesses, who participated in the said identification parade.

[2026:RJ-JP:21430-DB] (7 of 17) [CRLAD-208/2021]

Moreover, the prosecution has not obtained sanction against the

appellants for offence under Section 3/25 of Arms Act. Thus, the

said offence is not proved against the appellants.

11.In these circumstances, it is contended that the appellants

have not committed any offence as alleged and they have been

implicated in this case on the basis of false and fabricated

evidence. Therefore, they may be acquitted from the offences as

indicated above.

12.Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the learned

counsel for the complainant has submitted that the learned trial

Court after meticulous examination of the evidence as well as

testimony of the witnesses has rightly convicted the accused-

appellants. He submits that there is ample evidence against the

appellants which proves that they, in a criminal conspiracy,

murdered the deceased Mahendra by using multiple firearms. The

allegations against the appellants have duly been proved from the

testimony of the prosecution witnesses, recovery memo as well as

identification parade. Thus, there is no question to accept the

prayer of accused-appellants to acquit them from offences under

Sections 302 & 302/34 of IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act.

13.We have duly considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel appearing for both sides. We have also gone through the

impugned judgment as well as all the relevant material on record

in the Trial Court.

14.Out of total 19 prosecution witnesses, 12 are formal

witnesses, who have either proved the documents or witnessed

the seizure made in the case during the course of investigation.

The main witnesses in this case are PW-2 complainant, PW-7 to

[2026:RJ-JP:21430-DB] (8 of 17) [CRLAD-208/2021]

PW-9 three eye-witnesses, PW-10 & PW-11 medical experts, who

conducted the post-mortem of the dead-body and PW-17 the

Investigating Officer of this case.

15.For proving the charges framed against the accused

appellants, the prosecution has mainly relied upon the statements

made by the complainant, i.e., Baney Singh (PW-2) as well as the

three eye witnesses, namely, Rahul (PW-7), Devendra (PW-8),

Ravindra (PW-9), medical experts who did post-mortem of the

dead body, Dr. Satpal Yadav (PW-10), Dr. Shiv Kumar Gupta (PW-

11), and Investigating Officer, Kailash Chaudhary (PW-17).

The FIR (Ex.-P/51) was lodged by Baney Singh (PW-2), wherein it

was alleged that his brother was shot and killed by three unknown

assailants when his brother was returning home after dropping his

nephew at the bus stop for school. It was further alleged that out

of the three accused, one appeared stout while the other two

appeared to be childlike. They were reportedly riding a black

Pulsar motorcycle without a number plate and started firing

indiscriminately at his brother.

16.A bare perusal of the FIR gives an impression that the

complainant (PW-2) was an eye-witness to the occurrence;

however, during the course of his cross-examination, he candidly

admitted that he was not present at the place of occurrence at the

relevant time and could not even recollect as to who had informed

him about the incident.

17.Eye-witnesses Rahul (PW-7), Devendra (PW-8) and Ravindra

(PW-9) have deposed in almost identical terms. A careful analysis

of their testimony would reveal that they have provided

consistent, reasonable, and reliable versions of what transpired in

[2026:RJ-JP:21430-DB] (9 of 17) [CRLAD-208/2021]

the case. All three eye-witnesses have stated with absolute

certainty that they were present at the scene of occurrence during

the relevant period of time and observed everything that

happened there. As per their testimony, four persons were present

at the said location, out of which, three had arrived on a

motorcycle, while the fourth person was standing nearby. Their

testimony further reveals that immediately after the deceased

Mahendra had dropped the child and was returning towards his

residence, the person standing nearby signalled the three persons

on the motorcycle, whereupon they indiscriminately fired at

Mahendra, thereby causing him fatal gunshot injuries leading to

his immediate death at the spot. Thereafter, all the accused

persons fled from the scene of occurrence. It is stated by the

witnesses that, during the course of investigation, they were taken

to the jail for the purpose of identification proceedings, wherein

they accurately and definitively identified the accused persons who

fired the shots, as well as the other accused person who stood

watching and had signalled the assailants to open gunfire. The

identification made by the witnesses did not end there, but was

further reiterated by them during their appearance before the

Court during the course of the trial. The witnesses have also

remained consistent in their statements that they had gone out for

their daily morning walk and happened to witness the occurrence.

Moreover, they stated that they were residing in the same vicinity,

which makes their presence at the place of occurrence quite

natural and believable. It is pertinent to note that, upon an

objective analysis of the evidence elicited during cross-

examination, no serious challenge was raised regarding their

[2026:RJ-JP:21430-DB] (10 of 17) [CRLAD-208/2021]

identification of the accused persons. The only objection raised

against them was that they were deposing falsely on account of

their close relationship with the deceased. Mere alleged

relationship with the deceased cannot be regarded as a ground to

reject their evidence, especially when nothing contrary or

inconsistent has been established during cross-examination. A

holistic and careful appreciation of the testimony of these three

eye-witnesses leaves no scope for any doubt regarding the fact

that their presence at the place of occurrence stands firmly

established and that they have unhesitatingly and clearly

identified the accused persons as the perpetrators of the crime. In

fact, the testimony of these eye-witnesses appear to be convincing

and trustworthy. There has been no major discrepancy or

inconsistency in their testimony affecting the core structure of the

prosecution case. Even the minor inconsistencies or discrepancies,

if any, are only natural and cannot detract from the basic

foundation of the prosecution case.

18.It is also noteworthy that all necessary precautions were

taken prior to conducting the Test Identification Parade in

presence of PW-18 the then Tehsildar, Suresh Kumar Hasoliya as

their faces were kept muffled. During the identification

proceedings, the accused-appellants’ were mixed with persons of

similar appearance. The mere assertion that the appellants were

shown to the witnesses at the police station before the Test

Identification Parade would not, by itself, cast any doubt upon the

reliability and validity of the identification procedure unless proven

convincingly by tangible material. Therefore, evidence regarding

[2026:RJ-JP:21430-DB] (11 of 17) [CRLAD-208/2021]

the identification will not be rejected merely because of bald

assertions made by the defence.

19.Another point of contention raised by the learned counsel for

the appellants is that neither the presence of the three eye-

witnesses at the scene of the occurrence could be established, nor

did it seem probable. All three eye-witnesses testified that they

went to the park for a morning walk. In sharp contrast, the

investigating officer affirmed that no such park existed at or

around the spot of occurrence, a fact also not reflected in the site

plan drawn up during the investigation.

20.We have carefully considered the aforesaid submissions and

minutely examined the testimony of the three eye-witnesses, the

statement of the investigating officer, as well as the site plan of

the place of occurrence. Upon such scrutiny, we do not find any

substance in the contention advanced on behalf of the appellants.

Merely because the word “park” has not been specifically

mentioned in the site plan cannot, by itself, lead to the conclusion

that no place suitable for walking existed near the place of

occurrence. The investigating officer, in his deposition, has clearly

stated that there was an open vacant area adjoining the place of

occurrence, having grass and trees, where local residents used to

walk. The description reflected in the site plan is also consistent

with the said statement of the investigating officer. Thus, the

omission to describe the area specifically as a “park” is of no

consequence and does not materially affect the prosecution case.

21.It is also noteworthy that during cross-examination, no

material or effective questions were put to the eye-witnesses so

as to cast doubt upon their presence at the spot. No contradiction

[2026:RJ-JP:21430-DB] (12 of 17) [CRLAD-208/2021]

or circumstance could be elicited to show that they were not

present at the relevant time and place. The witnesses were merely

given a bald suggestion that they were deposing falsely on

account of their relationship or proximity to the deceased. Such

vague suggestions, unsupported by any cogent material or

convincing evidence, are wholly insufficient to discredit otherwise

reliable testimony. Apart from this, it is also evident from the

record that all three eye-witnesses are residents of the same

vicinity and their presence at the crime scene cannot be doubted.

Under these facts and circumstances, we find no reason to doubt

the presence of the eyewitnesses at the scene of the crime.

22.Coming to the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution,

it is evident from the record that it fully corroborates the ocular

and forensic evidence relied upon. The post-mortem examination

of the deceased was conducted on the very same day by a duly

constituted Medical Board comprising PW-10, Dr. Satpal Yadav,

and PW-11, Dr. Shiv Kumar Gupta. In clear and unequivocal

terms, both doctors stated before the Court that the death of the

deceased was caused by excessive bleeding and hemorrhagic

shock due to firearm injuries to vital organs. This makes it

absolutely clear that the injuries sustained by the deceased were

sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

23.It was further submitted by the medical experts that during

the process of post-mortem examination, bullets and bullet

fragments taken out from the body of the deceased were properly

sealed and were given to the investigating agency. Thereafter, the

recovered bullets together with the firearms, which were seized at

the instance of the accused-appellants, were sent to the State

[2026:RJ-JP:21430-DB] (13 of 17) [CRLAD-208/2021]

Forensic Science Laboratory for their ballistic and forensic

examination. Furthermore, the prosecution has relied upon

another report which has been prepared by the FSL (Ex.-P/62),

which makes it clear that the bullets found in the body of the

deceased have definitely been fired from the firearms which were

recovered from the possession of the appellants. In other words,

the ballistics report of the State Forensic Science Laboratory

establishes a significant scientific connection between the

appellants and the commission of the crime. The relevant extract

of the said report is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“3. based on comparison microscopic examination it is

the opinion that:-

(i)Two 8mm K.F. cartridge cases (C/2 & C/3) form

packet ‘B’ and two 8mm/.315” soft round nose

copper jacketted bullets (B/1 & B/4) from packets

‘B’ and ‘B(M.O.)’ respectively have been fired from

submitted 8mm/.315 country made pistol (W/1)

from packet ‘E’.

(ii)One 7.65mm K.F. rimless cartridge case (C/4) from

packet ‘B’ and two 7.65mm round nose copper

jacketted bullet/copper jacket part of 7.65mm

bullet (B/2 & B/3) from paket ‘B’ have been fired

from submitted 7.65 mm country made pistol

(W/2) from packet ‘G’.

(iii)One 7.65mm K.F. rimless cartridge case (C/1) from

packet ‘I’ and one damaged 7.65mm copper

jacketted bullet (B/5) from packet ‘B(M.O.)’ hav

bee fired from submitted 7.65mm country made

pistol (W/3) from packet ‘I’.

(iv)It has not been possible to link definitely five

7.65mm K.F. rimless cartridge cases (C/5 to C/9)

from packet ‘B’ with any 7.65mm country made

pistols (W/2 & W/3) from packets ‘G’ & ‘I’

respectively, due to lack of sufficient evidence.”

24.Thus, the medical evidence, duly supported by the scientific

and forensic evidence available on record, conclusively proves that

[2026:RJ-JP:21430-DB] (14 of 17) [CRLAD-208/2021]

the deceased succumbed to firearm injuries and that the said

injuries were caused by shots fired from the weapons recovered

pursuant to the disclosures and recoveries made at the instance of

the accused-appellants. The prosecution evidence on this aspect is

cogent, reliable and wholly consistent, thereby lending substantial

assurance to the case of the prosecution.

25.The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that

the prosecution has failed to establish any motive for the

commission of the offence, inasmuch as the FIR does not contain

any allegation regarding prior enmity between the parties. In

order to appreciate this submission, we carefully examined the

evidence available on record as well as the testimony of the

complainant recorded during trial.

26.Upon scrutiny of the evidence, it emerges that the

complainant has categorically deposed that accused Vinod was

having prior enmity with the deceased, who was the complainant’s

brother. The complainant further stated that both, Vinod and Sonu

had extended threats to the deceased prior to the incident.

Significantly, this part of the testimony remained unshaken during

cross-examination and no material contradiction or infirmity could

be elicited by the defence so as to discredit the same.

27.Apart from this, it is a settled proposition of criminal

jurisprudence that motive assumes significance primarily in cases

based on circumstantial evidence. Where there is reliable and

cogent ocular testimony available on record, mere failure to

establish motive with precision does not by itself demolish the

prosecution case. The absence of a motive cannot override strong

and trustworthy evidence which shows that the accused has been

[2026:RJ-JP:21430-DB] (15 of 17) [CRLAD-208/2021]

involved in the crime. Hence, the mere fact that the FIR does not

specify any pre-existing animosity between the parties is not

sufficient enough to say that the motive has not been proved by

the prosecution in any manner whatsoever, especially when the

complainant has always spoken of the pre-existing animosity on

the part of the accused persons.

28.The contention raised by the appellants regarding the

existence of motive is absolutely baseless and in no way affects

the case made by the prosecution.

29.Another ground urged by the learned counsel for the

appellants was that the sanction for prosecution under the Arms

Act had neither been supplied to the appellants nor duly proved in

accordance with law, inasmuch as the authority issuing the

sanction was not examined as a prosecution witness.

We have carefully considered the said contention and find no

substance in it. The record clearly reveals that the prosecution

sanction was not only brought on record but was also formally

exhibited during the course of the prosecution evidence as Exhibit

P-67. Significantly, at the time when the document was tendered

and exhibited, no objection whatsoever was raised on behalf of

the appellants regarding either its admissibility or its mode of

proof. It is further evident from the record that the prosecution

had obtained the original sanction order from the Collector,

produced the same before the trial Court, and got it duly exhibited

in evidence. During the course of arguments, the only contention

advanced was that the sanction had never been produced at all, a

submission which stands completely belied by the record itself.

Once the sanction order was exhibited without objection, the

[2026:RJ-JP:21430-DB] (16 of 17) [CRLAD-208/2021]

appellants cannot subsequently contend that the sanction was not

proved merely because the sanctioning authority was not

examined as a witness. Moreover, the defence failed to point out

any prejudice caused to the accused-appellants.

30.In the considered opinion of this Court, the foregoing

discussion unequivocally establishes that all four appellants acted

in concert and in furtherance of their common intention to commit

the murder of the deceased. As has been made evident by the

materials on record, it can be concluded that three of the

appellants discharged the gunshots in relation to the death of the

deceased while the fourth appellant was acting as an accomplice

in the commission of the crime. The method and means of

shooting as committed by the appellants do not admit to the

existence of any doubt regarding the fact that the appellants had

been acting together in committing murder.

31.In addition to the foregoing, it must be noted that the

findings reached by the learned trial Court are based on sound

considerations and have been made after a proper appreciation of

the material evidence on record. There appears to be no sort of

material illegality or arbitrariness in the case that necessitates the

intervention of this Court in relation to the same. Accordingly, this

Court is fully satisfied that the prosecution has succeeded in

proving the guilt of all four appellants beyond reasonable doubt,

and therefore, the finding of conviction recorded by the learned

trial Court deserves to be upheld in its entirety.

32.In the backdrop of discussions made hereinabove, the

present Criminal Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. The

[2026:RJ-JP:21430-DB] (17 of 17) [CRLAD-208/2021]

judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court convicting

and sentencing the appellants is affirmed.

33.Record of the trial Court be sent back forthwith.

34.Since the accused-appellant No.3, Sachin Panchal is

absconding and arrest warrant has already been issued against

him by this Court, the same shall remain in force till its execution.

The learned trial Court is directed to take appropriate steps in

order to take accused-appellant No.3 in custody and send him to

jail to serve the sentence.

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

1/-Manoj Solanki