A.F.R.

Judgment reserved on : 01.09.2022

Judgment delivered on : 30.09.2022

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4599 of 2015

Appellant :- Smt. Seema

Respondent :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Appellant :- Atul Tej Kulshrestha,Rajrshi

Gupta,Vinay Kumar Khokhar,Vinay Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Braham Singh,Sushil

Kumar Tewari

With

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4601 of 2015

Appellant :- Devendra Singh

Respondent :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Appellant :- Atul Tej Kulshrestha,Akhilesh

Kumar Singh,Amit Misra,Rajesh Kumar

Vishwakarma,Rajrshi Gupta,Vinay Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Braham Singh,Sushil

Kumar Tewari

With

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4597 of 2015

Appellant :- Praveen Singh

Respondent :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Appellant :- Atul Tej Kulshrestha,Rajrshi

Gupta,Vinay Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Braham Singh,Sushil

Kumar Tewari

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

(Per Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1.These criminal appeals have been preferred by

appellants Smt. Seema, Devendra Singh and Praveen

2

Singh against the judgment and order dated 15.09.2015

passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge / Fast

Track Court No.2, Moradabad in Sessions Trial No.1549

of 2008 (State Versus Devendra Singh and others) arising

out of case crime no.701 of 2005 under sections 498-A,

304-B, 201, 302 IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition

Act, Police Station Asmauli, District Moradabad

convicting and sentencing all the appellants for the

offence under section 498-A IPC to undergo 2 years

rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- and in

default of payment of fine, three months further rigorous

imprisonment, for the offence under section 304-B IPC to

undergo imprisonment for life, for the offence under

section 201 IPC to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment

with fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine,

three months further rigorous imprisonment and for the

offence under section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act to undergo

one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/-

and in default of payment of fine, three months further

rigorous imprisonment. All sentences were directed to run

concurrently.

2.Factual scenario as culled out from the F.I.R. is that

the informant (P.W.1) solemnized the marriage of his

daughter with Devendra Singh (accused) on 8.4.2004 in

which he spent around six lac rupees, but her husband and

in-laws’ were not satisfied with the dowry and they used

to blame the daughter of the informant for not fulfilling

their demand. Daughter of the informant had told this fact

to him and other family members when she returned from

her matrimonial house. On 30.6.2004, when the informant

3

went to meet his daughter at her in-laws’ house, she told

that her jeth, jethani and mother-in-law had made a

demand of rupees five lacs and started extending torture to

her. On 31.10.2004, the informant went to her daughter’s

place on the occasion of karwachauth and made complaint

to Devendra, the husband, regarding harassment and

additional demand of dowry. On 18.11.2004, the

informant again visited her daughter’s matrimonial house,

but no one was found over there. On query being made,

the neighbours informed that Devendra, his mother, his

brother and bhabhi have committed the murder of her

daughter due to demand of dowry and also destroyed the

evidence thereof. Informant was not informed regarding

the death of his daughter. The Police did not lodge any

F.I.R. despite efforts of the informant and ultimately by

order of the Court, F.I.R. was lodged.

3.Initially, the investigation was made by C.O.

Harendra Pratap Singh (P.W.4), but subsequently it was

transferred to C.O. Brijesh Kumar Srivastava (P.W.5), who

conducting the proceedings of investigation, recorded

statements of witnesses, prepared site plan Ext. A4 and

after completion of entire formalities, charge-sheets Ext.

A5 and Ext. A6 were submitted to the Court by the last

I.O. Dpy. S.P. Sushil Kumar (P.W.6).

4.Magistrate concerned took cognizance in the matter

and the case, being exclusively triable by the Sessions

Court, was committed to the Court of Sessions.

5.The Trial Court framed charges against accused

Devendra Singh, Praveen Singh and Smt. Seema for the

4

offence under Sections 498A, 304-B, 302, 201, 3/4

Dowry Prohibition Act on 18.7.2011.

6.Accused denied the charges framed against them,

pleading not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.Accused Smt. Krishna died before framing of charge

and the case was abated against her.

8.In order to prove its case, prosecution examined six

witnesses. Out of them, P.W.1 is Bhagwant Singh, the

informant, P.W.2 Sudeep, the brother of the deceased,

P.W.3 Hukum Singh, the uncle of the deceased, P.W.4

Circle Officer Harendra Pratap Singh, the first

investigating officer, P.W.5 Brijesh Kumar Srivastava, the

subsequent investigating officer and P.W.6 Circle Officer

Sushil Kumar, the last investigating officer.

9.As per documentary evidence, application under

section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Ext. A-1, affidavit Ext. A-2, Chik

F.I.R. Ext. A-3, Site Plan Ext. A-4, Charge-sheet Ext. A-5

and A-6 and application Ext. A-7 have been filed.

10.On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of

accused-persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.

wherein they denied all the allegations and incriminating

evidence against them and stated that their implication in

the present case is totally false. Narrating the story, they

have stated that on 16.11.2004, Devendra was returning

home along with his wife (deceased) on a motorcycle

bearing registration no.UP-81 – 8427 and when they

reached village Nandpur Beeta at 7:30 P.M., an unknown

DCM vehicle hit their motorcycle, due to which Devendra

and his wife became injured and thereafter his wife

succumbed to the injuries. Devendra also received injuries

5

in the said accident. He got treated at Sai Hospital,

Moradabad, Sainik Hospital, Meerut and lastly at Army

Hospital, Kocchi. It was further stated that accidental case

was converted into a case of dowry death. Panchnama was

prepared on spot in the presence of informant and his

family members who were also present at the time of

cremation.

11. Accused persons in their defence have examined

D.W.1 Harpal Singh, D.W.2 Ranjit Singh, D.W.3 Tirmal

Singh, D.W.4 Dr. Anurag Agarwal, D.W.5 Rajendra Singh,

D.W.6 C.P. 93 Harvir Singh, D.W.7 Devendra Singh

(Accused), D.W.8 Chandan Giri Goswami and D.W.9 S.I.

Anil Kumar.

12.Bed Head Ticket of Sai Hospital Ext. Kha-1,

Panchnama Ext. Kha-2, Discharge Slip Ext. Kha-3,

Medical Report Ext. Kha-4, Medical Treatment Report

Ext. Kha-5, Treatment paper and discharge slip Ext. Kha-

6, Kha-7 respectively have been produced as documentary

evidence by defence.

13.Trial Court, having heard learned counsels for

parties and going through entire record, vide impugned

judgment and order, convicted and sentenced the accused-

appellants as above. Hence, feeling aggrieved with said

judgment and order, accused-appellants have filed this

appeal.

14. Heard Sri Rajarshi Gupta, learned counsel for the

appellants, Sri N.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A for the

State and perused the entire record.

15.P.W.1 Bhagwant Singh has proved the application

moved before the Court under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as

6

Ext. A-1 and he has also proved the facts of the marriage

of her daughter with accused Devendra Singh on 8.4.2004.

He has also deposed that accused-persons Devendra,

Praveen, Seema and Krishna used to demand rupees five

lacs as additional dowry from her and she was subjected to

cruelty for the demand of dowry. He has further deposed

that his daughter used to tell those incidents to him and

when on 18.11.2004 he went to the house of the accused-

persons to meet his daughter, the neighbours told that the

accused-persons have murdered his daughter and the dead

body was set to fire. In his cross-examination, he has

expressed his ignorance about the alleged motorcycle

accident wherein accused Devendra got injured and

subsequently hospitalized and his daughter died. He does

not know the cause of death of his daughter Sarita.

16.P.W.2 Sudeep is the brother of the deceased and he

has also corroborated the deposition of P.W.1 and has

categorically stated that the accused-persons used to

demand additional dowry from his sister and she was

continuously subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry.

17.P.W.3 Hukum Singh is the brother of the informant.

He has also corroborated the statement of P.W.1 and

supported the prosecution version in his deposition.

18.P.W.4 C.O. Harendra Pratap Yadav has deposed as

secondary witness for H.M. Ganga Singh, the scribe of the

F.I.R. and has proved the chik F.I.R. as Ext. A-3. This

witness is also the first I.O. of the case and he had

recorded the statement of H.M. Ganga Singh.

19.P.W.5 C.O. Brijesh Kumar Srivastava is the second

I.O. of the case who has proved the site-plan Ext. A-4

7

prepared after inspection of the spot, which was prepared

on the basis of the identification of the informant. He has

also recorded the statement of the informant and other

witnesses.

20.P.W.6 Dy. S.P. Sushil Kumar is the third I.O. of the

case, who has proved the proceedings of investigation in

his deposition and has also proved charge-sheets Ext. A-5

and A-6.

21.After prosecution evidence was over, the

incriminating circumstances and evidence were put to the

accused-persons. The accused-persons in their statement

under section 313 Cr.P.C. has denied the prosecution story

and told the whole evidence as false and fabricated. They

have taken a specific defence that on 16.11.2004, accused

Devendra was coming from his in-laws’ house by

motorcycle. At about 7:30 P.M., near village Nandpur

Beeta, one unknown DCM vehicle collided with his

motorcycle and both of them got injured. Deceased Sarita

died of the injuries and accused Devendra was admitted

into Sai Hospital, Moradabad and subsequently Sainik

Hospital and later on he was treated in Sainik Hospital,

Meerut and Sainik School Hospital, Kocchi (Kerala). The

informant has maliciously gave a colour of dowry death to

an accidental case. It has also been stated that in the

pressure of the informant of the case, a panchnama was

also prepared and all the family members of the deceased

were present at the time of cremation.

22.To give support to the contention of whatsoever

stated in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the

8

convicts have adduced oral and documentary evidence

also.

23. Assailing the findings, learned counsel appearing for

appellants argued that the prosecution case is totally

baseless and from the evidence available on record, no

case is made out as against the convicts / appellants. The

impugned judgment is based on surmises and conjectures.

There was no eye-witness or even any circumstantial

evidence to connect the convicts / appellants with the

crime alleged against them. It has been further submitted

that the learned trial court has misinterpreted the evidence

available on record and has not given any weightage to the

defence evidence which was against the norms of the

established legal principles. It has been submitted that no

ingredients to bring home the guilt of the accused under

section 304-B IPC was proved by the prosecution.

24.Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has contended that

the impugned judgment suffers with no lacuna or error

and the appeals, being devoid of merit, are liable to be

dismissed.

25.Before appreciating the rival submissions made by

both the sides, we have to put a glance upon relevant

provisions of law.

Section 304-B IPC - Dowry death.—“(1) Where the

death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury

or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances

within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that

soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or

harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband

for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such

9

death shall be called ‘dowry death’, and such husband or

relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

Explanation.— For the purpose of this sub-section,

‘dowry’ shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be

punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not

be less than seven years but which may extend to

imprisonment for life.”

26.In a catena of decisions, the ingredients to be proved

in order to convict an accused for the offence punishable

under Section 304-B IPC are promulgated. In Maya Devi

and Another Versus State of Haryana (2015) 17 Supreme

Court Cases 405, it has been reiterated that the following

essentials must be satisfied to successfully charge under

section 304-B IPC :

(Page 417) –

(i) the death of a woman must have been caused by

burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal

circumstances;

(ii) such death must have occurred within seven

years of her marriage;

(iii) soon before her death, the woman must have

been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband

or any relatives of her husband;

(iv) such cruelty or harassment must be for, or in

connection with, demand for dowry.

27.P.W.1 says that the marriage between the deceased

and accused Devendra was solemnized on 8.4.2004 and

this fact has been corroborated by P.W.2 and P.W.3 also.

The death of the deceased was caused on 18.11.2004. This

10

is an admitted position of fact that the deceased died

within seven years of her marriage.

28.The prosecution alleges that the accused-persons, to

fulfill their demand of dowry, caused the dowry death of

the deceased and a specific defence has been taken by the

accused-persons that the deceased died in a road accident

wherein accused Devendra was also got injured. It is

argued that in such circumstances, one has no hesitation to

say that the death of the deceased may be called as

unnatural death.

29.It has also been submitted by the learned A.G.A. that

P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 have narrated in their deposition

that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for the demand

of additional dowry by her in-laws and they used to harass

her to fulfill the demand of rupees five lacs. They have

also stated that the accused-persons forcibly obtained the

signature of the deceased on withdrawal form and

withdrew rupees two lacs from the Bank account of the

deceased. P.W.1 has also stated that he went to the in-laws

of his daughter and requested them not to harass the

deceased, but they did not pay any attention to it. In their

cross-examination, P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, besides minor

contradictions, have corroborated the each other’s version

so far as the fact of demand of additional dowry and

cruelty caused to the deceased is concerned. The learned

A.G.A. has also submitted that element of “soon before”

has been established by the prosecution evidence. P.W.1 in

his examination-in-chief has stated that when, on

31.10.2004, he went to the in-laws of his daughter on the

occasion of Karwachauth, the deceased told her regarding

11

the demand of rupees five lacs and also her harassment for

this demand, of which he had also complained to the

accused-persons and some days after, on 18.11.2004, he

was informed of the murder of her daughter. This

ingredient of “soon before” has also been proved by P.W.2

in his deposition.

30.The learned A.G.A. has submitted that in this way,

the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable

doubt and the learned trial court has committed no error in

holding the accused-persons guilty of the offence of

dowry death.

31.The learned counsel for the appellants has

vehemently argued that no evidence has been adduced by

the prosecution to show as to the death of the deceased

was unnatural. He has submitted that the accused-

persons / appellants have a specific defence that the death

of the deceased was caused in a road accident when she

was going by motorcycle with her husband accused

Devendra. He has also argued that sufficient evidence in

this respect has been adduced by the convicts, but the

learned trial court with a preoccupied mind did not

analyze the defence evidence in proper manner and

rejected it out-rightly without giving any weight, which

was improper.

32.In Neel Kumar alias Anil Kumar Versus State of

Haryana (2012) 5 Supreme Court Cases 766 (paragraph-

30), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held - “It is the duty of

the accused to explain the incriminating circumstance

proved against him while making a statement under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. Keeping silent and not furnishing any

12

explanation for such circumstance is an additional link in

the chain of circumstances to sustain the charges against

him.”

33.In Janak Yadav and Others Versus State of Bihar,

1999 SCC (Criminal) 558 (559), it was held that Section

313 Cr.P.C. prescribes a procedural safeguard for an

accused facing the trial to be granted an opportunity to

explain the facts and circumstances appearing against him

in the prosecution’s evidence. That opportunity is a

valuable one and cannot be ignored.

34.The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted

that to support their version in the statement under Section

313 Cr.P.C., oral and documentary evidence has also been

adduced from the defence side. He has relied upon the

decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Munshi Prasad

Versus State of Bihar (2002) 1 SCC 351 wherein it has

been held that the evidence tendered by the defence

witnesses cannot always be termed to be a tainted one by

reason of the factum of the witnesses being examined by

the defence. The defence witnesses are entitled to equal

respect and treatment as that of the prosecution. The issue

of credibility and trustworthiness ought also to be

attributed to the defence witnesses on a par with that of

the prosecution. A lapse on the part of the defence

witnesses cannot be differentiated and be treated

differently than that of the prosecutors’ witnesses. The

judgment was followed in Adam Bhai Suleman Bhai

Ajmeri Versus State of Gujarat (2014) 7 SCC 716.

35.D.W.7 accused Devendra Singh himself has

supported his evidence in statement given under Section

13

313 Cr.P.C. He has affirmed this fact that on 16.11.2004,

when he was driving motorcycle with his wife sitting

behind him, at about 7:00 P.M., one vehicle hit his

motorcycle from behind wherein he got injured and his

wife succumbed to injuries. He was admitted in Sai

Hospital, Moradabad and subsequently sent to the Military

Hospital, Meerut and Sanjeevini Hospital, Cochin and the

record of the treatment was deposited in Mumbai Cabs.

He has proved the discharge slip of the Meerut Hospital

executed by Sri Jaideep Chaudhary, Surgeon Commander

as Ext. Kha-3. He has also proved the medical reports of

Sanjeevini Hospital executed by the same Jaideep

Chaudhary as Ext. Kha-4, 5, 6 and 7, which include the

treatment report and discharge slip as well. He has also

narrated this fact that report in the accident case was

lodged under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC against

unknown driver, however subsequently charge-sheet

against the accused / driver Narendra Singh was submitted

and criminal case is pending.

36.It also transpires from the record that when F.I.R. in

the accidental case was not lodged, an application under

Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved by Praveen Singh, the

brother of the husband / accused Devendra Singh before

the Court and by order of the Court dated 11.10.2012, the

application was allowed and S.O. Asmauli was directed to

lodge an F.I.R. and investigate into the matter. This order

(Ext. Kha-12) is available on the trial court record. Ext.

Kha-11 is the copy of the judgment of the revisional court

wherein the order dated 11.10.2012 was challenged and

the revision was dismissed. Ext. Kha-9 and Ext. Kha-10

14

are the copies of F.I.R. and charge-sheet relating to the

case of the accident registered as Crime No.288 of 2012

wherein the date and time of the accident is mentioned as

on 16.11.2004 at 7:00 P.M. Charge-sheet into the matter

has also been submitted against the accused / driver

Narendra Singh. All these papers are available on the

record of the trial court and proved.

37.The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted

that the learned trial court has not considered the aforesaid

documents in right perspective. It has been submitted that

the learned trial court has emphasized upon the

requirement of inquest and postmortem of the body of the

deceased in an accidental case, but he has not considered

Ext. Kha-2 Panchnama in proper manner.

38.It has been vehemently argued that statement of

P.W.1 Bhagwant Singh has been given weightage by the

trial court wherein he has stated that he was not present at

the time of Panchnama and he has also relied upon the

statement of cross-examination of D.W.5 wherein he has

stated that when he reached on the spot, Bhagwant Singh

was not present over there. The learned counsel for the

appellants has drawn the attention of this Court towards

the statement of P.W.1 Bhagwant Singh himself, who, in

his cross-examination at page no.15 has admitted that “ म

ैं

अपने दस्तखत पहचानता हूँ का दस्तखत पहचानता हूँ का का

o संo 64 A / 3

R01d92 e

-2 पर भी मेरे

हस्ताक्षर हैं ӏ It is pertinent to mention that Paper No. Ext.

Kha-2 is the Panchnama, which has been written by

Rajendra Singh, D.W.5 at the place of accident. It also

bears the signature of Bhagwant Singh, Surendra Singh,

Gajendra Singh, Roop Singh, Jitendra Singh, Hari Om

15

Singh and Satveer Singh. In Ext. Kha-2, it has been

mentioned that the death of the deceased Sarita has been

caused on spot in a road accident at Simli - Nandpur Beeta

Road and Devendra Singh has been admitted into Sai

Hospital, Moradabad in injured condition for treatment. It

has also been mentioned that the family members of

Devendra Singh and deceased Sarita are present on the

spot along with several other persons. All the Panchas are

of the opinion that since it is a case of sudden accidental

death, no legal formality is required and with the consent

of all the persons, the cremation of the deceased ought to

be performed. It has been submitted that accordingly the

cremation of the deceased was performed in the presence

of the family members of the deceased.

39.Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted

that since Bhagwant Singh – P.W.1, the father of the

deceased, was himself present on spot and was very well

aware of the fact that it was an accidental death and he

was also consenting for the cremation of her deceased

daughter, there is no doubt that it was not a case of

homicidal or dowry death rather it was a case of accidental

death.

40.We have focused upon the issue of burden of proof

lying upon the accused in a criminal proceeding.

41.In Rishi Kesh Singh and others Versus State, AIR

1970 All 51 (FB), which is the leading case on the subject,

the issue of burden of proof of the accused has been

discussed. The principle enumerated in V.D. Jhingran

Versus State of U.P., AIR 1966 SC 1762 has been quoted

in the aforesaid judgment, which reads like this -

16

“It is sufficient if the accused person succeeds in proving a

preponderance of probability in favour of his case. It is not

necessary for the accused person to prove his case beyond

a reasonable doubt or in default to incur a verdict of guilty.

The onus of proof lying upon the accused person is to

prove his case by a preponderance of probability.”

42.Similarly, Harbhajan Singh Versus State of Punjab,

AIR 1966 SC 97 has also been quoted wherein it has been

held that “Where the burden of an issue lies upon the

accused, he is not required to discharge that burden by

leading evidence to prove his case beyond a reasonable

doubt. That, no doubt, is the test prescribed while deciding

whether the prosecution has discharged its onus to prove

the guilt of the accused; but that is not a test which can be

applied to an accused person who seeks to prove

substantially his claim that his case falls under an

Exception. Where an accused person is called upon to

prove that his case falls under an Exception, law treats the

onus as discharged if the accused person succeeds in

proving a preponderance of probability.”

43.In Rishi Kesh Singh’s case (supra) the

abovementioned principle has been accepted.

44.In Bhikari Verus State of U.P., AIR 1966 SC Page-1,

the Court held that “The doctrine of burden of proof in the

context of the plea of insanity may be stated in the

following propositions: (1) The prosecution must prove

beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed

the offence with the requisite mens rea; and the burden of

proving that always rests on the prosecution from the

beginning to the end of the trial. (2) There is a rebuttable

17

presumption that the accused was not insane, when he

committed the crime……….the accused may rebut it by

placing before the court all the relevant evidence – oral,

documentary or circumstantial, but the burden of proof

upon him is no higher than that rests upon a party to civil

proceedings.”

45.From the above, it is to be summed up that in a

criminal trial, if the accused succeeds to create a

reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as regards to his

guilt and on the basis of evidence - oral, documentary or

circumstantial adduced in his defence, it is sufficient for

his acquittal because the burden to prove its case lies

heavily and solely beyond reasonable doubt upon the

prosecution. In the present case also, on the basis of the

defence evidence, both oral and documentary and in the

circumstances of the case, the convicts / appellants have

succeeded to create a doubt about the genuineness of the

prosecution case.

46.In Pankaj Versus State of Rajasthan, 2016 AIAR

(Criminal) 886 (Supreme Court), it has been held that “it

is well-settled principle of law that when the genesis and

the manner of the incident is doubtful, the accused cannot

be convicted”. The evidence produced by the prosecution

has neither quality nor credibility, it would be unsafe to

rest conviction upon such evidence. (Emphasis supplied)

47.In the facts and circumstances of the present case,

the aforesaid law is clearly applicable. On the basis of

defence evidence, the convicts / appellants have succeeded

to provide an alternative approach to the Court to consider

that they might be innocent and the incident did not occur

18

in such a manner and at such place as the prosecution

claims. The defence evidence adduced by the convicts /

appellants helps their case by a preponderance of

probability. The learned trial court did not appreciate the

defence evidence and brushed it out in an improper

manner.

48.As a result thereof, in our view, the appeals succeeds

and the conviction judgment and order of the learned trial

court is liable to be set-aside.

49.The Appeals are accordingly allowed. The

impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court dated

15.09.2015 convicting and sentencing the convicts /

appellants is hereby set aside and the appellants are

acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Appellants

Smt. Seema and Praveen Singh are on bail, their personal

bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. Appellant

Devendra Singh is in jail. He shall be released forthwith, if

not wanted in any other case.

50.Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court

record be sent forthwith to court concerned for

compliance.

Order date : - 30.09.2022

ss