IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2014

Sunil Patwal ……. Appellant

versus

State of Uttarakhand ………. Respondent

Mr. Ramji Srivastav, learned counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Deputy Advocate General for the

State/respondent.

With

Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2014

Anand Sharma ……. Appellant

versus

State of Uttarakhand ………. Respondent

Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Deputy Advocate General for the

State/respondent.

Judgement Dated : 22.07.2022

Coram : Hon’ble Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.

Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.

Per: Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.

1. The appellants Sunil Patwal and Anand Sharma

has assailed the judgment of conviction and sentenced

passed by the learned 1

st Additional Sessions Judge,

Haridwar, in Sessions Trial No. 87 of 2004, State vs.

2

Chataru @ Govind and others, dated 2 1.12.2013,

whereby the appellants have been convicted under

Sections 302, 364 and 201 read with Section 34 PC of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as

‘the Penal Code’) and have been sentenced to

imprisonment of life and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/-,

each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo three

months of simple imprisonment; rigorous

imprisonment for ten years for the offence punishable

under Section 364 IPC along with fine of Rs. 2000/-

each and in default of payment of fine, two months

simple imprisonment; and to undergo three years’

rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable

under Section 201 IPC along with fine of Rs. 1000/-

each, in default of payment o f fine amount, one

month’s of additional simple imprisonment.

2. In total 5 accused persons were tried for the

offence punishable under Sections 302, 364, 201 and

147 of the Penal Code. Out of them, accused Chataru

alias Govind, Vishal and Ajay Sharma alias Goli (in

Sessions Trial No. 87 of 2004) were acquitted of the

offences and the present appellants Sunil Patwal and

Anand Sharma were convicted, as aforesaid.

3. The shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the

prosecution is that on 09.03.2003 the complainant

Ramesh Kumar presented an FIR before the Station

House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, District

Haridwar, inter alia, alleging that his son Soni alias

Rajesh on 04.03.2003, at about 11:00 A.M. was taken

away by Anil Kumar S/o Dori Lal reached to his house

3

for settling the outstanding amount of Rs. 10,000/- but

since then his son has not returned home and his

whereabouts are not known. He apprehended that his

son has been abducted or has been killed, therefore, he

prayed for investigation into the allegations made by

him.

4. On the basis of such a report, a Criminal

Case No. 73 of 2003 was registered under Section 364

of the Penal Code and investigation took up the

investigation of the case. In the course of investigation,

he examined the complainant and the other witnesses.

In course of the investigation, he was fu rther informed

that on 10.03.2003, they found the dead body of the

deceased floating in a river

uhy /kkjk xaxk th Bksdj uEcj 10

(Neel Dhara Ganga Ji Thokar No. 10 ) and he further

prayed that the necessary action may be taken.

Thereafter, the Investigating Officer recovered the dead

body from the river, held inquest thereon and

dispatched it for postmortem examination.

5. In the course of the investigation, he arrested

some of the accused, made seizures of the material

objects and on completion of the inv estigation

submitted charge-sheet against the accused appellants

and others for the aforesaid offences. The defence took

the plea of simple denial. In order to prove its case, the

prosecution examined eight wittiness and led it to

evidence several documents as exhibits.

4

6. PW2 Ramesh Kumar is the complainant of

the case. He is also the father of the deceased. PW1

Smt. Neetu, happens to be the wife of the deceased who

has stated about the last seen of the accused Anil

Kumar and the two appellants on 4

th March, 2003 at

about 11:00 A.M. PW4 Ram Awatar is the main witness

on whose evidence the prosecution relied heavily. He

has been accepted as an eye-witness to the occurrence

by the l earned Trial Judge. He is also a witness to the

recovery of the dead body of the deceased from the

river. PW5 Preet Kamal is a witness of the Panchnama.

Rests are the official witnesses. PW3 being the Doctor

S.C.Srivastav, who conducted postmortem examination

of the dead body of the deceased. PW7 Naresh Chandra

Azad and PW8 Vijay Kumar are the two investigating

Officers in this case.

The defence has not examined any witness or

led any documents in evidence in order to establish its

case.

7. Learned Trial Judge, taking into

consideration, the nature of death of the deceased,

which is stated to be due to drowning together with the

evidence of PW1 Smt. Neetu, who had last seen the

deceased in the company of the two appellants and the

testimony of the alleged eye -witness PW4 Ram Awtar

Verma, came to the conclusion that the prosecution

has proved its case beyond the reasonable doubts and,

therefore, proceeded to convict these two appellants for

the offences, stated above.

5

8. In assailing the conviction of the two

appellants in the aforesaid case, Mr. Ramji Srivastav

would submit that the judgement of the learned

Additional Sessions Judge is erroneous on the ground

that PW4, who was accepted as an eye-witness of the

occurrence, is, at best, a chance-witness. He would

further argue that the prosecution has not been able to

explain his presence at the time of occurrence on

04.03.2003 or at the time of recovery of the dead body

i.e. on 09.03.2003. Emphatically, criticizing the

evidence of PW4, the learned counsel appearing for the

appellants would further submit that the co-incidence

of PW4 remaining present at the time of alleging

assault and witnessing the assault on the deceased as

well as at the time of recovery of the dead body from

the river, appears to be unnatural. He would further

submit that though he was presented as an eye-

witness of the prosecution, but curiously enough the

Investigating Officer has not recorded his st atement

under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973, (hereinafter referred as “the Code). Furthermore,

the learned counsel stated that PW4 has not revealed

about the incident between 6- 10

th of March, 2003, a

fact, which he has admitted in the cross -examination.

Learned counsel would further submit that though the

prosecution presented the case that the deceased was

assaulted by means of an iron rod (saria), no injury

was found on the dead body of the deceased which

could have been caused by a hard and blunt

object/weapon and the death of the deceased was

6

caused by drowning. Therefore, Mr. Ramji Srivastav ,

learned counsel for the appellant would submit that

judgement of conviction and the sentence awarded to

the appellants, passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge is based on improper appreciation of

evidences available on record and, therefore, the Court

ought to disbelieve the eye -witness, to allow the appeal

by setting aside the conviction and acquit the

appellants for the offences, mentioned above.

9. Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Deputy Advocate

General would submit that the last seen theory and

narration of the eye-witnesses and the nature of the

death of the deceased would prove that the deceased

was assaulted by the appellants and Anil and he was

thrown into the river Ganga. A s a result of which, he

died out of drowning and, therefore, the appeal is liable

to be dismissed affirming the conviction of the

appellants and the sentence awarded to them.

10. Be it stated by us, that Anil was granted bail

during the course of trial and he absconded, and

therefore, the case was split up against him. In the

course of trial, after examination of PW4, the learned

Additional Sessions Judge also took the cognizance of

the offence under Sections 302, 364, 201 and 34 of the

Penal Code and also issued processes against one

Sunita Chauhan vide order dated10.07.2008. However,

this Court while allowing the Criminal Revision No. 144

of 2008, on 31.07.2013 came to the conclusion that the

learned Additional District and Sessions Judge

committed error in issuing processes against said

7

Sunita Chauhan in exercise jurisdiction under Section

319 of the Code. Then order passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, under Section

319 of the Code was set aside by this Court.

11. Thus, it is apparent from the materials on

record as well as the submissions made by the learned

Counsel, the following evidences are forthcoming in

this case and it is our duty to re-assess the evidence to

find out whether the findings recorded by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge are sustainable or not. The

facts/evidences are stated herein below:

(i) The nature of the death of the deceased.

(ii) Last seen of the deceased in the company of the

absconding accused Anil and the present two

appellants

(iii) The narration of the eye-witness PW4, who is

stated to be a chance witness.

12. Taking of these components of evidence, one

by one, first, it is to be seen whether the prosecution

has proved that the deceased suffered a death which

should be termed as homicide. PW3 Doctor S. C.

Srivastava has conducted postmortem examination on

the dead body of the deceased. He has stated on oath

that on 11.03.2003, he was posted as Medical Officer

in the District Heard Quarter Hospital, Haridwar. On

that date at about 10:30 A.M., he conducted the

postmortem examination of the dead body of Rajesh

being identified by CP 633 Hoshiyar Singh and CP 109

Vijendra Singh. At the time of postmortem

8

examination, he found the dead body to be in a

decomposed state. He found the following injuries:

(i) [kqlZV fy, uhyxw fu”kku 7 lseh xq.kk 5 lseh] lwtu lfgr 10 lseh xq.kk

8 lseh] ekFks o flj ds nkfguh rjQ nkfguh HkkSa ls 5 lseh- mijA

(ii) [kqlZV fy, uhyw lwtu lfgr 4 lseh- xq.kk 2 lseh- psgjs ds nkfguh rjQ]

nk;ha vka[k ls 1 lseh uhpsA

(iii) dbZ [kqlZV fy, uhyxw 11 lseh xq.kk 9 lseh- ds {ks=Qy esa psgjs ds

nkfguh rjQA

Stating in English, it is seen that the Doctor

on post-mortem examination found the abrasion and

swelling on the right side head and on the face on the

right side. On internal examination , he found blood

clotting and hemorrhage in the brain. Both the lungs

were swelling, hemorrhaging and full of water. He

found one liter of semi-digested food in the stomach.

Stomach was filled with water. At the time of post-

mortem examination, the Doctor opined that the

deceased died due to throwing resulting in asphyxia.

He further stipulated the time of death to be 3 to 5

days prior to the postmortem examination. In the

cross- examination, he has stated that the injuries on

the body of the deceased could be possible by fall on

stone. He also admitted that death could have been

between 5 to 7 days before.

13. Thus, on analysis of the evidence of Doctor

reveals that the death of the deceased was caused due

to drowning. The injuries found on the dead body of the

9

deceased could have been caused by fall on stony

surface. No injury which could have been caused by

hard and blunt object was found on the dead body of

the deceased. The Doctor has not stated definitely that

the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.

Thus, the finding regarding the death of the deceased

that is to say whether it was homicidal or not, shall

depend upon the other evidences available on record

and the Doctor’s evidence itself is not enough to come

to the conclusion that the death of the deceased

definitely was homicidal.

14. Coming to the second component of the

evidence, it is seen that the statem ent of PW1 is much

relevant. She happens to be wife of the deceased. Sh e

has stated on oath that on 4

th March, 2003, the

absconding accused Anil came to their house and

called her husband. She further stated that Anil had

kept Rs. 10,000/- belonging to her husband and was

not returning the same. Her husband had asked Anil to

return the same on many occasions, but he was not

paying any heed to him. On the relevant date, Anil

came to her husband and told that he will settle the

account and, therefore, her husband went with him.

At that time, the witness was standing near the

deceased. She also saw two other boys were standing

accompanying Anil. She has identified those two

persons as Sunil Patwal and Anand Sharma, i.e., the

two appellants before us. She has further stated that

she saw three accused persons taking away her

husband. She has further stated that her husband did

not come back. Thereafter, they look for him but they

10

could not find any clue and suspected that the

appellants and Anil could have committed his murder.

Besides three persons, two other persons were standing

beside, their names are Vishal and Goli, who have

since been acquitted by the learned Trial Court. In the

cross- examination, she has stated that she went to

Police on 5

th March, 2003. Sunil Patwal and Anand did

not come inside their house. They were standing about

3 feet away on the Chowk. She has admitted in the

cross- examination that the statement she has given in

the examination-in-chief to the effect that at that time

she was standing near her husband and she saw the

three accused persons taking away her husband , was

stated by her for the first time in the Court. She has

stated for the first time, she stated so, in the court after

taking the legal advice. Thus, it is clear that this

witness has stated about the incident that deceased

came in the company of Anil and other two persons

(appellants herein) on 4

th March, 2003 and that too she

has not stated about this incident so specifically before

the Investigating Officer and that she has stated so for

the first time in the court after taking the legal advice.

Thus, it will be unsafe to rely on the evidence of this

witness only to come to the conclusion that the

appellants were definitely seen in the company of the

deceased for the last time on 04.03.2003.

15. It is trite that whenever the prosecution relies

upon the evidence regarding the last scene of the

deceased, the Court trying or the Appellate court

should rely upon such statements only when the time

gap between ‘ the last seen together’ of the deceased

11

and the accused and the discovery of the dead body is

so small that there was no possibility of any other

person committing the crime in the interregnum. In

this connection, we take note of the following

precedents enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court:

16. In the case of Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna

Redddy Khanna and others vs. State of M.P., (2006) 34

SCC 172, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held

that the last seen theory come into play where the time

gap between the point of time when the accused and

the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is

found that he is so small that the possibility of any

other person, other than the accused being the author

of the crime, becomes impossible. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court has further held that even in such a case, the

Court should look for some corroboration.

17. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs.

Satish, (2005) SCC 114, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

has held that t he last seen theory comes into play

where the time- gap between the point of time when the

accused and the deceased were seen last alive and

when the deceased is found dead is so small that

possibility of any person other than the accused being

the author of the crime becomes impossible. It would

be difficult in some cases to positively establish that

the deceased was last seen with the accused when

there is a long gap and possibility of other persons

coming in between exists. The Hon’ble Supreme Court

further held that i n the absence of any other positive

evidence to conclude that the accused and the

12

deceased were last seen together, it would be

hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those

cases. Similar, in the case of Bodhraj alias Bodha and

others vs. State of Jammu and Kahsmir, ( 2002) SCC 45,

the principles stated in the preceding paragraphs were

reiterated.

18. Thus, it is clear that basing only on the piece

of evidence of PW1 a conviction cannot be recorded.

However, if there is other corroborative piece of

evidence then the last seen theory as propounded by

the prosecution may be taken as the circumstance,

which is not explained by the defence, can be said to be

incriminating against the appellants and further this

Court has to examine the evidence of PW4, who is

presented to be an eye-witness in this case.

19. PW4 Ram Avtar Verma has stated on oath

that on 04.03.2003 that he was to attend some work in

the Shiv Lok Colony. When he was passing through the

colony he heard from the rooftop of the building

situated therein the shout

gk;&gk; ‘Haye Haye’. Hearing

such sound, he climbed stairs and found that three

persons, namely, Anand Sharma, Sunil Patwal and Anil

were severely assaulting a boy. At that time, a lady

came out of the house whose name is, Sunita

Chauhan. She handed over an iron-rod to Anand

Sharma and told not to sphere the deceased and

further directed that he should be killed and thrown in

the river Ganga. As a result, the witness became

frightened and came down from that house. After

sometime, he came and sat under a tree . After

13

sometime, he saw that the injured was loaded in a

Maheindra Jeep and was taken away from that place.

20. He has further stated on oath that he use to

take stroll on the banks of river Ganga. On 10.03.2003,

he was taking a stole on the bank of the river Ganga,

he saw the dead body on the river bank. By looking at

the dead body, he could know that the dead body

belongs to the person who was assaulted by th e two

appellants and Anil on being instigated by the lady

Sunita Chauhan. He further saw that father of the

deceased was weeping near the dead body. The witness

further stated that he consoled the deceased’s father

and stated that he has seen the assault on his son. As

a result of which, the said father of the deceased, who

is examined as PW2 and is the complainant in this

case, told the Inspector about the direct knowledge of

the witness. The Inspector thereafter stated tha t he has

to complete the Panchnama formality first and then he

will listen to the witness. He further stated that his

narration was not heard by the Inspector.

21. In the cross- examination, this witness has

stated that he earns his livelihood by selling toys. On

04.03.2003, by chance, he went to Shiv Lok colony

alone to look out for a person who was work ing with

him and was residing in Jhuggi Jhopri colo ny. He

further stated on oath that the name of servant was

Anil son of Vishamber and that he told the witness that

he was residing in the Shiv Lok colony, but he has not

given the number of his house. He has further

admitted that prior to that day, he had never visited in

14

the Shiv Lok colony and that the boy Anil son of

Vishamber was working with him for the last 5 to 6

years. He further stated that there were about 10-15

houses and he could not state the number of house

standing in the place of incident. He has also admitted

that at that time on the road of Shiv Lok Colony about

30 to 40 persons were walking. Some of them were on

scooters. He admitted that the sound was coming out

of a two story building. At that time, nobody else was

present except the witness. He also did not call

anybody. He also told that after witnessing the incident

in the Shiv Lok colony, he came back to his own house.

He further stated that he became acquainted with

Sunita Chauhan 5 to 6 months prior to the incident

and that her husband was a Dhobi and there was a

dispute between them. He denied that he had any

knowledge regarding the dispute between Sunita

Chauhan and some of his friends or that the cases

were pending between them. The witness also stated

that he knows the location of the Police Station and the

Office of the Commanding Office of the City Magistrate.

In the cross-examination, he has further stated

that he reached at the spot all on a sudden. He did not

make any statement before the Investigating Officer.

The witness also stated in his cross- examination that

Shiv Lok Colony is situated about 4 kilometers away

from his house and that the Police Officer did n ot cite

him as witness in the Pancnama. A combined reading

of statements of PW4 with that of PW2 reveals that

PW4 Ram Awtar was in the crowed when the dead body

15

was lying in the river bank. PW 2 stated that on

04.03. 2003, the appellants and the absconder Anil

Kumar were assaulting the deceased in that Shiv Lok

colony. He has further stated that when the deceased

became unconscious they carried him in a Zeep,

wherein two other persons were present . He has also

stated before the informant about the complicity of the

woman Sunita Chauhan. In the cross- examination, he

further stated that in his statement recorded under

Section 161 of the Code, he has stated that Ram Autar

had told him about the assault on his son.

In the cross- examination, PW6 Station House

Officer, Jogendra Singh on oath has stated that neither

the complainant nor the wife of the deceased, in their

statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code

revealed before him that Ram Autar S/o Virman Verma

was present at the spot.

22. Thus, the major contradictions have been

brought out by the defence in the statement of PW2,

the complainant by the defence. PW2, the complainant

has not stated about the presence of the sole eye

witness PW4 at the time of occurrence in statement

under Section 161 of the Code. PW 4 has stated that he

is a social worker and also active in politics but did not

report the matter to any of the authorities or the Police.

Merely, because a person is a chance witness , his

evidence cannot be disbelieved right from the

beginning. However, the prosecution and the witness

must explain and justify the presence of the witness at

the spot at the relevant point of time.

16

23. In the case of Rajesh Yadav and another vs.

State of U.P., (2002) SCC online SC 150, while

considering the value of a chance witness the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that a chance witness is one who

happens to be present at the place of occurrence of an

offence by chance, and therefore, not as a matter of

course. In other words, the Hon’ble Court further held

that he is not expected to be in the place. A person

working on the street witnessing commission of an

offence can be examined as star witness. Merely,

because the witness presence to see the occurrence by

chance, his testimony cannot be brushed aside, though

a little more scrutiny may be required at times.

24. Thus, the evidence of a chance witness

requires a very cautious and close scrutiny and a

chance witness must adequately explain his presence

at the time of occurrence. The deposition of a chance

witness whose presence at the place and time of

occurrence remains doubtful should be discarded.

Conduct of the chance witness subsequent to incident

may be taken into consideration particularly, as to

whether he has informed anyone else in the village

about the incident.

In judging the evidence of this witness, we find

that PW4 Ram Awtar stated that he went to Shiv Lok

colony on 04.03.2003 to look for a servant Anil. The

said Anil was never examined by the prosecution in the

court. So, it could not be verified whether the servant of

this appellant was actually residing in the Shiv Lok

colony or not. The conduct of the wi tness PW4 also

17

becomes suspect in view of the fact that after seeing

the assault on the deceased by the three persons

known to him added by a lady who handed over an

iron-rod to absconding accused Anil, did not reveal it to

anybody though 30- 40 persons were moving through

that street and he simply went back to his house and

kept quite. He did not reveal it before anybody.

After 6 days that followed, till the discovery of

dead body i.e. on 10

th March, 2003. He remained silent.

His statement that he revealed it before the informant,

i.e., P.W.2, who happens to be father of the deceased,

at the time of recovery of the dead body of the deceased

is also belied from the fact that PW2 himself had not

stated before the Investigating Officer in his statement

recorded under Section 161 of the Code that Ram

Awtar revealed before him about the assault on the

deceased by the appellant and others. The witness has

not been cited as a witness to the Panchnama and most

importantly though it was bought into the knowledge of

the Inspector In-charge of the investigation that the

witnesses had seen the occurrence and presenting a

direct evidence regarding the same by the Investigating

Agency, this is a fact not disputed by the PW4 himself,

the Investigating Officer did not record his statement in

course of the investigation.

25. Thus, on a conspectus and close scrutiny of

the evidence of this chance witness, it appears that he

cannot be held to be ‘a wholly reliable witness’. On the

sole basis of his testimony, a conviction recorded by

18

the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be

upheld.

26. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872,

(herein after referred to as “the Evidence Act”) provides

that no particular number of witnesses is required to

be examined to prove the fact. Thus, it is clear that

even a single witness can be taken into consideration

and the court can reach into a conclusion that the

prosecution has proved its case beyond all the

reasonable doubts. For ready reference, Section 134 of

the Evidence Act is being quoted herein below:

“134. Number of witnesses.—No particular number

of witnesses shall in any case be required for the

proof of any fact.”

27. It is, therefore, trite in the appreciation of the

evidence that a single truthful witness may far

outweigh way a thousand on untruthful witnesses. A

Single eyewitness in order to rely upon must pass the

test of reliability. We have consistently held that before

proceeding to convict a person on the basis of a solitary

eyewitness the Court must see the independent

corroboration though not direct from the attending

circumstances of the case. It is prudent and wise to

test the evidence of a solitary eyewitness in the anvils

of the objective circumstances appearing in that case.

28. In this case, in addition to lacuna pointed

out by us in the preceding paragraphs, we also find

that the evidence of the solitary eyewitness suffers from

19

non-corroboration by the medical evidence. As

discussed by us in the preceding paragraphs, the

Doctor has opined that the injuries found on the dead

body of the deceased were abrasion and bruises etc.,

which could have been caused by fall on a stony

surface. In other words, the Doctor did not find any

injury on the dead body of the deceased caused by a

saria (iron rod), i.e., a hard and blunt object. Thus,

testing of this witness as a solitary chance witness, we

find enough reasons to take it with a pinch of salt and

come to the conclusion that he cannot be held to be a

‘wholly reliable witness’ on the basis of which a

conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge can be upheld. Even if, we hold him to be a

witness which is neither wholly reliable nor wholly un -

reliable, then also the attending circumstances are not

coming fore in support of the case of the prosecution.

29. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Vadivelu Thevar vs. State of Madras, (1957) SCR 981

has for the first time categoris ed the witnesses into

three categorised. In that case, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has held that the witnesses can be categorized

into three categories . They are, ( 1

st) wholly reliable

witness, (2

nd) the witnesses who are not wholly un -

reliable and (3

rd) is neither wholly reliable nor wholly

un-reliable witness. Most of the witness come in the 3

rd

category. In the aforesaid case of V adivelu Thevar’s

case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in

order to rely upon a solitary witness, who is neither

wholly reliable nor wholly un-reliable the court must

seek some independent corroboration from the

20

attending circumstances of the case. In this case, we

find no corroboration from the attending circumstances

available in this case. The medical evidence has not

fully supported evidence of PW4. We have already

pointed out that the evidence of PW4 is suffering from

infirmities as he is a chance witness and his presence

at the spot is not properly explained. He had never told

about the incident before anybody for the 6 days , after

witnessing the assault. His statement that he revealed

it to the father of the deceased is also belied and that

his statement was never recorded by the Investigating

Officer under Section 161 of the Code.

30. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the

opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge

committed error on record by coming to the conclusion

that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all

reasonable doubts. Hence, we find enough ground to

set aside the conviction. Hence the appeals are allowed.

The judgment of conviction and order 21.12.2013

passed by the learned 1

st Additional Sessions Judge,

Haridwar are hereby set aside. The appellants are

stated to be on bail. They be set at liberty forthwith by

cancelling their bail bonds.

Let the Trial Court R ecords be sent back to the

court concerned for compliance.

(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.)

(Grant urgent certified copy as per Rules)

Kaushal

21