IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. J U D G M E N T (1) [CASE NUMBER]. [ENTITY] & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & (2) D.B. Cr. APPEAL No. 67/2004. [ENTITY] & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan under [SECTION] against the judgment dated 13.12.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Tonk in [CASE NUMBER]. Date of Judgment: 3rd October, 2013. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE [ENTITY] Mr [ENTITY], Senior Advocate with Mr [ENTITY], for appellants. Mr [ENTITY], Senior Advocate with Mr [ENTITY] for appellant [ENTITY]. Mr [ENTITY], Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE [ENTITY], J):
REPORTABLE [CASE NUMBER] has been filed by accused appellants [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] whereas [CASE NUMBER] has been filed by [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]. However, as both these appeals are related to same incident and arises of a common judgment hence, both these appeals are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Both these appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 13.12.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Tonk in [CASE NUMBER] whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:
Accused appellants (1) [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] Under [SECTION] [ACT] to undergo Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- each in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three month S.I.;
Under [SECTION] [ACT] to undergo three years R.I., and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further three months S.I.;
Under [SECTION] [ACT] :- Rigorous imprisonment for two years along with fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months S.I. Under [SECTION] [ACT] :- three months rigorous imprisonment Under [SECTION] [ACT] :- to undergo 1 months S.I. Accused appellants (1) [ENTITY], (2) [ENTITY] and (3) [ENTITY] Under [SECTION] [ACT] to undergo Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- each in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three month S.I.;
Under [SECTION] [ACT] to undergo three years R.I., and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further three months S.I.;
Under [SECTION] [ACT] :- Rigorous imprisonment for two years along with fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months S.I. Under [SECTION] [ACT] :- three months rigorous imprisonment Under [SECTION] [ACT] :- to undergo 1 months S.I. (All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently)
3. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that complainant [ENTITY] (PW/4) lodged a written report Ex.P/16 on 29.10.1996 stating therein that on 29.10.1996 at about 9.30 AM in the morning, his son [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] went on a moped to their school. He also went behind them on the moped of [ENTITY] and when they went to Jail Road, they saw that [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY] all are inflicting lathi, Axe and knife blow to both his sons and both [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were lying there injured. The incident was also witnessed by [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]. As they were scared they went away from there and reported the matter to Police Station, Sadar and in police vehicle both the injured shifted to hospital from where they have been referred to Jaipur. Due to enmity as regards dispute of way they have been attacked and two-three days earlier, the incident has also taken at their farm-house. On this report, FIR No. 255/1996 has been registered for the offence under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] [ACT]. Thereafter when [ENTITY] died offence under [SECTION] [ACT] was also added and after usual investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the appellants and [ENTITY]. The court below has framed charges against the appellants for the offence under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] [ACT]. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined PW.1 [ENTITY], PW.2 [ENTITY], PW.3 [ENTITY], PW.4 [ENTITY], PW.5 [ENTITY], PW.6 [ENTITY], PW.7 [ENTITY], PW.8 [ENTITY], PW.9 [ENTITY], PW.10 [ENTITY], PW.11 Dr. [ENTITY], PW.12 [ENTITY], PW.13 [ENTITY], PW.14 [ENTITY], PW.15 [ENTITY], PW.16 [ENTITY], PW.17 [ENTITY], PW.18 [ENTITY], PW.19 [ENTITY], PW.20 [ENTITY], PW.21 [ENTITY], PW.22 Smt. Dr. [ENTITY], PW.23 [ENTITY], PW.24 Dr. [ENTITY], and PW.25 [ENTITY] and produced Ex. P/1 to P/59 and P/68. Statements of accused persons have been recorded under [SECTION] [ACT] and in defence DW.1 [ENTITY], DW.2 [ENTITY], DW.3 [ENTITY], DW.4 [ENTITY], DW.5 [ENTITY] and DW.6 [ENTITY] have been examined and defence has also relied upon Ex.D/1 to D/18. After conclusion of the trial, [ENTITY] has been acquitted and the present appellants have been convicted and sentenced, as referred above. Hence these appeals.
4. The contention of the present appellants is that the whole story is concocted one. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] are respectively father and brother of deceased, they are not the eye-witnesses, they have been implanted as eye-witnesses. Independent witness [ENTITY] has not supported the prosecution story and other witness [ENTITY] named in the FIR has not been examined. Allegation of having sharp edged weapon has been lodged but there is no sharp edged injury received by the deceased or the injured and no sharp edged weapon has been recovered at the instance of any of the appellants. There is no evidence that the appellants were having any common object to murder the deceased or to inflict injury to [ENTITY]. No specific over- tact has been assigned to any of the appellants. There is no evidence that it was the usual way of the deceased or the injured for going school and the appellants were knowing that at a particular time, they will pass through this way. Initially, on telephone message there is no narration that the injured has inflicted injuries due to some altercation, lathies have been recovered at the instance of appellants but none is blood-stained. Father has alleged to have reached the place of occurrence but he has not shifted the injured to hospital and he went to his Farm House which is unnatural conduct of the father [ENTITY] (PW/4). There is no evidence that there was previous enmity between the parties. PW/4 [ENTITY] and PW/15 [ENTITY] are not reliable witnesses and court below has also not relied on them. PW/6 [ENTITY] was conscious throughout after the incident but his statement has been recorded after significant delay of 5 days. Initially, [ENTITY] was named as eye-witness but as he has not supported the prosecution, he has been made accused falsely and has been acquitted. Number of injures did not go with the presence of five persons, the injured and the deceased have received injuries by way of accident and the present appellants have been implicated falsely.
5. Per contra, the contention of the Public Prosecutor is that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW/6 [ENTITY] who has also received injuries in the incident. He has narrated the incident and inspires confidence. When five persons are attacking, it was not possible for him to narrate the over- tact of every person and when the appellants are party to the unlawful assembly, they cannot escape from the vicarious liability. [ENTITY] was seriously injured and was not in a fit condition to state hence his statement could not be recorded prior to 2.11.1996. FIR has been lodged just after the occurrence and FIR has been further corroborated by the evidence of PW/6 [ENTITY] who has independently stated the incident. PW/4 [ENTITY] has not talked [ENTITY] prior to the lodging of FIR but still FIR and statement of PW/6 [ENTITY] corroborates each other. The defence has not able to probabilise the fact that injuries have been sustained accidentally. Injured witness cannot be discarded lightly hence, there is no infirmity in the conviction of the appellants and no interference is needed.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned judgment as well as the original record of the case.
7. PW/4 [ENTITY] has lodged the First Information Report. He is the father of deceased and injured and he has stated that when he reached the Jail Road on moped with [ENTITY], he saw that [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] are inflicting injuries to his children [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] and both were lying on the road in pool of blood. His further contention is that he ran away from the spot. He reported the matter to Police Station, Sadar and then went to his house. He admits the fact that he did not went with the injured to Saadat Hospital, Tonk or to Jaipur. His further contention is that somebody has told him that [ENTITY] was also the eye-witness and from his residence, he went to his agricultural farm and he went at the spot at the last moment of the incident. The composite reading of the statement suggests that he has not witnessed the incident as a whole and he has stated the fact that after seeing the crowd, he returned from the spot, hence the court below has rightly held that PW/4 [ENTITY] is not the eye-witness of the whole incident and he has not stated about the specific role of any of the appellants. As regards infliction of injuries, he has named only [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] hence PW/4 is not the eye-witness of the whole incident but he has seen the injured and the deceased lying on the road and he has also testified that both have received injuries and appellants were there on the spot. In support of this argument, the learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon [PRECEDENT] wherein the conduct of the witness was unnatural. Here also the conduct of the father is unnatural and it can be safely inferred that he was not the eye-witness to the incident.
8. PW/15 [ENTITY] is brother of the deceased and the injured, he has not been named in the FIR. His contention is that he went to [ENTITY]'s house to meet him and he saw that [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] are inflicting injuries to [ENTITY] and thereafter they attacked on [ENTITY] and both his brothers got injured. In site-plan (Ex.P/3), [ENTITY]'s house has been shown at the place of occurrence as `F'. Hence presence of this witness was probable at the spot but this witness has specifically stated in his cross-examination that when he reached at the spot, appellants were not there, they had already left the place. This means that this witness was not the eye-witness of the incident but he has seen his brothers injured.
9. PW/6 [ENTITY] is the eye-witness and also injured in the incident who has stated that on 29.10.1996 at about quarter past nine, they started for their school and when they reached near Jail Road bridge where stall of [ENTITY] is situated, all the 6 persons, [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] attacked him and his brother [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] inflicted injuries to his younger brother [ENTITY] and thereafter they both attacked on him with [ENTITY] and lathi and he has received injuries on his head, left eye, right eye, forehead and on the eye-brow etc. In cross-examination also, he has stated that on his left-eye [ENTITY] has inflicted injury and on his head, [ENTITY] was the author of the injury. This witness has narrated the incident that all the appellants were there with weapons and [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] has caused injuries to him and to the deceased.
10. The contention of the counsel for the appellants is that his statement has been recorded after 5 days, hence he is not the reliable witness. The contention of the prosecution is that [ENTITY] (PW/6) was not in a fit condition to give statement hence his statement could not be recorded earlier and Public Prosecutor has pointed out the proceedings of FIR wherein narration has been mentioned that [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were not in a condition to depose. PW/1 [ENTITY] who has shifted the injured to the hospital has also stated that [ENTITY] was unconscious and the other injured person was not in a condition to speak. PW/2 [ENTITY] who accompanied PW/1 [ENTITY] from the spot has also stated that both the persons were seriously injured. PW/8 [ENTITY] who has examined the injured [ENTITY] has stated that on 2.11.1996, the duty doctor has verified that the injured is in a fit condition to state then only his statement has been recorded and he has denied the suggestion that earlier the injured was in a fit state to depose. PW/25 [ENTITY], Investigating Officer, has also stated that both the brothers were seriously injured. Medical Officer has verified the fact that both are not in a fit condition to depose. Both the injured were referred to Jaipur and [ENTITY] (PW/8) and two-three constable were also sent with them. In cross-examination, he has specifically stated that from 29.10.1996 to 1.11.1996, statements of [ENTITY] could not be recorded as he was not in a fit condition to state. There is no doubt about this fact that [ENTITY] was not in a fit condition to state although he may be conscious and looking to his condition if his statement could not be recorded prior to 2.11.1996 only on this count his testimony cannot be discarded.
11. PW/6 [ENTITY] has stated that he was not knowing whether any FIR was lodged and he has not talked to his father prior to recording of his statements under [SECTION] [ACT], and PW/4 [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] has also stated that prior to lodging of the FIR, he has not meet his son. This also gives strength to the prosecution that both the witnesses has independently narrated the same manner of the incident.
12. PW/6 [ENTITY] is the eye-witness hence his presence cannot be doubted and his testimony is worth acceptance and reliance has been placed on [PRECEDENT], wherein it has been held as under:
26. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness".
27. While deciding this issue, a similar view was taken in, [PRECEDENT], where this Court reiterated the special evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an injured accused and relying on its earlier judgments held as under:-
"[ENTITY] (PW 4) was an injured witness. He had been examined by the doctor. His testimony could not be brushed aside lightly. He had given full details of the incident as he was present at the time when the assailants reached the tubewell.
In [PRECEDENT], this Court has held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident.
In [PRECEDENT], a similar view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross- examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon ([PRECEDENT]. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that evidence of [ENTITY] (PW 4) has rightly been relied upon by the courts below."
13. Further, it has been held in [PRECEDENT] (supra) as under:
28. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an in-built guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.
14. In the light of the law propounded above, PW/6 [ENTITY] is himself injured in the course of the occurrence, hence his presence at the scene of crime cannot be denied. After lengthy cross-examination nothing can be brought out by the defence to discard his testimony and there is no reason for PW/6 [ENTITY] to falsely implicate the present appellants for the commission of the offence and the court below has rightly relied upon the evidence of PW/6 [ENTITY].
15. PW/1 [ENTITY] who is the eye-witness to the incident named in the FIR has not supported the prosecution story but he has endorsed the fact that the person lying there who were bleeding. Other witnesses [ENTITY] named in the FIR has not been examined by the prosecution, but non examination of the same is not fatal to the prosecution as prosecution has amply proved the incident by the evidence of PW/6 [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] was with PW/4 [ENTITY] and he has been considered not to be eye-witness to the incident hence non examination of [ENTITY] is also inconsequential in the facts of the case.
16. The other contention of the appellants is that whole story is concocted one. Appellants were not knowing that the injured or the deceased will go through this way and there was no reason for the appellants to be there at the particular time but DW/1 [ENTITY] and DW/2 [ENTITY] have brushed aside this contention as both has stated that [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were there at Jail Road and further DW/1 [ENTITY] has stated that teachers and students usually go from this way which clearly suggests that this was the usual path for both the deceased and injured for going to their school and appellants were knowing well about the school timings of both.
17. The other contention of the appellants is that initially, incident has been reported to Police Station, Sadar through telephonic message and there is no mention in Ex.P/1 and P/2, rapat Roznamcha that they have received injuries in quarrel or name of the accused has not been mentioned in the reports. It is true that names of the assailants have not been mentioned in these reports but this does not caste any doubt on the veracity of the prosecution as the telephonic message were cryptic and only as regards the presence of injured at the spot further it supports the prosecution that nothing has been mentioned in Ex.P/1, [ENTITY] that any accident has taken place at the spot.
18. The contention of the counsel for the appellants is that incident was accidental and due to enmity the present appellants have been implicated falsely. As mentioned earlier in Ex.P/1 and P/2, [ENTITY] there is no mention that injured have received injuries accidentally and DW/1 [ENTITY] and DW/2 [ENTITY] has also not stated that it was an accident. They had only denied the fact of attack but has stated nothing as regards the accident. PW/11 Dr. [ENTITY] has examined [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] and prepared the injury reports Ex.P/23 and P/24 respectively. [ENTITY] has received 5 injuries which are on skull, forehead, lower-back, knee etc., and from a single fall, it was not possible to have the injuries and the same is the situation with PW/4 [ENTITY], he has also received four injuries which are on head, hand, eye-brow etc. and when PW/6 [ENTITY] has specifically deposed that they have received injuries in a wild attack, then contention of defence as regards to accident is not acceptable, the defence has not probabilise the theory of accident by any iota of evidence.
19. The other contention of the appellants is that [ENTITY] has been shown as witness in the First Information Report but during investigation, he has been booked as an accused and ultimately, after trial, he has been acquitted, hence a false case has been registered against one person which caste shadow on the truthfulness of the prosecution. It is true that [ENTITY] has been acquitted but it cannot be said that if he has been implicated falsely the others would have also particularly when PW/6 [ENTITY] has specifically stated in favour of the prosecution.
20. The contention of the appellants is that witnesses are interested witnesses. Admittedly, their relations are inimical and they have exaggerated their versions and the evidence is not corroborated by the medical evidence, hence they should not be believed and reliance has been placed on [ENTITY] & ors. Vs. State of Bihar, [CASE NUMBER]. It is true that PW/6 [ENTITY] is the interested witness but at the same time, he is injured witness and only due to the relation, his testimony cannot be discarded. The other contention of the appellants is that PW/6 [ENTITY] has stated that appellants were having Pharsi but admittedly, there is no injury of sharp edged weapon caused to any of the injured and it cast serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution. Reliance has been placed on [PRECEDENT]. It is true that PW/6 [ENTITY] and others have stated that appellants were having Pharsi and admittedly, there is no injury suffered by any of the injured by sharp edged weapon but this alone would not cause doubt on the veracity of the prosecution and evidence of PW/6 [ENTITY] cannot be discarded as a whole. There is some exaggeration as regards to use of particular weapon but on this point that [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] have inflicted injuries on him and [ENTITY], there is no contradiction in the statement of [ENTITY] even after a long cross-examination and his statement has been further corroborated by the medical evidence. PW/22 Dr.Smt. [ENTITY] has testified the fact that [ENTITY] has also received fracture of temporal parietal bone. PW/24 Dr. [ENTITY] has conducted the post-mortem of deceased [ENTITY] and prepared post mortem report (Ex.P/68) and cause of death is shown as Comma as a result of injuries to skull and brain and it has also been further testified by the witness that injuries are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Hence, the court below has rightly arrived at a conclusion that appellants [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were the assailants and they caused vital injuries to [ENTITY] and also inflicted grievous injury to [ENTITY] on his head.
21. As regards other appellants, there is no allegation in the FIR that they have inflicted any injury to any person. Even PW/6 [ENTITY] has stated only as regards to appellants [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] and in cross-examination he has specifically stated that he has not seen [ENTITY] inflicting any injury and he could not say that [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] have inflicted which injury. All the injuries received by [ENTITY] has been attributed to only [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] and as stated earlier, [ENTITY] has received 5 injuries and [ENTITY] has received four injuries and number of injuries does not go with the presence of 5 persons and no over-tact has been attributed to appellants.
22. The contention of the appellants is that others were not present and for the sake of arguments, if we assume the presence of these three persons then they were not sharing the common object and reliance has been placed on [ENTITY] & ors. Vs. State of Bihar, (1981) 2 SCC 755 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:
In the present case there is no overt act attributed to any of the appellants on the deceased and the mere fact that the appellants were armed with lathis by itself would not prove that they shared the common object with which the main accused was inspired.
23. Per contra, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that [SECTION] [ACT], provides for vicarious criminal liability and when the appellants assembled together armed with weapons and were party to the attack on the complainant party, the prosecution is not able to prove specific over tact and if appellants have not verified any violent act yet they have participated in the unlawful assembly for committing the offence, hence they have been rightly convicted and reliance has been placed on [PRECEDENT] and; [PRECEDENT].
24. There is no dispute about the legal proposition that if a person is part of unlawful assembly, he can be held guilty without proving a particular over-tact but at the same time, the Court should guard against the danger of implicating the innocent persons and the evidence should be scrutinized carefully that whether other member of unlawful assembly was aware of likelihood of commission of the offence or they have participated in the crime and principles have been explained by the Apex Court time and again.
In [PRECEDENT], Supreme Court re-visited previous case law on the subject in [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT] and held that where prosecution fails to prove the existence of common object of all the members of unlawful assembly, it is unsafe to convict all on the basis of overt-acts of few. It was further held by the Supreme Court that where free fight took place and thirteen accused were charged, only those who caused fatal injuries, were liable to be convicted. The Supreme Court acquitted other accused-appellants, who were charged with the aid of [SECTION] [ACT] giving them benefit of doubt.
In [PRECEDENT], the Supreme Court sounded a note of caution that court has to ascertain whether every member of an unlawful assembly knew the offence likely to be committed in prosecution of a common object, only then a person, who at the time of committing that offence was such member, would be guilty of the offence committed. The court should guard against danger of convicting innocent persons and for that purpose scrutinize record carefully and if doubt arises, should give benefit thereof to the accused. The common object may be commission of one offence while there may be likelihood of commission of yet another offence, the knowledge whereof is capable of being safely attributed to the members of the unlawful assembly and whether a member of such unlawful assembly was aware as regards likelihood of commission of yet another offence or not, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Background of the incident, the motive, the nature of the assembly, the nature of the arms carried by the members of the assembly, their common object and the behaviour of the members soon before, at or after the actual commission of the crime would be relevant factors for drawing an inference in this behalf. (emphasis supplied) In [PRECEDENT], the Supreme Court held that it may be safe to convict only those persons against whom overt-act is alleged with the aid of [SECTION] [ACT], lest some innocent spectators may get involved. In [PRECEDENT], the Supreme Court held that where a large number of persons are alleged to have participated in the crime and are sought to be convicted under [SECTION] [ACT], the court needs to consider all the facts situation and convict only those accused, whose presence was clearly established and overt-acts were proved.
The Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT], while considering the question of applicability of [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT], held that it is well settled and needs no restatement that mere presence of the persons at the scene of offence, itself would not be enough to convict them and punish under [SECTION] [ACT] unless it is established that each one of them was part of the unlawful assembly and committed the offence in prosecution of the common object of that assembly. When there are large number of accused with general allegations, the court should categorically scrutinies the evidence and hesitate to convict the large number of persons if the evidence available on record is vague.
25. In the light of the above, when we scan the evidence of present case the allegations against appellants [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] are general in nature. PW/6 [ENTITY] has not stated any specific act of the above three appellants. They have only been named but as regards to infliction of injuries or any other over- tact, nothing has been stated in this regard against the present appellants, hence it can safely be concluded that appellants [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] have not participated in the incident, the presence of these three has not been established at the occurrence beyond reasonable doubt and these three appellants are entitled for benefit of doubt and consequently for acquittal for the offences.
The appellants [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] are guilty of inflicting fatal injuries to deceased [ENTITY] and also grievous and simple injuries to [ENTITY]. They both have shared common intention, consequently their conviction under [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT] is converted into offence under [SECTION] and [SECTION].
Consequently, the [CASE NUMBER] filed by accused appellants [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] fails and is dismissed as above.
[CASE NUMBER] is allowed. The accused appellants [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] are acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. Appellants [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] are on bail, they need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.
Keeping in view, however, the provisions of [SECTION] of the [ACT], accused appellants (i) [ENTITY], (ii) [ENTITY] and (iii) [ENTITY] are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each, and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the said appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.
([ENTITY] ([ENTITY] gandhi/ All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being e-mailed. [ENTITY] Personal Assistant