1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3539/2011 BETWEEN: MOHAMED NAJEEB HUSSAIN S/O MOHEMAD JALEEL-UL-HASSAN AGE:33 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O TOPGALLI, HUMNABAD, DIST. BIDAR. APPELLANT (BY SRI V.M.SHEELAWANT & SRI ABDUL MANNAN, ADVOCATES) AND: THE STATE THROUGH HUMNABAD POLICE STATION DIST.BIDAR RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAKASH YELI, ADDL. SPP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE 2 APPEAL AND TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 31.01.2011 PASSED IN SESSIONS CASE NO.140/2008 BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT BIDAR AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT HEREIN OF THE CHARGES FOR WHICH HE IS CONVICTED. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD, RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 03.11.2017 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, [ENTITY] J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- JUDGMENT
Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence delivered by the learned Principal Sessions Judge in [CASE NUMBER] dated 31.01.2011 the appellant-accused has preferred the appeal.
2. With the assistance of learned counsel for appellant and learned Addl. S.P.P. we have scrutinized and re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. The statement of one [ENTITY], resident of Topgalli, [ENTITY] came to be recorded by the PSI [ENTITY] on 21.08.2008 in which it is stated that the complainant/accused has a sister by name [ENTITY]. About seven years back she was given in marriage to [ENTITY] S/o [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] was performed as per the rites and formalities of [ENTITY] on 01.09.2002 at Star Function Hall, [ENTITY]. About 1 month subsequent to marriage, his brother in law [ENTITY] was not properly looking after [ENTITY]. She begot a female child through her wedlock, viz., [ENTITY] aged 5 years as on the date. [ENTITY] was not enquiring about the welfare of [ENTITY] nor was he spending the amount for the daughter's maintenance. He also used to allege that the child was not born to him.
3. He had come to [ENTITY] ten days back. He was ill-treating his wife and also had an intention to divorce [ENTITY]. Being annoyed and frustrated over the approach and attitude of [ENTITY], complainant decided to murder him and implemented the act on that day by stabbing [ENTITY] by using [ENTITY]. He further states that it was about 9.30 a.m. in front of Taluka office near hotel he stabbed 6-7 times. On the basis of this the Police Sub-Inspector registered a case for the offence punishable under [SECTION] of [ACT] in [CASE NUMBER] wherein the complainant is the accused.
4. The post murder formalities started as, the inquest [ENTITY] on the dead body was conducted which is marked as Ex.P.6. It assumes attention as the statement of [ENTITY] aged 37 years son of [ENTITY], said to be the brother of [ENTITY] the deceased, was recorded, as the complaint registered at 10.00 a.m. was by the accused. The version of [ENTITY] who was examined as PW.13 during the trial by the prosecution is to the effect that his brother was harassed on each and every count even where there was no fault of him. literally he underwent a torture in the hands of wife [ENTITY] and finally his brother was done to death by her brother at 9.30 a.m. daylight infront of Tahasildar office near a hotel at [ENTITY]. The accused gave statement at 9.30 a.m. in the Police Station that his brother-in law [ENTITY] was done to death by him because of the cruelty of deceased against sister of former and the case was registered for the offence punishable under [SECTION] of [ACT] by the Police under complaint Ex.P.20.
5. It is incumbent on the part of the prosecution to prove that the murder was committed by complainant-cum-accused. To constitute offence punishable under [SECTION] of [ACT], the voluntary confession of the guilt of a person lodging complaint does not become proof of the offence. Per contra the prosecution has to establish that such person who confesses committed the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
6. [ENTITY] was employed in Saudi Arabia and used to visit the native place of [ENTITY] once in 2-3 years and used to stay for 2-3 months. In the latest circumstance he had come to India 10 days back. [ENTITY] was residing in her parental house and used to give random visit to her marital house where [ENTITY] and his family member and the deceased were residing. Whenever he came down to [ENTITY] he also used to stay in the house of his sister also. The differences between [ENTITY] and his wife started growing as [ENTITY] was against her husband and the same was reflected from her actions on every trivial matters in finding fault with the deceased. The deceased [ENTITY] was sending amounts for maintenance to his mother out of which his mother was paying Rs.3,000/- per month to [ENTITY]. The spot [ENTITY] was conducted on 21.8.2008.
7. On commencement of case and presentation, the trial was commenced and the learned District Judge after hearing, found sufficient grounds to frame charge for the offence punishable under [SECTION] of [ACT]. The charge was framed and explained to the accused, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
8. The prosecution in order to establish its case, in all examined PWs.1 to 16 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.23, M.Os.1 to 6. During trial, Ex.D.1 portion of statement of PW.4 and photo showing the accused and his pant.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted regarding the size of wound sustained by [ENTITY] on 21.08.2008 and size of the weapon jambia M.O.-1. We secured and perused the same. There is not even a symptom of evidence nor existence of a circumstance in the form of an event or probability or otherwise nor shaking credibility of the conduct of any particular witness. Major portion of the cross-examination revolves around location of the places in [ENTITY], namely Tahsildar Office, bus stand, Basaveshwar Circle. There are no satisfactory explanation by the learned counsel in cross-examining PW-13 [ENTITY] relating to the area or the measurement of the knife, injuries both external and corresponding internal one. But at the end we were unable to make what kind of inference advantageous is there to be relied by the accused. The learned counsel Sri [ENTITY] appearing for accused did not present sequence of events that would in the facts have traveled towards a point which would have gone in favour of accused. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the following decisions:
1. (2016) 14 SCC 729 (K.A. Kotrappa Reddy v.
[ENTITY])
[PRECEDENT]
3. (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 322 (Swamy Sharaddananda Alias Murali Manohar Mishra vs. [ENTITY] of Karnataka
4. (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 620 (SK. Yusuf vs. [ENTITY] of West Bengal)
5. 2005 AIR SCW 905 ([ENTITY] of U.P. vs. [ENTITY])
10. The point that arises for material consideration by this Court is whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt as to accused committed murder of [ENTITY] who is the husband of [ENTITY], the sister of the accused, at 9.30 a.m. on infront of the Tahasildar office near a hotel at [ENTITY] by stabbing him with [ENTITY] M.O.1. However, without basing Ex.P.20 filed by the accused wherein he stated that he has committed the murder of [ENTITY] by inflicting stab injuries.
11. PW.3 [ENTITY] and PW.4 [ENTITY] are examined as eyewitnesses. According to their version, [ENTITY] was moving infront of the office of the Tahasildar near Wadia hotel.
12. They also know the accused. They reveal that [ENTITY] was moving in front of the office of the Tahsildar and the accused came from backside and stabbed the [ENTITY] and immediately the latter turned towards the accused and again accused stabbed piercing the weapon [ENTITY] M.O.1 on the stomach of the [ENTITY] and threw [ENTITY] near the hotel and ran away. Immediately, [ENTITY], the brother of [ENTITY] came to the spot and they helped [ENTITY] to carry [ENTITY] to the hospital.
13. PW.5 [ENTITY] is the President of [ENTITY] of [ENTITY]. In his evidence he states about the grievance being submitted by [ENTITY] and its disposal.
14. PW.6 [ENTITY] who is the witness to Ex.P.6 inquest [ENTITY] and he deposes that he was asked to be present at the hospital at [ENTITY] and has seen the dead body of [ENTITY] and it was bearing stab injuries throughout the body and clothes were choked in blood.
15. PW.7 [ENTITY] speaks regarding translation of certain documents which he did.
16. PW.8 [ENTITY] is the Asst. Executive Engineer of PWD, [ENTITY] speaks about preparing of sketch of scene of offence.
17. PW.9 [ENTITY] speaks of his presence when the Police Constable produced the clothes found on the dead body of [ENTITY] that were seized under [ENTITY] Ex.P.4.
18. PW.10 is Dr. [ENTITY], speaks on conducting post-mortem which he conducted on the dead body of [ENTITY] on 21.08.2008 and opines that the death was due to acute cardio respiratory arrest following acute hemorrhage and shock secondary to rupture of grate vessels and vital organs - both kidneys, liver and rupture of multiple intestinal coils as a result of multiple stab injury and also deposed for having observed 14 ante mortem injuries including six stabbing injuries on the dead body of [ENTITY]. He also deposes for having observed the damaging of the internal parts of the body bearing corresponding injuries to stab injuries. He also deposes that M.O.5 [ENTITY] could inflict the stab injuries.
19. PW.11 [ENTITY] is the owner of the hotel near Taluka office in the name [ENTITY] and he turns hostile to the prosecution and denies the suggestions regarding stab injuries being inflicted to a person at 9.30 a.m. on the date of incident. So also PW.12 [ENTITY] who is eye witness who turns hostile.
20. Insofar as [ENTITY] PW-13 is concerned, he was one of the witnesses to the inquest [ENTITY], it is he who narrates the incident as to how the accused murdered his brother [ENTITY]. He deposes regarding the marriage of his brother with [ENTITY] about 9 to 10 years back. His brother [ENTITY] was employed in Saudi Arabia. According to this witness [ENTITY] used to come to her marital house once in 8-10 days whenever [ENTITY] was absent from India. Said [ENTITY], his sister-in law used to quarrel in the marital house and also insisted for separate house. Thus, she quarreled and had left her marital house. She was convinced to maximum extent and she was also promised that she would be taken to Saudi Arabia by [ENTITY] and also stated that she will be sending Rs.3,000/- per month. Meanwhile [ENTITY] had come down to [ENTITY] from Saudi Arabia. There was a panchayat, after which mother and sisters of this witness went to attend a marriage at Hyderabad and all the four brothers, consisting of this witness, [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were in the house. On 20.08.2008 at 6.00 p.m. [ENTITY] and her mother came to the house of this witness when all the four brothers were present. Her mother left [ENTITY] in the house and went back. Before which there was a quarrel between [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]. Mother of the advised both the spouses not to quarrel. Again there was a quarrel between [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], the brothers advised both of them not to quarrel and also reminded that next day all of them were due to go to Hyderabad to attend marriage. [ENTITY] asked for securing an auto as she wanted to go to her father's house. When the auto came infront of the house [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] entered into the auto and this witness was about to enter in it, but [ENTITY] asked that the spouses wanted to speak in privacy, hence, this witness could come by another auto or can walk. This witness informed his other two brothers to come to Bus Stand and he would come along with [ENTITY] to the Bus Stand and he was walking away from the house of [ENTITY] towards Tofu galli, before which [ENTITY] had told this witness that her brother [ENTITY] has taken [ENTITY] for a tea and when he was walking, he saw a group of persons. A boy on seeing this witness told that accused was sitting on the body of [ENTITY] and was beating. When this witness went to the spot and found the accused was sitting on the body of [ENTITY] and stabbing with [ENTITY] which was in the hand and on hearing his screaming, the accused threw [ENTITY] and ran away. According to this witness the incident was infront of the hotel and he lifted body of his brother and kept it on his lap and asked [ENTITY] what happened but he was unconscious. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] who were at the spot helped this witness to take [ENTITY] to hospital. Meanwhile he telephoned to Hyderabad to convey the matter. He identifies clothes of his brother. He has been cross-examined and majority of the cross-examination regarding authenticity of walking, distance between the house of this witness and house of [ENTITY], then to Taluka office, thereafter hospital and further suggesting that his version is false.
21. PW.14 [ENTITY] is cited as a witness to the circumstance. He was working as Police Sub-Inspector of the jurisdictional police station as on the date of incident. And it was before him the first document of the complaint Ex.P-1 came to be lodged by the accused in connection with the incident. But during the cross- examination, except the suggestion that this official witness got the report written at the behest of social worker [ENTITY] and the family members of the deceased [ENTITY]. He states to the effect that [ENTITY] was disclosing before him that he is about to give [ENTITY] to [ENTITY] and also states that after the incident accused told him that he murdered [ENTITY].
22. PW.15 [ENTITY], Constable who had carried the FIR and complaint Exs.P.20 and P.2 to the jurisdictional Magistrate.
23. PW.16 [ENTITY], CPI is Investigating Officer, he deposes regarding investigating part of the incident.
24. All the prosecution witnesses are cross- examined by the learned counsel appearing for the accused. However, perusal of the same does not provide significant contradictions or other materials to have impact on the case of the prosecution.
25. As the offence charged is under [SECTION] of [ACT], it is incumbent on the part of the prosecution to establish that the death of [ENTITY] dated 21.8.2008 was a homicide and not a natural one. On re-appreciation of the evidence we find they speak by themselves that the death of [ENTITY] on 20.8.2008 is certainly homicidal and not natural. On perusing the contents of the inquest [ENTITY], post-mortem report, oral evidence of the doctor and the injuries found on the dead body, blood stained clothes, the learned District Judge has rightly concluded that the death of [ENTITY] was homicidal and not a natural.
26. Further, on establishing homicidal death, it is also the responsibility of the prosecution to establish that the homicidal death of [ENTITY] was committed by the accused.
27. Due consideration was given to the principle that accused presumed to be innocent till proved guilt, regard being had to the fact his lodging complaint against his interest is not treated as incriminating against to wind up the matter.
28. It is necessary to mention that common version of the complainant-cum-accused and [ENTITY] PW.13 is that both statements state that the husband of [ENTITY] was murdered. However, according to the accused his sister was harassed and neglected beyond tolerance and he was very much upset and murdered [ENTITY]. However, [ENTITY] also mentions that [ENTITY] was done to death by the accused, but on a contextual reading of his statement dated 21.08.2018 it goes to impress that [ENTITY] has been totally non-co- operative and was harassing the deceased [ENTITY] and other members of the family.
29. After the completion of post-mortem, the spot [ENTITY] is said to have been conducted on 21.08.2008 near the hotel infront of Tahasil office. In this connection [ENTITY] PW.1 and [ENTITY] PW.2 were examined on 10.04.2010 and their version is, on 21.8.2008 at the spot they saw the accused being accompanied by the Police. However, they did not know the purpose. But they saw the weapon [ENTITY] in the hands of Police and nothing more. They are treated hostile.
30. [ENTITY] the deceased was the sister's husband of accused, thus, the post incident events start upon filing of a complaint in the form of statement by brother-in law of deceased to the effect that it was uncontrollable to tolerate the harassment on his sister, and decided to eliminate his brother-in law on 21.8.2008. Ironically [ENTITY] brother-in law of [ENTITY] on the same day gives a detailed statement at the time of inquest [ENTITY] on the dead body of [ENTITY], thereby states that his brother [ENTITY] was done to death by the accused and points out that the accused being the brother-in law of [ENTITY] intentionally murdered his brother. Thus, the difference between the versions of accused in the form of complainant Ex.P-20 and the statement of [ENTITY] the brother of deceased is that the former in the context states that he was compelled to kill his brother- in law. Whereas [ENTITY] PW.13 states that it was murder.
31. PWs.3 and 4 are cited as eyewitnesses and their version in substance is that they were talking with each other near hotel infront of the office of the Tahasildar [ENTITY] at about 9.30 a.m. on the date of incident 21.08.2008, they saw [ENTITY] passing infront of the Taluka office and they knew him. They speak for having seen the accused following accused and inflicted stabbing injuries came from the backside of the deceased and stabbed and when [ENTITY] turned back again he stabbed him. However, they do not tell how many times [ENTITY] received stabbing from the accused, but it was at 9.30 a.m. he received multiple stab injuries and he was taken to hospital by his brother [ENTITY]. It is not the claim or suggestion by either of prosecution or accused that there was no any intervening circumstances by either sides. PW.13 [ENTITY] also saw stabbing by the accused on his brother and on hearing his screaming, accused ran away. From whose statement during inquest [ENTITY] and oral evidence it is established on the date of incident, [ENTITY], his brothers including the deceased were supposed to go to Hyderabad to attend the marriage of the relative. Mother and sisters of deceased had already left for Hyderabad earlier on 7-8 days earlier. In this connection it is also the version of the PW.13 that during the series of events [ENTITY] observed a bag with the deceased and on being questioned the deceased answered that it was 25 tola gold and cash of Rs.50,000/-. It is also a point, which PW.13 wants to drive that while entering the house of the parents of [ENTITY] the deceased was in possession of the same. However, on return it was not with him on the said day. It is necessary to mention that on 11.8.2008 also there was a panchayat and both [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were advised and asked them to understand the responsibility. It is also forthcoming from the evidence of PW.13 that on 20.08.2008 when [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were quarrelling, they were asked to understand each other and not to quarrel and it was also told that all of them were going to Hyderabad for attending on the next day. It is also worthwhile to note the version of PW.13 [ENTITY] that on the date of incident on 21.8.2008 when he wanted to enter into the auto near his house after his brother [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] entered, she told him either to come in a separate auto or by walking as she wanted to speak privately with [ENTITY]. It was under
these circumstances, [ENTITY] gets de-linked from deceased [ENTITY]. He telephones his other brothers to come to bus stand and he would come along with the deceased. Thereafter, when he went near the house of the accused who is brother of [ENTITY], he was told by his sister-in law [ENTITY] that [ENTITY] was not available, as accused took him for tea. It was thereafter, when he was on the way to bus stand, he saw a group of persons and a boy came and told him that his brother was being beaten by accused and then he rushed to the spot, he saw his brother on the floor with bleeding injuries and the accused was sitting on his body and inflicting stab injuries with a [ENTITY] and when [ENTITY] screamed, accused left the spot and ran away by throwing the weapon. Thereafter, the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 fortifies the version of the prosecution wherein the accused was inflicting the stab injuries on [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] came to the spot and took him to hospital in an auto and the witnesses helped him to take his injured brother to hospital.
32. At this stage it is necessary to recapitulate that [ENTITY] fell down and PW.13 sat down and kept the head of his brother on his lap and wanted to talk with him, but he was unconscious. It was then he goes to the hospital in an auto for which he was assisted by PWs.3 and 4 and in the hospital the doctor who examined [ENTITY] stated that he was dead. In this regard, learned counsel for the accused has concentrated on the probative force of the version as stated by PW.13 and others does not reflect the offence being committed by the accused. More particularly, the land marks at [ENTITY] be it at house of the deceased with his parent and siblings or house of the accused, taluka office, Basaveshwar circle and hospital to claim that there was no possibility of the time factor to be real to believe the version of PW.13, PWs.3 and 4.
33. It was submitted by the learned SPP that [ENTITY] is a taluka head quarter coming under Bidar district and it is not a big town and there is no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the accused. The doctor has observed as many as nine injuries, out of them six stab injuries.
34. Insofar as intention is concerned, on a marshalling the material on record, it would provide materials regarding the accused getting anger over [ENTITY] and had developed a design in his mind to eliminate him and also came to a decision that the smoothening of the life of his sister could only be by eliminating his brother-in law [ENTITY]. Meanwhile it is also to be noted that there is also whisper regarding [ENTITY] likely to apt for a [ENTITY] in which event [ENTITY] would have become desperate. Thus, he projected himself as a person to go on record by thinking and acting to implement the plan in eliminating the deceased. That is the concept of motive as claimed by the prosecution which they feel constitute probative for the offence. In many cases the motive or the personal desire of an offender driving him to commit a criminal offence more particularly a heinous one may be within his mind and may not come to light but remain invisible. Motive has to be inferred from the evidence with the surrounding circumstances, that has to be appreciated by excluding the contents of complaint lodged by the accused in Ex.P.20. It is also necessary to place on record that when deceased [ENTITY] went to the house of accused along with [ENTITY] was said to have carried a bag containing 25 tolas of gold and cash of Rs.50,000/-, but on return it was not there. However, and was this aspect is totally submerged as there is no material presenting assertions and denials.
35. PW-11 [ENTITY], Hotel Keeper and PW-12 [ENTITY] Keeper are also cited as eye-witnesses, but are hostile to the prosecution. However, their hostility do leave impact on the prosecution. Moreover, it is hostile to the happening of the incident dated 21.8.2017 stands in the highest degree of probability. Among the documents, Ex.P-20 is the complaint being recorded in the form of statement by [ENTITY], that incidentally it is the accused in this case [ENTITY], literally confessing commission of murder, stating that he was very dissatisfied over the conduct of deceased [ENTITY] in neglecting and harassing. Further, he was said to be doubting the character of his wife [ENTITY] by attributing that the child born of her was not born to him, besides he was preparing to declare divorce (talaq) against her, who is the natural sister of the complainant-cum-accused. His anguish and frustration went to that extent of eliminating [ENTITY], his brother-in- law at [ENTITY] in front of Tahsildar, through [ENTITY] (a dagger like iron weapon) which was secured from the trial court and perused by us. The prosecution further stated that accused gave his statement both in Hindi and Kannada. This witness read it and explained in Kannada and English. FIR was accordingly registered.
36. In the facts and circumstances of the case there is no witness who could be branded as star or material witness. There is no congestion of evidence or the circumstance to cause doubt in coming to a definite conclusion as it is not a group of people who gathered or assembled to attack and kill [ENTITY] or to create in the mind of the court regarding presence of common intention or unlawful assembly. It was not dark to think of other probabilities.
37. Further, the positive evidence against the accused is so precise and clear that there was absolutely no chance of [ENTITY] being done to death other than the accused.
38. The substance of the evidence of PW-3 [ENTITY] and PW-4 corroborate the version of PW-13 [ENTITY] and fortifies the case of the prosecution against the accused on the guilt of murdering [ENTITY] in front of office of Tahsildar and near the hotel in day light at 9.30 a.m. on 21.08.2008. There was absolutely no necessity to loose temper or the balance over the attitude of deceased [ENTITY] towards his wife [ENTITY]. The offence which could have been averted, was not averted. It only shows to what extent a criminal mind can venture to, unless it is not prevented from thinking or implementing the danger to him or others.
39. Including accused, it is nobody's case that the homicidal death of [ENTITY] did happen on the spot but by unknown element or at else where and that the dead body was dumped on the spot.
40. Another circumstance is that there is no suggestion or rebuttal regarding the reason or justifiability of the action taken by the accused in case had he came to Police Station and gave statement to the effect that the conduct of [ENTITY] towards his wife [ENTITY] was a compelling factor that there was no alternative except the extreme step against the accused. However, it could be noticed that the said document Ex.P-1 is the source or the sole circumstance that conclude the guilt of the accused.
41. We are reminded that no one much less the accused can be compelled to give evidence against him or any document signed by him can be used against him and to deprive him of principles of natural justice. However, we feel to leave one observation on recount that no one can convert the guilt into outspoken that bears justifiability to gain mercy or exoneration for the act. Arrogance and breaking law and order to the core is not outspokenness.
42. We have noticed that the complainant in the first occasion, is the accused. It is not that he lodged the complaint against him, he presents a set of concepts and concludes that he murdered his brother-in-law. Further, that it is that case which he confesses.
43. We have meticulously perused the documents which are marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-23 and the material objects together with the oral evidence of the witnesses and we firmly find that the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt has proved that the accused [ENTITY] on 21.08.2008 at [ENTITY] in front of the office of the Tahsildar near Wadia hotel at 9.30 a.m. stabbed his brother-in-law [ENTITY] with [ENTITY] M.O.-1 on various parts of the body knowing fully well that the bleeding injuries caused thereby on [ENTITY] would definitely take away the life of the latter and the acts of the former squarely congruent to the ingredients of [SECTION] of [ACT].
44. In the circumstances, we have carefully observed the materials available and re-appreciated the evidence and we come to a firm conclusion that there is no error, mistake or lapse in the judgment passed by the learned District Judge on 31.01.2011 holding the accused guilty of the offence punishable under [SECTION] of [ACT] and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one year.
45. Hence, we concur to find that the appeal is devoid of merits and hence the same is dismissed. Consequently, the judgment in [CASE NUMBER] convicting the accused for the offence punishable under [SECTION] of [ACT] and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one year is hereby confirmed.
Send back the records to the trial court.
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE NSP/swk