HISHCQUBTOFGMNATTlSeARU-iATBIi-ASPUR DB: Hon'b!eShnDhirenaraMishra& HOR'ble ShriR.Ni Chahdrakar.JJ, Griminal Appeal No. 1018/2003 Kf APPELt^NT <inJai|) RESPONDENT ^. .•.). Neelam Tirke^S/o. Victor Tirkey, ^ed about 2S years, R/o. Lukhi P.S^ Jashpur, Disfrict- Jashpur :(^G^.:'.. ., ,^. ,,.;^ State of ChhattisgarK Through P.S: Gity Kohratj Jashpyr, District Jashpyr (Orimihal Appeal underSectioh 374(2) ofthe Gr.R.C.) Present;, .•..: ' .: :.. ,,':::: r',: • •: .;•,/. Smt.SunitaTBakur.counselfortheappellant. ShriAshishSiiu!(!a,©ovt.^jyocateifortheSfate aRAL JUDOMENT SP2.QT3QW) •:': : .•'.^ :;" The1vliowihn;iuddmentoi'Ate;SouftWasi(telweredbVDhirenoralVlishra.J. 1. TheappeliantliHasliTeterredjlEKiST^jl'iB^^laRBia^und^ oftheiGodepfSntrijnat|3K^ and order of sentehcejdatedi^ Trial No.171/2002, wheretsy tesmied 2"^^^^A^ (FTG), Jashpur, after hoidingthe afppettarrt^^ and317Qtthe|P©forcau^nghomieidatdeathpfhiswifeMang^^ and abandonina his 15 days old chjia jn the fbrest, has sentgneea Bim toundergoimDrisonmenifor!lifert(^pay}afin^of?Rs.^^ 1 OfDayment^fiheto^furtheruna6i^()?a^ underao R/i. forS'years, respective|y.;BotB.^-s§hterit^a^ ito,ruffseDarately., ^ • ';. ::,':'^,'-•''-: !<itf |fMe proseeution, irr tir^ 'in idahuary, 2002. ?MangSrtta?Haaas^rt^sljviCTg"®^ K|ey^befQreheFimarri^e;TH&deGieasedrgaNtoiFt ^ U^iBelQre the dNe of fRe ihadenP a^ ^SSBl: rs» ^s^ committed murder of Mangarita by siitting her neck by knite and aiso aoandonec115 davs oid chiio after murderina Manaar'ta in the forest. 3. Santuram. kotwar ot the vHiaae. aave mera int'rnaiiQn on 21,07.2002 at about 20.30 hours msntiQnina therein that on beinQ infQrmed by one Chamararam Patei that dead body of a 'ady is lyina jn Thuthyghapath, vi'laaers went there and Jound the deaci bQdy ot ivlangariia, wlte of Neeiam, 'yinQ ihere. She had sustained injury on her necK. Husbanti of the deceased a'so 'ntormed that since i\nangarita used to frsquentiy visit her psrsntal house, ths appeiiant CQmmitted her murder by knits. u.fter reaistering merg intimation (tx-P/2), crime wss registsred under SsctiQ" 302 of the indian Psnai Code saainst the aDDeiiant yide Ex- P/"!. The poiice proceeded for ths scens of occurrence, prspared incsuest over the person QT deceased vide Ex-PM. S'te pian was prepared by the investlgating officer vide Ex-P/5 and thereafter, dead bodv was sent tor autoDS" to Communitv Heaith Centre. Manora. vids £x-p/9. Dr. R.S. Paskra (PVV-5) conducted postmortem and gave h's rSQQFE V!C!©EX-P/7. 4. WeaDQn of offence biood stained knife was taksn intQ oossession frQm the appeliant vide Ex-P'3. Haif-sh'rt worn bv the appeiiant was taken IntQ pQssesslQR vide Ex-P'6. Pialn soi!, biood stained soi! and biood stainea Gamcha ivina near th8 dsad bodv wsre taksn intQ DQssessiQp. v!de Ex-P/10. Articies seized durina investiaation y-'ere sent fQr chemicai examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur and accQraing to the report of FSL, article Gamcha selzed from the spot, Knifs 3"d half-shirt ss'zsti from ths aDDeliant containsci n!QQd. However. thls rsport has not bssn exhibited during triai. 5. After CQmp'eting invest'gation, charge sheet was "ied in ihe Court of Ch'ef Judicia! Magistrats, Jashpur, who in turn cQmmitteci the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Raigarh and the same was received on transter for triai by iearnsd AdditiQnai SessiQns judgs. 6. Learned Sess'ons Judgs framed chargss under -Sect'Qns 302 and 317 of ihs indian Penai Cods against the appeiiant, wno aojured hss gu!it. 7 PrQsecut'on in order to estabi'sh charges against the appe'iant exammed 8 wtnesses .n a-1. Thereafter, statement of accused was ^.-. ..ri'i"—"- s ''^ 'i "^. ;a '•"W '«•, Stnx' 4h, 'yy f^. ...,,-:ss:gi •.'•.:^ . -.;--:;;^?g-?s> recorded under Section 313 of the Code "r Criminai Procedure, in wh'cn ne deniea t"e circumstances appearina aga'nst him in the DrQsecuron case ana Dteaaed innQcence and talse imDi'cat'on on account of some land re'ated d'sDuts. 8. Ths tr'ai C-ou" after hsaring cJ3U"sei for t"e respect've part'es, convictea ana sentencea the appeliant as mentionecl 'n paragraph one QT tn.is iijQQmQpt 9. t-iQm'ciaai aeath ot Qeceaseei ivian.qanta 's not in aispute. bven ,.,(, " ' . otherwise, from the evidsnce of D,r. Paikra i'PVv-5), wlo has conciucted pQstmQrtem and proved h's pQsimQrtem report (Ex-P/7); in which he op!ned t"at tne deceased d'ed as a resuit of hypo"Qiemic shock due t" cut Qt great vessels, and duration QI death was opined as 3-5 days prior to the date Qf pQstmQrtem, hQmicidai death of deceasea is establish.ed. INjURY Incised wound over anterior surtace of neck beiow the inyrQid cart!!age measuring about 3.5" x1.5" x1". lO.Learned counsei for the appeiiant submits that there is no eyewitp.ess of the incidsnt. The appe!!ant has bee" conyicted in the said otfenc^ on the basis of circumstantiai evidence. The circumstances reiied upon by th.e prosecutiop. are that ths deceased was seen with 15 days Qid child on her lao in the CQmpanv of the appeitant, wnen she was iast seen aiive while QQina to ThuthuahaQath forsst and the aDDeiiant made extra juateial confessiQn before Alexander (PW-3), Ex Sarpach QT the viiiaae. The trial C-ourt has aiso consldered subsequent conduct of the aDDeiiant that he tiid not inform to anvone about the missina of his wife atter the incident as additiQnai circumstance against the appeilant. Selzure of weapon of offencs knife and clothes from the appeilant containing DioQd as per the report of FSL has aiso been considered as circumstances against the appeiiant. Howeyer, prosecution has faiied to estabiish each of the cireumstances throuQh reiiable ey'dence. The cjr&umstances taken tQaether aiso do not estabiish the invoivement QT the appeliant beyond a!! reasonabie doubt. ^^ "^ '\ ~' •\1 '^ !• fi7 »••' ,-^ ^ 11.0n the offier hand, 'earned counsei tor the -State supported the imDuaned !uaament. V. l2.Vye have hesrd learned counse! forthe parties and perussd the records as aiso the impugned judgmsnt. rf *B* 13.There is no eyewitness "f the incidsnt. C-QnvictlQn of the appeliant is based on circumstantiai eyidence. The circumstances reiled upon by the trial Court for convicting the appsiiant are as under:- • The appeliant- wa^ !ast seen in the company of deceased ar,d 15 day^ old chiid on 18.07.2002 ir, the evening, when - they were going towards Thuthughapsih forest and thereaffer her dsad body was tounti. » The appeiiant made extra iudicial CQnfession before Atexander (PW-3); • '"VeapQn of offence knife anci haif-shirt seized from the appellsnt coritained biocd as per report of FSL; • Conduct QT the appeuant after She inc'dent. LAsTStEN 14.3anturam, Kotwar of the viiiage has iodged first information report (Ex- P.'l'i on 21st J'Jlv. 2002 at 20.30 hours and the date and time of the incident is mentioned as 18.07'.2002 at about 3-4 p.m.. In FiR, h.e hss stated that Chamararam Fatei (Pv"-2) infbrmed him that dead body Qf a woman is lying at Thuthughapath forest, whereupon he snfQrmed the same to other v'liaaers. tolasrus. Siivester. Michaei. DevDalram and Kaieshwar went to see tne dead bod". Aiter returnina from there. thev infQrmed that the dead bodv !s of W!TS of Neeiam. He tQund Neelam and his mother in the house of Aiexander. Aiexander intormed h!m that Neeiam has murdered his wite and asked h'm IQ g" to pQiice Station with h!m and thereafter hs iodaed the reDort vide Ex-P'1 . Th!s witness has been cross-exam'ned by e prosecutiQn aner decianng riim hostiie. In cross-examlnatiQn, he has stated tiiat tne persons wno went to see the dead body aiso saw the dead body of a child near the dead bodv of Fyianaarita 3nd ths aDDeitant contessed E'stQrs tns yliagers tfiat N ffl8 •-'ss-^ffStBS he murdered his wife. In cross-examination, he has admitteci that the deceaseddiedon 18.07.2002. \ 15.Laldevram (PvV-4) has deposed that he knows the appellant and also his wife iVlangarita. The incident is of iast Ashad. Whiie he was returning after piucking the leaves, he saw Neelam and his wife going near Thuthughapath and liieeiam's wite was carrying a chiid aged about 15 days on her back. Later he came to know that his wife died. Chamarram is his father. He did not disclose this fact to anvone. in 'i. cross-examination by the a'°feRce, he has admitted the pQrtion 'A' to 'A' QT his diary statement of Ex-D/1 wherein, he had stated that on Frlday, dated 19.07.2002, he had gone with his wife to forest for pSucking ynaa! ieaves. vvien they were return'nQ rrQm ihere at abQut 4, they met them near ihuthuanaDath. IS.From Tlrst infbrmation report (Ex-P/1), we "nd that C-hamararam Paiei ipuv-2), who was WQrking in the field, intormed Santuram (Pvv-1) that dead body ot a woman 's lyng at Thuthughapath. vtiiage giris "'hQ had Qnne to pick up Khak"ad! intormed about the same. Thev went there, however, they couid "ot recog.nize the aead bodv. "yife of Neelam was seen going towards th.at place in the even'ng of Thursday at about 3-4 hours anti somet'me thereafter, Neeiam also went icwards that side and It may be her dead body. However, Chamararam ('PVv-2) has not deposed ihis fact that he has seen She deceased going towards that place and after some time, the appeilant aiso went atter her on Thursdav evenina, whereas the wiiness of iast seen Laidev has categoricaity stated in his statement (Ex-D/1) that he saw the appeiiant and ihe deceased wlth a chiid on her back going towards Thuthughapath on Friday, 19th July, 2002. 17. ThlSS. tn9 QylQQDCS Qf L3!d8V sbQUt ths dat6 and tims of Isst S69H 's sn var'ance wrtn the Drosecuiion case as emeraina rrom ine first intormation repori:. Ihe triai CQU" was noi justiiied !n ignoring ihe mater'ai anomaiv between the version or Laiciev In i=x-U/'! ana tne version mentioned 'n the first intormation report. 18.0" t"e basis ot aToresaid, we are QT tne op'nion th.ai ine prQsecuron rtas fai!ed t" estabils" the circumstance that the aDDeiiant was iast .^SsSS seen together in the eompany of the deceased while they were going towards Thuthughapath.v EXTRA JUDJCiAL CONFESSION l9.The prosecutiQn has examined Aiexander (PW-3) to estabiish the above circumstance. Tffis witness has deposed that Mangarita died three mQnths before; she had a chiics aaed about 15 davs. it was Sunaav, when mothsr of Nee'am came io him and intormed that her son Neeiam had murdered his wiie and he is QQlng to Jashpur Po'.ice Slation, on wh'cn he advsed ndt.to iet him go a'one. Thereafter, he returned to h!s own house. Atter sQmetime. Neeiam came to RIS house. He asked hsm whether he commltted any mistake, "w3 iftw ^ 'ffsF m?T fa> aw "irarft fSi^ st 4lc!K ^? sTaraT ts TTR fsar!" Thsreafter. hs asked Santu and Kaieshwar to take Neetam IQ the pQl'ce stat'on, thereupon they went to the pQitee station. 'n paragraph 8 Qf h!s cross- exam'RatiQn. hs has dsoosed that Kotwar aiso informed the n'sother Qf NeeSam th.at Neeiam has murdered his wife. 20.From the evidence of Santuram (PW-1) and the contents of FiR aiso, it is observed that the appe'iant and his mother were present in the house o! Atexander, when Santuram went IQ his house. However, the Qbsen/at'on of the triai C-ourt ihat the moiher of the appeiiant snd the aDDellant c-Qp.tesseci that Nes'am murdered h's wtfe. extra iudiciai confsssion or the appeiiant cannot be douteed ""iy because o? non- exam'natiQn of his mother, is not proper. in tne absence of exam'natiQ" of mother of the appeiiant, any inrormat'Qn received from her by Santuram and Aiexander would be inadmisslbi0 in evidence. The alieged confessiQn QT the appel'ant berore Alexander is not speciflc an.d ctear. it is settled law ttet extra judlciai confession is a weaK type of evdence and the evidence of Aiexander, witness Qf the extra judiciai CQp.fessiQn, is not of such cilnching quailty on wnlch aione the convictton couid be based in the absence of any other incriminattng c'rcumstancss. —a..K»cS§i ;-;'<: ^^?S£:';y WeaDon otoffsnce ({nife and hait-snirt seizea from ths aspeilarit corstalned blood as per repcrt of FSL 2l.Seizure ot Kp.ite and haif-shirt has been eftected throuah sesure memo of Ex-P/3 and Ex-P/6. .Kn're has been seized in tne vliiage LuKhi, Thuthughpath according to the selzure niemo, however, Santuram (h'yy-1), who has proved se'zure memo nas depQseci that t"e appeiiant was carrying the knife whsn fhey were gQip.9 to the PQHCS StatiQn to lodge repQrt and se!zure was made in the poiice statio". The seizure <t has not been stfected on rhemQrandum Qf the appsliant. Ths FSL report has "esther been proved hor exh'b'ted by the triai C-ourt and the report does not rRent'Qn that It contalned human biQod, that IOQ of the biood group of the deceased. HaiT-sh!rt has aiso been seized on being prQduced oy tns appei'anT, "Qwsvsr, tne seizure mem" QQSS not snow the Diace wnere se'zure was effected. in the absence of recoven/ QT srt!c!es 'n his aisciosurs staiement. sszurs OT aDQVs articiss iosss siQnsficancs. GONDuCT OF THc APPELLty<iT ^TER TKc iMC'HPMT tl.'5i»-S6-? .ils_g 22.Ths tr'ai C-Qurt has cons'dered the conduct of the appsiiant In not taking any acfiQR atter his wife and the chiid went rr.'ssing as an additionai c'rcumstance. Thers Is evidsnce availabis on record that ths deceased treQuentiv used io "is!t her parentai house aaainst the wishes of the appeiiant. In these circumstances, the conauct ot appeiiant in maK'ng no enquiry about hls y/ife after she went misslRg from 18"' Jiily, 2Q02 tll! hsr dssd bodv VB'SS fGund on 21 -Julv. 2QQ2 cspnot b^ CQHS'dsffid to bs -^i-ti-i-u i^^-^j ^i^l^^/ lV/*-i i^ ^l t ^—I w-lt^ ^ ^—^^j— ^ur.llUi. u^ u.u .an incriminating circumstance against him. 23.The triai C-ourt has also CQp.yicted the aopeiiant under Section 317 of tneIPC and it has besn heid thst ivianaariia went wth the chiid, aaed about 15 davs on the dats of the 'nc'dent and tne cnila "vas ssen on tne scQt and thereafter the whereabouts of the chiid was not known. The apseiiant has not qiven anv exotanatiQn about tne chiid. Tn!s findina is baseQ on the eyldence of Chamararam iPVV-2) ana Laidey (PVV-4!. Chamararam has stated in paragraph 2 Qf h's depositiQn tnat he iesrnt from tns viiaasrs tnat a dsad nQQy !S iyng anci a cn'iQis wesp'.ng aT a ssisxn.-.,^ •'; '•"», ^ : .sssaiSii ciistance ot 2 k.m. in the torest, however, they did no! go there due to fear "f eiephants and qn the next day at about 4 tnnu went to tne p'ace wiiere ciead body was iying and saw tne aead bodles of chiid ana mother. However, 'nvestiQatina Ott'cer, G.N. Baahei (PW-8) has not stated anythina about the death ot the child. There is no menilQp, in tne entire charge sheet that'lnquest was prepared over the dead body ot the chitd or hls dead body was sent tor autopsy. 24.0n close scrutinv of FiR and th.e evidence of the witnesses. we tind •'!- " -•-•-- - - • - .-..-. - - , that:- ' • Santu was informed bv Cnamra Ram that dead bodv of a woman is ivina in ThuthuQnapath. Mangriia was seen going towards that piace with 'ner child on Thursday around 3-4 pm and atter some time, the appeiiant was aiso seen golng towards the same directiQ". Santuram made enquiries about the deceased from the appeliant and h!S mother as a'so from her oarents. After some time. the osrsons wh.o had gone to see the deaci body conilrmed that it is the bQdv of Manarita. • Santuram in h's C-ourt depQsition has proved the report of Ex.-P/'i. He has aiso aeposed that no information about the child couiG be gathered and the chiid couid not be discovered. On cross- examsnatlon by the State, he siated that mother of the appetiant infQrmed that her son has murdered hte wife. Chamru and otners, who had g.one to see the tiead bQdy, had to'd that a dead body ot a chiid was aiso lying near Mangr'ta. * Chamru has deDosed that he was intQrmed by the vlliaaers that a ciead bodv is iying and a chiid is weebina. He went to the Diace of incldent in the fQilowinQ morning at 4 near the dead body wlt" otler viilagers and saw the dead bodv of the deceasea 1fitiliW:: ^F'-^S^ and the chiid and thereafter he informed Kotwar On Sunday at about 7. \ PVV-3 Alexander has deposed that the mother of Neeiam infQrmed that her son has murdered his wite. v'v'hen h.e asked Neeiam whether he has committed anv mistake, Re reol"ed that he has murdered. • Laidev Ram (PVV-4) has deposed thai he saw the deceased, her husband and the chiid going towards <j. Thuthughapath. .< In cross-exam'nation, he has admitied tha! in his diarv statement of Ex.-u/t he had stated that It ¥,asa Friday the 19th J'dly, 2002. 25.From the above evidence. we find that ch'id wss see" alive bv some witnesses near the dead body of Mangrita and thereaiter his dead body was see" on the ne>d ciav bv Ch.amra on 21-7-2002 when he informed •Santu about the same and report was iodged. However, witnesses, who saw the deceased for the firsi i'me when the chiid was alive, have not bssn interroaatsd durina invsst'c'atiQn and thsrs 's no invsst'Qation as to under what circumstances the bodv of chiid whteh was ssen b" the witnesses as late as 21 -7-2002 couid not bs iocatsQ. 26.1hus, considering the dtecrepancy rsgard'ng the date when the deceased was !ast sse" alivs in ths company of ths appe'iant '"tTis the" wsrs DrocssdinQS towards the Diacs "t 'ncicieRt and aiso cQns'dsrlna t"at imDQrtani witnsssos wno had sesn i"s cniia ai'ys ana iVianarita for the t'rst t'me nave not ossn exam'nsa, we sre or ine QOinion tnat convjction of the appeiiant based on circumsiant'ai evidence under Section 302 for CQmmittinQ murder of deceased 'Viangrita and Sect'Q" 317 tor ieav'ng h!s ciTia wit" an inisniion IQ whQi'v abandon ths chi'd cannot be sustained. 27.The Supreme C-ouri: in the matter of Sharad Birdhscn.and Sarda Versus -Stats of Maharashtrs1 hss underhnsd the condltions, which must be fuit'iied t6r CQnvici'ng an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence and heid !n oara-1 b2 ss unaer:- AiK-'iy84 SUPRE?viE COURT 1622 -l.T>. ^: ;? ^ ^' -.-isa ^. ...i^^yi.''^ li.i "'i&^. A ciose anaivsis ot th's aeclstoR ""ouid show that the foiiowing ccnditions musi be fu,'fi!!ed befors a case agamst an accu'sed can be said t" be tuiiy esiabiisied: (1) the clrcumstances from whsch the conciusion of auiit is IQ be drawn shouid be fuiiv estsbilshed. it may be noted hsre that this Court indicated tnat h& f^.ri'^'s imtsfsn^^a': ^i*srt^is?TEs^ •"?; ;£••*• "?'' c""h.-~? •is'^t -;n-^ n^*' •i iC ^./ii ^i^iii^fcCii ivd3 wi iwd I i^?^i iliUiSd </i 'S'iis/Uiv^ CtiiU i i^L 'rp.ay be' established. There 's "ot Qp.iy a grsmmat'cal i^.i •* C '^.'^'s! ?";C'';!^.A'"A!* ;^£if*?'*£j'2*ni ivY*."'s\f ^.ffi •*t^n'?^n* J5!*?" :i. Q iStyCii UiO^ii iv/ltiJ'i 1 y<Si.if»'S?Sii i i iCS.jf >^S? j^i yTG?V iSil iU •must be or should be proveQ as was heid bv th!S Court ^^ »^ii*^^f > ^^/^L»if^^^yf^ f^ T ^^fc»*rf^ /j ^^ \ /^^ ^^^/^^^^ #»i» ft JS^^^^d^r^h^^l^^y/^ ii i i-,»iSiVCSJi ».3<Sii^Syi ^*^ >pSUii^GLt\3 V 53. *-?t>Gt*iSi ^l iVICii iGi CSiyi i^i ut} ('1973) 2 -SC-C 7S3;-<(,utR 1973 -3C 2622) where the folio'A'ing obseryations v»eremade: "certain'y, it is a primary principle that the accussd must bs and not msreiy msy be guilty before a Court can convjct and the mentai distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is iong and divides vague coniectures from sure concSuslons." (2J the facts so estabiisned shouid be consistsrst oniy with ths hypothesis of ths guiit of the accused, that is to say, they srtouid not be expiainab'e OR any other hypothesis except that ths accused Is guiity. f^,\ T^a Airr*i !mc_fQn^ia<£ %hns i'n >ns$& Fif ?5 li ittt ^/ii \/yi i i'S^CS.i iuitS^S £5ii!wiUiU yC Vi % <-; CQnclus'ye nature ana tenciencv. (4) fheu ii iGy 2»iiUUiU ^A<i>/iUi>>iiw SVSFy' —^•-!-;h{i=; ^vSti^fG hypQtnesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there niust be a chain of evidencs so comDiete as not to isave anv reasQnab'e orounci tor the concSuslon consistent tVith the innocencs of t'ne accused and must sr'Q'" thst sn aii h.uman prQbabiiity ine act must have besn done by the accused . 28.The Honbie SuDreme Court in the matter oi Ja'paj Vs. Sate Qt Haryana2, has referred to the judgment of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (Supra) with approval and in paragraph 33 ot the judgment it has been heid th.us:- "33. Deaiina wlth a case of circumstant!ai eviaence tne court has to b@ sircuiTispsct. A nots of csufion wss sounded by a CQnsUtut'Qn Bencn OT tnis ^ourt in Raghav Prapanna Tripathi Vs. Stats of U.P., quotlng (at AiR p.8a,para 60) trom R.V. Hoage: "The mind was aot to take a pieasure sn aaapting circurr.stsrsces to one anothsr, and sven ir; strsin.ng them in Ita10. if need be. to iorce them to torm parts of ons oGnriSCtsu wpiOiS^ sno ?ii£mors iHQsnsGus ins niiHQ "f tne individuai the more iikely was re, consiaenng sucn (2003) i 5CC 169 !i il ^i '•• '••' \ -T". ^ b!l"31 ^ 11 matter, to overreacn sna misiead rtseit, w suppiy some iitt!e llnk ihai is wanting, to take for granted some fact CQns'stent w!t(i its preyious theones anc necessary t" render Shem coFnplete." 29.vve are unnesilatingiy QT the opin'on inat ine prosecutiQp, nas uneriy fauea in provna such chain of circumstantiai evidence as wou'a tasien the guiit on the accusetfteaying no room tor doubt. 30.in ihe resuit, the appeai is ailowed. Conyiction of the accusea under Sections 302 and 317 of the iPC and the sentence passed thereon Dy ths tria! Court are set asidp. Th6 accused'appeiiant is acquiitsd. He shaii be released forthwith -if not- required to be detained in any other Qttence. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge if&^