Anjan Kumar Sarma vs State Of Assam

ANJAN KUMAR SARMA & ORS. ….Appellant(s)

Versus

STATE OF ASSAM ….Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

The Appellants along with Jitendra Nath Kakati alias Jit

Kakati were charged for committing offences under Section

302, 376 (2) (g), 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’).

Accused Jit Kakati was separately charged under Section

366-A IPC. The Appellants and Jit Kakati were acquitted of

all the charges framed against them. The High Court

reversed the acquittal and convicted the Appellants and Jit

Kakati for offences under Section 302, 201 read with

Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by CHARANJEET KAUR Date: 2017.05.23 17:05:27 IST Reason: after acquitting them for an offence under Section 376 (2)

(g) read with Section 34 IPC. Jit Kakati was acquitted for

1 offences under Section 366-A IPC. Aggrieved by the

conviction under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, the

Appellants have filed these Appeals. It is relevant to

mention here that Jit Kakati filed Criminal Appeal No.1305

of 2014 which abated due to his death.

2. Appellant 1, 2 and Jit Kakati worked as Assistant

Managers of Gotanga tea estate at the relevant time.

Appellant No.3 was working as a welfare officer of Sangsua

tea estate and Appellant No.4 was working as the Assistant

Manager of Gobindapur tea estate. Both Gotanga and

Sangsua tea estate were under the same management. Jit

Kakati and Anjan Kumar Sharma, the first Appellant, were

living in bungalow No.17 in Gotanga tea estate. Jit Kakati

was staying in one part of the Director’s bungalow situated

in Sangsua tea estate when he was working as Assistant

Manager at Sangsua tea estate prior to his transfer to

Gotanga tea estate. Even after his transfer and allotment

of bungalow No. 17 in Gotanga tea estate, Jit Kakati was

still in occupation of the Director’s bungalow at Sangsua

tea estate.

3. Rekha Dutta was residing in a house situated near the

Director’s bungalow at Sangsua tea estate. Jit Kakati

2 developed intimacy with Rekha Dutta. On 27.12.1992

Rekha Dutta went inside the Director’s bungalow of

Sangsua tea estate to fetch water. Jit Kakati called her

inside the bungalow and Rekha Dutta stayed in the

bungalow for a considerable period of time. Sarumai

Halwai (PW-1) informed Jibon Dutta (PW-20) the elder

brother of Rekha Dutta about his sister spending

considerable time inside the bungalow along with Jit Kakati.

PW-20 who was working as a Chowkidar at Sangsua tea

estate at the relevant time sent his sister Jun Moni Dutta

(PW-2) to the Director’s bungalow to see whether Rekha

Dutta was in the bungalow. PW-2 visited the bungalow and

found that Rekha Dutta was sitting in a room along with Jit

Kakati. On the basis of the said information, PW-20 went to

the Director’s bungalow and questioned the conduct of Jit

Kakati. Jit Kakati informed PW-20 that he proposes to marry

Rekha Dutta. PW-20 told Jit Kakati that a decision regarding

the marriage can be taken only after consultation with his

relatives. As per the prosecution version, PW-20 sent one

Ranjit Halwai to call his relatives. All the accused along

with Rekha Dutta left the Director’s bungalow of Sangsua

3 tea estate on two motor cycles before the relatives of

PW-20 reached the spot. They went to bungalow No.17 in

the adjacent Gotanga tea estate. Rekha Dutta was seen at

bungalow No.17 on the evening of 27.12.1992 till 9:00 pm

by Fulu Turi (PW-4) and Bhai Turi (PW-5). As the

whereabouts of Rekha Dutta thereafter were not known to

PW-20 and her other family members, they started making

enquires on 28.12.1992. As they could not locate Rekha

Dutta, PW-20 approached the officer in charge Pulibar

Police Station, District Jorhat and submitted an ejahar (F.I.

statement). PW-20 stated in the ejahar that Jit Kakati

eloped with Rekha Dutta at 4:30 pm on 27.12.1992 and

thereafter her whereabouts were not known.

4. An FIR was registered at 10:15 am on 29.12.1992.

The Investigating Officer (PW-21) commenced his

investigation by going to the Sangsua tea estate and

started examining witnesses. At about 1:50 pm he

received information about a dead body lying on the

railway track. He went to the railway track near Gotanga

tea estate and found the severed pieces of a girl’s dead

body lying on the railway track. He conducted inquest on

the body of the girl which was cut into pieces by the train.

4 The body parts were found lying scattered within 40 feet

area of the railway track. The head and left leg were not

found with the other parts of the body. The right leg was

cut into pieces from thigh to knee, the leg was almost

severed but for a strand of skin. The left hand was broken

but attached to the body. The left leg was missing. The

body was identified by PW-20 to be that of Rekha Dutta, on

the basis of the clothes that she was wearing. The

Appellants and Jit Kakati voluntarily surrendered before the

police. Pursuant to a disclosure statement made by Jit

Kakati on 31.12.1992, a Khukri was recovered from the

wardrobe of Jit Kakati at bungalow No.17, Gotanga tea

estate.

5. The post mortem on the body was conducted by Dr.

Golap Chandra Deka (PW-11) on 30.12.1992 who opined

that death was due to shock and coma as a result of

craniocerebral injuries. The following injuries were found

on the body of the deceased:-

1. “A portion of the calvarium including frontal, temporal and parietal region is detached with one bone deep incised wound of size 10 m x 2 cm on the left side with total avulsion on the remaining sides. The detached portion of the skull bone was covered with skull and long black hairs. The cut margin of the left side of the separated skull shows bevelling. Blood clot present in an around

5 the cut edges and beneath the scalp. The brain matter is not found in situ.

2. Remaining portion of the skull with periorbital region with its contents are crushed just above the upper lip and up of nose upwards. Right ear absent, left ear only attached with skin.

3. Multiple, almost parallel superficial bruises obliquely placed, encircling the distal portion of both forearms.

4. Multiple small superficial bruises are found around both the well-developed breasts. Cut section shows extravasation of blood and tissue fluid in sub-cut.

5. Multiple, small superficial bruises on back of trunk on both sides. Cut section shows extravasation of blood.

6. Swelling and bruises present in an around the vulva, majora and minora. Cut section shows extravasation of blood.

7. The whole left arm is completely crushed, limb being attached only with crushed muscles. No evidence of any fresh bleeding.

8. Left leg is completely detached from the limb below the lower part of the thigh by crush injury.

Detached leg fits with the limb. No evidence of any fresh bleeding.

9. The right thigh completely crushed and the leg is attached by crushed muscles. No evidence of any fresh bleeding.

10.One lacerated injury 2” x 1 ½” over the right side of right ankle joint. No evidence of any fresh bleeding.

11.Multiple fractures of almost all the ribs on both sides of the chest.

12.One lacerated injury on the lateral side of right abdominal wall mostly in the upper part 4” x 2” x 1” exposing the intestinal coils, ruptured stomach and right kidney. No evidence of any fresh bleeding.”

6. PW 11 deposed that injuries Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 were

6 ante mortem. He also stated that there was evidence of

sexual intercourse. He further deposed that the death

occurred 24 to 48 hours before the time of post-mortem

examination which was conducted at 12.00 noon on

30.12.1992. The Sessions Judge, Jorhat framed the

following charges:-

“Firstly- That you, on or about the 27.12.92 at Sangsua Tea Estate under Pulibar P.S. committed gang rape on Smt. Rekha Dutta in furtherance of your common intention.

And thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 376(2) (g) / 34 the Indian Penal Code and within (3) my cognizance.

Secondly – That you, on or about the same day time and place committed murder of Smt. Rekha Dutta by intentionally causing her death and in further of your common intention and hereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and within (4) my cognizance.

Thirdly – That you, on or about the same date, time and place at knowing that certain offence to (sic) murder punishable its death has been committed, dies cause certain evidence of the said offence to disappear with dead body was thrown into a rail track with the intention of screening yourselves from legal punishment and hereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201 my cognisance.”

7. The prosecution relied upon the following

circumstances to prove the charges against the accused:-

1. “The deceased was last seen with the accused persons in Bungalow No.17 on the night of 27.12.1992 in the company of the accused persons but not seen alive thereafter anywhere.

7 2. When the relatives of Rekha Dutta enquired about her whereabouts on the next date i.e. on 28.12.1992 the accused persons failed to give any definite reply.

3. The dead body of the victim was found/ lying on the railway track on 29.12.1992. The said railway track passes through the tea garden where bungalow No.17 is situated.

4. Rekha was wearing material Exhibit 1 (Frock) when she was last seen in the company of the accused persons and the same frock was also found on her dead body when it was discovered on the railway track on 29.12.1992.

5. The surgeon (PW 11) who conducted the autopsy, while issuing the post mortem certificate (Exhibit

4) categorically stated that death of the victim was a result of the ante mortem incised wound found on the skull which could be caused by weapon like material Exhibit 3 (Khukri).

6. Recovery of material Exhibit 3 (Khukri) from the bungalow of accused Dhruba Jyoti Bhuyan on the basis of disclosure statement made by accused Jit Kakati.

7. Mark of blood stains found in the said khukri.

8. The Investigating Officer also noticed blood stains in the bathroom of bungalow No.17.

9. The failure of the accused persons to offer any explanation in respect of the incriminating circumstances as narrated above, which, according to prosecution, can be counted as providing missing links for completing the chain of circumstances.”

8. The Trial Court considered each of the circumstances

in a detailed manner. Regarding the last seen theory

propounded by the prosecution, the Trial Court held that

the prosecution proved through the evidence of PW-4 and

8 PW-5 that Rekha Dutta was seen in the company of the

accused till 9:00 pm on 27.12.1992. There is no conclusive

proof that Rekha Dutta stayed at the bungalow over night.

Considering the medical evidence on record, the Trial Court

held that the death should have been after 12.00 noon on

28.12.1992 and there was no evidence that the deceased

was seen with the accused persons around that time or

thereafter. According to the Trial Court the mere fact that

the accused were with the deceased till 9:00 pm on

27.12.1992 will not by itself lead to an irresistible inference

that they committed the crime.

9. The Trial Court accepted the evidence of PW 11

regarding the ante mortem injury No. 1 which was caused

by a sharp weapon due to which Rekha Dutta died. The

recovery of khukri pursuant to the disclosure statement

was the subject matter of strict scrutiny by the Trial Court.

It was observed that the four witnesses to the disclosure

statement and recovery memo, PW 13, PW 14, PW 15 and

PW 19 were declared hostile. There was no corroboration

to the statement of the investigating officer PW 21 either

about the disclosure or seizure. The Court also examined

whether the prosecution proved that the weapon seized

9 was used for commission of the offence. PW 19 in whose

presence the weapon was seized deposed that there were

no blood stains on the weapon. The report of the Forensic

Science Laboratory, Guwahati found blood stains but the

origin of the blood could not be established. There was no

evidence to show that there was human blood on the

weapon. The investigating officer spoke about the

detection of blood stains in the bathroom of bungalow

No.17. The blood which was collected was sent for

chemical analysis and the report of the Serologist revealed

that the sample gave negative test for blood.

10. The Trial Court categorically held that the prosecution

was unable to prove the charge of Section 366-A against Jit

Kakati as the deceased was in the company of Jit Kakati of

her own volition. A thorough examination of the entire

evidence on record led the Trial Court to hold that the

charge under Section 376 (2) (g) against all the accused

was not proved. The Trial Court further held that there was

no motive on the part of the accused for committing the

offence alleged against them. On an overall consideration

the Trial Court held that the Accused were not guilty of the

offences under Section 302, 201 read with 34 as well. It

10 was further held the circumstance of the accused and

deceased last seen together on the night of 27.02.1992 by

itself is not sufficient to convict the Accused.

11. The High Court confirmed the findings of the Trial

Court regarding acquittal of the accused under Section

366-A and 376 (2) (g). The High Court found that the

deceased was 24 years of age at the time of the offence.

The High Court was conscious of the fact that the

judgments of acquittal are not interfered with normally only

because another view is possible. The High Court referred

to the findings of the Trial Court that the deceased was in

the company of accused till 9:00 pm on 27.12.1992 and the

dead body was recovered at 3:00 pm on 29.12.1992. The

High Court proceeded on the basis that there was no

inordinate delay between the time when they were last

seen together and the recovery of the dead body. The High

Court also held that it was inferable that death was caused

on the night of 28.12.1992 and the dead body was thrown

on the railway track. According to the High Court, that will

coincide with the time of death as per the post-mortem

report which was around 12:00 noon on 28.12.1992. The

High Court held that the onus was on the accused persons

11 to explain and exculpate themselves when the last seen

theory was established. In the absence of any satisfactory

explanation the presumption would suggest the guilt of the

accused. On the basis of the aforementioned reasoning, the

High Court reversed the acquittal of the accused and

convicted them for offences under Section 302, 201 read

with 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment

for life.

12. Jit Kakati was acquitted for committing an offence

under Section 366-A and his acquittal was confirmed by the

High Court. Jit Kakati died during the pendency of the

Criminal Appeal before this Court and the appeal filed by

him abated. The acquittal of the Appellants under Section

376 (2) (g) was confirmed by the High Court which remains

unchallenged. The point that falls for our consideration is

whether the conviction of the Appellants by the High Court

under Section 302, 201 read with 34 IPC is justified. The

High Court was conscious of the fact that interference with

the judgment of an acquittal by the Trial Court is

unwarranted except when it suffers from the vice of

perversity (See: Brahm Swaroop v. State of U.P., (2011)

6 SCC 288 ¶ 38). There is neither a discussion nor finding

12 recorded by the High Court about any perversity in the

judgment of the Trial Court. The only ground on which the

High Court reversed the judgment of the Trial Court is that

the prosecution proved that the accused and the deceased

were last seen together and there was no explanation

which led to the presumption of guilt of the Accused.

13. Admittedly, this is a case of circumstantial evidence.

Factors to be taken into account in adjudication of cases of

circumstantial evidence laid down by this Court are:

(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

The circumstances concerned ‘must’ or ‘should’ and not ‘may be’ established;

(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;

(3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;

(4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. (See: Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 ¶ 153; M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 200 ¶18)

14. Mr.R.Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel

13 appearing for the State of Assam, supported the judgment

of the High Court. He submitted that the deceased was

seen along with the accused till 9.00 pm on 27.12.1992 and

no explanation was given by them as to what happened

thereafter. On the next day, Akhil Bordoloi (Appellant no. 3)

misled the family members of the deceased by initially

stating that the deceased was with Jit Kakati and will return

soon and changing his version in the afternoon by saying

that the deceased was not with Jit Kakati.

Mr.R.Venkataramani submitted that the incident occurred in

a tea estate which is sparsely populated with no access to

general public. The railway track is adjacent to the tea

estate and there was no possibility of anybody else having

committed the crime. He argued that total denial on the

part of the accused in their examination under Section 313

Cr. PC is a strong circumstance against the accused.

15. It is no more res integra that suspicion cannot take the

place of legal proof for sometimes, unconsciously it may

happen to be a short step between moral certainty and the

legal proof. At times it can be a case of “may be true.” But

there is a long mental distance between “may be true” and

“must be true” and the same divides conjunctures from

14 sure conclusions. (See: Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa,

(1991) 3 SCC 27 ¶ 11)

16. It is settled law that inferences drawn by the court

have to be on the basis of established facts and not on

conjectures. (See: Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam,

(2013) 12 SCC 406 ¶13-18) The inference that was drawn

by the High Court that the death was caused on 28.12.1992

within the time of 48 hours as mentioned in the post

mortem report is not correct. The post mortem

examination was conducted on 30.12.1992 at 12:00 noon

and it was opined by PW-11 that the death occurred 24 to

48 hours prior to the time of post mortem examination.

Even if the time is stretched to the maximum of 48 hours,

the death was after 12:00 noon on 28.12.1992. The

deceased was in the company of the accused till 9:00 pm

on 27.12.1992. The inference drawn by the High Court that

the accused have killed the deceased on 28.12.1992 in the

night time and thrown the body on the railway track is not

on the basis of any proved facts. The Trial Court is right in

holding that there is no evidence on record to show that the

deceased was with the accused after 12:00 noon on

28.12.1992.

15

17. The prosecution relied upon nine circumstances to

prove the charges against all the accused. PW-11 who

conducted the Autopsy opined that the death of the victim

was due to the ante mortem incised wound found on the

skull which could have been caused by Material Exhibit 3

(khukri). We are in agreement with the Trial Court that the

recovery of the khukri was not supported by any

independent witnesses. The prosecution has also failed to

prove that there were blood stains on the said khukri. The

blood stains found in the bathroom of bungalow No. 17

were sent for examination which resulted in a negative

report. The above circumstances not being proved would

leave only two circumstances against the Accused which

are that the Accused were last seen together with the

deceased and the absence of any explanation forthcoming

by the Accused.

18. The circumstance of last seen together cannot by

itself form the basis of holding the accused guilty of the

offence. In Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2014)

4 SCC 715 this court held that:

“12. The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime.

16 There must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime. Mere non-explanation on the part of the appellant, in our considered opinion, by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against the appellant. ……….

15. The theory of last seen—the appellant having gone with the deceased in the manner noticed hereinbefore, is the singular piece of circumstantial evidence available against him. The conviction of the appellant cannot be maintained merely on suspicion, however strong it may be, or on his conduct. These facts assume further importance on account of absence of proof of motive particularly when it is proved that there was cordial relationship between the accused and the deceased for a long time. The fact situation bears great similarity to that in Madho Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(2010) 15 SCC 588].”

In Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar, 1994 Supp (2) SCC

372 this court held that:

“31. Thus the evidence that the appellant had gone to Sitaram in the evening of 19-7-1985 and had stayed in the night at the house of deceased Sitaram is very shaky and inconclusive. Even if it is accepted that they were there it would at best amount to be the evidence of the appellants having been seen last together with the deceased. But it is settled law that the only circumstance of last seen will not complete the chain of circumstances to record the finding that it is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and, therefore, no conviction on that basis alone can be founded.”

19. This Court in Bharat v. State of M.P., (2003) 3 SCC

106, held that the failure of the accused to offer any

explanation in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C.

17 alone was not sufficient to establish the charge against the

accused. In the facts of the present case, the High Court

committed an error in holding that in the absence of any

satisfactory explanation by the accused the presumption of

guilt of the Accused stood un-rebutted and thus the

Appellants were liable to be convicted.

20. Mr. R. Venkataramani relied upon Deonandan Mishra

v. State of Bihar, (1955) 2 SCR 570 at p.582 to

buttress his submission that the circumstance of last seen

together coupled with lack of any satisfactory explanation

by the accused is a very strong circumstance on the basis

of which the accused can be convicted. It was held by this

Court in the above judgment as follows:-

“It is true that in a case of circumstantial evidence not only should the various links in the chain of evidence be clearly established, but the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. But in a case like this where the various links as stated above have been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances point to the appellant as the probable assailant, with reasonable definiteness and in proximity to the deceased as regards time and situation, and he offers no explanation, which if accepted, though not proved, would afford a reasonable basis for a conclusion on the entire case consistent with his innocence, such absence of explanation or false explanation would itself be an additional link which completes the chain. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this is a case which satisfies the

18 standards requisite for conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence.”

21. It is clear from the above that in a case where the

other links have been satisfactorily made out and the

circumstances point to the guilt of the accused, the

circumstance of last seen together and absence of

explanation would provide an additional link which

completes the chain. In the absence of proof of other

circumstances, the only circumstance of last seen together

and absence of satisfactory explanation cannot be made

the basis of conviction. The other judgments on this point

that are cited by Mr. Venkataramani do not take a different

view and, thus, need not be adverted to. He also relied

upon the judgment of this Court in State of Goa v. Sanjay

Thakran, (2007) 3 SCC 755 in support of his submission

that the circumstance of last seen together would be a

relevant circumstance in a case where there was no

possibility of any other persons meeting or approaching the

deceased at the place of incident or before the commission

of crime in the intervening period. It was held in the above

judgment as under:-

“34. From the principle laid down by this Court, the circumstance of last seen together would normally be taken into consideration for finding

19 the accused guilty of the offence charged with when it is established by the prosecution that the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were found together alive and when the deceased was found dead is so small that possibility of any other person being with the deceased could completely be ruled out. The time gap between the accused persons seen in the company of the deceased and the detection of the crime would be a material consideration for appreciation of the evidence and placing reliance on it as a circumstance against the accused. But, in all cases, it cannot be said that the evidence of last seen together is to be rejected merely because the time gap between the accused persons and the deceased last seen together and the crime coming to light is after (sic of) a considerable long duration. There can be no fixed or straitjacket formula for the duration of time gap in this regard and it would depend upon the evidence led by the prosecution to remove the possibility of any other person meeting the deceased in the intervening period, that is to say, if the prosecution is able to lead such an evidence that likelihood of any person other than the accused, being the author of the crime, becomes impossible, then the evidence of circumstance of last seen together, although there is long duration of time, can be considered as one of the circumstances in the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt against such accused persons. Hence, if the prosecution proves that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no possibility of any other person meeting or approaching the deceased at the place of incident or before the commission of the crime, in the intervening period, the proof of last seen together would be relevant evidence. For instance, if it can be demonstrated by showing that the accused persons were in exclusive possession of the place where the incident occurred or where they were last seen together with the deceased, and there

20 was no possibility of any intrusion to that place by any third party, then a relatively wider time gap would not affect the prosecution case.”

As we have held that the other circumstances relied

upon by the prosecution are not proved and that the

circumstances of last seen together along with the absence

of satisfactory explanation are not sufficient for convicting

the accused. Therefore the findings recorded in the above

judgment are not applicable to the facts of this case.

22. Due to the lack of chain of circumstances which lead

to the only hypothesis of guilt against the accused, we set

aside the judgment of the High Court and acquit the

Appellants of the charges of Section 302, 201 read with 34

IPC. The Appellants are directed to be set at liberty

forthwith, if not required in any other case.

23. The Appeal is accordingly allowed.

…................................J [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

..……..........................J [NAVIN SINHA]

New Delhi, May 23, 2017

21 ITEM NO. 2 COURT NO. 5 SECTION II (For Judgment) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 560/2014

ANJAN KUMAR SARMA & ORS. APPELLANT(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF ASSAM RESPONDENT(s) Date : 23/05/2017 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of judgment today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA (VACATION BENCH)

For Appellant(s) Mr. R.M. Patnaik, Adv.

Mr. Kailash Chand, Adv.

M/s Manik Karanjawala & Co.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Debojit Borkakati, Adv.

Mr. M. Balashuvudu, Adv.

–---

Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha.

The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges of Section 302,201 read with 34 IPC. The appellants are directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. The appeal is allowed.

[ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Indu Pokhriyal ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master

[ Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file ]