Amar Saran, J.@mdashThis criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4.5.1983 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in ST No. 260 of 1982 whereby all the three appellants Brij Kishore, Kaushlesh Kumar and Ambikesh have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under section 302/ 34 IPC and seven years'' rigorous imprisonment under section 307/ 34 IPC. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. As the appellants Brij Kishore and Ambikesh have died, the appeal filed on their behalf has already been abated vide order of this Court dated 20.11.2007. Now only the appeal of Kaushlesh survives.
2. Briefly, the prosecution case was that there was enmity between the informant Lalit Kumar''s family and the family of Brij Kishore. 5-6 days prior to the incident in question, Brij Kishore had tried to get the father and brother of the informant Ashok Kumar murdered by hirelings. However, they survived, but they were admitted to hospital due to the injuries received. On the date of incident, i.e. 18.5.1982 at about 9.00 a.m., the informant and his brother Rajesh Kumar, the deceased and his maternal uncle (Mama''s) son Amrit Lal, were proceeding towards Allahabad on cycles. The deceased, Rajesh was riding the cycle and Amrit Lal was riding pillion. The informant Lalit Kumar was following these persons at some distance on his cycle. Co-villagers Bachai Ram and Raj Kumar Mishra were also riding cycles and they were talking. As soon as the informant and the witnesses came near Chirai Ka Purva, in front of the Mirzapur road, Brij Kishore Tiwari armed with SBBL gun and his two sons Ambikesh armed with DBBL guns and Kaushlesh carrying an SBBL gun emerged on the road, Brij Kishore exhorted that the Sala should not be allowed to escape, then all the three persons fired from very near because of which Rajesh Kumar and Amrit Lal received firearm injuries. On the cries raised by the witnesses, the three assailants giving life threats, fled away towards the east on a motorcycle. This incident was witnessed by Bachai Ram, Raj Kumar and others. When the informant was bringing his brother to the hospital, he died on the way. His cousin brother Amrit Lal proceeded to the Allahabad Hospital alongwith Constable Ojha. A report of the incident was lodged at 9.45 a.m. on 18.5.1982 at PS Karchana, district Allahabad, on the basis of which the chik FIR and necessary GD entries were made by Head Muharrir Lal Bahadur Singh, P.W. 4.
3. As the corpse had been brought to the police station, P.W. 9, SI Rama Shanker conducted the inquest at the police station itself. He also prepared necessary papers, such as Naksha nash, photo nash, letter, for post-mortem etc. and sealed the dead body and sent the same for post-mortem examination through Constable S.N. Singh, P.W. 8.
4. Post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by P.W. 6, Doctor S.P. Gulati of M.L.N. Hospital, Allahabad on 19.5.1982 at 2.00 p.m., who found the following ante-mortem injuries:
"1. Firearm wound of entrance left lumbar region 3/4" x 1/2" x abdominal cavity deep 3" away from the mid line at the level of L 1 and blackening around it in an area of 2" x 2". The margins were inverted.
2. Firearm wound of entrance 3" x 2 1/2" in the right lumbar region lower part at upper border of right iliac crest 2 1/2" away from outer superior Iliac spine. There was blackening around it in an area of 1". Scorching was also present. Intestines were protruding out of the wound. They were lacerated at places.
3. Firearm wound of exit (a) 1/4" x 1/4" right side front of abdomen 2 1/2" below and right to umbilicus. (b) Epigastrium 1/4" x 1/4", two inches above the umbilicus. (C) 1.4" x 1/4" three and a half inches above injury No. (b)."
5. On internal examination the peritoneum was found to be perforated under injuries Nos. 1, 2, 3 and at several other places. There was blood in the abdominal cavity. The stomach was empty. The small intestine was lacerated at places and it contained a small quantity of semi solid matter. There was gas and a little faecal matter in the large intestine. Liver and spleen were ruptured at many places. The left kidney was lacerated into pieces. The bladder contained one ounce of urine. Two wads and 15 pellets were recovered from the body of the deceased.
6. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.
7. Amrit Lal, who had been taken to Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital, Allahabad, was medically examined by P.W. 7, Dr. Sangram Singh on 18.5.1982 at 11.00 a.m. The following injuries were found on his person:
"1. Gunshot wound 1/10 c.m. x 1/10 c.m. on the left side chest 6 c.m. below and medial to left nipple.
2. Gunshot wound 1/10 c.m. x 1/10 c.m. on right side chest 8 c.m. below right nipple.
3. Gunshot wound 3 in number each 1/10 x 1/10 c.m. in the 8th intercostal space each 2, 1/2 c.m. apart from the other.
4. Gunshot wound 4 in number in the right iliac fossa in a horizontal line 2 c.m. apart from each other.
5. Gunshot wound 2 in number in the right iliac fossa 2 c.m. apart just near anterior iliac spine.
6. Gunshot wound with haematoma 1/10 c.m. x 1/10 c.m. in lower part of left upper arm 4 c.m. from medial condyl of femur.
7. Gunshot wound 1/10 c.m. x 1/10 c.m. on right lower back 4 c.m. above the iliac joint and 1 c.m. from the mid line.
8. Two gunshot wounds 1/10 c.m. x 1/10 c.m. and 2 c.m. apart on the right buttock.
9. Gunshot wound 1/10 c.m. x 1/10 c.m. on the anterior aspect of the light mid thigh.
10. Gunshot wound 1/10 c.m. x 1/10 c.m. in upper part of right leg on lateral side."
8. The injuries were fresh and caused by gunshots.
9. The Investigating Officer, P.W. 9 then proceeded to Manaiya Ka Chauraha, where he recorded the statements of Bachai Ram and Rajesh. Thereafter he visited the place of occurrence and collected bloodstained and plain earth and also the cycle of the deceased, which he gave in the custody of Lalit Kumar. He also prepared site plan (Ext. Ka 22). After recording the statements of the witnesses and after completing the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet.
10. The prosecution has examined three eye-witnesses, i.e. PW 1, Lalit Kumar Tiwari, PW 2, Amrit Lal Dubey and PW 3, Raj Kumar Mishra. The prosecution has also examined PW 4, HM Lal Bahadur Singh, PW 6, Dr S.P. Gulati, PW 7, Dr. Sangram Singh, PW 8, Constable Satya Narain Singh (who filed an affidavit) and PW 9, SI Rama Shanker as formal witnesses, whose roles have been described above.
11. PW 1, the informant Lalit Kumar is the brother of the deceased Rajesh Kumar. He reiterated his version given in the FIR. He further mentioned that after the incident, Constable Ojha had arrived at the spot. He stopped a Tempo on which he placed Rajesh Kumar, the deceased and Amrit Lal, the injured, the cousin brother of the informant and the deceased. The informant also sat on the same Tempo. After proceeding about 1 1/2 or 2 furlongs, Rajesh Kumar succumbed to his injury near Manaiya Ka Chauraha. Then on the advice of Constable Ojha to take the dead body to the police station, they got down and a cot was arranged for on which the corpse was carried to the police station, Karchhana and the report was handed over there (Ext. Ka 1). The Investigating Officer SI Rama Shanker recorded the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the informant at the police station itself. Then the informant took the Investigating Officer to the place of incident. The cycle of the deceased, which was lying at the spot was given in the Supurdagi of this witness and recovery memo (Ext. Ka 2) was prepared. At that time Lalit was a student of Class X.
12. PW 2, Amrit Lal Dubey deposed that Rajesh Kumar was the son of his Phupha Mathura Prasad Tiwari. He had gone to his Phupha''s house one day prior to this incident to meet them as his Phupha and his son Ashok had received firearm injuries. When he reached the house, he learnt that his Phupha and Ashok were admitted in Beli Hospital, Allahabad. The next morning this witness alongwith Rajesh and Lalit Kumar were proceeding on cycles for Allahabad. On one cycle, he was sitting along with Rajesh Kumar. The other cycle was being ridden by Lalit Kumar, who was following the cycle ridden by Rajesh Kumar on which this witness was riding pillion. Bachai Ram and Raj Kumar were coming on separate cycles alongwith Lalit Kumar. They were going on the Mirzapur-Allahabad road. When he reached in front of Chiraipur village at about 9.00 a.m., he saw that from the northern side, taking cover of the Behiya plants, the appellants Brij Kishore, Kaushlesh Kumar and Ambikesh emerged. He knew these accused persons from before. Brij Kishore and Kaushlesh were armed with SBBL guns, whereas Ambikesh was carrying a DBBL gun. On the exhortation of Brij Kishore, the three accused persons fired on the deceased and this witness. Rajesh, the deceased and this witness received injuries and they fell down. Rajesh Kumar had become unconscious, whereas this witness was having seizures of pain. On the cries of Lalit Kumar and others, the accused persons fled on their motorcycle towards the east. Soon thereafter Constable Ojha arrived at the spot. He stopped a Tempo on which Rajesh, this witness and Amrit Lal sat down and they were proceeding towards the hospital at Allahabad. At Manaiya crossing, Rajesh Kumar succumbed to his injury. Then Ojha constable suggested to Lalit Kumar to take the corpse of Rajesh Kumar to the police station and made them get down from the Tempo. Constable Ojha took this witness to Beli Hospital, Allahabad where he was medically examined and the Investigating Officer recorded his statement there.
13. PW 3, Raj Kumar Mishra deposed that he knew the deceased Rajesh Kumar from before. He has an apparel shop in Meerpur. He was proceeding towards Rampur on his cycle from the shop. When he reached near Bedo turning, he met Lalit Kumar Tiwari and Bachai Ram, who were also on cycles. Rajesh Kumar was going ahead and Amrit was riding pillion. At about 9.00 a.m., they reached near Chiraigaon. He noticed that all of a sudden from the northern lane, the appellants Brij Kishore, Kaushlesh Kumar and Ambikesh came out, taking cover of the Behaya plants. He knew these persons from before. On the exhortation of Brij Kishore that the Sola should not be allowed to escape, all the three accused persons fired on Rajesh Kumar and Amrit Lal. They fell down there. On the cries raised by the witnesses, the accused persons threatening the witnesses, sat on the motorcycle and fled away to the east. Some passersby and Constable Ojha had arrived. Constable Ojha made Rajesh Kumar, Amrit Lal and Lalit Kumar sit on a Tempo. He then proceeded towards Allahabad. The Investigating Officer recorded his statement on the same day at Manaiya Ka Chauraha. He learnt that Rajesh Kumar had died and the corpse was taken to the police station.
14. PW 5, Durga Prasad Dwivedi, was another formal witness, who claims to have been present at Manaiya crossing at 9.00 a.m., when the corpse of Rajesh Kumar, the deceased was taken down from the Tempo. Lalit was present with him. The tempo proceeded towards Allahabad in which one Constable and the injured were sitting. He helped Lalit Kumar to carry the deceased to the police station Karchhana, which was 1-1/2 km. away from the Kachcha road on the cot of a Pamvala. Lalit, Kashi Prasad and Dharm Narain were accompanying him. His statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer.
15. In their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. all the appellants have denied the incident and claim to have been falsely implicated on account of enmity and it was further alleged that the witnesses belonged to one group.
16. Appellant Brij Kishore suggested that the deceased had been killed at some other place and he was not involved in the murder. Appellant Am-bikesh has stated that the incident had taken place during the night time and he learnt of it in the morning. Appellant Kaushlesh has stated that the incident took place in the dark hours of the morning and it was committed by some unknown persons. The incident did not take place in the manner alleged.
17. Heard Shri Dilip Kumar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Raghav Ram and Ram Lakhan Deobanshi for the appellants, Shri Gopal Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate, for the complainant and learned Additional Government Advocate.
18. Written submissions have also been filed on behalf of the parties.
19. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the medical evidence is inconsistent with the eyewitness account and the firing had taken place from the north side of the road from point "D" on the site plan. The cycle was going from west to east and the deceased and the injured had sustained injuries on Point "B". The seat of injuries on the deceased Rajesh Kumar were on the left and right side waist over the hip bone. This could not have been caused if the shots had been fired from one and the same direction. The prosecution has tried to improve its case in the statement of Amrit Lal, PW 2, the injured by saying that the firing had taken place from three sides, i.e. north, west and south by the three appellants. The witnesses are partisan and inimical. The complainant Lalit Kumar, PW 1, in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that he had scribed the report at the place of incident, whereas in his cross-examination he has stated that he had scribed the report at the gate of the police station after obtaining a white paper at the gate from the sentry of the police station. This casts a doubt on the testimony of this witness. The FIR was too prompt as it was lodged within 45 minutes of the occurrence when the place of incident was about 2 1/2 miles from the police station. The FIR was ante-timed because it reached the Court of Magistrate on 21.5.1982. HM Lal Bahadur Singh, PW 4 was examined regarding non-sending of FIR to the Magistrate before 21.5.1082. His explanation that he had sent the special report to the concerned officer on the same day, could not be accepted as there was no such endorsement in the Fard Challan of the special report. Section 157 Cr.P.C. was a mandatory provision, whose noncompliance was fatal. In this regard reliance was placed in the cases of
20. It is further submitted that there was over writing and cutting of one of the sections of the offence in the first and second pages of the inquest, which also suggests that the FIR was not in existence at the time of inquest. Initially it appears that section 394 IPC had been mentioned, which was subsequently shown as section 307 IPC on it, for which proper explanation could not be given by the Investigating Officer. It was suggested that initially the report was lodged regarding loot on the road, but later on when the complainant was called, it was changed to a case of murder.
21. Constable Om Narain Ojha, who had taken the injured witness to Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital, Allahabad was not examined, which was another circumstance against the prosecution.
22. Shri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel for the complainant submitted that the time and place of the incident has not been seriously disputed. The injured witness Amrit Lal was medically examined at Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital, Allahabad at 11.00 a.m., on the date of incident. The FIR was not ante-timed as the body of the deceased had been taken to the police station and the inquest was even started at 10.15 a.m., and was concluded at 10.45 a.m. when the body was handed over to Constable Satyanarain Singh, P.W. 8 for taking it for postmortem examination. He also stated that the dead body was deposited in the mortuary at 6.30 p.m. There was no cross-examination of this witness (who gave his affidavit) by the defence. Dr. S.P. Gulati, PW 6, who conducted the post-mortem on 19.5.1982 at 2.00 p.m., noted that there were ten enclosures. In the list of enclosures, the inquest report mentions the chik report. The doctor has made his endorsement on ten enclosures, when he conducted the post-mortem, including on the chik report, which is enclosure No. 10.
23. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention that as the CO. made his endorsement on 21.5.1982, the report was not in existence till then and the report was very belatedly lodged. The prosecution has only implicated three persons and it is not a case of en masse implication of the accused. The police constable had accompanied the injured person, who was going on a Tempo, had been mentioned in the evidence of PW 5, Durga Prasad, who had brought down the dead body from the Tempo. His evidence had not been contradicted. Therefore, the mere non-examination of Constable Ojha was not fatal especially when the prosecution was suggesting that he had been won over.
24. Learned AGA in his written argument adopted some of the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the complainant. He further stated that PW 4, HM Lal Bahadur Singh has categorically stated that he sent the special report of the crime through Constable Omkar Mishra and entry in the general diary has also been made (Ext. Ka 5). The statement of PW 4, Lal Bahadur Singh could not be disbelieved only on the ground that the CO made an endorsement on the special report on 21.5.1982. It has further come in the cross-examination that another report was lodged at 4.10 p.m., hence there was no chance of manipulation of police papers.
25. So far as the delay in sending the police report was concerned, no question was put to the Investigating Officer in this regard. Learned AGA has placed reliance on the decisions in
26. So far as non-production of Constable Om Narain Ojha was concerned, the prosecution has filed a discharge application, wherein it was mentioned that he has been won over. No objection was raised to this application. Also the defence had not made any prayer for examining this witness as a defence or Court witness.
27. Regarding the time and place of incident which had taken place at 9.00 a.m., on 18.5.1982 when the informant, the deceased and the injured were proceeding to Allahabad from their village on bicycle. One bicycle which was driven by the deceased on which the injured was riding pillion had fallen at the place of incident. The place of incident was fixed from the fact that the bicycle was collected from the spot. Also the blood sample was taken from the earth at that point, which was confirmed by the laboratory report dated 1.2.1983. Only a vague suggestion had been made that the deceased and the injured were assaulted at some other place.
28. The time of incident was also corroborated by the examination of the injured at 11.00 a.m., at the Beli Hospital, Allahabad, which was 20-25 kms away when the injured had been brought on a Tempo by Constable Ojha. The details and manner of assault had been described by the injured witness, who had given the directions from which the shots were fired. Some minor discrepancies were inevitable as a photographic description of the incident cannot possibly be given. The presence of the witnesses P.Ws 1 and 2 at the place was natural as they were proceeding alongwith the deceased to Allahabad at the time of incident. PW 2, Amrit Lal has given a good reason for being present at the house of the deceased, with whom he was travelling in the morning, where he had gone the previous day as the father of the deceased (who was the Phupha of PW 2) was admitted in the hospital, and he had gone to see him one day before the incident.
29. The details mentioned in the report lodged by Lalit Kumar, PW 1 immediately after the incident was also promptly lodged and this version is corroborated by the medical evidence, i.e. the presence of gun shot injuries on the body of the deceased. There was also an injured witness PW 2, Amrit Lal, who is the star witness and whose presence at the spot cannot be doubted. The discrepancies, contradictions and improvements pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants were minor in nature.
30. Learned AGA also cited the decisions in the cases of Brahma Swaroop v. State of U.P. 2010 (71) ACC 975 (SC) : 2010 (96) AIC 71,
Analysis of evidence and contentions of parties.
31. The crucial feature in this case is the evidence of the injured witness Amrit Lal PW-2, the maternal cousin brother of the informant and deceased, who had gone to the village of the informant and deceased from one day prior to the incident as he had learnt that his Phupha, Mathura Prasad Tiwari (father of the deceased) and another brother of deceased Ashok Kumar had been fired upon. This witness was riding pillion on the cycle driven by the deceased Rajesh Kumar. He has also sustained several firearm injuries in the incident, hence he was the best witness to give evidence in this case and there was little reason not to rely on his testimony and he was even medically examined within two hours of the incident at 11.00 a.m. on 18.5.1982. In Brahm Swaroop v. State of U.P. 2010 (71) ACC 975, the injured witness has been considered to be very reliable witness as his injuries constitute an in-built guarantee of his presence at the scene of crime and he is unlikely to spare the actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone else. Brahm Swaroop v. State of U.P. (supra) has reiterated the significance of an injured witness as held in a catena of decisions, viz.
32. We are not in agreement with the contention of learned Counsel for the appellant that the medical evidence was inconsistent with the eye-witness account as the injuries were on different sides on the body of the deceased and hence the firing could not have taken place from a single point "D" as shown in the site plan, and that PW-2 Amrit Lal injured has tried to improve his statement by trying to show that the firing had taken place from different sides of the road. We think that this is an extremely narrow and formalistic argument raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant, mainly on the ground that the I.O. had shown the firing to have taken place from one point in the site plan. Such a description in the site plan is always on the basis of hearsay evidence given to the I.O., as he is not an eye-witness of the incident. Furthermore, it is natural conduct for the accused persons who see two persons travelling on a cycle and who must have started running in different directions to fire at the said person from different sides, as they are not stationary object. It is unnatural to visualize that if three assailants emerge from behind the behya bushes they would remain rooted to one spot and fire only from one point. Rather, it is natural for the victims who are going on a cycle to try to run to save themselves from the assailants and also for the assailants to move in different directions to fire on the victims. In any case as has been held in Brahtn Swaroop v. State of U.P. (supra), such minor discrepancies on trivial matters, do not affect the core of the prosecution case and cannot prompt the Court to reject the evidence in its entirety. Such insignificant discrepancies do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness and cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions. To the same effect is the view expressed in
33. Some natural variance in the ocular testimony from the injuries as noted in the post-mortem report can be expected from a human witness, who is not expected to give a photographic description of the manner of incident. In
34. It has come in evidence that initially the deceased and injured and witnesses and informant travelled on a tempo, but once the deceased died after proceeding for a short distance on the tempo, the dead body was taken down at the Manaiya Chauraha and the informant also got down. Then they reached the police station within 45 minutes and lodged the report. It is not very material whether the report was lodged within 45 minutes or in one hour as there can be such minor discrepancies regarding the time taken mentioned by the rural witnesses in this case, and from this circumstance alone it cannot be concluded that the FIR was ante-timed.
35. We also think that the defence cannot make much capital of the fact that the FIR reached the Court of Magistrate on 21.5.1982. PW-4 had stated that he had sent the report to the Circle Officer on the same day. Merely because there was no such endorsement on the Yard Challan of the special report, it could not be inferred that the FIR was ante-timed and that section 157 Cr.P.C. which was a mandatory provision had been breached.
36. Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the complainant had rightly argued in this regard that the time of incident could not be disputed as the injured Amrit Lal was medically examined at 11.00 a.m. on the date of incident. The inquest had started at 10.15 a.m. and was concluded at 10.45 hours when the dead body was handed over to Constable PW-8 for taking it for postmortem examination. The body was also deposited in the mortuary at 6.30 p.m. Dr. S.P. Gupta, PW-6, who conducted the post-mortem on 19.5.1982 at 2.00 p.m. noted that there were 10 enclosures, which included the inquest report which mentions the check report (enclosure No. 10).
37. Learned A.G.A. also rightly pointed out that another report was also lodged at 4.10 p.m. on the same day on 18.5.1982 which also removed the likelihood of changes having been made in the FIR or G.D. entries subsequently and rendered the lodging of the present FIR probable at the time alleged. Also so far as the delay in sending the police report was concerned, no question was put to the I.O. in this regard and in this context, and the learned A.G.A. has also rightly placed reliance on the decisions in
38. It may also be noted that so far as the cases cited by the defence on the consequences of breach of the requirements of section 157 Cr.P.C. are concerned, viz.
39. Likewise not much importance could be given to the over-writings or cuttings of a section in the F.I.R., or the contradiction as to whether the FIR was prepared at the place of incident as was stated by PW-2 in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. contrary to what he had stated in his cross-examination in Court that it was prepared at the gate of the police station after obtaining a white paper from the sentry posted there, as these were minor discrepancies, which lose significance if the prosecution version as a whole inspires confidence.
40. To a question in his cross examination, the I.O. PW-9 Rama Shanker admitted that in the inquest report, under section 307/ 302, there was overwriting and something was written earlier under that section. He however, denied that section 302 IPC was mentioned earlier, which was converted to 307 I.P.C.
41. In this context, in Brahma Swaroop and another v. State of U.P. (supra), relying on an earlier decision in
42. One final point urged by the learned Counsel for the defence was that the police witness Constable Om Narain Ojha, who had arrived at the spot and had accompanied the injured witness Amrit Lal to T.B. Sapru Hospital, Allahabad was a material witness who ought to have been examined, and his non-examination impairs the value of the prosecution evidence. We think that not much significance can be attached to this fact. The injured himself has deposed that he was admitted by the constable at the Hospital after the incident, after they had stopped the Tempo which was passing that way on which they had gone to T.B. Sapru Hospital. PW-5 Durga Prasad Dwivedi has also stated that a police constable was accompanying the injured Amrit Lal in the Tempo from which he had helped take down the also there is no necessity to multiply witnesses, and to produce all witnesses even if the prosecution is aware that some of the witnesses have been over, as the quality of evidence and not its quantity are important in view of section 134 of the Evidence Act. Moreover, the evidence of this witness would only be a replication of the evidence furnished by PW 5 Durga Prasad Dwivedi, or the injured witness Amit himself.
43. It is also noteworthy that as Constable Om Narain Ojha had been won over by the defence, hence the prosecution had filed an application for his discharge, which was not objected to by the defence. No prayer was also made by the defence, to examine the constable Om Narain Ojha in Court. It is well settled, in the cases of
44. For all these reasons, we are satisfied that the prosecution has been able to establish its case against the surviving appellant Kaushlesh Kumar alias Guard Babu beyond reasonable doubt and the Trial Court has committed no illegality in recording his conviction. The appeal preferred by appellant Kaushlesh Kumar alias Guard Babu is therefore dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial judge is affirmed. In case the appellant is on bail, he may be taken into custody to serve out the sentence awarded to him. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned within 10 days for compliance.
