R.K. Rastogi, J.@mdashThis is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 7.4.1995 passed by Sri Riyajuddin then learned XIIIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Session Trial No. 627 of 1994 State v. Ram Chandra.
2. The facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 12.8.94 at 3.20 A.M. Sri Ninami Singh resident of Nai Basti, Sikandarabad, Bulandshahr lodged a FIR at P.S. Dhaulana, Ghaziabad with these allegations that the marriage of his daughter Surajwati had taken place with the accused Ram Chander resident of Mathurawali, P.S. Dhaulana, District Ghaziabad about 15 to 16 years ago and three daughters and one son were born out of this wedlock. The age of the son was about five years. Surajwati along with her children was residing with Ninami Singh for the last four to five years. About two months ago, Ram Chandra came to his house and took his son Rahul with him stating that he was taking Rahul for treatment. He returned back after eight days and disclosed that Rahul had died in an accident. Ninami Singh etc. had suspicion upon his statement so he made inquiries and came to know that Ram Chandra had developed illicit relations with a Punjabi lady. Then Suraj Pal son of Ninami Singh lodged a report against Ram Chandra and in respect of the above incident, Ram Chandra remained in jail for about one month in that case. About seven days earlier, Ramesh brother of Ram Chandra and Bhuri sister of Ram Chandra came to his house and took Surajwati with them. Ram Chandra was doing sewing work in Delhi. He had come to village Mathurawali from Delhi and on account of enmity of this fact that he had to remain in Jail, he started to beat Surajwati. On 11.8.94 in the morning, Geeta daughter of Surajwati gave information to Satte resident of Mathurawali that Ram Chandra had beaten Surajwati and her condition was serious. On receiving this news Ram Das nephew of Ninami Singh went to Mathurawali and saw that Surajwati had injuries on her body and she was sighing. When he enquired from Ram Chandra in this regard, Ram Chandra replied that it was their internal matter and so he should not interfere . Then Ram Das returned back to his house at about 4.00 P.M. leaving Surajwati at the house of Ram Chandra. Thereafter Har Pal and Mahesh resident of Mathurawali at about 9.30 P.M. informed Banshi resident of Jainpur P.S. Kotwali Dehat, Bulanshahr that Surajwati had been murdered at about 6.30 P.M. and Banshi communicated this news to Ninami Singh. Then Banshi alongwith his family members and neighbours went to village Mathurawali on a Tractor. He saw that the dead body of Surajwati was being burnt in the graveyard (Marghat). In this way Ram Chandra had murdered his wife Surajwati, and had burnt her dead body. Then he went to the police station and lodged the report.
3. On the basis of the above report, the police registered a case under Sections 302 and 201 IPC against accused and after investigation submitted a charge sheet against him under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The accused appellant was charged u/s 302 and 201 IPC. He pleaded not to be guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution produced Sri Satte as P.W. 1. He has stated that on 21.8.1994 he was present at his house, and at about 8.00 A.M. he heard a noise that Ram Chandra was beating his wife Surajwati, and on that noise, he went to the house of Surajwati. Then she came out and requested him to give information to her parents that they should come with the Pradhan of the village and some other persons and should take her from that place. In the meantime, Ram Chandra also reached there and forcibly pulled her inside his house. He, further, stated that when Surajwati had come to him, she had been seriously injured and she was telling that Ram Chandra would kill her. He further stated that Ram Chandra after taking Surajwati inside the house had again beaten her and when Ram Chandra was beating her, Mahesh had also reached there. Ram Chandra was beating her after closing the door of the house. Then he went to her parent''s house at village Nai Basti, P.S. Bulandshahr and gave information of this incident to her parents and asked them to reach there very soon. He further stated that thereafter he returned back to village Mathurawali and then the villagers told him that Surajwati had died Ram Chandra had also burnt her dead body by that time. He further stated that the family members of Surajwati reached the village after a lapse of two to three hours from the time of his arrival.
5. Mahesh has been examined examined as P.W. 2. He has stated that on 11.8.94 he had heard cries from the house of Ram Chandra and then he went to that place and saw that the door was closed from inside and Surajwati was crying "Mujhe Bachao" inside the house. He tried to get the door opened but Ram Chandra did not open the door. After a lapse of some time, Ram Chandra came out of the house and he stated that he had murdered his wife. Then he went inside the house of Ram Chandra and saw that there were a large number of injuries upon the face and legs of Surajwati and she had died. Then he started to go to her parent''s house to give information of this incident but her father and others met him on the way. Then he returned back with them. But in the meantime, Ram Chandra had burnt the dead body of Surajwati.
6. The prosecution produced Km. Geeta aged 13 years as P.W. 3 She stated that about eight months ago her father had beaten her mother and after her death, he had burnt her dead body. She further stated that her father was doing sewing work in Delhi and he used to visit the house rarely. Hence, her mother alongwith her brother and sisters used to reside at the house of her maternal grand father at Nai Basti. Rahul was her brother. Her father had taken Rahul from Nai Basti for his treatment. Thereafter her father returned back after a lapse of eight days; at that time Rahul was not with him, and upon inquiries he told that Rahul had died in an accident. Then her maternal grand father had lodged the report against her father at P.S. Sikandarabad. Thereafter the police arrested her father and sent him to Jail. Thereafter her father, her Bua Bhuri and uncle Ramesh came to her maternal grand father''s house and took her mother and all the children with them to village Mathurawali. But his father started to beat her mother daily. On the date of incident, her father had seriously beaten her mother after closing the door from inside. She was also inside the house. Somehow, she got an opportunity to come out of the house. Then she went to the house of Satte her neighbour and told him that her father was beating her mother and so he should give this information to her maternal grand father. Thereafter she returned back to her bouse; at that time also her father was beating her mother. Then after a lapse of two to three hours. Sri Ram Das came to her father''s house and her mother narrated the same facts before him also. Then Ram Das had some talks with her father but her father replied that it was an internal matter and they would settle it themselves. Thereafter in the after noon her father asked her to call a doctor. The doctor visited the house on her request. After examining her mother, the doctor informed that she had died. Then her father burnt the dead body of her mother even before the arrival of her maternal grand father. When her maternal grand father reached there, she narrated the entire incident before him. The police also reached there and she narrated the same incident before the police also.
7. Ninami Singh was examined as P.W. 4. He stated that he had performed the marriage of Surajwati about sixteen to seventeen years ago and six children were borne out of this wedlock. Out of them two have died and four were still alive. Ram Chandra was doing sewing work in Delhi and he had heard that Ram Chandra had illicit relations with a Punjabi lady. Since Ram Chandra did not come to the village regularly, he was keeping Surajwati and her children with him at Nai Basti, Sikandarabad. No amount was sent by Ram Chandra for maintenance of his wife and children. The expenses of delivery were also borne by him. He further stated that Rahul was not ill and Ram Chandra had taken Rahul with him. Ram Chandra came '' back after the lapse of eight days and at that time Rahul was not with Ram Chandra. Upon enquiries, Ram Chandra told that Rahul had died in an accident. He did not believe this version of Ram Chandra and so he went to the police station and lodged the report. Ram Chandra was detained in that case. Subsequently he was bailed out. Thereafter, Ram Chandra , his brother Ramesh and sister Bhuri came to his house and promised that Ram Chandra would maintain his wife and children in a proper manner. Then he sent Surajwati along with her children to Ram Chandra''s house. On the sixth day after departure of Surajwati and her Children from his house, he received information that Ram Chandra was beating Surajwati. Then he sent Ram Das to enquire about the matter, but in the night at about 9 P.M. he received the information that Surajwati had died. Then he started for Mathurawali in the midnight on a tractor trolley alongwith some other persons, he saw a dead body being burnt in the graveyard (Marghat) and then he concluded that it was the dead body of his daughter Surajwati. Ram Chandra did not give any information about death of Surajwati nor did he give any information about her funeral. Then he went to the police station and lodged the report of the incident (Ext. Ka 1.)
8. I Ram Das has been examined as P.W. 5. He has stated that on the date of the incident Satte had informed him at about 10.00 A.M. regarding a quarrel of Surajwati with her husband and then he went to the house of Surajwati. She, at that time, was lying on a cot and was sighing on account of pain. She had received injuries, and upon enquiry, she told him that her husband Ram Chandra had beaten her. She also requested him that he should give information of this incident to her father. Then he went to Nai Basti, Sikandarabad and gave this information to her father.
9. Sri Rajvir Singh Pundi S.I. was examined as P.W. 6. He has stated that he was posted as S.I. at P.S. Dhaulana on 11.8.94 and the investigation of this case was assigned to him. He recorded statements of the informant Ninami Singh and the witnesses Ram Das, Geeta and Banshi. Thereafter he went to that place where the dead body of Surajwati had been burnt and collected burnt bones and ashes and prepared their recovery memo as Ext. Ka 2. He also identified those bones and ashes as Ext. 1. He also prepared the site plan of that place as Ext. Ka 3. He arrested the accused and also prepared the site plan of the house of the accused where the death of Surajwati is said to have taken place. It is Ext. Ka 4. After completion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet against the accused (Ext. Ka 5). He also proved the chik report prepared on the basis of the FIR which is Ext. Ka 6. Its endorsement in the G.D. was proved as Ext. ka 7.
10. The accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C. denied the prosecution allegations against him. He stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity and the witnesses who have been presented were deposing against him on account of enmity. He further stated that he had taken Surajwati to his house when she was ill for treatment and she had died out of illness. He had sent the information of her death to her parents but they lodged a false report against him. The accused did not produce any defence.
11. The learned Presiding Officer of the Court, after hearing of the case, reached the conclusion that the charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC were sufficiently proved against the accused. He, therefore, convicted the accused u/s 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to a fine of Rs. 1,000/- u/s 201 IPC. Aggrieved with the judgment and order, the accused Ram Chandra filed this appeal from Jail and it was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 1393/95. Sri V.S. Rajput filed a memo of appearance on 5.6.02 on the appellant''s behalf but thereafter he did not appear. Hence the appellant was summoned from the Jail and on 20.3.07 he was produced in lithe Court, and he stated that he has no means to engage any counsel. Then Sri K.N. Tripathi was appointed as Amicus Curiae. K. N. Tripathi also did not appear to argue the appeal. Then Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla was appointed as his Amicus Curiae. He ably argued the appeal. We have heard him as well as learned Additional Government Advocate, and perused the record.
Learned Amicus Curiae made the following submissions before us;
1. That the entire prosecution evidence is self contradictory and unreliable and no charge was proved against the accused appellant.
2. That the trial court has erroneously held the accused guilty on the ground that the accused had not produced any documents to show that Surajwati was ill and was being treated. His contention was that since the entire prosecution evidence was unreliable, the accused could not be convicted on the basis of his inability to prove his defence.
3. That no case u/s 302 IPC was made out and even if the prosecution case is believed, the case at the most falls under 323 and 325 IPC.
Let us now take all these contentions one by one;
Point No. 1- First of all, we take the prosecution evidence.
12. The prosecution allegation as stated in the FIR is that in the morning on 11.8.94 Geeta gave information to Satte that Surajwati had been beaten by Ram Chandra and her condition was serious and on receiving this news Ram Das (nephew of the informant) resident of Nai Basti, Sekandarabad came to Mathurawali and he saw that Surajwati had received injuries upon her body and she was sighing on account of pain and when he tried to talk to Ram Chandra, he (Ram Chandra) told him that it was his internal matter and so he should not interfere. Then he left Surajwati there at about 4.00 P.M. and came back to his own house. Thereafter Harpal and Mahesh of Mathurawali informed Banshi resident of Jainpur about 9.30 P.M. that Surajwati had been murdered at about 6.30 P.M. and then Ninami Singh went to Mathurawali on a tractor trolley alongwith his family members and some other neighbours. It was submitted by learned Amicus Curiae that Satte P.W. 1 had given a different version of the incident, and he had stated that the time of incident at about 8.00 A.M.. Ram Chandra was beating his wile He has further stated in his cross-examination that the distance between his house and the house of accused was two hundred yards and on hearing the noise he went to her house and then she came out of the house and requested him to give information to her father and in the meantime Ram Chandra also came out of the house and pulled Surajwati inside the house and again beat her after closing the door. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that this version given by Satte is different from the version narrated in the FIR. Learned AGA submitted in reply that the informant Ninami Singh was not present at village Mathurawali at the time when the above incident was taking place and he had written in the FIR whatever news was received by him and so no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution on the basis of this fact.
13. Learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that according to the FIR version, death of Surajwati had taken place at about 6.30 P.M. but Mahesh P.W. 2 has stated in his statement that on 11.8.94 at about 8.00 P.M., he went to the house of Ram Chandra on hearing cries of Surajwati. Then he tried to get the house door opened but Ram Chandra did not open the door. After lapse of some time, Ram Chandra came out and stated that he had murdered his wife. Then he went inside the house and saw that Surajwati had marks of injuries upon her body and she had died. Then he went to her parent''s house to give information of this incident but they met him on the way. He submitted that in this way, according to the FIR version, the death of Surajwati had taken place at about 6.30 P.M. but according to the statement of Mahesh her death had taken place at about 8.00 A.M. and it is a material contradiction. Learned Amicus Curiae further pointed out that Satte P.W. 1 has stated in his cross-examination that no Mar Pit between Surajwati and Ram Chandra had taken place before him. He has further stated that he did. not see blood coming out from any injury of Surajwati. He submitted that in this way the statement of Satte that he had seen the MarPit between Ram Chandra and Surajwati is false.
14. Learned AGA submitted in his reply that Satte has stated that Shi reached the house of Ram Chandra on hearing cries of Surajwati and Ram Chandra was beating her inside the house after closing the door and so there is noting unnatural if Satte stated that he did not see Ram Chandra beating Surajwati before him. He further submitted that the injuries of Surajwati were internal as stated by Geeta P.W. 3 also and there is no allegation to this effect that she had any lacerated or incised or punctured wound and there is no allegation to this effect that there was any bleeding from any injury. He further submitted that Satte has stated in the same continuation that there were abrasions on her face and there was swelling also on the face. As regards the mention of time of 8.00 A.M. in the statement of Mahesh P.W. 2, the learned AGA submitted this time has been mentioned by Mahesh as the time when he reached the house of Ram Chandra on hearing the cries of Surajwati but the door was closed from inside. He stated that this time was the same time which was mentioned by Satte P.W. 1 as the time of the incident of Mar Pit. He further submitted that as per statement of Mahesh (P.W. 2) after some time Ram Chandra opened the door and told him that he had murdered his wife and then he went inside the house and saw that Surajwati was lying dead. It was submitted by the AGA that there was time gap between these two incidents: one of beating and the other when Ram ... Chandra opened the door of the house, and so it cannot be concluded that Surajwati had died at 8.00 A.M.
15. Learned Amicus Curiae further pointed out that Mahesh has stated in his cross-examination that after the death of Surajwati, he went to Sekundarabad to give information to her parents and thereafter he returned back at about 2.00 to 3.00 P.M. and by that time the dead body of Surajwati had been burnt. He submitted that in this way the statement of Mahesh (P.W. 2) is in total contradiction to the prosecution case, and hence the prosecution case should be disbelieved.
16. The learned AGA submitted in reply that even if the statement of Mahesh P.W. 2 is disbelieved on account of the above noted contradictions, the evidence of Sane P.W. 1 Km. Geeta P.W. 3 and Ram Das P.W. 5 is sufficient to prove the prosecution case.
17. Learned Amicus Curiae assailed the testimony of Geeta (P.W. 3) also. He pointed out that according to the statement of Km. Geeta, on the date of incident, she went to the house of Satte when her father was beating her mother, and requested him to give information of this incident to her maternal grand father. He pointed out that Satte (P.W. 1) has not stated any such thing in his statement and so the above statement of Geeta should be disbelieved.
18. Learned AGA submitted in reply that Km. Geeta aged about 13 years is the daughter of the deceased as well as of the accused. Hence, there was no motive for her to falsely depose against her father nor it is expected from Geeta. who was aged 2 years only at the time of the incident, that she would give a false version of the incident. He pointed out that no question was put to Satte in his statement as P.W. 2 as to whether Geeta had come to his house or not on the date of the incident. So simply on account of this fact that Satte has not stated anything in his statement regarding arrival of Geeta to him, it cannot be concluded that Geeta had not gone to Satte on the date of the incident.
19. Learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that Geeta was not present at the house of Ram Chandra on the date of the incident. He referred to the statement of Mahesh P.W. 2 who has stated that when he went to the house of Ram Chandra, the door of the house was closed from inside and only Ram Chandra and Surajwati were inside the house and none else was present in the house at that time. He submitted that the above statement of Mahesh makes it clear that Geeta was not present inside the house and so the statement of Geeta P.W. 3 is totally unreliable and cannot be believed.
20. We do not find any force in the above contention of the learned Amicus Curiae. It is to be seen that we have not found the statement of Mahesh of much credence, taking into consideration the contradictions in his statement regarding timings of death and funeral of Surajwati. Anyhow if his above statement is believed, it is to be seen that the door of the house of Ram Chandra was closed from inside and so he did not see Ram Chandra beating Surajwati, but cries of Surajwati were being heard outside the house. It is also to be seen that when the door of the house was closed from inside Mahesh could not see as to who was inside the house and so his above statement that only Ram Chandra and Surajwati were inside the house and none else was there, is not a statement based on his personal knowledge, and the presence of Km. Geeta inside the house cannot be doubted on the basis of his above statement which is neither based on his personal knowledge nor observation. In fact there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Geeta P.W. 3 who was present inside the house and had seen the entire incident of Mar Pit between her father and mother. She has clearly stated in her statement that she had come to the house of her father along with her mother.
21. It was further submitted by the learned Amicus Curiae that it has been stated in the FIR as well as in the statement of Ninami Singh P.W. 4 that on reaching village Mathurawali, they saw a dead body being burnt in the graveyard (Marghat). Hence, they concluded that it was the dead body of Surajwati. It is contended that when the dead body had been burnt, how could these persons guess that it was dead body of Surajwati. It is true that it could not be so concluded, on seeing the burning pyre, that the dead body of Surajwati was burnt in it. But it is also to be seen that in this case there is no dispute on this point that Surajwati has died and her funeral has also taken place. If there had been any dispute on this point as to whether Surajwati had died or is still alive, there could have been some point in the argument that on the basis of ashes and burnt bones, it could not be concluded that the dead body was of Surajwati but there is no such dispute. It is immaterial in this case as to whether the dead body which was seen being burnt in the graveyard (Marghat) when the informant reached the village Mathurawali was the dead body of Surajwati or not.
22. It has further been submitted by learned Amicus Curiae that Km. Geeta P.W. 3 has stated in her cross-examination that she came to village. Mathurawali along with her maternal grand father etc. on the date of the incident at 10.00 to 11.00 A.M. and then she noticed that her mother was lying covered with cloth and then she removed that cloth and then saw that her mother had died, and then the dead body of her motrui was taken for funeral and that her maternal grand father had not gone with the dead body. He submitted that it is clear from the aforesaid statement of Km. Geeta P.W. 3 in her cross-examination she was not present with her mother during the so called incident of beating of her mother and her statements that she had seen her father beating her mother are all false.
23. Learned AGA submitted in reply that the above statement of Km. Geeta appears to have been given under some misapprehension. He submitted that it is the coherent case of Geeta P. W. 3 that she was residing with her father and mother after having come from Nai Basti to Mathurawali with them. He further pointed out that according to the above statement of Km. Geeta, she came to Mathurawali at about 10.00 to 11.00 A.M. on the date of the incident and then she opened the cloth covered on her mother and saw that she had died. He pointed out that Km. Geeta has stated that her mother had died about 5.00 to 6.00 P.M. in her cross examination, but according to the above statement when she reached the house of her father at about 10.00 to 11.00 am she saw that her mother had already died. He contended that Km. Geeta was a girl of tender age and it is not expected that such an innocent girl of tender age would falsely implicate her father in murder of her mother, and the above discrepancies in her statement appear to have taken place on account shortness of memory.
24. The learned AGA further submitted that even if the testimony of Km. Geeta (P.W. 3) is also discarded, the prosecution ease is sufficiently proved from the testimony of Satte (P.W. 1) and Ram Das (P.W. 3). He submitted that P.W. 1 Satte had seen the accused beating Surajwati and on her request he had gone to her father to intimate him about the incident and then her father Ninami P.W. 4) sent Ram Das (P.W. 5) to Surajwati and then Ram Das came to house of Surajwati and saw that she was lying on a cot and was sighing and was injured and upon inquires she told him that her husband had beaten her; and she asked him to give this information to her father and then he returned back to her house at Nai Basti and gave the information to her father.
25. Learned Amicus Curiae referred to the cross-examination of P.W. 5 in which he has stated that he does not know as to whether Surajwati died on account of illness or on account of beating by her husband. He submitted that in this way it is not proved that Surajwati had died due to the so called beating by her husband. We do not find any force in his contention. It is to be seen that Ram Das (P.W. 5) is not a doctor, so he could not say as to whether Surajwati died on account of beating by her husband or on account of illness; but it is clear from his statement as quoted above, that he had seen injuries on the body of Surajwati and upon inquiries, she had told him that these injuries were caused to her by her husband.
26. Learned Amicus Curiae cited before us the ruling of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in
27. We have gone through all these rulings. It is to be seen that in spite of some contradictions in the prosecution evidence regarding time of their arrival on the spot and the time of seeing the accused beating his wife, there is sufficient evidence to believe that the accused used to beat his wife and on the date of the incident also he had beaten his wife Surajwati. Satte P.W. 1 has stated that on the date of the incident at about 8.00 A.M. he had gone to the house of the accused on hearing the noise and cries and when Surajwati somehow came out and requested him to inform her parents, Ram Chandra again pulled her inside the house and that he had seen at that time that Surajwati had received injuries upon her body. Geeta P.W. 3 has also stated his father used to beat her mother and on the date of the incident, he had severely beaten her. The prosecution allegation is that Surajwati died on account of injuries received by her on account of this beating. The prosecution case is also supported by evidence of P.W. 1 Satte & P.W. 5 Ram Das whose testimony does not suffer from any material contradiction. It is also to be seen that it is a case of custodial death because admittedly Surajwati was in the custody of her husband Ram Chandra at the time of her death, and if she was ill as alleged by the accused Ram Chandra, and if her treatment was going on, Ram Chandra could have produced the doctor who had treated his wife but he did not do so. He has not even disclosed the name of the disease from which his wife was allegedly suffering and if his wife Surajwati had died on account of illness and had not died a natural death, the proper procedure for the accused was to obtain a certificate from the doctor who had treated her and he should also have waited for arrival of the parents of Surajwati, and his act of burning the dead body without obtaining any certificate from the doctor, and without giving any information to the police, and the hasty disposal of the dead body without formalities of inquest and postmortem are all such circumstances as go against the accused.
28. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the above rulings are of no avail to the accused appellant.
29. Learned Counsel for the accused also cited before us a ruling of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in
30. Now we come to the third point raised by the Amicus Curiae that no case u/s 302 IPC is made out against the accused. It is to be seen that in the present case, there is no evidence to this effect that the accused had any motive or intention to murder his wife. It is also to be seen that there is no allegation to this effect that he caused any injury to his wife from any weapon. On the other hand, there is evidence to this effect that there was no bleeding from any injury to the wife but there were injuries to her in the shape of abrasions, contusions etc. upon her face and body.
31. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that no case u/s 302 IPC is made out against the accused. In the present case Smt. Surajwati died as a result of beating done by her husband and it appears that the accused caused injuries upon the body of his wife with the knowledge that causing of such injuries to her may result into her death but without any intention to cause her death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death and so this case is covered u/s 304 Part II which is punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years only.
32. So far as charge u/s 201 IPC is concerned, the accused appellant committed this offence by burning the dead body of Surajwati with a view to destroy the evidence of the injuries which were caused to her and he has been rightly convicted u/s 201 IPC.
33. The appeal, in this way, deserves to be partly allowed. The conviction of the accused appellant u/s 302 IPC is set aside and it is substituted by a conviction u/s 304 Part II IPC. The offence u/s 304 Part II IPC is punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years only and so he is awarded this punishment after setting aside the conviction and punishment u/s 302 IPC. In the present case, the position is that the accused appellant has been constantly in jail from the date of his arrest in connection with this case since 12.8.94. Thus, he has been in jail for 14 years and he has served out maximum sentence which could be awarded for this offence. The accused appellant has also been convicted u/s 201 IPC. His conviction u/s 201 IPC is maintained and the sentence of imprisonment of three years for the above offence is also maintained. He was also fined Rs. 1,000/- for this offence but taking this fact into consideration that the accused appellant is a poor person and he could not engage any counsel for arguing the appeal and even the appeal had been sent from jail, we set aside the sentence of fine imposed upon him.
34. It may be mentioned that the accused appellant has already undergone the sentence of 10 years u/s 304 Part II IPC and also the sentence of imprisonment of three years u/s 201 IPC, So he shall now be released forthwith from Jail if not wanted in any other case.
