CRLA/290/2003 of BHAG SINGH and ORS. Vs STATE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Appeal No. 290 of 2003

Bhag Singh

and others. …….Appellants.

Versus

State of Uttaranchal. ….…. Respondent.

Present: Mr. J.C. Gupta, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate for the Complainant. Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Deputy Advocate General (Criminal) for the State.

Coram: Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

Per: Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J (Oral)

1. Present appeal of the four appellants arises out of the judgment and order dated 29.09.2003 passed by Sessions Judge in Special Sessions Trial No. 1 of 2006 whereby accused appellants have been convicted under Section 302 IPC read with Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter called as 1989 Act) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 10,000/-. They have further been convicted under Section 201 IPC read with Section 3 (2) (vi) of the 1989 Act and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default, they have further been directed to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment.

2. Brief facts of the case are that report was lodged with police station in the intervening night of 18/19.10.1999 at 01.45 a.m. by one Sohan Lal stating that his brother Balbeer and Chhote @ Pappu, son of late

Prakash were missing from village since 17.10.1999. At 01.00 p.m. they had left their village to visit one temple known as Kunjapuri Temple and till today (i.e. on 18.10.1999) even after search they were not traceable. After giving this information, the complainant was returning to his village when he met certain persons of his own village who informed him that lodging of missing report regarding Balbeer is of no avail as both Balbeer and Chotu have been killed by four persons of the same village namely Bhag Singh, Dharam Singh, Ravindra Singh and Virendra Singh. On getting this information, they went back to the police station and formally lodged the First Information Report, which was registered as case crime no. 48 of 1999 under Section 302/201 IPC. This First Information Report was lodged on 19.10.1999 at 10.10 a.m. at police station Narendra Nagar. Police prepared the inquest reports of both the dead bodies on 19.10.1999, which were completed at 12.30 p.m. and 1.30 p.m. respectively. Meanwhile, the First Information Report at 10.10 a.m. has been lodged under Section 302, 201 IPC. All the accused persons named in the First Information Report were apprehended by the police on 21.10.1999 at place at about 14 – 15 kms. from the place of incident called Rishikesh Tehri bypass at about 04.00 p.m. Consequently, these four accused persons, according to the police, confessed their crime and on their pointing out, police recovered two knives. recovery memo was prepared by the police, in which these details have been given.

3. Learned Sr. Advocate for the appellants Sri J.C. Gupta has argued that the recovery was not made on the information given by accused, therefore, it cannot

be read in terms of parameter of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, of this later. But of this later.

4. The police subsequent to the investigation filed chargesheet against all the four accused persons under Section 302 read with Section 201 IPC. After the matter being committed to court of Sessions, on 17.05.2000 the learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused persons under Section 302 / 201 IPC.

5. Prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined as many as five witnesses. Out of these five witnesses, PW1 to PW3 are the resident of same village as that of deceased and assailants. PW4 Inspector Satya Pal Singh Rana is the Investigating Officer and PW5 Dr. Shishir Kumar, who conducted autopsy on the dead bodies.

6. PW1 Sohan Lal is the complainant. In his examination-in-chief he has stated the same facts, as he has given in the First Information Report. Being the complainant, it was natural on his part to elaborate the facts in details, mentioned in the First Information Report. In examination-in-chief, he states that on 17.10.1999 Balbeer and Pappu (both deceased) had gone to visit Kunjapuri Temple from their village. Balbeer was his real brother while Pappu was also his brother through village relations. When both did not return that day then some of the villagers, including the complainant went in search of these two persons. He states that he along with 2 – 3 persons of the village when failed to locate whereabouts of these persons then in the night of 18.10.1999 they finally went to lodge the missing complaint at police station Narendra Nagar. After lodging

the report, when they were returning to their village on 19.09.1999 in the morning at about 06.30 a.m. and had reached place called “Paliyani Dhar” they met Rakesh, Bijendra, Dharam Singh of their village, who were coming towards Narendra Nagar from village to meet them. They asked from where they were coming, on which they were told them that they are coming from police station after lodging the missing complaint of Balbeer and Pappu. Consequently, they said that lodging of missing complaint is of no use as Balbeer and Chhote @ Pappu have been murdered. Further information was sought by Sohan Lal as to who committed the murder and how. At this, they were told that on 17.10.1999 at about 05.00 p.m. when they (Rakesh and Birendra Singh, PW2 and PW3 respectively) were returning from “Agra Khal” and no sooner had they reached place called as “Paliyani Dhar” barely 1 ½ k.m. from their village that they saw Bhag Singh, Dharam Singh, Ravindra Singh and Virendra Singh fighting with Balbeer Singh and Pappu. They saw this incident from some distance. They also saw that these four accused persons were carrying some weapons but before they could intervene and rescue the two persons, these four assailants had already killed Pappu and Balbeer and had thrown them on the ground. Having witnessed such dastardly act the two, being very scared, ran towards the jungle. Thereafter, the assailants too ran towards the jungle after throwing away the dead bodies inside bush. This witness PW 1 Sohan Lal further states that PW2 & PW3 took them where the dead bodies were lying and after seeing the dead bodies, they went to lodge the FIR at the police station. The report was scribed by Khushi Ram on the dictation of Sohan Lal, which is paper no. 3K/3.7. After preparing the inquest report, the dead bodies were sent for postmortem examination. Before concluding his examination-in-chief, this witness (PW1) told the court that before the incident, the relations between accused persons and the deceased and his family were strained as the daughters of Dharam Singh and Budhi Singh had run away with Chhote @ Pappu and Dinesh. Chhote @ Pappu, as we have seen was one of the deceased. PW1 also stated before the trial court that the accused and the deceased are residents of the same village “Patho”, district Tehri Garhwal though they belong to two different communities; whereas the deceased and the complainant belong to scheduled caste community the accused persons belong to high caste community of “Thakur”. It also comes in statement that there are about 150 – 200 people in the village and the majority belong to Thakur community. Though in the Panchayat Election the office of Gram Pradhan being reserved for scheduled caste woman had woman Pradhan belonging to scheduled caste community, who is related to PW1. In his cross-examination, he also admits that Rakesh PW2 was his son.

8. Thereafter, cross-examination was deferred and major part was of the cross examination was done on 20.08.2002 about five months after the examination-in-chief. In the cross-examination this witness (PW1) states that Balbeer was working as Clerk in PWD in Narendra Nagar whereas Pappu was working as “Majdoor”. He further explains that by “Majdoor” he means daily rated worker, who work in an unorganized sector. He further states that he and Balbeer lived in separate houses but in near vicinity. Their village is about 4 – 5 kms. away from the nearest town Narendra Nagar and “Kunjapuri”

Temple where the deceased had gone was about 10 kms. away from Narendra Nagar.

9. He further states that both Balbeer and Pappu had informed that they are going to “Kunjapuri” Temple and that they would return by the evening of 17.10.1999, however, when they did not return by night fall, he (Sohan Lal) along with Dharam Singh, Sona Singh went in search of Balbeer and Pappu. At first, they went to the houses of their relatives at Kunjpuri village and thereafter, they went to “Augi Gaon” another village, which is 15 – 20 kms. away from Kunjapuri. From Augi Gaon they went to Badera Gaon, which is again 15 kms. away from Augi Gaon. In this manner, they looked for these missing persons at every likely place.

10. According to this witness, for more than 24 hours they were in search for the two missing persons of their community and village. They conducted their search on foot in the jungle, in the hilly terrain, which consumed lot of time. He further deposed that when finally they failed to trace the two persons, they reached the police station at Narendra Nagar to lodge the report. In other words, he lodged the report after long and fruitless search. He further states that one person accompanying them i.e. Dharam Singh was sent back to the village from “Badera Gaon” itself. Since market at Narendra Nagar generally closes at about 08.00 p.m. or so, therefore, after lodging the report, they remained at the police station. From police station their village is about 5 km. away. While returning to their village, they met the three persons of their village at Paliyani Dhar from whom they got information that Balbeer Singh and Pappu have actually been murdered. They saw their dead bodies,

which were about 100 metres down in the hills. They immediately returned to the police station Narendra Nagar whereas Dharam Singh and the rest of the party went back to the village. He further elaborates that his son Rakesh is labourer at village Agra Khal etc.

11. PW 1 though is not an eyewitness but his statement has become more important for more reasons than one. Firstly, it has clearly come in his deposition that assailants belonged to higher community while deceased and complainant belonged to scheduled caste community. Since two girls (one daughter of the accused Dharam Singh and another girl related of another accused) belonging to Thakur Community had eloped with members of scheduled caste community, one of them being Pappu (deceased). In others words, enmity and strained relations between two communities for the aforesaid reason became the motive for killing Balbeer and Pappu, which is quite apparent.

12. The sequence of events narrated by PW1 also gives strength to the story of prosecution as to the manner in which the event actually started unfolding. Initially, Balbeer and Pappu were only missing since the evening of 17.10.1999 and after long and arduous search of these persons by the complainant and two other persons of the village, when they could not be located, missing report was given in the Narendra Nagar police station. But soon thereafter, they were informed by other villagers that the two persons have actually been murdered, which culminated in lodging of the First Information Report at police station Narendra Nagar.

13. PW 2 and PW3 are the eyewitnesses to the murder. PW 2 Rakesh is the son of complainant Sohan Lal. He narrates in his examination-in-chief as to how while he along with Birendra Singh PW3 were returning from Agra Khal after doing his day’s work, when he reached place called Paliyani Dhar between 5 – 5.30 p.m., he saw Bhag Singh, Dharam Singh, Ravindra Singh and Virendra Singh (accused, who are appellants before this Court) engaged in some kind of fight with Pappu and Balbeer. Both of them shouted but before they could do anything the four assailants had already plunged their knives on the body of two deceased. Seeing that two assailants out of the four armed with knives, both PW2 & PW3 were scared and ran towards the jungle. By the time, the said accused persons had also thrown the bodies of two deceased into the ravine and had threatened to kill PW2 and PW3.

14. This witness further elaborates in his examination-in-chief about the incident and states that while Bhag Singh was stabbing Balbeer, Dharam Singh was catching hold of Balbeer. Similarly, Pappu caught hold by Virendra and he was being stabbed by Ravindra Singh. The incident was witnessed by PW 2 and PW3 between 5 to 5.30 p.m on the fateful day. According to them, they never reported anything to any of the villagers till about 07.30 a.m. on 19.10.1999 i.e. the time when they met Sohan Lal when he was returning from the police station. He further states that he could recognize the assailants, as the incident happened during day light.

15. He further states that assailants, deceased and the witnesses belong to the same village. 2-3 years prior to the incident, their relations were strained when the

daughters of Dharam Singh and Buddhi ran away with his brother Pappu and another person of the same village. He further states that he belongs to scheduled caste community whereas the accused are Thakurs by caste. In his cross-examination, he states that complainant Sohan Lal is his father and gave details about his work place at Agra Khal. He said that he works with one contractor, which he named as Devendra Pundir. He further elaborates that he returned early from Agra Khal on that fateful day as Agra Khal has very cold climate and by the evening it gets very cold, so they decided to return home early. He saw the incident from about 40 – 50 paces. He admits that his house is about 1.5 kms. from the place of incident and that the population of his village is about 200, out of which there are only 9 – 10 families of scheduled caste community, the rest are Thakurs.

16. He further admits that neither on 17.10.1999 nor on 18.10.1999 did he inform about the incident to any member of his village. He states that on 18.10.1999 i.e. on the next date of incident, he did not go for work and remained in the village. In the morning of 19.10.1999 he along with Virendra Singh and Dharam Singh went in search of his father and uncle, who had gone to look for the deceased persons earlier and they met Sohan Lal and others at about 5 to 10 paces from the scene of incident. He then narrates how the police go to the scene of crime and how the inquest is prepared.

17. PW3 Birendra Singh states the same fact as stated by PW2 Rakesh Kumar in his examination-in-chief. He as well as PW2 were put to heavy cross-

examination, but nothing material has come out which may help defence.

18. PW4 Satyapal Singh Rana is the Investigating Officer, who states that on 19.10.1999, he went to the place of occurrence and inspected the spot and prepared the site plan, which he identified in the court as Ex. Ka-13. On the same day, he recovered knife cover from the place of occurrence, for which he prepared separate memo Ex. Ka-15 on 21.10.1999. He arrested all the four accused persons, who were named in the FIR, from near the “Chungi” at Rishikesh Tehri Bypass. He further stated in his examination-in-chief that on 21.10.1999, on the pointing out of the accused persons, he recovered two blood stained knives, which were used in the commission of crime from the jungles of village Puliani.

19. Learned Senior Counsel for the accused/appellants has drawn attention of this Court towards the statement of PW4 Satyapal Singh Rana, I.O., and has stated that as per the statement given by this witness in the court, the recovery of two knives made by him cannot be said to be recovery which could give any benefit to the prosecution in terms of the provisions envisaged under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, as the prosecution has failed to prove that the recovery, which was made by the Investigation Officer on 21.10.1999, was made on the basis of the information given to the police by which of the four accused persons, who were in the custody. We will elaborate on this aspect later.

20. PW5 is Dr. Shishir Kumar, who conducted autopsy on the body of deceased Balbeer, aged 35 years, on 19.10.1999 at about 4.30 pm. According to post-

mortem report Ex. Ka-23, death of Balbeer occurred two days prior to the post-mortem. Following ante mortem injuries were found on his body:

(i) Incised wound 12 cm x 6 cm up to vertebral column deep on the front of neck 2 cm above interclavicle notch. vertebral column deep on the front of neck 2 cm above interclavicle notch.

(ii) Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x chest cavity deep just above xiphisternum. deep just above xiphisternum.

(iii) Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x chest cavity deep on left side chest 2 cm below left nipple. deep on left side chest 2 cm below left nipple.

(iv) Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep 2 cm below injury no. (3). cm below injury no. (3).

(v) Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on right side of chest. on right side of chest.

(vi) Multiple incised wounds 4 cm x 1 cm x

muscle deep in an area of 15 cm x 8 cm on right side of abdomen. right side of abdomen.

Cause of death was due to hemorrhage and shock as result of the aforesaid ante mortem injuries.

21. Similarly, post-mortem of another deceased Chhote @ Pappu was also conducted by PW5 Dr. Shishir Kumar on the same day i.e. on 19.10.1999 at about 5 pm, whereupon he prepared the post-mortem report Ex. Ka-24, which reveals that there were as many as ten incised wounds on the body of this deceased. These are as under:

(i) Incised wound 8 cm x 4 cm x muscle deep on right side of neck. on right side of neck.

(ii) Incised wound 6 cm x 4 cm x trachea deep on front of neck. on front of neck.

(iii) Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on middle of chest 4 cm below supra sternal notch. on middle of chest 4 cm below supra sternal notch.

(iv) Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x skin deep 5 cm below injury no. (3). cm below injury no. (3).

(v) Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on right side of chest 6 cm from nipple at 4 O’clock position. on right side of chest 6 cm from nipple at 4 O’clock position.

(vi) Incised wound 1 cm x 1 cm x skin deep on right side of chest 1 cm above injury no. (5). right side of chest 1 cm above injury no. (5).

(vii) Incised wound 1 cm x 0.8 cm x cavity deep on left side of chest just below nipple. on left side of chest just below nipple.

(viii) Incised wound 3 cm x 0.6 cm x cavity deep on left side of chest 8 cm below nipple at 5 O’clock position. on left side of chest 8 cm below nipple at 5 O’clock position.

(ix) Incised wound 4 cm x 0.5 cm x skin deep on left side of chest 4 cm from nipple at 3 O’clock position. on left side of chest 4 cm from nipple at 3 O’clock position.

(x) Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on left side of abdomen in left iliac fossa, intestine cavity out. on left side of abdomen in left iliac fossa, intestine cavity out.

Cause of death was due to hemorrhage and shock as result of aforementioned ante mortem injuries.

22. In his cross-examination, Dr. Shishir Kumar has stated that the aforementioned injuries could be caused by sharp edged weapon.

23. Learned Counsel for the appellants, in defence of the accused, primarily laid emphasis on two aspects, which must be dealt with by this Court. First is that the presence of both PW2 Rakesh Kumar and PW3 Birendra Singh at the scene of crime is highly doubtful for more

reasons than one. Firstly, as they had admittedly gone to place called Agra Khal, which was 25 to 30 kilometres away from their village. After completing the work at Agra Khal, they could not have reached near the place of incident in the evening of that fateful day in order to be witness to the crime. Secondly, assuming that they could be on the scene of crime at the relevant time, their action subsequent to the crime, which is going back to the village quietly and not telling the incident to anyone till 7.30 am of 19.10.1999, is highly unnatural. Admittedly, both these witnesses have categorically stated in their respective examination-in-chief that they did not report about the incident to any person in the village. Both these witnesses have also said that the first time they revealed that any such incident had happened was to Sohan Lal and his colleagues when they were returning from Narendra Nagar and had met them at distance of about 1 to 1.5 kilometre from the village between 7.00 to 7.30 in the morning of 19.10.1999. Considering that one of the deceased Balbeer was the real uncle of PW2 Rakesh Kumar, it is highly unnatural that he would not report the incident to any person in the village and keep quiet for such long time. This shows that the presence of these witnesses is highly doubtful.

24. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants Shri J.C. Gupta has emphasized that if the testimony of PW2 and PW3 is liable to be discarded on the above count, nothing further remains in the story of prosecution for the simple reason that the other aspect which links the accused with the crime i.e. recovery of the weapon, is doubtful and cannot be read into evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, as the said recovery is not based

on the information given by the accused while in the custody of police.

Section 27 of the Evidence Act reads as under:

“27. How much of information received from accused may be proved. — Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from person accused of any offence, in the custody of police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.”

26. Let us deal with the second aspect first, which is the recovery itself. Section 27 of the Evidence Act makes it very clear that if any information is given by an accused person while in custody of the police, and on the basis of that information, recovery is made by the police, then the fact that such an information given to the police stands proved, nothing more, nothing less. Section 27 of the Evidence Act is itself an exception created by the law to the general rules of evidence contained in Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, which primarily means that any statement given by the accused to the police while in custody is not admissible under the law and cannot be read in evidence. It is true that though before benefit of such recovery can be given to the prosecution and it can be read against the accused, the parameters given in Section 27 of the Evidence Act must be complied with. This Court is of the considered view that recovery memo Ex. Ka-17, which was prepared by the policesubsequent to the arrest of the accused persons on the same day, shows that while the accused were in custody and on their interrogation by the police, they revealed that they can get the weapons recovered from the jungle of the village. Subsequently, the police party took these four accused persons to the scene and on their pointing out, these two weapons i.e. two knives, alleged to be used in the commission of crime, were recovered. Now, it is again true that in his deposition PW4 Satyapal Singh Rana, who is the Investigation Officer, he has not elaborated as to which particular accused actually said what words on which the recovery was made.

27. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants further submitted that this is joint recovery, which is not admissible as recovery in law. We are not impressed with the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the simple reason that this Court is satisfied that in substance, what was required under Section 27 has been complied with. It has clearly come in the memo as well as in the deposition of the Investigation Officer (PW4) that it was on the pointing out of the accused persons that the recovery of weapons was actually made. Regarding the admissibility of joint statement only this much needs to say here that the mere fact that there is joint statement of recovery would in itself not make the statement as the recovery inadmissible. It would at best weaken its evidentiary value and the Court will keep this aspect always in mind.

28. Assuming therefore that the recovery in the manner of recovery is not fully admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act yet we cannot loose sight of the fact that we have two eyewitnesses of the

incident. Let us examine the quality of evidence given by PW2 Rakesh Kumar and PW3 Birendra Singh before the trial court. This recovery will then be seen in the light of the statement of these two witnesses. As per the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, however, their evidence too is highly unreliable because of their conduct which cannot be said to be natural for the reasons already stated above and, therefore, not only is the recovery is inadmissible but also the quality of evidence given by the PW2 and PW3, cannot be believed for the reasons of their conduct subsequent to the incident, which is unnatural.

29. Now, there is an important fact which has come in the evidence of which this Court cannot loose sight of which is that the victims are “Harijans” belonging to Scheduled Caste community whereas all the four assailants are “Thakurs” of the same village. The motive for killing is very clear and explicit, which is that one of the deceased Chhote @ Pappu and another person related to the deceased had run away with the daughters of the two “Thakurs” of the same village. Thus, in the present case, there was clear motive for committing the crime, which has to be looked in the background of which it has occurred. We have also seen that number of “Harijans” in the village are much less than the dominant community of “Thakurs” in the same village to which the accused belong. It matters little that Gram Pradhan of the village is woman, who belongs to Scheduled Caste Community. This was also one of the reasons that PW2 and PW3, after witnessing this ghastly crime, were petrified and scared beyond words that though they remained in the village, but could not ever tell this incident to any person of the village. There was anotherreason though which also must be kept in mind which was that at that time there was no other male member belonging to their community present in the village, as it has come in the evidence that Sohal Lal (complainant) had already gone in search of the missing persons (missing at that time) i.e. in the evening of 17.10.1999. Therefore, there were only the women-folk of the community present in the village. In the circumstances, these two eyewitnesses did not think it proper or wise to narrate the incident to the women of the village. On 18.10.1999 when Dharam Singh returned to the village (though exact time has not been stated), he accompanied with these two eyewitnesses went towards Narendra Nagar to inform about the incident to Sohan Lal and others. Therefore, considering the social aspect of the village community in mind, the background of which has been narrated above the conduct of the two eyewitnesses of PW2 & PW3 is not unnatural.

30. The conduct of the PW2 Rakesh Kumar and PW3 Birendra Singh, though on surface may sound unnatural, but if we examine it in the social context, the conduct of both PW2 and PW3 does not appear to be unnatural, rather under the circumstances, it is quite natural.

31. Learned Senior Counsel for the accused/appellants placed reliance upon AIR 1979 SC 135, Ganesh Bhavan Patel & Another v. State of Maharashtra, where the trial court had acquitted the accused but in appeal, the judgment of the trial court was reversed by the High Court. But finally the Hon’ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that the decision arrived at by the trial court was correct decision. One of

the facts emanating from the said case was that one Damji was killed in broad daylight by some of the assailants, an incidence which was noticed as an eyewitness by one Welji. Hon’ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that the testimony of Welji was not reliable for the reasons that when he saw the crime being committed and Damji being assaulted and killed in front of his eyes, he made no effort to take Damji in his car to the hospital, nor did he do anything to the medical aid of the injured who, according to other eyewitnesses, was still alive. Rather, after seeing all this, he callously and non-challantly drove away to his office, without having even look at the dying man. After reaching his office, he did not inform any of the persons present in the office, not even to his son, anything about the occurrence. He had telephone in his office, yet he did not give any information to the police. Therefore, under these circumstances, considering the nature and conduct of this particular witness, the Hon’ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that the testimony of this witness cannot be believed.

32. Now, conduct of one person in particular circumstance may look unnatural, yet his conduct in another circumstance may look quite natural, as we have already observed above. In the present case, the conduct of PW2 and PW3 is not unnatural in the social context and milieu under which this incident happened. Having concluded that conduct of PW2 and PW3 is not unnatural, it will not cast any doubt on the testimony given by them.

33. lot of rulings have been cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants on this alleged

unnatural conduct of the witnesses. These are (1980) 1 SCC 530, Phalya Motya Valvi v. State of Maharashtra; (1983) 1 SCC 143, Mohd. Abdul Hafeez v. State of Andhra Pradesh; (2002) 8 SCC 45, Bodhraj @ Bodha & Others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir; and AIR 1976 SC 2032, Bahal Singh v. State of Haryana. Since these rulings do not relate with the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not deem it fit and proper to discuss the same.

34. Another point on which learned Counsel for the appellants has emphasized is that the incident has not happened in the manner in which it has been presented by the testimony of PW2 and PW3 as both have stated that after killing the deceased, their bodies were thrown into the ravine. Had it been done so, apart from incised wounds, there must have been some scratches as abrasions on the bodies of the deceased, whereas post-mortem reports reveal that apart from aforementioned ante mortem injuries, they had not sustained any other injury. In the reply, it was stated that first of all, it has not clearly come in the testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW3 that bodies were thrown in the ravine. They merely saw that dead bodies were being pushed towards the ravine. No suggestion was given in the cross-examination that ravine/“khadda” was of such nature, which had hard rocks by which injuries other than incised wounds must have been sustained on the body of the deceased. Moreover, considering the fact that in the post-mortem report, major injuries have been reported on the body of both deceased persons, which can only be sustained by sharp edged weapon, it leaves no room of doubt that the injuries were caused on the body of the deceased by the

knives recovered by the police on the information and pointing out of the accused persons.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is

dismissed. Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. Let the appellants be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence. Sent the lower court record back. Let copy of this judgment be sent to the court below for compliance.

(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 09.07.2012 SKS