Holding

The Supreme Court held that the trial court’s acquittal was correct as the prosecution evidence was doubtful and the High Court erred in convicting the accused.

Summary

The case involved an alleged assault and murder of the father and nephew of PW‑1 (Kaldhari) by three accused (A‑1, A‑2, A‑3) using knives and spears. The prosecution’s case rested solely on the testimony of PW‑1 and two other eyewitnesses (PW‑2, PW‑3), who claimed to have identified the accused with the aid of a lantern and torch lights that were never produced in court. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the eyewitness testimony unreliable, especially given the lack of any motive, the doubtful presence of the witnesses at the scene, and the non‑production of the identification aids. The High Court reversed the acquittal, holding that the non‑production of the lantern and torches was immaterial. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the trial court’s assessment of the evidence was correct, the High Court erred in disregarding the doubts, and the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, thereby restoring the acquittal.

Issues considered

Whether the testimony of PW‑1 and other eyewitnesses is reliable enough to sustain a conviction.
Whether the non‑production of the lantern and torch lights undermines the identification of the accused.
Whether the alleged enmity over fishery rights provides a motive sufficient to infer guilt.
Whether the High Court erred in reversing the trial court’s acquittal on the basis of the above evidence.
Whether the benefit of doubt principle applies in the absence of credible evidence.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302
Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970s. 2(a)

Subjects

murderidentificationeyewitness testimonybenefit of doubtacquittalIPC 302criminal appealevidencelanterntorchmotiveenmity

Judgment

[2011) 1 S.C.R. 1062

A DUR BAL
v.
STATE OF U.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1398 of 2008)
JANUARY 25, 2011
B
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH
NIJJAR, JJ.]
~

Penal Code, 1860- s.302- Testimony of PW-1 that the
c accused persons assaulted his father and nephew with knives
and spears (bhalas), which led to their death - Three accused
- Suggested previous enmity between the accused and PW1
- Incident occurred in the dead of night during mid winter -
Witnesses claimed to have identified the accused with the aid
D of lantern and torches - Trial court acquitted all the accused
- High Court, however, relied upon the evidence of PW-1, and ..\"'.

reversed the order, of acquittal - Meanwhile A-1 and A-3
accused died - Conviction of A-2 challenged before Supreme
Court - Held: When the suggested enmity, if at all, was
E between the accused and PW 1, there was no reason as to
why the accused should attack the deceased and leave PW-
1 unscratched - If PWs 1, 2 and 3 were present at the scene
of offenee as stated by PW 1, there was no explanation
forthcoming as to why three of them put together could not
F resist the accused in attacking the deceased - The lantern
and the torch lights though allegedly seized were not
produced in the Court - The seizure memos did not contain
the crime number and other recovery particulars - In the
circumstances, it became highly doubtful as whether PWs 1,
2 and 3 actually had torch lights in their hands as stated by
G them - The evidence of PW 1 did not inspire any confidence .....
and the presence of PWs 2 and 3 at the scene of offence was
doubtful - .The trial Court rightly gave the b~nefit of doubt to
the accused - The view taken by trial Court was plausible and

H 1062
DURBAL v. STATE OF U.P. 1063

could not be held perverse - High Court ought not to have A
interfered with the judgment of the trial Court merely because
there was a possibility of taking a different view - A-2 entitled
to benefit of doubt and acquitted.

According to the prosecution, pursuant to an earlier B
altercation between the accused and PW-1 over fishery
rights in respect of the village pond, the accused persons
assaulted the father and nephew of PW-1 with knives
+- and spears (bhalas), which led to their death. The incident
allegedly occurred in the dead of night during the mid
winter. PW 8, the Investigating Officer, recorded c
statements of the witnesses and collected lantern and
torches which were the alleged source of light in which
the witnesses claimed to have seen the occurrence. The
accused were charged of having committed offences
under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, IPC. D
~

The trial Court found the evidence of PW-1 to be
highly doubtful since he was not atta,c;ked by the
accused; and also doubted the presence of 'PW-2 at the
scene of offence. The trial Court also disbelieved the E
evidence of PW-3 who is a close relative of PW 1. The trial
Court further found that the lantern and torch lights were
not produced in the Court and the seizure memos of
lantern, torches did not contain the crime number and
came to the conclusion that since the offence occurred F
in the dead of night in the last week of December, the
witnesses could not have identified the assailants except
with the aid of lantern and torches, whose seizure itself
was doubtful and accordingly acquitted all the accused.

.J _..,. The High' Court, however, relied upon the evidence G
of PW-1, and r-eversed the order of acquittal and
sentenced the: accused to life imprisonment, holding that
non-production of the lantern and the torch lights in the
Court was inconsequential.
H
1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 1 S.C.R.

A During pendency of appeal filed by the State in the
High Court, A-1 and A-3 died and the appeal against
them was ordered to be abated. The instant appeal was
preferred by A-2.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
B
HELD:1. Though the whole prosecution case is that
on account of the dispute over fishery rights, the accused
bore a grudge against PW 1 and even threatened him with
dire consequences, it is highly doubtful that there was
C any dispute over the fishery rights itself. The. only person
apart from PW 1 who speaks about the dispute is PW 4
who was examined by the police after more than two
months of the occurrence. It is true, motive for committing
the crime pales into insignificance in a case where the
D prosecution story rests upon the evidence of
eyewitnesses. But, for the purposes of evaluating and
appreciating the evidence, the sequence of events
cannot be ignored. [Para 11) (1072-C-D]
--
2. In any event, there was no enmity whatsoever
E between the deceased and the accused. When the
suggested enmity, if at all, was between the accused and
PW 1, there does not appear to be any reason as to why
the accused should attack the deceased and leave PW 1
unscratched. Admittedly, there was not even an attempt
F by the accused to attack PW 1. This story somehow
appears unbelievable and difficult to accept. At any rate,
there is no evidence adduced .by prosecution in this
regard. Admittedly A-1, on reaching the scene of .
occurrence on that fateful night, challenged PW 1 to open
G the door. PW 1 woke up and reached the door with the
torch and lathi in his hand raising alarm. On hearing the
cries, PW 3 and PW 2 reached the spot with torch lights
in their hands. PW 1 opened the door only after the said
witnesses reached the scene of offence and saw all the
H
DURBAL v. STATE OF U.P. 1065

accused along with two or three persons assaulting his A
-~ father and nephew with knives and spears. PW 1 made
an omnibus allegation that all the accused attacked the
deceased indiscriminately with the weapons in their
hands. If PWs 1, 2 and 3 were present at the scene of
offence as stated by PW 1, there is no explanation B
forthcoming as to why three of them put together could
not resist the accused in attacking the deceased. [Para
12] [1072-E-H; 1073-A-B]

,
:..:0.
t
3. PW 2 in his evidence stated that two of the
accused were armed with knives and two with lathis. He
c
is alleged to have witnessed the incident with the
assistance of the torch lights in his hand. He also levelled
omnibus allegations against all the accused that they
were inflicting knife and spear injuries on the deceased.
It is in his evidence th.at about two or three persons were D
--.,.
standing outside the verandah while actually the accus~d
were inflicting knife and spear injuries over the victims.
Those other individuals remained unidentified. According
to him, he himself and PWs 1 and 3 were also armed with
lathis but no attempts were made to resist the accused E
who were indulging in the acts of assault. In the
circumstances, it is doubtful to believe PW 2 to have
actually witnessed the incident and recognized the
accused with the help of torch lights. [Para 13] [1073-C-
E] F

4. PW 3 stated in his evidence that he had purchased
the house along with PW 1. He speaks about the
presence of PW 2 and one other witness who was not
examined and does not speak about presence of any
G
i . --<.. other person including that of PW 1 at the scene of
offence. He also made indefinite allegations against all
the accused as inflicting knife and spear blows on the
victims. [Para 14] [1073-E-G]

5. All the eyewitnesses had stated in their evidence H
1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A that lantern was burning in the verandah and PW 1, PW
2 and PW 3 were having torch lights in their hands and ~.
only with the help of the lantern and the torch lights they
could recognize and identify the assailants. The lantern
and the torch lights though were alleged to have been
B seized were not produced in the Court. The seizure
memos did not contain the crime number and other
recovery particulars. In the circumstances, it becomes
highly doubtful as to whether those torch lights and +
lantern were actually seized during the course of •
c investigation· by the Investigating Officer. The
Investigating Officer, PW 8 did not explain as to why the
crime number was not noted on the seizure memos and
as to why the material objects, if at all seized, were not
produced in the Court. The very fact that the lantern and
torch lights were pressed into service for the purpose of
0
identifying the accused, itself suggests that it was a .>r·
pitched dark night during the mid winter and it was not
possible to identify the assailants without the aid of
lantern and torch lights. It is highly doubtful as to whether
PWs 1, 2 and 3 actually had torch lights in their hands
E as stated by them, in the absence of their recovery details
in the seizure memo and their non-production before the
Court. Moreover, PW 1 refused to state as to whether the
assailants were covering their faces with chadar. His
evidence does not inspire any confidence. [Para 15)
F [1073-G-H; 1074-A-E]
6. These all are the ~actors which give rise to doubt
as to the presence of PWs 2 and 3 at the scene of offence.
The trial Court rightly entertained the doubt and
G accordingly gave the benefit of doubt to the accused. It ...._ -L
Is a plausible view taken by the trial Court which could ""'
not be held to be a perverse one. Such a view has been
taken by the-trial Court after appreciation of the evidence.
The High Court ought not to have interfered with the
H judgment of the trial Ce>urt merely because there is a
DURBAL v. STATE OF U.P. 1067

possibility of taking a different view other than the one A
>~ taken by the trial Court. The appellant (A-2) is entitled to
the benefit of doubt. It would be unsafe to convict the
accused on the evidence which is not free from doubts.
lhe appellant is thus acquitted of all the charges and his
conviction and sentence is accordingly set aside. [Paras B
,. 16 and 17) [1074-F-H; 1075-A-B]
'
CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
,..,._ No. 1398 of 2008.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.10.2007 of the c
• High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.
2514 of 1982.
i
Sandhya Goswami, M.P.S. Tomar, Jabar Singh, Vipul
Maheshwari and H.C. Kharbandha for the Appellant.
D
~-..,_
Savitri Pandey, Ajay Singh and Shrish Kumar Misra for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court-was delivered by
B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. 1. This appeal under
Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal E
Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 is directed against the
judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in
·~ Criminal Appeal No. 2514 of 1982 whereby the High Court
allowed the appeal preferred by the State and accordingly
reversed the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial F
Court under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, IPC. The High Court
having convicted the accused, sentenced them to life
· imprisonment.
2. During the pendency of the appeal preferred by the G
--L State in the High Court, the accused Awadhoo (A-1) and Birbal
(A-3) died and the appeal against them was ordered to be
abated. This appeal is preferred by Durbal, accused No. 2.
3. In order to appreciate as to whether the judgment of the
High Court reversing the order of acquittal, requires any H
1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A interference at our hands, we may have to notice the
prose~ution case in brief:
\
The origin of the prosecution case lies in an altercation
between the accused and one Kaldhari {PW 1) alleged to have
taken place two days prior to the date of incident on 23rd
8 December, 1979: It is the case of the prosecution that one
Ramdhani {not examined) in partnership with Kaldhari {PW 1)
had obtained lease of fishery rights in respect of a pond
situated in Harirampur village. They had raised fish in the said
pond. The accused were claiming right to collect fish from the
C said pond. Kaldhari {PW 1) along with his companions had
gone to village Harirampur for the collection of the fish from the
pond. The accused along with their associates had also
assembled there to collect the fish from the pond. Their attempts
were resisted by Kaldhari {PW 1) resulting in an altercation.
D Awadhoo {A 1), since deceased, threatened Kaldhari {PW 1)
of his life. This incident had taken place in the presence of
Madan {PW 4) and one Sidhu {not examined).
4. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 24th
E December, 1979 at about 10.30 p.m. in the night while Kaldhari
{PW 1) was sleeping in his house with its door bolted from
inside, his father Abhi Raj {deceased) and nephew Bal Kishun
{deceased) were sleeping on a takhat in the verandah, all of a
sudden, Abhi Raj and Bal Kishun {both deceased) raised
alarm and in the meanwhile, someone started thumping on the
F door of the room where Kaldhari {PW 1) was sleeping. As he
was about to open the door, he could hear Awadhoo {A 1)
commanding him to open the door. Kaldhari {PW 1) identified
hirn from his voice. Kaldhari then started raising alarm from
inside the house. This attracted Sonai {PW 3), Sheo Kumar
G {PW 2) and Lal Mani {not examined) from the neighbourhood
who reached the place of occurrence flashing torch lights. On
seeing the witnesses, Kaldhari gathered courage and opened
the door of his room and came into verandah. He saw that all
the fou'r accused accompanied by two or three unknown
H associates were assaulting his father Abhi Raj and nephew Bal
DURBAL v. STATE OF U.P. 1069
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
. Kishun with knives and bhalas. On finding that the villagers were A
,.__.. gathering at the scene of offence, the miscreants retreated and
before tyrning away from the place of occurrence, they also
opened fire. The police station, as per chik FIR is about 20
kilometers away from the place of occurrence. Kaldhari (PW
1) could not go to the police station in that night. In the early B
morning he got the information registered. At that time, Ram
Awadh Chaudhary (PW 8), the Investigating Officer, was
,..,. present at the police station who having registered the First
Information Report, proceeded to the scene of offence and
commenced the investigation. He recorded statements of the c
witnesses and collected lantern and torches which were the
alleged source of light in which the witnesses claimed to have
seen the occurrence. He also collected blood stained earth and
other material including an empty cartridge shell and some
pellets of the shot which was fired by the miscreants on the· spot.
D
The dead bodies were then sent for autopsy after holding
-,.. inquest and due formalities.

5. Dr. P.N. Awasthi (PW 5) performed the autopsy on 26th
December, 1979.and has found the following ante mortem
injuries on the body of Abhi Raj who was aged about 70 years: E

1. Punctured wound clean cut mrgins 1%" x pleural
cavity deep, 3" from middle line on front of chest.
'
2. Punctured wound clean cut margins 1%" x %" x
peritoneal cavity deep, just below lower and F
-.; sternum.
'
-<
3. Punctured wound with clean cut margins 1%" x %"
x pleural cavity deep on right side front of chest in
between 3rd and 4th rib 4" from middle line. G
~

4. Punctured wound with clean cut margins 1%" x %"
x pleural cavity deep 1" below injury No. 3.

5. Punctured wound with clean cut margins 1%" x %"
H
-I

''
1070 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 1 S.C.R.

A x pleural cavity deep, on right side chest 6" below
right axilla.
---~
Cause of death, in his opinion was shock and hemorrhage as
a result of ante mortem injuries and death had occurred two
days prior to the time of autopsy.
B
6. On the same day, post mortem examination of the body
of Bal Kishun, a boy aged about 11 years revealed the following
ante mortem injuries: ~·

c 1. Abrasion Y." x Y." on front of left side chest 1" below
left nipple.

2. Incised wound Y." x 1/44 x muscle deep on front of
right side chest Y:i" below right nipple.
D 3. Twelve punctured wounds with clean cut margins on
back of whole of chest in an area of 8" x 8" ~

measuring from 1%" x %"plural cavity deep to 1" x
Y." x pleural cavity deep, pleura was cut
underneath.
E
In the opinion of the Doctor, the death had occurred two days
before on account of ante mortem injuries and the injuries could
have been caused by sharp edged weapons like knife and
bhala.
F 7. The prosecution in support of its case examined
Kaldhari (Pw 1), Sheo Kumar (PW 2) and Sonai (PW 3) apart
from Dr. P.N. Awasthy (PW 5) and Ram Avadh Chaudhary (PW
8), the Investigating Officer.

G · 8. The trial Court by its well reasoned judgment acquitted
all the accused of the charges. The trial Court found that th~re >-
was no motive whatsoever for the accused to have attacked
the deceased on that fateful night. There was no altercation
whatsoever at the pond over fishery rights two days prior to the
H incident as alleged by the prosecution. The ..trial. Court
-· DURBAL v. STATE OF U.P.
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]

disbelieved Magan (PW 4) who allegedly witnessed the A
1071

>--4,
altercation. He was examined by the Investigating Officer after
more than two.months of the incident. The trial Court also found
that PW 4 (Magan) is closely related to Kaldhari (PW 1).
Ramdhani, the alleged partner of Kaldhari (PW 1) was not
examined . .The trial Court also found the evidence 'Of Kaldhari B
(PW 1) to be highly doubtful. The very fact that Kaldhari (PW _
1) was not attacked by the accused is a strong circumstance,
!......,._
according to the trial Court, to doubt the prosecution's case.
The trial Court noticed the contradictions in the statement of
Kaldhari and accordingly disbelieved his evidence. The trial c
Court also noticed.that Sonai (PW 3) stated that he came out
of the house on hearing alarm raised by Abhi Raj (deceased)
and found only Shea Kumar (PW 2) and one Lal Mani (not
examined). According to him~no other pe..Soh was present at
the scene of offence. The trial Court, in the circumstances, came
D
.... __,,.._
to the conclusion that it was extremely doubtful as to the
presence of Kaldhari (PW 1) at the scene of offence. The trial
. Court also doubted the presence of Shea Kumar (PW 2) at the
scene of offence. The trial Court also disbelieved the evidence
of Sonai (PW 3) who is a close relative of PW 1. His statement
is so vague and the same did not inspire any confidence in the E
trial Court to accept. The trial Court also found that the lantern
and
. torch. lights were not produced in the Court. The seizure
memos of lantern (Ext. ka-2), torches (Ext. Ka-3) did not eontain
the _crime number. The trial Court came to the conclusion that
sinee the offence occurred in the dead of night in the last week F
of December, the witnesses could not have identified the
assailants except with the aid of lantern and torches, whose
seizure itself was doubtful..

9. The High Court, upon reappreciation' of the evidence :G
'
-~ available on record, mainly relying upon th~ evidence of
Kaldhari (PW 1), came to the conclusion that non-production
of the lantern and the torch lights in the Court were of no
consequence.
\ ~\
A
1072 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2o11] 1 S.C.R.

10. A short question that arises for our consideration in this
-
appealis whether the High Court committed any error in relying
upon evidence of Kaldhari (PW 1) since the whole prosecution
case rests upon his evidence? Whether his evidence is
acceptable based on~which the High Court convicted the
e accused?

__ .. -ti. +he whgle prosecution case is that on account of the
dispute over fishery rights... the accused bore a grudge against
Kaldhari (PW 1) and even-.!hreatened him with dire
consequences. Whether there was any dispute over the fishery
C rights itself is highly doubtful. The only pei:_.son apart from PW 1
who speaks about the dispute is Magan ~PW 4) who was
examined by the police after more than two· months of the
occurrence. It is true, motive for committing the crime pales into
insignificance in a case where the prosecution story rests upon
D the evid~nce of eyewitnesses. But, for the purposes of
evaluating and appreciating the evidence, the sequence of
events cannot be ignored.

12. Be it as it may, there was no enmity whatsoever
E between the deceased and the accused. When the suggested
enmity, if at all, was between the accused and Kaldhari (PW
1), there does not appear tO\ be any reason as to why the
accused should attack the deceased and leave Kaldhari
unscratched. Admittedly, there was not even an attempt by the
F accused to attack Kaldhari. This story somehow appears
unbelievable and difficult to accept. At any rate, there is no
evidence adduced by prosecution in this regard. Admittedly
Awadhoo (A-1 ), on reaching the scene of occurrence on that
fateful night, challenged Kaldhari (PW 1) to open the door.
Kaldhari woke up and reached the door with the torch and lathi
,
G in his hand raising alarm. On hearing the cries, Sonai (PW 3) >--
and Sheo Kumar (PW 2) reached the spot with torch lights in
their hands. Kaldhari opened the door only after the said
witnesses reached the scene of offence and saw all the
accused along with two or three persons assaulting his father
H
- DURBAL v. STATE OF U.P.
(B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]

Abhi Raj and Bal Kishun with knives and spears. Kaldhari (PW
1073

A

·- 1) makes an omnibus allegation of all the accused of their
attacking the deceased indiscriminately with the weapons in
their hands: If PWs 1, 2 and 3 were present at the scene of
offence as stated by Kaldhari (PW 1), there is no explanation
forthcoming as to why three of them put together could not resist B
the accused in attacking the deceased.

13. Sheo Kumar (PW 2) in his evidence stated that two of
>..;.
the accused were armed with knives and two with lathis. He is
alleged to have witnessed the incident with the assistance of
the torch lights in his hand. He also levels omnibus allegations
c
against all the accused that they were inflicting knife and spear
injuries on the deceased. It is in his evidence that about two or
three persons were standing outside the verandah while actually
the accused. were. inflicting knife and spear injuries over the

- victims. Those other individuals remained unidentified. D
According to him, he himself and PWs 1 and 3 were also
armed with lathis but no attempts were made to resist the
accused who are indulging in the acts of assault In the
circumstances, it is doubtful to believe PW 2 to have a'ctually
witnessed the incident and recognized the accused with the E
help of torch lights.

14. PW 3 is one Sonai who stated in his evidence that he
had purchased the house along with Kaldhari (PW 1) from one
Swaminath Chaudhary. He speaks about the presence of Sheo F·
Kumar (PW 2) and one Lal Mani (not examined) and does not
speak about presence of any other person including that of PW
1 at the scene of offence. He also made indefinite allegations
against all th.e accused as inflicting knife and spear blows on
the victims.
G
"', .._
15. It is also required to note that all the eyewitnesses had
stated in their evidence that lantern was burning in the verandah
and Kaldhari (PW 1); Sheo Kumar (PW 2) and Sonai (PW 3)
were having torch lights in their hands and only with the help of
H
1074 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.
.
A the lantern and the torch lights they could recognize and identify
the assailants. The lantern and the torch lights though were
alleged to have been seized vide seizure mahazar Exts. Ka-2
and Ka-3 respectively, were not produced in the Court. The
seizure memos Ext. Ka-2 and Ka-3 did not contain the crime
B number and other recovery particulars. In the circumstances, it .
becomes highly doubtful as to whether'those torch lights and
lantern were actually seized during the course of investigation
by the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer (PW 8) did
not explain as to why the crime number was not noted on Ext
c Ka-2 and Ka-3 and as to why the material objects if at all seized,
were not produced in the Court. The very fact that the lantern
and torch lights were pressed into service for the purpose of
identifying the accused, itself suggests that it was a pitched
dark night during the mid winter and it was not possible to
0 identify the assailants without the aid of lant~rn and torch lights.
It is highly doubtful as to whether PWs 1, 2 and 3 had actually
torch lights in their hands as stated by them, in the absence of
· their recovery details in the seizure memo and their not
production before the Court. Moreover, Kaldhari (PW 1) refused
E tp state as to whether the assailants were covering their faces
with chadar. His evidence does not inspire any confidence.

16. These all are the factors which give rise to doubt in
our minds as to the presence of PWs 2 and 3 at the scene of
offence. The trial Court rightly entertained the doubt and
F accordingly gave the benefit of doubt to the accused. It is a
plausible view taken by the trial Court which could not be held
to be a perverse one. Such a view has been taken by the trial
Court after appreciation of the evidepce. The High Court, in our
considered opinion, ought not \cf~have interfered with the
G judgment of the trial Court merely because there is a possibility
of taking a different view other than the one taken by the trial
Court. The appellant, in our considered opinion, is entitled to
the benefit of doubt. It would be unsafe to convict the accused
on the evidence which is not free from doubts.
H
DURBAL v. STATE OF U.P. 1075
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]

17. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned judgment of A
the High Court is set aside and judgment of the trial Court shall
stand. restored. The appellant is thus acquitted of all the
·charges and his conviction and sentence is accordingly set
aside .. He may be set free forthwith unless otherwise required
in ~my.other case. B

18. TJ;te appeal is allowed accordingly.

. $.B.8. Appeal allowed: