Ajay Gain vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Both the appeals are being heard together, as the common thread passes through the issue.

The present appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) are arising out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2021 passed by the Special Judge under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘Special Act’), Raipur, Chhattisgarh in Special Criminal Case No.12 of 2019.

Criminal Appeal No.525 of 2021 is preferred by Ajay Gain and Criminal Appeal No.614 of 2021 is preferred by Jaswant Patel. Both the appellants/accused have been convicted and sentenced as under :-

Conviction Sentence

U/s 365/34 of Indian Penal : Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years

Code, 1860 and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of

payment of fine amount, further

rigorous imprisonment for 1

month.

U/s 354B/34 of Indian : Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years

Penal Code, 1860 and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of

3

payment of fine amount, further

rigorous imprisonment for 1

month.

U/s 376 of Indian Penal : Rigorous imprisonment for 10

Code, 1860 years and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in

default of payment of fine amount,

further rigorous imprisonment for 6

months.

U/s 323/34 of Indian Penal : Rigorous imprisonment for 3

Code, 1860 months and fine of Rs.500/-, in

default of payment of fine amount,

further rigorous imprisonment for 1

month.

U/s 506(2) of Indian Penal : Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year.

Code, 1860

U/s 394/34 of Indian Penal : Rigorous imprisonment for 10

Code, 1860 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in

default of payment of fine amount,

further rigorous imprisonment for 1

month.

U/s 66-E of the Information : Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years

Technology Act, 2000 and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of

payment of fine amount, further

rigorous imprisonment for 6

months.

U/s 3(1)(e) of the : Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years

Scheduled Castes and and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of

Scheduled Tribes payment of fine amount, further

(Prevention of Atrocities) rigorous imprisonment for 1

Act, 1989 month.

U/s 3(1)(w)(i) of the : Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years

Scheduled Castes and and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of

Scheduled Tribes payment of fine amount, further

(Prevention of Atrocities) rigorous imprisonment for 1

Act, 1989 month.

4

U/s 3(2)(v) of the : Imprisonment for life and fine of

Scheduled Castes and Rs.500/-, in default of payment of

Scheduled Tribes fine amount, further rigorous

(Prevention of Atrocities) imprisonment for 1 month.

Act, 1989

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 05.02.2019, at about 8.00 PM., when the prosecutrix was going from City Centre Mall (Raipur) towards her home after completing her job, the appellants/accused, namely, Ajay Gain and Jaswant Patel reached the place of incident on a white colour Innova Car and forcefully dragged the prosecutrix into the Car. They abused her and also assaulted her with hands and fists. They took her to some unknown deserted place where they removed the clothes of the prosecutrix and penetrated their fingers in her private part and made her obscene video and photographs. They have snatched the mobile phone of the prosecutrix and threatened her to kill, if she disclosed about the incident to anyone. After committing the crime, the appellants/accused persons left the prosecutrix on the road.

It is further case of the prosecution that when the prosecutrix reached to her home, she did not disclose the incident to anyone and on the very next day, i.e., on 06.02.2019, she informed about the incident to her brother-in-law, namely, Dinesh Joshi (PW-8). After consultation with the family members, she made a written complaint (Ex.P/1) against the appellants before the Police Station Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. On the basis of written complaint (Ex.P/1), the Police lodged First Information Report (Ex.P/2) against the appellants/accused bearing FIR No.13 of 2019 at Police Station Devendra Nagar, District Raipur. Thereafter, wheels of investigation started running, in which, prosecutrix was sent for medical examination vide Ex.P/4 and property seizure memo were prepared vide Ex.P/6 to Ex.P/8. Statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded vide Ex.P/9. Appellant- Ajay Gain was sent for medical examination vide Ex.P/11 and appellant- Jaswant Patel was sent for medical examination vide Ex.P/12. Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P/ 18 & Ex.P/28, respectively. Clothes and vaginal swab of the prosecutrix were sent for chemical examination and FSL report in this regard was obtained vide Ex.P/15. One Oppo mobile phone was seized from the possession of appellant- Jashwant Patel and one Redmi mobile phone and one Samsung mobile phone were seized from the possession of appellant- Ajay Gain. Thereafter, appellant- Jashwant Patel was arrested vide Ex.P/16 and appellant- Ajay Gain was arrested vide Ex.P/24. After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.

In order to establish the guilt of the appellants/accused, prosecution has examined 12 witnesses and exhibited 30 documents, whereas the appellants in support of their defence have neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.

Statement of the appellants/accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which, they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case.

After hearing the parties, the trial Court by judgment impugned, has convicted and sentenced the appellants/accused persons as mentioned in paragraph-3 of the judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants/accused submits as under :-

· there is contradiction in the statement of the prosecutrix as on the statement before the Magistrate, she stated that the appellants had committed forceful sexual intercourse with her, whereas in the complaint as well as in the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., she had not made any such statement;

· as per statement of Dr. Rajni Chourasiya (PW-12), no internal or external injury have been found on the body as well as private part of the prosecutrix and there is no sign  of forceful sexual intercourse or sexual violence with her;

· no original caste certificate has been seized from the possession of the prosecutrix and even the same has not been exhibited before the learned trial Court;

· learned trial Court has not considered the fact that the prosecutrix and appellants known to each other from very long time and they are having love relationship with each other;

· learned trial Court failed to consider that there are hardly any reliable evidence to warrant the conviction of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts;

· learned trial Court has erred in passing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellants without any legal evidence in the case and whole judgment disclosing the fact that the findings arrived in the judgment are based on inferences and conjunctures and suspicion not allowed to be prevailed by passing the judgment in criminal trial;

· there is nothing on record to establish that as to what was the source of information and how the police came to know about the incident and hence, the entire prosecution case is doubtful;

· due to non-production of original caste certificate of the prosecutrix, conviction of the appellants under Section 3(2)(v) of the Special Act cannot be sustained; and

· whole findings of the trial Court against the appellants are imaginary and unjustified, which deserves to be set-aside.

On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent/State would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court after considering all incriminating materials and circumstances available against the appellants/accused persons has rightly convicted them for the offences, they have charged. Hence, the instant criminal appeals are bereft of merits and liable to be dismissed looking into the commission of offence done by the appellants/accused persons.

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

Amongst the witnesses examined by the prosecution, the prosecutrix (PW-1) is the most important witness being the victim. According to the report (Ex.P/11) given by Dr. Virendra Kumar Jha (PW-2) of appellant- Ajay Gain and report (Ex.P/12) given by Dr. P.K. Gupta (PW-3) after examining the appellant-Jaswant Patel, both the appellants were found capable of performing sexual intercourse.

Shailendra Singh (PW-4) is the Director and partner of Excellent Tour and Travels, who had been appointed appellant- Ajay Gain as a driver in his company. He, while confirming the certificate (Ex.P/13) given to the police stated that on the date of incident, i.e., 05.02.2019, white colour Innova Car bearing registration number CG-04/M/9417 was given to the appellant- Ajay Gain.

Rekha Borgharia, Sub-Inspector (PW-5) has deposed that on the basis of written complaint (Ex.P/1), First Information Report (Ex.P/2) was lodged against the appellants/accused persons.

Dinesh Joshi (PW-8), brother-in-law of the prosecutrix, who has deposed that the prosecutrix has narrated the incident to him and he went to the Police Station with the prosecutrix for lodging written complaint.

Kamlesh Tiwari (PW-10), Patwari prepared the spot map (Ex.P/29). Ramesh Markam (PW-9) Inspector seized caste certificate of the prosecutrix (Article A-1) vide Ex.P/8 as also seized Samsung mobile phone from the appellant- Ajay Gain regarding video and prepared panchnama vide Ex.P/28. Abhishek Maheshwari (PW-11) Additional Superintendent of Police asked to take supplementary statements of witnesses after adding sections of the Special Act. Dr. R. Sirmour (PW-6) had certified the FSL report (Ex.P/15). Dr. Rajni Chourasia (PW-12) had prepared the report (Ex.P/14) after examining the victim. The rest of the investigation had been done by Menjas Lakra (PW-7) Assistant Sub-Inspector.

On the basis of the objections raised by the appellants/accused persons in the case, it would be appropriate to start the discussion of evidence from the statement of the prosecutrix, who has been examined as PW-1.

Prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated that she used to work with the appellant- Jaswant Patel at City Center Mall, Raipur. She further deposed that she knew the appellant- Ajay Gain as he is the friend of appellant- Jaswant Patel and he used to visit with appellant- Jaswant Patel to City Center Mall. The appellants knew that the prosecutrix belongs to Scheduled Caste category. The caste certificate of prosecutrix has been seized under Article A-1-C vide Ex.P/8, according to which, the prosecutrix being Satnami belongs to Scheduled Caste category. The statement of prosecutrix has not been rebutted in the cross-examination.

From the above, it has been clear that the prosecutrix belongs to Scheduled Caste category and this fact was very well known to the appellants.

Prosecutrix (PW-1) has deposed in his evidence that on the date of incident, i.e., on 05.02.2019, at 08.00 pm, when she was going towards the main road after working at City Center Mall and reached near Sirock Hotel, at that point of time, two persons came on a white coloured Innova car, one of whom, pulled her and made her sit in the back seat of the car. Later on, she noticed that the person who was sitting with her is the appellant-Jaswant Patel. The car was being driven by appellant- Ajay Gain, who abused her and taken to unknown place, where they forcibly took off her clothes by holding her hands and feet, tore her T-shirt, beat her with hands and fists on her cheek and back etc. Appellant- Jaswant Patel was strangulated her and threatened her to kill if she tried to escape. Appellant- Ajay Gain pulled her hair. Both the appellants inserted their fingers in her private part, due to which, she was crying profusely and forbaded the appellants from doing so. Despite which, appellants did not agree and were doing dirty acts with her. The appellants took her out from the car after stripping her naked and made a video of her. The appellants had also threatened to kill her if she discloses the incident to anyone or went to the Police Station for lodging the report. The appellants had also threatened for getting the video viral stating that they would defame her in Raipur city and her village. The appellants made videos from their mobiles and snatched her MI Company mobile as also took photographs of her in nude condition. The appellants had pressed her breast during the incident. After the said incident, the appellants left her in the Car at Saddu Chowk at around 12.00 midnight and threatened her by stating that if she would tell anyone about the incident, they would kill her and make the video viral.

Prosecutrix (PW-1) has lodged written complaint (Ex.P/1) and on the basis of which, First Information Report (Ex.P/2) was registered against the appellants/accused persons on the very next date. Looking to the averments narrated by her in the Court, proper evidence regarding the crime, for which appellants were convicted and punished has come in the statement of prosecutrix.

After amendment in Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short ‘IPC’), act has been termed as rape, under which if any part is inserted in the private part of the victim. In the instant case, prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated that the appellants inserted fingers in her private part. Thus, the essential ingredient of offence punishable under Section 375 of IPC is made out.

In cross-examination of the prosecutrix (PW-1), some suggestions have been given from the side of the appellants, which confirms the case of prosecution against the appellants themselves. The cross-examination of prosecutrix on behalf of appellant- Ajay Gain suggested that she had sat in the Innova Car of her own free will and kept her purse inside the Car. Though this suggestion had been denied by the prosecutrix, but it lends credence to the fact that she was taken in the Innova Car. She further admitted that there is crowd in front of City Center Mall and shops were open. But, it had also been clarified that when she was dragged and made to sit in the Car, she shouted. She stated that because of the door of the Car was closed, her voice could not go outside and nobody heard her voice, as such, nobody rescued her on the spot.

On behalf of the appellant- Jaswant Patel, it has been suggested to the prosecutrix in her cross-examination that she used to chat with the appellant- Jaswant Patel on mobile through WhatsApp, which has been denied by the prosecutrix. She denied the suggestion that she had ever expressed her love to Jaswant Patel in WhatsApp chatting. She further denied that she had left the City Center Mall with appellant- Ajay Gain. She also denied that she herself was sitting in the Car of Ajay Gain near Sumit shop located near the mall. She lastly denied that the appellant-Jaswant Patel has followed her.

From the above analysis, statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) is being confirmed by the suggestions of the appellants themselves that both the appellants had taken the prosecutrix in the Car.

In the cross-examination of the prosecutrix (PW-1) on behalf of the appellant Jaswant Patel, a question had been raised that she was not wearing T-shirt when she was dropped back at Saddu Chowk in the night. In this regard, prosecutrix had clarified that she wore T-shirt like inner inside of the uniform, which she wears while on duty and inner T-shirt was torn by the appellant- Ajay Gain, as such, she was wearing only upper T-shirt of the uniform. Hence, the case of the prosecution as well as statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) had been strengthened by the suggestions given on behalf of the appellants themselves.

On behalf of appellant- Jaswant Patel suggesting the prosecutrix in her cross-examination, she stated that she does not knew that 36 seconds nude video of her and appellant- Ajay Gain, in which she was covering her face to hide her identity, was seized by the Police or not, but she has stated that the appellants had made her video as also clicked nude photographs of her. She also stated that she was defending herself at the time of photography and videography. The said photographs prepared and presented by the Police have been numbered as Article A-2 and kept in the record, panchnama of which has also been prepared.

The observation of the trial Court with regard to the first photograph that in the said photograph, hairs of the prosecutrix were disheveled and the same was being taken in nude condition, covering her private part with both her hands and she looked scared in the photograph. In the second photograph, her hands have been pulled by force, which reflects her defence, whereas, in the defence, it has been stated by the appellants that the photographs were taken with her permission, which has been denied by the prosecutrix. Thus, the fact that photographs presented on record were not taken by the appellants has not come in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix (PW-1).

In paragraph-20 of cross-examination of the prosecutrix (PW-1), on being suggested by the appellant- Jaswant Patel, she admitted that appellant- Jaswant Patel forced her to sit in the Car near Hotel Sirock. It has also been suggested that she had taken a loan of Rs.5,000/- and she called him for returning the said amount, which was denied by the prosecutrix.

In view of above, there is no suggestion on the part of the appellant- Jaswant Patel that he did not accompany the prosecutrix (PW-1) on the secluded place to coerce her.

Similarly, the case of the prosecution has also strengthen in the cross-examination conducted by the appellant- Ajay Gain. In paragraph-30 of the cross-examination, prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated that she used to talk to the appellant- Ajay Gain on mobile before the incident. She stated that appellant- Ajay Gain used to harass her by calling her repeatedly. The prosecutrix had denied the suggestion that she knew Room No.152 of a hotel at Mana, Raipur. She further denied that she had ever gone to watch a movie with appellant- Ajay Gain and stayed in a hotel or restaurant. She further stated that she had never expressed her love upon appellant- Ajay Gain. She used to receive WhatsApp messages from appellant- Ajay Gain, but she did not reply, rather blocked them. She admitted that she called the appellant- Ajay Gain from the mobile phone of the appellant- Jaswant Patel at the instance of Police in the Police Station. Likewise, it has been repeatedly suggested by appellant- Ajay Gain that he was in love with the prosecutrix.

From the above, it is clear that the appellant- Ajay Gain was well known and acquainted with the prosecutrix (PW-1).

Prosecutrix (PW-1) had denied the suggestion of the appellant-Ajay Gain that she has gone for walk with him and voluntarily making obscene photos and videos on her own will with the appellant- Ajay Gain. The prosecutrix had clarified that she had suffered back injury, but at the time of medical examination, she did not disclose the fact of back injury to the doctor by thinking that only genitals were examined.

The prosecutrix had further denied the suggestion of the appellant- Ajay Gain that she was borrowing money from Ajay Gain and calling him on the spot to return it. She denied that she herself gave away her mobile phone to the appellant- Ajay Gain to repay the loan amount. It is pertinent to mention that both the appellants have taken a defence that prosecutrix had borrowed money from them and called them to return the said amount. But, no details have been given regarding the loan amount. The said fact was denied by the prosecutrix. Thus, the appellants themselves have corroborated the version of prosecutrix by their own suggestions that they went with the prosecutrix.

Ongoing through the complete statement of the prosecutrix herself (PW-1), she remained firm and unrebutted.

The statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) has been corroborated by Dinesh Joshi (PW-8), brother-in-law, who stated in his evidence that the incident was informed by the prosecutrix to him and the same facts have been deposed by him in the Court statement. All these developments are confirmed by a written complaint (Ex.P/1).

The medical examination of the prosecutrix (PW-1) revealed that her hymen was intact and no internal or external injury was found on her body. The defence of the appellants on this point was that the alleged incident did not take place as the statement of the prosecutrix had not been corroborated with the medical evidence. In this context, if we looked at the decision of conviction and sentence in question, the trial Court had relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Preetam reported in AIR 2018 SC 4212, B.C. Deva alias Dyava v. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 12 SCC 122, Ram Singh alias Chhaju v. State of H.P. reported in AIR 2010 SC (Supp) 594, Utpal Das & Anr. v. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 2010 SC 1894, State of U.P. v. Chhoteylal reported in AIR 2011 SC 697, Balwant Singh and Others v. State of Punjab reported in 1987 CRI.L.J. 971, Aman Kumar and Another v. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2004 SC 1497 and Mahesh Kumar and Another v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1998 CRI.L.J. 1597.

In the aforementioned case laws, it has been held that if there is no injury on the body of the victim/prosecutrix, it cannot be inferred that she has been a consenting party or no sexual intercourse had been committed with her. It has also been held that entire case of the prosecution cannot be termed as unreliable merely on the basis of non-finding of injury upon the body of the victim/prosecutrix.

In the light of above precedents, the trial Court does not find any legal error in concluding that the rape has been committed by the appellants.

On the basis of statement made by the prosecutrix (PW-1) in the Court, the trial Court has not found it to be credible for offence of rape, in which the prosecutrix had stated that both the appellants had committed rape with her by inserting their genitals in her vulva. This fact neither mentioned in the statement made by the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. (Ex.P/9) nor mentioned in the Written complaint (Ex.P/1) or in the statement given by the prosecutrix before the Police. As such, the point of rape by penetration is not accepted and proved. The trial Court has held the offence of rape proved by the appellants under the insertion of their finger in her private part as finger insertion was also mentioned in the report as well as statement. Hence, in the light of the above precedents, no error of law is reflected in the conviction of the appellants under Section 375 of the IPC.

The Court statement of the prosecutrix has been important for conviction of the appellants. Along with this, suggestions given by the appellants themselves in cross-examination have also played an important role in strengthening their statements.

The written report of the incident has been lodged at 5.00 p.m. on the next day, which is a reasonable time. In crimes related to harassment of women, it is a natural fact for women to report only after consultation with their family members. In the instant case, the prosecutrix used to live with her relatives and it seems appropriate to report after consultation with her relatives. If the incident is of night time, it is reported on the second day, then there is no such delay in lodging the written report.

Shailendra Singh (PW-4), who is Director and partner of Excellent Tour and Travels, has admitted the fact that on the date of incident, appellant- Ajay Gain had left in a white coloured Innova vehicle. The said fact has not been disputed by the appellants also. Therefore, statement of Shailendra Singh (PW4) gives strength to the events narrated by the prosecutrix.

Receipt of mobile (Ex.P/26) purchased by the prosecutrix has been seized by Assistant Sub-Inspector, Menjas Lakda (PW-7) vide Ex.P/7. The said receipt is on the name of Dinesh Joshi (PW-8). Dinesh Joshi had stated that he buy the mobile phone and give it to the prosecutrix.

According to the statement of Menjas Lakda (PW-7) after taking statement of appellant- Ajay Gain on 07.02.2019, he had prepared memorandum statement (Ex.P/21), in which appellant-Ajay Gain stated to keep the looted mobile phone of MI company. Thereafter, he prepared seizure of other articles vide Ex.P/22. The crime of robbery is also confirmed by the seizure of mobile phone from appellant- Ajay Gain.

Menjas Lakda (PW-7) Assistant Sub-Inspector has stated that he made panchanama of the video and photograph (Article A-2) made in the mobile of appellant- Jaswant Patel vide Ex.P/18, which has been confirmed by the statement of Dinesh Joshi (PW-8). The statement of prosecutrix (PW-1) is being corroborated by the photograph (Article A-2), which was taken in a nude condition, in which she was not only looking scared but also hiding her private part with both her hands. In the second photograph, her photograph was forcibly taken by pulling her hands. These photographs are also corroborated with the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1).

In view of the above discussion, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants under Sections 365/34, 354B/34, 376, 323/34, 506(2) and 394/34 of IPC. Similarly, no error is reflected in the conviction of the appellants by the trial Court under Section 66-E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short ‘IT Act’).

Describing the conviction and sentence under three Sections of the Special Act as erroneous, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the prosecution has not proved the intention of the appellants. Therefore, conviction of the appellants under the Special Act is not maintainable. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment of Asharfi v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2018) 1 SCC 742 to buttress his submissions.

It is an important fact that in case of Asharfi (supra), the incident was happened in the month of December, 1995, after which amendment had been taken place in the Special Act. In the instant case, the incident occurred on 05.12.2019, which is after amendment.

In Asharfi's case (supra), conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the Special Act was not upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Before amendment, the provision of Section 3(2)(v) of the Special Act is reproduced below for easy reference:-

“(v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property [on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member], shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine”

After amendment, present provision is as follows:-

“(v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property [knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member], shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine”

It is reflected that after amendment in Section 3(2)(v) of the Special Act in the month of January, 2016, it is sufficient to establish the prosecution that the accused who does not belong to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, was aware that the victim/prosecutrix with whom the crime is being committed, belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

In the instant case, the incident occurred on 05.02.2019, which was after amendment in the Special Act. It has been proved from the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and caste certificate submitted by her being Satnami, she belongs to Scheduled Caste category. The appellants have claimed love affair with the prosecutrix, as such, the appellants were already acquainted with the prosecutrix and knew that she belongs to Scheduled Caste community, being a Satnami, committed aforesaid offences with her.

For the forgoing reasons, the provisions of the Special Act are attracted. The conviction of the appellants by the trial Court under the provisions of Special Act is not found to be unjustified and the appellant do not get the benefit of Asharfi’s case (supra).

Considering the matter in its entirety, the contention made by the appellants is not found acceptable. The finding arrived at by the trial Court is based on clear and reliable evidence, which does not require any interference.

In the result, both the appeals sans merit, are liable to be and are hereby dismissed.