Bir Singh & anr. vs State of J & K

J.P. Singh, J.—This appeal is directed against judgment dated 17.04.2003 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramban, convicting

appellant Bir Singh under Sections 376, 366 and 342/34 of the Ranbir Penal Code and second appellant Budhi Singh under Sections 366, 342/34

of the Ranbir Penal Code as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentencing appellant Bir Singh to five years rigorous imprisonment under

Section 376 of the Ranbir Penal Code, five years under Section 366 of the Ranbir Penal Code and one year under Section 342 of the Ranbir

Penal Code, besides a fine of Rs. 2.000/ (Rupees two thousand) and second appellant Budhi Singh to rigorous imprisonment for five years under

Section 366 of the Ranbir Penal Code, one year under Section 342/34 of the Ranbir Penal Code and three years under Section 27 of the Arms

Act, besides a fine of Rs. 2.000/ (Rupees two thousand). In terms of the judgment, the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

Facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be summarized thus.

One Phoola Singh presented a written application to the Station House Officer, Ramban, wherein he had stated that he had gone to Kastigarh,

Doda, to one of his relations in connection with bereavement in the family, when he learnt that M/s. Bir Singh, Jabodi Singh, Mangal Singh sons of

Anant Ram, Budhi Singh son of Paras Ram and Ms. Thooga daughter of Satoti R/o Ghadhi, Tehsil Ramban, had entered his house on 04.06.2000

at about 10.00 p.m. and had besides taking away the ornaments and cash worth Rs. 1350/ lying in the wooden box in the house, forcibly taken

away his minor daughter Prosecutrix 'A', aged 16 years, on gun point. The report further says that the appellants were armed with guns, whereas

others had lathies. The wife of Phoola Singh tried to raise alarm but Jabodi gagged her mouth and Budhi Singh aimed gun at her. His aged brother

was in the house at that time but could not come to the rescue of the family because of his old age.

F.I.R. No. 48/2000 was registered on this report on 09.06.2000 at 10 o'clock. After the registration of F.I.R., Police went in search of

prosecutrix 'A and succeeded in recovering her on 16.06.2000 from a cave in a jungle at Hadwal.

The case was investigated and final police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was, accordingly, filed by SHO, Police

Station Ramban, before the Magistrate arraying the two appellants as accused for the commission of offences under Sections 366, 376, 342,

382/34 R.P.C. besides Section 3/27 of the Arms Act.

Appellant Bir Singh was charged under Sections 366, 376, 342, 382/34 R.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act, whereas second appellant Budhi Singh

under Sections 366, 109, 34/382 R.P.C. and under Section 27 of the Arms Act on 15.01.2001.

The prosecution examined nine witnesses. All the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to the

appellants/accused, who after denying these circumstances and taking the stand of complete denial of the occurrence examined three witnesses in

defence.

PW I, Phoola Singh, the complainant, stated that prosecutrix 'A, aged 16 years, was his daughter. He had gone to Kastigarh, Doda, when the

appellants, armed with lathies entered his house, broke open the box took away cash and kidnapped his daughter. According to this witness, his

daughter was recovered by the Police on 16.6.2000 from a cave in the Jungle from appellant Bir Singh. He proved the recovery memo exhibit PC

and seizure memo regarding recovery of currency notes from the possession of appellant Bir Singh, exhibited as EXPD. In his cross examination

he states that he had gone to the house of Hushiar Singh at Kastigarh, whose sister had died and had been informed by his son about the

occurrence at Kastigarh. He further stated that he had reached Ramban on June 07, 2000 and had lodged report of occurrence in Police Station

on 7th or 8th' June 2000. He further states that occurrence had been narrated to him by his wife. According to him Police had recovered his

daughter from a jungle, which was at a distance of 5 kilometers from his house.

P.W. 2, Kamlo Devi, mother of the prosecutrix 'A, states that on the day of occurrence she and her daughter were preparing for going to bed in

the kitchen of their house, when the accused/appellants entered the house and second appellant threatened her with a gun when first appellant

opened the box and took away cash amounting to Rs. 1350/. She further states that the first appellant kidnapped her daughter and second

appellant threatened and prevented her from raising alarm. Her husband had gone to Kastigarh on the day of occurrence and had returned home

23 days after the occurrence, when she had narrated him about the occurrence. In her crossexamination she states that she had narrated the

occurrence to her brotherinlaw Tara Singh. According to her the second appellant had gagged her mouth. On the day of occurrence her

daughterinlaw had gone to her parental home. She says that she had not told her husband that appellant had committed theft of the ornaments.

P.W. 3, Tara Singh, says that appellants/accused had kidnapped prosecutrix 'A' at gun point, when he was asleep in the ground floor of his house

and on hearing noise had came out of the room to see that the accused/appellants had taking away the prosecutrix 'A'. In cross examination this

witness stated that he had seen the accused taking away the prosecutrix 'A', but due to his old age he could not catch hold of them. This witness

says that the son of the complainant, Tabiat Singh, and his wife were not present in the house on the day of occurrence. He further stated that the

complainant had come back to his house 23 days after the occurrence and had enquired about the occurrence from his wife, whereafter he had

gone to the Police Station to lodge the report. He says that the appellants/accused had not taken away ornaments but had taken only cash.

P. W. 4, Sunita Devi, says that she was asleep along with her four sisters in a room and their mother and prosecutrix 'A' were asleep in the kitchen.

She had heard the noise but somebody had locked their door from outside and when her mother opened the door, she informed her that the

appellants/accused had kidnapped prosecutrix 'A'. In her crossexamination, she says that her uncle was sleeping in the ground floor of the house

and her brother and his wife were also not present at the time of occurrence.

P.W. 5, Santosha, states that she and her other sisters and brothers were asleep in a room of their house and their mother and prosecutrix 'A' were

asleep in another room. She says that when she came out of the room it was dark and the prosecutrix 'A' was not there. She had been kidnapped

by the accused. In her crossexamination, she stated that her sisterinlaw had gone to someone else's house on the day of occurrence and his brother

had gone to the house of his uncle. She says that she had not seen the appellants/accused on the day of occurrence.

P.W. 9, Prosecutrix 'A', states that the appellants/accused entered her house armed with rifles and Bir Singh appellant broke open the box and

took away some cash out of it and she later come to know that a sum of Rs. 1350/ had been taken away by the appellants. According to this

witness her other brothers and sisters were asleep in another room, which had been locked from outside. She says that Bir Singh caught her by her

wrist and told her mother not to raise alarm. According to this witness, her uncle had not reached when she was taken away. Appellants had taken

her to the house of appellant Bir Singh whereafter second appellant Budhi Singh had left. She says that during the night appellant Bir Singh slept

with her and committed rape against her will. She was confined in a 'Kothari' for a day and thereafter taken to a cave where also appellant Bir

Singh used to commit rape and this process continued for a period of 12 days. Second appellant Budhi Singh used to bring food for them in the

cave and according to this witness she had been tied with a rope in the cave, when police came and recovered her. She was medically examined

and she had shown the injuries received by her to the Doctor. Her statement was recorded in the Court at Batote. She had identified the clothes,

which she was wearing when the police had recovered her. In her crossexamination she states that the Police had recovered her from the cave 12

days after the occurrence. She had been kept in the cave for seven days. According to her she did not know the appellant Bir Singh prior to the

occurrence. She had been confined in a room and could not raise alarm because she was afraid of the gun. Her mother did not know the appellant

prior to the occurrence. She denied the suggestion of the accused that she had gone with the accused according to her own will and states that she

was not willing to marry appellant Bir Singh.

P.W. 11 Emam Din, has not supported the prosecution and the contents of recovery memo EXPC. He denied of having stated that the prosecutrix

'A' had been recovered from a cave.

P.W. 12, Smt. Harish Parihar, the Doctor, has examined the prosecutrix and issued certificate EXPM. According to her there were abrasions on

the left buttock and thighs of the prosecutrix. She states that the hymen was torn and the tags of ruptured hymen were seen. She has opined the

age of prosecutrix on the report of Radiologist as 20 years. The clothes had been sent for examination, which revealed the presence of human

semen and spermatozoa. According to her opinion, the prosecutrix had been subjected to sexual intercourse though there was no evidence of

intercourse within 72 hours. The injuries found on the person of prosecutrix were simple in nature and caused by some blunt object like stick. In

her crossexamination, she states that the prosecutrix appeared to be habitual to sexual intercourse.

P.W. 13, Investigating Police Officer, has proved the documents prepared during the course of investigation which include recovery memo

regarding recovery of the prosecutrix, recovery of currency notes from appellant Bir Singh and recovery of .303 rifle from second appellant Budhi

Singh, besides the wearing apparel of the prosecutrix. According to this witness, house of the complainant's family was about (15) fifteen

kilometers away from the place of recovery of the prosecutrix.

D.W. 1, Bhag Chand, states that he knows the complainant, who had four daughters. The prosecutrix has been married and she had not been

kidnapped by anybody nor had he heard about kidnapping. It was after the arrest of the accused, when he came to know that the complainant had

filed a criminal case against him. The accused had appeared in the criminal case against the complainant and it was because of that the complainant

had filed this criminal case against the appellants. In crossexamination this witness stated that second appellant Budhi Singh was a member of

Village Defence Committee and he had been allotted a gun by the State Government. According to this witness appellant Bir Singh is a Special

Police Officer (S.P.O).

D.W. 2, Punjab Singh, says that the accused had not kidnapped the daughter of the complainant. He further says that appellant Bir Singh had

appeared as a witness in a criminal case against the complainant and it was because of that the first informant had filed this case against the

appellants. In cross examination he stated that in a case pertaining to the murder of one Tulsi Dass, appellant Bir Singh had appeared as witness.

According to this witness appellants/accused were arrested by the Police.

D.W. 3, Panju Ram, states that the daughter of the complainant had not been kidnapped by any person nor he had heard anything about the

kidnapping of the daughter of the complainant. In cross examination he states that appellant Bir Singh is his relation and he was an S.P.O. and

second appellant Budhi Singh was a member of Village Defence Committee. Police had recovered a rifle from the accused which had been given

to him as member of the Village Defence Committee. This witness has further stated that accused had brought him to the Court for evidence.

On the basis of aforesaid evidence learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramban, held that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case and,

accordingly, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment.

The finding returned by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramban, reads, thus:

It is the case of the prosecution that prosecutrix was kidnapped by the accused at gun point from her house when her father had gone to Village

Kastigarh, Doda in connection with the death of his relation. After kidnapping, the accused took her to different places and wrongfully confined her

in the house of 1st accused and then in the jungle in a cave. It is further case of the prosecution that first accused committed rape with prosecutrix

several times against her will during the period she was wrongfully confined. According to the prosecution case the accused also committed theft of

cash and ornaments from the house of the complainant. Coming to the evidence in the case the complainant while reiterating his earlier version in

the Court has stated that he had gone to Kastigarh, Doda in connection with the death of his relation when the accused came armed with a gun and

after having forced their entry into his house committed theft of cash and ornaments kept in a box. It is in his statement that accused also kidnapped

his daughter at a gun point after threatening his wife, P.W. 2. The statement of the complainant is corroborated by his wife. P.W. 2 who has stated

that she and her daughter Swarna Devi P.W. 9 were preparing for going to sleep when the accused entered their house, the second accused

holding a rifle on her chest and first accused broke open a box and took from it cash amounting to Rs. 1350/. It is in her statement that first

accused caught hold of her daughter and when she tried to raise an alarm she was threatened with the gun. She has further stated that her husband

had gone to Kastigarh and returned home after three days and she narrated whole of the occurrence to him. The further corroboration to the

statement of P.W. 1 & 2 is received from P.W. 4 & 5 the daughters of the complainant. According to P.W. 4, she was sleeping with her other

sisters in a room of her house and her mother and other sister, the prosecutrix, was asleep in the kitchen room of their house, when she heard the

noise she came out of the room, when her mother told her that accused had kidnapped the prosecutrix. To the same effect is the statement of P.W.

5 the other daughter of the complainant who also has stated that accused had kidnapped her sister and she was recovered by the police after 12

days. The prosecutrix P.W. 9 has also stated that the accused having rifles entered their house at 10 o'clock in the night and the first accused

broke open the wooden box and took out some cash from it. She has further stated that first accused caught hold of her by her wrist and told her

mother and threatened her mother that if she raised an alarm she will be killed. It is in her statement that she was taken to the house of first accused

after the kidnapping. All these witnesses have been crossexamined by the counsel for the accused but nothing has come out from their

crossexamination to scredit their testimony.

Coming to the evidence of the prosecutrix P.W. 9 as regards the offence of rape, she was kidnapped at gun point and she was frightened.

According to her from her home the accused took her to the house of 1st accused. While reiterating her earlier version in the Court she has further

stated that she was dragged to the house of 1st accused after threatening her mother and was subjected to rape by 1st accused during the night.

The narration made by her in the Court about she having been taken in the jungle in a cave where she was confined for seven days and has been

subjected rape by 1st accused several times is also reiteration of her earlier version. That a part I also get corroboration from medical evidence.

The Doctor P.W. 12 recorded a positive finding that prosecutrix has been sexually assaulted. The Doctor has further recorded that no

spermatozoa was noticed in the vaginal smear. Absence of dead or alive spermatozoa either in the vagina or in the cervix of the prosecutrix does

not rule out a possibility of the prosecutrix having been subjected to sexual intercourse as alleged by the prosecution. In AIR 1990 Supreme Court

658 relying upon medical evidence, the Apex Court observed that:

Spermatozoa can be found if women is examined within twelve hours, after intercourse, thereafter they may be found between forty eight and

seventy two hours but in dead form. If the prosecutrix washes herself by than the spermatozoa may not be found. Otherwise also the presence or

the absence of spermatozoa is ascertained for the purpose of corroboration of the statement of the prosecutrix. If the prosecutrix is believed to be

truthful witness in her deposition no further corroboration may be insisted. Corroboration is admittedly only a rule of prudence.

On 19.6.2000 the 'Shalwar' of the prosecutrix EXP1 was taken into possession. It was sealed. This fact has not been disputed by the accused

persons. It was sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jammu, and on its examination report was received which showed the

presence of semen. The medical report specifying the injuries on the person of the prosecutrix has proved and established the struggle and

resistance shown by her at the time of commission of the offence of rape. The Doctor has noted the following injuries on the person of prosecutrix;

Abraisions (abrasions) on the left buttock and thigh.

These injuries were sufficient to lend corroboration to the testimony of the prosecutrix particularly when no motive is attributed to her for falsely

involving the first accused in the commission of the crime. The prosecutrix in her cross examination denied even the suggestion that she had

accompanied the accused according to her own will and she has stated that accused had forcibly kidnapped her. She has also denied that she was

willing to marry 1st accused. During the course of his argument the learned counsel for the accused could not point out to the existence of any

motive for falsely implicating the accused. Further corroboration to the statement of the prosecutrix is to be found from her earlier version recorded

by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Batote on 22.6.2000 under section 164 Cr.P.C.

The learned counsel appearing for the accused attempted to point out some discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix and other witnesses

for discrediting the prosecution version. Minor discrepancies will not make the prosecution case doubtful. The normal course of human conduct

would be that while narrating a particular incidence there may occur minor discrepancies such discrepancies in law may render credential to the

depositions. Parrot like statements are disfavoured by the Courts.

According to the complainant the accused while kidnapping his daughter have also taken away the cash of Rupees 1350/ and some ornaments. It

is in his statements that his wife P. W. 2 had told him that accused have also committed theft of ornaments. This statement is contradicted by P.W.

2 who has stated that accused had not committed theft of the ornaments. According to her 1st accused had taken away the cash out of the box.

P.W. 9 has stated that 1st accused had broke open the box and had taken out cash from it. P.Ws 4 and 5 have stated nothing about the theft of

the ornaments and the cash. The two statements of the husband and wife with regard to the theft are mutually conflicting.

It is not disputed that second accused is the member of the Village Defence Committee and has been provided a 303 Rifle by the Government for

guarding the Village and its inhabitants against the militant attacks, but the second accused has used the arm for unlawful purpose i.e for aiding 1st

accused in the kidnapping of the prosecutrix.

The defence version put forth by the accused appears to be an after thought. It is negative in character. The three witnesses D.W. 1, 2 and 3

examined by the accused has stated before the Court that the prosecutrix, the daughter of the complainant was not kidnapped by the accused.

They have further stated that the case against the accused has been concocted because 1st accused has appeared as a witness against the

complainant in some murder case. But D. W. 2 has thrown the defence of the accused to the winds by stating that the present complainant is not

an accused in that case in which the 1st accused has appeared as a witness.

The evidence of the prosecutrix and her mother corroborated by other evidence on the record shows that she has kidnapped by the accused at a

gun point in the presence and seeing of her mother P.W. 2 and wrongfully confined in the house of 1st accused and then in the jungle in a cave for

12 days whereafter she was recovered by the Police under the custody of the 1st accused.

Shri J.S. Kotwal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants/accused, submitted that there was delay in lodging the F.I.R. by the

complainant on the basis whereof the prosecution story could not be believed. Learned counsel submits that in view of the statement of PW 12 Dr.

Harish Parihar, the prosecution story cannot be accepted. According to the learned counsel the injuries on the person of the prosecutrix had been

found by the Doctor to have been caused by some blunt object like a stick, which injuries could not according to the learned counsel be caused to

the prosecutrix in case of forcible abduction. Learned senior counsel further submitted that nonpresence of dead or alive spermatozoa and opinion

of the Doctor that the prosecutrix was habitual to sexual intercourse belied the story of kidnapping and rape.

Lastly learned senior counsel submitted that the prosecutrix had made a contradictory statement in another case where she was a witness in the

murder case, when she had stated that she had not been kidnapped by one Bir Singh. This, according, to the learned senior counsel was sufficient

to discredit the prosecution story.

Shri Ajit Singh Dogra, learned Deputy Advocate General, on the other hand, while supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the

prosecution has succeeded in proving its case by producing evidence of such witnesses, whose presence on spot could not have been doubted and

who were the natural witnesses, because their presence in the house, when the occurrence had taken place, was but natural. He further submitted

that the medical evidence supports the prosecution version and there is nothing in the medical evidence on the basis whereof the prosecution story

would become unbelievable.

Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that the delay in lodging the FIR stands sufficiently explained by the prosecution by saying that the

occurrence had been reported to the father of the prosecutrix who had gone to his relation's house in connection with the bereavement in the family

and had to travel a long distance in coming home, getting information about the incident and thereafter travelling further distance on foot to reach

the Police Station for lodging the report.

Learned Deputy Advocate General further submits that the prosecution evidence is natural and the trial Court has acted in accordance with the

law in placing reliance on this evidence to convict the appellants/accused.

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, gone through the statements of the witnesses as also the documents, which

were admitted in evidence during the trial of the case.

All the prosecution witnesses, who could have witnessed the forcible entry of the appellants/accused into their house at night, have been

examined by the prosecution. These witnesses namely Kamla Devi, the mother of the prosecutrix, Tara Singh, uncle of the prosecutrix, Santosha,

sister of the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix herself, have in one voice stated that appellants/accused Bir Singh and Budhi Singh had made their

forcible entry into their house after 10.00 p.m., when they were armed with guns. These witnesses testify that the appellants forced their entry in the

house and had at gun point abducted the prosecutrix, who was preparing to go to bed with her mother in the kitchen of their house. The

crossexamination of these witnesses does not indicate any infirmity in the statements of these witnesses. No material has been brought on records

by the appellants/accused on the basis whereof the statements of these witnesses, who were occupants of the house from where the prosecutrix

had been abducted, could be doubted.

PW Tara Singh, uncle of the prosecutrix, has supported the kidnapping of prosecutrix by saying that it was because of his old age that he could

not come to the rescue of the prosecutrix.

I, therefore, do not find any thing on records to disagree with the factual finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramban, that the

appellants/accused were the persons who had abducted the prosecutrix from her house, when she was under the care and protection of her

parents.

So far as the prosecution story regarding commission of rape by appellant No. 1 is concerned, the prosecution had relied upon the statement

of the prosecutrix and the medical evidence. The prosecutrix has in unequivocal terms deposed about her confinement by appellant Bir Singh for

one day in his house and thereafter in a far of cave in a jungle, where he would, against the consent of the prosecutrix, commit sexual intercourse

with her. Second appellant Budhi Singh had been providing all needed support to appellant Bir Singh, so as to help him in his nefarious act of

abducting and raping a helpless woman by confining her in a jungle for more than a week. Injuries on the buttock and thighs of the prosecutrix,

testified to be so by the medical evidence, amply demonstrate the trauma faced by the kidnapped lady at the hands of the appellants.

The investigating police officer, had succeeded in recovering the prosecutrix from the illegal custody of appellant Bir Singh, who had kept her

confined in a cave located in the jungle stated to be about (15) fifteen kilometers away from the house of the prosecutrix.

It has come into defence evidence that both the appellants/accused were possessing arms, which had been provided to one of them by the

Government as Member of Village Defence Committee and to the other because of his capacity as Special Police Officer. The weapons had been

given to these two persons for safeguarding the interests of the public against the threat of militants. These two appellants/accused have taken

undue advantage of the weapons supplied to them and have used these weapons in abducting and raping a helpless woman at gun point.

Finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the appellant Bir Singh was guilty of rape, abduction and wrongful confinement and

second appellant Budhi Singh was guilty of abduction, wrongful confinement and unlawful use of the anus, is supported by abundant evidence on

records.

Submission of Shri Kotwal that evidence of PW12 Dr. Harish Parihar,negatives the story of rape, is not supported by the material placed on

records by the prosecution.

Perusal of the statement of the Doctor indicates that she had in categorical terms stated that the victim had been subjected to sexual intercourse,

though there was no evidence of intercourse within 0 to 72 hours from the date of occurrence.

Shri Kotwal, therefore, cannot seek any help from the statement of Doctor.

I have minutely examined the statement of the prosecutrix and do not find any material on the basis whereof the same could be held to be

suffering from any infirmity. Statement of the prosecutrix is supported by the medical evidence besides other evidence, which the prosecution had

brought on records. The recovery of the prosecutrix from the cave in the jungle, supported by fresh injuries on her person, lends credence of her

version and I do not find any plausible reason to disbelieve the statement of the prosecutrix.

I do not find any substance in the submission of Sh. Kotwal that the prosecution had not explained the delay in filing the FIR. Delay in filing

FIR no doubt puts the Court on guard in appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses but, this by itself, would not be sufficient to discard

the prosecution story.

Delay in filing the FIR in the present case has been sufficiently explained by the father of the prosecutrix and no attempt has been made by the

defence to discredit the version of the father of the prosecutrix, which explains the delay in lodging the FIR because of his having gone to attend a

bereavement in the family of his relation, wherefrom he had to come back to his place to know about the occurrence and thereafter to proceed on

foot to the Police Station for lodging the report as to the abduction of her daughter by the appellants/accused. The Police Station as it so appears

from the FIR is recorded to be at a distance of about (30) thirty kilometers from the place of occurrence and the place of occurrence is not

connected by any motorable road and in that view of the matter, the delay stands properly explained by the prosecution.

I do not find any substance in the submission of Sh. Kotwal that the prosecutrix has denied about abduction in her subsequent statement

recorded in the case of her husband's murder because neither has this alleged statement been brought on the records of the trial Court nor does the

law permit reliance on any such evidence stated to have been made in a case other than the one where trial of the appellants had been conducted.

Appellants having failed to put the alleged subsequent statement to the prosecutrix for her explanation during all these years, cannot rely on the

alleged subsequent statement to belie the prosecution story which stands sufficiently proved by the prosecution evidence.

For all what has been stated above, I do not find any merit in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed.

Appellants/accused namely Bir Singh and Budhi Singh, were admitted to bail, during the currency of this appeal vide order dated 10.6.2003.

Order passed in Cr.M.P. No. 101/2003 granting concession of bail to the appellants is withdrawn and they shall surrender to custody forthwith for

undergoing the remaining sentence awarded to them by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramban.

Judgment impugned in the appeal is, accordingly, upheld.

This, accordingly, disposes of Cr. Appeal No. 6A/2003 and Cr.M.P. No. 101/2003.