Karua alias Tejpal alias Rajendra and Another vs State of U.P.

Surendra Singh, J.—The challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 30.1.1982 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura, in S.T. No. 43 of 1981 and S.T. No. 140 of 1981 convicting and sentencing the Appellants u/s 396, I.P.C. for the life imprisonment.

Shorn of unnecessary details, briefly stated facts of the case are as follows:

According to the prosecution on 16.12.1980, at about 9.10 p.m, at police station Sahpau, Mathura situated at a distance of one and a half miles to the north of village Nagla Sewa of Dhandhau where the dacoity is alleged to have taken place at about 6.45 p.m. in late morning on the same day, the informant Lakshman Singh lodged a written report (Ex Ka-1) purported to have been scribed by one, Phulwar Singh of Nagla Sewa, P.S. Sahpau, District Mathura.

As gleaned from the F.I.R., on the date of incident in the evening, at about 6.45 p.m., said Lakshman Singh, his father (Sugreev Singh), Dal Chand S/o Than Singh, Ramvir S/o Ram Prasad, Satyavir S/o Pyare Lal and Bachchi S/o Shobha Ram were sitting around the fire in front of the exit of their house, then about seven or eight persons came from the side of the village Dhandhau and surrounded them at once and opened fire in order to frighten them thereupon the informant caught hold Appellant No. 2 who had fired the shot with a Pauna, knocked him on the ground and at the same time Appellant Karua gave a lathi blow on the head of the informant so that Appellant No. 2 (Mahipal Singh) was able to free himself from the clutches of the informant. After having been free, said Mahipal Singh fired another shot at him but unfortunately it struck to Dal Chand in his stomach.

During this incident, it is alleged that the third miscreant struck his father on the latter''s head with the pharsa while the remaining miscreants entered into the house and started looting whereupon the informant and others raised alarm on which one Kaptan Singh S/o Siya Ram ignited the fire behind the house and Ram Swaroop S/o Shobha Ram also ignited the fire below the neem tree in front of the house and thus the sufficient light including the lantern light was provided.

It is further alleged that one Juginder Singh S/o Lal Singh of the village climbed to the roof of the house and started indiscriminate firing from his licensed gun towards the miscreants with the consequence that miscreants lost courage and fled away towards village Dhandhau and during the course of escape from the spot, they fired again causing injury to one Virendra S/o Hukum Singh.

It is further specified that Appellant No. 1, Karua was wearing pant and coat and had a lathi in his hand and others had country made pistols and guns at the time of incident and that Mahipal Singh was wearing a black coat, a white pajama and had a tie on and a muffler around his neck. It has been given out that the miscreants were seen and recognized well in light provided by fire and lantern. It has also been given out that the dacoity lasted for about 20 minutes.

On the basis of the said written report, a formal F.I.R. (Ex Ka-16) was prepared by the then head moharrir Mewa Ram and consequently an entry was made in G.D. at serial No. 28, both contained signatures of Radhey Shyam (P.W. 8). On the basis of formal F.I.R. (Ex Ka-16), a case u/s 395/397, I.P.C. vide Crime No. 192 of 1980 was registered. The injuries sustained by Dal Chand, Virendra, Sugreev Singh and Lakshman Singh were noted and they were sent for treatment and medical examination alongwith concerned ''chiththi majrubi'' accompanied with Constable, Shripal Singh to P.H.C. Sahpau, Mathura. Injured, Dal Chand lost the battle of his life in the mid night of 17.12.1980. Consequently, the offence was altered to Section 396, I.P.C. from Section 395/397, I.P.C. vide G.D. entry (Ex Ka-18).

Sri Durga Prasad Sharma (S.I.) was entrusted to prepare inquest of the dead body of Dal Chand. S.O., Radhey Shyam was given a list of looted articles (Ex Ka-2) by the informant, Lakshman Singh on the spot on the same day in the morning, i.e., 17.12.1980. He recorded the statement of witnesses Lakshman Singh (P.W. 1), Sugreev Singh (P.W. 3), Satyavir (P.W. 4) and Om Prakash (P.W. 5) on 17.12.1980. He made a spot inspection and prepared site plan (Ex Ka-19). He collected samples of ash from two different places material Ex-I from behind the house and material Ex-II from the other places and prepared memo (Ex Ka-20). He collected 14 blank cartridges and 7 wads from the spot and prepared memo (Ex Ka-21) and sealed them (Ex-III to Ex-XVI and XVII to XXIII). He further examined lantern of Sugreev S/o Nihal Singh and found it in order and prepared memo cum supurdginama (Ex Ka-22) and handed it over back to Sugreev. He recognized writing and signatures of S.I. Sri D. P. Sharma on papers concerning inquest report of the dead body of Dal Chand (Ex Ka-7 to Ka-13). Exts. Ka-6 and Ka-14, copy of written F.I.R. apparently sent alongwith other papers at the time of dispatching the dead body for post-mortem examination which were duly received by the medical officer concerned and the genuineness whereof has been admitted.

On completion of investigation and the usual formalities associated therewith, S.O. Sri Radhey Shyam (P.W. 8), the I.O. of the case, submitted the charge-sheets (Ex Ka-25 and Ex Ka-26) against both the Appellants, Karua and Mahipal Singh on 31.12.1980 and 1.3.1981 respectively.

Autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, Dal Chand, was conducted on 17.12.1980 at 4.45 pm by Dr. S. P. Bhatnagar (P.W. 7) who proved the autopsy report as (Ex Ka-10). In his opinion, the deceased was about 40 years of age, having an average built body and had died about one day earlier. As per opinion of the Doctor, rigor mortis was present all over the body of the deceased. The following ante-mortem injury was found on the dead body:

(i) Gun shot wound of entrance multiple 33 in number varying in size from 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. to 1/4 cm. x 1/4 cm. soft tissue and abdominal cavity deep spread over an area 19 cm. x 18 cm. front of abdomen including lower part of chest right side;

(ii) No charring and tattooing present;

(iii) Round metallic pellets recovered from soft tissue.

In the opinion of the autopsy surgeon the death of the deceased was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury mentioned above.

On internal examination, the Doctor found 14 pellets from the dead body. Both the chambers of the deceased were found empty and liver, kidney and intestines were punctured and clotted blood was found. Four ozs semi digested food with blood was found in the stomach in fluid state and its wall was punctured at places through and through. Both small and large intestines were also found punctured.

Dr. Hari Babu Sharma (P.W. 2) is the doctor who has medically examined Virendra, Sugreev Singh and Lakshman Singh.

Relevant and material details of injury reports are mentioned below:

Injury report (Ex Ka-3) of Virendra, aged about 25 years, S/o Hukam Singh, resident of Nagla Sewa, P.S. Sahpau, District Mathura, examined on 16.12.1980, at 9.30 p.m.;

(1) Multiple gun shot wounds (about 9) in area 13 cm. x 8 cm. left side of forehead of scalp in left half of forehead and upper part of left cheek and left parietal region, size 1/4 cm. x 1/4 cm. approximately of each;

(2) Gun shot wound size 1/4 cm. x 1/4 cm. on posterior surface of upper 1/3rd of left arm;

(3) Gun shot wound size 1/4 cm. x 1/4 cm. in supra sternal region.

Injuries are kept under observation, caused by gun shot.

Duration fresh.

Pt. is referred to District Hospital, Mathura for X-ray left side of scalp and left arm and neck A. P. and lateral view and also for treatment.

Injury report (Ex. Ka-4) of Sugreev Singh, aged about 50 years, S/o Nihal Singh, resident of Nagla Sewa, P.S. Sahpau, District Mathura, on 16.12.1980, at 10 p.m.;

(1) I.W. 5.5 cm. x 1/2 cm. x scalp muscle deep on right side of scalp about 8 cms. above the right ear.

Injury report (Ex. Ka-5) of Lakshman Singh, aged about 28 years, S/o Sugreev Singh, resident of Nagla Sewa (Mauza Dhandhau), P.S. Sahpau, District Mathura examined on 27.12.1980, at 6.30 p.m.;

(1) Scabbed wound 1-1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. on left side of scalp about 12 cm. above the left ear.

On the basis of charge-sheets (Ex. Ka-25 and Ex. Ka-26), Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura summoned the Appellants and committed the case to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 43 of 1981 and S.T. No. 140 of 1981 respectively. Since both the session cases have arisen out of the same incident as such both of them were consolidated and tried together, in accordance with law.

Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura, on 13.3.1981 and 6.7.1981 charged the Appellants for the offence u/s 396, I.P.C. Since the Appellants abjured the charge, therefore, the trial proceeded against them.

In order to cement the charge and establish Appellants'' guilt to the hilt, the prosecution in all examined 8 witnesses out of whom, witnesses, Lakshman Singh (P.W. 1), Sugreev Singh (P.W. 3), Satyavir (P.W. 4) and Om Prakash (P.W. 5) were fact witnesses and rest were formal witnesses who included Dr. Hari Babu (P.W. 2) (examined the injured persons), Dr. S. P. Bhatnagar (P.W. 7), Radhey Shyam Singh, S.O. (P.W. 8) and Constable Shreepal (P.W. 6), (who carried the dead body. Surendra Singh (D.W. 1) of village Nagla Sewa and Vinod Kumar (D.W. 2) of village Nagla Mani were also examined by the witness.

The defence of the accused- Appellant was that of denial and false implication in connivance between the police and the informant. The trial court vide its impugned judgment and order after scrutiny of evidence of the witnesses and other material on record, was satisfied that both the accused had committed dacoity with the murder of an innocent person, Dal Chand the deceased and the charge was proved beyond doubt and, therefore, held the Appellants guilty for the offence u/s 396, I.P.C. and convicted them to life imprisonment, which has resulted in the present appeal.

Heard Sri Anand Kumar Srivastava, holding brief of Sri J. N. Chaturvedi, counsel for the Appellants and Sri V. K. Mishra A.G.A. for the State. We have also gone through the evidence and other material placed on record.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants has raised following contentions:

The prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the Appellants beyond reasonable doubt, thus the Appellants are entitled for acquittal;

The F.I.R. of the incident was false, fabricated and ante-timed and lodged in collusion with the police concerned;

The prosecution has not produced any independent witness of the incident rather independent and uninterested witness could have been produced. Thus, the testimony of such witnesses produced in support of the prosecution cannot be relied upon;

There are certain infirmities in the deposition of the witnesses which go to root of the matter and shakes the basic version of the prosecution;

informant Lakshman Singh was medically examined on 27.12.1980. Apparently, the prosecution has produced forged and fabricated evidence to the effect that he received injury during alleged incident;

The case has been initiated against the Appellants due to enmity at the instance of one Charan Singh;

The prosecution has completely failed to consider the defence set up by the Appellants, thus their conviction and sentence is bad in law.

All witnesses of fact have unerringly supported the prosecution case and there is nothing in their statements, which belies the prosecution version. The testimony of these witnesses is of unimpeachable character. There is no merit in the appeal as prosecution has successfully proved the Appellants to be guilty of the murder. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.

The prosecution has placed reliance upon the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses examined during the course of trial as well as documents and material exhibits and reliance was also placed upon the circumstances governing the case.

For adjudicating the correctness of the submission made and judging the guilt or of the innocence of the accused, a synopsized discussion of material evidence of both the prosecution and the defence is necessary.

The harbinger of prosecution evidence were Lakshman Singh (P.W. 1), Sugreev Singh (P.W. 3), Satyavir (P.W. 4) and Om Prakash (P.W. 5). In defence two witnesses have been examined. One was Surendra Singh (D.W. 1) and another was Vinod Kumar (D.W. 2) as mentioned above.

During the trial the informant/injured Lakshman Singh (P.W. 1) besides narrating his allegations contained in the written report (Ex. Ka-1) further testified giving out entire details of the alleged occurrence and proved written report (Ex. Ka-1) and list of the property given by him (Ex. Ka-2). He has further clearly and specifically deposed that he knew the Appellants from before and when he caught hold the Appellant Mahipal Singh, Karua gave him lathi blow on his head and soon after Mahipal Singh fired second shot at him, which hit Dal Chand, who succumbed thereafter to his injuries. It is observed from his cross-examination that defence has not been able to prove to shake his testimony. He further narrated that the report was scribed by one, Phulwar Singh after the dacoits had left the place and that he had signed the same after it was read over to him and the said report was lodged at about 9.10 p.m. on the same day.

Sugreev Singh (P.W. 3) is another witness, who was injured in the incident and who went to the police station alongwith Lakshman Singh (P.W. 1), the informant. He belongs to the family whose house was looted. His presence was natural and most likely. The defence from his cross-examination has not been able to shake his testimony at all and has failed to elicit any material contradiction in his statement from that of P.W. 1.

Satyavir (P.W. 4) is another witness of fact. He was an immediate neighbour named in the F.I.R. and thus the natural and most probable witness. He has fully supported the couple witnesses in all material aspects of the incident, thus his testimony cannot be ignored and discarded.

So far as Om Prakash (P.W. 5) is concerned, he is an independent witness and belongs to village Gadh Anta, P.S. Saidabad, District Mathura. He has given out a reason or explanation for his presence in village Nagla Sewa. Indisputably, his name was not disclosed in the F.I.R., although he is a witness of charge-sheet. He has been examined in corroborative support of the case. He has deposed that he knew the Appellants very well from before and had seen them at the scene of occurrence on the relevant date and time.

However, testimony of Vinod Kumar (D.W. 2) makes to believe regarding his presence at the scene.

Constable Sripal (P.W. 6) is a formal witness. The then S.O. Radhey Shyam (P.W. 8), has stated about the details and manner of the investigation conducted by him.

Sri Hari Babu Sharma (P.W. 2) has also given medical evidence in support of prosecution case. He had medically examined Virendra, Sugreev Singh and Lakshman Singh.

All the formal witnesses have given supportive evidence as referred above. They testified the facts of the prosecution case and they were cross-examined at length but no material has been brought on record to make their testimony suspected and unbelievable.

Another argument by the learned Counsel for the Appellants is that the F.I.R. was false and fabricated and lodged in collusion with the police concerned is wholly unappealing. We reject it outrightly as being wholly unmerited. Ex. Ka-16 shows that the report was lodged at 9.10 p.m. on 16.12.1980 and that the occurrence had taken place at 6.45 pm on the same day. Ex. Ka-16 and Ex. Ka-17 disclose that the distance between the alleged place of occurrence and police station Sahpau was only one and half miles. It is not disputed that a person had lost his life during the alleged occurrence. The formal F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-16) does bear on its top Crime No. 192, u/s 395/397, I.P.C. The said crime of Indian Penal Code also finds place in the copy of the corresponding entry made in G.D. (Ex. Ka-17). (Ex. Ka-17) shows that the informant, Lakshman Singh had gone to lodge the report, he was accompanied with Dal Chand (deceased) and the injured. Ex. Ka-3 and Ex. Ka-4 (Chiththi majrubi) bear Sections 395/397, I.P.C. noted thereon. The injury reports were prepared at 9.30 p.m. and 10 p.m. on the date of the incident and amongst the document prepared earliest. Crime number is also shown in chiththi majrubi at the back of Ex. Ka-3 and Ex. Ka-4. Further Ex. Ka-14 shows that copy of the F.I.R. lodged was sent alongwith papers which reached the medical officer concerned alongwith the dead body. Recital in post-mortem report (Ex. Ka-15) corroborates this fact. Site plan (Ex. Ka-19) also bears crime number and Section 396, I.P.C. The papers (Ex. Ka-6 to Ex. Ka-14) accompanying the dead body are on record. Inquest report (Ex. Ka-7 to Ex. Ka-9), challan nash (Ex. Ka-10), photo nash (Ex. Ka-11) go to show that Crime No. 192, u/s 396, I.P.C. was mentioned therein. The recitals behind the back of the injury reports (Ex. Ka-3 and Ex. Ka-4) and copy of first information report, dated 16.12.1980 showing Crime No. 192, u/s 395/397, I.P.C. was also indicated. Sugreev Singh (P.W. 3) was injured whose injury has been shown as Ex. Ka-17 and he accompanied with Lakshman Singh (informant) reached to the police station concerned at or about 9.15 p.m. and there was no good and sufficient reason as to why statement of this witness in this regard cannot be believed as correct keeping in view of the entire oral and documentary evidence placed on record.

There is virtually no worthwhile evidence showing that either informant, Lakshman Singh and the police concerned had any motive or enmity with the Appellants due to which they have been implicated in the present crime. Even there is no iota of evidence that Charan Singh also reached the police station before or after the F.I.R. was lodged. Satyavir (P.W. 4) was an immediate neighbour named in the F.I.R. and he is natural and most probable witness. Sugreev Singh (P.W. 3) is one of the injured witnesses. He went to the police station alongwith informant Lakshman Singh as he belonged to the family whose house was looted. His presence on the spot cannot be disbelieved. Any omission or minor contradiction on any unimportant facts by him will not be fatal for the prosecution. It is settled law that at any rate any minor inconsistencies regarding details not affecting the real matter in controversy would be of no avail. As far as production of any independent witness is concerned, it cannot be expected that in the late winter evening persons nearby villages to reach on the spot soon after the incident particularly when the firing was involved. Thus, we find that the witnesses cannot be said partial and interested against the accused or under the thumb of police, and/or inimical to the accused because nothing material has been brought and shown on record to warrant any of such inferences discredited their testimony.

To the argument that independent witness and uninterested witnesses could have been produced but were not examined, we would like to point out that the case has to be decided on the evidence of witnesses examined only and the prosecution is free to produce any of the witnesses to whom he thinks fit and proper. The prosecution cannot be compelled to produce some particular witness as pointed out earlier in the instant case on the ground that the witnesses who have been examined, cannot be said to be independent and uninterested witnesses.

So far as the next submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellants that there are certain infirmities in the deposition of the witnesses is concerned only this will be suffice to say that the witnesses have given graphic account of the incident and is convincing and acceptable apart from minor discrepancy.

It would be of no avail as there is neither any material contradiction nor any important omission. At any rate any minor inconsistency regarding details not affecting the real matter in controversy carries no weight. It is established law that over much importance cannot be given to minor discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses, therefore, cannot be annexed with undue importance.

Regarding the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the prosecution has produced forged and fabricated evidence to the effect that Lakshman Singh, the informant has received injuries during the alleged incident. Indisputably, Dal Chand has lost his life during the commission of the dacoity, moreover, the prosecution had nothing much to gain or loose if he had shown injury to himself. The injury sustained by the informant cannot ordinarily be self-inflicted. The fact must not be lost sight of that Ex. Ka-17 copy of corresponding entry made in G.D. entry shows that Lakshman Singh had blood stained injury on his head. Moreover, the delay in medical examination of the informant Lakshman Singh would not reject his credibility.

Apparently, both the Appellants have denied the truth and correctness of the prosecution in their statements recorded u/s 313, Code of the Criminal Procedure and both have categorically stated that they were not at all present at the place given out on the relevant date and time and have claimed that they have been wrongfully and falsely implicated in the present case. They further disclosed that there was enmity between them and some villagers and the report was lodged in collusion with the police concerned by the informant at the instance of one, Charan Singh, resident of village Chobara, who bears enmity towards them. Each of the accused-Appellants stated that earlier to the present case Charan Singh had initiated a case against them for dacoity but it was converted into a case of marpeet and they were charge-sheeted accordingly and it is still pending for disposal. They further pointed out that the said Charan Singh and one, Shiv Charan, both belonged to village Chobara and they suspected that the Appellants had some illicit relationship with the ladies of their family, and that was the reason behind their false implication earlier and inasmuch as the suspicion continued, in order to take revenge from them they have again got them implicated in the instant case in connivance with the informant.

Apart from this, accused- Appellant No. 1, Karua pleaded that his plot as well as those of informant are irrigated from one and the same Kulaba and on account of that the disputes between them often take place as such, that was one more reason why they have been wrongfully and falsely implicated.

In defence as many as two witnesses, namely, Surendra Singh (D.W. 1) of village Nagla Sewa and Vinod Kumar (D.W. 2) of village Nagla Mani, have been examined. Surendra Singh (D.W. 1) had deposed that after the commission of alleged dacoity, some persons from village Chobara, including Charan Singh had reached on the spot and he had told Sugreev Singh and informant Lakshman Singh that on the way he had seen the accused-Appellants, Karua and Mahipal Singh going back after committing dacoity at their house. The deposition of another defence witness, Vinod Kumar (D.W. 2) was recorded on 19.6.1981 and deposed that he was married seven years before and that he was not married again, and that Om Prakash or Khemchand or any other person of village Anta Garhi had never gone to his house with the proposal of his marriage. He further deposed that his wife was alive and, therefore, there was no question of putting any proposal to him for the marriage.

Thus, in a nutshell, the defence put up on behalf of accused- Appellants appear to be that aforesaid Charan Singh and others of village Chobara had reached on the spot after the alleged dacoity and poisoned the minds of the victims of dacoity against accused-Appellants, Karua and Mahipal Singh on account of prior strained relationship between Charan Singh and others of village Chobara. The accused-Appellants and the local police, therefore, got prejudiced and influenced against them at the instance of aforesaid Charan Singh etc. and acted in collusion with the victims of dacoity and got the F.I.R. registered against them. Indisputably, there is no evidence that aforesaid Charan Singh etc. reached the police station. A perusal of the F.I.R. shows not only implication of the accused- Appellants in the present case u/s 396, I.P.C. but it also discloses particular roles said to have been played by them. It is hard to conceive that simply because of minds of the victims of the dacoity having been prejudiced against the accused, the informant would go so far not only to implicate them falsely but would also be so much prejudiced against them so as to attribute particular roles to each of them and also describe in the F.I.R. the clothes worn by them. Even at the instance of the police, the earlier criminal case was initiated against the accused-Appellants u/s 395, I.P.C. and later on it was converted into lesser offence, which transpires that police was not prejudiced against them and if it was so the argument that the police went so far in collusion with the informant while implicating the Appellants in the present case carries no force. However, it is difficult to accept that the police would go to the extent to implicate the Appellants in heinous offence u/s 396, I.P.C.

Now it is necessary to examine whether accused-Appellants had any prior enmity with the concerned local police or not. The record does not show at all that either or both of the accused-Appellants had been challenged and got convicted earlier at the instance of Sahpau police for any serious or heinous offence. The mere fact that the accused-Appellants were challaned in some minor case in the year 1979 would not be any consequence, particularly when it is not shown that they were convicted therein. The defence has failed to show that the Appellants had any enmity with any particular police personnel. Even the defence has not at all put or suggested to any prosecution witnesses regarding any enmity or strained relationship between the Appellants and the informant, Lakshman Singh and others, thus no inference or conclusion that the F.I.R. was lodged later on in consultation or in collusion with the local police implicating the accused-Appellants.

Hence, in the light of the above, the defence set up appears to be false and unappeasable. Apparently, Surendra Singh (D.W. 1) has clearly stated that he did not know Appellants, Karua or Mahipal Singh and cannot say whether they were involved or participated in the dacoity or not. He has stated about the poisoning or prejudicing of mind by Charan Singh, and he has further acknowledged that he had never told anything about it to any one earlier nor had approached higher authorities disclosing the true case thereof so his statement is of no value in this regard. Vinod Kumar (D.W. 2) has been examined to devalue the testimony of Om Prakash (P.W. 5), who had given out a reason or explanation behind his presence in village Nagla Sewa where the dacoity took place but D.W. 2, Vinod Kumar has not supported his version. The assertion of D.W. 2 that he was already married about seven years back and has not remarried, and he had children and his wife is alive goes a long way to cast considerable doubt on the value and credibility of testimony of Om Prakash (P.W. 5). Moreover, during the investigation, Sugreev Singh had named Om Prakash while Lakshman Singh had not disclosed his name. Hence, the trial court has rightly declined to give face value to his testimony.

We have cogitated over rival submissions and in that light have perused the entire record and our findings and conclusions are as follows:

On summation of evidence critically on contentious issue, we find that three fact witnesses P.W. 1, P.W. 3 or the injured witnesses while P.W. 4 is an independent and immediate neighbour named in the F.I.R., have fully supported the prosecution version;

All the formal witnesses have given supporting evidence;

Time, place and date of the incident were not disputed by the defence and, therefore, those facts are proved beyond any pale of doubt;

Inconsistent defence plea does not inspire any confidence. The trial court has rightly ignored to consider the defence set up by the accused;

The accused-Appellants have not been able to prove any enmity with the informant or witnesses and have failed to bring on record any material evidence which is indicative of the fact that the informant or witnesses have any reason to implicate them in the instant heinous crime;

The prosecution has been able to prove and establish the truthfulness and correctness of the facts and make out guilt of the accused- Appellants to the hilt and bring home charge against them beyond shadow of reasonable doubt.

On an over all consideration, the intrinsic merit of the evidence in the instant case, was clearly indicative of the guilt of the accused-Appellants.

The appeal lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed. Both the Appellants, Karua alias Tej Pal alias Rajendra and Mahipal Singh are on bail. Their bail is cancelled. The C.J.M., Mathura shall cause the Appellants to be arrested and lodged in jail to serve out the sentence.