Neksey And Another vs State Of U.P

Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, J

Heard Sri S.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Akhilendra Singh, learned counsel for the appellants; Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A.-Ist for the State and perused the judgment and material on record of the Trial Court.

This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants-Neksey and Lakhan Singh, against the judgment and order dated 23.07.1990 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Etawah in Sessions Trial No. 223 of 1989 (State vs. Neksey and Another), arising out of Case Crime No. 91 of 1989, under Sections 307 and 302 IPC, registered at Police Station Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah.

Prosecution story as revealed from the written report (Exhibit Ka-1) is that informant Mulayam Singh (PW-1), a resident of village Nagla Chhand, Police Station Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah has got ascribed a written report (Exhibit Ka-1) by Ram Prakash and lodged the same at Police Station Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah, stating therein that my father had retired 6-7 years ago and had purchased 5 bighas of land in the village, which was in the name of my uncle (Neksey) and my father (Munna Lal). My dau-Ram Dularey (the elder brother of my father) was not named in the land. My father and uncle were sowing the land and this year there was wheat crop. After the wheat crop was harvested, my dau-Ram Dularey asked for a share in this land, then my father said that take an equal share in wheat crop of this land, upon this my uncle Neksey Lal said that I will not give any share, do whatever you want to do. Today I was talking with my dau regarding this matter that give us Rs. 3500/- and take equal share in the land, and my father was also sitting near us in front of the door, then at about 9 o'clock in the day my uncle Neksey came carrying a kanta and Neksey's son Lakhan Singh came carrying a knife and said that finish him today, he asks for share in the land. My uncle Neksey caught hold of my father and Lakhan Singh, with intention to kill, stabbed a knife in the abdomen due to which my father's intestines came out. This incident was seen by my dau, my mother and the villagers.

On the basis of the written report (Exhibit Ka-1), Daljeet Singh (PW-7), who was posted as Head Moharrir, registered the first information report, (Exhibit Ka-3), against the named accused persons (present appellants) at Police Station Jaswant Nagar on 21.05.1989 at 11:15 AM, under Section 307 IPC.

After registration of the first information report against accused appellants- Neksey and Lakhan Singh, investigation of the case was handed over to S.I. Kalyan Singh (PW-8). Investigating Officer, Kalyan Singh (PW-8) inspected the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of prosecution witnesses, and prepared the site plan (Exhibit Ka-12) of the place of occurrence.

Injured Munna Lal was taken to the District Hospital, Etawah for medical examination and treatment. At the hospital, his injury report was prepared and his statement was recorded. During treatment at the District Hospital, Etawah, the injured Munna Lal passed away on 28.05.1989. Due to the death of the injured Munna Lal, the case was converted from Section 307 IPC to Section 302 IPC, and the investigation of the case was taken up by S.H.O. Rama Shankar Singh (PW-6).

Sub Inspector, Hira Lal Sharma (PW-7) prepared the Panchayatnama (Exhibit Ka-8), of the deceased Munna Lal, along with other necessary police papers such as Challannash (Exhibit Ka-9); Photonash (Exhibit Ka-10) and the letter to the C.M.O. (Exhibit Ka-11). After completing the proceedings of the Panchayatnama, the dead body of the deceased Munna Lal was sent for post-mortem examination.

Initially, injured Munna Lal was taken to the District Hospital at Etawah, where his injury report (Exhibit Ka-6), was prepared by Dr. S.C. Gupta (PW-5). According to the injury report of Munna Lal, the following injuries were found on his body:

"(i) Stab wound on lower part & abdomen in middle 2.0 cm x 0.6 cm x Abdominal cavity deep. Margin everted. 3.0 cm below umbilicus. Fresh blood present on surface. Loops of intestine present on surface."

Dr. S.C. Gupta (PW-5) opined that the above injury is caused by sharp and pointed object.

After the death of Munna Lal at District Hospital, Etawah, Dr. B.L. Bisariya (PW-4) conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased. According to the post-mortem report (Exhibit Ka-5), the following ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased, Munna Lal:-

"(i) Stitched wound of 10 cm on the right side of abdomen 1 cm apart from umbilicus.

(ii) Stitched wound of 1 cm on the left illiac region."

According to Dr. B.L. Bisariya (PW-4), injured Munna Lal died due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of above ante-mortem injuries.

Upon completion of all necessary formalities, the second investigating officer, Rama Shankar Singh (PW-6), submitted a charge-sheet, marked as Exhibit Ka-7, against the accused-appellants under Sections 307 and 302 of the IPC in the concerned Magistrate Court having jurisdiction. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. The Trial Court framed charges against the accused-appellant, Neksey, under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC on 06.10.1989. Charges were also framed against the accused-appellant, Lakhan Singh, by the Trial Court under Section 302 IPC on 06.10.1989. Both accused-appellants denied the charges and claimed trial.

In support of its case, the prosecution produced informant Mulayam Singh (PW-1) and Smt. Shyam Devi (PW-2) as witnesses of fact. Further, Daljeet Singh (PW-3), Dr. B.L. Bisariya (PW-4), Dr. S.C. Gupta (PW-5), Rama Shankar Singh (PW-6), Hira Lal Sharma (PW-7) and Kalyan Singh (PW-8) were adduced as formal witnesses. Apart from the above witnesses, Dr. R.A. Goyal was examined as a court witness (CW-1). In addition to the oral evidence, the prosecution also relied upon documentary evidence from Exhibit Ka-1 to Exhibit Ka-12.

The accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and in their statements recorded thereunder, they denied all questions put to them and stated that they were falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. Accused appellant Neksey has stated that Munna Lal instructed us not to buy the 2.5 bigha land, but we did not comply with that instruction and purchased the land because we had paucity of land. This sale was done through a registered sale deed. I and Munna Lal had given Rs 8,000/- separately to Sharda Devi, wife of Kalyan Singh, before the Registrar. Due to this reason, they falsely implicated us so that they could take possession of the land. Accused appellant Lakhan Singh has stated that being the son of Neksey, he was falsely implicated in this case. Accused appellants have also stated that they will adduce defence witnesses in their support. Accused appellants adduced Ram Dularey as DW-1 and Kitab Singh as DW-2 in support of their case.

The Trial Court, after recording the evidence of the prosecution as well as the defence, heard the arguments of both sides. After hearing the arguments, the learned Trial Court found the accused appellants guilty of the murder of the deceased Munna Lal. Accordingly, the Trial Court convicted accused appellant Neksey and sentenced him to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and accused appellant Lakhan Singh was also convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order dated 23.07.1990 passed by the Trial Court, the accused appellants have preferred this criminal appeal before this Court.

Learned counsel for the accused appellants submitted that the eyewitnesses of the prosecution, namely, informant Mulayam Singh (PW-1), who is the son of the deceased Munna Lal, and Smt. Shyam Devi (PW-2), who is the wife of the deceased, are closely related to the deceased. It was contended that they are family members and highly interested witnesses. There is no independent eyewitness in this case who could corroborate the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2. Since both witnesses are highly interested and related to the deceased, their evidence cannot be safely relied upon for conviction in a heinous crime like murder. Learned counsel further argued that several contradictions, omissions, and exaggerations are present in their evidence. It was further submitted that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity, with the purpose of grabbing the 2.5 bigha land of accused appellant Neksey. However, the Trial Court has not considered these legal facts in its judgment. The Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in a proper and legal manner. The findings and reasoning recorded by the Trial Court are not based on cogent and unimpeachable evidence.

In view of the above, learned counsel for the accused appellants submitted that the present criminal appeal has merit and deserves to be allowed. Therefore, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.07.1990 is liable to be set aside.

Per contra, the learned AGA for the State respondent submitted that this is a case of direct evidence. Informant Mulayam Singh (PW-1) and Smt. Shyam Devi (PW-2) are eyewitnesses to the incident, having witnessed the alleged occurrence with their own eyes as it happened in their presence. Informant Mulayam Singh (PW-1) and Smt. Shyam Devi (PW-2) were present at the place of occurrence when the accused appellants attacked and killed the deceased Munna Lal on 21.05.1989 at 9:00 AM. The learned Trial Court found the evidence of informant Mulayam Singh (PW-1) and Smt. Shyam Devi (PW-2) to be reliable and trustworthy. Hence, relying on the evidence of these eyewitnesses, the Trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellants for the commission of the alleged crime. There are no major and material discrepancies in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. The Trial Court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and in a legal manner. Therefore, the criminal appeal filed by the accused appellants is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be rejected.

In the light of the above arguments and counter arguments of respective parties, we have perused the written report (Exhibit Ka-1) and the evidence of informant Mulayam Singh (PW-1) and Smt. Shyam Devi (PW-2). From perusal of the written report (Exhibit Ka-1), it is revealed that the accused appellant Neksey, who is the younger brother of the deceased Munna Lal and Lakhan Singh, son of the accused appellant Naksey, without any cause or reason and with the intention to kill Munna Lal, abruptly came to the place of occurrence. The accused appellant Neksey caught hold of the deceased Munna Lal from the back, and the accused appellant Lakhan Singh stabbed the knife in the abdomen of Munna Lal. We find that this incident happened on 21.05.1989 at 9:00 AM and the report was lodged at the concerned police station without any delay on 21.05.1989 at 11:15 AM itself. Thus, it appears that the informant Mulayam Singh (PW-1), without any delay, consideration, or afterthought, lodged the first information report naming the accused persons (present appellants) in the written report (Exhibit Ka-1) for the commission of the alleged crime. Thus, the written report has been filed in this case promptly without any delay.

From perusal of the evidence of eyewitnesses, informant Mulayam Singh (PW-1) and Smt. Shyam Devi (PW-2), it is revealed that the deceased Munna Lal had three brothers. The eldest brother was Ram Dularey, followed by the deceased Munna Lal himself, and the youngest brother was the accused appellant Neksey. The deceased Munna Lal was an army man and after his retirement from military service, when he returned to his village, he purchased 5 bighas of land in his own name and in the name of accused Neksey through a registered sale deed. Both the deceased Munna Lal and the accused appellant Neksey were land owners. Following this purchase of five bighas of land, a dispute regarding the share of the said land arose between Munna Lal and his brother Neksey. Ram Dularey, the elder brother, also wanted a share in this land and insisted that his name be included in the ownership. On the day of occurrence, a discussion on this issue was ongoing between the informant Mulayam Singh, his father (the deceased Munna Lal), and Ram Dularey. Mulayam Singh (PW-1) stated that they should persuade uncle Neksey to deliver Rs. 3,500/- to them, after which Ram Dularey's share would be included. On this point, Neksey stated that he would not give any share and they could do whatever they like.

From perusal of the evidence of Mulayam Singh (PW-1) and Smt. Shyam Devi (PW-2), it is further revealed that thereafter Neksey came armed with a kanta and Lakhan Singh came with a knife. Neksey caught hold of Munna Lal from behind and Lakhan Singh assaulted him with the knife in the abdomen, causing the intestine of Munna Lal to come out of the abdomen. Thereafter, Neksey and Lakhan fled from the spot. Informant Mulayam Singh (PW-1) arranged a buffalo cart and the injured Munna Lal was taken to the District Hospital, Etawah, where his injury report (Exhibit Ka-6) was prepared. However, Munna Lal succumbed to his injuries on 28.05.1989 at the District Hospital, Etawah, during the course of treatment.

From perusal of the evidence of Mulayam Singh (PW-1) and Smt. Shyam Devi (PW-2), it appears that these two prosecution witnesses were present at the place of occurrence when the interaction was going on between Mulayam Singh, Ram Dularey and accused appellant Neksey. This incident happened at 9:00 AM in broad daylight in front of the house of the informant. From perusal of the site plan (Exhibit Ka-12), it is revealed that the houses of the informant Mulayam Singh and the accused persons are situated on the western side in the same line, adjoining each other. The occurrence happened at the mark 'X', which is in front of the house of Mulayam Singh.

From perusal of the evidence of informant Mulayam Singh, PW-1, and Smt. Shyam Devi, PW-2, we find that without any provocation from the deceased Munna Lal, accused appellants have killed Munna Lal. Evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 reveals that both the eyewitnesses have stated the happening of the incident in a natural way and simple words, without any exaggeration, embellishment or improvements. Naturality and simplicity in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 show that these two witnesses have stated whatever has been seen by these witnesses with their own eyes. Presence of PW-1 and PW-2 at the place of occurrence would not be doubted on any ground because it was 9:00 AM in the morning and the houses of the informant and accused appellants are situated on the same line, adjoining to one another. Although the defence, on behalf of the accused appellants, cross-examined PW-1 and PW-2 at length, however, in a lengthy cross-examination, the defence could not be able to create any evidence by which the testimonies of these witnesses could be doubted and disbelieved. We find no major and material discrepancy, contradiction, and improvement in the evidence of informant Mulayam Singh (PW-1) and Smt. Shyam Devi (PW-2). It is natural that in the evidence of any witness, minor contradictions and omissions are likely to emerge. However, we find no major and material contradictions, omissions, or improvements in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brahm Swaroop and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh; 2011 (6) SCC, 288 has held in para-32:

"32. It is a settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the prosecution's case, may not prompt the Court to reject the evidence in its entirety. "Irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions." Difference in some minor details, which does not otherwise affect the core of the prosecution case, even if present, would not itself prompt the court to reject the evidence on minor variations and discrepancies. After exercising care and caution and sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the court comes to a conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witnesses. As the mental capabilities of a human being cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details, minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of witnesses."

Thus, in the light of the law as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brahm Swaroop (Supra), it is clear that minor omissions, contradictions, embellishments, and exaggerations would not be material enough to cast any doubt on the veracity and credibility of the evidence of eyewitnesses. In view of the above, we find no force in the arguments of learned counsel for the accused-appellants advanced in this respect.

Although we find that eyewitnesses, informant Mulayam Singh (PW-1) and Smt. Shyam Devi (PW-2), are family members and closely related to the deceased Munna Lal (informant Mulayam Singh being the son and Smt. Shyam Devi being the wife of the deceased) but we cannot doubt their evidence solely on this ground. The presence of these two witnesses in front of their house at the time of the occurrence, where the accused-appellants committed the offence, is natural. They have narrated the prosecution story in a very simple and natural way, without any artificiality or concoction. There is no rule of law that the evidence of family members or related witnesses must be rejected merely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased. The only requirement of law in such cases is that the evidence requires deep scrutiny and careful appreciation by the Court.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and Another; (1981) 2 SCC 752, has held on interested and related witnesses in para-7:-

"7. As mentioned above the High Court has declined to rely on the evidence of P.W. 1 on two grounds: (1) she was a "highly interested" witness because she "is the wife of the deceased", and (2) there were discrepancies in her evidence. With respect, in our opinion, both the grounds are invalid. For, in the circumstances of the case, she was the only and most natural witness; she was the only person present in the hut with the deceased at the time of the occurrence, and the only person who saw the occurrence. True, it is she is the wife of the deceased; but she cannot be called an 'interested' witness. She is related to the deceased. 'Related' is not equivalent to 'interested'. A witness may be called 'interested' only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be 'interested'. In the instant case P.W. 1 had no interest in protecting the real culprit, and falsely implicating the respondents."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sucha Singh and Another v. State of Punjab; (2003) 7 SCC 643, has held in para-3 that:-

"13. .................................... Relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible."

In the light of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Kalki (Supra) and Sucha Singh (Supra), we find that in the present case, although informant Mulayam Singh (PW-1) and Smt. Shyam Devi (PW-2) are closely related to the deceased Munna Lal, however, on perusal of their testimonies, we find that their testimonies are reliable and creditworthy. No material contradictions or omissions have been brought on record in their cross-examination. Only because an eyewitness is a member of the deceased's family, per se, the evidence of such a witness cannot be discarded. If the evidence of an eyewitness who is a close relative of the deceased is cogent, reliable, and creditworthy, it can always be relied upon. Regarding the role of the accused-appellants, evidence of informant Mulayam Singh (PW-1) and Smt. Shyam Devi (PW-2) is consistent too. The same has ascribed a clear role to accused-appellant Neksey, who caught hold of the deceased Munna Lal from behind, thereby facilitating the accused Lakhan Singh to assault with a knife in the abdomen of Munna Lal. Accused-appellant Lakhan Singh thus got an opportunity to assault with a knife at the abdomen of Munna Lal. In this way, informant Mulayam Singh (PW-1) and Smt. Shyam Devi (PW-2) have ascribed a clear role played by the accused-appellants Neksey and Lakhan Singh in the commission of the crime. Thus, we find the testimonies and evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 wholly reliable, trustworthy, and inspiring confidence. In the light of the above discussions, we find no force in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants in this respect.

From perusal of the record, we find that the first investigating officer, Kalyan Singh, has not collect blood-stained and simple soil from the place of occurrence. He also did not try to recover or take into possession the knife (the murder weapon) used by the accused-appellant Lakhan Singh in the commission of the alleged crime. However, in our considered view, the prosecution cannot get any benefit on the ground of such laches and lacunae on the part of the investigating officer, because the investigating officer does not work under the control or supervision of the informant/complainant of any case. It was the duty of the investigating officer to recover the knife (the murder weapon) from the possession of the accused-appellant Lakhan Singh. However, the investigating officer was unable to perform his duty in accordance with the law as required from him in an investigation like murder.

From perusal of the injury report (Exhibit Ka-6), it is clear that one stab wound on the lower side of the abdomen in the middle was caused by accused-appellant Lakhan Singh by assaulting with a knife. Prosecution witnesses have also stated that accused-appellant Lakhan Singh assaulted on the abdomen of the deceased Munna Lal with a knife, due to which his intestine came out of the abdomen. When injured Munna Lal was under treatment to save his life, he was admitted in District Hospital, Etawah, where he was operated upon. Dr. R.A. Goyal (CW-1) has confirmed this fact in his evidence that he on 21.05.1989 operated upon Munna Lal, and his bed head ticket number was 1709. This witness has stated that after operation when the abdomen was being sealed, before that, he attached a rubber drain in the abdomen from the sides of injury so that dirty blood and pus could easily come out of the abdomen. Due to this reason, injury number 2, which was noted by Dr. B.L. Bisariya (PW-4) in the post-mortem report (Exhibit Ka-5), was shown as Injury No. 2. However, on the abdomen of deceased Munna Lal, only one injury of a stab wound was caused by accused-appellant Lakhan Singh by assaulting with a knife. Thus, we find that there is no contradiction in the injury report (Exhibit Ka-6) and the post-mortem report (Exhibit Ka-5) of the deceased Munna Lal, because it is clear that only one stab wound injury was caused and found on the abdomen of the deceased Munna Lal. Injury No. 2, as shown in the post-mortem report (Exhibit Ka-5) of the deceased Munna Lal, is due to the operation in his abdomen for easing the flow of dirty blood and pus, as a rubber drain had been inserted by Doctor R.A. Goyal (CW-1) in his abdomen. Thus, we find that there is no difference or contradiction in the injury report (Exhibit Ka-6) and the post-mortem report (Exhibit Ka-5) of deceased Munna Lal. Hence, in the light of the above discussions, the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants are not sustainable in the eyes of law.

From a perusal of the evidence of eyewitnesses, namely, Informant Mulayam Singh (PW-1) and Smt. Shyam Devi (PW-2), we find that according to the testimonies of these witnesses, appellant Neksey and appellant Lakhan Singh arrived at the place of occurrence as the houses of the appellants were adjoining to the house of the informant. Appellant Neksey, from the backside, caught hold of the deceased Munna Lal with pre-planning and premeditation, so that accused-appellant Lakhan Singh could easily assault the deceased with a knife on his abdomen, leaving him with no opportunity to defend himself. The specific role played by the accused-appellants in committing the crime clearly indicates that both of them came to the place of occurrence with prior planning, premeditation, and with prior concert with the intention to kill the deceased Munna Lal. In execution of their pre-arranged plan and with a prior meeting of minds, accused-appellant Neksey caught hold of the deceased Munna Lal from behind. Capitalizing on this opportunity, accused-appellant Lakhan Singh, in furtherance of the said plan, dealt a knife blow with immense force and gravity, causing a severe stab injury due to which the intestines of the deceased Munna Lal came out of his body. The manner and mode adopted by the accused-appellants during the commission of the offence is a clear manifestation of their intention to kill Munna Lal with pre-planning.

We have also gone through and examined the defence evidence of Ram Dularey (DW-1) and Kitab Singh (DW-2). From their evidence, it appears that these witnesses were produced by the accused-appellants with a view to create doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution story. On considering and appreciating their evidence, it is clear that these witnesses were examined to save the accused-appellants from punishment for the alleged crime. In view of the direct evidence given by the prosecution eyewitnesses, namely, the informant Mulayam Singh (PW-1) and Smt. Shyam Devi (PW-2), the evidence of Ram Dularey (DW-1) and Kitab Singh (DW-2) is not relevant. Their evidence does not appear to be truthful, credible, or trustworthy. Therefore, we find that the evidence of Ram Dularey (DW-1) and Kitab Singh (DW-2) is unreliable and liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the accused-appellants cannot derive any benefit from their evidence.

Thus, we find that the learned Trial Court has rightly, and in accordance with the settled principles of law, held accused-appellant Neksey guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and accused-appellant Lakhan Singh guilty under Section 302 IPC. We have also perused the impugned judgment and order dated 23.07.1990 passed by the learned Trial Court. Upon examination of the findings and reasoning recorded therein, it is evident that the Trial Court has meticulously appreciated the entire evidence on record in its proper and legal perspective. The Trial Court has rightly placed reliance upon the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, namely, the informant Mulayam Singh (PW-1) and Shyam Devi (PW-2), after finding them wholly reliable and trustworthy. Since the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are founded upon cogent, credible and reliable evidence, we do not find any illegality, perversity, or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. Consequently, no ground is made out warranting interference with the well-reasoned and well-discussed judgment and order passed by the court below.

Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.07.1990 passed by the learned Trial Court is liable to be affirmed, and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants in this regard are devoid of force. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the appeal preferred by the accused-appellants lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 23.07.1990 passed by the learned Trial Court is hereby affirmed and the instant criminal appeal stands dismissed.

The accused-appellants, Neksey and Lakhan Singh, were on bail, however, during the pendency of the appeal, they failed to appear before the Court either personally or through counsel. Consequently, Non-Bailable Warrants were issued against them, pursuant to which they were arrested and remanded to jail custody. At present, the accused-appellants are in jail. They are directed to serve out the remaining sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 23.07.1990.

Let a copy of this judgment and order be transmitted forthwith to the learned Trial Court along with the Lower Court Record, as well as to the concerned jail authorities, for necessary compliance.