Prem Singh vs State of H.P.

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

1.The instant appeal, stands directed, by the accused/convict, against, the judgment rendered by the learned Special Judge, Chamba Division, District

Chamba, H.P. in Sessions Trial 24 of 2014, whereby, he returned findings of conviction, against, the accused/convict, in, respect of charges framed

under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The learned trial Court, proceeded to hence, sentenced him to

undergo rigorous imprisonment, for four years, and, to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/-, and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous

imprisonment for a period of six months.

The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that on 24.1.2014, HC Virender Singh (PW-11), investigating officer, SIU, Chamba along with

HHC Mohammad Aslam (PW-1), constable Sunil Kumar (PW-2) and Constable Sanjay Kumar was on Nakabandi and traffic checking duty at

Kandu towards Banikhet. At about 4.05 PM, when the police party was checking the vehicles, a taxi Sumo No HP 01C-1101 came from the side of

Banikhet. It was signaled to be stopped. HC Virender Singh had then checked the documents of the vehicle. At that time, the accused came walking

from the side of Banikhet, wearing a shawl. He was holding a carry bag in his right hand. He on seeing the police party got scared and had tried to run

back. A suspicion arose and then the accused was apprehended. On inquiry, he divulged his name as Prem Singh son of Sh. Chand Ram. Head

Constable Virender Singh then conducted the search of the carry bag (Ext. P.2) which the accused was carrying in the presence of police officials

and Sanjay Kumar (PW-3). A paper envelope (Ext. P3) was found to be there in the bag. On being opened, the paper envelope was found containing

in it a black coloured substance in the shape of sticks. It was indentified to be Charas (Ex. P.4). The charas was weighed with the help of an

electronic weighing scale and it was found to be 700 grams. The charas was then put back in the same paper envelope and the paper envelope was

then put back in the same carry bag. The carry bag was then packed and sealed in a parcel (Ex. P.1) and sealed with five seals of impression

‘V’. Sample seal was taken on piece of plain cloth (Ex. PW.1/B). NCB-1 form (Ex. PW7/C) was filled in triplicate. The seal impression

‘V’ was put on the NBC-1 forms. The seal after use was handed over to Constable Sunil Kumar. The parcel containing the charas was seized

vide memo Ex. PW.1/C. It’s copy was given to the accused free of cost. Rukka Ex. PW.11/A was prepared and it was handed over to HHC

Mohammad Aslam with the direction to carry it to Police Station, Sadar, Chamba for registration of the FIR. A carbon copy of Rukka (Ext. PW.8/A

was also sent through the same Constable to Superintendent of Police, Chamba. Inspector Tilak Raj (PW7) registered the FIR (Ex. PW.7/A), made

an endorsement on Rukka and had sent the case file to the spot. The Investigation was conducted by HC Virender Singh, who prepared the site plan

(Ex. PW.11/B) and recorded the statement of witnesses. The accused was arrested and arrest memo Ex. PW.2/A was prepared. The case property

consisting of parcel, NCN-1 form in triplicate and sample of seal ‘V’ was handed over to Inspector Tilak Raj (PW7), who was Station House

Officer, Police Station, Sadar, Chamba at the relevant time for resealing the parcel. Inspector Tilak Raj had resealed the parcel with five seals of

impression ‘M’. specimen seal impression of seal ‘M’ was taken on a piece of cloth Ex. PW.6/A. The case property along with

documents was handed over to MHC Neeraj Kumar (PW9). MHC had made an entry in the register of Malkhana, copy of which is Ex.PW.9/C and

had then deposited it in the Malkhana. The case property along with documents was handed over to HHC Des Raj (PW4) with the direction to carry

it to State FSL, Junga vide R.C. No. 25/2014, copy of which is Ex. PW.9/D. HHC Des Raj carried all these articles to State FSL, Junga in same

condition and handed over the receipt to the MHC on his return. The special report (Ex. PW.8/B) was prepared and sent through HC Ravinder Singh

to Superintendent of Police, Chamba. The Superintendent of Police, Chamba had made an endorsement on the special report and had handed it over

to his Reader. He had also handed over the carbon copy of Rukka to his Reader after making an endorsement on it. Constable Rajesh Kumar (PW8)

had made an entry in the relevant register regarding the receipt of the carbon copy of Rukka and the special report and had filed them on record.

Resulf of analysis Ex. PA was issued in which it was shown that the exhibit was an extract of cannabis and sample of charas. The statements of

witnesses were recorded as per their versions and after completion of investigation challan was prepared and presented in the Court.

The accused was charged by the learned trial Court, for his committing, an offence punishable, under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. In proof of the

charge, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused, under, Section 313

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded by the learned trial Court, wherein, the accused claimed innocence and pleaded false implication in

the case.

On an appraisal of evidence on record, the learned trial Court, recorded findings of conviction, against, the accused/ appellant herein.

The accused/appellant, is, aggrieved by the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned Counsel appearing for the

accused/appellant has concertedly and vigorously contended, qua, the findings of conviction recorded, by the learned trial Court, standing not based, on

a proper appreciation, by it, of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation, by it, of the material on record.

Hence, he contends qua the findings of conviction being reversed by this Court, in, the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs being replaced

by findings of acquittal.

On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General has with considerable force and vigour, contended that the findings of conviction

recorded by the learned Court below, standing based, on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence, on record, and, theirs not necessitating

interference, rather theirs meriting vindication.

This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on

record.

Under memo(s) borne in Ext. PW1/C, recovery of contraband weighing 700 grams, stood effectuated, from a bag bearing Ext. P2. The aforesaid

exhibit(s), bear, the signature(s) of the witnesses thereto, and, of the accused/convict. Also, subsequent to the aforesaid apposite recovery(s), being

effectuated, under Ext. PW1/C, thereafter upon a personal search, of the accused/convict, recovery(s) of items delineated, in, Ext. P.4, also stood

hence effectuated.

Subsequent, to, the preparation of the aforesaid exhibits, the Investigating Officer concerned proceeded, to, in consonance with all the apposite

recitals borne, in Ex. PW1/C, hence emboss upon the, relevant sealed cloth parcels, 5 seal impressions bearing English alphabet “Vâ€, display(s)

whereof also occur in the relevant NCB form, borne in Ext. PW7/C. Upon the item(s) of contraband, carried, in the relevant cloth parcels, hence

standing transmitted, to, the Police Station concerned, thereat the SHO concerned, as unraveled by PW7/C, embossed, upon the relevant cloth

parcel(s), 5 re-seal seal impression(s), of, English alphabet “Mâ€. The MHC concerned, under, Road Certificate, borne, in Ext. PW9/D hence

transmitted Ext.P.4, to the FSL concerned. The FSL on receiving, the relevant cloth parcel, for examination, proceeded to under Ext.PA, hence record

an affirmative opinion, qua its, contents being Charas.

All the prosecution witnesses, who, are official witnesses, deposed, with interse besides intraseconcurrence(s), in respect of the relevant

recoveries, being effected, from a carry bag bearing Ext.P2, bag whereof, at the relevant time, was, held by, the, accused/convict, in his right hand,

hence he was holding conscious and exclusive possession thereof. All the prosecution witnesses, were subjected, to, a thorough, besides an inexorable

cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, (i) however, during course thereof, no, elicitations emanated from each, for hence constraining any

conclusion, qua, with theirs’ either contradicting or embellishing, upon, their previously recorded statement(s) in writing or theirs proceeding to

make gross intra-se contradiction(s) or theirs, deposing, with rife inter-se contradiction(s), hence rendering unreliable, their, testified version(s) qua the

prosecution case. Consequently, it is deemed fit, to impute sanctity to their respective testification(s).

Be that as it may, the relevant cloth parcel, bearing Ext. P-1, wherewithin charas is held, was, during the course of recording of examinations-in-

chief, of PWs concerned, after seals affixed thereon being ordered to be broken, hence shown to each of them. However, as unveiled, upon, reading

the respective testification(s), of, the PWs concerned, that upon, Ext. P-1 standing thereat shown to them, it, being visibly recorded therein, of, Ext. P-

1 holding inter-se concurrence(s) with Ext. PW1/A, and, with, Ext. PW1/C, (i) in, respect of occurrence, of, embossing(s) thereon, of 5 seal

impressions, of, English Alphabet “Vâ€, and, Ext.P-1 also holding inter-se concurrence, vis-à -vis, occurrence thereon, of, re-embossed thereon,

reseal seal impression(s) also of English alphabet “M†(ii) besides all seals appended thereon, being evidently intact also theirs being evidently

unspoiled. Importantly, though at the stage of production of Ext. P1 in Court, it, stood scribed, as Ext. P-1, (iii) besides given its’ hereat also

holding all evident consonance(s), with, all apposite recitals borne, in NCB form besides, vis-Ã -vis, all apt connected therewith recitals, borne in

Ext.PW7/C, (iv) yet, the learned defence counsel permitted “its†exhibition in Court, without, his thereat visibly attempting, to, make any

decipherments, in respect of any inter-se incongruity, occurring inter-se “it†vis-à -vis Ext. PW1/A, and, with Ext. PW1/C, besides with NCB

form(s) borne in Ext.PW7/C, and, with the report of FSL, borne, in Ext. PA. Omission, of, all aforesaid endeavour(s), by, the learned defence counsel,

hence beget(s) inference(s) of (a) his conceding that exhibit P-1 being validly exhibited, (b) it being relevant, and, an admissible piece of incriminatory

evidence, against, the accused, (c) at the stage of production of Ext. P-1 in Court, its, holding connectivity with its recovery, effectuated under, Exhibit

PW1/A, and, under Ext. PW1/C, (d) its holding connectivity, with, the report of the FSL, borne in Ext. PA.

Furthermore, the sample seal taken, on piece(s) of cloth, bearing Ext. P-1/B, holds the signatures of the accused, as also, of witnesses thereto, (i)

even Exhibit PW1/A and exhibit PW1/C also respectively rather hold, the signatures of the accused, as well as of all, the, witnesses thereto, (ii)

besides sample sealed cloth parcel, Ext. P-1, also holds, the signatures of the accused, and, of the witnesses thereto. With occurrence, of all aforesaid

signatures thereon, especially with the learned defence counsel, evidently, not, making any attempt, for ripping apart authenticity(s) thereof, (iii) also

with his evidently failing, to, make attempts qua the signatures, of the accused being rather obtained thereon, by the Investigating Officer concerned,

upon his exerting compulsion or duress, upon him, also, boosts an inference, of, his conceding, vis-Ã -vis, the, truth of all the recitals hence occurring

therein.  Conspicuously, therefrom, it is to be concluded, qua all his omissions’, in, making endeavour(s), in respect, of the relevant item(s) of

contraband, respectively recovered under Ext. PW1/A, and, under Ext. PW1/C, being unrelated, to bag bearing Ext.P-2., (iv) thereupon, rather

forcefully obviously negating the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, qua, the relevant recoveries, being, bereft of any sanctity, theirs

being sequelled, by sheer contrivance, deployed, by the Investigating Officer concerned, for thereupon falsely implicating, the accused.

Importantly also, the MHC concerned, had, rendered his deposition before the leaned trial Court, (i) an incisive reading whereof, omits to, make

any unfoldments, of the learned defence counsel thereat, putting any apt suggestions to him, whereupon he hence concerted, to belie, the

authenticity(s) of Ext. PW1/A, and, of Ext. PW1/C, (ii) besides, he, also omitted to put apposite suggestion(s), in respect, of, the contents borne, in, the

relevant cloth parcel(s), whereon, an affirmative opinion, was, pronounced by the FSL, being not, connected, with recovery(s) thereof effected, under

Ext. PW1/A, and, under Ext. PW1/C, (iii) AND, rather the apposite recoveries, being relatable or connected, with, recovery(s) thereof, standing

effectuated, from the conscious and exclusive possession, of some other person. The omissions’ aforesaid also, do not, purvey any leverage to the

learned counsel for the accused, to, contend before this Court, that, for absence of production, of, the relevant abstract, of the apposite Mallkhana

Register, by its Incharge, (iv) carrying therein, hence revelations, that upon, his at all apposite stages, of his transmitting Ext. P1, to the learned trial

Court, for, its, thereat being shown, to, the prosecution witnesses concerned, by the PP concerned, his thereat in compatibility(s) thereof, also making

corresponding apposite entries, in the relevant register, more tritely in respect of his retrieving, it, from the Mallkhana (v) besides upon Ext. P-1

standing retransmitted to him, his thereat making compatible corresponding entries, in, the apposite register, qua, thereupon hence, the charge rather

capsizing, (vi) “significantlyâ€, when, at the relevant stage of production, of, Ext. P-1 in Court, all, seal impression(s) borne thereon, were, found

intact, besides when, for all the aforesaid reasons, the effect of non production thereof, in Court, is inconsequential.

Since all the relevant recoveries, stood effected, from a carry bag, held by the accused, in his hands, thereupon with the aforesaid mode, of

recovery, not, being construable, to, occur on a personal search, of the accused/convict, (i) in sequel, there was no imperative enjoined necessity, cast

upon, the Investigating Officer concerned, to, adhere to the statutory mandate, borne in Section 50, of, the ND & PS Act. Nowat, the learned counsel

for the appellant/accused, makes allusions, qua the deposition(s), hence existing in the cross-examination, of PW-1, (ii) AND wherein he also

acquiesces qua the apt suggestion(s), of, the Investigating Officer, proceeding to also hold a personal search, of, the accused (iii) AND, wherein he

also acquiesces qua prior thereto, the Investigating Officer rather not elicitating, from him, as, ordained by Section 50 of the Act, his apt consent, , (iv)

thereupon the apt recovery memos, are, incredible, vis-Ã -vis, the purported effectuation, thereunder, of, the apt item, of, contraband nor thereupon,

the, conviction, of the accused, is, sustainable, (v) conspicuously, also with PW-1, in his cross-examination, rather making echoing(S), qua prior to the

Investigating Officer, holding the personal search of the accused, none, of the official witnesses, offering their personal search, being held, by the

accused, (vi) thereupon he contends, that, the entire proceedings, drawn, at the site of the occurrence, by the Investigating Officer, being stained with

vice(s) of concoction. In making the aforesaid submissions’, before this Court, the learned counsel, for the appellant, has placed reliance, upon, a

judgment rendered, by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in case titled State of Rajasthan vs. Parmanand & another, bearing Criminal Appeal No. 78 of

2005, decided, on 28.2.2014, the relevant paragraph whereof, occurring, in para-10, thereof stands extracted hereinafter:-

“10. The conclusions drawn by the constitution bench, which are relevant for this case could be quoted.

“(1) That when an empowered officer or a duly authorized officer acting on prior information is about to search a person, it is imperative for him to

inform the person concerned of his right under sub -section (1) of Section 50 of being taken to the nearest gazette officer or the nearest Magistrate for

making the search. However, such information may not necessarily be in writing.

(2) That failure to inform the person concerned about the existence of his right to be searched before a gazette officer or a Magistrate would cause

prejudice to an accused.

(3) That a search made by an empowered officer, on prior information, without informing the person of his right that if he so requires, he shall be

taken before a gazette officer or a Magistrate for search and in case he so opts, failure to conduct his search before a gazette officer or a Magistrate,

may not vitiate the trial but would render the recovery of the illicit article suspect and vitiate the conviction and sentence of an accused, where the

conviction has been recorded only on the basis of the prosecution of the illicit article, recovered from his person, during a search conducted in violation

of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act.†He also places reliance, upon, a, judgment rendered by this Court, in case titled as Aam Bahadur vs.

State of Himachal Pradesh bearing Cr. Appeal No. 273 of 2015, decided on 18.11.2015, the relevant paragraph whereof is extracted hereinafter:-

“………In sequel, even, if credence is to be tentatively imputed to the testimonies of PW- 7 and PW-8 of the accused being deterred by his not

possessing the skills to record his consent in writing to any of the options/proposals comprised in Ext. PW.7/A except his possessing the skill to

signature it, which purported signatures of the accused exist thereon, which dis-empowerment in regard aforesaid led him to orally communicate his

consent to the Investigating Officer holding his personal search…………â€​

(i) wherein inferences are erected qua upon the Investigating Officer, holding a personal search, of, the accused, thereupon his being also enjoined, to

mete the fullest deference, to, the statutory provisions, borne in Section 50 of the NDPS Act, (ii) whereas contrarily therewith rather hereat, the, apt

fullest deference thereto, being not, meted, prior to his holding a personal search of the accused, (iii) hence, the entire proceedings drawn, at the site of

the occurrence, by the Investigating Officer concerned, and, also the recovery effectuated, at the relevant time, from the bag, held by the accused, in

his hands, being construable, to be an inefficacious recovery, whereto no credence is meteable. However, the aforesaid submissions, addressed before

this Court, by the learned counsel for the appellant, and, as stand anchored, upon, verdicts (supra), are, grossly misplaced, and, arise from an apparent

rife misreading, of the apt judgments, whereon, he places reliance. The contradistinctivity, inter-se, the factual matrix prevailing therein, vis-Ã -vis, the

factual matrix prevailing hereat, is, comprised in the factum, of, though both the judgments relied, upon, by the learned counsel, for the appellant, (i)

unfold(s), of, the apposite recoveries being effectuated ‘from the bag,’ yet, also, incontemporanity thereof besides in conjunction therewith,

rather the apt consent memo(s), also standing hence apparently prepared, (ii) the indisputable, and, uninfringeable ratio decidendi, occurring, in the apt

paras, of, judgments, (supra) relied, upon, by the learned counsel, for the appellant, would hold, the, mightiest clout (iii) upon evident displays qua all

aforestated, factual matrix prevailing therein, also, evidently existing hereat, (iv) besides, the, ratio decidendi expostulated therein, enjoins adduction of

irrefragable evidence, and, its making clear, and, candid display(s), qua incontemporanity, of, recovery of the apposite article, of, contraband, from the

apt bag, also a personal search of the accused, being hence carried, besides hence, a, defective consent memo also being hereat obviously prepared,

(v) upon evident displays whereof, alone hence reiteratedly, hence the aforestated ratio decidendi, would beget its attraction hereat, (vi) contrarily

hereat, neither incontemporanity nor in conjunction, with, the recovery of charas, at the relevant time, through memo Ext. PW1/C, from, the apposite

bag, the apt personal search, of the accused remained uncarried nor also obviously hereat, any defective consent memo, of the accused, was

prepared, by the Investigating Officer concerned. Given the aforerefered apparent contradistinctivity, hence occurring, inter-se, the factual matrix,

prevailing in the judgments relied, upon, by the learned counsel for the appellant, vis-Ã -vis, the factual scenario, rather prevailing hereat, thereupon,

the aforestated ratio decidendi, propounded there, is rendered inapplicable hereat. Contrarily hereat, the, Investigating Officer, had merely carried, a,

Jamatalashi, of the accused, for hence his making apt, unearthing(s), and, in sequel whereto, were hence recovered, all the article(s) reflected, in the

apt memo, borne in Ext. PW-2/B, (vii) the apt sequel thereof, is qua the Investigating Officer, not holding any suspicion of the accused, not, in the bag

wherefrom the recovery of charas stood effectuated, hence carrying the relevant article, of contraband, rather his carrying the relevant item, of

contraband, in a manner hence enjoining meteing(s), of, compliances, vis-Ã -vis, the mandate, borne, in Section 50 of the Act, (viii) emphatically, with

the preparation, of, the apposite recovery memo, rather evidently occurring prior to, the preparation, of, the apt memo, of Jamatalashi, borne in Ext.

PW2/B, (ix) consequence(s) whereof is hence, it, being neither construable, nor being equated, nor construable, qua its, holding any parallel or

compatibility, with a consent memo, drawn, within the domain of Section 50, of the Act, (x) whereas, the drawing of, a, consent memo, even if a

defective one or meteings thereto, by the accused, of, any defective consent, is, a sine qua none, for hence reliance being placed, upon, the apt ratio

decidendi, as, propounded in apt paras, of, verdicts (supra). Reiteratedly, also, hence the meteing, of, apposite suggestions, by the learned defence

counsel, vis-Ã -vis, all the PWs, upon his holding each to cross-examination, with candid echoings, therein, qua, at the relevant time, of, the

Investigating Officer, holding a valid suspicion qua the accused, carrying, the relevant article of contraband, in the apt bag, (i) his also in

contemporenietiy thereof, hence holding a suspicion, qua his rather carrying it, in a manner for, hence, recovery thereof, being effectuated, from his

conscious and exclusive possession, by his meteing the fullest adherence, vis-Ã -vis, the mandate prescribed, in Section 50 of the Act, (ii) whereas

rather with each, of the prosecution witnesses, not being evidently meted any of the aforesaid suggestion(s), (iii) consequently, this Court rather

concludes qua the prosecution hence, efficaciously, proving, the trite factum, of, effectuation of recovery, being made, from the accused, through,

recovery memo borne in Ext. PW1/C. Preeminently, with the accused, not, contesting his signatures, borne in PW1/B, thereupon it is to be concluded,

of his acquiescing, qua the validity thereof, besides an inference is also errectable qua his acquiescing, qua, effectuation of the relevant article, of

contraband being made, in the manner, as described, in Ext. PW-1/C, (iv) and, its recovery not being sparked, by any omissions’ of the police

officer(s), to thereat offer, their personal search being carried, by the accused. Moreso, when, the drawing, of, any inferences, hence holding leanings

vis-Ã -vis the accused, rendered imperative, the apt meteing(s), by the learned defence counsel, of apposite suggestions, qua each of the prosecution

witnesses, qua the, relevant recovery of contraband, being effectuated, by the Investigating Officer, after each, of the prosecution witnesses,

retrieving, it, hence upon their personal search, carried by the Investigating Officer or the apt recovery being effected, from, the kitbag, of, the

Investigating Officer, (v) thereupon hence alone, the, carrying, of, the relevant article, of contraband, may enjoin meteing(s), of, compliances, vis-Ã -

vis, the mandate, borne, in Section 50 of the Act, and, also would stain, the, relevant proceedings, (vi) whereas omissions’ thereof, render

unattracted the mandate, of, Section 50, of, the NDPS Act.

The lack of association of independent witnesses’ despite, their evident availability in vicinity, vis-à -vis, the site of occurrence, also does not

sap the vigor, of the prosecution case, “unless†firm evidence, erupted, in respect of the association, of, independent eye witnesses, in the relevant

proceedings, being a dire necessity, (i) necessity(s) whereof, would spur, only, upon the accused canvassing, that recovery(s) of relevant item(s), being

not effectuated from his person, rather from some other person, (ii) and, also his making endeavours, that the apposite recovery(s), were, a, sequel, of,

a contrivance besides an invention, deployed by the Investigating Officer, (iii) yet when all the aforesaid endeavour(s), are, evidently not made,

thereupon there was, no, dire necessity cast, upon the Investigating Officer, to, associate, independent witnesses, in, the relevant investigation(s), even

despite their evident availability, in proximity, to the site of occurrence nor hence it can be concluded, qua, the Investigating Officer, holding skewed

and slanted investigations.

When, all, the aforesaid inference(s), are, entwined, with the learned defence counsel, also failing, to put suggestion(s), to the Investigating Officer,

qua, the recoveries being not effected, from the bag, besides with the accused, also, failing subsequent thereto, while answering, the questions put to

him, during, the course of drawing, of, proceedings under Section 313 Cr. P.C., to, hence attribute, any inculpatory role to a person other than him, also

constrains this Court, to, conclude, that, all the aforesaid purported minimal discrepancies, may, hence arise from sheer inadvertence, also, a, further

inference is engendered, of the bag also containing, all item(s) disclosed in Ext. PA, and, the mere omission, of their reflection, in the relevant exhibits,

whereas, their standing reflected in Ext. PA, not, hence undermining, the strength of the prosecution case. Preeminently also, any, reliance upon

verdicts supra, is inappropriate.

For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court has appraised the entire evidence on record in

a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom the analysis of the material on record by the learned appellate Court, does not, suffer from any

perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non-appreciation of evidence on record. The impugned verdict is affirmed and maintained.

However, the learned counsel for the appellant/ convict prays, at this stage, to reduce the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the

appellant/convict. He submits that the aforesaid submission, may be amenable to acceptance, given the convict, being the sole bread earner of his

family, and, his being a senior citizen, aged 63 years. The aforesaid submission is accepted. The sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the

appellant/convict is reduced, from, four years’ rigorous imprisonment, to, two years’ rigorous imprisonment. Sentence of fine, is also, reduced

from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the convict shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment, for, a period of three months.

The period of detention already undergone by him, is ordered to be set off, from the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him.

Consequently, the sentence(s) of imprisonment imposed upon the convict, is modified to the extent above. Records be sent back forthwith.