Purnesh Chandra Pandey and Others vs State of U.P.

Raghvendra Kumar, J.—Criminal Appeal No. 5256 of 2011 has been filed by appellant Purnesh Chandra Pandey s/o Krishna Nand Pandey, Criminal Appeal No. 6148 of 2011 has been filed by appellant Budh Raj Yadav alias Baba s/o Shri Bhagwan Din Yadav, Criminal Appeal No. 5349 of 2011 has been filed by Kumari Asha Pandey daughter of Krishna Nand Pandey, Criminal Appeal No. 5649 of 2011 has been filed by appellants Yamuna Singh @ Pappu Singh s/o Chandra Pal Singh Parihar,, Gauri Shankar Shukla @ Fauji @ Chhabiram s/o Ram Jiyawan and Yaduraj @ Santosh Yadav s/o Ramraj Yadav and Criminal Appeal No. 6131 of 2011 has been filed by Indrajeet alias Jitu alias Jitendra son of Ram Saran Kachhi.

All these appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 27.8.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Temporary Ex-Cadre Post) Court No. 2, Fatehpur in S.T. Nos. 203 of 1999, 327 of 1999 and 699 of 2006 arising out of case crime No. 77 of 1999 under sections 364-A , 302 /149 , 201 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Fatehpur whereby all the appellants, namely, Purnesh Chandra Pandey, Buddh Raj Yadav @ Baba, Gauri Shankar Shukla alias Fauji alias Chhabiram have been convicted for the offence under section 364-A I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, with default stipulation for six months additional simple imprisonment. Further accused appellant Purnesh Chandra Pandey, Buddh Raj Yadav alias Baba have also been convicted for the offence under section 302 /149 I.P.C. and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/-each, along with default stipulation for six months additional simple imprisonment. The accused appellants Purnesh Chandra Pandey and Buddh Raj Yadav alias Baba have also been convicted for the offence under section 201 I.P.C. and have been sentenced with R.I. for five years along with fine of Rs. 5000/- each, with default stipulation of six months additional simple imprisonment. Accused appellant Gauri Shankar Shukla alias Fauji alias Chhbiram has been acquitted for the offence under section 302 read with 149 and 201 I.P.C.

Accused appellant Km. Asha Pandey has been convicted for the offence of criminal conspiracy for committing the offence under section 120-B I.P.C. and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation of 6 months additional simple imprisonment.

Accused appellant Yaduraj alias Santosh Yadav has been convicted for the offence under section 364-A I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation for six months additional simple imprisonment.

Accused appellant Yaduraj alias Santosh has further been convicted for the offence under section 302 read with 149 I.P.C.and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation of 6 months additional simple imprisonment.

The accused appellant Yaduraj alias Santosh has further been convicted for the offence under section 201 I.P.C.and sentenced to R.I. for five years along with fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation for six months additional simple imprisonment.

Accused appellant Indrajeet @Jeetu alias Jitendra has been convicted for the offence under section 364-A and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation of six months additional simple imprisonment.

Accused appellant Indrajeet alias Jeetu alias Jitendra has been acquitted for the offence under section 302 read with 149 and Section 201 I.P.C.

Accused appellant Yamuna Singh alias Pappu Singh has been convicted for the offence under section 364-A and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation of six months additional simple imprisonment.

Accused appellant Yamuna Singh alias Pappu Singh has been acquitted for the offence under section 302 read with 149 and 201 I.P.C.

The learned court below directed that the sentences which were inflicted on different accused-appellants shall run concurrently.

Sessions Trial No. 203 of 1999 was instituted against the accused appellants Purnesh Chandra Pandey son of Krishna Nand Pandey, Buddh Raj Yadav @ Baba s/o Bhagwan Deen Yadav, Gauri Shanker Shukla @ Fauji alias Chhabi ram s/o Ram Jiyawan and Km. Asha Pandey daughter of Krishnanad Pandey.

S.T. No. 327 of 1999 was instituted against the accused Yadjuraj alias Santosh Yadav s/o Ram Raj Yadav and Indrajeet @ Jeetu @ Jitendra son of Ram Sharan Kachhi.

S.T. No. 699 of 2006 was instituted against the accused appellant Yamuna Singh alias Pappu Singh son of Chandrapal Singh. All these Sessions Trials owed their genesis from case crime No. 77 of 1999 registered under sections 364-A , 302 /149 , 201 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Fatehpur. All these cases were consolidated by learned trial court vide order dated 12.5.2008 and S.T. No. 203 of 1999 was made leading case vide order dated 27.8.2011. All these S.Ts cases were disposed of by a common judgment and order as all these sessions trials arise out of the same offence.

All these appeals referred above are directed against the judgment and order dated 27.8.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge(Temporary Ex-Cadre Post) Court No. 2, Fatehpur in S.T. No. 203 of 1999 which has been treated as a leading case. As such, these appeals are being disposed of by this Court by a common judgment and order.

The factual matrix of the case is as follows:--

"Dr. Kapil Dev Upadhyay who was a Surgeon in the District Hospital, Fatehpur had lodged an FIR on 10.3.1999 with the police at 14. 10 hours with respect to the incident that took place on 10.3.1999 at 12.30 hours of the day. According to the FIR Himanshu aged about 17 years, son of the informant, was going at about 12.30 hours on 10.3.1999 to G.I.C. Fatehpur to appear in an examination. As he reached near Manbhwan School, three persons after beating him kept handkerchief upon his mouth and took him on a motor bike. One of the abductors, aged about 40 years was wearing Kurta & Paijama, rest two persons aged about 35 were dressed with Pant and shirt, they were carrying red colour motorcycle (Yamaha and Suzuki). The FIR was lodged in the name of three unknown persons. After registration of the FIR the investigation proceeded in accordance with law."

On 19.3.1999 at about 8.00 p.m. the S.O. Girand Singh Rathore along with other police officers arrested accused Buddh Raj Yadav @ Baba son of Bhagwan Deen, resident of Badhwa, Police station Lalauli and recovered a country made pistol and 4 cartridges who made confessional statement on inquiry that on 10.3.1999 at about 12.00 hours, near Manbhawan School he abducted Himanshu aged about 17 years, son of Dr. K.D. Upadhyay Surgeon of District Hospital, Fatehpur along with Purnesh Pandey, Santosh Kumar Yadav and three other persons who were brought by Purnesh and Santosh. This accused was unable to tell the name of the rest of the three persons. When the ransom was not paid, then on 17.3.1999 at about 8.00 a.m. in village Gamhari in the West of village Gauraihar, he along with Purnesh Pandey and Santosh strangulated the neck of Himanshu by tighting it with a rope and thereafter the dead body was placed in a gunny bag along with bricks and stones and the mouth of the gunny bag was tightened with the rope and to destroy the evidence, the dead body was thrown in a well. He further offered to get the corpus recovered. The police official accompanied the accused Buddh Raj. The accused with the help rope and hook recovered the dead body of Himanshu from the well. The bag was opened from which 10 bricks and 40 pieces of stones were recovered along with the dead body of the deceased Himanshu. The inquest proceedings were conducted. The recovered bag, rope, bricks and pieces of stones were sealed in a plastic bag and its recovery memos were prepared.

On 20.4.1999, a secret information was passed to S.O. Niteshwar Misra, who after getting upon the information reached to Muradipur crossing, P.S. Kalyanpur at about 10.30 hours accompanied by other police officers, on a family quarters situated behind Treasury of the Tehsil. At about 12.30 hours, one of the accused appellants Purnesh Pandey was arrested while coming on Suzuki Motorcycle (Blue Colour) No. U.P.71 8906 who made confession that on 10.3.1999 near Manbhwan School he abducted Himanshu son of Dr. K.D. Upadhyaya along with his other associates Buddh Raj Yadav, alias Baba, Santosh Yadav s/o Ram Raj, Pappu alias Yamuna Prasad son of Chandrapal Singh Parihar, Jeetu alias Jitendra, Gaurishankar Shukla alias Chhabiram. He further made a confession that his own motor cycle and another motor cycle of Pappu alias Yamuna Prasad Parihar Suzuki No. U.P.71 7613 were used in the abduction. Buddh Raj slapped Himanshu and thereafter asked to sit on the motor cycle in between him and Santosh. The second motor cycle was driven by Pappu on which Jeetu and Gauri were seated and they ran away along with Himanshu. On 17.3.1999 Purnesh Purnesh and Santosh took Himanshu in village Gamri where Buddh Raj was called by Santosh and thereafter they decided to kill Himanshu. Purnseh tightened the rope in the neck, Buddh Raj and Santosh caught hold of him thereafter the dead body was placed in a gunny bag along with bricks and stones and the mouth of the gunny bag was tightened by a rope. He along with Santosh left the place, Buddh Raj went alone. After two days Buddh raj was arrested and entire mischief was unveiled and the body of Himanshu was recovered. The conspiracy of abduction of Himanshu was finalised on 7.3.1999 at the place of Purnesh in presence of Santosh, Buddhi Raj and Asha. Asha had to repay Rs. 1,10,000 to Ismail and Rs. 83,000/- to Bank. He further admitted that his friends were also in need of money. He further admitted that his brother was operated upon by Dr. K.D. Upadhyay for transplantation of kidney but he could not survive after operation and with intention to take revenge the offence was committed.

Inquest was prepared as per law and the post mortem examination of the dead body was performed. The Investigation of the case was culminated into filing of charge sheet against the accused appellants.

After filling of charge sheet the charges were framed against the accused appellants who denied the charges and claimed trial on merit.

To substantiate the charges against the accused persons, prosecution has examined PW-1 Kapil Dev Upadhyay, father of the deceased Himanshu, who proved the execution of Tahriri report, Ext. Ka-1. He has stated that he was acquainted with the accused appellant Purnseh Pandey, Asha Pandey. He further stated that he had seen Buddh Raj Yadav on the day of recovery of dead body at police station Ghazipur. He further stated that he had received a telephonic call about demand of ransom for Rs. 11 Lac. On 20.3.1999 in the morning he received message about the recovery of dead body of his son from a well in village Gamhari. He further stated that he identified the dead body of his son. He further stated that he was informed by the police that the dead body of the deceased was recovered at the instance of Buddh Raj Yadav alias Baba.

P.W.2 Amit Kumar has not seen the incident. He has categorically stated that he does not know the accused appellants Purnesh Chandra Pandey, Buddh Raj Yadav alias Baba, Gauri Shanker Shukla alias Fauji, Asha, Indrajeet @ Jeetu, Santosh @ Yaduraj, Yamuna Singh alias Pappu Singh. He has corroborated the factum of abduction. He has corroborated the incident of abduction on 10.3.1999 at about 12.00 hours of the day. He has further corroborated that 3 persons came on two motor cycles and took away Himanshu on Motor Bike. P.W.2 has not identified the accused appellants in the court.

P.W. 3-Vivek Uttam has categorically stated that he did not know and identify the accused appellants at the relevant time. He was urinating but he corroborated the factum of abduction.

P.W. 4- Rajesh Kumar Singh alias Munna Singh is a witness of recovery. He has categorically stated that the accused appellant Buddh Raj Yadav has not made any confessional statement before him nor deadbody of the deceased Himanshu was recovered at the instance of accused-Buddh Raj from the well. This witness was declared hostile at the request of prosecution.

P.W. 5- S.I. Girand Singh Rathore has proved the confessional statement made by the accused Buddh Raj Yadav about the murder of Himanshu with the help of co-accused persons. According to the witness the dead body of the deceased Himanshu was recovered at the instance of accused Buddh Raj. He proved the execution of recovery memo Ext. Ka-2. He has also proved the execution of inquest report Ext. Ka-3 and the documents prepared for the purposes of post mortem examination. P.W. 6 - S.I. Jaipal Singh was present at the time of recovery of the dead body from the well along with P.W. 5.

P.W. 7 Dr. Pankaj Jain has conducted the post mortem examination on the corpus of the deceased Himanshu on 20.3.1999. He has noted the following ante mortem injuries and mentioned the same in his statement also.

"(I) Two ligature marks all around neck (each of 34.0 cm x 1.0 cm.),separated by 1.0 cm anteriorly and intermingled posteriorly 6.0 cm from left ear, 9.0 cm from chin, 6.0 cm from right ear. The both marks are in the form of groove with base hard, leathery parchment like, margins of grooves are red and congested. On dissection- the subcutaneous tissue under the mark is dry, white and glistering.

(ii) Abraded contusion of 1.00 cm x 1.00 cm at tip of nose

(iii) Abraded contusion of 1.00 cm. X 1.00 c.m. below chin.

Brain and membranes were found congested. Both lungs and Larynx were congested. Hyoid bone was found fractured. Stomach and abdomen found empty. Liver, pancreas, spleen, kidneys were congested.

Cause of death was due to Ashysix as a result of Ante mortem strangulation."

P.W. 7- Dr. Pankaj Jain has stated the name of accused appellant Purnesh Pandey involved in the abduction case was disclosed to him by Dr. K.D. Upadhyay. He further stated to approach to accused Asha Pandey who stated her ignorance in the matter.

P.W.8 - Sri J.P. Yadav, Inspector C.B. C.I.D. has conducted the investigation of the case and proved the execution of charge sheet.

P.W. 9- Moti Lal has not supported the prosecution and has not identified the accused appellants in the court. The witness has been declared hostile and A.D.G.C (Criminal) was asked to cross examine the witness.

P.W. 10-Constable Chintamani Shukla has proved the execution of chik FIR and the relevant entry in G.D.

P.W. 11- Sunder Lal Maurya, is a retired Inspector. He has also conducted the investigation. He is the first I.O. of the case.

P.W. 12 Niteshwar Singh Inspector C.B.C.I.D. has also conducted the investigation after receiving it transfer.

All the incriminating materials which appeared during course of trial were placed before the accused appellants to render their explanation.

Rani Devi and Kanchan have been examined as Court witnesses Nos. 1 and 2, respectively.

After trial the learned court below has recorded the finding of conviction, whereby the appeals are before us.

The proceedings of these appeals so far as it relates to accused appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 6148 of 2011 Buddh Raj Yadav alias Baba, it stands abated vide order dated 22.9.2015.

It has been submitted on behalf of the accused-appellants that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. There is no evidence of deceased having been seen abducted by the accused-appellants, as alleged by the prosecution. No public witness has been examined to prove that deceased Himanshu was taken away by the accused appellants on the motor cycle as alleged. The corpus of the deceased Himanshu was recovered on the basis of the confessional statement made by accused appellant Buddh Raj before the police. The proceeding of his appeal against appellant Budh Raj has already been abated vide order of the Court dated 22.9.2015. No eye witness has been examined by the prosecution to prove the murder of Himanshu by the accused-appellants. No public witness has been examined about the demand of ransom made by the accused-appellants. No evidence has been led with respect to decease having been seen lastly in the company of the accused-appellants.

Learned A.G.A. while refuting the submission of the accused-appellants, has contended that the dead-body of the deceased Himanshu was recovered at the pointing of the appellant Buddh Raj Yadav alias Baba. Learned trial court has rightly recorded the finding of conviction. He has further placed reliance upon confessional statement of Purnesh Chandra Pandey and has submitted that the finding of conviction has been rightly recorded by learned court below.

It is a case based on circumstantial evidence, the Hon''ble Apex Court from time to time laid down the guidelines for appreciating the evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

Hon''ble the Apex Court in the case of Sk. Yusuf Vs. State of West Bengal, in para 26 has held as under:

"Undoubtedly, conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence. However, the court must bear in mind while deciding the case involving the commission of serious offence based on circumstantial evidence that the prosecution case must stand or fall on its own legs and cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence case. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."

Hon''ble the Apex Court in the aforesaid case has followed its earlier pronouncements in the following cases:

" Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, , Krishnan Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, and Wakkar and Another Vs. The State of U.P., ." In the case of Haresh Mohandas Rajput Vs. State of Maharashtra, , Hon''ble Apex Court following its earlier decision in the case of Krishnan Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, observed that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:

"(i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;

(ii) those circumstances should be definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;

(iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and

(iv) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."

Thus though a conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence, but the Court must bear in mind the aforesaid tests while deciding a case involving the commission of a serious offence.

Hon''ble the Apex Court in the case of Manthuri Laxmi Narsaiah Vs. State of A.P., has held in paragraph No. 6 as under:--

"6. It is by now well settled that in a case relating to circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances has to be spelt out by the prosecution and if even one link in the chain is broken the accused must get the benefit thereof. We are of the opinion that the present is in fact a case of no evidence."

The aforementioned judgments have been followed in a recent judgment in the case of Sangili Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, .

Hon''ble the Apex Court in the case of Satni Bai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh), .

"11. It has been consistently laid down by this Court, that when a case rests only on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn, have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances (See State of U.P. Vs. Satish, ."

In Joseph Poulo Vs. State of Kerala, , the Court has explained under what circumstances conviction can be based purely on circumstantial evidence. It is observed that:

"It is often said that though witnesses may lie, circumstances will not, but at the same time, it must cautiously be scrutinised to see that the incriminating circumstances are such as to lead only to a hypothesis of guilt and reasonably exclude every possibility of innocence of the accused. There can also be no hard and fast rule as to the appreciation of evidence in a case and being always an exercise pertaining to arriving at a finding of fact the same has to be in the manner necessitated or warranted by the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. The whole effort and endeavour in the case should be to find out whether the crime was committed by the accused and the circumstances proved form themselves into a complete chain, unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused."

This Court in Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, has observed that when a case rests on circumstantial evidence, the following tests must be satisfied:

"(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;

(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;

(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and

(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."

In C. Chenga Reddy and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, this Court has held that:

"21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn, should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence."

In State of U.P. Vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, , it was pointed out that:

"9....... Great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted."

"9....The circumstance relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of {the guilt}."

The evidence of the prosecution in the case is to be appreciated in the light of guidelines laid down by Hon''ble Apex Court through a catena of decisions referred above.

In the instant case, the factum of abduction has been stated by P.W.2 and P.W.3. The dead body of the deceased Himanshu was recovered at the pointing of the accused Buddh Raj Yadav. The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 has proved the factum of abduction of the deceased Himanshu on 10.3.1999 at 12.00 hours on the day when they were in the company of the deceased Himanshu. P.W.2 and P.W.3 have failed to establish identity of the accused persons at the time of abduction. P.W.2 and P.W.3 have not even proved the identity of the motor cycle. They have not even mentioned the number of Motor Cycles. Their testimony is of no avail for the purpose of establishing the identity of the accused persons.

P.W. 4 is a public witness of recovery of the dead body. He has not supported the prosecution case. He has been declared hostile. The confession alleged to have been made by accused Buddh Raj Yadav and at whose pointing the dead body was recovered is also of no avail since he has died during pendency of the appeal and the proceedings of the appeal has been abated against him. No evidence has been led by the prosecution to establish the deceased in the company of the accused appellants at the time of abduction or deceased Himanshu was lastly seen in the company of the accused appellants. The identity of the motor cycle used in the commission of the offence has also not been established by any evidence. There is no extra judicial confession on behalf of the accused appellants with respect to the commission of the offence by any one of them or by all of them. The confession made by accused appellant Purnesh Chandra Pandey is also of no avail for the prosecution so as to draw any inference about the complicity of the accused appellants for the offence because of simple reason that the confession made by any of the accused in police custody is not admissible as per the provisions of Indian Evidence Act in view of law laid down in the case of Hari Charan Kurmi and Jogia Hajam Vs. State of Bihar, . It has been categorically observed by the Apex Court that :

"The confession of a co-accused person cannot be treated as substantive evidence and can be pressed into service only when the Court is inclined to accept other evidence and feels the necessity of seeking for an assurance in support of its conclusion deducible from the said evidence. In criminal trials, there is no scope for applying the principle of moral conviction or grave suspicion. In criminal cases where the other evidence adduced against an accused person is wholly unsatisfactory and the prosecution seeks to rely on the confession of a co-accused person, the presumption of innocence which is the basis of criminal jurisprudence assists the accused person and compels the Court to render the verdict that the charge is not proved against him, and so, he is entitled to the benefit of doubt."

There is no other evidence available on record against the accused appellants. As such the Court cannot start with the confession of a co-accused person, it must begin with other evidence adduced by the prosecution and after it has formed its opinion with regard to the quality and effect of the said evidence, then it is permissible to turn to the confession in order to receive assurance to the conclusion of guilt which the judicial mind is about to reach on the said other evidence.

The evidence of Dr. Pankaj Jain is also of no avail. Rest all are formal witnesses whose testimony is confined to the documents they have executed during the course of the investigation. On the basis of material available and in view of the aforesaid discussion we are of the opinion that the circumstances on which the prosecution has placed reliance and has proposed to prove against them could not be proved. Thus the chain of the circumstances is not complete and the evidence available on record does not unerringly indicates towards the guilt of the accused. In absence of sufficient evidence to lead to the only conclusion of guilt of the accused is not on record.

On the basis of aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the learned trial court has erred in appreciation of evidence and the finding of conviction recorded by the learned court below cannot be sustained.

No appeal has been filed by the State of U.P. or informant/complainant against the acquittal of accused appellant Gauri Shanker Shukla alias Fauji alias Chhabiram and accused appellant Yamuna Singh alias Pappu Singh recorded by the learned Trial Court as conceded by learned A.G.A.

The proceeding of Appeal No. 6148 of 2011 against the accused Buddh Raj alias Baba stands abated due to his death.

These appeals, thus, deserve to be allowed and are, accordingly, allowed. The accused-appellants are on bail. Their personal bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.

Let a copy of this judgment and order along with lower court record be transmitted to learned Court below for compliance.