Ravishanker Gabel and Others vs State of C.G.

Pritinker Diwaker, J.—As these three appeals arise out of the same judgment and order dated 23.1.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir in Sessions Trial No. 130/2006 convicting the accused/appellants Ravishanker Gabel, Ujagar, Ravi Jaiswal, Jagjeevan Gabel and Rameshwar Kalar in Cr.A. 168/2008 u/s 506-B IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years with fine of Rs. 500/-; convicting accused/appellant Rajkumar in Cr.A. 216/2008 u/s. 363, 366, 342 and 376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, 7 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, 1 year with fine of Rs. 500/- and 10 years with fine of Rs. 1000/- respectively; and convicting the accused/appellant Shani in Cr. A. No. 191/2008 u/s. 363, 366 and 342 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, 7 years with fine of Rs. 500/- and 1 year with fine of Rs. 500/-respectively plus default stipulations, they are disposed of by this common judgment. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 30.11.2004 FIR Ex. P-17 was lodged by the prosecutrix (PW-10) aged about 20 years, to the effect that she was resident of village Chainpur, police station Kartala, District Korba and on 23.11.2004 she had gone to the house of her sister and brother-in-law Murarilal Rathore (PW-13) at village Sarkhon, police station Janjgir. It is alleged that on 26.11.2004 at about 8.30 p.m. when she came out of the house to answer the call of nature, she was caught hold of by accused/appellants Rajkumar and Shani who after gagging her mouth with a piece of cloth, forcibly took her on their motorcycle which was being driven by accused/appellant Shani, to a secluded house and locked her in a room. Accused/appellant Rajkumar removed her clothes with an intention to commit rape on her and when she protested the same, he threatened her of being killed and on account of fear she kept quiet. It is also alleged that while accused/appellant was committing sexual intercourse with her, accused/appellant Shani was standing there only. At about 2.30 a.m. accused Rajkumar again committed rape on her by putting under threat in the name of her mother and then after locking her up in a room both of them left the spot. Allegedly, while leaving the spot they had threatened her saying that she would go to her village with a particular man to be sent by them as he had already done what he wanted. On 27.11.2004 at abut 9 p.m. accused/appellant Ravi Jaiswal came there and after opening the door while he was taking her to village Chainpur, on the way accused/appellants Ravishanker Gabel, Ujagar Gabel, Jagjeevan Gabel and Rameshwar Jaiswal met them and at that time also they had threatened her to directly go to her house. It is further alleged that as she did not want to go to her house, they had again threatened her that in that case she would be hanged by them. Thereafter, accused Ravi Jaiswal dropped her at home where she disclosed the incident to her mother, father, brother and brother-in-law and then the report was lodged. Based on this FIR, offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 342 IPC were registered against the accused/appellants Rajkumar and Shani. Prosecutrix was medically examined on 2.12.2004 vide Ex. P-5 by Dr. Nandini Chandravanshi (PW-4). After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed by the police on 2.7.2005 for the same sections plus u/s 34 IPC. On 23.11.2007 an order was passed by the Court below for inclusion of Ravishanker Gabel, Ujagar, Ravi Jaiswal, Jagjeevan Gabel and Rameshwar as accused for the offence u/s 506-B IPC. Accordingly, they were also made accused and charge was framed against them under the said Section on 19.4.2007.

In support of its case, prosecution has examined 17 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charge levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case.

After hearing the parties, the Court below has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in paragraph No. 1 of this judgment.

Counsel for the accused/appellants submit that present is a case of love affair between accused/appellant Rajkumar and the prosecutrix and that the other accused/appellants have been implicated simply because they were friends of Rajkumar and had taken his side in the village Panchayat. They submit that a very improbable story has been put forth by the prosecution and the conduct of the prosecutrix itself shows that she was a consenting party to the act of accused/appellant Rajkumar. They submit that according to the prosecutrix herself, she had signed a blank paper and main report Ex. P-17 was never signed by her and it appears that her signature on blank paper has been used against the accused/appellant. They further submit that as per her own saying, the prosecutrix was not willing to go to her house after the incident but it is the accused/appellants who threatened her to do so and this also shows that she was a consenting party. They submit that in the entire incident when the prosecutrix was allegedly taken by accused Rajkumar and Shani, she did not offer any resistance and kept sitting on their motorcycle for 3-4 hours without any protest and even after the commission of offence when she was taken by accused Ravi Jaiswal, she did not raise any protest and went along with him. Counsel for the accused/appellants further submit that in village Shyam Kartik Mela was held in which number of persons had gathered there but no effort was made by the prosecutrix to come out of the clutches of the accused/accused. They submit that inordinate delay of 3 days in lodging the FIR has not been properly explained by the prosecution and this part medical report of the prosecutrix also does not support the case of the prosecution. While referring to the statement of mother and father of the prosecutrix counsel for the accused/appellants submit that their statements totally demolish the case of the prosecution as her father has turned hostile. Further referring to the statement of her mother namely Savitri Bai (PW-12), they submit that after the incident when the prosecutrix reached her house, she (mother Savitri Bai) did not open the door which shows that she was annoyed with the prosecutrix otherwise in the normal course no mother would restrain her daughter from entering the house. Further referring to the statement of mother, father and brother-in-law of the prosecutrix, they submit that the report was lodged against the accused/appellants because the family of the prosecutrix was apprehending boycott from the society. Even after the incident, father of the prosecutrix had gone to the house of his elder daughter in village Sarkhon and did not bother to take care of the prosecutrix which also shows that he was annoyed with the conduct of the prosecutrix. Referring to paragraph No. 12 of the Court statement of Murarilal Rathore (PW-13) counsel for the accused/appellants this witness has admitted that if a girl of Rathore community goes to the boy of other community, Rathore community would socially boycott the girl and her family members. This witness is also argued to have admitted that if the people of the society came to know about the love affair of the prosecutrix and accused Rajkumar, they would have punished the girl and her family members and boycotted them from the society. Counsel for the accused/appellants further pointed out the version of this witness where he has categorically admitted that so as to live in the society, status and prestige was to be maintained and for that it had become necessary to lodge the report. This witness, according to the counsel for the accused/appellants has further admitted the fact that even the members of the society wanted an action against the accused persons if the prosecutrix and her family members were right in their stand. Further referring to paragraph 21 of the statement of father of the prosecutrix namely Bhagirathi (PW-1) counsel for the accused/appellants submit that this witness has categorically stated that if his daughter (prosecutrix) married the accused/appellant Rajkumar, society would have boycotted him. Again referring to paragraph 20 of the statement of Anjani (PW-2) it is argued that this witness has stated that if the appellant Rajkumar was of her caste, there would not be any problem in his marriage with the prosecutrix but as he belongs to other caste their marriage could not be solemnized. Referring to paragraph 19 of the statement of this witness, counsel for the accused/appellants submit that in fact the report was not lodged by the prosecutrix but by Murarilal Rathore (PW-13) after due consultation with the number of persons.

Supporting the judgment impugned, State counsel submits that present is a case where taking the advantage of helplessness of the prosecutrix, accused/appellants Rajkumar and Shani took her to a far off place where accused Rajkumar committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. He submits that accused Shani had taken active participation in keeping guard on the situation while the prosecutrix was being subjected to rape by accused Rajkumar. According to him, even the other accused persons namely Ravishanker Gabel, Ujagar Gabel, Jagjeevan Gabel and Rameshwar had helped the two accused persons and threatened the prosecutrix of being killed, their conviction u/s 506-B IPC is just and proper. According to the State counsel, delay in lodging the report is very natural when seven persons were after the prosecutrix where they put her to threat. He further submits that when the statement of the prosecutrix inspires confidence of the Court, delay of two-three days is of no relevance. He further submits that prosecutrix was never a consenting party but the accused/appellants had forcibly taken her away and kept in confinement in a secluded place where accused Rajkumar ravished her on two occasions. In respect of medical report Ex. P-5 of the prosecutrix, counsel for the respondent/State submits that on 2.4.2006 two abrasions were found on her left elbow and the doctor had opined that those injuries could have been caused within seven days of her examination. He submits that father of the prosecutrix namely Bhagirthi Rathore (PW-1) though has been declared hostile, if his entire statement is taken into consideration, it becomes clear that he has also made an allegation of rape and on material particulars he has stated against the accused/appellants. According to him, father of the prosecutrix stayed in the house of his elder daughter for eight days as he was shocked by the incident and was waiting for justice to his daughter (prosecutrix). He submits that once the prosecutrix has made allegation against the accused/appellants, section 114-A of the Evidence Act would come into play and presumption would be that the prosecutrix was not a consenting party. He submits that delay in lodging the report could also be due to the threat given to the prosecutrix by the accused/appellants even in the name of her mother. According to the State counsel, two defences taken by the accused/appellants i.e. enmity between the two families and that of love affair between accused Rajkumar and the prosecutrix are self contradictory.

Prosecutrix (PW-10) has stated in her court statement that she knew the accused/appellants and that the incident had taken place two years prior thereto. At the time of incident she had gone to village Sarkhon for enjoying Mela. In the night when she came out of the house to answer the call of nature, the accused/appellants came from behind, gagged her mouth with a piece of cloth, dragged her away to some distance and then made her sit on their motorcycle which was being driven by accused Shani whereas accused Rajkumar was holding her. Then after a 3-4 hour drive they took her in a secluded house situated in a dense forest. As the said house was locked, it was opened by accused Shani and accused Rajkumar forcibly took her inside where it was complete dark. Thereafter accused Rajkumar asked her to remove her clothes and when she opposed to the same, they started beating her and after removing her clothes accused/appellant Rajkumar committed forcible sexual intercourse with her twice. She was kept in that room for the whole night and even in the day next thereto. In the second night at about 12-1 O''clock accused Ravi Jaiswal came there, started beating her and took her to a place known as Tekra where accused Shani, Rajkumar, Ravi Gabel, Ujagar Gabel, Jagjivan Gabel and Rameshwar Jaiswal were already present. According to this witness all these persons abused her and touching her cheek they also made fun of her. Thereafter in spite of her refusal accused Ravi Jaiswal took her to her parents'' house and immediately after reaching home she called out her mother in a loud voice upon which when her mother opened the door and saw with the help of torch, accused Ravi Jaiswal went away. After reaching home she informed the entire incident to her mother and then the report was lodged. She has stated that her signatures were obtained on a blank paper. On being confronted with the report Ex. P-17 this witness has admitted her signature on it on A to A Part then after obtaining her consent vide Ex. P-18 she was sent for medical examination. At village Sarkhon spot maps Ex. P-19 & 20 were prepared by the Police and Ex. P-13** by the Patwari. In cross-examination she has stated that she had studied up to Class XII. After marriage of her elder sister in 1998 she visited village Sarkhon 4-6 times and opposite the house of her sister a public road is there and on both sides of it residential quarters are also there. According to her she enjoyed Shyam Kartik Mela for about one and a half hour where number of shops were there and the people kept on moving there 24 hours. She has stated that the report was not registered by the Police as was told by her and her signatures were obtained on a blank paper for which she had made a complaint to S.P. though the acknowledgement of the same is not with her. This witness has also admitted that for bringing her to village Chainpur the police people had demanded money from her and to this effect also a complaint was made by her to the S.P. though she was not having acknowledgement for the same. According to her, other things apart, disclosure of the fact about her mouth being gagged with a piece of cloth by the accused/appellant; being dragged by them to some distance; being made to sit on the motorcycle for 3-4 hours; being taken to a secluded house in a dense forest; her clothes being removed; being raped by the accused twice; being beaten by accused Ravi Jaiswal while taking her to village Tikara, of her cheek being touched by the accused persons and in spite of her refusal being dropped at her parents'' house, was also made to the police but if it is not mentioned in the report Ex. D-2, she could not tell the reason for that. She has admitted that the report was not lodged promptly either in the police station or with the S.P. She has denied that accused Rajkumar used to visit her house to meet her brother or that she and the said accused have studied in the same school or that she ever lodged any report against him for teasing or harassing her. According to her, accused Rajkumar had never come to her house with marriage proposal nor any letter written by him was seized from her or vice versa and further that he is married and having children also. She has stated that if a person whether driving the motorcycle or sitting as pillion rider makes a sudden movement carelessly, the vehicle may get unbalanced and if speeding, it may lead to death also. She has admitted that due to heavy crowd in the Mela, it is very difficult for the people to walk. A variety of suggestions put to her in paragraphs 15 to 18 have been denied by this witness.

Bhagirathi Rathore (PW-1) - the father of the prosecutrix has stated in her evidence that on 26.11.2004 his daughter (prosecutrix) was abducted and after receiving this information through his son-in-law he came to village Sarkhon and matter was informed to the police people who were on duty in Shyam Kartik Mela, on which the police people told him to search the prosecutrix for a day or two and she was still not found, they would proceed with the matter. On 28.11.2004 he received an information from his son that the prosecutrix had returned home on which he asked his son-in-law to bring her to village Sarkhon. On 30.11.2004 when his son-in-law was taking the prosecutrix to village Sarkhon, he met her near the Court at Janjgir where she Informed him about the sexual intercourse with her and that she would lodge the report whether she got any support by them or not. Thereafter, this witness is stated to have been informed by the prosecutrix that she was raped by accused Rajkumar. Though this witness, at this stage, has been declared hostile, he has admitted that he accompanied the prosecutrix to police station for lodging the report, gave his consent for medical examination, signed the Panchnama Ex. P-2, consent letter Ex. P-4 and doctor''s report Ex. P-5. He has further admitted his signature on seizure memo Ex. P-6 and P-7. This witness has been cross-examined by the defence at length and put several irrelevant questions. He has admitted the fact that there was some dispute between the accused/appellant and his son regarding payment of certain amount and for that even a Panchayat meeting was called. Anjani Rathore (PW-2) -the sister of the prosecutrix has stated that on 26.11.2004 the prosecutrix was in her house at village Sarkhon and in the night she was found missing. She was searched in the village but her whereabouts could not be traced. After receiving the information, her father and brother came to village Sarkhon and in spite of being searched by her husband and father, the prosecutrix could not be found. Thereafter, her husband and father informed the same to the police people on duty in Shyam Kartik Mela on which the police people had old them to make a search in the house of the relatives and ultimately if she was not found the report would have to be lodged at Janjgir. On 28.11.2004 her younger brother informed that the prosecutrix had reached home and then on the next day her husband went to take her where she informed him that she wished to lodge the report and accordingly the report came to be lodged. After reaching her house, the prosecutrix informed her that when she had gone to ease herself, a piece of cloth was inserted in her mouth, her face was covered and accused/appellants Rajkumar and Shani took her away and in spite of her protest nobody came to her rescue. Prosecutrix further informed her that she was taken to a secluded house and subjected to rape by the accused/appellant Rajkumar but as her face was covered she could not tell the place where the incident of rape took place. This witness is stated to have been informed by the prosecutrix of being raped twice and then on the next day she was taken by accused Ravi Jaiswal and dropped at village Chainpur and that on the way she was teased, threatened and beaten by other accused persons. In cross-examination, this witness has admitted that at the time of incident there was Mela in the village and people of several villagers gathered there. According to this witness, her house is in the middle of the village and the place of Mela is one kilometer from there. She has admitted that number of police people were on duty in the Mela. Till 15 days after the incident, her father stayed in village Sarkhon in the hope that only after getting justice he would return to village Chainpur and that during his stay in her house at village Sarkhon he was very upset. This witness has denied any affair between the prosecutrix and accused Rajkumar or that the prosecutrix was asking accused Rajkumar to marry her. This witness has admitted that earlier accused Rajkumar and Shani had come to her house at the time of Mela. She has also denied that on the instruction of her father her husband had gone to take the prosecutrix on 28.11.2004 and stated that he had gone to Chainpur on 29.11.2004. This witness is stated to have done MA in two subjects and that on the date of incident there was Shyam Kartik Mela in her village, that there was huge crowd in the village and due to the crowd it was difficult to walk even on the streets. There appear to be certain contradictions in the Court statement of this witness if compared to her case diary statement. This witness has stated that she was informed by the prosecutrix that while being taken by the accused persons she had raised cries for help throughout the way but nobody came to her rescue. This fact is also stated to be informed by the prosecutrix to the police while recording her case diary statement but if the same is not mentioned there, she could not tell the reason for that. According to this witness, as the prosecutrix was residing in village Chainpur, she could not tell about her relations with other people. She has stated that the report was lodged by her husband after due deliberation with the people of the village. Her husband had informed her that report u/s 376 IPC was lodged against the accused and that he would be arrested and sent to jail. She has further admitted that lawyers had informed her that correct report was lodged this time and now the accused would be convicted. According to this witness, prosecutrix had also informed her husband-in detail as to how the report had been lodged and what she stated before the police. She has stated that accused Rajkumar is a married person and belongs to different caste and that had he been of her caste, there would have been no problem in the marriage but as he belongs to a different caste, marriage cannot be performed. She has stated that she was not aware that the accused/appellant Rajkumar was having any relations with the prosecutrix. Shital Das (PW-3) is the village Kotwar who has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. Dr. Nandini Chandravanshi (PW-4) is the witness who medically examined the prosecutrix and gave her report Ex. P-5) stating that two abrasions were found on her left elbow but she did not find any external or internal injury on her person and that she was habitual to sexual intercourse, her age at the relevant time was 20 years and she was a fully developed woman. Kishore Singh (PW-5) is the witness to seizure of underwear of the accused/appellant Rajkumar made under Ex. P-10 K.K. Shyam (PW-6) is the Patwari who prepared spot map Ex. P-13. Dr. Arvind Dwivedi (PW-7) is the witness who examined underwear of accused/appellant Rajkumar and sent the same for chemical examination. Narayan Rathia (PW-8) is the Patwari who prepared spot map of the place where the prosecutrix was allegedly subjected to sexual intercourse and his report Ex. P-15 Dr. O.P. Shrivastava (PW-9) is the witness who medically examined accused/appellant Raj kumar and gave his report Ex. P-16 stating that he was capable of performing sexual intercourse. Chhatrapal Rathore (PW-11) is the brother of the prosecutrix who has stated that after receiving the telephonic call by his father, he went to village Sarkhon and came to know that prosecutrix was missing and then after leaving his father at Sarkhon he went to Chainpur. On 27.11.2004 he went to village Halahuli and on the next day i.e. 28.11.2004 when he came back to Chainpur by that time the prosecutrix had also reached there and on being asked she told him that she was abducted by accused Rajkumar and Shani, taken to a secluded house where accused Rajkumar committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, information was sent to his father and then the report was lodged. Later, this witness has been declared hostile. In cross-examination, this witness has admitted that he and accused Rajkumar were having a mini bus in which he was working as conductor. This witness then was also put several irrelevant questions during cross examination. Savitri Bai (PW-12) - the mother of the prosecutrix has made almost the similar statement as by Bhagirthi Rathore (PW-1). She has stated that on 27.11.2004 at about 12-1 in the night door of her house was knocked but she did not open the same on account of fear. When she opened the door, it was informed by one Jagjivan Gabel that the prosecutrix was brought back by accused Rajkumar and Shani and when he asked her to accompany him, she refused for the same on which he threatened her but in spite of the threat she did not accompany him. Thereafter again when she was asked to open the door she did not open the same. On hearing the voice of the prosecutrix, she opened the door of backside and took her inside where she was informed by her as to how she was picked up by the accused persons. In cross-examination, there appears to be number of contradictions in her Court statement if compared to her case diary statement Ex. D-4. She has admitted that there was some dispute between her family and that of accused Rajkumar and in the village Panchayat the dispute was amicably settled and it was decided that no allegation and counter allegation would be made against each other. Murarilal Rathore (PW-13) - brother-in-law of the prosecutrix from whose house the prosecutrix was allegedly abducted has stated that on the eve of Shyam Kartik Mela the prosecutrix had come to his house and on 26.11.2004 when he was having his dinner, she was offering food and thereafter she went missing. Prosecutrix was searched in the village but she could not be traced. Information was also sent to the father of the prosecutrix who then came to his house and then both made search for her. Oral information was given to the police and then on 28.11.2004 he was informed by his brother-in-law that the prosecutrix had reached village Chainpur. Thereafter, prosecutrix informed everyone as to in what manner she was picked up by the accused persons. This witness has admitted that on the eve of Shyam Kartik Mela there was heavy crowd and number of police people were also on duty apart from local volunteers. In paragraph 12 he has admitted that if a girl of Rathore community goes to the boy of other community then people of the society would socially boycott the said girl and her family members and if the society members came to know about the prosecutrix having affair with accused Rajkumar and that she wanted to marry him, they would have punished her and family members by out-casting them. He has admitted that to live in the society and maintain dignity it was necessary to lodge the report and even the society people wanted to punish the accused persons if the prosecutrix was correct. Krishnapal Rathore (PW-14) - the brother of the prosecutrix has stated that he was informed by his brother Chhatrapal that the prosecutrix was missing and that on 28.11.2004 she returned home but at that time he was not there and had gone to search her. Thereafter, he informed his father about arrival of the prosecutrix and then went back to village Chainpur. He did not inquire from the prosecutrix nor did she inform him anything. Thereafter, he was declared hostile. Manju Rathore (PW-15) is the investigating officer who has duly supported the case of the prosecution. Harprasad Pandey (PW-6) is the Assistant Sub Inspector who seized the motorcycle vide Ex. P-23 Brajlal Pandey (PW-17) is the witness who recorded FIR Ex. P-17.

From the record it appears that vide Ex. P-28 underwear of the prosecutrix (article A), slides of the prosecutrix (article B) and underwear of the accused/appellant (article C) were sent for chemical examination and receipt thereof is Ex. P-29 but the FSL report has not been received.

Minute examination of material available on record including the evidence of the witnesses particularly father of the prosecutrix (PW-1), her sister (PW-2) and her brother-in-law (PW-13) goes to show that the prosecutrix might have been a consenting party. Even the statement of prosecutrix shows that after being picked up by the accused persons, she was taken on motorcycle and that she kept sitting on motorcycle for 3-4 hours, but there is nothing to show that she made any effort to come out of their clutches or raised any cry to attract the attention of the nearby people. Evidence on record also shows that at the time of Shyam Kartik Mela a huge crowd is always there including number of police people on duty but here also neither she chose to make any complaint to the police nor to the people present there. Record shows that father of the prosecutrix (PW-1) has categorically stated that if his daughter (prosecutrix) married the accused/appellant Rajkumar, society would have boycotted him. Similarly, Murarilal Rathore (PW-13) has also stated that if a girl of Rathore community goes to the boy of other community, Rathore community would socially boycott the girl and her family members and that if the people of the society came to know about the love affair of the prosecutrix and accused Rajkumar, they would have punished the girl and her family members and boycotted them from the society. Likewise, Anjani (PW-2) has also stated that if the appellant Rajkumar was of her caste, there would not be any problem in his marriage with the prosecutrix but as he belongs to other caste their marriage could not be solemnized. Evidence also shows that there was some dispute between the family of the prosecutrix and that of accused Rajkumar which was later resolved in the village Panchayat Evidence also goes to show that the signature of the prosecutrix was taken on a blank paper and that she did not read the FIR. Even during her detention in a room she observed an utter silence that too for sufficient long time and did not make any struggle to attract the attention of people outside also creates a doubt in the case of the prosecution. Record though shows that underwear of the prosecutrix and accused Rajkumar as also her vaginal slides were sent for chemical examination but no FSL report is on record which also makes the story of rape by accused Rajkumar a doubtful one. Furthermore, record shows that the incident had taken place on 26.11.2004, prosecutrix returned home on 27.11.2004 and the report was lodged only on 30.11.2004 and this delay has not been properly explained by the prosecution. True it is that in a case of rape solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict an accused provided that it is absolutely trustworthy, unblemished, of sterling quality, without any shortcoming and thereby inspires full confidence of the Court. Unfortunately, this is not the position in the case in hand. Evidence of the prosecutrix on material particulars carries several lacunae such as contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations or embellishments leading to an inference that she was certainly not telling the truth Thus, according to the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore its benefit should go to the accused/appellants. In the result, the appeals are allowed. Accused/appellants are acquitted of their respective charges levelled against them. It is reported that except accused Rajkumar all the accused persons are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged. Accused/appellant Rajkumar who is in jail be set free forthwith.