Sardar Singh & Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Sections,Injured,Imprisonment,"Detail of

fine/if

deposited","Imprisonm

ent in lieu

of fine

148 IPC,Chandrabhan,6 months RI,Rs. 300/,1 month RI

325/149

IPC",Chandrabhan,1 Year RI,Rs.500/-,"2 months

RI

325/149

IPC",Rana,1 Year RI,Rs.500/-,"2 months

RI

323/149

IPC",Bachanlal,3 months RI,Rs.200/-,1 month RI

323/149

IPC",Kale,3 months RI,Rs.200/-,1 month RI

323/149

IPC",Madho,3 months RI,Rs.200/-,1 month RI

323/149

IPC",Krishna,3 months RI,Rs.200/-,1 month RI

Multiple contusions 10cmx2cm on the back.,,,,

Contusion 10cmx2cm in the left side of chest anterior.,,,,

Contusion 8cmx6cm in the left shoulder.,,,,

Injured Madho Singh:,,,,

A lacerated wound 4cmx1cmx1cm in the left parietal region of head.,,,,

Contusion 18cmx16cm in the l........ region back.,,,,

Contusion 13cmx10cm in the left shoulder.,,,,

A.C.W. 1Cmx1cmx0.5cm in the left wrist.,,,,

Injured Rana:,,,,

Contusion 12cmx5cm in the left hand.,,,,

3 Contusion 8cmx4cm each in the left forearm.,,,,

Contusion 8cmx4cm in the left shoulder.,,,,

Contusion 8cmx4cm in the right hand.,,,,

Multiple contusions 10cmx2cm each in the back.,,,,

Multiple contusions 8cmx3cm in the both calves.,,,,

Similarly, Dr. A.K. Shrivastava (PW-1) found that Chandrabhan (PW-5) had suffered fracture of index finger and Rana (PW-8) had suffered",,,,

fracture of little right finger. The x-ray report of Chandrabhan (PW-5) is Ex.P/13 and the x-ray plate of Chandrabhan (PW-5) is Ex.P/14 and the x-,,,,

ray report of Rana (PW-8) is Ex.P/15 and the x-ray plate of Rana (PW-8) is Ex.P/16.,,,,

By referring to the evidence of Kale @ Karan Singh (PW-2), it is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that in paragraph 6 of his cross-",,,,

examination, Kale @ Karan Singh has stated that he was not assaulted by the applicants but he had sustained injuries because of fall of the spare",,,,

parts of engine as well as the trolley. Thus, it is submitted that in fact none of the witnesses were beaten and all the witnesses had sustained injuries",,,,

because of the fall of the spare parts of the engine as well as the trolley. It is further submitted that Kale @ Karan Singh (PW-2) has admitted that he,,,,

along with Chandrabhan (PW-5) has encroached upon the Government land and there is a dispute between them and the villagers, on the question of",,,,

public road. it is submitted that since the applicant No.2 Mahendra was elected as a Sarpanch and he was objecting to the encroachment made by,,,,

Kale @ Karan Singh (PW-2) and Chandrabhan (PW-5), therefore, he has been falsely implicated.",,,,

Bachan Lal (PW-3), Krishna (PW-4), Chandrabhan (PW-5), Pappu (PW-6), Madho Singh (PW-7) and Rana (PW-8) are the injured witnesses.",,,,

Though they have specifically stated that while they were coming back after loading the engine on the tractor and trolley, they were waylaid by Sardar",,,,

Singh, Mahendra, Pooran, Khilan, Pappu, Sillu etc. along with the other villagers and all of them assaulted the injured witnesses. Rana (PW-8) has also",,,,

stated that a palm of his right hand is permanently damaged.,,,,

Ashok (PW-9) is an independent eyewitness who was working in his field situated nearby the place of incident. He has specifically stated that,,,,

Bachan Lal (PW-3), Krishna (PW-4), Kale @ Karan Singh (PW-2), Rana (PW-8) and Madho Singh (PW-7) Pappu (PW-6) were coming back and",,,,

they were waylaid by the applicants and other co-accused persons and they were beaten.,,,,

Shyamacharan (PW-10) has stated that the police had seized lathi and other articles from applicant No.2 Mahendra and applicant No.3 Khilan and,,,,

other co-accused persons vide seizure memo Ex.P/21 to P/30. In cross-examination, he stated that the lathi which was seized from the possession of",,,,

Mahendra, was fixed with iron.",,,,

Onkar Singh Chandel (PW-11) was the Investigating Officer, he has stated that he had sent the injured witnesses to the Hospital for medical",,,,

examination and Chandrabhan (PW-5) had lodged the FIR in Crime No.307/2004 Ex.P/21. It is further submitted that at the instance of Ashok Pardi,",,,,

a spot map (Ex.P/31) was prepared on 28.11.2004. Lathies were seized from the possession of applicant No.2 Mahendra, applicant No.3 Khilan and",,,,

other co-accused persons vide seizure memo Ex.P/21 to P/30 which bears his signatures. The applicant No.2 Mahendra, applicant No.3 Khilan and",,,,

other co-accused persons were arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P/30. A loss Panchnama of the loss/damage sustained by the tractor was prepared,,,,

which is Ex.P/33 and a loss to the extent of Rs.5000/- was caused.,,,,

Ram Swaroop (PW-12) has stated that the loss panchnama Ex.P/33 was prepared in his presence and it bears his signatures. The prosecution,,,,

witnesses, who had sustained injuries, had admitted that there is an enmity between the parties. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that",,,,

the applicants have been falsely implicated because of the enmity which has been admitted by the prosecution witnesses.,,,,

It was one of the contentions of the counsel for the applicants that there are material improvements in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses,,,,

which makes the case of the prosecution unreliable.,,,,

I have gone through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Unfortunately, none of the prosecution witnesses was confronted with their",,,,

previous statements as required under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. It is well established principle of law that if a witness is not confronted with,,,,

his previous statement, then the improvement or omission and the previous statement cannot be taken into consideration in the light of Section 145 of",,,,

the Evidence Act.,,,,

The Supreme Court in the case of Karan Singh Vs. State of M.P. Reported in (2003) 12 SCC 587 has held as under :,,,,

When a previous statement is to be proved as an admission, the statement as such should be put to the witness and if the witness denies having",,,,

given such a statement it does not amount to any admission and if it is proved that he had given such a statement the attention of the witness must be,,,,

drawn to that statement. Section 145 of the Evidence Act is clear on this aspect. The object is to give the witness a chance of explaining the,,,,

discrepancy or inconsistency and to clear up the particular point of ambiguity or dispute. In the instant case, Ext. D-4 statement as such was not put to",,,,

the witness nor was the witness given an opportunity to explain it. Therefore, Ext. D-4 statement, even if it is assumed to be a statement of PW 1",,,,

Hari Singh, that is of no assistance to the appellants to prove their case of private defence.",,,,

The Supreme Court in the case of Rajender Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2000) 4 SCC 298 has held as under :,,,,

So far as the second contention of Mr Mishra is concerned, it is no doubt true that on 4-7-1977 Satyanarain who has been examined as PW 8 in the",,,,

course of trial had been examined by a Magistrate as he had been seriously injured and that statement has been exhibited as Exhibit B and in fact the,,,,

Magistrate who had recorded the statement has been examined by the defence as DW 1. This statement of Satyanarain recorded by the Magistrate,,,,

may be a former statement by Satyanarain relating to the same fact at about a time when the fight took place and when the said Satyanarain was,,,,

examined as PW 8 during trial it would be open for a party to make use of the former statement for such purpose as the law provides. But if the,,,,

witness during trial is intended to be contradicted by his former statement then his attention has to be drawn to those parts of the statement which are,,,,

required to be used for the purpose of contradicting him before the said statement in question can be proved as provided under Section 145 of the,,,,

Evidence Act. Mr Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant relying upon the decision of this Court in Bhagwan Singh v. State of",,,,

Punjab contended before us that if there has been substantial compliance with Section 145 of the Evidence Act and if the necessary particulars of the,,,,

former statement has been put to the witness in cross-examination then notwithstanding the fact that the provisions of Section 145 of the Evidence,,,,

Act is not complied with in letter i.e. by not drawing the attention of the witness to that part of the former statement yet the statement could be utilised,,,,

and the veracity of the witness could be impeached. According to Mr Mishra the former statement of PW 8 which has been exhibited as Exhibit B,,,,

was to the effect that Kameshwar was assaulted with a bhala by Rajender and Surender and he did not see whether any other person had been,,,,

assaulted or not, whereas in the course of trial the substantive evidence of the witness is that it is Rajender and Triloki who assaulted the deceased",,,,

and, therefore, it belies the entire prosecution case. The question of contradicting evidence and the requirements of compliance with Section 145 of the",,,,

Evidence Act has been considered by this Court in the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P. The Court in the,,,,

aforesaid case was examining the question as to when an omission in the former statement can be held to be a contradiction and it has also been,,,,

indicated as to how a witness can be contradicted in respect of his former statement by drawing particular attention to that portion of the former,,,,

statement. This question has been recently considered in the case of Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar and the Court has taken note of the earlier,,,,

decision in Bhagwan Singh and explained away the same with the observation that on the facts of that case there cannot be a dispute with the,,,,

proposition laid down therein. But in elaborating the second limb of Section 145 of the Evidence Act it was held that if it is intended to contradict him,,,,

by the writing his attention must be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose for contradicting him. It has been further held that if,,,,

the witness disowns to have made any statement which is inconsistent with his present stand, his testimony in court on that score would not be vitiated",,,,

until the cross-examiner proceeds to comply with the procedure prescribed in the second limb of Section 145 of the Evidence Act.......,,,,

The Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1952 SCR 812 has held as under:,,,,

A witness is called and he says in chief, “I saw the accused shoot Xâ€. In cross-examination he resiles and says “I did not see it at all.â€",,,,

He is then asked “but didn’t you tell A, B & C on the spot that you had seen it?â€​ He replies “yes, I did.â€​ We have, of set purpose, chosen",,,,

as an illustration a statement which was not reduced to writing and which was not made either to the police or to a Magistrate. Now, the former",,,,

statement could not be used as substantive evidence. It could only be used as corroboration of the evidence in chief under Section 157 of the Evidence,,,,

Act or to shake the witness’s credit or test his veracity under Section 146. Section 145 is not called into play at all in such a case. Resort to,,,,

Section 145 would only be necessary if the witness denies that he made the former statement. In that event, it would be necessary to prove that he",,,,

did, and if the former statement was reduced to writing, then Section 145 requires that his attention must be drawn to those parts which are to be used",,,,

for contradiction. But that position does not arise when the witness admits the former statement. In such a case all that is necessary is to look to the,,,,

former statement of which no further proof is necessary because of the admission that it was made.,,,,

The Supreme Court in the case of Major Som Nath Vs. Union of India reported in (1971) 2 SCC 387 has held as under :,,,,

....... The learned advocate for the respondent also tried to support the stand taken by the High Court. It is true that when a witness has admitted,,,,

having signed his previous statements that is enough to prove that some statement of his was recorded and he had appended his signature thereto. The,,,,

only question is, what use can be made of such statements even where the witness admits having signed the statements made before the Military",,,,

Authorities. They can at best be used to contradict in the cross-examination of such a witness when he gives evidence at the trial court of the accused,,,,

in the manner provided under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. If it is intended to contradict the witness by the writing, the attention of the witness",,,,

should be called before the writing can be proved to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him. If this is not done, the",,,,

evidence of the witnesses cannot be assailed in respect of those statements by merely proving that the witness had signed the document. Then the,,,,

witnesses are contradicted by their previous statements in the manner aforesaid, then that part of the statements which has been put to the witness",,,,

will be considered along with the evidence to assess the worth of the witness in determining his veracity. The whole of the previous statement,,,,

however cannot be treated as substantive evidence.,,,,

The Supreme Court in the case of V.K. Mishra Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2015) 9 SCC 588 has held as under :,,,,

Under Section 145 of the Evidence Act when it is intended to contradict the witness by his previous statement reduced into writing, the attention of",,,,

such witness must be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him, before the writing can be used. While",,,,

recording the deposition of a witness, it becomes the duty of the trial court to ensure that the part of the police statement with which it is intended to",,,,

contradict the witness is brought to the notice of the witness in his cross-examination. The attention of witness is drawn to that part and this must,,,,

reflect in his cross-examination by reproducing it. If the witness admits the part intended to contradict him, it stands proved and there is no need to",,,,

further proof of contradiction and it will be read while appreciating the evidence. If he denies having made that part of the statement, his attention",,,,

must be drawn to that statement and must be mentioned in the deposition. By this process the contradiction is merely brought on record, but it is yet to",,,,

be proved. Thereafter when investigating officer is examined in the court, his attention should be drawn to the passage marked for the purpose of",,,,

contradiction, it will then be proved in the deposition of the investigating officer who again by referring to the police statement will depose about the",,,,

witness having made that statement. The process again involves referring to the police statement and culling out that part with which the maker of the,,,,

statement was intended to be contradicted. If the witness was not confronted with that part of the statement with which the defence wanted to,,,,

contradict him, then the court cannot suo motu make use of statements to police not proved in compliance with Section 145 of the Evidence Act that",,,,

is, by drawing attention to the parts intended for contradiction.",,,,

It was next contended by the counsel for the applicants that as the Trial Court itself has found that the witnesses are not reliable in respect of 17,,,,

co-accused persons out of 20, therefore, the evidence of these witnesses in respect of the present applicants be also discarded. The submissions made",,,,

by the counsel for the applicants cannot be accepted.,,,,

The Supreme Court in the case of Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan (Smt.) vs. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble & Anr. reported in (2003) 7 SCC 749 has,,,,

observed as under:,,,,

It is the duty of the court to separate the grain from the chaff. Falsity of a particular material witness or a material particular would not ruin it",,,,

from the beginning to end. The maxim “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus†has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liars.,,,,

The maxim “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus†has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It,,,,

is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine",,,,

merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called “a",,,,

mandatory rule of evidenceâ€​. (See Nisar Ali v. State of U.P.),,,,

The doctrine is a dangerous one especially in India for if a whole body of the testimony were to be rejected, because the witness was evidently",,,,

speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a dead stop. Witnesses just cannot help in",,,,

giving embroidery to a story, however true in the main. Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of",,,,

acceptance, and merely because in some respects the court considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, it",,,,

does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respects as well. The evidence has to be sifted with care. The,,,,

aforesaid dictum is not a sound rule for the reason that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at,,,,

any rate an exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment. (See Sohrab v. State of M.P. and Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar) An attempt has to be made",,,,

to, as noted above, in terms of felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff, truth from falsehood. Where it is not feasible to separate the",,,,

truth from falsehood, because grain and chaff are inextricably mixed up, and in the process of separation an absolutely new case has to be",,,,

reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are,,,,

made, the only available course to be made is to discard the evidence in toto. (See Zwinglee Ariel v. State of M.P. and Balaka Singh v. State of",,,,

Punjab.) As observed by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki normal discrepancies in the evidence are those which are due to normal errors of,,,,

observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are",,,,

always there, however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal",,,,

person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a,,,,

party’s case, material discrepancies do so. These aspects were highlighted recently in Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar, Gangadhar Behera v.",,,,

State of Orissa and Rizan v. State of Chhattisgarh.""",,,,

The Supreme Court in the case of Yogendra Alias Yogesh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2013) 12 SCC 399 has observed as under:,,,,

The argument advanced by Shri Altaf Hussain, learned counsel for the appellants, stating that the evidence which has been disbelieved in respect",,,,

of certain accused, cannot be enough to convict the present appellants, has no force. This Court, in Ranjit Singh v. State of M.P. has dealt with a",,,,

similar issue. The Court herein, considered its earlier judgments in Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab, Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar and Nathu Singh",,,,

Yadav v. State of M.P. and has referred to the doctrine falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus and held, that the same has no application in India. The court",,,,

must assess the extent to which the deposition of a witness can be relied upon. The court must make every attempt to separate falsehoods from the,,,,

truth, and it must only be in exceptional circumstances, when it is entirely impossible to separate the grain from the chaff, for the same are so",,,,

inextricably intertwined, that the entire evidence of such a witness must be discarded.""",,,,

The Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Jagannath Markad & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2016) 10 SCC 537 has observed as,,,,

under:,,,,

While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the court has to assess whether read as a whole, it is truthful. In doing so, the court has to keep in",,,,

mind the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities to find out whether such discrepancies shake the truthfulness.",,,,

Some discrepancies not touching the core of the case are not enough to reject the evidence as a whole. No true witness can escape from giving some,,,,

discrepant details. Only when discrepancies are so incompatible as to affect the credibility of the version of a witness, the court may reject the",,,,

evidence. Section 155 of the Evidence Act enables the doubt to impeach the credibility of the witness by proof of former inconsistent statement.,,,,

Section 145 of the Evidence Act lays down the procedure for contradicting a witness by drawing his attention to the part of the previous statement,,,,

which is to be used for contradiction. The former statement should have the effect of discrediting the present statement but merely because the latter,,,,

statement is at variance to the former to some extent, it is not enough to be treated as a contradiction. It is not every discrepancy which affects the",,,,

creditworthiness and the trustworthiness of a witness. There may at times be exaggeration or embellishment not affecting the credibility. The court,,,,

has to sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth. A statement may be partly rejected or partly accepted. Want of independent witnesses or,,,,

unusual behaviour of witnesses of a crime is not enough to reject evidence. A witness being a close relative is not enough to reject his testimony if it is,,,,

otherwise credible. A relation may not conceal the actual culprit. The evidence may be closely scrutinised to assess whether an innocent person is,,,,

falsely implicated. Mechanical rejection of evidence even of a “partisan†or “interested†witness may lead to failure of justice. It is well,,,,

known that principle “ falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus†has no general acceptability. On the same evidence, some accused persons may be",,,,

acquitted while others may be convicted, depending upon the nature of the offence. The court can differentiate the accused who is acquitted from",,,,

those who are convicted. A witness may be untruthful in some aspects but the other part of the evidence may be worthy of acceptance.,,,,

Discrepancies may arise due to error of observations, loss of memory due to lapse of time, mental disposition such as shock at the time of occurrence",,,,

and as such the normal discrepancy does not affect the credibility of a witness.""",,,,

The Supreme Court in the case of Raja Alias Rajinder vs. State of Haryana reported in (2015) 11 SCC 43 has observed as under:,,,,

Another circumstance which needs to be noted is that Sukha PW 7, a taxi driver, has deposed that on 18-1-2003 about 11.00 p.m. while he was",,,,

going to Fatehabad for taking passengers, he saw a bullock cart parked in front of the house of the accused and certain persons were tying a bundle in",,,,

a “palliâ€​. On query being made by him, the accused persons told him that they are carrying manure to the fields. Though, this witness has given an",,,,

exaggerated version and stated differently about the time of arrest, yet his testimony to the effect that he had seen the accused with a bundle in",,,,

“palli†at a particular place cannot be disbelieved. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, is not applicable in India. In Krishna Mochi v. State",,,,

of Bihar, it has been held thus: (SCC pp. 113-14, para 51)",,,,

“51. … The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liars. The maxim falsus in",,,,

uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of",,,,

the rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to is, that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be",,,,

disregarded.â€​,,,,

In Yogendra v. State of Rajasthan, it has been ruled that: (SCC p. 404, para 13)",,,,

“13. … The court must assess the extent to which the deposition of a witness can be relied upon. The court must make every attempt to separate,,,,

falsehoods from the truth, and it must only be in exceptional circumstances, when it is entirely impossible to separate the grain from the chaff, for the",,,,

same are so inextricably intertwined, that the entire evidence of such a witness must be discarded.â€​",,,,

Thus viewed, the version of PW 7 to the extent that has been stated hereinabove is totally acceptable and credible.""",,,,

It is well established principle of law that ""falsus in Uno falsus in omnibus"" has no application and the Court must try to separate the grain from the",,,,

chaff. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses very minutely had acquitted 17 co-accused persons out of 20.,,,,

The allegations against the applicants were consistent right from the FIR.,,,,

It is well established principle of law that this Court while exercising the powers under Section 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. cannot re-appreciate the",,,,

findings of fact unless and until the same are found to be perverse. No perversity could be pointed out by the counsel for the applicants. Accordingly,",,,,

the applicants are held guilty for committing the following offences:-,,,,

Sections 148, 325/149, 325/149 (2 counts) and 323/149 (5 counts).""",,,,

Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Trial Court and Appellate Court did not commit any mistake in holding the applicants guilty",,,,

and accordingly, the applicants are held guilty for committing the following offences:-",,,,

Sections 148, 325/149, 325/149 (2 counts) and 323/149 (5 counts).""",,,,

It is next contended by the counsel for the applicants that the incident took place in the year 2004 and near about 14 years have passed and,",,,,

therefore, the applicants may be sentenced to the period already undergone by enhancing the fine amount.",,,,

In order to consider the submissions made by the counsel for the applicants, it would be essential to consider the number of injuries which were",,,,

caused by the applicants to the injured witnesses. As already pointed out by this Court that in the previous paragraph, Chandrabhan (PW-5) had",,,,

sustained three injuries out of one lacerated wound, Bachan Lal (PW-3) had sustained one lacerated wound and multiple contusions on both upper",,,,

limbs, multiple contusions on both arms and forearm and multiple contusions on lower leg. Krishna (PW-4) had sustained an incised wound on his",,,,

parietal region and two contusions. Pappu (PW-6) had sustained a lacerated wound on parietal region, multiple contusions on back and two contusions.",,,,

Madho Singh (PW-7) had sustained a lacerated wound on parietal region and three other injures. Rana (PW-8) had sustained four contusions on hand,",,,,

forearm, shoulder, left hand, right hand and multiple contusions on back and multiple contusions on both calves and apart from that, Rana (PW-8) and",,,,

Chandrabhan (PW-5) had sustained fracture of little and index fingers of right hand. Thus, it is clear that the injured persons were mercilessly beaten",,,,

by the applicants, as a result of which they had sustained multiple injuries on the part of the bodies and also on the vital part of the bodies. Deterrence",,,,

is one of the important factor of sentencing policy.,,,,

By awarding the jail sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months, one year and three months respectively by the Trial Court, in the considered",,,,

opinion of this Court, a very lenient view has been adopted by the Trial Court and, therefore, the jail sentence awarded by the Trial Court and",,,,

confirmed by Appellate Court does not call for any interference.,,,,

Accordingly, the judgment and sentence dated 12.11.2008 passed by CJM, Kurwai, District Vidisha in Criminal Case No.7/2005 and judgment",,,,

dated 24.2.2009 passed by 3rd ASJ, Vidisha in Criminal Appeal No.249/2008 are hereby affirmed.",,,,

The applicants are on bail. Their bail bonds and surety bonds are hereby cancelled. The applicants are directed to immediately surrender before,,,,

the Trial Court for undergoing the jail sentence.,,,,

Accordingly, the revision is hereby dismissed.",,,,