State of H.P. vs Dot Ram

R.B. Misra, J.—The present Criminal Appeal has come up for adjudication after the grant of leave to appeal has been granted u/s 378(3) of the Code of criminal Procedure in reference to judgment dated 21.2.2002, passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Kullu H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 59 of 2001, for the offence u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code, acquitting the alleged accused / respondent.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 3.2.2001 victim-prosecutrix (name not given) at about 7.00 P.M. accompanied by her younger sister aged about 4 years went in the adjoining field of her house and while she was answering the call of the nature, accused appeared, caught her from her hair took her to the nearby bushes, forcibly made her to lie down and raped her. On cries made by her and her younger sister, their mother Subidha Devi (PW.3) and another sister Ailo Devi, ran to the spot from their nearby house and pulled the accused from the person of the victim-prosecutrix. Thereafter, accused Dot Ram quarrelled with Smt. Subidha Devi (PW.3), the mother of the victim-prosecutrix and after sometime Sh. Rattan Chand (PW.4), father of the victim-prosecutrix, along with Lal Chand a resident of the same village also reached to the spot, however, before their arrival, accused had already escaped. The victim-prosecutrix was brought to the house. Further the story of the prosecution is that due to darkness and long distance from police station, matter could not be reported to the police on that night. FIR (Ex.PA) was lodged on 4.2.2001 and victim-prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Neeru Pandit Kapoor (PW.5), who thereupon issued MLC (Ex.PW.5/B). The ossification test was made and radiological examination of the victim-prosecutrix was also conducted, whereby Dr. Yash Pal (PW.10) who vide certificate (Ex.PW.10/A) has opined the age of the victim-prosecutrix between 13 to 16. The accused was arrested and was medically examined by Dr. Shiv Prakash (PW.6). After registration of FIR, ASI Kamla (PW.15), visited the spot and prepared site plan (Ex.PW.15/A) and took school certificate (Ex.PW.11/A) from Head Master of the School Sh.Jaggan Nath (PW.11), where victim-prosecutrix was studying. PW.15 also collected the copy of pariwar register (Ex.PW.9/A) from Secretary, Gram Panchayat and copy of birth entry (Ex.PW.7/A) from the office of Registrar, Births and Deaths, Kullu. After completion of investigation, the accused was charged for the above offence.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 15 prosecution witnesses, whereas, the accused-respondent denied the allegations through his statement u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. In addition to above, two defence witnesses were also adduced.

In order to adjudicate the present criminal appeal preferred by the State, it is necessary to deal with the prosecution witnesses.

Sh.Lal Chand (PW.1) has stated that on 3.2.2001, he was coming back to his house along with Rattan Chand (PW.4), the father of victim-prosecutrix, and Gehru Ram. When they reached at a place known as Palati, at about 7.00 PM, heard noise of a woman from field side. PW.4 informed that it appeared as if voices were of his wife and children. They went from the path towards that direction in the field. There were bushes, where PW.1 saw wife of (PW.4) / Rattan Chand and her three daughters, namely, victim-prosecutrix, Ailu Devi and Lata Devi aged 13-14 years, 10-11 years and 5-6 years respectively. Wife of PW.4 told PW.1 that accused Dot Ram, Master, was there.

PW.1 was declared hostile, however, in cross-examination, has stated that it is correct that when he was passing through the path, he heard the shrieks of a woman from a distance of 10-12 steps from the path on which he was going. PW.1 has further stated in cross-examination that he and accompanying persons were informed by PW.3 i.e. wife of PW.4 that her daughter had come to ease and for answering the call of nature and when she reached to the spot, she found accused Dot Ram raping by lying on the victim-prosecutrix. Sh.Lal Chand (PW.1) has also stated in cross-examination that PW.3 further told him that accused was caught from back and lifted by her from the person of the victim. After lifting the accused he had put on his underwear as well as his pant and accused started arguing with PW.3 and thereafter the accused fled away from the spot. PW.1 has further stated in cross-examination that the place of occurrence was at a distance of about 100 meters from the house of Rattan Chand (PW.4). PW.1 has, however, denied that PW.4 along with Khub Ram and Fateh Chand gave beatings to accused Dot Ram. As stated by PW.1, no such incident was took place in his presence. PW.1 however had not seen the accused on 4.2.2001 and 5.2.2001 thereafter also. PW.1 has also stated in cross-examination that he was not aware about lodging of any report to police by the accused about his beatings. PW.1 has further stated in cross-examination that bushes on edges of the fields were having thorns and no crop was sown in the field.

PW.2 / (victim-prosecutrix) in support of the prosecution case has stated that on 3.2.2001 she accompanying her younger sister went for answering the call of nature about 7.00 P.M. and while she was easing, accused came and caught her from her hair and took her to the bushes, made her to lie on the ground and sexually assaulted her against her wishes. PW.2 has further stated that while she was being raped she and her younger sister cried. After hearing their cries, Subidha Devi (PW.3), the mother of the victim-prosecutrix, along with Ailu Devi came there and caught the accused from back and lifted him, thereafter, accused started quarreling with her mother. PW.2 has further stated that her father PW.4 accompanied by Gehru Ram and Lal Chand came there. After fighting with her mother accused went towards his house on lower side from the place of occurrence. On arrival of PW.4, victim-prosecutrix, apprised him of her sexual assault by the accused. Next day, victim-prosecutrix accompanied by her parents came to Kullu and reported the matter to the police. Victim has further stated that when she was medically examined doctor took into possession her shirt (Ex.P1), salwar (Ex.P2) and dupatta (Ex.P3). Victim-prosecutrix also stated that at the time of incident she was studying in 7th standard and accused Dot Ram was employed as L.T. Teacher. PW.2 has further stated that then she went along with the police to the spot and had shown them the place of occurrence.

In cross-examination, PW.2, has stated that she had gone 12 steps away from her house in her own field for answering the call of nature and there was dark at that time. PW.2 denied in cross-examination that her father gave beatings to the accused by danda and bottle. However, she reiterated that after the sexual assault, accused went downwards. PW.2 has further stated that she breatheddid not see the accused next day but when had seen accused in the police station, his eyes were bulging out due to injuries and accused had suffered scar marks. PW.2 has further stated that her mother (PW.3) did not tell about the occurrence to her father and Lal Chand rather she told about it. According to the victim when accused was enquired by the police, the accused told that he has suffered those injuries due to fall. PW.2 has further stated that bushes were not having thorns when accused caught her from her hair. Few of the hair got separated from her scalp, her clothes were mingled with dust, she had given the broken hair to the police. When accused caught her from hair blood oozed out from scalp. The pattoo of green and white in colour was also shown to the police. PW.2 has further stated that pattoo was stained with grass, dust and thorns.

In cross-examination, PW.2 has stated that first she came to the police station at 10.00 A.M. thereafter met Maheshwar Singh and she has also denied that Maheshwar Singh telephonically contacted the police and victim again came to the police station. PW.2 has very categorically stated in cross-examination that she and her parents reached to the police station prior to coming of accused to the police station. PW.2 has also denied that her father had beaten the accused, in that respect, accused had come to the police station to lodge a report.

PW.3 Smt. Subidha Devi, mother of the victim-prosecutrix, in support of the prosecution case, reiterated the version of PW.2 / (victim-prosecutrix). PW.3 has stated that on 3.2.2001 victim-prosecutrix along with her younger daughter aged about 4 years at about 7.00 P.M., went out to answer the call of nature. After some time, she heard shrieks of victim-prosecutrix and Lata Devi, then PW.3 along with her daughter Ailo Devi rushed towards that direction. When they reached the place near bushes on edge of the field, noticed that the accused was sexually assaulting the victim. PW.3 caught accused from the back and lifted him from the body of her daughter. Thereafter, accused put on his pant and then started quarreling with PW.3. In the meantime, her husband Rattan Chand (PW.4), Lal Chand / (PW.1) and Gehru Ram reached there and then she told them about the sexual assault on the victim-prosecutrix. PW.3 has further stated that on the next day, she along with her husband PW.4 and PW.1 came to Kullu and lodged a report (Ex.PA) thereafter, victim was medically examined.

In cross-examination PW.3 has stated that it was dark at the time of incident. PW.3 has denied that her husband Rattan Chand (PW.4) and brother-in-law gave beatings to the accused. Accused was seen by her on 4.2.2001. As stated by PW.3, accused ran away from the spot down-hill side. PW.3 has also denied that Maheshwar Singh helped her husband in procuring job in IPH. PW.3 has further stated in cross-examination that near the spot there were bushes with and without thorns. Dropped hair were shown to the police. Thorn remained intermingled with her hairs for 3-4 days. Thorns were on her back, buttocks and those thorns were separated and picked by PW.3 after medical examination of the victim-prosecutrix. Those thorns were also seen by lady constable. PW.3 has further stated that accused hit her on head with his hand as a result of which she suffered injury but no blood came out, only swelling was there. PW.3 has further stated in cross-examination that accused was wearing a coat when she lifted him over the body of her daughter. Reiterating other version, made in cross-examination, PW.3 has further stated that she reached police station, Kullu, at 10.00 A.M.

PW.4 Sh.Rattan Chand, the father of the victim-prosecutrix, in support of the prosecution case has stated that on 3.2.2001 he along with Lal Chand (PW.1) and Gehru Ram had gone to Shamshi to take wages from the Department. While coming back he reached Palati at about 7.00 P.M. On way, he heard shrieks of his family members especially of his daughter / (victim-prosecutrix), when all the three went to that direction, he observed his wife, who told that accused raped the victim-prosecutrix and also slapped her. Thereafter, in the next morning about 6.00 A.M., PW.4 started for Kullu and lodged FIR.

In cross-examination, PW.4 however, denied beatings having been given to the accused with danda and bottle. PW.4 has also denied that he thrashed the accused on the ground on the day of incident for his appearing as a witness of Gian Chand. PW.4 has further stated that he did not notice any injury on the person of the accused and has also denied that he had ever gone to Maheshwar Singh on the relevant day. However, accepted in cross-examination that the victim-prosecutrix had injury on her head. There were no thorns on her head. Pattoo of the victim-prosecutrix was little torn. The place of occurrence from his house was at a distance of 70-80 meters. PW.4 however denied that in order to save him from the case of beating of accused, he made his daughter as scapegoat for making case against the accused.

PW.5 Dr.Neeru Pandit Kapoor examined the victim-prosecutrix and has opined that the victim-prosecutrix was exposed to coitus, however, she did not notice any mark of violence on her body. Injury on the head of victim-prosecutrix has been mentioned only due to the reason that patient was complaining of pain, however, there was no external injury on her head.

In cross-examination PW.5 has stated that it is incorrect that the MLC has been obtained from her under pressure of politicians. PW.5 Dr.Neeru Pandit Kapoor has further stated that if a person dragged on the field, such person would suffer injuries on back. On re-examination PW.5 has denied any overwriting.

PW.6 Dr. Shiv Prakash examined the accused and found him capable of performing sexual intercourse. On examination, accused was found to have swelling on eye lids on both sides with bruises and dressing was already done by Medical Officer Zonal Hospital, Kullu.

In cross-examination PW.6 Shiv Prakash has accepted that in carbon copy of MLC (Ex.PW.6/B) time of examination from 10.00 A.M., was changed to 10.00 P.M. PW.6 has denied that under political pressure the time was got changed from him from 10.00 A.M. to 10.00 P.M. Self stated that he was on night duty when patient was brought. On examination of Ex.PW.6/A, time 10.00 A.M. has been changed to 10.00 P.M., by way of overwriting on word ''A''.

PW.7 Smt. Som Lata, Dealing Assistant, CMO Office, Kullu, issued the birth certificate (Ex.PW.7/A) from the birth register. PW.8 Head Constable Bhagat Ram deposited three sealed packets in Malkhana and sent all the three sealed packets to FSL Junga. PW.9 Sh.Kalu Ram, Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari brought pariwar register of village. PW.10 Dr.Yash Pal conducted the radiological test of victim-prosecutrix and assessed her age between 13 � and 16 years and in that respect Ex.PW.10/A was issued.

PW.11 Sh.Jaggan Nath indicated that as per admission No.464, dated 3.4.2000, victim-prosecutrix was admitted in school in 6th standard and as per entry her date of birth was recorded as 15.9.1986. In that respect, Ex.PW.11/A, was issued. Such certificate was not having any overwriting.

PW.12 ASI Hans Raj has lodged the FIR and also stated that accused came to the police station having injuries on his head and his medical examination was also got conducted prior to his arrest in the case.

In cross-examination, PW.12 has denied that in Ex.PW.6/A time from 10.00 A.M., was changed to 10.00 P.M. PW.12 has however stated in cross-examination that accused has come to lodge a report regarding his beatings by danda on his head by PW.4 and uncle of the victim-prosecutrix.

PW.13 Constable Santosh Kumar has stated that MHC handed over to him sealed parcel vide RC No.32/2001 for taking the same to FSL Junga. PW.14 Hem Raj Patwari prepared the tatima (Ex.PW.14/A).

PW.15 SI Kamla procured certificate of victim and took copy of pariwar register (Ex.PW.9/A) from Secretary Panchayat and from Civil Hospital, Kullu. Certificate of birth (Ex.PW.7/A) was also obtained.

In cross-examination, PW.15 has stated that dragging marks were shown by her in site plan (Ex.PW.15/A) qua which mention has also been made in marginal notes.

DW.1 Sh.Tehal Singh has stated that he is carpenter and accused was constructing house in village Palati and he had working as carpenter in his house. On 3.2.2001, at about 7.00/8.00 P.M., while he was working as carpenter, at that time, Rattan Chand accompanied by 3-4 persons came there and gave beatings to the accused with danda and bottle. He has further stated that accused suffered injuries on his head and he tried to save him.

DW.2 Dr. Mohan Lal has stated that while being posted at Medical Officer in Zonal Hospital, Kullu, he examined Dot Ram and observed injuries on his person.

On analysis of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, we notice that in view of the testimony of DW.1 and DW.2, accused was beaten with danda and bottle. In view of testimony of DW.2, accused was having injury on his person. In view of testimony of PW.12 ASI Hans Raj, accused had come to lodge a report of his beatings with danda on his head by the father of the victim-prosecutrix and when he came to lodge the report, he was having injury on his head. Injury on the head of the accused however was denied by victim-prosecutrix (PW.2) as well as by Rattan Chand (PW.4).

As has been argued by Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General that in view of the testimony of PW.2 (victim-prosecutrix), PW.3 mother of the victim-prosecutrix and Rattan Chand (PW.4), father of the victim-prosecutrix, the victim was sexually assaulted by the accused. The narration of incident was divulged by the victim-prosecutrix herself and was witnessed by PW.3. The mother of the victim-prosecutrix had pulled the accused from the back and removed him from her victim daughter. The question of quarreling of accused with PW.3 was also corroborated by PW.2 and PW.4. Mr.Sharma has further argued that PW.5 Dr. Neeru Pandit Kapoor, on medical examination, has also supported the prosecution case indicating that victim was exposed to coitus. PW.1 though declared hostile, however, substantially acknowledged the presence of PW.4 and Gehru Ram, on the spot. PW.1 has also acknowledged the presence of Subidha Devi (PW.3), mother of the victim, on the spot along with her daughter Ailo Devi. In these circumstances, testimony of minor victim is inspiring confidence and the prosecution case is said to be proved.

On other hand, Mr. R.L. Sood, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent has stated that surprisingly Gehru Ram was not examined. Mr. Sood has further argued that on her own testimony victim / PW.2 has stated that she had gone to her own field to answer the call of nature and she had gone only 10-12 steps away. Whereas, in view of the testimony of PW.3, the spot was far-away. The distance of the spot from the house of the victim-prosecutrix was not mentioned in the FIR. PW.15 ASI Kamla prepared site plan (Ex.PW.15/A) and had shown the place of rape from the house of victim-prosecutrix as 35 yards and the site plan also shows the place of dragging of the victim-prosecutrix towards the bushes. PW.2 / (victim-prosecutrix) had stated that she had gone 12 steps away from her house for easing, as such, she could have gone only 12-15 feet from her house for easing herself and if she was really dragged around 3 yards, then the place of incident would be different.

PW.4, the father of the victim, after hearing the cries went to the spot and stated that the place of occurrence was at a distance of about 100 meters from his house. PW.14 Hem Raj Patwari, who prepared tatima (Ex.PW.14/A) has also spoken that the spot was about 100 meters away from the house of Rattan Chand, as such, the version regarding the place of occurrence belied the prosecution story.

Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, however argued that all these assessments of distance of place of occurrence from the house of Rattan Chand (PW.4), where in reference to the testimonies of PW.1, PW.14 and PW.15 as well as PW.4, none of them has stated that the spot was other than which was pointed out by PW.2 / victim. PW.2 being minor could not have given measurement of the distance correctly and there may be slight variation, as such, narration about the distance as per estimation will not make the prosecution case fatal and because of giving different measurement of the place of occurrence from the house, the main incident cannot be frustrated.

Mr. R.L. Sood, learned senior counsel invited our attention towards the discrepancies and inconsistencies that in view of the statement of PW.2 she was dragged to some distance where she was easing and was taken amongst bushes for rape. In site plan (Ex.PW.15/A) also the place of incident is shown having bushes. PW.2 has herself stated that due to pulling from hair by the accused few hair got separated and suffered scalp injury. Blood oozed out from the scalp. It reflects that that some type of injury was suffered by her. But medical certificate (Ex.PW.5/A) issued by PW.5 Neeru Pandit Kapoor falsifies such narration of the victim-prosecutrix (PW.2). PW.5 has stated that the PW.2 complained of pain but was having no head injury. If blood had oozed out from the injury, the same definitely been found on her head, whereas, no such injury was noticed except that she complained of pain, as such, version of PW.2 creates suspicion.

Mr. R.L. Sood, learned senior counsel has also asserted that the hair shown by the victim-prosecutrix on the spot were neither taken into possession nor were examined by the prosecution. Such aspect also falsifies the testimony of PW.2. Denial of any mark of injury on the person of the accused at the instance of Rattan Chand (PW.4) and her uncle by danda and bottle, also makes the testimony of PW.2 / (victim-prosecutrix) unreliable.

Controverting the submissions of Mr. Sood, learned senior counsel, it has been submitted by Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General that minor omissions on the part of PW.5 Dr.Neeru Pandit Kapoor and slight deficiencies on the part of the investigating officer, will not vitiate the prosecution case when testimony of minor victim-prosecutrix is inspiring confidence and her testiony has also partly been corroborated by PW.1, PW.3 and PW.4. As has been submitted by Mr. R.K. Sharma that there is no enmity proved on the record by accused and his family to that of the victim-prosecutrix and her family, more so, why a respectable person will bring a minor daughter to make a false allegation to implicate the accused in such an offence when there is no reality and not noticing of injury on the head of the victim-prosecutrix and not taking into possession of few hair from the spot as well as non examination of hair will not vitiate the prosecution case.

Mr. R.L. Sood, learned senior counsel has further invited the attention of this Court that as per testimony of PW.3 thorns were found on the back of the victim-prosecutrix as well as on her buttocks which PW.3 separated after medical examination of the victim-prosecutrix, but such narration by PW.3 is belied by the medical examination of the victim-prosecutrix, as neither doctor found any thorns nor any injury was caused on buttocks or back of the victim-prosecutrix by such thorns. As has been argued by Mr. Sood that in view of the testimony of PW.3, admittedly thorns were inter-mingled with her hair for 3-4 days. There were thorns on her pattu, back and buttocks, which she separated after medical examination, thorns were also seen by lady constable and as per statement of PW.3 accused hit on her head with his hand and she suffered injury but no blood came out, but only swelling was there. In absence of any thorn or detection of hair or injury by thorn on back and buttocks and not finding of any thorn by the medical examiner during examination, belied the presence of PW.3 on the spot.

Mr. Sood further argued that pattu, as has been stated by PW.2 was inter-mingled with grass, dust and thorns and the clothes of victim-prosecutrix were also mingled with dust, however, not taken into possession by the police, makes the prosecution story false. It has further been argued that non explanation of injury on the head and in the eyes of the accused, also makes the prosecution case doubtful. Delay in filing the report has also not been properly explained and relying on the interested witnesses, namely, Smt. Subidha Devi (PW.3) and Sh.Rattan Chand (PW.4), also makes the prosecution story doubtful.

On the other hand, it has been argued by Mr. R.K. Sharma that in the facts and circumstances, since the incident took place in the evening of 3.2.2001 and on that day matter could not be reported but next day victim-prosecutrix along with her parents started at 6.00 A.M., and had gone to Kullu and reported the matter to the police. In these circumstances, in such a serious offence, delay cannot be said to be fatal by not procuring pattu for examination or not taken into possession of broken hair as well as not explaining the injury on the head of the accused also would not make the prosecution case fatal. Injury on the person of the accused is not related with the truthfulness of the prosecution case proving stains of dust on the buttocks shall also not vitiate the prosecution case when victim is inspiring confidence herself and that too the testimony of PW.2 is also corroborated by PW.3 and PW.4.

On analysis of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, we notice that as per testimony of PW.1, who said to have reached the spot of the incident on the fateful day along with Gehru Ram and Rattan Chand (PW.4), has stated that it was PW.3 i.e. mother of the victim (PW.2), who had stated about the incident. Whereas, contrary to it, PW.2 / victim, has very emphatically stated that it was not her mother but she herself narrated the incident to PW.1, PW.3 and PW.4. As per testimony of PW.2, place of occurrence was 100 meters away from the house of victim, whereas, on her own testimony victim (PW.2) has stated that she had gone only 10-12 steps from her house for answering the call of nature. It means that there is a vast contradiction in the place of occurrence. PW.1 though has denied that accused was beaten by PW.4 and others. PW.4 and PW.3 also denied such beatings. Whereas, PW.1 when observed accused in the police station on 4.2.2001, he noticed that his eyes were bulging and accused had suffered scar marks on his face. Even apparent contradictions emanated from the testimony of PW.4, who has stated that when he reached the spot along with Gehru Ram and Lal Chand (PW.1), his wife PW.3 apprised them about the incident. In view of the testimony of PW.2 and PW.3, it was dark at the time of alleged incident. As per testimony of PW.2 bushes were not having thorns and when accused caught her from hair few of hair got separated from scalp and her clothes were mingled with dust. PW.2 has further stated that she had given broken hair to the police and when accused caught her from hair blood oozed out from the scalp and the pattoo of green & white coloured was shown to the police, was stained with grass, dust and thorns. However, on medical examination by Dr.Neeru Pandit Kapoor (PW.5), she did not notice any mark of thorns on the body of victim. During medical examination by PW.5, neither any mark of head injury (internal or external) nor any scratch marks on the buttocks and back were found. Thorns were also not detected. Pattoo was also not said to be stained with grass, dust and thorns. Contrary to which, PW.3 stated that thorns remained inter-mingled with hair of the victim for 3-4 days. PW.3 has further stated that thorns were also on the back and buttocks of the victim and those thorns were separated as well as picked up by her after medical examination. So much so, PW.3 had stated that she was hit by accused on her head at the time of incident, however, surprisingly no injury was noticed by any of the medical examiner. Contrary to the testimony of PW.3 that accused quarrelled with her and hit her on head, the PW.2 (victim) has stated that accused fought with PW.3. As per testimony of PW.4, the father of the victim, PW.3, the mother told him that the victim was raped and was slapped. But no such statement was emanated from the statement of PW.2.

On thorough analysis of the prosecution witnesses, we also find that there is vital improvement in the testimony of PW.3, when she stated that at the time of occurrence, accused was wearing coat when she lifted him from the body of her daughter. But wearing of coat has not been referred by PW.2 / victim, in these facts and circumstances, it appears that the place of occurrence is doubtful. In view of the testimony of PW.3, when at the time of occurrence PW.1, PW.4 and Gehru Ram reached the spot, nothing was revealed at that time that accused was on the spot or had already escaped. The testimony of PW.3 itself contradictory in many of the aspects which have been narrated above and creates doubt when different version is also given by PW.3. In these circumstances, the testimony of PW.2 / victim, cannot be said to be inspiring confidence and we find force in the submissions of Mr. R.L. Sood, learned senior counsel for the accused-respondent.

In our considered view the testimony of PW.2 is full of contradiction, inconsistencies and improbabilities and is not corroborated by the testimony of PW.1, PW.3 and PW.4 on vital aspects, as such, cannot be said to be reliable. Therefore, prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly we find no occasion to interfere with the verdict and finding arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present criminal appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.

Bail bonds furnished by the respondent/accused are hereby discharged.