Suresh Yadav and Others vs State of U.P.

Pratyush Kumar, J.—1. The instant criminal appeal filed on behalf of the accused-appellants is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.10.2005 passed by Sri S.P. Singh, Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 2, Hardoi in S.T. No. 181 of 2005 (State v. Suresh Yadav), under Sections 302/34, 201 I.P.C. P.S-Harpalpur, District-Hardoi, whereby accused-appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:--

The appellant No. 1 (Suresh Yadav), to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, (in default of fine 1 year''s rigorous imprisonment) under Section 302/34 I.P.C., 5 years'' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- (in default of 6 months'' rigorous imprisonment) under Section 201 I.P.C. and 5 years'' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- (in default of 3 months'' rigorous imprisonment) under Section 25(1A) Arms Act;

Appellant No. 2 (Raju Yadav), to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, (in default of fine 1 year''s, rigorous imprisonment) under Section 302/34 I.P.C., 5 years'' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- (in default of 6 months'' rigorous imprisonment) under Section 201 I.P.C. and 5 years'' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- (in default of 3 months'' rigorous imprisonment) under Section 25(1A) Arms Act.

Appellant No. 3 (Ram Chand Yadav), imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, (in default of fine 1 year''s rigorous imprisonment) under Section 302/34 I.P.C., 5 years'' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- (in default of 6 months'' rigorous imprisonment) under Section 201 I.P.C.

In the present matter, the facts of the prosecution case may be summarized as under:--

That on 31st July, 2003 at 7 P.M., Smt. Siyawati, lodged a report, addressed to the Station Officer, Police Station-Harpalpur, District-Hardoi, stating therein that she was resident of village-Simariya, P.S Harpalpur. On that day her husband (Shobran) accompanied by her Jeth Bhajan Lal & Ram Bilash, Nephews Brij Mohan & Ajay Pal were coming back home after attending his case at Kachahri-Hardoi. When they reached in front of the house of Laxman at about 4:30 P.M., they were ambushed by Suresh, Raju and Ram Chand, who were armed with gun, country made pistol and Banka respectively. They surrounded her husband and fired on him by their gun and country made pistol. When he fell down, Ram Chand struck Banka on his head. At that time Suresh snatched Banka from Ram Chand and after cutting neck of her husband they ran away towards east. The incident was seen by her Jeth and nephews and due to fear they took shelter in the nearby houses. Due to indiscriminating firing, nearby shops and doors of houses were closed and passersby were stampeded. While departing from the scene of occurrence, to terrorize the assailants fired many shots. The dead body of her husband was lying on the spot, where it was raining heavily. Though been afraid, any how she had managed to come to the police station to report the matter. Father of assailant Suresh was murdered and her husband was an accused in that case, and for that reason they had taken the revenge.

At this, chik FIR was scribed, and case crime No. 135/03 under Sections 302, 201, I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, was registered at the Police Station and requisite entry was made in the report of the general diary. Investigation was taken over by V.K. Mishra (P.W-6), the then station officer of the police station, who reached the spot at 10 P.M on that very date, and started inquest proceedings, which concluded at 8:30 A.M, on 1st August, 2003. The dead body was sent to the mortuary for the postmortem examination, spot was inspected, site plan was prepared, samples of blood stained earth and simple earth were taken and the bicycle of the deceased was also recovered from the spot. One empty cartridge of 315 bore, one empty cartridge of 12 bore were recovered, their recovery memo were also prepared.

On 1st August, 2003, accused-Raju was arrested. His blood stained clothes were taken in the possession and its recovery memo was prepared. On his pointing out, at about 3:00 A.M. on that date, near Samadhi of Baijnath among the grass, head of deceased was recovered, memo was prepared and also on the pointing out of accused Raju from his house one country made pistol 315 bore and 2 live cartridges were recovered, its recovery memo was prepared, on its basis chik FIR was scribed, case crime No. 136 of 2003 under Section 3/25 of Arms Act was registered.

Accused Suresh was also arrested on the following day at 7.00 A.M. who voluntarily pointed out the gun used in the murder of the deceased. He led the police party to a pond situated in front of his house at 5:00 A.M. and gave one gun containing empty cartridge and 2 live cartridges. On the basis of which separate chik FIR was scribed as case crime No. 137/03 under Section 3/25 Arms Act, was registered.

Thereafter, from his house accused Ram Chand was arrested on whose pointing out from his courtyard among the cakes of cow-dung, blood stained Banka (Gandhasa) was recovered and its memo was prepared. After investigation the chargesheets were submitted against all the three named accused, The case was committed to the Court of Session. They were jointly charged under Section 302/34, 201, I.P.C. Accused Raju and Suresh were separately charged under Section 25 Arms Act. Accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried. There three trials were consolidated and tried together.

In order to prove the charges, on behalf of the prosecution in documentary evidence, besides other papers, written Report Ext.Ka-1, Recovery Memo Ext.Ka-2, 3, 4 & 5, Postmortem report Ext. Ka-6, chick F.I.R Ext. Ka-7, Copy of Report Ext. Ka-8, chick F.I.R Ext. Ka-9, Copy of Report Ext.Ka-10, chick F.I.R. Ext.Ka-11, Copy of Report Ex. Kat-12, Site Plan Ext. Ka-13, Recovery Memo Ext. Ka.14 to 19, Inquest Report Ex. Ka-20, Site Plan Ext. Ka 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, Order of D.M. Ext. Ka 33, 34 were filed. In the oral evidence prosecution examined 7 witnesses. Details of their deposition are as under:--

Smt. Siyawati PW.1 - First Informant, wife of the deceased, has proved written report Ex. K-1 and supported prosecution version.

Bhajan Lal PW-2 - Brother of the deceased, named as an eye witness in the F.I.R., has supported the prosecution version. He is also the witness for recovery of the head of the deceased, taking of blood stained clothes of the deceased, recovery of the Gandhasa on the pointing out of the accused Ram Chand, he has proved his signatures on recovery memo Ex. Ka-2 and K-5.

Ram Bilash-PW-3 - Brother of the deceased and named as an eye witness in the F.I.R., has supported the prosecution version.

Dr. S.C. Kaushal, PW-4 - who has conducted the postmortem examination on 01.08.2003 at 3:30 P.M., on the dead body of Sobaran, he has proved the postmortem report Ex. Ka-6. According to him 7 ante mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased. His C-5 vertebrae was cut, right-pleura and lung were lacerated. In his opinion, death had occurred due to coma and hemorrhage, as a result of ante mortem injuries. Death could have occurred on 31st July, 2003 at about 4:30 P.M.

Surendra Awasthi - PW-5, scribe of chick FIR has proved the chik F.I.R. and copy of the report to the general diary Ex. Ka-7 and Ex. Ka.8 and similarly further proved the registration of cases under Arms Act.

Vijay Kant Mishra - PW-6, is the investigating officer, who gave the details of steps taken during the investigation and has proved various recoveries made by him as also recovery memo, inquest report EX.-Ka 20, site plans and chargesheets. He has also identified case property to wit, one bore gun, 2 live cartridges, 4 empty cartridges of 12 bore, Banka 1 country made pistol and 1 empty cartridge 315 bore.

Dwarika Prasad Nigam, PW-7 proved rest of the police papers.

After close of prosecution evidence, the statements of the appellants were recorded. It was admitted by them that Suresh Yadav & Raju Yadav were real brothers, Ram Chandra Yadav was their Dau. Rest of the facts stated by the witnesses were denied by them, according to them the F.I.R was lodged after inquest proceedings were held, and false recoveries, from them, were shown. According to them they were falsely implicated due to enmity and party bandi. According, to appellants Suresh Yadav and Raju Yadav, their mother was Pradhan, the first informant side had lost the election, deceased was prosecuted for murder of their father and for that reason they were falsely implicated. According to Ram Chand Yadav he was falsely implicated due to election politics. In the defence they did not lead any evidence.

The learned Trial Judge after hearing the arguments convicted all the three appellants. The learned Judge found ocular version of the occurrence trustworthy, evidence of recoveries reliable, he rejected the defence argument that FIR was ante timed, he also found contradictions occurring in the depositions of the eye witnesses were not material.

Feeling aggrieved the present appeal has been filed.

Heard Sri Udai Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Sharad Dixit learned A.G.A for the State-respondent and perused the record.

On behalf of the appellants, learned counsel has submitted detailed arguments. The gist of his arguments is that none saw the occurrence, witnesses are planted, F.I.R was ante timed, there are major contradictions in the testimony of eye witnesses and there is discrepancy in ocular version and in medical evidence.

On behalf of the State these arguments have been repelled at length, respective arguments in detail will be discussed hereinafter.

Before proceeding further we would like to outline the duties and obligations as also scope of scrutiny by an appellate court while hearing criminal appeal against conviction. For this we can do no better than refer observations of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Ishvarbhai Fuljibhai Patni v. State of Gujarat [, 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 222]. Para-4 of the judgment reads as under:

"4. Since, the High Court was dealing with the appeal in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, against conviction and sentence of life imprisonment, it was required to consider and discuss the evidence and deal with the arguments raised at the bar. Let alone, any discussion of the evidence, we do not find that the High Court even cared to notice the evidence led in the case. None of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant have been noticed, much less considered and discussed. The judgment is cryptic and we are at loss to understand as to what prevailed with the High Court to uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant. On a plain requirement of justice, the High Court while dealing with a first appeal against conviction and sentence is expected to, howsoever briefly depending upon the facts of the case, consider and discuss the evidence and deal with the submissions raised at the bar. If it fails to do so, it apparently fails in the discharge of one of its essential jurisdiction under its appellate powers. In view of the infirmities pointed out by us, the judgment under appeal cannot be sustained."

In the case of Lal Mandi, Appellant v. State of West Bengal, Respondent [, 1995 CRI.L.J. 2659 (Supreme Court), 2659], the Apex Court in para-5 of the report has given caution to the High Court reminding its duty in the matter of hearing of appeal against conviction. It would be gainful to reproduce the observation made in para-5 of the report, extracted below:

"5. To say the least, the approach of the High Court is totally fallacious. In an appeal against conviction, the Appellate Court has the duty to itself appreciate the evidence on the record and if two views are possible on the appraisal of the evidence, the benefit of reasonable doubt has to be given to an accused. It is not correct to suggest that the "Appellate Court cannot legally interfere with" the order of conviction where the trial court has found the evidence as reliable and that it cannot substitute the findings of the Sessions Judge by its own, if it arrives at a different conclusion on reassessment of the evidence. The observation made in Tota Singh''s case, which was an appeal against acquittal, have been misunderstood and mechanically applied. Though, the powers of an appellate court, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal and an appeal against conviction are equally wide but the considerations which weigh with it while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal and in an appeal against conviction are distinct and separate. The presumption of innocence of accused which gets strengthened on his acquittal is not available on his conviction. An appellate court may give every reasonable weight to the conclusions arrived at by the trial court but it must be remembered that an appellate court is duty bound, in the same way as the trial court, to test the evidence extrinsically as well as intrinsically and to consider as thoroughly as the trial court, all the circumstances available on the record so as to arrive at an independent finding regarding guilt or innocence of the convict. An Appellate Court fails in the discharge of one of its essential duties, if it fails to itself appreciate the evidence on the record and arrive at an independent finding based on the appraisal of such evidence."

Before we enter into the merits of the arguments, advanced on behalf of the respective parties, we would like to place on record that the facts and opinion deposed by Dr. S.C. Kaushal PW-4. In the postmortem report Ex. Ka-6, he has recorded the following ante mortem injuries.

Fire arm wound of entry 1.5 x 1.0 cm x through and through on left side of abdomen 10.0 cm above left anterior (sic) iliac spine Tattooing and blackening present. Wound is inverted and lacerated margins.

Firearm wound of exit 2.0 cm x 1 cm x communicating to injury No. 1 situated in left side of back 15.0 cm below the angle of scapula (left)

Firearm wound of entry 1.5 cm x 1.0 cm x chest cavity deep on right side of chest just below right nipple. Margins are inverted and lacerated. Underneath one metallic bullet is recovered from right lung.

Incised wound 16.0 x 15 cm x through and through present on neck at (sic) of C-5 vertebra which is cut through and through and all the structures of neck including muscles vessels, (sic) trachea and esophagus are also cut through and through.

Incised wound 3.0 cm x 1.5 cm x muscle deep on left side of abdomen 5.0 cm below umbilicus

Incised would 8.0 cm x 4 cm x muscle deep on left shoulder joint

Incised wound 6.0 cm x 4 cm x scalp deep on skull.

This witness was cross-examined about nature of weapons used and time since death. According, to him injury No. 4 was caused by sharp-edged weapon like a sword by a single blow. He did not find any other wound over the neck or on the head and near to neck. According to him injury No. 1 and 2 could have been caused by bullet. He further opined that injury Nos. 5, 6 and 7 might have been caused by different sharp edged weapons, he admitted possibility of 6 hours variation about time of death.

During the cross-examination neither homicidal death of the deceased nor findings recorded by him in the postmortem report Ex. Ka-6 were disputed, only he was cross-examined about his opinion, use of possible weapons, time of death. Leaving aside his testimony based on opinion, we can take his deposition to be unchallenged and placing reliance on it we hold that on the stated date and time deceased Shobran was done to death by gun shots, he also sustained injuries from sharp edged weapons, rest of his testimony, we leave to be dealt with, while we will be examining the ocular version of the occurrence.

In the present case most of the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants addressed the ocular version of the occurrence, narrated by Smt. Siyawati, P.W.1, Bhajan Lal P.W.2 and Ram Bilas P.W.3.

Before we proceed to reexamine and reevaluate the intrinsic and extrinsic value of their testimonies, we would like to have in mind the observation of the Hon''ble Apex Court made in the case of Krishnan and another v. State , AIR 2003 SC 2978. In para 21 of the report the Hon''ble Apex Court has made the following observation:

"21. It is trite that where the eye-witnesses'' account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive. Witnesses, as Bentham said, are the eyes and ears of justice. Hence, the importance and primacy of the quality of the trial process. Eye-witnesses'' account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be creditworthy; consistency with the undisputed facts the ''credit'' of the witnesses; their performance in the witness-box; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation."

Keeping in view the principles laid down as above we have perused the testimonies of all the three witnesses and notice that Smt. Siyawati P.W.1 is a house-hold lady. Though she claims that at the time of occurrence she was, nearby place of occurrence and, standing on the public way. The time of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution is 4.30 p.m. At that time presence of house-hold lady in her house or tarwaha would be natural. House hold lady is not expected to be standing on a public way purposelessly. The second point which goes against her assertion is that in the site-plan the investigation officer has shown her presence at place ''M'' in the site plan. The occurrence had taken place at place ''B''. Distance between places marked as ''B'' and ''M'' has been shown 47 steps. In the cross-examination this witness claims that where the occurrence took place, there were 2-3 houses between her house but in the site plan her house has not been shown. P.W.2 Bhajan Lal brother of the deceased in his cross-examination has stated that where dead body of Sobaran was found his house is situated after 5-6 houses. The house of Smt. Siyawati is adjacent to his house. He claims that from his house place of occurrence is at the distance of 100 yards. Vijay Kant Mishra P.W.6 is the investigating officer. In his cross-examination he has admitted that the house of the first informant is at the distance of 150 metres after several houses. It is inside the abadi of the village. Statement of investigating officer may not be sufficient to disprove that from the distance of 150 metres an incident cannot be seen by young person but it would lead to an inference that at such distance there was no occasion for Smt. Siyawati to be standing at that moment.

For these reasons we find it difficult to treat her as a natural witness. More so in the first information report she has not claimed herself to be an eye witness. In the first information report she has not described how her husband and his four companions were proceeding towards the village. In the cross examination she has stated that all five were riding on tanga (horse driven carriage) whereas according to other witnesses deceased was riding on a cycle and his companions were sitting on tanga. Her account of the incident is also discrepant with the account given by Bhajan Lal P.W.2. In her testimony we notice that she claims to have taken dead body of her deceased husband on the tanga to the police station and lodged the FIR, whereas prosecution case is that she had come to the police station and lodged the FIR accompanied by Babu, Bhajan Lal and Ajay and they came not on tanga. Thereafter investigating officer proceeded to the spot, started inquest proceedings, recovered the head and completed inquest proceedings. Whereas this witness claims that she followed Suresh, recovered the head of her deceased husband and took his headless body to the police station. This discrepancy is very material. If we believe this witness, the investigation would be wholly discredited. The way she has narrated the manner of assault and number of persons present there, we do not think she had seen the occurrence.

Bhajan Lal P.W.2 is the brother of the deceased. According to the prosecution version he was accompanying the deceased from the district court Hardoi along with Ram Bilas, Ajai Pal, deceased Sobran was on the cycle, he and others were coming on tanga when the deceased was ambushed and murdered. From the recovery of the cycle, from the spot, prima facie it appears that the deceased was riding the cycle, existence of tanga has not been established because according to evidence of Surendra Awasthi P.W.5 scribe of the chick FIR the first informant and her companions did not come to the police station by tanga. Here distance from the place of occurrence to the police station becomes material. It is about 8-1/2 km. Had tanga been available the first informant and her companions must have used that tanga.

The second reason which makes presence of this witness doubtful is that according to this witness in the morning the deceased had gone to the district court Hardoi by cycle and he had gone by bus and returned in the same manner. Reason for him for accompanying Sobran was to provide security and company to the deceased. He has not stated that he had any other business in Hardoi. The reason stated by him does not appeal to us because when he and deceased were using different means of transportation, the vary reason for his going to Hardoi becomes redundant. We cannot agree to the argument advanced by learned AGA that his presence at the spot is natural and probable.

Moreover he had no opportunity to see the occurrence. In the cross-examination he admits that when he reached the spot 10-12 gun shots had already been fired. He claims to witness the occurrence while taking shelter behind the tractor of Yahiya Khan. According to the investigating officer Vijay Kant Mishra P.W.6 he did not find any pellet or its mark on the tractor or trolly. In the site plan the investigating officer has not shown the place where this witness claims that tractor and trolly were parked. This discrepancy not only makes his presence doubtful but also creates doubt about the truthfulness of his testimony. When we consider his testimony as a whole, we find it inherently improbable and unnatural. According to him only once the deceased was struck with banka. According to Dr. S.C. Kaushal P.W.4 at the time of autopsy he found four incised wounds on the person of the deceased. According to him injury No. 4 probably was the result of single blow from a talwar. For the reasons indicated above, his eye witness account of the occurrence cannot be believed.

The other eye witness account has been given by Ram Bilas P.W.3. He also accompanied the deceased to the district court, Hardoi, and came back with him, to provide security and company. According to him Sobran was coming by the cycle. From Harpalpur to Hardoi they commuted by bus. According to him when occurrence took place he was inside his house. He reached there at 4 p.m. After 1/2 hour he heard gun shot. Hearing the gun shot he reached the spot and saw the occurrence. The witness is aged about 60 years. He has admitted that when he saw Sobaran, his dead body was lying on the ground. There was no movement in his body and there was nobody present there. In this way the witness himself admits he was not present on the spot at the relevant time and when he reached there he found Sobran dead.

Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that discrepancies in the evidence of Smt. Siyawati P.W.1 were ignored treating her to be illiterate rustic woman. What we find from the reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge to believe her that he had not adverted the points germane for the purpose, rather he circumvented them. We further notice that the learned trial Judge preferred to rely on Bhajan Lal P.W.2 and Ram Vilas P.W.3 treating them to be eye witnesses on the basis of first information report. The learned trial Judge did not subject their testimonies to careful scrutiny about their presence on the spot. For these reasons we find that learned trial Judge has erred in believing the eye witnesses account and recorded incorrect findings.

In addition to the eye witnesses account against the present appellants there is also evidence of recovery of incriminating articles on their pointing out admissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act.

Vijay Kant Mishra, P.W.6 investigating officer has stated and proved recovery memo of these recoveries. Bhajan Lal P.W.2 is the witness of those recoveries. It is true that recoveries as alleged by the prosecution were promptly made and on their basis a presumption can be raised that murder must have been committed by the persons on whose pointing out the recoveries were made. The most important recovery is the recovery of the head as evidenced from Ext. Ka-2. The other recoveries are recoveries of weapons of murder to wit, one country-made pistol and two live cartridges from Raju on Ist August, 2003 one country-made gun 12 bore two live cartridges, four empty cartridges on 2.8.2003 at 7 A.M. from Suresh and banka on the pointing out of Ram Chand Yadav on 2nd August, 2003.

Bhajan Lal P.W.2 is the witness of recovery of gandasa Ext. Ka-4. He is also witness of the recovery of head Ext. Ka-2. Recovery of head as alleged by the prosecution becomes doubtful from the evidence of Smt. Siyawati P.W.1. Recovery of banka becomes doubtful on the basis of evidence of Bhajan Lal P.W.2 who claims it to be gandasa. During cross examination Bhajan Lal says that his signatures on these recovery memo were obtained by the investigating officer at the police station.

So far as recovery of fire arms are concerned, cases related to these recoveries were entrusted to Gulab Singh, Sub Inspector, of P.S. Harpalpur whereas the recovery officer was the Station Officer of P.S. Harpalpur. Subordinate officer would not be in a position to carry out fair investigation. For this reason we notice that recovery of fire arms were not fairly investigated and they cannot be believed.

From the perusal of the impugned judgment we find that the learned trial Judge neither had gone through the cross-examination of Bhajan Lal P.W.2 nor considered the fact that cases related to fire arms were investigated by officer subordinate to the first investigating officer. He merely mentioned that there was no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of B.K. Mishra P.W.6, we do not think this can be said to be a cogent reason for believing the recoveries.

Thus there remains no piece of reliable evidence against the present appellants to show their involvement in the crime they have been accused of. On their behalf ante timing of FIR was also taken as a ground to discredit the prosecution version. From the evidence of eye witnesses no help can be taken as their testimonies have already been found of doubtful veracity. Occurrence is said to have taken place at 4.30 p.m., FIR is alleged to have been lodged at 7 p.m. on the same day, distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is 8-1/2 km, chick FIR was forwarded by circle officer on Ist August, 2003. It was received in the court of C.J.M. on 8th August, 2003. On this point we have the evidence of constable Surendra Awasthi P.W.5 scribe of the chick FIR. During cross examination he has admitted that on 31st July, 2003 Case Crime No. 135 of 2003 i.e. the present murder case was registered and according to him upto 2nd August, 2003 except case crime No. 136 and 137 of 2003 relating to recoveries of fire arms no other cognizable offence was registered at the police station. He claims that special report was sent on 31st July, 2003, but no copy of the report of the general diary has been filed to substantiate his assertion. In the inquest report we find overwriting in reference to place, time and date when the inquest proceedings were concluded. There is also overwriting below the signatures of the investigating officer Whereas chick FIR is of one leaf. In the inquest report copy of chick FIR has been shown to be having two leaves. Thus there appears some substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants that FIR was not lodged at the time alleged by the prosecution.

This further makes the prosecution story doubtful. The learned trial Judge has not taken these facts into consideration and erroneously held the prosecution version to be truthful. For these reasons we find arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants have substance, grounds taken in the appeal are well substantiated. The findings recorded by the learned trial Judge are factually and legally incorrect and erroneous. They cannot be sustained. The impugned judgment and order and conviction and sentences awarded to the appellants deserve to be set aside. Appellants are entitled to be acquitted from the charges framed against them.

Resultantly, Criminal Appeal No. 1348 of 2005 is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 6th October, 2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2 Hardoi and conviction and sentences awarded to the appellants in ST Nos. 181 of 2005, 182 of 2005 and 183 of 2005 are set aside. The appellants are acquitted from the charges framed against them. Appellant No. 3 Ram Chandra Yadav is on bail. He needs not surrender his bail. His personal bond and surety bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged provided he files within 30 days, from the date of this judgment his personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court in accordance with section 437A of the Cr.P.C.

Appellant No. 1 Suresh Yadav and appellant No. 2 Raju Yadav are in jail. In case they are not wanted in any other case and they file their personal bonds and two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court in accordance with the provisions contained in section 437A Cr.P.C., they be released forthwith.