State of Haryana and Paramjit Kaur vs Balli Singh and Others

Harbans Lal, J.—This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 496-DBA of 1994 and Criminal Revision No. 668 of 1994 as they arise out of common judgment. For facility of reference, facts are taken from Criminal Appeal No. 496-DBA of 1994.

This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 12.2.1994 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide which he acquitted the accused by giving benefit of doubt.

The factual matrix may be succinctly projected like this : that on 4.11.1992, Paramjit Kaur wife of Ajmer Singh, made statement before ASI Rajinder Singh stating therein that my husband Ajmer Singh, Balli Singh, Gurmukh Singh and Tarlok Singh are four brothers. Balli Singh and my husband reside inthe village whereas Gurmukh Singh and Tarlok Singh reside in the Village Sangarh and Nigrana Ther respectively. We and Balli Singh, both live separately but our houses adjoin each other. I have one son, Gurpreet Singh alias Gulab. Today at 5.00 or 5.30 A.M. my husband Ajmer Singh was standing in the courtyard of his house after taking his bath; His father Uttam singh called Ajmer Singh for going to the Gurudwara and they both left the house;That after some time, she saw Punjab Singh and his father Balli Singh accused going on a scooter towards the village and after 45 minutes Balli Singh accused came to the house of Ajmer Singh and called out my son Gulab Singh alias Gurpreet Singh and inquired from him as to where was his father Ajmer Singh; Gulab Singh told Balli Singh accused that Ajmer singh and Uttam Singh had gone to the Gurudwara whereupon Balli Singh accused stated that Ajmer Singh was lying in front of the houses of Pinder Singh and Chhinder Singh; she told Balli Singh accused that he had done what he wanted to do and thereupon Balli Singh accused replied in the affirmative and went away; Thereafter she had sent Lakhbir Singh along with her son Gurpreet Singh alias Gulab Singh to see as to where Ajmer Singh was lying; They had gone away and returned after some time and told her that Ajmer Singh was lying dead there; There was some dispute between Ajmer Singh and Balli Singh accused regarding some land and that litigation regarding partition of the same was going on between them. Baldev Singh, Ex-Sarpanch got the matter compromised and it was settled on 30.10.1990 that half of the 8 acres of land which Uttam Singh had got transferred in the names of the sons of Balli Singh accused by suffering a collusive decree and a sum of Rs. 80,000/-being half of the value of the tractor would be given by Balli Singh to Ajmer Singh; She had told the police that she had kept waiting for the arrival of her parents and on their arrival, she was making statement before the police that she was of the firm belief that Balli Singh, Punjab Singh and Uttam Singh had murdered her husband. ASI Rajinder Singh made his endorsement and sent this statement to the Police Station where FIR was recorded on its basis. After recording the statement, ASI Rajinder Singh along with Paramjit Kaur, came at the spot in front of the house of Balli Singh. Rajinder Singh, ASI prepared the inquest report and recorded statements of Lakha Singh and Gurpreet Singh. At about 6.30 P.M., Abhey Singh, SI, PW-12 reached the spot, recorded statements of certain witnesses and searched for the accused, who were not available in their houses. On 5.11.1992, at about 9.00 A.M., Dr. G.S.Samani,PW-1 and Dr. Gurtej Singh, jointly conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Ajmer Singh. In due course, the accused were arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was laid in the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial of Balli Singh and Punjab Singh accused u/s 302/34 of I.P.C. Uttam Singh accused/father of Balli Singh died during investigation.

The accused were charged u/s 302/34 of I.P.C to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution has examined Dr. G.S.Samani, PW-1, Paramjit Kaur, PW2, widow of the deceased, Lakhbir Singh, PW-3, Swarn Singh, PW-4, Baldev Singh, PW-5, Surta Singh, PW-6, Balli Singh, PW-7, Kirpal Singh, PW-8, Kulwant Singh, PW-9, ASI Rajinder Singh, PW-11 (Investigator), Abhey Singh, SI, PW-12, Gurdial Singh, SI, PW-13 and closed its evidence. When examined u/s 313, Cr. P.C., the accused Balli Singh admitted that Ajmer Singh deceased was his brother. He denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him. His son, Punjab Singh accused also admitted that the deceased was the brother of his father Balli Singh and denied all the allegations appearing in the prosecution evidence. When called upon to enter upon their defence, they had not opted to lead any evidence in defence. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the complainant as well as the learned defence counsel, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused of the charge, as noticed at the outset.

Mr. S.S.Randhawa, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana strenuously urged before us that on evaluating the evidence of Swaran Singh, PW-4 and Baldev Singh, PW-5, it transpires that they were appointed as Arbitrators to resolve the dispute between Ajmer Singh and Balli Singh accused and as per their arbitral decision, the land measuring 4 Killas, apart from a sum of Rs. 80,000/-was to be given by Balli Singh accused to the deceased Ajmer Singh on 4.11.1992, i.e. the date of occurrence. To eschew the implementation of this decision, accused Balli Singh and his son Punjab Singh, in connivance with Uttam Singh ( since deceased ) father of Balli Singh accused committed the murder of Ajmer Singh (deceased) and, thus, obviously there was a very strong motive for the accused to deprive the deceased of the aforesaid land as well as the amount by putting an end to his life.

To tide over this submission, Mr. Jagmohan Singh Ghuman, Advocate appearing for the respondents, maintained that the story regarding appointment of Arbitrators and rendering of the decision by them as such, has been coined during the investigation to strengthen the case of the prosecution.

We have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to these submissions.

Swaran Singh, PW-4 has testified that Uttam Singh owned about 8 acres of land which was being cultivated by Balli Singh; that a dispute was going on between Balli Singh and Ajmer Singh regarding that piece of land and also tractor which was joint between Balli Singh and Ajmer Singh and there was also a dispute regarding a Kotha meant for storing Turi; that in the end of year 1991, a Panchayat was held to resolve the dispute between these two brothers; that Ajmer Singh nominated him, Baldev Singh and Sukhdev Singh as Arbitrators from his side; that Balli Singh nominated Chanan Singh, Lakha Singh and Darshan Singh as his Arbitrators; that a writing was executed when we six were appointed as Arbitrators; that in January, 1992, we, the Arbitrators decided that after cutting Rabbi 1992 crop, Balli Singh will ensure that 4 Killas of land is cultivated by Ajmer Singh and that price of the tractor would be got assessed and half of the amount would be paid by Balli Singh to Ajmer Singh and it was also decided that Toka, Engine etc. shall also be divided between Ajmer Singh and Balli Singh; that in May, 1992, we the Arbitrators, had given our decision, Exh. PE. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the writing which was executed in December, 1991 and whereby Arbitrators were appointed, must be with the members of the families of Balli Singh and Ajmer Singh. It is pertient to note here that such writing is not forthcoming on the record. Thus, the appointment of alleged Arbitrators is rendered highly doubtful. It further surfaces in his cross- examination that the Arbitrators had finalized their decision in January, 1992. He has not assigned any cogent reason for prolonging the reducing of such decision into writing till May, 1992. There being no plausible explanation therefor, it has to be inferred that it was fabricated during the investigation to strengthen the prosecution case in relation to motive. Baldev Singh, PW-5 regretted his inability to disclose the contents of Ex, PE. If the Arbitrators had been really appointed in the alleged manner and Exh. PE had been put into black and white in the presence of this witness, he by all probability might have been able to narrate as to what decision was taken. When he was under examination in the Court, a specific question was put to him to tell as to whether the document, Exh. PE which bears his signatures, was signed by him after the death of Ajmer Singh. He curtly said ''I cannot say.'' This document is of doubtful authenticity. Otherwise he might have answered in a categoric manner. Thus, in our view, the document, Exh. PE put forth by the prosecution as a sheet anchor to prove motive, cannot be relied upon safely. Consequently, the alleged motive is demolished. Of course, as ruled in re: Sukh Ram versus State of Maharashtra 2007 (4) RCR (Cr) 45 (SC) in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes great significance inasmuch as its existence is an enlightening factor in a process of presumptive reasoning but here in this case the alleged motive has not been proved in a manner as required by law. ''''

It has been further sought to be argued by Mr. S.S.Randhawa that as emanates from the deposition of Surta Singh, PW-6 and Balli Singh, PW7, accused Balli Singh as well as his son Punjab Singh had made extra judicial confession before them and their evidence has been discarded without recording sound and convincing reasons.

We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with this submission.

The sum and substance of the statement of Surta Singh, PW-6 is that Balli Singh told him that in order to save the land and the amount, he had murdered his brother Ajmer Singh by giving him poison. Balli Singh, PW-7 has stated in nut shell that he had committed the murder of Ajmer Singh, his brother by giving poison because he was taken in by the greed of not parting with money and the land. In his cross-examination, he has stated that Balli Singh accused had not told us that he had entered into a conspiracy with Gurcharan Singh alias Channi son of Ajaib Singh Jat Sikh resident of Kariwala and Basant son of Sher Singh Chamar, resident of Salasar (Rajasthan) under which conspiracy, poison was administered to Ajmer Singh in opium and that he had also not told us that he had called Ajmer Singh through his father Uttam Singh on 4.11.1992 at about 5.30 A.M. on the pretext of visiting Gurudwara and that he had not made any such statement before the Police. when this witness was confronted with portion A to A of his statement, Exh. DB, these facts were found recorded therein. Thus, obviously, this witness has introduced material omissions. He has further deposed that Balli Singh accused had not told us as to by which poison he had murdered Ajmer Singh by administering poisonous opium to him. When he was confronted with portion B to B of his statement, Exh. DB, it was found so recorded therein. Again, obviously he has made omissions. It is in his statement that when the accused came to him, T.V. programme was being viewed by him along with other witness but in his cross-examination, he fumbled to narrate the programme which was being viewed by them. It further gives an inkling that they have fabricated the story regarding the visit of the accused to them and making of eextra judicial confession.

Coming to the statement of Balli Singh, PW-7, he has stated that Balli Singh accused had not told us that he had given poisonous opium to Ajmer Singh and that we had also not told the Police that Balli Singh accused had told us that he had given poisonous opium to Ajmer Singh. When confronted with portion A to A of his statement, Exh. DA, the words ''poisonous opium'' were found recorded therein. He has further stated that Balli Singh accused had not told us that he had conspired with Gurcharan Singh son of Ajaib Singh Jat Sikh, resident of Kariwala and Basanti son of Sher Singh Chamar, resident of Salasar (Rajasthan) for giving poison in opum to Ajmer Singh and that he had called his brother Ajmer singh through his father Uttam Singh on 4.11.1992 at 5.30 A.M. on the pretext of visiting Gurudwara and that he had not made any such assertion before the Police. When confronted with portion B to B of his statement,Exh. DA, these assertions were found recorded thereon. He was also not able to tell as to what programme was being watched by him along with Surta Singh on the Television when the accused visited them. This witness, in his cross- examination, has stated that he was Sarpanch from the year 1983 to 1987 and during that period a case u/s 420 of I.P.C was registered against him and he was suspended as Sarpanch. He has further stated that he had inimical relations with Sadhu Singh and that he does not know if Balli Singh accused is related to Sadhu Singh. Had Sadhu Singh been not related to Balli Singh accused, this witness might have replied in the negative. So, it is probable that to take revenge against Sadhu Singh, Balli Singh became a witness against the accused. It is noteworthy that villages are ridden with rivalries. The material omissions noted supra make us to look upon their statements with grave suspicion. The evidence of the above witnesses is too weak to believe.

Paramjit Kaur, PW-2, widow of the deceased Ajmer Singh has deposed that she had told the Police that Uttam Singh had come in the courtyard of their house on 4.11.1992.When she was confronted with her statement, Ex. PD, it was not found so recorded therein. Further, she stated in her cross-examination that I had not got recorded that Uttam Singh had shouted the name of my husband and had asked him to accompany him to Gurudwara. When she was confronted with portion A to A of her statement, Exh. PD, it was found so recorded therein. Thus, obviously she has introduced material improvements as well as omissions. She further went on to say that I had not told the Police that after 45 minutes, Balli Singh had come to my house and had enquired from Gulab Singh as to where was his father Ajmer Singh because Balli Singh had not seen Ajmer Singh accompanying his father at 5.30 A.M. When she was confronted with portion B to B of her statement, Exh. PD, it was found so recorded therein. Thus, again she has introduced omissions. It is further in her cross- examination that Balli Singh had told her that her husband was lying dead in front of the house of Pinder Singh. She has further stated that I had not made any such statement before the Police. When she was confronted with portion C to C of her statement, Exh. PD, it was found so recorded therein. she further stated that I had not told the Police that I had asked Balli Singh to go away from my house nor told the Police that a sum of Rs. 80,000/ had to be paid by Balli Singh to my husband and 4 acres of land had also to be got transferred in the name of my husband by Balli Singh nor told the Police that since I was nervous and excited, so I was not in a position to make my statement before the Police at 9.00 A.M. She further deposed that I had not told the Police that I suspected that Balli Singh, his son Punjab Singh and Uttam Singh had murdered my husband. When she was confronted with portion D to D of her statement, Exh. PD, it was found so recorded therein. Thus, palpably she has introduced material omissions. It is deducible from her evidence that she kept waiting for her parents before making the statement to the Police. In the natural course of conduct, she was expected to report the matter to the Police at the earliest possible. She has not assigned any reason for waiting for her parents before making statement to the Police regarding the occurrence. It is eloquence of the fact, that on arrival of her parents, she made due deliberations, discussions and confabulations with her parents and to exert pressure on the accused to part with the land and money she falsely implicated them. She has stated that I was so much frightened that I remained in my house with my son and I did not go to the place where my husband was lying even after coming to know about the death of my husband lest my only son should also be murdered. In the common course of human conduct, normally, a woman on hearing the news about the murder of her husband would hardly contain herself from rushing to the scene of crime at which the dead body of her husband was lying. On the overall view of the matter, her testimony fails to inspire confidence.

Coming to the last seen evidence, Paramjit Kaur (sic.) has deposed that Ajmer Singh and Uttam Singh had left our house for going to Gurudwara and that almost simultaneously Balli Singh and Punjab Singh accused had followed them on a scooter and after about 45 minutes, Balli Singh returned and he came to the courtyard of their house. Lakhbir Singh, PW-3 has deposed that at about 5.00/5.30 A.M. on 4.11.1992, Uttam Singh, my maternal grandfather had come in the courtyard of Ajmer Singh and that he asked Ajmer Singh for accompanying him to Gurudwara and thereafter Ajmer Singh and Uttam Singh left for Gurudwara and after about one hour, Balli Singh accused came there. Kirpal Singh, PW-8 has testified that 10 months and 10 days ago at about 5.45 A.M, I was going to Gurudwara of my village after taking a bath; that when I was in the street in which my house is situated, I heard the noise of a scooter and I got aside; that the scooter had come from western side and was going to the eastern side; that Balli Singh accused was driving the scooter and that Ajmer Singh was sitting behind him; that Punjab Singh was sitting behind Ajmer Singh and Balli Singh was proceeding towards the house of Pinder Singh.

First of all, we take up the statement of Paramjit Kaur (sic.). As noticed earlier, she in her cross-examination has stated that I had told the Police that Uttam Singh had come in the courtyard of our house on 4.11.1992. When she was confronted with her statement, Exh. PD, it was not found so recorded therein. She has further stated that she had not got recorded that Uttam Singh had shouted the name of my husband and had asked him to accompany him to Gurudwara. When she was confronted with portion A to A of her statement, Exh. PD, it was found so recorded therein.

Now, we advert to the testimony of Lakhbir Singh, PW-3. This witness in his cross-examination has stated that the Police had come to the house of Ajmier Singh at about 8.30/9.00 A.M. they did not record his statement at that time and his statement was recorded by the Police after the dead body was sent to the Hospital for post-mortem examination and further stated that he was going to the village to call some body at about 8.30 A.M. when the Police was entering the house of Ajmer Singh and had not gone to the Police Station at that time. According to this witness, he had come to the house of the deceased on 3.11.1992 in the night time and was present in the house of the deceased when Uttam Singh, father of the deceased came to call him. He has not given any reason for preferring to go to the village to call some body, instead of reporting matter to the Police with promptitude. He has also not disclosed the name of such person. In the natural course, he was required to stay in the house when the Police was entering the house, for narrating the facts. A glance through his cross-examination would reveal that a question was put to him that 40/50 persons of the village must have gathered in the house of Ajmer Singh at about 9.00 A.M. when the Police had come there. In reply, he said I have no idea because I was weeping and was in a tense state of mind on account of the death of Ajmer Singh. This answer does not appeal to the logic. Had he been present in the house of Ajmer Singh at the material time, he might have noticed as to how many persons were in attendance in the house. He lets the cat out of bag by stating that I cannot tell as to for what purpose I had gone to the village at about 8.30/9.00 A.M. on that day. Towards the end of his cross- examination, he has stated that I cannot tell the name of my maternal grandmother or that she is alive and that my mother is a daughter of a person who is resident of Rania and that I do not know his name. Startlingly enough that he has fumbled to tell the name of his maternal grandmother as well as maternal grandfather. His evidence is too fraught with infirmities.

Kirpal Singh, PW-8, has stated that my wife had gone to Delhi about 2 months prior to the day on which I had gone to Delhi; that she was not got admitted in the Hospital; that she had pain in her stomach and she was getting her treatment from a Vaid in Delhi at her house; that my wife was all right when she had gone to the house of my son, Tehal Singh. The explanation given by him is that he returned from Delhi after about one month. He has stated that I had told the Police that since my wife was seriously ill at Delhi and I had received a telephonic message, so after taking tea etc. at my house after coming from Gurudwara I had gone to Delhi. When he was confronted with portion C to C of his statement, Exh. DC, it was not found so recorded therein. In his next breath, he has stated that I had come to know in the village on that very day that Ajmer Singh was dead and thereafter I had gone to Delhi. If he had learnt about the murder of the deceased Ajmer Singh on the same very day, i.e. 4.11.1992, he in the normal course, would have brought the above facts to the notice of the Police that he had last seen the deceased in the company of the accused. It follows from his above evidence that there was no urgency for him to rush to Delhi. He could have moved to Delhi after having informed the Police. It is in his cross-examination that Bus Adda of the village is near the Police Post, Kariwala and that he had not gone to the Police Post on that date to tell the Police what he had seen. The Police Post being close to the Bus Stand, he should have gone there to narrate the above facts. It is in his further cross-examination that I had not told any body in the Gurudwara that I had seen Balli Singh and Punjab Singh taking Ajmer Singh on the Scooter. Had he verily seen the deceased in the company of the accused, he might have disclosed this fact to some body in the Gurudwara. He failed to disclose the name of Vaid. He further stated that his wife had not gone to the Vaid after he had gone to Delhi. This evidence is a pointer towards the fact that indeed his wife was not undergoing treatment at Delhi and to cover up the delay of one month in recording his statement by the Police u/s 161, Cr. P.C. the story regarding ailment of his wife has been cooked up. He has further deposed that I had not told the Police that Balli Singh, Punjab Singh and Uttam Singh were absconding from the village since the day Ajmer Singh had expired. When he was confronted with portion A to A of his statement, Exh. DC, it was found so recorded therein. He has further deposed that I had not told the Police that he had subsequently come to know that the Chadar and the Turban belonged to Ajmer Singh. When he was confronted with portion B to B of his statement, Exh. DC, it was found so recorded therein. He further testified that I had not told the Police that when I had come to my house after some time, I had come to know that Ajmer Singh was lying dead in front of the house of Pinder Singh. When he was confronted with portion C to C of his statement, Exh. DC, it was found so recorded therein. He has further stated that he had not told the Police the date on which he had seen the two accused taking away Ajmer Singh on the Scooter. When he was confronted with portion D to D of his statement, Exh. DC, it was found so recorded herein. He has further stated that he had told the Police that Punjab Singh was embracing Ajmer Singh from behind. When confronted with Exh. DC, the word, ''embracing'' was not found recorded therein. Thus, on appraising his statement, it transpires that for the purpose of padding, he has been introduced in the story.

As per medical evidence tendered by Dr. G.S.Somani, PW-1, as many as five injuries were found on the dead body and according to report, Exh. PB of Chemical Examiner, the death in this case had taken place on account of poison. As has surfaced in the cross-examination of this doctor, as per the entries in column No. 10 of the inquest report, Exh. PA/2, there was no injury on the dead body and that the possibility of death of Ajmer Singh having taken place at about 10/11 P.M. on the night of 3.11.1992 cannot be ruled out though the case of the prosecution is that the occurrence took place on 4.11.1992 after 5/5.30 A.M. As follows from the statement of Rajinder Singh, ASI, PW-11, investigator, at about 3.35 P.M. Paramjit Kaur, PW-2 had come to the Police Post, Kariwala and got recorded her statement, Exh. PD. Curiously enough, she made the statement long after coming to know about the occurrence. It is noticeable that the villagers too often wake up in the early hours. Had the occurrence taken place at the alleged time and that too at the open place as the dead body was allegedly lying in front of the house of Pinder Singh. In that eventuality, the residents of neighbouring houses might have been attracted to the place of occurrence. They would have rendered the ocular account.

It is apt to be borne in mind that this case is based on circumstantial evidence. As ruled in re: Sukhram''s case (supra) in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn have not only to be fully established but all the circumstances so established should be of conclusive nature and consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Moreover, all the established circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap in the chain of evidence. Therefore, the evidence has to be carefully scrutinized and each circumstance should be dealt with carefully to find out whether the chain of the established circumstances is complete or not. ''''

Harking back to the facts of the instant case, on examining the evidence on record, analytically, it boils down that there is gap in the chain of evidence for the reason that the evidence of last seen, motive and extrajudicial confession has been found to be unreliable.

Mr. S.S.Sidhu, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner, contended that both the parties were proceeded against u/s 107/151, Cr.P.C. on the application of Ajmer Singh, dated 13.6.1992 ( Exhibit P-4 ) wherein he had categorically asserted that there was civil/criminal litigation with Balli Singh, Punjab Singh and Uttam Singh as they wanted to grab his share of land and for that reason, on 12.6.1992, they came to his house and declared that they will settle all the cases, but on intervention of the respectables, the accused left declaring that he had been saved that day but at the appropriate time, the scores will be settled. He further contended that the above categoric assertion of Ajmer Singh was admissible u/s 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act as the same was made to the cause of his death, but this fact was not taken into consideration by the learned trial Court.

This contention does not find favour with us for the reason that PW-Paramjit Kaur widow of deceased Ajmer Singh is absolutely silent about the making of such an application by her husband before the concerned authorities. He further argued that on assessing the evidence tendered by Surta Singh, Sarpanch, PW-6 as well as Balli Singh, PW-7, it transpires that accused approached these witnesses and spoke extra judicial confession before them in the terms that they have committed murder of the deceased as they were not prepared to part with the land and the cash amount, but the learned trial Court has discarded their statements without assigning any cogent reason, though they were respectables of the village. The statements of these witnesses have already been found to be unworthy of credence. The ground which has already been beaten off need not be traversed again. So, this contention raised by Mr. Sidhu is jettisoned.

Mr. Sidhu further pointed out that the statement of Kirpal Singh, PW-8 sufficiently establishes on record that the accused and the deceased were last seen together. There being a small gap of time between the point of last seen and murder of the deceased, his evidence ought to have been relied upon by the learned trial Court.

As already noticed in the earlier part of the judgment, this witness made alleged statement before the Police regarding the last seen after a gap of about one month during which his services might have been procured to become a witness. More to the point, his testimony has already been rejected by discussing in extenso.

He further pressed into service that the learned trial Court has misdirected itself by disbelieving the testimony of Paramjit Kaur, PW, widow of the decesed for the reason that when she learnt about the murder of her husband, she was stunned and could not look around as to whom she should approach and narrate the incident and it was but natural for her to seek consolation of her parents in the face of the tragedy. There is little force in this argument. As already observed, her testimony is untrustworthy on material aspects of the case. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality as would require interference. Consequently, Criminal Appeal No. 496-DBA of 1994 as well as Criminal Revision No. 668 of 1994, being bereft of any merit, fail and are dismissed.