AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Ahuja, J.—This judgment shall dispose of four appeals arising out of the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Una, dated 19.2.2004. Cr.Appeal No. 299 of 2004 has been filed by the State u/s 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of sentence awarded to accused Ravinder Singh and Balwinder Singh by the learned trial Court. Cr.A. No. 477 of 2004 has been filed by the State u/s 378 of the Code Criminal Procedure against the acquittal of accused/respondent Naresh Kumar Kaushal of the offence punishable u/s 212 of the IPC. Cr.Appeals No. 322 of 2004 and 323 of 2004 have been preferred by the appellants Ravinder Singh and Balwinder Singh, respectively, u/s 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of the learned trial Court, vide which both of them were convicted and sentenced as under:
Under Section 366 read with Rigorous imprisonment for 10 Section 34 of the IPC: years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.
Under Section 376(2)(g) read with Rigorous imprisonment for Section 34 of the IPC: life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.
Under Section 302 read with Rigorous imprisonment for life Section 34 of the IPC: and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.
Under Section 392 read with Rigorous imprisonment for 14 Section 34 of the IPC: years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.
Under Section 201 read with Rigorous imprisonment for 7 Section 34 of the IPC: years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
However, all the sentences were to run concurrently.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 11.1.2002, at about 2.25 a.m., a report was lodged with the police by one Sanjeev Kumar that Smt. Suresh Devi, aged about 43 years, was his real sister. She was married 20 years ago with one Ashok Jaswal. Her husband was serving in ITBP and was presently posted at Uttarkashi. His sister was living for the last 5-6 months with her husband at Uttarkashi. Yesterday, on 10.1.2002, at about 4.00 p.m., the complainant was informed by his younger brother Sanjay Kumar that a telephonic message was received by their uncle Harvinder Singh from Ashok Jaswal from Uttarkashi that on 9.1.2002, he had sent his wife Suresh Devi in the night bus alongwith the 2-3 colleagues of his Unit and their families, who were the residents of Baijnath. His brother further told him to verify from Bhadsali as to whether Smt. Suresh Devi had reached her house or not. He verified from Bhadsali and then from Una Bus Stand and learnt from one Laddi that on 9.1.2002 in between 12.30/1.00 a.m. one lady aged about 40-45 years had gone in a Maruti Van bearing No. DDA 5884 alongwith Jasbir Singh @ Punjabi, who was also known as Balwinder Singh and Surjit Singh, and the Van had gone towards Bhadsali in which one Ravinder Kumar was also sitting. He searched for those two boys on 10.1.2002 and in the evening at about 7.00 p.m., he learnt from taxi drivers named Surender Sharma and Rajinder Kumar that Ravinder Kumar had met them in Village Saloh, who, on enquiry, told that a woman named Suresh Devi had gone with them on 9.1.2002 for Bhadsali on payment of charges. It was further learnt that they had taken the woman in the Van and on way, his Taya (uncle) Jasbir Singh alias Punjabi alias Balwinder Singh committed rape with her forcibly and thereafter, they threw her in Nangal river. Thereafter, the present report was lodged by the brother of the deceased on which a case was registered. The investigation was conducted by the police and the dead body of the deceased Suresh Devi was recovered from Nangal Canal on 10.1.2002. The husband of the deceased PW-3 Ashok Kumar came to Bhadsali and identified the dead body of his wife at Una. The recovery of some gold ornaments including a silver Pajeb was made at the instance of the disclosure statement made by the accused persons, which were identified by PW-3 Ashok Kumar and the recovery of some cash was also made from the Van as well as that of some other articles. On completion of the investigation, the challan was filed in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, who committed the case to the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Una and thereafter, the case was assigned to the learned trial Court, who tried the accused persons leading to the conviction of two of them, as detailed above, and the third accused was acquitted of the charge framed against him.
We have heard the learned Counsel for the accused as well as the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and have gone through the record of the case.
It is clear from a perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution that there is no direct evidence as against both the appellants (accused) and respondent (accused) and the evidence led by the prosecution is circumstantial and various circumstances were proved by the prosecution and it was submitted that the chain of circumstances is complete, which points out only to the guilt of the accused and as such the submissions made by the learned Deputy Advocate General were that both the accused persons were rightly convicted, though the third accused was wrongly acquitted by the learned trial Court. During the course of arguments, we have been taken through the various circumstances proved by the prosecution and the learned Counsel for the accused had pointed out to various contradictions or infirmities in the said circumstances proved by the prosecution to which reference shall be made below in detail, while referring to these various circumstances proved on record.
Before referring to the various circumstances proved on record, we may point out that the learned trial Court has not dealt with each of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution in detail, to come to the conclusion as to which circumstances stand so proved and which have infirmities or contradictions therein. It has only reproduced the prosecution story and had given its findings and for that reason, we have to make a detailed examination of the various circumstances proved in evidence and the infirmities therein. It was expected of the learned trial Court to have discussed each circumstance separately and given its findings referring to the contradictions or infirmities, if any, in their evidence and then conclusion should have been drawn as to why the prosecution evidence is being relied upon.
We will refer to each circumstance proved by the prosecution and then we will conclude if the circumstances proved are sufficient or not to prove the case of the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt against both the appellants, who were convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court and the third accused, who was acquitted by the learned trial Court.
The first circumstance relied on by the prosecution was that the deceased had reached Bus Stand, Una, boarded the taxi being driven by the appellants and as to whether she was taken by them in the taxi which was to go to Bhadsali, the in-laws village of the deceased. The first witness to prove this fact can be said to be PW-3 Ashok Kumar, the husband of the deceased, who had sent his wife from Uttrakashi in the bus bound for Haridwar from where the deceased was to change the bus and take another bus for Una. PW-3 Ashok Kumar has stated that his wife used to limp while walking. On 9.1.2002, he had sent her in Uttarkashi bus hound for Haridwar from where she had to pick another bus for Una at about 6.30 a.m. He further stated that after boarding her in the bus, he gave a telephonic call to his relative Narender at village Bhadsali to receive her at Una Bus Stand in the same night during 11.00 p.m. to 2.00 a.m. He stated that she was carrying with her one hand bag and another carry bag/air bag apart from purse. He stated that apart from the clothes, she was carrying on one bottle of Rum, two cakes of Rin soap and 4-5 cakes of bathing soap Lux. She was also having 85 notes of Rs. 100/- in one bag apart from the money Rs. 1100/1200 approximately she was carrying in the purse.
PW-3 Ashok Kumar further stated that on the next morning at about 10/11.00 a.m., he rang up at Bhadsali and Narender told him that his wife had not reached Bus Stand, Una during the night, although Narender himself had gone to the Bus Stand to receive her. Then, he rang up his in-laws at Pandoga and had a talk with Harminder Singh and asked him to verify if his wife had reached at Pandoga. Then Harmider Singh, after verification, informed him that she had not reached at Pandoga also. Next day, he again rang up at Pandoga and his brother-in-law Sanjay informed him that his wife was raped and murdered by throwing her in a canal at Nangal. He immediately left Uttarkashi and reached Bhadsali next early morning. In cross examination, he stated that he had told Narender that wife of another Havildar of Baijnath was also accompanying his wife. However, he has stated that he had not told Narender or Ravinder that he has sent his wife with two Jawans of his Unit.
From the above statement of the husband of the deceased, it transpires that he had sent his wife alongwith another Havildar''s wife, who was going to Baijnath. The Investigating Officer Inspector Dharam Chand, as has come up in his statement as PW-27, appears to have not made sincere efforts to trace out the name of the Havildar''s wife who had also gone on the same date from Uttarkashi to Baijnath. A perusal of the cross examination of PW-27 Dharam Chand shows that he only asked the complainant about the whereabouts of the passengers who were stated to have accompanied the deceased from Uttarkashi and were bound for Palampur, but he could not locate them. It appears that he simply asked the complainant who could have given the name of the unit member''s wife after verifying it from the Unit and the said lady could have easily stated as to by which bus they started from Haridwar and at what time the deceased got down at Una Bus Stand. It appears that the Investigating Officer did not send any team to Uttarkashi alongwith the husband of the deceased to locate the said Unit member and since the husband was not able himself to give the details, the Investigating Officer did not deem it necessary to collect such evidence which could have proved the case of the prosecution to this extent as to at what time the bus reached at Una Bus Stand and as to whether it reached prior to the time the persons had reached the Bus Stand to receive the deceased, as sent by Narender to whom the telephonic information had been given by the husband of the deceased. Thus, on the basis of the statement of the husband of the deceased, we cannot conclude, in the absence of other evidence, as to at what time the deceased started from Haridwar after changing the bus or, in fact, she reached Una Bus Stand at some prior time in a bus bound for Una or in the bus going to Baijnath also. However, for this faulty investigation, we cannot hold that the prosecution case suffers from any infirmities but we have to proceed on the basis of the evidence whatever has been led by the prosecution as to whether it is sufficient or not to prove their case.
We will now refer to the statements of the witnesses produced by the prosecution, who had seen a middle aged woman coming to Bus Stand, Una, who was limping, which was one of the identification that could be used for linking the presence of the deceased at Bus Stand, Una. The first witness in this regard is PW-6 Suresh Kumar, who has stated that on the night of 9.1.2002, Narender, Yash Pal and he had come in a taxi from Village Bhadsali to Bus Stand, Una to receive Smt. Suresh Kumari, wife of Ashok Kumar, from the Haridwar bus. The driver of the taxi bearing No. 2962 was Yash Pal. He further stated that at about 11.45 p.m., they parked the taxi outside the gate of the Bus Stand. He and Yash Pal went on foot inside the Bus Stand, had a round and came back to the taxi, as by that time the bus had not reached there. After sometime, Yash Pal alias Lucky went to some boys who were warming up and he kept on sitting with Narender in the Van. After 10-15 minutes, Lucky came back to the Van and slept inside it. After sometime, Haridwar-Baijnath bus came there. He and Narender went inside the bus, but Suresh Kumari was not there. The Conductor of the said bus told them that more buses would be coming from Haridwar side, so they came back to the Van and waited till 4-5 a.m. They waited for some buses but the lady was not found and they went back to Bhadsali in the same taxi. In cross examination, he has stated that Ashok Kumar i.e. the husband of the deceased, had informed them that the bus would reach at Bus Stand, Una at about 2.00 a.m. He denied the suggestion that he alongwith Narender had consumed liquor at the Bus Stand and was confronted with portion ''A'' to ''A'' of his statement wherein he had stated that Yash Pal took liquor in their presence.
From the above discussion of the statement of this witness, it transpires that three persons including Narender, who had received the telephonic call and was the relative of the deceased''s husband, Yash Pal alias Lucky who was the driver of the Van and Suresh Kumar had gone to receive the deceased at Bus Stand, Una. The material witness could be said to be Narender, who had received the telephonic call and as per PW-6 Suresh Kumar, Narender had also come to Bus Stand, Una, but his non-examination by the prosecution rather suggests and leads us to an inference that probably he had not come himself, but to show to his relative i.e. the husband of the deceased, it was brought on record that he had also come to Bus Stand, Una. However, his statement was material to conclude in regard qua the telephonic message received from the husband of the deceased and the fact that at what time they reached the Bus Stand and kept waiting there for the deceased. The driver of the taxi was also a material witness, but both these persons were not examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them. Thus, we are left with the solitary statement of PW-6 Suresh Kumar, as discussed above, who proves that they reached the Bus Stand at 11.40 p.m. and checked the buses which came thereafter, but the deceased was not found and rather an inference can be drawn, as shall be referred below after the discussion of the other evidence, that, probably, the bus may have reached prior to 11.40 p.m. when these persons came there and the deceased agreed to take the van of her own to go to her village.
The next material witness is PW-4 Hazari Lal. He has stated that he runs a Cigarette-Bidi shop inside the new Bus Stand. At about 11.30 or 12.00, during night on 9.1.2002, he and 5-6 other persons were warming up themselves by sitting around fire lit outside the shop of M/s Dayal Sweets, which was just outside the Bus Stand. He has named the persons alongwith him as Punjabi, Bablu alias Ravinder, Sehdev and one Dipu. He admitted that they were consuming liquor also. After sometime, Lucky also came and joined them and he gave him a note of Rs. 100/- for fetching liquor from the nearby liquor vend. He brought the liquor and they consumed the bottle. Thereafter, Punjabi and Bablu brought two bags and a lady from the Bus Stand. That lady was limping at the time of walking. They took her in white colour van bearing No. DDA 5884. He stated that before leaving, he asked Punjabi as to where they were going. He replied that the said lady was the relative of Lucky and, therefore, they were going to drop her at her house in Village Bhadsali. He stated that at that time, Lucky had gone after consuming liquor. After 2-3 days, 4-5 persons came to the Bus Stand and were enquiring about the lady and he told them that she had been taken in the Van by Punjabi and Bablu. He also stated that he told them that they were taking her to Bhadsali. He also identified both the accused Punjabi and Bablu. He also stated that later on, he identified the dead body of that lady in the mortuary of District Hospital, Una.
In cross examination, this witness (PW-4 Hazari Lal) has stated that he was aware of the taxi in which that lady was taken. He stated that he cannot say about the other taxis or the passengers taken in those taxis. He further stated that since Lucky had already gone from that place, no suspicion was raised in his mind about the taking of that lady by the accused persons. However, the vehicle of Lucky was parked there at that time. In cross examination, he clarified that Lucky left that place at about 11.45 p.m. The accused persons left that place at about 12.00 or 12.15 a.m. He stated that he did not know the names of the persons to whom he had told that the lady was taken by the accused persons 2-3 days ago, but those persons were from Bhadsali. In cross examination he came up with the plea that he could not identify the dead body because he had not seen the lady closely during the night.
The next witness in this sequence is PW-5 Harmesh Kumar, who has stated that he runs an STD Booth at Bus Stand, Una. On the night intervening 9/10.1.2002, two boys named Punjabi and Bablu had come to his STD Booth. He was sleeping in the Booth. Punjabi and Bablu woke him up for giving a telephonic call. They tried but the call did not mature. Meanwhile, a lady came there and gave him a slip on which telephone number of Uttarkashi was written and requested him to connect the same. He tried but the phone call did not mature. In his presence, accused Punjabi had enquired from her as to where she had to go. The said lady told accused Punjabi that she was to go to Village Bhadsali. He further stated that both the aforesaid accused and that lady left his Booth together. He gave time of their coming as 11.30 to 12.00 at night. Later, the police had shown him the dead body which he could not identify and he was declared as hostile for not partly supporting the prosecution story. He denied that he had given the features of the lady and, thus, he was confronted with his police statement where these were mentioned. He was also confronted with his police statement wherein he has stated that he had identified the dead body.
The next relevant witness is PW-7 Sehdev Singh, who has stated that he is owner-cum-driver of a Van which is being run as a taxi. He stated that he used to park his car at the Taxi Stand at Una. On 9.1.2002, at about 11 or 12 in the night, he alongwith others was sitting outside Dayal Sweets, near Bus Stand, Una. Some other persons were also present with him, namely, Laddi, Punjabi, Bablu and Lucky alias Yash Pal. He stated that Laddi was sent by Punjabi to bring liquor and Laddi brought the same, which was consumed by both the accused as well as by Laddi and Yash Pal. Thereafter, Yash Pal alias Lucky went toward entry gate of the Bus Stand and Punjabi and Bublu went inside the Bus Stand. They had parked their Taxi bearing No. DDA 5884 in front of the Dayal Sweet Shop adjoining to pedestrian gate leading to the Bus Stand. On seeing the entry of a bus inside the Bus Stand, Punjabi followed that bus and after sometime, he came with two bags and a lady who was limping. The said lady, Bablu and Punjabi went to Bhadsali. In his presence, Laddi had asked Punjabi as to where he was taking his taxi, to which Punjabi replied that the lady was the relative of Lucky alias Yash Pal and as such he was going to drop her there.
In this sequence, the next material witness is PW-12 Ravinder Kumar. He has stated that he used to drive Utility Van at Una. On the night of 9.1.2002, he had parked his Jeep at the Taxi Sand at Una. At about 11.00 or 11.30 p.m., he was warming up alongwith others around a fire. Besides him, Laddi, Monti, Punjabi and Bablu were also there. After sometime, Lucky also came there. Lucky, Punjabi and Laddi took liquor. Lucky told them that he had come to pick up a lady passenger to be taken to Bhadsali and went towards his vehicle, which was parked near the Petrol Pump. Thereafter, Punjabi and his Massi''s son (accused present in the Court) went towards the Bus Stand and brought one lady. She was limping while walking. Then they took the said lady in their Van bearing registration No. 5884 alongwith bag. He had identified that lady and stated that she was, perhaps, Suresh Kumari living in village Bhadsali, whom he had seen earlier also in the Village. It may be pointed that he had given his address as resident of Bhadsali to which village the lady belonged to, since she was married in that village. He has also stated in cross examination that liquor was purchased by Punjabi through Laddi, though he has stated that Lucky did not give Rs. 100/- for the liquor to Laddi.
From the above discussion of the evidence, some conclusions can be drawn which emerge from the discussion of this part of the evidence led by the prosecution. It is true that three persons had come to fetch the deceased and one of them has only been examined. His statement proves the presence of a vehicle and some persons who had come to receive the deceased and they had reached the Bus Stand at about 11.45 p.m. It is almost the same time when the lady goes to the STD Booth of PW-5 Harmesh Kumar and attempts to make a call to Bhadsali as well as to Uttarkashi. It appears that her bus may have reached a little earlier before the taxi came there brought by PW-6 Suresh Kumar and others and by the time, one of the person, namely, Lucky alias Yash Pal, who had come with PW-6 Suresh Kumar, was enjoying the drinks alongwith some other persons near the fire place and it may be that the lady came little earlier and since there was none to receive her, she boarded the Taxi at the instance of both the appellants. The presence of both the appellants at the Bus Stand at that relevant time and the fact that they brought the lady who was limping alongwith her two bags, stands established from the testimony of PW-4 Hazari Lal, who was running a shop at the Bus Stand and has specifically stated about the presence of both the accused Punjabi and Bablu alias Ravinder and also about the fact that Lucky also came there. He has specifically stated, as mentioned above, that they brought the lady who was limping alongwith two bags carried by Punjabi and Bablu, who took her in their Van. According to this witness, Lucky had already gone after consuming liquor, though his vehicle was parked their, but it appears that after taking the liquor, he had gone towards the taxi and may be present in the taxi at the relevant time. The presence of both these accused persons is also further substantiated from the testimony of PW-5 Harmesh Kumar, who was running an STD Booth, who stated about the visit by both the accused persons to his Booth, an attempt made by the lady to give a call to Uttarkashi and this part of the evidence establishes the presence of both the accused at the Bus Stand at the relevant time, the presence of the lady who was limping and the fact that she attempted to give a call to Uttarkashi. It has to be seen as to why the testimony of PW-4 Hazari Lal and PW-5 Harmesh Kumar, who had proved the presence of both the accused at the relevant time, should not be relied upon. There is nothing on record and no suggestions were put up to any of these witnesses that they had any reason to falsely implicate the accused in the commission of the offence and until and unless some facts were brought on record, it cannot be presumed that they had stated wrongly about the presence of both the accused persons at the spot at the relevant time.
For this purpose, we may see the explanation furnished by both the accused persons in reply to the questions put up to them in their statements recorded u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. They have simply denied the suggestions put up to them in their statements u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. that they had not taken the said Suresh Kumari who was limping while walking and they have not specifically taken any plea that they were not present at the Bus Stand at the relevant time or were present somewhere else at the relevant time.
In reply to the last question i.e. Q. No. 57, appellant Balwinder Singh has stated as under:
On the night intervening 9/10.1.2002 I had left bus stand, Una at about 9 or 9.30 P.M. and spent the night with a lady in village Saloh and next morning when I came to the bus stand there was rumour that the police was searching for me in a case of murder. Being scared I left Una apprehending my arrest in a false case. I am innocent and has falsely been implicated.
In regard to other accused Ravinder Kumar alias Bablu, he also denied the questions put up to him in regard to the lady who came there and was taken in their vehicle. He did not give any explanation as to where he was at the relevant time. In reply to Question No. 57 that he wanted to say anything else, he has stated as under:
In those days I was without job and PW-15 Rajinder Kumar met me at bus stand, Una and told that his vehicle was without a driver as his parents were not allowing him to drive the vehicle on account of the accident of his elder brother and offered to employ me as driver if approved by his father and so the said Rajinder Kumar PW 15 took me to his house where in the evening the police alongwith some other taxi drivers of Una arrived and I was brought to P.S. Una where I was implicated in a false case whereas PW 15 was let off after he agreed to become a witness against me.
It has to be considered alongwith other circumstances whether the evidence led proves the presence of the lady at the Bus Stand or the fact that she was taken by the accused persons, when considered alongwith the explanation furnished by them and the other circumstances proved on record by the prosecution.
The second circumstance proved in evidence is in regard to the alleged confession made by accused Ravinder Kumar and as to whether it stands proved or not. To prove the alleged confession, PW-13 Ashwani Kumar has been examined who has stated that he has been the Pradhan of the Taxi Union for the last about 8-10 years. On 10th January, 2002, at about 12.00 in the noon, it was rumoured in the Bus Stand area that a lady who had come to Bus Stand, Una from Dehradoon side, had not reached her house at village Bhadsali. At about 2.30/3 or 4.00 p.m., a brother of that lady and two more persons came to him and told him that sister of one of those persons had not reached Bhadsali during night. He told them that Laddi alias Hazari had been telling that the lady was taken in a taxi bearing No. 5884 by Punjabi and Ravinder during the night. At that time, Laddi had also stated that he was sitting at the STD Booth where the lady had come for making a telephonic call to her house at Bhadsali at the time when she arrived at the Bus Stand. He further stated that he alongwith Rajinder Kala and 2-3 persons went to Bhadsali. While they were searching for taxi No. 5884, they saw Bablu accused standing at shop at Bhadsali near a Harijan Basti. One private vehicle bearing No. 9933 was also parked there. He got down from the taxi and took away said Babloo with him to some distance. On his insistence, the said Bablu told him that the lady was raped during the night by him and Punjabi and was thereafter thrown in the river at Nangal. He further stated that he told this fact to his companion in the taxi. The entire occurrence was narrated by accused Bablu to them also. Then they brought him to the Police Station, Una. The brother of the deceased Suresh Kumari was also with them in the taxi. In cross examination, PW-13 Ashwani Kumar has stated that after Laddi told him that Punjabi and Bablu had taken away the lady, they went in the taxi in their search without informing the police. He did not ask the brothers of the deceased also to inform the police about the information supplied by Laddi. He stated that taxi No. 5884 was visible from the main road. The mechanic shop was at a distance of about 40-50 yards from the taxi. In cross examination, he further stated that they might have noticed Bablu standing at that shop at about 6.00 or 6.30 p.m. At that time, Laddi was not with them. He further stated that the accused first denied, then he confessed about the occurrence. He did not give any inducement or promise to him that in case he told the truth, he would help him. He denied the suggestion that he was annoyed due to the action of Bablu and Punjabi being the members of his Union. They did not make any effort to hand him over to the police at Pandoga though Police Post Pandoga was at a distance of about 1 km., whereas Police Station, Una was at a distance of 8-10 km. from those shops. He further stated that they handed over the accused Bablu to the police at Una at about 6, 6.30 or 6.45 p.m. He had handed over the accused to Head Munshi to whom he narrated the entire facts and Bablu was questioned by the Head Munshi.
PW-2 Sanjay Kumar, brother of the deceased, has stated that during his conversation with the drivers, one Laddi, a Shopkeeper, came there and informed him that last night at about 11.00 p.m., one lady aged about 45 years had boarded the taxi of Punjabi for Rs. 50/- as fare. Alongwith the said Punjabi, Ravinder had also gone in that taxi No. DDA 5884. They went towards Jogi Panga to the house of said Punjabi where his mother told that he might be available at Village Saloh where he often goes to a lady. Then he alongwith his cousin brother Chandan Kumar and Rajinder Kumar went to Village Saloh. On way to Bhadsali, they saw Ravinder Kumar standing at a shop. He identified Ravinder present in the Court. PW-13 Ashwani Kumar got down from the taxi and took Ravinder Kumar to another side and had some conversation with him. After 5-6 minutes, both of them came to them and Ashwani Kumar had told that Ravinder had confessed before him that he and Punjabi had raped and murdered that lady by throwing her in a Canal at Nangal. While they were bringing Ravinder Kumar in their taxi to Una, he also told that the lady after getting down the bus had boarded the taxi of Punjabi for going to Village Bhadsali for a consideration of Rs. 50/-. Punjabi had sat on the steering wheel while Ravinder sat on the adjoining seat. He further stated that Ravinder had disclosed the name of lady as Suresh Kumari. They brought Ravinder to Police Station Una and handed over him to the police officials. He stated that they may have reached the police station around 9.30 or 10.00 p.m. By that time, his elder brother Sanjeev Kumar might have lodged the FIR. He gave the time as to when Ravinder met them at the shop as about 8.00 or 8.30 p.m., though PW-13 had given the time as after 6.30 p.m.
Above discussion leads to the inference that the extra judicial confession made by the appellant Ravinder Kumar has been proved from the testimony of PW-13 Ashwani Kumar as well as PW-2 Sanjay Kumar brother of the deceased. The statement of PW-13 Ashwani Kumar was challenged on many grounds including the ground that he was self-styled Pradhan. There is no record in regard to his unanimous election as Pradhan. To our mind, the said record was neither necessary nor this Court is required to give any finding if PW13 Ashwani Kumar was elected unanimously, as stated by him, or otherwise. The main point for consideration is that there are no suggestions to him as to why he would implicate falsely the accused Ravinder Kumar of having made any confession to him.
In regard to the plea as to why Ravinder Kumar will make an extra judicial confession to PW-13 Ashwani Kumar, it is on record that he was the Pradhan of the Taxi Union of which the accused Ravinder Kumar was also a member. It may be that since the remour had spread in the area and PW-13 Ashwani Kumar alongwith others had reached the accused and had confronted him with the fact that the lady had gone with them, the said accused may have thought it fit to unload the burden in his mind since he had raped the woman alongwith his co-accused and had thrown her in the Nangal Canal. It is true that normally a person will not repose confidence in any other person and admit his involvement in a serious offence until and unless he has a faith that the person in whom he is reposing confidence with either help him or that he is the person in authority who can help him or the person so known to him that he reposes faith in him and tells him the facts. PW-13 Ashwani Kumar was exercising some better influence upon a taxi driver since he happened to be the Pradhan of the Taxi Union for the last 8 years, as per evidence, and the accused Ravinder and others may be approaching him at times for taking his assistance in preference to others or the PW-13 Ashwani Kumar may be helping them, in any manner, in settling their disputes with the police or any other such help. PW-13 Ashwani Kumar was not a stranger to the accused Ravinder Kumar in whom he reposed confidence and made an extra judicial confession. He was not a stranger and, therefore, the possibility that he might have confessed before him since he was knowing the police people being the Pradhan of the Taxi Union and the accused Ravinder may have thought it fit to take him into confidence. Moreover, it is not every time that a person makes an extra judicial confession before a person in authority. At times, if a person is not a criminal by nature or a habitual offender and may have committed the crime for the first time, in some circumstances, he may think it fit to unload the burden in his mind of having committed the crime to any person known to him who may be exercising some authority or connection with the police or it may be for the reason that the news had spread in the area about his involvement and the persons had approached him, the accused Ravinder Kumar may have though it fit to unleash the burden in his mind. Human behaviour differs from man to man. The mere fact that PW-13 Ashwani Kumar was not a person in authority is not sufficient to hold that no extra judicial confession was made by the accused Ravinder Kumar in his presence. The statement of PW-13 Ashwani Kumar assumes significance since there is nothing on record to show or even suggestions that he had any reason to falsely implicate the accused Ravinder and make out a story of extrajudicial confession to rope him in the offence. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, the possibility that this extra judicial confession was made by Ravinder Kumar cannot be ruled out. However, it is clear that the said extrajudicial confession can only be linked with the person making it, namely, Ravinder Kumar and not with other accused person.
The third circumstance proved in evidence is in regard to the recovery of the Pajeb which was worn by the deceased before her death and its recovery at the instance of both the accused persons. PW-27 Dharam Chand, Inspector, has stated that he arrested the accused Ravinder on 11.1.2002, who made a statement that he alongwith other accused had parked the Maruti Van and had kept Rs. 2300/- in the dash board of the Van, one towel, one bed sheet, one blanket etc., which they get recovered from the said Van. The said statement was made by Ravinder Kumar in presence of Ashwani Kumar and Rajinder, which is Ext.PJ. Thereafter, the accused Ravinder led the police party to the place where the Maruti Van was parked and he got recoverd 23 currency notes of denomination of 100 and also produced one blanket, towel, which were taken in possession. He further stated that during inspection of the Van, one Pajeb of silver was found lying in the rear seat of the Van which was also taken in possession vide memos Ext.PL and Ext.PL. All the memos were signed by accused Ravinder as well as by the aforesaid witnesses.
PW-13 Ashwani Kumar has stated that on 10th or 11th said Bablu disclosed at the police Station that the taxi No. DDA 5884 was parked on one side of Amb road behind a mechanic shop and he also told that he had kept Rs. 2300/- as per his share out of the money lying in the dash board of the taxi. The statement has been proved as Ext.PJ which was signed by him and Rajinder Singh and accused Ravinder. He further stated that the accused Bablu led them to the mechanic shop at Amb road, pointed out to the place where the Van was parked. Thereafter, the police recovered a white chadar, a towl. The cash was lying in the dash board. He also stated that the police also took up a single Pajeb from the floor of the taxi. The said articles were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ext.PK and Ext.PL, which were signed by him and Ravinder besides the accused Bablu. In regard to the Pajeb Ext.P-1, he stated that it appears to be the same which was recovered from the taxi and he identified the remaining articles Exts.P-21 to P-24 as the same. There was no specific suggestions that no such Pajeb or cash was ever recovered at that time or that no statement was made by the accused Ravinder at that time.
The other Pajeb was recovered at the instance of accused Balwinder vide disclosure statement Ext.PW-17/A. PW-27 Inspector Dharam Chand has stated that on 6.3.2002 accused Balwinder made a disclosure statement in presence of Rajinder Dogra and Telu that one Pajeb belonging to the deceased had been concealed by him in the bushes of the area of lower Arya Nangar from where earlier the Van was recovered and he could get the said pajeb recovered. Thereafter, Memo Ext.PW-17/A was prepared which was signed by the accused and the witnesses. Thereafter the accused led the police and the witnesses to the place and from the bushes got recovered the Pajeb which was taken in possession vide recovery memo Ext.PW-17/B.
One of the witnesses to the disclosure statement PW-17/B, namely Bhupender Dogra, has been examined as PW-17, who has stated that the police was making interrogation from the accused Punjabi who stated that he could get the Pajeb recovered from the bushes on Amb road. His statement was reduced to writing which is Ext.PW17/ A and was signed by him, Telu Ram and Balwinder accused. Thereafter, the accused Punjabi alias Balwinder took them to the bushes and got recovered the Pajeb which was lying there. He stated that Pajeb Ext.P-1 is the same which was taken in possession vide recovery memo Ext.PW-17/B. He denied the suggestion that Pajeb was visible from the field. He also stated that out of the two Pajebs Ext.P-1 and Ext.P-2 shown to him today, he cannot identify which one of these was recovered. His mere statement that he cannot identify either of the two Pajebs is not sufficient to disbelieve him particularly when both the Pajebs are alleged to be of similar make, it is difficult for an ordinary person to differentiate them. However, he had identified the Pajeb Ext.P-1 as the same which was recovered at that time.
Apart from the above, the prosecution had also proved some evidence in regard to the identification of the Pajeb. PW-27 Inspector Dharam Chand had stated that he filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una for identification of the Pajeb which was carried out on 16.3.2002. He also produced Ashok Kumar, who identified the Pajeb before the Court and report was handed over to him in a sealed cover. To substantiate his statement, the said Additional Chief Judicial Magistrte Shri Rajiv Bhardwaj has been examined as PW-18, who stated that on 16.3.2002, the SHO brought two packets duly sealed which were opened and these were having two Pajebs in those Pulindas. The SHO had also brought six similar type of pajebs. PW-18 Shri Rajiv Bhardwaj further stated that he mixed those two Pajebs with other six Pajebs. Thereafter, Ashok Kumar was called, who is the husband of the deceased, who identified the Pajeb placed at Sl. No. 2 and Sal. No. 6 belonging to his wife. The said Ashok Kumar, who has been examined as PW-3, also corroborated this statement, who stated that on 16.3.2002, he attended the court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Una at the instance of the police. He was shown 7 pairs of Pajebs and out of them, he identified the pair of Pajeb of his wife, which was sealed separately. He identified Pajeb Ext.P-1 and Ext.P-2 belonging to his wife. This evidence was challenged by the learned Counsel for the appellants on minor contradictions on the ground that it is in evidence of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate PW-18 that the remaining Pajebs were arranged by the SHO and the said SHO as PW-27 has stated that these other Pajebs were arranged by the Court. It may be that the Magistrate had asked his staff or the police to arrange the same and, therefore, he stated that it was brought by the police while the SHO had stated that it was not arranged by him but by the Court. This minor contradiction is not sufficient to disbelieve the statement of the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate since they had no reasons to make false statements that the identification of the Pajebs had taken place after mixing them with other Pajebs, either arranged by the police or called through the court.
From the above discussion of the evidence, it is clear that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that one Pajeb was got recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the accused Ravinder lying in the Van on 11.1.2002, while the other Pajeb was taken in possession at the instance of accused Balwinder on 6.3.2002 hidden in the bushes. The recovery of these Pajebs at the instance of the accused persons from the Van or from the bushes proves that they had the knowledge that the Pajeb was lying there, particularly, in regard to the Pajeb lying in the bushes though from the Van it was taken in possession, but these are sufficient to lead to an inference that the accused had the knowledge about this article which was subsequently recovered at his instance. Both these Pajebs had been identified by the husband of the deceased and there is nothing on the record to disbelieve this part of the evidence which rather comes as a strong circumstance as against the accused persons.
Apart from the above, the prosecution had also led some evidence to this effect that there was recovery of soap, one bottle of Rum etc., as has come up in the evidence. PW-27 Dharam Chand, Inspector, has stated that he made the recovery of 23 currency notes of Rs. 100/- each and the recovery of the same was effected at the instance of accused Ravinder in pursuance of his disclosure statement, which shows that he had the knowledge that this money was kept in the dash box of the Van. The mere fact that the Van was not locked or the money had been left by the accused in the dash box is not sufficient to hold that this recovery cannot be relied upon since it is for the accused to consider if he should hide the money in the dash box or he should have locked it to make it more safe. The behaviour of the person depends upon his own assumption of the things. Moreover, the Investigating Officer PW-27 had also recovered the broken bottle of liquor of Balck Bull Rum mark meant for sale in Uttranchal and the broken pieces were taken in possession in presence of Ashwani Jawal and Sher Singh vide recovery memo Ext.PP. This recovery had been effected at the instance of statement made by the accused Ravinder on 12.1.2002, as per the statement of this witness. The prosecution had also examined PW-3 Ashok Kumar, the husband of the deceased, who has stated that his wife was carrying clothes, one bottle of rum, two cakes of Rin soap and 4-5 cakes of bathing soap Lux and 4-5 cassettes. He identified the broken pieces of bottle Ext.P-4 and its label Ext.P-5 on which it was mentioned for sale in Uttaranchal only for ITBP. He was also shown cakes of soap Lux etc. vide Ext.P 3. The mere fact that the cakes etc. may not be having a specific mark and there is no identification that these were being carried by the wife of this witness, but this corroborates the fact that these articles were later on recovered at the instance of the accused and there is statement of the husband of the deceased, PW-3 Ashok Kumar that his wife was carrying these articles which corroborates to some extent only that the recovery of these articles is proved from the testimony of the husband of the deceased, who has also stated that his wife was carrying these articles and cash with her. It is true that there is no identification mark on the notes, but the recovery of the amount at the instance of one of the accused can be linked with him since he had the knowledge that the money was lying in the dash box of the Van and there is statement of PW-3 Ashok Kumar that his wife was carrying this much money in her bag when she left her place. It is not necessary that there should have been specific marks of identification but some corroboration is there and the statement of PW-3 Ashok Kumar is correct and it proves his knowledge as to what was being carried in the bag by his wife.
PW-29 HC Karam Din has stated that Jagdish Chand, a motor mechanic, had produced one blanket, pants of different colouor and shirts and three cakes of Lux, one of breeze and one Nirma Beauty Soap and another cake of Detol bathing soap, which were taken in possession. The said Jagdish Ram has been examined as PW-16 who has stated that on 10.1.2002, he was told by Tarsem Lal, a helper, that some clothes had been kept by Punjabi including blanket, soap cakes and then he learnt about the involvement of Punjabi in an offence and he deposited these articles at Police Station, Una on 11.1.2002.
The submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant were that the police had already got the information about the recovery of the dead body and thereafter FIR was registered and the investigation started, therefore, the prosecution case cannot be relied upon. Learned Counsel for the appellant had relied upon the testimony of PW-9 Pawan Kumar, who was posted at Power House. This witness has stated that in the month of January, 2002, he alongwith Nirmal Singh was looking after four track lane of canal at Ganguwal Power House. On 10.1.2002, at about 7.00 a.m. in the morning, he and Nirmal Singh observed a dead body of a lady was found in a net fixed for fishing out extraneous material. They reported about the recovery of the dead body to the control room as usual and tied the dead body with a rope so that it may not be washed away. On the following day i.e. on 11.1.2002 at about 4.30 p.m., the police of Una Police Station came there and enquired about the dead body and they showed the dead body to the police and brother of the deceased accompanying the police identified the body to be of his sister Suresh Devi. In cross examination, he admitted that there is an established procedure that on seeing the dead body, they inform their control room and tie the dead body with the net with the help of rope. Later on the police is informed by the control room. The mere fact that, according to the procedure, the report qua the recovery of such dead body is sent to the nearby police Station is not sufficient to hold that this information was given on 10.1.2002 to the police at Una. No such wireless message has been proved in defence to show that this information was received by Una police on 10.1.1002 about the recovery of the dead body and thereafter the FIR was registered in the evening. The record shows that this report was received by the police on the next day and then they went to Nangal to bring the dead body. PW-27 Inspector Dharam Chand has denied the suggestion that on 10.1.2002, he had received a wireless message from Ganguwal that a dead body has been found in the Canal.
PW-11 SI Ranjit Singh has stated that on 11.1.2002, he went in search of dead body towards Nangal and Ganguwal alongwith Sanjiv Kumar, the brother of the deceased. They were informed there by PW-9 that one dead body was trapped in the net, which was identified by Sanjiv Kumar of his sister Suresh Devi. He admitted that generally they get a wireless message as and when some dead body is found there but he denied that any wireless message had been received in this case on 10.1.2002. This clearly shows that police came to know about the dead body only on 11.1.2002, on which date the dead body was taken into possession.
Apart from the above, there is evidence of post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Suresh Kumar, which was conducted by PW-8 Dr. R.S. Dadhwal, who found several injuries on the body, which are as under:
A postmortem lacerated wound, almost circular 1 cm in diameter present on left side of chest, about 3 cm from midsternal point in the mammary area.
A postmortem lacerated wound of the size of Injury No. 1 in the left anterior axillary line, 5" in ferolatera to the left nipple.
A postmortem lacerated wound 2 cm x 0.6 cm x 0.5 cm, 2" inferolateral to injury No. 2, present in the left mid axillary line.
A postmortem lacerated wound, 1 cm x 0.25 cm x 0.5 cm deep, present over left anterior superior iliac spine.
A postmortem bruise 15.5" x 1.5 cm, starting from just above the injury No. 2 to the right side of abdomen merging with another bruise being described in injury No. 6.
A post-mortem bruise encircling the whole of chest, 0.75 cm in width, present in the inframammary and scapular region, being corrugated in some parts of the back.
Two antemortem abrasions, vertically placed, reddish, present on the back, one on the right side and antoher on left side, right one 2" away from midline and left one 3" away from midline size being 16" x 0.5 cm.
An antemortem reddish bruise, 4.5" x 4", present in left infra scapular region with a reddish abrasion, vertical, 4" x 0.5 cm present over it.
A reddish antemortem bruise, 8" x 4" present in right infra scapular regision with an overlying, vertical abrasion (Reddish) antemortem 9" x 0.5 cm in size.
An antemortem abrasion, irregular, reddish, 4 cm x 1.5 cm, in front of right knee.
An antemortem triangular bruise with base 3" placed inferiorly at the level of knee and extending upwards, present on medial side of right thigh, 6" in length.
A postmortem lacerated wound, transverse, 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm, present on medial side of lower part of right leg 2" above the medial malleolus.
A post-mortem abrasion, 3" x 0.5", in front of left knee in its upper part.
He further stated that the probable time that elapsed between the injury and death was few minutes and that between death and postmortem was 24 hours to 72 hours. In regard to sexual intercourse, the opinion was reserved till the report of the Chemical Examiner. He stated that on receipt of Forensic Expert report, he opined that there is nothing to suggest that recent intercourse had not been performed. He admitted that stains of semen can be detected even within a period of 17 days after the sexual intercourse. Except the presence of semen in her vagina, there was no other evidence of recent sexual intercourse.
From the above discussion, it is clear that mere presence of semen in the vagina is not sufficient to hold that it was due to recent intercourse or rape committed by both the accused persons. The deceased was a married woman and had come only one day earlier from the place where her husband was posted and the presence of semen in her vagina does not prove that she was raped before her murder and no such conclusive inference can be drawn that she was subjected to rape before death. In that regard, the findings of the learned trial Court, to our mind, holding two of the appellants guilty u/s 376 of the IPC cannot be said to be correct.
From the above discussion of the evidence, it is clear that there is specific evidence on record to show that the deceased had come to Bus Stand, Una. It may be that the witnesses who have been examined, as detailed above, were not able to state that it was the same lady i.e. the deceased who had come there, but the fact that she was a middle aged woman, was limping at that time had come and attempted to make call to Village Bhadsali, the place where she was to go as well as to Uttarkashi, shows that it was the deceased only who had come to the Bus Stand on that night. Moreover, the other evidence, as discussed above, also shows that it was learnt by the witnesses at the spot that she was the relative of Lucky who was to go to Bhadsali as the witnesses have clearly stated that the accused told them that they were taking the woman to Bhadsali. The recovery of Pajebs at the instance of the accused persons, the alleged extrajudicial confession made by one of the accused and recovery of other articles co-relates with the deceased whose dead body was also recovered after two days from Nangal, all point out to the fact that it was the same lady who had reached during that night at Una, who was subsequently found dead and her dead body was recovered from Nangal. Moreover, we have already mentioned above, that in the statements made by the accused persons u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C., one of the accused namely Balwinder only had taken the plea that he had gone to a woman during night time, but neither the said woman had been examined nor any evidence had been led to show that he had in fact left the place earlier to visit the said woman. It is true that the said woman will not be ready to depose against herself but some evidence could have been led to prove this fact. The explanation given by both the accused persons in reply to the questions put to them u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of denial and they have not taken any specific defence or replies specifically that they were not near the fire on that night, they never took liquor on that night or never visited the persons, namely, the STD Booth owner and others, nor they were seen by them at that time. This plea could have been specifically taken by the accused persons as to at what time they had left during that night and where they were at that particular time when their presence is sought to be proved at Una Bus Stand. One of the accused was arrested immediately and it cannot be said that since he was arrested after a lapse of considerable time, he had forgotten as to where he was on the date of occurrence. As has come in evidence that the other accused was arrested subsequently on 6.3.2002, which clearly shows that he had run away from the place due to his involvement in the case and no inference can be drawn that he had run away only because of the fear of police of false implication. In case he was innocent, he would have stuck to the place and this may be taken as additional circumstance regarding the conduct of the said accused in running away from the place. The other corroborative evidence is sufficient to prove that the lady came to Una Bus Stand. The witnesses had no reason to falsely depose against the accused persons and there are no allegations of any enmity in between the witnesses and the accused so as to falsely implicate the accused persons. Similarly, there is no specific evidence on record to show as to why PW-13 Ashwani Kumar will falsely depose against the accused persons and, therefore, his statement also inspires confidence. The circumstantial evidence proved in this case, to our mind, clearly satisfies the test required to prove the case and all the circumstances, if read together, lead to only one conclusion that it was the accused persons Ravinder and Balwinder who had committed the murder of the deceased for money or for other reasons. There is no dispute in regard to the identity, which stands proved from the evidence and as such, the findings of the learned trial Court holding both of them guilty of the charge framed against them u/s 302 read with Section 201 of the IPC and Section 392 read with Section 34 of the IPC are liable to be confirmed, though they are entitled to be acquitted of the charge framed against them u/s 376 of the IPC & u/s 392 read with Section 34 of the IPC, since evidence is not sufficient to prove the charge under these Sections.
Coming to the appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the acquittal of Naresh Kumar Kaushal u/s 212 of the IPC. The said Naresh Kumar has been charged u/s 212 of the IPC for having committed offence of harbouring accused Balwinder Singh whom he knew or had reasons to believe of his involvement in a case of rape and murder. It was alleged that the accused had paid Rs. 30/- to accused Balwinder with the intention of screening him from legal punishment. The evidence in regard to the said Naresh Kumar Kaushal has been discussed by the learned trial Court in paragraph 20 of its judgment. It was observed by the learned trial Court that the evidence is scanty since one witness Pankaj Kumar was examined who was the driver of the taxi of the father of accused Naresh Kumar and he had denied that Balwinder alias Punjabi had ever met Naresh Kumar in his presence. The said witness turned hostile and had denied meeting of Naresh Kumar with accused Punjabi and giving of Rs. 30/- by accused Naresh Kumar Kaushal to accused Punjabi or that he had the knowledge that the accused Punjabi was wanted by Una Police in a murder case. A reference was also made to the testimony of PW-26 Punnu Ram and PW-31 Raju alias Mohit Verma, but these are not very material. No infirmity could be pointed out by the learned Deputy Advocate General during the course of arguments that the said evidence was sufficient to prove the charge as against accused Naresh Kumar Kaushal. No such other evidence was also referred to during the course of arguments, which was relevant for holding accused Naresh kumar Kaushal guilty of the charge framed against him u/s 212 of the IPC. We accordingly find no infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court that the guilt of the accused Naresh Kumar u/s 212 of the IPC was not established.
In view of the above detailed discussion, we accordingly hold as under:
The conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Court on both the appellants u/s 366 read with Section 34 of the IPC with imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years is accordingly affirmed. The conviction imposed by the learned trial Court upon both the appellants u/s 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC with imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years is also liable to be affirmed and the same is affirmed accordingly. The conviction imposed upon both the appellants by the learned trial Court for offences u/s 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC with rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, is also liable to be affirmed which is affirmed accordingly.
The remaining part of the order in regard to the grant of compensation to the legal heirs of the victim/deceased, on recovery of fine, as well as the order passed that all the sentences shall run concurrently, is also upheld.
However, the findings of the learned trial Court holding both the appellants guilty u/s 376 (2)(g) IPC read with Section 34 IPC and consequently the conviction imposed as well as the findings holding appellants guilty u/s 392 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and consequently the sentence imposed, are liable to be set aside and the same are accordingly set aside.
In view of the above discussion, the appeals filed by the appellants Balwinder Singh and Ravinder Singh are partly accepted. We do not find any ground to accept the appeal filed by the State of H.P. against both the appellants for enhancement of the sentence on the ground that it was the rarest of the rare cases. Therefore, the appeal preferred by the State of H.P. for enhancement of the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon both the appellants u/s 302 IPC is dismissed. The revised jail warrants shall be issued to the Jail Superintendent for compliance.