PETITIONER: RAMPAL PITHWA RAHIDAS Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DATE OF JUDGMENT01/03/1994 BENCH: SINGH N.P. (J) BENCH: SINGH N.P. (J) REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) CITATION: 1994 SCC (2) 685 JT 1994 (2) 135 1994 SCALE (1)785 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR A.S. ANAND, J.- These two appeals, by special leave,
arise out of a common judgment of the High Court of
Judicature, Appellate Side, at Bombay (Nagpur Bench) dated
27th, 28th and 31 st October, 1988, confirming the death
sentence passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Chandrapur for
an offence under Section 302 IPC on five appellants in
Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 1989. Three convicts were
acquitted by the High Court and Criminal Appeal No. 466 of
1989 has been filed by the State of Maharashtra against
their acquittal. This judgment will dispose of both the
appeals.
2.Nine accused persons, namely, Rampal, Fulchand,
Babulal, Sheoprasad alias Dhunda Chunbaliya, Basawan,
Shamlal, Pratap, Ramkishore and Ramcharan, were sent up for
trial for committing the murder of Tanba Gedam, Baldeo
singh, Raman Chandra, Prakash Vehadkar and Raju Deshmukh and
for causing injuries to Surendra PW 31, Mahendra singh PW 33
and Doma PW 5 on July 3, 1984 between 7.30 p.m. and 10 p.m.
on the Highway Chandrapur Ballarshah Road while committing
dacoity. (One other accused who had also been arrayed by the
police died before the trial in police custody). They were
tried for offences under Sections 302, 307, 342 read with
Section 149 and Sections 395 and 396 of IPC. Accused 1
Ramcharan Rahidas turned an approver and was examined as
such. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge accepting the
testimony of the approver and the other prosecution
evidence, convicted all the eight accused mentioned above
and awarded the sentence of death to all the eight accused
for the offence under Sections 302/149 IPC, and for the
offences under Sections 307 and 395, the accused were
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months and
to pay a fine of Rs 50 each and in default they were
directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven days.
The learned Addl. Sessions Judge submitted the proceedings
to the High Court for confirmation of the sentence of death
and the convicted eight accused also filed a criminal appeal
challenging their conviction and sentence in the High Court.
While the appeal of appellants Basawan Rahidas, Pratap
Rahidas and Ramkishore Rahidas was accepted and they were
acquitted of all the charges, the appeal filed by Rampal and
four others was dismissed and their conviction under Section
302 IPC was maintained. The High Court also confirmed the
sentence of death on Rampal and the other four appellants,
who have filed Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 1989. The State
of Maharashtra has filed Criminal Appeal No. 466 of 1989
against the acquittal of Basawan and two others.
77
3.The prosecution case is that on July 3, 1984, near K.M.
No. 9 on Chandrapur-Ballarshah Road which is a part of
Highway No. 84, construction of two buildings of a seed
centre was in progress. Doma and Tanba were acting as
watchmen at the construction site. At about 7.30 p.m.,
while Tanba and Doma were present at the site, they heard
the approaching movement of some persons. One of those
persons on reaching near Doma and Tanba picked up a bamboo
stick. Four other persons surrounded Doma while two others
started assaulting Tanba with bricks, as a result whereof
Tanba fell down. The miscreants assaulted Doma and Tanba
with bricks, stones and rafters and tied them by removing
the dhoti which Tanba was wearing and dragged them both to a
distance of about 25 ft. and ultimately threw them in a
ditch, which was at some distance away from the main road.
The assailants on hearing the sound of a two-wheeler
approaching, went up to the main road and assaulted the
rider of the two-wheeler Raman Chandra. After giving
beating to him, he was dragged and thrown near the road.
Mahendra singh and Baldeosingh were coming on a scooter from
the Ballarshah side and they were also assaulted by the
assailants with rafters and sticks. A bag containing Rs
7040 and some documents was snatched from them. As a result
of the beating, Mahendrasingh and Baldeosingh became
unconscious. Baldeosingh died on the spot. The assailants
threw away his body and the scooter on one side of the road.
Mahendrasingh who had also become unconscious was later on
removed to a hospital at Nagpur where he regained
consciousness after four days. Prakash Vehadkar was also
passing on the road on his cycle at about the same time. He
was stopped, beaten and killed by the assailants. Raju
Deshmukh was driving a scooter with Surendra Chopra and was
passing through on that road, when his scooter was stopped.
Both of them were assaulted by the miscreants as a result
whereof Raju Deshmukh fell off his scooter and was trapped
under it. The miscreants then caused. some injuries to
Surendra and removed his gold ring, wrist-watch and Rs 250
and left him on hearing the sound of another scooter
approaching that side. Surendra escaped and ran over some
distance and requested one Mumtaz Ahmed, who was passing by
the road on his scooter, for a lift. Mumtaz Ahmed took
Surendra, to the house of his brother at Ballarshah. After
rendering some medical aid to Surendra, his brother and
others went in search of Raju Deshmukh but could not locate
him or his scooter. While going to the site, where Raju and
Surendra had been belaboured, the assistance of the police
subinspector Chandrapur was also taken and he accompanied
them to the spot and on reaching the place of occurrence
they came to know about the killing of 4-5 persons. They
later on found the dead body of Raju Deshmukh. The dead
body of Tanba was also found there.
4.PSI Gadekar of the Traffic Branch at Chandrapur was on
the Highway at about 2210 hrs. on July 3, 1984 when on
learning that some dead bodies were lying by the side of the
road, he along with Constable Ram Das reached the place of
occurrence. He found the dead bodies lying on the two sides
of the road. Leaving Head Constable Ram Das to guard the
spot, PSI Gadekar went and apprised PI Thakur of Chandrapur
Police Station, who rushed to the scene of occurrence and
found three dead bodies and an injured person asking for
water. Near about the same place, two more dead bodies and
injured Mahendrasingh were also found. Both the injured
persons were sent to the General Hospital, Chandrapur in a
trakker belonging to the Maharashtra State
78
Electricity Board. Sub-Inspector Bante of Chandrapur City
Police Station went to the General Hospital Chandrapur and
recorded the statement of injured PW Doma, which forms the
basis of the first information report. A case was
registered and investigation taken in hand. During the
investigation, the inquest report of Prakash Vehadkar, whose
name could be gathered from a tobacco box which was lying
near him as well as from the cycle which bore his name was
prepared and a panchnama drawn up. Inquest reports of the
other dead bodies were also prepared. The bloodstained
clothes of the injured were seized vide separate panchnamas.
Some more articles were seized from different places in the
neighbourhood of the scene of crime vide separate panchnama
in the morning of 4th July, 1984. The dead bodies of Raman,
Raju, Prakash, Baldeosingh and Tanba were sent for
postmortem examination to the General Hospital Chandrapur
where Dr Murkey conducted the postmortem examination on the
dead bodies and submitted the postmortem reports.
5.We do not consider it necessary or expedient to
reproduce the injuries noticed on each of the deceased, as
the same have been given in detail both by the learned Add].
Sessions Judge and the High Court in the judgment and no
controversy surrounds them. Suffice it to notice that the
injuries found on each of the dead bodies were, according to
Dr Murkey, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause the death of the deceased.
6.Dr Lohare PW examined injured Mahendrasingh PW on 4th
July, 1984 and found swelling on his right forearm lower
part, and after an X-ray examination it was discovered that
Mahendrasingh had suffered fracture of the right ulna. Doma
PW was also examined by Dr Lohare, who found two lacerations
on his right occipital region and one laceration on the
central occipital region with swelling on the right hand
also. Surendra PW was examined by Dr Lohare and it was
found that he had swelling on both the hands, lower part of
the right forearm, left knee, right postcuricular of scalp,
lacerations on the left and right forehead, contusion on the
right lower thoracic region, tenderness on the left shoulder
and an abrasion on the right shoulder. There was no clue as
to the culprits in the case. Right from the start of the
investigation on July 3, 1984, till July 7, 1984 no arrest
was made. None of the injured prosecution witnesses could
throw any light on the identity of their assailants or those
who had committed the murders on July 3, 1984 as according
to them assault had been committed by some men wearing masks
in the darkness of the night. It appears that since the
investigation did not yield any results with regard to the
crime committed on the Highway, demonstrations against
police inaction were held at Chandrapur and a complete bandh
was also observed for one day. Unprecedented tension
prevailed in Chandrapur on account of ineffective and
slipshod investigation by the police. Both the public and
the press continued to blame the police for their inaction
and the police authorities were naturally concerned.
7.On July 7, 1984 accused 1 Ramcharan, who later on
turned an approver in this case, was sighted by one Manohar
Thikare PW near the metre-gauge line which passes from
Chandrapur and goes towards Gondia. He was arrested in
Village Rajoli within the jurisdiction of Police Station Mul
in connection with some other case. We shall, in the latter
part of the judgment, deal with the story of his arrest in
some detail. According to the prosecution case, Ramcharan
accused is alleged to have disclosed, during interrogation,
at Police Station Mul
79
hat he had taken part in a case of dacoity on Ballarshah
Road. On getting this information the police officer of
Police Station Mul informed the superintendent of Police,
Chandrapur and on his direction Ramcharan accused as
transferred from Police Station Mul to Chandrapur Police
Station. It is then alleged that after his transfer to
Chandrapur Police Station at 2 a.m., his statement came to
be recorded by the police at Chandrapur Police Station and
as sequence of the information given by him, all other
accused persons along with one Murari Deshmukh were
arrested. Murari, however, died within three days of his
arrest while in police custody. According to the
prosecution, Ramcharan accused made a voluntary statement
under Section 164 before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class
on July 21, 1984 giving details of the crime. Armed with
that statement of Ramcharan accused, the investigating
agency allegedly effected some recoveries after arresting
the other accused persons as well as at he instance of the
approver himself. Ramcharan accused, subsequently turned an
approver and the accused were put on trial.
8.The prosecution with a view to connect the accused with
the crime, relied primarily upon the testimony of the
approver, besides the statements of the injured witnesses
and certain recoveries, alleged to be of the articles
belonging various deceased and the injured persons effected
under Section 27 of the evidence Act. The defence of the
accused was one of denial and false implication. Rampal and
Basawan, the acquitted accused, also pleaded alibi. Before
dealing with the statements of the eyewitnesses and the
alleged recoveries, we shall first deal with the statement
of the approver Ramcharan PW, an accomplice of the accused,
who turned an approver on grant of pardon. Legal Position :
9.Section 133 of the Evidence Act expressly provides that
an accomplice is a competent witness against his co-accused
and it renders admissible the testimony of an accomplice
against his co-accused. It has, however, been a long
settled practice of law that Section 133 of the Evidence Act
must be read along with the provisions of Illustration (b)
to Section 114 of the Evidence Act. Section 114 of the
Evidence Act empowers the court to presume the existence of
certain facts and Illustration (b) in express terms says
that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is
corroborated in material particulars. Thus, it follows,
that whereas law permits the conviction of an accused person
on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of an
accomplice by virtue of the provisions of Section 133 who is
treated as a competent witness, the rule of prudence which
has rightly been always accepted by the courts, embodied in
Illustration (b) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, strikes
a note of warning/caution to the courts that an accomplice
does not generally deserve to be relied upon, unless his
testimony is corroborated in material particulars. Thus, as
a matter of practice and prudence the courts have held that
the testimony of an approver may be accepted in evidence for
recording conviction of an accused person provided it
receives corroboration from direct or circumstantial
evidence in material particulars. The courts have generally
‘looked upon with suspicion the statement of an approver
because he is considered to be a person of low morals and
not a wholly trustworthy person who for the sake of earning
pardon for himself is willing to let down his erstwhile
accomplices and therefore before recording conviction courts
insist upon independent corroboration of his testimony. In
Ram Narain v. State of
80
Rajasthan’ Dua, J. while speaking for the Court dealt with
the subject and observed : (SCC p. 811, para 8)
“An approver who is admittedly guilty of the
crime is an accomplice who has betrayed his
associates and has apparently sought pardon
for saving his own skin. In other words he
has purchased complete immunity for his
prosecution at the expense of his associates
by agreeing to give evidence against them for
the prosecution. He is, therefore, presumed
not to be a man of high character or a fair
witness. His pardon being conditional, to
please the prosecution he may well weave some
false detail into the true details of the
prosecution story and may also falsely involve
some innocent person. There is thus a real
danger of his telling a story true in general
outline but containing some untruth which he
can easily work into the story. It is for
this reason that the courts as a matter of
prudence and caution anxiously look for some
corroboration to satisfy their conscience that
the approver’s testimony which is clearly
admissible is also worthy of belief credit.
On can of course visualise an accomplice who
is genuinely repentant for the commission of
his crime and truly desires to make a clean
breast of the whole affair by way of
penitence. But even in such cases the court
has to judicially determine the extent to
which his uncorroborated testimony car be
considered as trustworthy by looking to the
other relevant material and the attending
circumstances on the basis of which the
accused can be safely a convicted. The rule
which seems to emerge from the foregoing
discussion and judicial decisions is that the
necessity of corroboration as a matter of
prudence except when it is safe to dispense
with such corroboration must be clearly
present to the mind of the judge.”
Arrest of Ramcharan and Grant of Pardon to him:
10.The above principle has stood the test of time and it
is with this background present in our minds that we shall
examine the testimony of Ramcharan approver PW 49. How he
came to be arrested? How did he become a participant in the
crime? What role did he play in the crime? When and how he
decided to be an approver? These are some of the questions
which we shall have to consider to determine the
creditworthiness of his testimony and the nature and the
extent of corroboration which is required before his
testimony can be relied upon in support of the prosecution
case.
11.The approver appeared as PW 49 at the trial. He was
arrested on July 7, 1984 in some other connection and till
his arrest as already noticed, the investigation had drawn a
blank in this case and was being criticised both by the
media and the public alike for not solving the crime and
appears to have been under tremendous pressure. How did the
approver come to be arrested?
12.One Manohar Thikare PW 1, according to the prosecution
case, was collecting leaves by the side of Rajoli Railway
Station and had climbed on a tree for that purpose leaving
his cycle by the side of the road. He found approver
Ramcharan coming that side and touching his cycle. Manohar
PW 1 shouted at Ramcharan PW 49 and got down from the tree.
The approver started running away. Manohar got down from
the tree and riding on his bicycle, instead of chasing the
approver, who had ‘touched’ his bicycle went home to inform
his brother, Sudhakar PW 2 about what he had seen near the
tree. Both Manohar PW 1 and Sudhakar PW 2 then came back to
the spot and started looking for the
1 (1973) 3 SCC 805, 811: 1973 SCC (Cri) 545
81
approver and found him standing on the water tank near the
railway line. They caught hold of him and took him to the
house of Tulsiram, Police Patil PW 3, who sent Sudhakar PW 2
with Ramcharan approver to Police Station at Mul with his
report Ex. 29, which makes an interesting reading and reads
thus:
To,
The Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Mul.
Subject : In respect of catching thief on account of
suspicion.
Sir,
It is submitted as under-
This day July 7, 1984, Saturday, when Manohar Kessari
Thikare, resident of Rajoli, had gone for plucking leaves,
on a bicycle.
Ramcharan started going away by taking his bicycle. At that
time, he (Manohar) shouted and with the help of his brother
Sudhakar Thikare, he (Manohar) caught Ramcharan and brought
him. He (Ramcharan) told his name to be Ramcharan Ramasheth
Chamber, resident of Gondia. Hence you are requested to
hold enquiry into the said matter. Finish, dated July 7,
1984.
Seen, Sd/
(Sd/) x Illegible x T.K. Thikare,
S.D.P.O. Police Patil Rajoli
Dt. 8.7.84 Police Station, Mul
Tehsil & Distt. Chandrapur.
13. However, it is neither the case of Manohar PW 1 nor of
Sudhakar PW 2, that approver Ramcharan made any attempt to
steal the bicycle of Manohar PW 1 let alone that he “started
going away by taking his bicycle”. The testimony of Manohar
PW 1, which is also supported by panchnama of the spot dated
July 7, 1984 Ex. 3 1, is only to the effect that while he
was plucking the leaves and had kept his cycle on the road,
an unknown person touched his cycle and when Manohar PW 1
shouted, the unknown person ran away. Since, the cycle had
not been stolen, we are at a loss to understand as to why in
the first place Manohar PW 1 and his brother Sudhakar PW 2
should have, come back on the cycle to the spot and why did
they chase Ramcharan approver, who had done practically
nothing, and finding him on the railway water tank took him
to PW 3 Tulsiram. What was the basis for Tulsiram PW 3 to
say in his report Ex. 29 that Ramcharan “started going away
by taking his bicycle” is not at all intelligible? Why
Tulsiram PW 3 wrote it has not been explained even by him
while appearing as a witness at the trial. But then unless
the Police Patil Tulsiram PW 3 had concocted a story of
‘stealing’ there was perhaps no occasion for Tulsiram Police
Patil to send the approver to Police Station Mul with his
report Ex. 29 and that appears to be the reason for
incorporating the story of alleged theft of the bicycle by
the approver by Tulsiram PW 3 in his report Ex. 29. What
happened subsequently at Mul Police Station is even more
curious.
14. When a Kotwal and Sudhakar PW 2 produced Ramcharan at
Police Station Mul along with report Ex. 29 from Tulsiram PW
3, PSI Chandel PW 41, of Police Station Mul, made an entry
in the station diary regarding the ‘incident’ and arrested
Ramcharan under Section 109 of the CrPC (not under Section
379 or Sections 379/511 IPC) and interrogated him, during
the course of which,
82
according to the prosecution case, Ramcharan disclosed of
having taken part in a dacoity on the Highway. In the
entry, in the station diary book Ex. P-7, however, there is
no mention that PW 41 PSI Chandel had arrested accused
Ramcharan under Sections 41/109 CrPC. When asked during the
crossexamination as to whether he had prepared the arrest
panchnama of accused Ramcharan, PW 41 Chandel replied in the
negative. When questioned as to why the approver was
arrested under Section 109 CrPC when that was not the
purport of Ex. 29 sent by Tulsiram PW 3, the witness stated
that “if any person is found pickpocketing at bus stand, we
arrest him under Sections 41/109 CrPC” but could not explain
as to the basis on which accused Ramcharan was arrested
under Sections 41/109 CrPC. It was suggested to Chandel PW
41 during the cross-examination that since in the area,
public discontent had been increasing daily, therefore, a
false story was concocted and Ramcharan accused was planted
as an accused. He denied the suggestion. The prosecution
has attempted to show that Manohar PW 1 and Sudhakar PW 2
were independent witnesses, who had made a complaint to
Police Patil Tulsiram PW 3 in a routine manner and that
Tulsiram Patil PW 3 sent Ramcharan to Police Station Mul
also in a routine manner along with his report in the
official routine. The truth however, appears to be
otherwise. During his deposition PW 1 Manohar, after
stating that Ramcharan was sent to the police station by the
Police Patil Tulsiram PW 3 along with his brother Sudhakar
PW 2 and Vilas Kilake Police Kotwal at about 10. a.m.,
admitted in his cross-examination that “Police Patil
Tulsiram is my cousin brother”. He, therefore, proverbially
speaking let the cat out of the bag!
15. It appears to us that Tulsiram Patil PW 3 utilized the
services of his cousins Manohar PW 1 and Sudhakar PW 2 to
plant Ramcharan and have him arrested under Section 109 IPC
at Police Station Mul with the assistance of PW 41 Chandel.
The entire story regarding arrest of Ramcharan appears to be
a police concoction and padding with a view to silence the
large discontent against the police on account of its
inaction to apprehend culprits, who were responsible for
committing five murders on the Highway, besides causing
injuries to three witnesses.
16. At this stage it would also be relevant to take notice
of the report sent by PW 41 Chandel while transferring
Ramcharan to Police Station Chandrapur City. Ex. 197 is
that report and it also makes an interesting reading. It
reads as follows:
“Police Station Mul,
Date: 8.7.1984.
To,
The Police Inspector,
Police Station, Chandrapur City.
Sub:Regarding transfer of Ramcharan son of
Ramashray Rahidas, the accused arrested under
Sections 41(2)/109 of CrPC at Police Station
Mul and his relevant documents.
Sir,
Report is submitted as under
On July 7, 1984, Police Patil of Village
Rajoli sent a person named Ramcharan Ramashray
Rahidas and written report to the Police
Station Mul, through Sudhakar Shivram
Thikre. It was stated in the said report that
83
the person named Ramcharan Rahidas was caught
while he was trying to take away the bicycle
of Manohar Shivram Thikare. On the basis of
the said report 1 personally went to Village
Rajoli and made an inquiry about the said
incident. During the course of inquiry the
following facts were came to be known:
At about 7 a.m. Manohar Shivram Thikare went
on a bicycle to pluck the leaves of Palas
tree. He kept the bicycle on foot track and
climbed up the Palas tree. When he was
plucking the leaves of Palas tree, the
aforesaid person named Ramcharan Rahidas was
going by the road. At that time he (Ramcharan
Rahidas) touched the said bicycle, as a result
of which Manohar Thikre shouted. On that
Ramcharan ran away from there. Thereafter
Manohar Thikre went to the village by the said
bicycle and brought his brother Sudhakar
Thikre on the said bicycle. At that time
Ramcharan was on the cistern. Then the said
two brothers caught Ramcharan Rahidas and
brought him to the Police Patil of Rajoli.
On the basis of the said inquiry since it
reveals that, the said incident was not theft,
there was no intention of committing theft of
a bicycle, the accused Ramcharan Rahidas has
no place of residence, he has been arrested at
1935 hrs. of July 7, 1984 under Sections
41(2)/109 CrPC.
On making minute inquiry to the accused
Ramcharan Rahidas regarding other crimes, he
disclosed that he was related to Crime No. 135
of 1984 under Sections 396 and 397 of IPC
registered at Police Station Chandrapur City.
Since accused Ramcharan Rahidas is related to
the said crime, he has been transferred to the
crime registered at Police Station,
Chandrapur. Relevant documents have been also
submitted along with the report for taking
proper action.
PSI Mul,
Dt. 8.7.1984″
(emphasis supplied)
17. PW 56 Jamdar Singh who at the relevant time was
attached as Police Inspector at Police Station Chandrapur,
while deposing about the transfer of accused Ramcharan,
stated that on July 8, 1984 the DSP Chandrapur informed him
on telephone that one person in connection with the dacoity-
cum-murder which took place on July 3, 1984 on Chandrapur-
Ballarshah Road was arrested at Mul and his name is
Ramcharan, and on getting that information PW 56 sent a jeep
to Mul to bring Ramcharan approver to the City Police
Station. PSO Chandel of Police Station Mul came along with
the accused to police station and handed over the papers
regarding the arrest of Ramcharan at about 2 a.m. On what
basis Crime No. 135 of 1984 under Sections 396 and 347 IPC
Police Station Chandrapur City came to be incorporated in
the transfer note Ex. 197 by PW 41 Chandel of Police Station
Mul has not been explained by the prosecution?
18. After interrogating Ramcharan, PW 56 Jamdar Singh
placed him under arrest and went on to depose that “he gave
me information about the persons involved in the commission
of offence of dacoity-cum-murder which took place on
Chandrapur-Ballarshah Road. On his information, I caught
all the accused persons and deceased Murari”. While
Ramcharan was in police custody on July 8, 1984, he
allegedly disclosed in presence of panchas, Fakru and Patel,
that he
84
had kept a bag at the house of accused Babu Lal and that he
was willing to produce the same. His statement Ex. 105 was
reduced into writing. Accused Ramcharan then went with the
police party, in a police jeep, to the house of Babulal and
after going inside the house, brought out one black bag Ex.
144 which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. 103. The bag was
empty. PW 56 then deposed that there were some bloodstains
present on the loongi which Ramcharan was wearing and
therefore, Ramcharan was asked to change the loongi and his
bloodstained loongi was seized vide Ex. 102. In the
transfer memo Ex. 197 there is no mention of the presence of
bloodstains on the loongi of accused Ramcharan while he was
in custody of PW 41 Chandel at Police Station Mul and the
prosecution has not been able to explain as to when and how
his loongi got bloodstained more particularly when on
Ramcharan’s own showing he had taken no part whatsoever in
the assault made on the deceased or the injured persons.
19. Deposing about the recovery of the black bag Ex. 144,
at the instance of accused Ramcharan, one of the panch
witnesses Fakruddin PW 27, stated that one of the accused
whose name or face he did not remember took the police party
to “his house and from his house produced one bag”. He went
on to say that before producing the bag no talk had taken
place with the said accused but added that “there were
clothes in the bag. Police had removed the clothes from the
bag and had shown us. There were clothes stained with blood
in the said bag. The bloodstained clothes contained one
baniyan and other clothes which I do not remember. The said
clothes were tied in a bundle and were sealed. We then
returned to Police Station Ballarshah.”
20. The evidence of Fakruddin PW 27 with regard to the
alleged disclosure statement made by Ramcharan coupled with
the testimony of PW 56 Police Inspector Thakur goes to show
that the story regarding recovery of the black bag Ex. 144
at the instance of Ramcharan accused is not free from doubt
because whereas according to the disclosure statement the
approver had kept in his house an empty black bag, but what
was produced by Ramcharan from the house of Babulal was a
bag containing bloodstained clothes. These discrepancies
render the so-called recovery doubtful.
21. We shall now deal with the manner in which the
confessional statement of Ramcharan under Section 164 CrPC
came to be recorded on July 21, 1984 and its contents as
also the manner of grant of pardon to him more than two
years later. As already noticed, accused Ramcharan was
arrested on July 7, 1984 at Police Station Mul and then
transferred to Chandrapur Police Station on July 8, 1984 at
2 a.m. and thereafter arrested in the dacoity case. While
he was in custody at Chandrapur he is alleged to have made a
statement before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class on July
21, 1984. He appeared before the Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class Shri Bhola on July 19, 1984 and offered to make a
confessional statement. He was given 24 hours’ time to
think and reflect whether he wanted to make any voluntary
confession. The learned Magistrate Chandrapur Shri V.K.
Bhola after cautioning accused Ramcharan that he was not
bound to make any confession and that if he did so, any
confession that he may make, can be used as evidence against
him, recorded his confessional statement Ex. 225 under
Section 164 CrPC in which Ramcharan, inter alia, stated that
he is an inhabitant of Banda District and that his father
was working as a labourer at Gondia. He came to Gondia from
Banda and stayed with his
85
father for two days, when one person by the name of Kewat
who was a resident of Ballarshah met him at Gondia. He told
Kewat that he wished to do some work, on which he was asked
to come to Ballarshah where Kewat would get him engaged for
work on daily wages of Rs 14-Rs 15 per day. That on
Saturday he came to Ballarshah along with Kewat and on
Sunday he worked on a truck. He was paid Rs 7 towards
labour and he told Kewat that he was not willing to work on
Rs 7 per day and then went away from the house of Kewat.
The full name of Kewat as disclosed by Ramcharan is Inderpal
Kewat but no such witness has been produced or examined at
the trial. After leaving Kewat’s house, Ramcharan, a
stranger in the locality, went in search of some persons
belonging to his district and found Shamlal, Babulal,
Fulchand and Sheoprasad and requested them to get him
engaged somewhere for labour work and they told him that
whenever they could find some work for him they would get
him engaged. He went to the house of Babulal and remained
in the house of Babulal on Monday for the whole day. On
Tuesday Babulal told him that he could not get him any work
at that place. In the noon of Tuesday, Fulchand, Shamlal,
Sheoprasad and five other persons gathered at the house of
Babulal and Ramcharan heard them say “that they are in need
of money and hence they wish to commit robbery”. Ramcharan
told them not to do any such thing as they may land up in
jail and that he would not be a party to it. All of them
assured him that they would give him money for going back to
his native place and he reluctantly agreed. On that very
day in the noon, five persons went to the forest at a place
where a new house was being constructed. In the evening, he
along with Babulal, Shamlal, Fulchand and Sheoprasad went to
the bus stand and from there went towards Chandrapur. All
of them got down at a petrol pump and went on foot towards
the place where the house was under construction. The five
persons who had earlier gone to the forest also came there.
Babulal, Shamlal, Fulchand and Sheoprasad took off their
clothes and handed them over to him. Sheoprasad and
Fulchand took the knives which were given to them by Babulal
after taking them out from an attache case which Babulal had
brought with him. They gave one small stick to him
(Ramcharan) and got him seated near the road at a distance
of 15-20 feet from the bridge. He was directed that if any
vehicle arrives then he should give a signal by making a
sound with the stick. That was all the job assigned to him.
Fulchand, Babulal and Sheoprasad went to the watchmen of the
new house to take sticks. He then narrated how Fulchand,
Babulal and Sheoprasad had gone to the site of construction
and he had seen them cause injuries to both the watchmen as
well as the manner in which the motorcyclist, scooterists
and cyclewala were stopped and assaulted and added that his
co-accused had robbed the money from the persons who were
assaulted by them. Ramcharan then stated that while
returning, they all stayed at one place in the forest. The
money was with Fulchand and that he was shown a bundle of
currency notes of the denomination of Rs 100 by Babulal.
They reached Ballarshah at about 12/1 o’clock in the
midnight and while Ramcharan remained sitting on a cot
outside the house, the rest, all the nine persons, went in
and remained inside the house of Babulal. After about half
an hour, they all came out of the house of Babulal and went
to their respective houses. Thereafter, he went to take
meals with Babulal and then went to bed. In the morning,
Sheoprasad prepared tea and all the nine persons again
gathered at the house of Babulal and they told him to return
to his native place but since he
86
had no money he demanded money from them for going back to
his native place. “However they did not give me money”.
“They asked me to take oath in the name of my ‘son’ and
further asked me not to disclose the night incident to
anyone. I told them that if police asks me, then I would
disclose everything. I took the meals and came to
Chandrapur Railway Station on foot” and remained at the
Railway Station for the whole day and boarded a narrow-gauge
train for going to Gondia without ticket. On the way, the
TT asked him to get down from the train since he was
travelling without ticket, and went to the Basti where he
begged for meals and again went to the station and slept
there for the night. In the morning, he inquired from
someone as to at what distance the next station was and on
being told that it was at a distance of about 3 kos, he
started to go there on foot by the railway line. Ramcharan
went on to state about the manner in which he was thereafter
arrested. He stated :
“On the way, I saw that one boy had kept his
bicycle aside and he was plucking the leaves.
I went to him and asked him as to at what
distance the next station is? On it, that boy
feared and ran away, and then he called and
brought his elder brother. They then
apprehended me and took me to their village.
From there, I was taken to police station,
Mul. The Daroga (Police Station Officer) of
Mu] Police Station made enquiries with me. I
told each and every fact to him. From there,
I was brought to Chandrapur. I disclosed each
and every true fact to the Police.”
(emphasis supplied)
22. The above version given by accused Ramcharan about the
manner in which he was arrested is quite different from the
version given by PW 1 Manohar, PW 2 Sudhakar, PW 3 Tulsiram,
PW 41 Chandel and PW 56 Inspector Thakur. There is no
mention of the existence of or touching of the cycle in the
statement of the approver recorded under Section 164 CrPC.
According to the approver he was not told by the police to
make a statement under Section 164 CrPC and that he had
voluntarily appeared before the Magistrate and requested for
his confessional statement to be recorded and that he was
not even produced by the police before the Magistrate for
the purpose of getting his statement recorded.
23. After waiting for more than two years after his arrest
and the statement made by him under Section 164 CrPC, while
Ramcharan was in the judicial lock-up, he submitted an
application to the District and Sessions Judge, Chandrapur
on January 17, 1987 seeking bail and in that application he
said that he was being forced to become an eyewitness in the
case although he knew nothing about the crime. That
application Ex. 20 dated January 17, 1987 makes an
interesting reading. It reads :
.lm15
“IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHANDRAPUR.
Subject : For grant of bail or for final hearing of the
case.
Applicant: Ramcharan s/o Ram Asre.
Offence under Sections 396 and 397 of IPC.
Sir,
The applicant submits as under
That the above applicant is undergoing imprisonment in the
sentence of 2 years, 6 months, under Sections 396 and 397 of
IPC, in the District Prison Chandrapur. The Chandrapur
District City Police (Crime Branch), in order to avoid their
troubles produced the above applicant in the Court as
87
eyewitness; and thereafter sent him in the Jail. In fact,
the applicant does not know anything about this crime. The
applicant being a respectable person and because of family
worries, he cannot keep mental balance. The applicant is
the karta (manager) of his family. This Hon’ble Session
Court has not heard this case for its final disposal as yet,
though many recent matters have been decided.
It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to grant the application for bail or it is further
prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be kind enough to decide,
the case finally and oblige the applicant.
The applicant hopes that this Hon’ble Court would look into
the matter and consider this application.
Dt. 17.1.1987 Yours faithfully Place : Lock-up of District Court, Chandrapur Thumb Impression of Ramcharan s/o Ram Asre" (emphasis supplied)
24. Bail was, however, declined and he continued to remain
in custody. According to the prosecution case, on April 1,
1987, Ramcharan accused suddenly and of his own decided to
become an approver and to make a disclosure of all facts,
about which he had said in his application dated January 17,
1987 that he knew nothing. His application dated April 1,
1987 reads :
“To,
The District and Sessions Judge,
Chandrapur.
Sub: Case under Sections 396 and 397 of IPC.
Through : The Superintendent, District Prison,
Chandrapur.
Sir,
I, Ramcharan s/o Ram Asre, prisoner No. 1 803
state as under:
That on July 19, 1984 the police imprisoned me
in this jail under Sections 396 and 397 of
IPC. The statement given by me in the lower
court in respect of my case is true. The
persons against whom the case for dacoity and
murder is filed, are all responsible for the
murder. I was only looking after their
clothes. I had seen the accused persons
committing the murders of the persons. I may
be given pardon in this case. I want to be an
approver. My statement, as given above is
true.It has been read over to me. Before me,
Yours
faithfully,
Sd/- Illegible (T.I.)
Jailor, District Prison, Chandrapur. Left
hand thumb impressio
n
of Ramcharan s/o Ram
Asre
No. Jud/433/87
Chandrapur District
Prison
Chandrapur Dt. 1.4.1987
Submitted to the Sessions Judge, Sessions
Court, Chandrapur for necessary further
disposal.
Sd/- Illegible
Jailor,
District Prison,
Chandrapur.”
88
25. The District Judge forwarded the application to the
Addl. Sessions Judge, Chandrapur and the Public Prosecutor
was directed on April 23, 1987 to file reply to the
application of Ramcharan. The Public Prosecutor in the
reply stated :
“The application can be allowed after some
preliminary questions provided he gives
evidence on oath sticking up to the previous
statements under Sections 162 and 164 CrPC.”
Thereafter, an order granting pardon, which
reads as follows, was made on April 24,1987:
“Accused No. 1 Ramcharan son of Ramashray
Rahidas is one of the accused persons in a
dacoity-cum-murder case which took place on
Chandrapur-Ballarshah Road on July 3, 1984.
He has made a confession statement before the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class,
Chandrapur admitting that he and the other
accused are involved in the said offence. He
has now asked to pardon him. The incident has
taken place in the jungle at night. Proof of
guilt of all accused persons is not
forthcoming satisfactorily. It is necessary
to bring the rest of the offenders to justice.
There is prima facie evidence that the present
accused was present on the spot. He is not a
principal offender. He has agreed to make a
true and complete disclosure of all the facts
within his knowledge. 1, therefore, feel that
the said accused should be granted pardon on
condition that he will make true and complete
disclosure of all the facts within his
knowledge which he has agreed. 1, therefore,
pass the following order :
ORDER
Accused No. 1, Ramcharan son of Ramashray
Rahidas is tendered pardon under Section 307
of CrPC on condition of his making a true and
complete disclosure of the whole of the
circumstances within his knowledge relating to
the offence and to every other person
concerned whether as principal or abettor in
the commission thereof.
Dt. 24.4.87. Sd/- F.N. Velati Addl. Sessions Judge Chandrapur."
26. Considering what Ramcharan approver wrote in his
application seeking bail, dated January 17, 1987, one is
left to wonder as to what made him to write his application
on April 1, 1987 seeking pardon and to be made an approver.
In his application seeking pardon and for being made an
approver, he inter alia stated that persons against whom the
case for dacoity and murder had been filed were responsible
for the murder and that “I was only looking after their
clothes”. In his application dated January 17, 1987
Ramcharan had categorically asserted that he had no
knowledge of the crime. The statements in the two
applications are irreconcilable.
27. Indeed Ramcharan was not confronted at the trial with
the statement contained in his bail application but
nonetheless the fact remains that while considering the
credibility of the approver and the weight to be attached to
his statement, the statement made in the bail application
(which is part of the judicial record) can be looked into by
the courts. The High Court, in our
89
opinion, did not consider the significance of this variation
in the statement when it observed that :
“We do not, therefore, think that the
statement in the bail application, in any way,
detracts from the credibility of the evidence
which he gave in the court.”
We cannot subscribe to the view of the High Court. What
made the approver all of a sudden on April 1, 1987 decide to
address a letter to the Sessions Judge that he be granted
pardon and be made an approver? The prosecution as well as
Ramcharan are totally silent on this aspect. Was the
approver being harassed or lured? In this connection it may
be relevant to note that soon after Ramcharan approver had
been shifted to Chandrapur Police Station on July 8, 1984
within 2/3 days the police had got his photograph taken.
This has been admitted by Ramcharan approver in his cross-
examination while appearing as PW 49. It is also borne out
from the record that while Ramcharan approver was in police
custody at Chandrapur Police Station, Murari accused who had
also been arrested and lodged in Chandrapur Police Station,
as an accused in this case, died while in police custody on
July 10, 1984. It was within a few days after the death of
Murari, that Ramcharan appears to have made his confessional
statement under Section 164 before the learned Judicial
Magistrate but through his application dated January 17,
1987, he reported to the Sessions Judge that he was being
asked to become an eyewitness in the dacoity case, when he
knew nothing about that crime. This should have put the
court at its guard, when it was considering his application
for tender of pardon dated April 1, 1987, but it seems that
the Sessions Court did not apply its mind to that aspect at
all. Having already made the so-called voluntary statement
under Section 164 CrPC on July 21, 1984, why did he complain
in his application dated January 17, 1987, that he was being
forced to become an eyewitness though he did not know
anything about the crime? The prosecution has offered no
explanation. That the statement under Section 164 CrPC was
made in 1984 and, therefore, the approver may have forgotten
what he wrote earlier is too feeble an explanation to be
accepted. It appears to us that Ramcharan approver was
throughout under pressure to become an approver in the case
because the investigation had drawn a blank and admittedly
the District Police of Chandrapur was under constant attack
from the media and the public. The police, with a view to
escape public wrath appears to have planted Ramcharan as an
approver, may be on the promise that he would escape
punishment and to us even the first confessional statement
does not appear to be voluntary one.
28. The approver on his own showing did not know any of the
appellants other than A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-7. According to
the testimony of the injured Prosecution witnesses PW 9, PW
31 and PW 33 the assault was made when it was dark and the
assailants were wearing masks. No identification parade at
all was conducted by the prosecution to have any of the
appellants identified at a test identification parade either
by the approver Ramcharan or even by the three injured
prosecution witnesses PW 5, PW 31 and PW 33. No test
identification parade was even held to have the approver
identified as a party present at the time of assault from
the three injured witnesses. The identification of all the
appellants in the court only, in the absence of any earlier
test identification parade, when at the time of assault
accused are alleged to be wearing masks and were unknown to
the victims or the injured witnesses, is hardly of any
90
significance, in the facts and circumstances of this case,
to positively connect the appellants with the crime.
29. We have already made a reference to the statement of
Ramcharan approver recorded under Section 164 CrPC before he
made an application for being tendered pardon. After the
tender of pardon, Ramcharan was examined at the trial not as
a first witness on behalf of the prosecution, which he
ordinarily should have been, but as PW 49, almost at the fag
end of the trial after he had the occasion to know the other
evidence led in the case, so that he could depose
accordingly in support of the prosecution. The statement of
Ramcharan as PW 49 is a detailed one and gives in graphic
details not only the manner in which he was arrested; the
circumstances under which he came into contact with the
appellants and others before his arrest but also the manner
in which murders and dacoities were committed by his co-
accused and the part played by him during the commission of
the crime. He also deposed about the recoveries made
pursuant to disclosure statements made by different
appellants from different places of different articles on
different dates. The minute details given by Ramcharan
approver at the trial, 3 years after the occurrence, are too
good to be believed and exhibit a remarkable feat of memory!
His statement at the trial as PW 49 is much more detailed
than the one contained in his confessional statement
recorded under Section 164 CrPC within a few days of his
arrest. Some of the statements made as PW 49 find no
mention in his earlier confessional statement as for
example, that Babulal told him to accompany them and offered
to pay him Rs 200 which he declined and that at that point
of time accused Fulchand slapped him and thereupon he agreed
to accompany them and do whatever they would tell him to do.
That apart, he ascribed no part to himself at all during the
entire occurrence except to take care of an empty bag and
clothes of some of the co-accused. Ramcharan also deposed
at the trial that after dacoity had been committed, accused
persons advised him to run towards Ballarshah side but he
declined to do so and told them that he will not go anywhere
alone and will only accompany them or sit by the side of the
road. The accused persons then caught hold of him by his
hands and took him towards Ballarshah side by the side of
the road through jungle. The approver then stated:
“… from the spot of incident we went at a
distance of about one mile and sat. Accused
Babulal lighted a match stick and I saw
accused Fulchand counting the money. I had
seen Rs 100 denomination note in his hand at
that time. Six accused persons thereafter
went towards Ballarshah Power House side.
Myself, accused Rampal, accused Ramkishore and
deceased accused Murari went from paper mill
side to Ballarshah city. We went to the house
of accused Babulal. We reached the house of
accused Babulal at midnight 12.00 o’clock or
1.00 a.m. At about 2.00 to 2.30 a.m. the rest
of six accused persons also came to the house
of accused Babulal.”
According to the approver, on the next day in the morning
accused Babulal advised him to go to his home town and told
him-
“… that they had committed dacoity and
murder. Police were enquiring in the matter.
I am a new person, they would therefore
suspect and interrogate me. I told accused
Babulal that I had no money to go to my home
town. The accused Babulal told me that he had
no money and he cannot give me any money. At
about 10 a.m. I started going. Accused
Babulal told me not to tell anybody about the
incidence. I told accused Babulal that if
anybody asks me I will narrate the
incident. … I came to
91
Chandrapur on foot. I went to B.N.R. railway
station and went to the platform.”
They gave him no money.
30. From the statement of the approver appearing as PW 49
at the trial, it emerges that even though Babulal accused
had told him that he shall be given 200 rupees, for joining
the other accused in the commission of the crime, but after
commission of the crime, he was not given any money and was
told by accused Babulal to go back to his home town and in
spite of his telling Babulal that he had no money, none was
given to him. If as deposed to by the approver, Babulal and
others wanted the approver to go away to his home town
because the police was already making enquiries in the
matter and he being a new person could be suspected and
interrogated, but surprisingly they took no steps by giving
him at least the railway fare to go back to his home town or
put him on the train so that he would be out of the village
and thus out of the reach of the investigating agency.
Would the accused persons, who had joined a complete
stranger for the commission of the crime, not even take the
elementary steps to see that he is out of the village and
left him high and dry? We find it difficult to accept. The
approver, has only tried to remain clear either while
committing or for sharing the fruits of the dacoity. The
conduct of the approver going away without a penny and the
co-accused letting him go like that belies logic and common
sense.
31. The statement of the approver at the trial recorded
more than three years after the occurrence, is so detailed
that it is difficult to believe its authenticity
particularly when it also travels far beyond what was stated
by the approver in his confessional statement recorded under
Section 164 CrPC only a few days after the occurrence. It
is humanly not possible for an illiterate rustic person to
remember all such minute details as have been given by the
approver detailing even the sequence of events during the
alleged occurrence.
32. The sequence of events at Ballarshah Road as detailed
by the approver in his statement in the court is quite
different than the sequence of events as deposed to by the
three injured eyewitnesses. The High Court noticed that
there was variations in the version given by Ramcharan
approver and the three eyewitnesses as regards the sequence
of events and the manner of assault but chose to ignore this
by observing :
“But having regard to the nature of the
incident, the fact that the life of the
eyewitnesses was in peril and the horrendous
conditions under which they had to make their
escape, we do not think that the discrepancies
regarding the order in which the vehicles came
and the directions in which they went can be
reflecting upon the credibility of the
eyewitnesses. All this eventually had been
occurring in darkness, and even Ramcharan’s
recollection in this respect cannot but be too
hazy because of the gruesome nature of the
incidence. We, therefore, attach no value to
the discrepancies.”
This approach of the High Court does not appeal to us. The
importance of the discrepancies had to be considered to test
the credibility and trustworthiness of the approver and the
High Court failed to do so.
33. A careful analysis of the statement of the approver
given at the trial coupled with the circumstances under
which he came to be arrested, the averments in his
application for grant of bail and other circumstances has
92
created an impression on our minds that the approver is a
planted witness and his testimony is not at all worthy of
reliance and credence. The investigating agency appears to
have created false evidence and fabricated false clues
insofar as the testimony of the approver is concerned. From
all the attendant circumstances, we are satisfied that the
approver Ramcharan is not a reliable witness; his arrest was
intrinsically unnatural and his self-confessed participation
in the crime without taking any active part in it not
acceptable. The approver has claimed to be a spectator of
every fact and of every moment but asserted that he did not
participate in the assault at any stage and remained
standing at a distance taking care of the clothes of some of
the co-accused. His statement is almost of an exculpatory
nature. His statement as a whole does not inspire
confidence. His story is not worthy of credence. We find
ourselves unable to place any reliance on his untrustworthy
and unreliable evidence and in that view of the matter, we
refrain even from expressing any opinion about the effect of
the alleged non-compliance with the provisions of Section
306(4) CrPC read with Section 307 CrPC, as admittedly after
the grant of pardon by the order dated April 24, 1987, no
statement of Ramcharan approver was recorded till he
appeared at the trial as PW 49. It is only after the grant
of pardon that the status of an accused is changed into that
of a witness and the law enjoins upon the courts to record
the statement of the approver immediately after pardon is
granted to him so that he may consider himself bound by that
statement and failure to do so at the trial would render him
liable for prosecution. That exercise was not performed in
this case.
34. Once, we have found that the approver is a planted
witness and his testimony is not worthy of credence and is
uninspiring and unacceptable justifying its rejection
outright, it will be futile and wholly unnecessary to look
for corroboration of his testimony. It is only when the
approver’s evidence is considered otherwise acceptable that
the court applies its mind to the rule that his testimony
needs corroboration in material particulars connecting or
tending to connect each one of the accused with the crime
charged. We need not therefore detain ourselves to consider
the other evidence led by the prosecution to corroborate the
testimony of the approver. Suffice it to say that even the
corroborating evidence of identification of the appellants
in court by the three injured witnesses, in the absence of
any earlier test identification parade, or the recoveries
made by the associating convenient panch witnesses for all
the recoveries conducted from different places on different
dates at the instance of different accused but in the
presence of the same panch witness PW 27 is not trustworthy
or reliable.
35. From the discussion above, we find that the prosecution
has not been able to prove the case against any of the
appellants beyond a reasonable doubt and both the trial
court and the High Court fell in error in convicting and
sentencing the appellants for various offences as noticed in
the earlier part of the judgment. Their convictions cannot
be sustained.
36. We are conscious that five persons have died unnatural
deaths on the Highway and the crime is going unpunished.
But the courts have to decide the cases on the evidence led
and not on what ought to have been led. The manner in which
the approver has been introduced in the case coupled with
the alleged faked recoveries has created an impression on
our minds that the investigating agency failed to apprehend
the real criminals and created false evidence and
93
fabricated false clues in the present case to somehow or the
other secure the conviction of the appellants and save its
image in the face of the severe attack about its incapacity
to apprehend the real culprits by the public and the media.
It is unfortunate that the investigating agency should have
resorted to fabricating of evidence and act in the manner in
which it did in this case.
37. “The quality of a nation’s civilisation,” it is said,
“can be largely measured by the methods it uses in the
enforcement of criminal law” and going by the manner in
which the investigating agency acted in this case causes
concern to us. In every civilised society the police force
is invested with the powers of investigation of the crime to
secure punishment for the criminal and it is in the interest
of the society that the investigating agency must act
honestly and fairly and not resort to fabricating false
evidence or creating false clues only with a view to secure
conviction because such acts shake the confidence of the
common man not only in the investigating agency but in the
ultimate analysis in the system of dispensation of criminal
justice. Let no guilty man go unpunished but let the end
not justify the means! The courts must remain ever alive to
this truism. Proper results must be obtained by recourse to
proper means otherwise it would be an invitation to anarchy.
38. In the result, the Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 1989 is
allowed and the conviction and sentences of the appellants
are set aside and they are acquitted and directed to be set
at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Criminal Appeal No. 466 of 1989, filed by the State against
acquittal shall also stand dismissed. The respondents in
Criminal Appeal No. 466 are discharged of their bail bonds.
94