Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Bhanwar Lal And Anr vs State on 14 July, 2026
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2026:RJ-JP:31216-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 223/2005
CNR: RJHC010158202005
URN: CRLA / 465U / 2005
1. Bhanwar Lal S/o Shishpal
2. Ved Prakash S/o Dhalu ram,
Both R/o Village Sayanan, P.S. Salasar, Tehsil Sujangarh, District
Churu.
(At present lodged in Central Jail at Bikaner).
----Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Anjali Kaushik
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP
Mr. Rajeev Bishnoi for
Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Judgment
14/07/2026
1. The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred under
Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the
accused-appellants, namely, (i) Bhanwar Lal and (ii) Ved Prakash ,
assailing the legality, correctness and validity of the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 26.02.2005 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh, Camp at
Sujangarh, District Churu (hereinafter referred to as “the learned
trial court”) in Sessions Case No. 27/2001, whereby the learned
trial court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the
offences as under:-
(Uploaded on 15/07/2026 at 03:11:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/07/2026 at 04:37:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31216-DB] (2 of 16) [CRLA-223/2005]Appellant – Bhanwar Lal
Offence under Imprisonment and Fine In default of Fine
Section
302 of IPC Life Imprisonment & Fine of To further undergo
Rs.1,000/- 6 Months S.I.
307/34 of IPC 10 years R.I. & Fine of Rs.1,000/- To further undergo
6 Months S.I.
326/34 of IPC 10 years R.I. & Fine of Rs.1,000/- To further undergo
6 Months S.I.
323/34 of IPC One Year Simple Imprisonment —–
460/34 of IPC One Year S.I. and Fine of To further undergo
Rs.1,000/- 6 Months S.I.
Appellant – Ved Prakash
Offence under Imprisonment and Fine In default of Fine
Section
302/34 of IPC Life Imprisonment & Fine of To further undergo
Rs.1,000/- 6 Months S.I.
307 of IPC 10 years R.I. and Fine of Rs. To further undergo
1,000/- 6 Months S.I.
326 of IPC 10 years R.I. & Fine of Rs. 1,000/- To further undergo
6 Months S.I.
323 of IPC One year S.I. —-
460/34 of IPC Two years S.I. & Fine of Rs.1,000/- To further undergo
6 Months S.I.
2. As per the prosecution case, on 15.06.2001 at about 8:00
A.M., the injured-complainant, Surjaram S/o Ramlal submitted a
written report before Shri Hetram, ASI, Police Station Salasar. In
the report, it was alleged that the complainant had three sons,
namely, Sohanlal, Megharam and Todarmal. On the night of
14.06.2001, after having dinner, all the family members had
retired to sleep. The complainant, his wife Patasi and daughters
Ghammu and Choti were sleeping in the courtyard of the house,
Megharam was sleeping on the roof, whereas Sohanlal (aged
about 22 years) and Todarmal (aged about 17 years) were
sleeping in the open courtyard, (Bakhal) of the house.
(Uploaded on 15/07/2026 at 03:11:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/07/2026 at 04:37:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31216-DB] (3 of 16) [CRLA-223/2005]
It was further alleged that at about 12:30 A.M., the
complainant heard cries and screams, whereupon all the family
members woke up. On reaching the open courtyard (Bakhal), he
saw the accused-appellants Bhanwarlal and Ved Prakash
assaulting his sons with sharp-edged weapons. It was alleged that
Bhanwarlal was armed with an axe (Barchi) and Ved Prakash was
armed with a kulhari/axe, and both inflicted repeated blows upon
Sohanlal and Todarmal while they were asleep, with the intention
of causing their death. On hearing the commotion, neighbouring
villagers, namely, Banesingh, Motaram, Brijlal and the
complainant’s brother Chetanram, reached the spot, whereupon
the accused-appellants fled away.
3. According to the prosecution, the injured Sohanlal and
Todarmal were immediately taken in a jeep by Begaram to the
Government Hospital, Salasar, from where they were referred to
Sikar for further treatment. Subsequently, Todarmal was referred
to Jaipur; however, he succumbed to the injuries during treatment
on 15.06.2001 at about 6:00 A.M. It was further alleged that the
motive behind the occurrence was an existing dispute between the
complainant and accused-appellant Ved Prakash regarding the
passage leading to the complainant’s house.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, FIR No. 33/2001
(Exhibit P-32) came to be registered at Police Station Salasar for
the offences under sections 302,307 and 460/34 of the Indian
penal code, whereupon the usual investigation was commenced.
5. After completion of the investigation, the Station House
Officer, Police Station Salasar, submitted the charge-sheet before
(Uploaded on 15/07/2026 at 03:11:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/07/2026 at 04:37:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31216-DB] (4 of 16) [CRLA-223/2005]
the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh, against
accused-appellants Bhanwarlal and Ved Prakash for the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326, 323 and 460 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and against accused Daluram
and Smt. Kishani for the offences punishable under Sections 302,
307, 326, 323, 460 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code. The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the
aforesaid offences and, the case being exclusively triable by the
Court of Sessions, committed the same to the Court of Sessions,
Churu, in accordance with law. Consequently, Sessions Case No.
27/2001 came to be registered on 07.09.2001 and was thereafter
make over to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Ratangarh, Camp at Sujangarh, for trial and disposal in
accordance with law.
6. Learned trial court, upon taking cognizance, framed charges
against accused-appellant Bhanwarlal for the offences punishable
under Sections 460/34, 302, 307/34, 326/34 and 323/34 of the
Indian Penal Code; against accused-appellant Ved Prakash for the
offences punishable under Sections 460/34, 302/34, 307, 326 and
323 of the Indian Penal Code; and against accused Daluram and
Smt. Kishani for the offences punishable under Sections 460 read
with Section 120-B, 302, 302/34 read with Section 120-B, 307,
307/34 read with Section 120-B, 326 read with Section 120-B and
323 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The
charges were read over and explained to all the accused persons,
who denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(Uploaded on 15/07/2026 at 03:11:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/07/2026 at 04:37:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31216-DB] (5 of 16) [CRLA-223/2005]
7. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 19
witnesses. In support of its case, the prosecution also produced
documentary evidence, Exhibits P-01 to P-46 in support of its
case.
8. Upon completion of the prosecution evidence, the statements
of the accused-appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein the incriminating
circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence
were put to them. The accused-appellants denied the prosecution
allegations in toto, claimed themselves to be innocent and
asserted that they had been falsely implicated in the present case.
In defence, the accused-appellants examined six witnesses,
namely, DW-1 to DW-6, in support of their case.
9. Learned Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced
on behalf of both sides and upon appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence brought on record, convicted and
sentenced the accused-appellant Bhanwar Lal for the offences
under Sections 302, 307/34, 326/34,323/34 and 460/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and against accused-appellant Ved Prakash for
the offences punishable under Sections 460/34, 302/34, 307, 326
and 323 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated
26.02.2005.
10. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the learned trial court, the accused-
appellants have preferred the present appeal before this Court.
11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-
appellant vehemently assailed the impugned judgment of
(Uploaded on 15/07/2026 at 03:11:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/07/2026 at 04:37:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31216-DB] (6 of 16) [CRLA-223/2005]
conviction and sentence dated 26.02.2005 and submits that the
same is wholly illegal, improper, perverse and contrary to the
evidence available on record, having been passed without proper
appreciation of the material evidence and surrounding
circumstances of the case. She further submits that the learned
trial court has failed to consider the facts in their correct
perspective and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order
deserve to be quashed and set aside and the accused-appellants
deserves to be acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-
appellants submits that the prosecution case rests entirely upon
the testimony of closely related and interested witnesses, namely,
PW-1 Surjaram, PW-2 Chetan Ram, PW-3 Megharam, PW-4
Chhoti, PW-10 Sohanlal and PW-11 Smt. Ghammu, while no
independent witness from the locality has been examined to
corroborate the prosecution version, thereby rendering the
evidence highly doubtful.
13. Learned counsel further submits that, as per the FIR itself
and the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the family
members reached the place of occurrence only after hearing cries
and screams and, by that time, the accused persons had already
fled away. Thus, none of the prosecution witnesses had actually
witnessed the assault, and their claim regarding the identity of the
assailants is based merely on assumptions and conjectures. She
also submits that there are material inconsistencies regarding the
alleged oral declaration made by deceased Todarmal. While some
witnesses claimed that Todarmal disclosed the names of the
(Uploaded on 15/07/2026 at 03:11:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/07/2026 at 04:37:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31216-DB] (7 of 16) [CRLA-223/2005]
assailants, others stated that he had become unconscious
immediately after the occurrence. The medical evidence,
particularly the testimony of the attending doctor, establishes that
Todarmal was unconscious when admitted to the hospital, thereby
completely belying the prosecution version regarding any such
disclosure.
14. Learned counsel further submits that PW-6 Sohanlal, the
jeep driver who shifted the injured to the hospital, has not
supported the prosecution case and categorically stated that
neither the injured nor their relatives disclosed the names of the
assailants while they were being taken to the hospital, which
materially weakens the prosecution story.
15. Learned counsel further submits that all the alleged eye-
witnesses consistently deposed that both accused were armed
only with sharp-edged weapons, namely, a Barchhi and a Kulhari,
and assaulted the victims with those weapons. However, the
medical evidence reveals the presence of several blunt weapon
injuries on both the deceased and the injured, thereby creating a
serious inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence
and rendering the prosecution case doubtful.
16. Learned counsel also submits that the statements of the
prosecution witnesses are replete with material contradictions,
omissions and improvements touching the core of the prosecution
case and, therefore, it would be unsafe to sustain the conviction
on such unreliable evidence. she further submits that the
prosecution itself implicated four persons in the commission of the
offence, but the learned trial court acquitted co-accused Daluram
(Uploaded on 15/07/2026 at 03:11:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/07/2026 at 04:37:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31216-DB] (8 of 16) [CRLA-223/2005]
and Smt. kishani, which demonstrates that the prosecution
witnesses had falsely implicated innocent persons and their
testimony cannot be accepted without independent corroboration.
17. Learned counsel also submits that the prosecution has failed
to establish any cogent motive for the alleged occurrence. While
some witnesses referred to a dispute regarding a passage, PW-1
Surjaram attributed the dispute to painting of a wall, thereby
giving inconsistent versions regarding the alleged motive.
According to the learned counsel, the prosecution has also failed
to establish the source of light at the place of occurrence during
the intervening night or the circumstances in which the witnesses
could have correctly identified the assailants.
18. Learned counsel further submits that although injured
Sohanlal claimed that the cots on which he and Todarmal were
sleeping had been cut during the assault, no such cot was ever
recovered or seized during investigation, a circumstance which has
also been noticed by the learned trial court. She also submits that
the alleged recovery of the Barchhi and Kulhari was effected
nearly ten days after the occurrence and, therefore, the same
cannot be treated as a reliable incriminating circumstance.
According to the FSL report, blood of the same group as that
found on the clothes of the deceased was detected on the Barchhi,
whereas only human blood was detected on the Kulhari allegedly
recovered from accused Ved Prakash. She also submits that the
investigating agency did not ascertain the blood group of the
accused persons and, therefore, the FSL report does not
(Uploaded on 15/07/2026 at 03:11:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/07/2026 at 04:37:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31216-DB] (9 of 16) [CRLA-223/2005]
conclusively connect the recovered weapons with the alleged
offence.
19. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that, in
any event, the case of accused-appellant Bhanwarlal stands on a
different footing and the essential ingredients of the offence
punishable under Section 307 IPC are not made out against him.
It is contended that, at the highest, the allegations may constitute
offences punishable under Section 326 IPC or Section 304 Part II
IPC. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court
has erroneously invoked Section 34 IPC to fasten criminal liability
upon accused-appellant Ved Prakash in the absence of any reliable
evidence establishing a common intention between the accused-
appellants.
20. Lastly, learned counsel further submits that no injury was
caused to the head, face or any other vital part of the body of the
deceased and, therefore, the provisions of Section 300 IPC are not
attracted. According to the learned counsel, the case, at best, is
one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and, therefore,
the conviction under Section 302 IPC deserves to be altered to
one under Section 304 Part II IPC. On these premises, it is prayed
that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
be set aside and the accused-appellants be acquitted of all the
charges or, in the alternative, that the conviction under Section
302 IPC be modified to one under Section 304 Part II IPC with a
corresponding reduction in the sentence. In support of the
aforesaid submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon
(Uploaded on 15/07/2026 at 03:11:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/07/2026 at 04:37:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31216-DB] (10 of 16) [CRLA-223/2005]
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Soman v. State of
Kerala, reported in 2008 INSC 1222.
21. E-Converso, learned Public Prosecutor supported by learned
counsel for the complainant Mr. Rajeev Bishnoi have vehemently
opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the accused-
appellant and have supported the findings recorded by the learned
trial court. They submit that the impugned judgment dated
26.02.2005 does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and that
the conviction of the accused-appellants has been rightly recorded
on the basis of reliable and cogent evidence available on record.
22. We have bestowed our anxious consideration to the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have
carefully re-appreciated the entire oral as well as documentary
evidence available on record including the impugned order dated
26.02.2005.
23. At the outset, this Court finds that no infirmity has been
committed by the learned trial court while acquitting the co-
accused Daluram and Smt. kishani. However, the position qua
accused-appellants Bhanwarlal and Ved Prakash stands on an
altogether different footing. The prosecution has examined injured
eyewitness Sohanlal (PW-10), whose testimony receives
substantial corroboration from the evidence of PW-1 Surjaram,
PW-2 Chetanram, PW-3 Megharam, PW-4 Chhoti and PW-11 Smt.
Ghammu. Their presence at the place of occurrence is natural and
wholly unquestionable and the incident having taken place within
the residential premises of the complainant during the intervening
night. Despite lengthy and detailed cross-examination, nothing
(Uploaded on 15/07/2026 at 03:11:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/07/2026 at 04:37:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31216-DB] (11 of 16) [CRLA-223/2005]
material has been elicited so as to discredit their evidence on the
core aspects of the prosecution case.
24. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the
testimony of an injured witness occupies a special evidentiary
value and ordinarily deserves greater weight when his presence at
the place of occurrence cannot be doubted and he is unlikely to
shield the real culprit and falsely implicate another. The evidence
of PW-10 Sohanlal inspires confidence and furnishes a truthful
account of the occurrence. His testimony finds complete
corroboration from the ocular evidence available on record of
other witnesses as well as the medical and scientific evidence.
25. The medical evidence fully supports the ocular version. The
post-mortem report establishes that Todarmal died on account of
ante-mortem injuries resulting in excessive haemorrhage and
shock. The medical expert has categorically opined that the
injuries sustained by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death. Likewise, the injury report of PW-
10 Sohanlal establishes that he sustained grievous as well as life-
threatening injuries inflicted by a sharp-edged weapon. Thus,
there is complete harmony between the ocular and medical
evidence.
26. The recoveries affected pursuant to the disclosure
statements of the accused-appellants further lend assurance to
the prosecution case. The recovery of the weapons of offence,
namely, the Barchhi and Kulhari, stands duly proved. The FSL
reports reveal the presence of human blood on the recovered
weapons and also establish the presence of blood of the same
(Uploaded on 15/07/2026 at 03:11:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/07/2026 at 04:37:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31216-DB] (12 of 16) [CRLA-223/2005]
group on the clothes of the deceased and other articles seized
from the place of occurrence. The accused-appellants have failed
to furnish any plausible explanation regarding these incriminating
circumstances.
27. The motive attributed by the prosecution, namely, the long-
standing dispute regarding the passage adjoining the residential
premises, also stands reasonably established. Even otherwise, in a
case resting upon reliable ocular evidence of natural witnesses
duly corroborated by medical and scientific evidence, motive
recedes into the background and assumes only a corroborative
significance.
28. So far as the judgment relied upon by learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the accused-appellants in case of Somon
vs. State of Kerala (supra) is concerned, the same is not
applicable as in the present case, no injury was caused on the
head, face or any other vital parts of the body of the deceased.
The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the
provisions of Section 300 IPC would not be attracted and, at the
highest the case would fall within the ambit of Section 304 Part I
or Part II IPC is of no avail on account of the fact that the the ratio
laid down in Somon‘s case (supra) is clearly distinguishable on
facts and has no application to the present case. In the instant
matter, the medical evidence unequivocally establishes that the
deceased sustained multiple ante-mortem injuries inflicted by
sharp-edged weapons and the medical expert has categorically
opined that the injuries, if taken cumulatively, were sufficient in
the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Merely because the
(Uploaded on 15/07/2026 at 03:11:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/07/2026 at 04:37:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31216-DB] (13 of 16) [CRLA-223/2005]
injuries were not inflicted on the head, face or any other vital
parts of the body would not, by itself, take the case outside the
purview of Section 300 IPC when the nature of the weapons used,
the multiplicity of injuries, the force employed and the medical
opinion unmistakably establish that the bodily injuries intentionally
inflicted were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death.
29. Furthermore, the evidence on record unmistakably
establishes that the accused-appellants, in furtherance of their
common intention, trespassed into the residential premises of the
complainant during the night, armed with deadly sharp-edged
weapons, and repeatedly assaulted the sleeping victims. The
manner of assault, the choice of weapons, the repeated blows
inflicted upon the victims and the attending circumstances clearly
manifest the intention to cause death or, at the very least, to
inflict such bodily injuries as were sufficient in the ordinary course
of nature to cause death. Consequently, the present case squarely
falls within Clause ‘Thirdly’ of Section 300 IPC and is punishable
under Section 302 IPC. The contention that the offence would fall
under Section 304 Part I or Part II IPC is, therefore, devoid of any
merit and deserves to be rejected. The conviction of the accused-
appellants under Section 302 IPC, as recorded by the learned trial
court, warrants no interference.
30. Similarly, the conviction of accused-appellant Ved Prakash
under Sections 307, 326 and 323 IPC, and the conviction of
accused Bhanwarlal with the aid of Section 34 IPC for the said
offences, are fully justified. The injuries sustained by Sohanlal,
(Uploaded on 15/07/2026 at 03:11:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/07/2026 at 04:37:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31216-DB] (14 of 16) [CRLA-223/2005]
particularly the grievous incised wound on the face extending
towards the scalp, clearly demonstrate the intention and
knowledge necessary to constitute the offence under Section 307
IPC.
31. This Court also finds no error in findings recorded for the
conviction of the accused-appellants under Section 460 read with
Section 34 IPC. The evidence conclusively establishes that the
accused-appellants committed lurking house-trespass by night by
entering the complainant’s dwelling house without authority and,
while committing such house-trespass, caused the death of
Todarmal and grievous injuries to Sohanlal. All the essential
ingredients of Section 460 IPC stand fully satisfied.
32. The discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the
accused-appellants are either minor in nature or relate to
peripheral aspects of the prosecution case. They neither affect the
substratum of the prosecution case nor create any reasonable
doubt regarding the complicity of the accused-appellants. Rather,
the evidence, when appreciated as a whole, forms a complete and
unbroken chain consistently pointing towards the guilt of the
accused-appellants and excluding every reasonable hypothesis
consistent with their innocence.
33. The Hon’ble supreme court in the case of Sunil Kumar vs.
The State Govt of NCT of Delhi, reported in 2003 INSC 549
the relevant para No.-8 reads as under –
8. This Court held that as a general rule the
court can and may act on the testimony of a
single witness provided he is wholly reliable.
There is no legal impediment in convicting a
(Uploaded on 15/07/2026 at 03:11:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/07/2026 at 04:37:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31216-DB] (15 of 16) [CRLA-223/2005]
person on the sole testimony of a single witness.
That is the logic of Section 134 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the ‘Evidence Act‘).
But, if there are doubts about the testimony the
courts will insist for corroboration. It is for the
Court to act upon the testimony of witnesses. It
is not the number, the quantity, but the quality
that is material. The time honoured principle is
that evidence has to be weighed and, not
counted. On this principle stands the edifice of
Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is
whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is
cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise.
34. Applying the aforesaid settled principle to the facts of the
present case, this Court finds that the testimony of the injured
eye-witness, Sohanlal (PW-10), is clear, cogent, natural and
wholly trustworthy. His evidence has remained consistent,
unshaken and unblemished throughout the course of lengthy
cross-examination, and no material contradiction, omission or
improvement could be elicited so as to create any doubt regarding
his credibility. This Court finds no reason whatsoever to disbelieve
the testimony of the said witness.
35. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that the prosecution has
proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant
Bhanwarlal committed the offence punishable under Sections 302,
307/34, 326/34, 323/34 and 460/34 IPC, while accused-appellant
Ved Prakash committed the offences punishable under Sections
302/34, 307, 326, 323 and 460/34 IPC. The learned trial court
has meticulously appreciated the entire evidence in its proper
perspective and has recorded findings which are based upon
cogent reasons and settled principles of criminal law.
36. Consequently, this Court finds no ground whatsoever to
interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
(Uploaded on 15/07/2026 at 03:11:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/07/2026 at 04:37:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31216-DB] (16 of 16) [CRLA-223/2005]
sentence dated 26.02.2005 passed by the learned trial court. The
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.02.2005
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh,
Camp at Sujangarh, District Churu in Sessions Case No. 27/2001
are hereby affirmed.
37. The present criminal appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves
to be and is hereby dismissed. The accused-appellants sentence
were suspended by this Court vide orders dated 6.2.2007 and
11.04.2008 and they are enlarged on bail. Since the appeal has
been dismissed, therefore, their bail bonds are forfeited and they
are required to be taken in custody.
38. The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith along
with a copy of this judgment for information and necessary
compliance.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
69/Kartik Dave/C.P. Goyal/
(Uploaded on 15/07/2026 at 03:11:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/07/2026 at 04:37:04 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
