VENKATESH @ CHANDRA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1476-1477 OF 2018 VENKATESH @ CHANDRA & ANR. ETC. …Appellants VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA …Respondent J U D G M E N T UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. These appeals by special leave filed by original accused Nos.1 to 4 are th directed against the common judgment and order dated 04 September 2017 1 passed by the High Court in Criminal Reference Case No.14 of 2010; and in Criminal Appeal No.799 of 2011 and Criminal Appeal No.637 of 2012. 2. The appellants along with original accused Nos.5 to 9 were tried by 2 the Trial Court in Sessions Case No.443 of 2001 and Sessions Case No.55 of 2004 for having committed offence punishable under Section 396 of the 3 IPC . Accused No.9 died during the pendency of the trial and the 2 proceedings against her stood abated. The Trial Court acquitted original Signature Not Verified accused Nos.5 to 8 by its judgment dated 17.09.2010 but convicted the Digitally signed by Indu Marwah Date: 2022.04.19 17:25:41 IST Reason: 1 The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru 2 XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Court), Central Prison Premises, Bengaluru 3 The Indian Penal Code, 1860 2 appellants for having committed offences punishable under Section 396 read 3 with Section 34 of the IPC . By a subsequent order of punishment dated 30.09.2010, the Trial Court imposed death sentence upon all the appellants for the offence committed by them. 3. This resulted in Criminal Reference Case No.14 of 2010 for confirmation of death sentence before the High Court. The convicted accused, namely, the appellants herein also preferred Criminal Appeal Nos.799 of 2011 and 637 of 2012 in the High Court. By its judgment and order presently under challenge, the High Court did not find sufficient reasons to affirm the death sentence. It found that the appellants were guilty 3 of having committed the offence under Section 394 of the IPC and sentenced them to suffer life imprisonment. 4. The instant proceedings arise out of Crime No.874 of 1999 registered pursuant to FIR dated 28.10.1999 lodged with Vijayanagar Police Station, Bengaluru. The reporting made by one Dr. Prakash Vishnu was:- “I, Dr. Prakash Vishnu, hereby inform that today at about 9.15 AM, I left home as usual to attend my work in Bowring Hospital. At that time, my father and mother both were alright. In our house only myself, my father and mother are staying. Each one of us are keeping separate key with us. My father is working as an Imposer in Indian Express. My mother runs a Novelty Store near our house. Today afternoon when I returned home after work, some burnt smell was coming from kitchen. I called my mother 2-3 times. There was no reply. I myself went and opened the door, in kitchen, stove was on. I left it as it is and open the room door, when I opened room door, I saw my mother lying in blood pool. Pan was also lying there, hoping that she is alive, I tried 3 Resuscitation. But her heart beat was stopped (I did not get pulse). Entire body was turned bluish. Tongue was stretched out. I was very much shocked and screamed very loudly. Then neighboring people came and gathered there. I humbly request you to kindly trace out the culprits who have murdered my mother and take suitable action against them. Yesterday, my father had night duty and he was back at 6.00AM.” Accordingly, crime under Section 302 of the IPC was registered against unknown persons. 5. During investigation, statements of the mother, sister and husband of the deceased were recorded, who stated that the deceased normally used to wear certain gold ornaments which were stolen as part of the transaction. The Inquest Report, later marked as Exh.P-2 conducted on the body of the deceased also showed injuries on the ear, presumably caused while taking away the earrings. 6. The post-mortem on the body was conducted by Dr. S.B. Patil and the Post-Mortem Report, later marked as Exh. P-14 indicated that the deceased had suffered 13 injuries. According to the medical opinion, injuries 1 to 10 were possible by an iron road while injuries 11-13 were inflicted by a knife. The external injuries noted in Post-Mortem Report were as under: - “1. Lacerated wound over right parietal region 7 cm above right ear measuring 3cm x 1cm bone deep; 2. Lacerated wound over right parietal 2.5 cm above injury No. (1) measuring 5 cm x 2 cm bone deep. 3. Lacerated wound over inter parietal region 2 cm to left of injury (2) measuring 2 cm x 0.5 cm. 4. Lacerated wound over left parietal region measuring 5cm x 3 cm x skull cavity deep through which brain matter is draining out. It is situated 10 cm above left ear. 4

“3. On reflection of scalp blood extraverted all over-scalp skull- left frontal bone, left partial bone, left temporal bone, and occipital bone fractured into multiple pieces and blood extraverted at fracture site. Bones of middle cranial and posterior cranial fosse fractured into multiple pieces and blood extraverted at fracture site. 4. Membrane-lacerated at fracture sites. 5. Brain covered by subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhage all over base and surface and is partially drained out on left side.” 7. More than 15 months after the incident, the appellants were arrested on 01.02.2001 by the police in connection with said crime. Soon after their arrest, voluntary statements of the appellants were recorded by the Investigating Officer. These four statements marked as Exh. P-21, P-22, P- 23 and P-24 in the trial, as extracted in the judgment of the Trial Court were: “27. The lst Accused has given his voluntary statement as hereunder: "Krishnadu and the ladies Lakshmi, Venkata Lakshmi, 5

6

7 8. On 6.2.2001, Voluntary Statements of the appellants were recorded by the Investigating Officer on a DVD, later marked as Exh. P-25 to P-28 in the trial. The discussion with regard to said DVD by the Trial Court is in paragraph 35 of its judgment. It appears that what was recorded on said DVD was played and published in a program named “Sutta Mutta” by Udaya TV. 9. It must be stated that according to the prosecution, a gold ring and a pair of silver anklets were recovered from the person of accused No.4- Lakshmamma alias Lakshmi at the time of her arrest. More than seven days after the recording of their voluntary statements, i.e. on 07.02.2001 and 08.02.2001, three of the appellants allegedly led the Investigating team to a jewellery shop named Sathyanarayana Jewellery Mart owned by one D.Janardhana Shetty, as a result of which, following jewellery items were recovered:- On 07.02.2001

On 08.02.2001

8 10. On 09.02.2001, accused No.2 Munikrishna allegedly led the Investigating Team to an open space near a drainage which resulted in recovery of an iron rod and a knife (which were marked as MO-16 and MO- 17 in the trial) in the presence of a panch witness, named Manjunatha examined as PW-12 in the trial. The relevant portion with regard to such recovery dealt with by the Trial Court was as under:-

11. MO-16 and MO-17 were sent for chemical examination and both the articles were found to be stained with human blood. However, in terms of the FSL Report, later marked as Exh. P-10, blood group could not be determined and the tests were inconclusive. The recovered gold ornaments were not subjected to any Test Identification Parade but were stated to have been identified by the relations of the deceased in police station. 9 12. After completion of investigation, the accused were sent up for trial and tried by the Trial Court in Sessions Case No.443 of 2001 and 55 of 2004. In support of its case, the prosecution relied upon testimony of 24 witnesses and it marked 29 documents, namely, Exh. P-1 to P-39 and produced material objects MO-1 to MO-17. The gist of the testimony of the witnesses was: - A. PW-1, Shri Vishnu, husband of the deceased deposed that after he had returned home, he found the deceased lying in a pool of blood and in the same night he came to know that gold mangalya chain, gold necklace, three gold bangles, a ring, pair of silver anklets etc. which the deceased used to wear were missing. B. PW-2, Sharadamani, sister of the deceased did not support the case of the prosecution that she had gone to the police station and identified the gold ornaments. She was declared hostile. C. PW-3, PW-7 and PW-22 were panch witnesses to Inquest Report Exh.P-2 while PW-4, R. Mohan Kumar was panch witness to Spot Mahzar Exh. P-3. PW-5, Babu was panch witness to the search and seizure of the gold ring and the pair of silver anklets recovered from the person of accused No.4 at the time of her arrest. PW-6, Rudra Prasad was the panch witness to Mazhar Exh.P-6 in terms of which accused nos.1 to 4 had led the investigating team to the house of the deceased 10 where the murder was allegedly committed. D. PW-10, Suresh Gaonkar, Director, Forensic Laboratory, Kalaburagi deposed that he had examined MO-16 iron rod and MO-17 knife and had found the same to be stained with human blood and that he had given opinion as per Exh. P-10. E. PW-11 and PW-13 were panch witness to the seizure of ornaments at the instance of accused nos.1, 2 and 3, while PW-12 Manjunath was the panch witness to the recovery of MO-16 iron rod and MO-17 knife. F. PW-14, K.H. Manjunath, Professor, Forensic Medicine, Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru was examined to prove the signature of the author of Exh. P-14 Post-Mortem Report as Dr. S. D. Patil who conducted the post-mortem examination was no more. G. PW-18, Smt. Jayamma, mother of the deceased also failed to identify the ornaments stated to be belonging to the deceased and produced by the prosecution. H. PW-23, D. Janardhan Shetty, receiver of gold ornaments from accused th th no.1 to 4 deposed about the recoveries effected on 7 and 8 of February 2001, as tabulated in paragraph 9 above. I. PW-24, N. Chalapathi, Deputy Superintendent of Police, the Investigating Officer deposed about the steps taken during investigation 11 including the recording of voluntary statements of the appellants Exh. P-21 to P-24. He further stated that on the evening of 06.02.2001, he had got the statements of the appellants recorded through video- recording on DVDs, marked as Exh. P-25 to P-28. He also produced a chart Exh.P-29 giving details about the cases pending against the gang of which the appellants were alleged to be members. However, no documents either in the form of chargesheets, depositions or orders were produced. Even no question regarding Chart Exh.P-29 was put to the appellants in their examination under Section 313 of the Code. 13. The Trial Court accepted the case of the prosecution against the appellants i.e. accused Nos.1 to 4 relying inter alia on the voluntary statements Exh. P-21, P-22, P-23 and P-24 and the DVD Exh. P-25 to P-28. The relevant discussion on the point was:- “31. On noticing all these factors, it is pertinent to note that if at all the accused No.1, 2 and 3 had not sold either M.O.-6 To 10 or other articles to PW-23, why the PW-23 was giving statement before the Court that the accused had sold the said articles to the him. If at all he wanted to give false evidence or he wanted to give evidence with an intention to harass the accused, then there should be hatredness, jealousy and ill-will against them. However, the defense Advocate has not made any such suggestion of hatred, jealousy or ill-will against the accused or any proof in that regard. Further, on observing the statement made by him that the PW-1 has identified that the said article belonged to his wife, and that the PW-23 has stated that the accused No.1, 2 and 3 have sold the said article to him, and then on their request he has returned the same, and that the PW-11 was present at that time, and that the PW-12 Rangaswamy was present while he got seized the said article, and similarly, according to the voluntary statement of Ex.P-24 the 4th accused Lakshmamma out of the jewellers smuggled having wore one pair of a ring (vole) and one pair of leg chain and a saree, she has handed over the said articles to the police. She admitted 12

13

14 Court in its order dated 30.09.2010 observed: -

15 16. Criminal Reference Case No.14 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal Nos.799 of 2011 and 637 of 2012 arising from the decision of the Trial Court were dealt with by the judgment and order presently under challenge, as stated above. Some of the relevant paragraphs of the decision were: -

16

17

18

ORDER

Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned Additional 19 Advocate General for the State. 18. Before we consider the merits of the matter, some of the features of the present case which we have found to be quite disturbing must be noted and deliberated upon. The Trial Court in paragraphs 27 to 30 of its judgment extracted voluntary statements of the appellants. First and 4 foremost, going by the parameters of Section 27 of the Evidence Act only so much of information which relates distinctly to the facts thereby discovered can be stated to have been proved. The extent and ambit of said provision as well as applicability thereof were considered by the Privy 5 Council in Pulukuri Kotayya and Ors. v. King-Emperor as under:

4 The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 5 AIR (34) 1947 PC 67. 20 Upon this view information given by a person that the body produced is that of a person murdered by him, that the weapon produced is the one used by him in the commission of a murder, or that the ornaments produced were stolen in a dacoity would all be admissible. If this be the effect of section 27, little substance would remain in the ban imposed by the two preceding sections on confessions made to the police, or by persons in police custody. That ban was presumably inspired by the fear of the Legislature that a person under police influence might be induced to confess by the exercise of undue pressure. But if all that is required to lift the ban be the inclusion in the confession of information relating to an object subsequently produced, it seems reasonable to suppose that the persuasive powers of the police will prove equal to the occasion, and that in practice the ban will lose its effect. On normal principles of construction their Lordships think that the proviso to s. 26, added by s. 27, should not be held to nullify the substance of the section. In their Lordships view it is fallacious to treat the "fact discovered" within the section as equivalent to the object produced; the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate-distinctly to this fact. Information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered. Information supplied by a person in custody that "I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house" does not lead to the discovery of a knife; knives were discovered many years ago. It leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. But if to the statement the words be added "with which I stabbed A" these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant.” (Emphasis added) As was observed by the Privy Council the words - “with which I stabbed A” were inadmissible since they did not relate to the discovery of knife in the house of the informant. Applying this logic, only that part of the statement which leads to the discovery of certain facts alone could be marked in evidence and not the entirely of the statement. Coming to the instant case and going by the principle and the illustration highlighted by the 21 Privy Council, out of the statement of accused No.1, only the following portion except the words printed in “italics” would be admissible and can be marked in evidence: “…..If I am taken there, I will show the spot where we committed murder, and we will show the place where we have thrown the knife and the rod. And we will show the shop in which we sold the jewelleries.” The expression “where we committed murder” must not come on record. Similarly, all the earlier facts narrated in the statement about past history which are in the nature of self-implication, would be inadmissible as amounting to a confession made to a Police Officer. All the statements namely, Exhs. P-21 to P-24 must be read accordingly. 19. We must observe that we have repeatedly found a tendency on part of the Prosecuting Agency in getting the entire statement recorded rather than only that part of the statement which leads to the discovery of facts. In the process, a confession of an accused which is otherwise hit by the principles of Evidence Act finds its place on record. Such kind of statements may have a direct tendency to influence and prejudice the mind of the Court. This practice must immediately be stopped. In the present case, the Trial Court not only extracted the entire statements but also relied upon them. 20. The other disturbing feature that we have noticed is that voluntary statements of the appellants were recorded on a DVD which was played in Court and formed the basis of the judgment of the Trial Court as is 22 noticeable from paragraph Nos.34 and 35 of its judgment. Such a statement is again in the nature of a confession to a Police Officer and is completely hit by the principles of Evidence Act. If at all the accused were desirous of making confessions, the Investigating Machinery could have facilitated recording of confession by producing them before a Magistrate for appropriate action in terms of Section 164 of the Code. Any departure from that course is not acceptable and cannot be recognized and taken on record as evidence. The Trial Court erred in exhibiting those DVD statement Exh.P-25 to 28. As a matter of fact, it went further in relying upon them while concluding the matter on the issue of conviction. 21. What has further aggravated the situation is the fact that said statements on DVD recorded by the Investigating Agency were played and published in a program named “Putta Mutta” by Udaya TV. Allowing said DVD to go into the hands of a private TV channel so that it could be played and published in a program is nothing but dereliction of duty and direct interference in the administration of Justice. All matters relating to the crime and whether a particular thing happens to be a conclusive piece of evidence must be dealt with by a Court of Law and not through a TV channel. If at all there was a voluntary statement, the matter would be dealt with by the Court of Law. The public platform is not a place for such debate or proof of what otherwise is the exclusive domain and function of Courts of law. Any such debate or discussion touching upon matters which are in the 23 domain of Courts would amount to direct interference in administration of Criminal Justice. 22. The last disturbing feature is the fact that Chart Exh.P-29 was taken to be proof of the activities of the gang to which the appellants allegedly belonged. Apart from exhibiting the chart, no details or documents either in the form of chargesheet or orders, depositions were produced on record. If the Prosecution wanted the Court to take note of the fact that there were other matters in which accused were involved, the concerned Chargesheets should have been produced on record along with sufficient details including the judgments or orders of conviction. A mere chart cannot be taken as proof of the involvement of the accused in other crimes either at the stage of conviction or sentence. But that factor seriously weighed with the Trial Court as is obvious from paragraphs 15 to 18 of the order of sentence. In fact, such involvement was taken to be one of the reasons why the death sentence was awarded by the Trial Court. Such a practice can never be approved. 23. We must clarify that the approach at certain stages including the stage of considering the bail application may be qualitatively different. At the stage of consideration of bail, the primary concern is to weigh in balance the liberty of an accused and the possible prejudice that may get visited upon the societal interest in case he is released. It would therefore be apt and proper 24 to consider his involvement in other crimes. But at the stage of final assessment whether conviction be recorded or not, the matter must be considered purely on its merits unless the very membership of a gang or a group or an outfit itself can amount to an offence or as an aggravated form of an offence. Again, at the stage of sentencing, his involvement in other crimes may be a relevant factor provided the concerned material in the form of concluded judgments in the other matters are brought on record in a manner known to law. The established involvement in other matters would then certainly be relevant while dealing with the question whether the concerned accused is required to be dealt with sternly or leniently. 24. We have gone through Chart Exh. P-29. According to said chart, in so far as the present appellants are concerned, they were said to be involved in one more crime which has given rise to Special Leave Petition (Crl) Diary No.24079 of 2020 and was listed along with the instant appeal before us. That matter is still pending consideration before us. Therefore, what weighed with the Trial Court was the alleged involvement of the other members of the alleged gang in so many similar activities, in support of which there was no concrete material, other than the confessions of the appellants. 25. Coming to the merits, the present case is based on circumstantial evidence and as observed by the High Court in Paragraph 31 of its judgment, four circumstances were relied upon to bring home the case against the 25 appellants. Before we deal with the material in support of and connected to said four circumstances, the principles concerning circumstantial evidence cases must be stated for facility. After noting various decisions, following principles were noted in the decision of this Court in Sharad Birdhichand 6 Sarda v. State of Maharashtra , which principles have since then been followed consistently:

Thus, the first principle is that the circumstances on the basis of which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, must be fully established. 6 AIR 1984 SC 1622 = (1984) 4 SCC 116 26 26. We may now deal with the circumstances to consider whether the prosecution has been able to establish them. 27. The initial reporting in the case was made by Dr. Prakash Vishnu son of the deceased. In that reporting, nothing was alleged about the missing ornaments. However, the Inquest Report noted injuries on the earlobes which were specified in detail in Post Mortem Report (Exh.P-14). Injuries 11 and 12 of the said Post Mortem Report are quite clear. Further, the statement of PW-1, the husband of the deceased, recorded soon after the incident did refer to the normal ornaments which were missing. It may therefore be taken to have been established that the missing of gold and silver ornaments from the person of the deceased was quite simultaneous with the murder of the deceased. The first circumstance propounded by the prosecution in support of its case was thus well established. 28. We may now deal with the second circumstance regarding recovery of the missing ornaments at the instance of the appellant. It must be noted that the appellants were arrested 15 months after the incident. Soon after their arrest their voluntary statements Exhs. P-21, 22, 23 and 24 were recorded on 01.02.2001. These voluntary statements do indicate the willingness on the part of the appellants to show the shop in which the items of jewellery were sold by them. However, the actual recoveries from the concerned shop were th th made only on 7 and 8 February, i.e. more than 7 days after the voluntary 27 statements. There is no explanation why it took so much time for the Investigating Machinery to take the accused to the concerned shop. Further, the shop owner could not produce any register or documentation that any of the appellants had come to his shop on a particular day and sold the concerned ornaments. We must therefore go only by his oral assertions and not any contemporaneous record. The description of the ornaments, the weight of the ornaments and the price paid by the shop owner to the appellants and such other details are not forthcoming from any record. It definitely means that the ornaments were not purchased by the jeweller in regular course of his business and he must be taken to be aware that the ornaments were a stolen property. Even then, the ornaments were kept in the same condition by the jeweller for more than 15 months, which again is not quite consistent, as in normal circumstances the nature of such stolen property would be attempted to be changed as early as possible. The crucial aspect is that even after the recovery of the ornaments, no Test Identification Parade was arranged by the Investigating Machinery. The ornaments worn by the deceased were normal ornaments which a lady would wear. Out of three witnesses examined by the Prosecution, the mother and the sister of the deceased did not support the case of the prosecution on identification of the ornaments. The only person who supported the case was the husband of the deceased who was not subjected to any Test Identification Parade. 28 The missing links in this circumstance are quite crucial and important. We, therefore, do not hold this circumstance to have been fully established and the connection of the appellants with the missing ornaments cannot be said to have been established. 29. We now turn to the third circumstance which is about recovery of iron rod M.O.- 16 and knife M.O.-17. As the statements of the appellants indicate, these objects were thrown by them near the fence erected by the side of a drainage. The objects were said to have been recovered 15 months later and yet were carrying blood stains sufficient enough for the Chemical Examiner to analyze and report that it was human blood. First and foremost, the objects, going by the case of the prosecution, went completely unnoticed all the while by anyone. During this period of 15 months, the concerned area must have received rain showers on number of occasions. Additionally, there would be insects and other living beings who may feed on the blood stains present on these objects. It is impossible to believe that even after 15 months the material objects would still carry bloodstains. The chemical examination also simply found the bloodstains to be of human blood but failed to analyze the blood group and other details which could be associated with the deceased. Considering the fact that the objects were supposed to have been thrown 15 months earlier in a place which was accessible to everyone and was open to the vagaries of nature, we do not accept said 29 circumstance to have been proved. In our view, this circumstance cannot be held against the accused. 30. We may hold the fourth circumstance to be proved. It is not as if that the prosecution was unaware about the place of occurrence but the fact that the appellants could point the house where the incident had occurred may show knowledge on their part about the place of occurrence. 31. Thus, out of four circumstances projected by the prosecution, the second and the third circumstances must be eschewed for consideration while seeing whether the circumstances form a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and whether they rule out every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved by the prosecution. In this analysis, we are guided by the approach which must be adopted in such matters as has been observed in Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr. v. State of 7 Madhya Pradesh . The relevant passages from the judgment are:

7 (2010) 2 SCC 748. 30

31 dominant presumption of innocence.

fourth circumstances. Before we consider them, a submission advanced on behalf of the State on the basis of Chart Exh.P-29 must be dealt with. According to the said Chart, the appellants belonged to a particular gang which was indulging in crimes of similar nature and as observed by the Trial Court in its order of sentence dated 30.09.2010, there were about 111 cases registered against the members of the gang. However, as stated earlier, not a single document either in the form of a Chargesheet order, depositions or orders were produced on record. A mere chart giving description of 32 offences, numbers and the sections of the offences and about the nature of offences cannot be taken into account at the stage of conviction. 33. Weighing the first and the fourth circumstances on the touchstone of the principles accepted by this Court, in our view, the Prosecution has not been able to discharge the burden to such an extent that the presumption of innocence weighing in favour of the accused stands displaced. As a matter of fact, with the non-establishment of the second circumstance, the first circumstance by itself does not point in the direction of the appellants. In any case, the first and the fourth circumstances are wholly inadequate. They do not form a consistent chain leading to a hypothesis sought to be proved by the Prosecution. We, therefore, grant benefit of doubt to the appellants and acquit them of the charges levelled against them. They be set at liberty unless their custody is required in any other case. 34. The appeals are allowed accordingly. …………………..……….............................J (UDAY UMESH LALIT) .......................................................................J (PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA) New Delhi, April 19, 2022. ITEM NO.1502 COURT NO.2 SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 1476-1477/2018 VENKATESH @ CHANDRA & ANR. ETC. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s) Date : 19-04-2022 These appeals were called on for pronouncement of judgment today. For Appellant(s) Mr. Lakshmeesh S. Kamath, AOR Mr. Kaustubh Shukla, Adv. Ms. Smriti Ahuja, Adv. Ms. Nancy Shamim, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Nikhil Goel, AAG Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit pronounced the reportable judgment of the bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha The relevant portion of the judgment is quoted hereunder: “33. … We, therefore, grant benefit of doubt to the appellants and acquit them of the charges levelled against them. They be set at liberty unless their custody is required in any other case. 34. The appeals are allowed accordingly.” Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (INDU MARWAH) (VIRENDER SINGH) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER (SIGNED REPORTABLE JUDGMENT IS PLACED ON THE FILE)