STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. ANIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. On perusal of the Office Report, it is noted that learned counsel, Mustaq Ahmed for respondent No.1 has since passed away. There is no alternative arrangement made. As far as respondent No.2 - Mohd. Imaran is concerned, there is no representation on his behalf. In the circumstances, we request learned counsel, Smt. Sangeeta Kumar and Smt. Manjeet Chawla to serve as Amicis Curiae for respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively in these appeals since they are appearing on behalf of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee presently representing respondent Nos.3 and 4 respectively.

(2.) The State of Uttarakhand has filed these appeals assailing the Common Judgment dtd. 2/5/2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand in Criminal Appeal No.95/2009, Criminal Appeal No.97/2009 and Criminal Appeal No.98/2009. Those appeals were preferred by the respondent-accused(s), Anil, Imran, Wasif and Pappu. Vide the impugned judgment, the High Court has allowed the criminal appeals and acquitted Anil and Imran who were in jail, and ordered them to be released. The accused Wasim and Pappu who are on bail were discharged from their bail bonds and sureties. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence of life imprisonment in the case of accused Nos.1 and 2 and sentence of one year imprisonment plus fine in the case of accused Nos.3 and 4 imposed by judgment dtd. 4/6/2009 in ST No.50/2003.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-State of Uttarakhand and learned senior counsel and learned counsel for the respondent-accused(s).