SADANAND Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal No. 568 of 1979 has been preferred by three appellants namely, Sadanand, Munua and Ram Swaroop challenging the judgment and order dated 24-7-79 by which the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Hardoi convicted appellants Sadanand and Munua under Sections 302 read with Sec tion 34, IPC and 201, IPC and sentenced each of them to Imprisonment for Life and Two years' R. I. respectively. The learned Sessions Judge further convicted appel lant Ram Swaroop under Section 201, IPC and sentenced him to two years' R. I. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused Rajendra giving benefit of doubt on the charge under Sections 302/34 and 201, IPC. All the sentences awarded against accused-appellants Sadanand, Munua and Ram Swamp were directed to run concur rently. 2, Criminal Appeal No. 747 of 1979 has been filed by the State of U. P. against accused-respondent Rajendra against the order of acquittal and also against ac cused-respondent Ram Swarup who was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 302/34, IPC. 3. Criminal Appeal No. 748 of 1979 has been filed by the State of U. P. against accused-respondents Sadanand and Munua for enhancement of sentence. 4. All the aforesaid three criminal appeals arise out of the same judgment and order, therefore, all these criminal appeals are hereby consolidated and are being decided together by a common order. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the incident took place on 31-12-77 at about 11 a. m. in the 'galiyara' of village-Bada Gaon and it is said that Hardev murdered in the said incident. Acceding to the prosecution case, six months before the present incident, Bachchu the grand father of accused Munna and maternal uncle of accused Sadanand was killed in which Hardev was one of the accused. It is said that Hardev (deceased) was on bail at the time of the incident. It is alleged that on the date of the incident at about 11 a. m. Hardev (deceased) complainant Ramdev and his mother were returning to their house after picking up some 'hariyar' from Semai Har (field ). Hardev (deceased) was going ahead to his brother and mother and as soon as they reached near the 'chabutara' of the house of accused Munua, they saw all the four accused on that "chabutra". Accused Sadanand was armed with a rifle while accused Munna was armed with a Banka and the remaining two accused were empty handed and were standing there. It is said that accused Sadanand then asked his associates that it was a good opportunity for taking revenge of his maternal uncle. On hearing this, Hardev (deceased) tried to run away but accused Sadanand fired shot from his rifle causing injuries on the neck of Hardev and then, the fell down near the 'ghoora' of one Ram Das. Accused Ram Swarup and Rajendra then pressed the body of Hardev while accused Munua severed his neck with the Banka. It is alleged that an alarm was raised by the informant and his mother and on hearing the alarm several witnesses including Brij Lal and Radhey Shyam reached there and saw the incident. It is further alleged that accused Ram Swarup picked up the severed head of deceased Hardev and all the accused-persons ran away from The spot. It is further alleged that thereafter, the Chaukidar was called and after arrival of the Chaukidar, the dead body of deceased Hardev was entrusted to him and then complainant Ram Dev went to P,s. Harpalpur and lodged the F. I. R. Ex. Ka-1 on the same day at about 3. 40 p. m. The distance of the police station from the place of the incident is eight miles P. W. 7 Head Constable Ram Chandra Dixit prepared a chik FIR Ext. Ka-1 and then he registered the case in the G. D. (Ext. Ka-4 ). P. W. 8 Inspector Harpal Singh, Station Of ficer of P. S. Harpalpur was present at the time of lodging of the F. I. R. He recorded the statement of Ram Dev and thereafter, he proceeded to the spot and there he prepared the inquest report Ext. Ka-5 and other relevant papers Ext. Ka-6 to Ka-8 for autopsy on the dead body of deceased Har dev. The dead body of deceased Hardev was handed over to Constables Chandra Bhal Tiwari and Ram Saran Mishra and thereafter, the Investigating Officer prepared the site plan Ext. Ka-12. he also collected the blood- stained and plain earth from the scene of the occurrence and he tried to search out the missing head of deceased Hardev. On 25-1-78, S. I. Chandra Sen Sharma took up the inves tigation of this case who after completing the investigation submitted the charge-sheet against the accused-persons. P. W 6 Dr. H. P. Srivastava conducted the autopsy on the dead body of deceased Hardev on 1-1-78 at about 4. 45 p. m. The doctor found the following antemortem injuries on the dead body of deceased Hardev: (1) Neck. & head above lower two cervical vertibra were missing. Neck had been sharply cut above lower 2 cervical vertibra, Lower two cervical vertibra were pressed. (2) Two abrasions each 1/2" x 3/4" x 1/2" apart, on left shoulder, lower pan. (3) One abrasion V x 1/2" on left arm at insertion of deltoid. (4) One abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" on top left shoulder. 6. On internal examination, the doc tor found that the heart of the deceased was empty. The stomach was also found empty. The small and large intestines were found full of gas and facal matter. The Gall bladder was found full and the bladder was found empty. According to the doctor the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury No. 1. The post-mortem report is Ext. Ka-3. 7. The prosecution in supports of its case, examined as many as eight witnesses; out of them RWl Ram Dev, PW2 Braj Lal and P. W 3 Radhey Shyam are the witnesses of fact. RW 4 Ram Saran Mishra brought the dead body of deceased Hardev from the place of the incident to mortuary for post mortem examination, P. W 5 Chandra Sen Sharma, S. I. Conducted the investigation of this case from 25-1-78 upto the submission of the charge-sheet. P. W 6 Dr. H. P Srivastava conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 1-1-78 at about 4. 45 p. m. and proved the post-mortem report Ext. Ka-3. RW 7 Ram Chandra Dixit, Head Constable, prepared the chik report as well as other G. D. 's entries. P. W 8 inspector Harpal Singh, S. O. conducted the initial investigation of this case. 8. On the other hand all the accused-persons denied the prosecution case and stated that they have been implicated fal sely due to enmity. However, it is not disputed that accused Munua is the grand son of Bachchu and Bachchu was maternal uncle of accused Sadanand. It is also not disputed that both these persons used to reside in one house and accused Rajendra is the son of accused Ram Swarup. It is also not denied that Bachchu was mur dered in which deceased Hardev was one of the accused. 9. On behalf of the defence one wit ness namely; P. W 1 Rati Ram was also examined. The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence on the record acquitted accused Rajendra of the charges levelled against him giving benefit of doubt. He convicted accused Ram Swarup under Section 201, IPC and sen tenced him to two years' R,i. and further he convintced accused Sadanand and Munua under Sections 302/34 & 201, IPC and sentenced each of them to Imprison ment for Life and two years' R. I. respec tively. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the aforesaid appellants and State of U. P. filed the aforesaid criminal ap peals. 10. We have heard the learned coun sel for the parties and have also gone through the record. 11. Just we take up Criminal Appeal No. 568/1979 filed by appellants Sadanand, Munua and Ram Swarup chal lenging their conviction under Section 302/201, IPC. Out of these three appel lants, appellant No. 1 Sadanand and appel lant No. 3 Ram Swarup died during the pendency of the appeal and, therefore, the aforesaid criminal appeal abates against these two appellants. 12. Now Criminal Appeal No. 5/1979 remains only against appellant No. 2 Munua. 13. The learned Counsel for the ap pellants contended that the learned Ses sions Judge while convicting the aforesaid appellants and acquitting accused Rajendra, disbelieved the presence of P. W 2 Brij Lal and P. W 3 Radhey Shyam on the spot at the time of the incident holding that they are got up witnesses and the learned Sessions Judge convicted the ap pellants relying on the sole testimony of P. W. 1 Ram Dev, is not believable because he was interested and inimical witness and further he also from the very beginning of lodging of the F. I. R. , stated that P W 2 Brij Lal and RW 3 Radhey Shyam were also present at the time of the incident, but the learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the presence of RW 2 Brij Lal and RW 3 Radhey Shyam on the spot which shows that nobody has witnessed the incident, Apart from this, he also pointed out the statement of this witness stating that this witness on several occasion has modulated his stand in order to conformity with the prosecution case and in these circumstan ces, the sole testimony of this witness can not be relied upon and the learned Ses sions Judge has, therefore, committed an error in convicting the appellants as men tioned above. 14. On the other hand the learned Govt. Advocate contended that the State of U. P. has also feld an appeal because the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error in disbelieving the presence of RW 2 Brij Lal and RW 3 Radhey Shyam on the spot at the time of the incident. 15. In these circumstances, before dealing with the statement of P. W 1 Ram Dev, it is necessary to consider the state ments of RW. 2 Brij Lal and P. W. 3 Radhey Shyam. 16. P. W 2 Brij Lal is the resident of village Chanda Mohammadpur, RS. Dayalpur, Distt. Hardoi and P. W. 3 Rad hey Shyam is the resident of village Shyampur, P. S. Harpalpur, Distt. Hardoi. They stated that they were returning from Farukkhabad to their village and in the way as soon as they reached village Baragaon, they heard the sound of gun-firing and thereafter, they reached the scene of the occurrence. In these cir cumstances they arc chance-witnesses. According to the defence, both these wit nesses are interested witnesses but the suggestion was denied by P. W. 1 Ram Dev. According to the statements of P. W. 2 Brij Lal and P. W. 3 Radhey Shyam, they were neither the friends nor relation of deceased Hardev but they knew the deceased and the complainant from before the incident because they used to pass infront of the house of the com plainant on returning from Farukkhabad. It is also stated by them that they knew the deceased (Hardev) and the complainant only just one year before the incident. The learned Sessions Judge while considering the testimony of these witnesses took into the consideration the conduct of these two eye-witnesses who had nothing to do with the deceased's family but they remained there upto the night without food and water. It is also admitted by three wit nesses that at the time of the incident, no other person of the village Badagaon where the incident took place, was present nor any other person had witnessed the incident. According to them, the com plainant and above two witnesses are the only eye-witnesses of the incident. It is also very improbable that the incident took place in day time inside the village but no body of the village has witnessed the incident except the complainant and two other witnesses who belonged to dif ferent villages and they reached there by chance. A suggestion was given to P. W. 1 Ram Dev that both these witnesses are relation of the deceased. P. W. 1 Ram Dev stated that he has no relationship with P. W. 2 Brij Lal but he knows him because he used to pass infront of his house while going to Farukkhabad. It has also been suggested to P. W. 1 Ram Dev that Girja Shanker and Ram Lakhan are 'khandanis' of P. W. 2 Brij Lal. P. W. 2 Brij Lal has denied that Girja Shanker belongs to his family but he ad mits that the house of Girja Shanker is adjacent to his house. He also admits that Ram Lakhan Tiwari is also resident of his village and no other persons of the names of Girja Shanker and Ram Lakhan are in his village. He admits that his grand father's name is Mishri Lal but he has stated that he did not know that Mitthoo Lal was the brother of his grand-father. He also did not know that Gangan Tiwari was his great grand-father. He also did not know the name of the brother of his grand father. A suggestion was given to him that his father's sister was married to Durga Deen of village Shyampur and this Radhey Shyam witness is the son of Durga Deen but he did not know that P. W. 3 Radhey Shyam is the son of Durga Deen. A specific question was put to him that Radhey Shyam is his 'fufera' brother and also Rad hey Shyam is the brother-in-law of Hardev (deceased) and due to this relationship Girja Shanker and Ram Lakhan stood sureties for Hardev (deceased) but he said \ that he did not know about the same. This fact is proved by the defence side who filed the copies of surety-bonds (Ext. (Ka-11 ' and Kha-12 ). These surety-bonds were fur nished by these two persons in the case in which deceased Hardev was an accused under Section 302, IPC and was on bail at the time of the incident. The reply of P. W. 2 Brij Lal to this specific question is that he does not know but the fact as pointed out above is proved by the defence. He also admits that he was witness along with Girja Shanker against Daya Ram. This witness further admits that he remained present near the dead body of deceased Hardev and the dead body of the deceased was sent for autopsy at about 8 p. m. However, he could not say as to whether the dead body of the deceased was taken on head and how the same was sent to mortuary. He also did not know anything as to whether Ram Dev or his mother accompanied the dead body or not? He also did not say as to whether any bundle of 'hariyali' was lying on the spot or not? Before the Investigating Officer, he stated that he had also raised an alarm and on hearing the said alarm, several persons of village Badagaon reached there and all of them chased the accused-persons but now before the Ses sions Judge, he denied this statement & he stated that he had not given such statement to the Investigating Officer. In his cross-examination as pointed out above, he tried to conceal the relationship with Radhey Shyam as well as with deceased's family which creates a doubt about the genuine ness of his testimony. The conduct of these two witnesses, namely, P. W. 2 Brij Lal and P. W. 3 Radhey Shyam who are chance wit nesses that they remained present near the dead body of deceased Hardev for the whole day without food and water itself shows that their contention that they had no relation or friendship with the deceased, is not believe able. It is also improbable that except these two witnesses no other witness of village Badagaon reached there at the time of the incident. The defence has no doubt examined D. W. 1 Rati Ram to prove the relationship but the learned Sessions Judge did not rely on his testimony. Even accepting the findings of the learned Ses sions Judge did not rely on his testimony. Even accepting the findings of the learned Sessions Judge to this extent that the tes timony of D. W. 1 Rati Ram is not sufficient to prove the relationship, the fact remains that the testimony of P. W. 1, P. W. 2 and P. W. 3 cannot be said to be above-board and, therefore, these witnesses cannot be said to be independent witnesses as alleged by them. It is not disputed that the Chaukidar of the village also reached there and he was guarding the dead body of the deceased Hardev along with others but even then, these two witnesses (P. W. 2 and P. W. 3) remained there without food and water. P. W. 3 Radhey Shyam denied that the sister of Hardev was married to him but it is also not possible to believe that he does not know the name of the father of P. W. 2 Brij Lal, with whom he used to come from Farukkhabad. He stated that he went to Farukkhabad to sell grains and for this purpose, he had taken the cart of Kanhaiya on rent but he left the said cart at Faruk khabad. There is nothing on the record to show as to why he left the said cart which he had taken from Kanhaiya at Farukkhabad. He also admits that he did not say about any bundle of Hariyali lying on the spot and further he stated that nobody of the village came there at the time of the inci dent. He further stated that the dead body was sent to mortuary on bullock cart but he did not say as to who was driving the said bullock cart. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the statements of all these two witnesses in great detail and the circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that the presence of these two witnesses on the spot is not free from doubt and we find no illegality in the said finding. Looking into the conduct and after scrutinizing the testimony of these two witnesses, it is not possible to believe that these two witnesses are reliable wit nesses. The learned Sessions Judge has relied upon the statement of P. W. 1 Ram Dev but in our opinion, P. W. 1 Ram Dev is also not reliable witness. P. W. 1 Ram Dev is the brother of the deceased and he nar rated the statement and he stated that he along with his mother and deceased were returning back after collecting 'hariyali' but no such bundle of 'hariyali' was found lying on the spot. 17. P. W. 1 Ram Dev, in order to show that P. W. 2 Brij Lal and P. W. 3 Radhey Shyam are independent witnesses, tried to conceal several facts including the fact that Girja Shanker and Ram Lakhan stood sureties for Hardev in an earlier case in which he was doing 'pairvi' on behalf of Hardev. He stated that he did not know the names of the persons who stood sureties for Hardev and for this purpose he in vented a novel explanation that these sureties were arranged by one Counsel on payment of Rs. 100. Even accepting this explanation that these sureties were ar ranged by the Counsel, it is not possible to believe that Ramdev who was doing 'pairvi' in the said case, might have paid the money for these sureties but before the trial Court he stated that he did not know the names of Girja Shanker and Ram Lak han. This fact is proved by the defence by filing the copies of the surety bonds Ext. Kha-11 and Kha- 12 which are on the record. 18. P. W. 2 Brij Lal is the resident of village-Chanda-Mohammadpur where Girja Shanker and Ram Lakhan reside and admittedly the houses of Girja Shanker and Ram Lakhan are adjoining to each other. In these circumstances, it is not possible to believe that these three eye witnesses did not have any friendship or relationship with each other. He tried to say concealing this fact that he had no concern with these persons but this fact makes the testimony of this witness, doubtful. P. W. 1 Ramdev also stated that no one of his village came there on hearing his alarm except the two witnesses namely, P. W. 2 Brij Lal and P. W. 3 Radhey Shyam. He also slated that no witness of his village chased the accused-persons. However, in the F. I. R. It has been specifically stated that on hearing the alarm, several persons of his village reached there and they chal lenged the accused and then the accused-persons ran away but they were chased by the villagers. It is not possible to believe that the incident took place in the broad day light inside the village but no person of this village came there and witnessed the incident. The contention of the defence Counsel is that as no-one was ready to give false evidence, therefore, for this reason these two witnesses, namely, P. W. 2 Brij Lal and P. W. 3 Radhey Shyam were introduced in this case and concealing the correct fact, they were shown to be independent wit nesses. 19. We find force in this contention and at least a doubt arose about the genuineness of the prosecution case. It is strange thing and is not possible to believe that no one of village Badagaon reached the place of the incident and witnessed the incident. The position would be different, if, they stated that the villagers reached the place of the occurrence but they were not ready to give evidence due to fear or other wise, but the prosecution case that no one reached the place of the incident except these two witnesses itself creates a doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case. P. W. 1 Ramdev while lodging the report, has stated that several witnesses of his village reached there and then all the three witnesses further reiterated this stand before the Investigtaing Officer but now when they found that no one is ready to give evidence then they introduced this story before the learned Sessions Judge that no one of the village reached there and witnessed the incident. The statement of P. W. 1 Ram Dev that he did not know the names of the persons who stood sureties for Hiirdev (deceased) in which case he was doing pairvi, is also not believable and in these circumstances, it is not possible to record a conviction of the accused-persons under Section 302, IPC on the sole tes timony of P. W. 1 Ramdev. P. W 1 Ramdev is admittedly an interested witness. 20. The learned Sessions Judge while believing the testimony of P,w. 1 Ramdev overlooked the fact that he was disbelieved the presence of P. W. 2 Brij Lal and P. W. 3 Radhey Shyam on the spot and recorded a finding that these two witnesses are got up witnesses and P. W. 1 Ramdev introduced these two persons as witnesses. Therefore, in these circumstances if the presence of P. W 2 Brij Lal and P. W. 3 Radhey Shyam is not believable, then the testimony of P. W 1 Ram Dev on this ground is also liable to be discarded. If one witness introduced two witnesses in order to get the conviction of the accused and if, the presence of these two witnesses is not proved and they were found to be got-up witnesses then this shows that P. W. 1 Ram Dev who intro duced falsely the two witnesses in this case, is also not reliable witness. 21. Apart from this while scrutinizing the evidence, we find that the testimony of P. W. 1 Ramdev is not free from doubt and therefore the conviction cannot be based on the sole testimony of this eye-witness. After excluding the testimony of P. W. 2 Brij Lal and P. W. 3 Radhey Shyam, from the testimony of P. W 1 Ramdev, who is the only witness against the appellants, it ap pears that the modulated his evidence to suit a particular prosecution story for deliberate purpose of securing conviction and therefore, he cannot be said to be reliable witness and no conviction cannot be based on his sole testimony. 22. The incident according to the prosecution case, took place on 31-12-1977 at about 11 a. m. but the report was lodged at 3. 40 on the same day. The distance of the police station from the place of the incident is about eight miles. It is also alleged the Investigating Officer reached the spot and after preparing the inquest report, he sent the dead body of the deceased for autopsy through constable Ram Saran Mishra. However, the dead body reached the District Hospital next day at about 12. 15 noon. The distance is only about 20 Kms. RW 4 Ram Saran Mishra in his cross-examination tried to explain this delay by saying that he brought the dead body on cart and he started from the village at about 8 p. m. He further stated that he reached village Gyanpur at about 12. 30 p. m. where he stayed in the night and again he started to Fatehgarh from Gyanpur next day at about 8 a. m. He further admits that the distance of village Fatehgarh from village Gyanpur is about 5-6 miles. There is no explanation as to why he stayed at village Gyanpur and fur ther as to why he started from village Gyanpur at about 8 a. m. next day, RW 7 Ram Chandra Dixit proved the lodging of the F. I. R. and preparation of the chik report. He admits that in the G. D. There were two entries in respect of 'rapat No. 24'; the first entry was of 15. 40 hour and the second entry was of 16. 30 hours. A sugges tion of the defence was that this mistake is committed because no G. D. entry was made at the time of the F. I. R. and in fact the F. I. R. was prepared later on and it has been shown to be lodged ante time. A suggestion was that the Chaukidar reached the police station and gave an information about this incident and there after, the Investigating Officer reached the spot and then, a report was lodged after due deliberation. The entries of rapat No. 24 at two places create doubt about the genuineness of the F. I. R. specially, when the dead body was also received by the doctoron the next dayat about 12. 15p. m. 23. P. W. 8 Harpal Singh, S. O. was the Investigating Officer and the prosecution also failed to point out as to when the first 'parcha' of the case diary was made available to the S. P. Office. The Investigating Officer did not know as to when a copy of the report was sent to the Magistrate con cerned. He also stated that he made enquiry from the other villagers but nobody had disclosed about the incident but this fact is not believable because he admits that he did not make any entry in the G. D. It is strange thing that the incident took place inside the village in day time but he did not try to interrogate the other vil lagers in order to point out as to whether they witnessed the incident or not? 24. In these circumstances, in our opinion the prosecution has failed to prove the gutlt of the appellants atleast beyond reasonable doubt, therefore the appellants are entitled to get benefit of doubt. 25. According to prosecution case, the deceased fell down on the ground facing upward and accused Rajendra as well as Ram Swarup caught hold of the hands of the deceased (Hardev ). It is not possible to believe that there was any need of catching hold of deceased Hardev who had already received the gun- shot wounds on his neck and he was also lying on the ground. It is also alleged by one of the witnesses that accused Munua gave one Banka blow and after rasping Banka on his neck, he cut his neck from the body. The doctor who conducted autopsy on thedead body of the deceased in cross-examination, admits that there was no sign of any resping with Banka and nor he had mentioned anything in the post- mortem report to this effect. He stated that the possibility of cutting of the neck by one blow is more probable. The doctor also found that the small and large intestines of the deceased were full of gas and faecal matters and the stomach was found empty. On this basis the learned Counsel for the defence con tended that the possibility of the fact that the incident took place in the early hours of the day cannot be ruled out and after coming to know about this incident, the Chaukidar of the village was called and he was sent to the police station for giving information to this effect and after arrival of the police on the spot, a case was con cocted and finding it difficult to get the eye-witnesses in the village, two persons namely; P. W 2 Brij Lal and P. W. 3 Radhey Shyam were introduced who are interested witnesses. 26. Looking into facts and cir cumstances of the case atleast a doubt arose about the genuineness of the F. I. R. and, therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 27. Criminal Appeal No. 747 of 1979 has been filed by the State of U. P. against accused-respondents Rajendra and Ram Swarup. Rajendra was acquitted of all the charges whereas, accused Ram Swarup was acquitted under Section 302/34, IPC and he was convicted only under Section 201, IPC. Accused Rajendra and Ram Swarup both were shown to be empty handed at the time of the incident and it is alleged that they caught hold of the deceased and then accused Munna cut the neck of the deceased with Banka. The story of catching hold of the deceased by accused Rajendra and Ram Swarup after receiving gun-shot wounds is not believable because there was no necessity for catching hold of the hands of deceased Hardev who had already received fatal gun-shot wounds on his neck. Apart from this, if, the deceased was alive and was lying on the ground; and both these persons were pressing by their hands then, he might have received some injuries on his back also. However, the doctor found abrasion on left side of the dead body of the deceased. As pointed out earlier, the story of the prosecution did not find support from the testimony of the eye-witnesses and they are not reliable witnesses and therefore, the present criminal appeal filed by the State has no force and is liable to be dismissed. 28. Similarly, Criminal Appeal No. 748 of 1979 has been filed by the State of U. P against accused- respondents Sadanand, Munua and Ram Swarup for enhancement of the sentence. This appeal has also no force and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 29. In view of the facts slated above, the Criminal Appeal No. 568 of 1979 filed by accused-appellants Sadanand, Munua and Ram Swarup is hereby, allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge are hereby set aside. Appellant Munua is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties thereof stand hereby discharged. This appeal with respect of appellants Sadanand and Ram Swarup is dismissed having abated. 30. Similarly, Criminal Appeal No. 747of 1979 filed by the State of U. P. against accused-respondent Rajendra is hereby dismissed and this appeal against accused-respondent Ram Swarup is also dismissed having abated. 31. Criminal Appeal No. 748 of 1979 filed by the State of UP against accused-respondent Munua is hereby dismissed and this appeal against accused-respondent Sadanand is also dismissed having abated. Appeal allowed. .