1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1881 of 2011

Ganesh Datt .. Appellant(s)  versus

State of Uttarakhand  ..    Respondent(s) With

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1884 OF 2011

J U D G M E N T C. NAGAPPAN, J.

1.  Both the appeals  are preferred against the judgment  

and order dated 22.12.2010 passed by the High Court  

of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.927  

of 2001.

2. The appellants 1 to 4  in Criminal Appeal No. 1884 of  

2011,  Sudarshan  Verma,  Jagdish,  Deep  Narain  and

2

Rajendra   were accused Nos. 1 to 4 and the appellant  

Ganesh Datt in Criminal Appeal No.1881 of 2011 was  

accused No.5 in Sessions Trial case No.109 of 1990 on  

the file of  Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital and  

were tried for the charges under Sections 147, 148,  

302 read with 149,  307 read with 149 and Section  

324 read with 149 IPC, and the Trial Court convicted  

and  sentenced  each  of  them  to  undergo  life  

imprisonment  under  Section  302/149  IPC;  Rigorous  

Imprisonment for a period of 7 years under Section  

307/149 IPC; Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of  

one  year  under  Section  324/149  IPC,  Rigorous  

Imprisonment  for  a  period  of  six  months  under  

Section  147  IPC  and  Rigorous  Imprisonment  for  a  

period   of  one  year  under  Section  148  IPC.  

Challenging  the  conviction  and  sentence  they  

preferred  Criminal  Appeal  No.927  of  2001  and  the  

High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital dismissed the  

appeal.  Aggrieved by the same they have preferred  

the present appeals.

3

3. Shorn  of  unnecessary  details  the  case  of  the  

prosecution is as follows : PW1 Bali Raj, PW2 Moti Lal  

deceased Prabhunath and Raj  Bali  are sons of PW3  

Ram Lakhan.  On 26.8.1989 at about 6.00 a.m. they  

along  with  servant  Bahadur,  were  sitting  in  the  

verandah of  the  house of  Prabhunath  and  at  that  

time accused persons Sudarshan Varma armed with  

country made pistol,   Deep Narain armed with gun,  

Jagdish armed with axe (Farsa), Rajendra and Ganesh  

Datt  armed  with  lathis  came  there  and  accused  

Sudarshan shouted to kill them today itself and by so  

saying he fired at Prabhunath with pistol and accused  

Deep Narain  fired gunshots at  PW2 Motilal  and Raj  

Bali  and accused Jagdish attacked PW2 Motilal  with  

axe on neck which he defended by left hand resulting  

in injuries and accused Rajendra and Ganesh attacked  

them with lathis.  On the sound of fire and shouting  

the villagers came there and accused fled away.

4. Accused Sudarshan who was then the village Pradhan  

went  to  the  Police  Station   Rudrapur  and lodged a

4

First  Information  Report  against  Prabhunath,  Motilal  

and Bali Raj at 7.25 a.m. on 26.8.1989 and a case was  

registered as Crime No. 583 of 1989 for the alleged  

offences under Sections 307 and 324 IPC. PW3 Ram  

Lakhan took the injured Prabhunath, PW2 Moti Lal and  

Raj Bali to the Police Station Rudrapur  and lodged a  

First Information Report at 8.10 a.m. on the same day  

against  accused   Sudarshan,  Jagdish,  Deep  Narain,  

Rajendra  and  Ganesh  Datt,  on  which  a  case  was  

registered as Crime No.583-A for the alleged offences  

under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 324 and 323 IPC  

and the injured were  sent to hospital.

5. PW6  Dr.  A.K.  Rana,  Medical  Officer  in  Jawahar  Lal  

Hospital Rudrapur examined Prabhunath at 9.40 a.m.  

on 26.8.1989 in the hospital and found the following  

injuries:

“i) An abrasion 4 cm x 4 cm on top of head  12  

cm from left ear lobe. Fresh bleeding present.

5

ii) A contusion 15 cm x 10 cm on left jaw with  

multiple  punctured  wound  on  whole  surface.  

Advised X-ray   skull.  Fresh bleeding present.  

Punctured wound size 0.5 cm x 0.25 cm x not  

probed (depth) with margins inverted.

iii)  A contusion 15 cm x 20 cm on left side of  

whole  neck  with  multiple  punctured  wounds  

measuring  0.25  cm  x  0.25cm  x  not  probed  

(depth)  with  margins  of  wound  inverted.  

Advised  X-ray  neck  and  left  shoulder.   Fresh  

bleeding present.

iv) An incised wound 7 cm x 5 cm x muscle  

deep on left upper arm, 4 cm above  top of left  

elbow. Fresh bleeding present.

6

v)  An incised wound 5 cm x 5 cm bone deep  

on tip of  left elbow extending upwards.  Fresh  

bleeding present.

vi) An incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm x muscle  

deep on left side bone of middle finger. Fresh  

bleeding present.”

He opined in his report Exh.A8 that injury No.1  

was simple and could have been caused by any hard  

object; injury Nos.  4, 5 and 6 could have been caused  

by some sharp edged weapon and injury No.2 and 3  

were kept under observation and general condition of  

the injured was very serious.

    PW6 Dr. A.K. Rana examined PW2 Moti Lal at  

9.45 a.m. in the hospital on 26.8.1989 and found the  

following injuries:

i) A  contusion  6  cm  x  4  cm  on  right  side  of  

forehead at hairline with a puncture  wound  

0.25 cm x 0.25 cm x not probed (depth) Fresh  

bleeding present Advised X-ray skull.

7

ii) A contusion 4 cm x 3 cm just below left eyelid  

with a puncture wound 0.25 cm x 0.25 cm x  

not  probed  (depth)  in  its  middle,  wound  

margins  inverted.  Advised  X-ray  skull.  Fresh  

bleeding .

iii) Multiple punctured wounds 0.25 cm x 0.25 cm  

x  not  probed (depth)  on  right  side  of  chest  

frontal  aspect  and  left  side  chest.   Fresh  

bleeding present. Advised X-ray of chest.

iv) A punctured wound 0.25 cm x 0.25 cm X not  

probed  (depth)  on  right  forearm  anterior  

aspect. Advised X-ray forearm. Fresh bleeding.

v) A punctured wound 0.25 cm x 0.25 cm x not  

probed (depth) on right base of thumb, wound

8

margins  inverted.  Fresh  bleeding  present.  

Advised X –ray right hand.

vi) An incised wound 7 cm x 5 cm x muscle deep  

on right side forearm on upper and proximal ½  

part.  Fresh bleeding present”

He opined that  injury  Nos.  1 to  5 were kept under  

observation and they were fresh and injury nos.6 was  

simple  and  could  have  been   caused  by  a  sharp  

edged weapon.

PW6  Dr.  A.K.  Rana  examined  Raj  Bali  at  9.50  

a.m. in the hospital  and found a contusion 6 cm x 4  

cm on lower  side  of  left   eye  and opined that  the  

injury was simple in nature.

6.  PW7 Sub-Inspector  Surender  Singh took up the  

investigation and visited Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital

9

on 26.8.1989 and after coming to know the death of  

Prabhunath in the hospital on the same day altered  

the  offence   to  one  under  Section  302  IPC  and  

examined PW2 Motilal and Rajbali in the hospital on  

the same day.  He conducted inquest and recorded  

the statement of Panchas and complainant. He gave  

the requisition for post-mortem.

7. PW4 Dr. S.M. Pant conducted post-mortem at 2.30  

p.m. on 27.8.1989 and found the following injuries:

i) Lacerated wound 2 cm x ½ cm x scalp deep  

on the head, 11 cm above left eyebrow.

ii) Multiple abrasions in an area of 30 cm x 10  

cm of sizes 0.25 cm to 0.5 cm from left side  

of face, left side of neck and left upper chest.  

All  injuries  painted  with  some red  coloured  

medicine.

10

iii) Contusion in an area 10 cm x 8 cm around  

left nipple.

iv) Contusion right side of abdomen 12 cm x 15  

cm area. 3 cm right to naval.

v) Stitched wound with two stitches 4 cm long  

on the porterior aspect of left upper arm, 1  

cm from elbow joint.

vi) Stitched wound with 3 stitches 5 cm long, 5  

cm above injury No.(v)

vii) Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x muscle deep on  

left  middle  finger  proximal  phalanx  painted  

with medicine.

viii) Lacerated wound 1 cm x muscle deep on the  

middle phalanx of index finger.”

11

He opined in the autopsy report that the deceased  

had died of shock and haemorrhage as a result of  

ante mortem injuries.

8. PW7  Sub-Inspector  Surender  Singh  went  to  the  

occurrence place and prepared site-plan and seized  

blood-stained soil and sample soil in the presence of  

witnesses.   He  also  seized  10  bullets  of  12  bore  

from  the  occurrence  place  out  of  which  4  were  

emptied and 6 were live, by preparing a Memo.  He  

examined the wife of the deceased Smt. Raj Kumari  

on  27.8.1989  and  recorded  her  statement.  

Thereafter PW5 Inspector Vijender Kumar Bhardwaj  

continued  the  investigation  and  recorded  the  

statements of other witnesses including the seizure  

witnesses  and  completed  the  investigation,  filed  

charge sheet against the accused and it was taken  

on file in Sessions Trial Case No.109 of 1990 on the  

file of Vth Additional Sessions Judge.

9. In the cross case, final report came to be filed and it  

was taken on file in Sessions Trial No.177 of 1990 on

12

the file  of  the same Court.   Both the cases were  

tried by the same Court.  In the case of Sessions  

Trial No.109 of 1990, prosecution witnesses PWs 1  

to 7 were examined and documents in  Exh.A1 to  

A17  were  marked  and  wife  of  the  deceased  Raj  

Kumari was examined as CW-1.  The trial court in  

Sessions  Trial  No.109  of  1990  found  all  the  five  

accused guilty of the charges framed against them  

and  sentenced  them  as  mentioned  above.   The  

appeal preferred came to be dismissed and that is  

now appealed against.   At the same time the trial  

court in the cross case in Sessions Trial No.177 of  

1990  found  that  Sudarshan    Verma  and  his  

associates were aggressors and acquitted accused  

Motilal and Bali Raj of the charges framed against  

them.  Challenging the acquittal the State preferred  

Government  Appeal  No.2017  of  2001  and  the  

complainant  Sudarshan  Verma  independently  

challenged  the  acquittal  by  preferring  Criminal  

Revision  No.92  of  2001  and  the  High  Court  after  

hearing all the matters together dismissed both the

13

Government appeal as well as Criminal Revision, by  

a common judgment and it has become final since  

there was no further challenge.

10. Mr.  Mukesh  K.  Giri,  learned  Additional  Advocate  

General appearing for the respondent State submits  

on instructions that 2nd appellant Jagdish in Criminal  

Appeal  No.1884  of  2011  died  on  9.1.2012  while  

undergoing  the  sentence  in  jail.  Submission  is  

recorded.   The appeal  insofar  as he is  concerned  

stands abated.

11. The  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  

appellants  strenuously  contended  that  appellant  

Sudarshan Verma suffered 19 injuries and appellant  

Deep Narain also suffered injuries in the occurrence.  

The  ocular  witnesses  namely  PWs  1  to  3  are  

interested  and  inimical  witnesses   and  in  their  

testimonies   they have not  stated as  to  how the  

appellants/accused  mentioned  above  sustained  

injuries during the occurrence and they are lying  on

14

a most material point, and therefore, their evidence  

is unreliable and further their ocular testimony with  

respect  to  the  assault  is  inconsistent  with  the  

medical evidence and the weapons of offence were  

not recovered and situs of the assault was also not  

fixed and so the prosecution has failed to prove the  

case  against  appellants  beyond  reasonable  doubt  

and the  conviction  and sentence imposed on  the  

appellants are liable to be set aside.

12. Per  contra  learned  Additional  Advocate  General  

appearing for the respondent State contended that  

the injuries on the person of appellants/accused are  

not very grievous in nature and the ocular evidence  

is clear, cogent and non explanation of the injuries  

on the appellants/accused  ipso-facto cannot be the  

basis  to  discard  the  prosecution  case  and  the  

conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants  

are sustainable.

15

13. The prosecution case is that the appellants armed  

with dangerous weapons came and attacked PW3  

Ram Lakhan and his sons resulting in the death of  

Prabhunath  and  injuries  to  PW2  Moti  Lal.  The  

prosecution examined PW1 Bali  Raj,  PW2 Moti  Lal  

and  their  father  PW3  Ram  Lakhan  as  having  

witnessed the occurrence. They have testified that  

on 26.8.1989 at about 6.00 a.m., when they were  

sitting  in  front  of  their  house  accused  persons  

Sudarshan armed with country made pistol,  Deep  

Narain with a gun, Jagdish with axe, Rajendra and  

Ganesh  Datt  with  lathies,  came  there  and  

Sudarshan shouted to kill them today by so saying  

he and Deep Narain fired shots at Prabhunath and  

PW2 Moti Lal and Jagdish tried to attack on the neck  

of PW2 Moti Lal with axe which he defended by his  

left  hand  resulting  in  injuries  and  Rajendra  and  

Ganesh Datt attacked them with lathis. On hearing  

the sound of firing and shouting villagers gathered  

there  and  accused  fled  away.   PW3  Ram Lakhan  

took his injured sons Prabhunath and PW2 Moti Lal

16

to  Police  Station  Rudrapur  and  lodged  complaint  

and the injured were admitted in Jawahar Lal Nehru  

Hospital.   PW6  Dr.A.K.  Rana  examined  injured  

Prabhunath at 9.40 a.m. on 26.8.1989 and found  3  

incised wounds on the left arm,  2 contusions with  

multiple puncture wounds on neck and left shoulder  

and an abrasion on the top of head.  He directed to  

take x-ray of head, neck and left shoulder and found  

the general condition of the  injured very serious.  

He opined that the incised wounds were simple and  

could  have  been  caused  by  any  sharp  edged  

weapon  and  the  abrasion  was  simple  and  could  

have been caused by any hard object.  He has not  

expressed  any  opinion  with  regard  to  contusions  

since  they were kept under observation.  He also  

examined PW2 Moti  Lal  at 9.45 a.m. in the same  

hospital  and found 2 contusions;  on the forehead  

and below left eye-lid, punctured wounds on chest  

and right arm and an incised wound on right fore-

arm  and  opined  that  the  injuries  were  simple  in  

nature. Prabhunath died on 26.8.1989 itself in the

17

hospital.  PW 4 Dr. S.M. Pant conducted autopsy and  

found  the  same  injuries  mentioned  above  and  

opined that  the  deceased had died  of  shock  and  

haemorrhage  as  a  result  of  ante  mortem injuries  

and further observed that the death has occurred a  

day before and there was no  fire arm injury.  Exh.  

A-8 is the autopsy report.  From the above it is clear  

that  Prabhunath  died  of  injuries  sustained  during  

the occurrence.

14. The eye-witnesses namely PWs 1 to 3 and CW-1  

Smt.  Raj  Kumari,  widow  of  deceased  Prabhunath  

have testified that accused Sudarshan and accused  

Deep  Narain  fired  shots  with  pistol  and  gun  

respectively  at  Prabhunath  during  the  occurrence  

resulting in injuries but as per the medical evidence  

there was no gun shot injury found on any part of  

the  body  of  Prabhunath.   Thus  in  short,  the  

deceased  Prabhunath  is  concerned   the  ocular  

evidence  is  totally  inconsistent  with  the  medical  

evidence  with  respect  to  assault  by  accused

18

Sudarshan and Deep Narain. If this matter is false,  

there  is  no  guarantee   that  the  other  assault  

deposed to by the eye-witnesses was also not false.

15. As per the ocular testimony the weapons used in  

the occurrence are country made pistol,  gun,  axe  

and  lathis.   In  his  testimony  PW7  Sub-Inspector  

Surender  Singh  has  stated  that  he  went  to  the  

occurrence place during investigation and seized 10  

bullets of 12 bore from the spot out of which 4 were  

empty  and  6  were  live,  under  Exh.  A-16  Memo.  

Initial investigation was done by PW7 Sub-Inspector  

Surender Singh and thereafter it was continued  and  

concluded  by  PW5  Inspector  Vijender  Kumar  

Bhardwaj.   They  have  not  taken  any  steps  to  

recover the weapons alleged to have been used in  

the  occurrence.   No  scientific  method  of  

investigation was pressed into service.  We did not  

find  any  explanation  in  the  testimonies  of  the  

Investigating Officers in this regard.  The lethargic

19

attitude of  the officers  conducting investigation is  

deplorable.

16. It  is  contended  that  the  appellant/accused  

Sudarshan  sustained  extensive  injuries  and  

appellant Deep Narain was also injured during the  

occurrence.   In  the  cross-case  Dr.  J.P.  Arora  has  

testified that he examined  Sudarshan at 7.30 a.m.  

on  26.8.1989  at  Jawahar  Lal  Nehru  Hospital,  

Rudrapur  and  found  the  following  injuries  on  his  

body :

“i) Incised wound 4 cm x 0.5 x scalp deep on left  side of head parietal region 11 cm left from  ear. Blood oozing present.  Intervening tissues  clean cut.

ii) Incised wound 2 cm x 0.25 cm x scalp deep on  left  side head,  7.5 cm above left  ear.  Blood  oozing present.  Intervening tissues clean cut.

iii) Incised wound 5 cm x 2 x scalp deep on right  side of forehead, ½ cm above right eyebrow.  Intervening  tissues  clean  cut.  Blood  oozing  present.

20

iv) Incised wound 4 cm x ½ x skin deep on right  check, 3 cm in front of left ear.  Intervening  tissues clean cut. Blood oozing present.

v) Incised wound 4 cm x 0.2 x scalp deep on left  side of head, 6 cm above right eyebrow.

vi) Abrated contusion ½ cm x ½ cm on right side  of face, 4 cm away from right eye outer angle.

vii) Abrated contusion 5 cm x ½ cm on front  of  neck left side, 3 cm above right clavicle.

viii) Incised wound 2 cm x 0.2 cm x bone deep on  front  of  left  little  finger,  4  cm above root  of  finger.  Intervening  tissues  clean  cur.  Blood  oozing present.

ix) Incised wound 2 cm x 0.2 cm x bone deep on  front  of  left  ring  finger,  3.5  cm above  base.  Intervening  tissues  clean  cut.  Blood  oozing  present.

x) Incised wound 1 cm x 0.2 cm x skin deep on  front   of  tip  of  left  ring  finger.   Also  blood  oozing.  Intervening tissues clean cut.

xi) Incised wound 3.75 cm x 0.25 cm x  bone deep  on ground of left middle finger, oblique 4.5 cm  above base of finger. Intervening tissues clean  cut. Blood oozing present.

21

xii) Incised wound 4.5 cm x ½ cm x bone deep on  front of left index finger. Oblique. Intervening  tissues clean cut. Blood oozing present.

xiii) Incised wound 4 cm x 0.2 cm x bone deep on  outer  side  of  left  hand,  2  cm  above  index  finger, intervening tissues clean cut.

xiv) Incised wound 2 cm x 0.2 cm x skin deep –  inner side left thumb, root, intervening tissues  clean cut. Blood oozing present.

xv) Two lacerated wound each size 2 cm x ¾ cm x  depth went to deeper tissue and ½ cm x ½ cm  x  depth  went  to  deeper  tissue,  ½ cm apart  from  each  other.  Blood  oozing.  On  right  scapular region upper part, in area of 8 cm x 3  cm.

xvi) Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on right scapular region,  3.5 cm inner to injury No. (xv)

xvii) Abrasion  1.5  cm x 1  cm on outside  of  right  shoulder

xviii) Abrasion 1.5 cm x 1 cm on back of right arm, 8  cm below armpit.

xix) Abrasion 1 cm x ½ cm on right side of chest on  back side and below the hair of 4.5 cm

22

He has opined that all the injuries were fresh and injury  

Nos.  1,2,3,5,  8 to  14 and 15 to 19,  were  kept under  

observation and rest of the injuries were simple.  He has  

also testified that he examined Deep Narain at  9.15 a.m.  

on  the  same day  at  the  hospital  and  found  lacerated  

wound 1.25 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep transverse over  

right eye brow. Afterwards he has expressed opinion that  

injury Nos.1 to 5 and 8 to 14 found on Sudarshan could  

have been caused by sword.

17. In the trial,  in examination-in-chief PW1 Bali  Raj,  

did  not  state  anything  about  the  injuries  on  

Sudarshan  and  Deep  Narain.  In  the  cross-

examination he has testified that  Sudarshan Verma  

and Deep Narain did not suffer any injury during the  

occurrence and further stated that 16-17 days prior  

to occurrence Sudarshan Verma suffered injuries in  

a jeep accident.  This testimony cannot be true for  

the reason that Dr. Arora  has examined him in the  

hospital  on  the  occurrence  day  and  has  found  

injuries which were fresh on his body. PW2 Moti Lal

23

in his examination-in-chief  did not state anything  

about  the  injuries  on  the  accused.   In  the  cross-

examination  he  has  stated  that  during  the  

occurrence accused Sudarshan Verma snatched the  

axe from the hands of accused Jagdish and his hand  

was injured  during snatching process and an injury  

was also caused near the eyes by the axe.  He has  

also stated that he did not see whether any injury  

was caused to Deep Narain during the occurrence.  

It  is  his  further  testimony  that  he  is  mentioning  

above  for  the  first  time  before  the  Court.   It  is  

needless to say that no reliance can be placed on  

such  a  testimony.   In  the  same  way  PW3  Ram  

Lakhan has not stated anything about the injuries of  

the accused in his testimony-in-chief. In the cross-

examination  he  has  stated  that  he  did  not  see  

accused Sudarshan suffering any injury during the  

occurrence.

24

18. In  Babulal  Bhagwan  Khandare  and  another  

vs.  State of  Maharashtra [(2005)  10  SCC 404]  

this Court held:

“Non-explanation of the injuries sustained by  the accused at about the time of occurrence  or  in  the  course  of  altercation  is  a  very  important circumstance.”

The eye-witnesses who deny the presence of injuries on  

the  person of  the accused are lying on most  material  

point,  and  therefore,  their  evidence  is  unreliable.  It  

assumes much greater importance where the evidence  

consists  of  interested  or  inimical  witnesses.   In  the  

present case admittedly there was enmity between the  

accused family and the deceased family and PWs 1 to 3  

are  interested  as  well  as  inimical  witnesses  and  their  

denial of injuries on the person of accused, makes their  

evidence unreliable.

19. The  situs  of  attack  is  also  alleged  to  be  not  

established  by  the  prosecution.   In  the  First

25

Information  Report  the  complainant  PW3  Ram  

Lakhan has stated that he and his sons were sitting  

in their flour mill and were chatting at about 6.00  

a.m. when the assailants came and attacked them.  

In the testimony, PW1 Bali Raj has stated that they  

were sitting in front of their house when the assault  

took  place.   PW2  Moti  Lal  has  testified  that  the  

attack did not occur on flour mill but occurred in the  

verandah of house of Prabhunath. PW3 Ram Lakhan  

has testified  that the place of occurrence is  about  

50 steps away  from the flour mill.   Thus there is  

inconsistency about the place of occurrence in their  

testimonies and a doubt creeps in.  Though blood-

stained earth was claimed to have been seized from  

the  occurrence  place  by  the  Investigating  Officer  

PW7 Surender Singh, it was not sent for chemical  

examination which could have fixed the situs of the  

assault.   In  almost  all  criminal  cases  the  blood-

stained earth found from the place of occurrence is  

invariably sent to the chemical examination and the  

report along with the earth is produced in the Court

26

and  yet  this  is  one  exceptional  case  where  this  

procedure  was  departed  from  for  reasons  best  

known to the prosecution.

20. We are of the considered view that the prosecution  

has  failed  to  prove  the  guilt  of  the  appellants  

beyond reasonable doubt,  and therefore, they are  

entitled to be acquitted.

21. In the result Criminal Appeal No.1881 of 2011 is  

allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed  

on appellant-Ganesh Datt are set aside and he is  

acquitted of the charges and he is directed to be set  

at  liberty  unless  wanted  in  connection  with  any  

other case.     Criminal Appeal No. 1884 of 2011 in  

respect of appellant Jagdish stands abated.  As far  

as  other  appellants   namely,  Sudarshan  Verma,  

Deep Narain and Rajendra are concerned,  the said  

appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence  

imposed  on  them  are  set  aside  and  they  are

27

acquitted of the charges and they are directed to be  

set at liberty unless wanted in any other case.  

……………………………J. (Jagdish Singh Khehar)

……………………………J. (C. Nagappan)

New Delhi; June  11, 2014