# Girraj Singh & Ors. (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 698
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-29
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 589 of 1986
- **Bench:** Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, Gautam Chowdhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/girraj-singh-ors-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-45722
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal CodeSections 302/34 - Appeal against conviction.

So far as the applicability of ingredients of
Section 34 I.P.C. is concerned, the totality of
the circumstances when taken as a whole
establishes the prevalence of common intention
amongst all the three accused, who con-jointly
committed the offence.

No doubt, one caused the firearm injury and
the other two assailants, who were empty
handed, were present on the spot, but they
shared the common intention and had only one
motive to kill the deceased. ( Para 29)

The Investigating Officer committed minor
lapses at the time of the investigation, but
these lapses on the part of the Investigating
Officer cannot be considered to be material one
carrying weight to throw the entire prosecution
version. Once the incident stands proved,
participation of the accused in the incident is
cogently proved by the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses at the time and place of
occurrence and nothing adverse emerges in the
cross examination of the eye witnesses, then
only conclusion drawn from the evidence, facts
and circumstances of the case is the guilt of
the accused. (Para 27)

In view of above discussion, the prosecution
has been able to establish reasonably guilt of
the accused under charges brought against him
and the prosecution has proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt. (Para 28)

Criminal Appeal rejected. (E-2)

## Text

698 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for reduction of sentence from 10 years to
7 years.

42. In this particular case, deceased
was beaten and she resisted before her
death. On place of occurrence, broken
bangles, one plastic rope tied with both
ends with wood measuring three hands and
autopsy of dead body was conducted by
PW-5 Dr. S.K. Varshney noted several
ante mortem injuries besides ligature mark
measuring 28 cm X 2 cm around the neck
and
bones
underneath
were
found
fractured cause of death was strangulation.

43. The appellant was charged for
offence under Section 498A, 304 B and
Section 3⁄4 D.P. Act with alternative charge
of under section 302 IPC although learned
sessions court after appreciating the
evidence arrived at a finding that the
deceased died about two years of her
marriage and held that offence under
Section 304 B and Section 4 D.P. Act is
proved beyond shadow of doubt but
learned trial court acquitted the appellant
on alternative charge under Section 302
IPC while holding that since the offence
under section 304 B had been fully
established by prosecution therefore, the
appellant could not be convicted under
Section 302 IPC. Thus, finding of the
court below is totally whimsical and
against the evidence on record acquittal of
the appellant under Section 302 IPC is
against the evidence on record but as no
appeal on behalf of the State for
enhancement
of
sentence.
In
these
circumstances, this Court is not inclined to
interfere the judgement and order of the
trial court.

44. So far as contention of learned
counsel for leniency and reduction of
sentence of accused-appellant-Ajay Kumar
is concerned, it is not a case of suicidal
death but a case of homicidal death. There
is no mitigating circumstance against the
applicant. It shall not be justified to
interfere or reduce the sentence awarded to
appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is liable
to be dismissed.

45. The conviction and sentence of
appellant-Ajay
Kumar
passed
by
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track
Court No. 1 Aligarh, under Sections 304B
and 4 D.P. Act are hereby upheld. The
appellant-Ajay Kumar is in jail and he
shall serve out the sentence awarded to
him.

46. In view of the above, the appeal
is dismissed.

47. Office is directed to transmit the
certified copy of this order to the court
below alongwith the lower court record,
for necessary compliance.
----------
(2020)02ILR A698

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA-I,
J.
THE HON'BLE GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 589 of 1986

Girraj Singh & Ors. ...Appellants (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri G.C. Saxena, Sri S.P. Giri

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
D.G.A.
2 All. Girraj Singh & Ors.Vs. State of U.P.
699
A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal CodeSections 302/34 - Appeal against conviction.

So far as the applicability of ingredients of
Section 34 I.P.C. is concerned, the totality of
the circumstances when taken as a whole
establishes the prevalence of common intention
amongst all the three accused, who con-jointly
committed the offence.

No doubt, one caused the firearm injury and
the other two assailants, who were empty
handed, were present on the spot, but they
shared the common intention and had only one
motive to kill the deceased. ( Para 29)

The Investigating Officer committed minor
lapses at the time of the investigation, but
these lapses on the part of the Investigating
Officer cannot be considered to be material one
carrying weight to throw the entire prosecution
version. Once the incident stands proved,
participation of the accused in the incident is
cogently proved by the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses at the time and place of
occurrence and nothing adverse emerges in the
cross examination of the eye witnesses, then
only conclusion drawn from the evidence, facts
and circumstances of the case is the guilt of
the accused. (Para 27)

In view of above discussion, the prosecution
has been able to establish reasonably guilt of
the accused under charges brought against him
and the prosecution has proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt. (Para 28)

Criminal Appeal rejected. (E-2)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar
Mishra-I, J. & Hon'ble Gautam
Chowdhary, J.)

1. Heard Sri S.P. Giri, learned
counsel for the appellant no.1 Giriraj
Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the material brought on record.

2. In this case that appellant nos. 2
and 3 namely Jalim Singh and Fatte Singh
have since expired during pendency of this
appeal, therefore, the instant appeal
against them stood abated on 20.08.2018.
The instant appeal pertains to the surviving
appellant no.1 Girraj Singh.

3. By way of instant appeal,
challenge
has
been
made
to
the
authenticity and veracity of the judgment
and order of conviction dated 15.2.1986
passed by the IInd Additional Sessions
Judge, Mathura in Session Trial No. 174
of 1985 State Versus Giriraj Singh and
others, arising out of Case Crime No. 113
of 1984 under section 302 I.P.C., P.S.
Baldev, District Mathura whereby the trial
judge has recorded judgment of conviction
against the surviving appellant Girraj
Singh and sentenced him under sections
302/34 I.P.C. to imprisonment for life.

4. Brief facts of the case as
discernible/relevant for the adjudication of
this appeal appear to be that a written
report was lodged by the informant, P.W.
4 Basant Kumar, at Police Station Baldev
District Mathura on 25.6.1984 at 7.10 a.m.
with the allegations that Munga Ram, his
maternal grand father had been owning 25
bighas of land, which was given to the
informant's mother by executing a will two
years ago. Jalim Singh and Girraj Singh
sons of Dani Ram are the nephews of
Munga Ram, they prepared a fake
agreement to sell dated 28th March, 1984,
for 25 bighas of land regarding which a
suit was instituted by the maternal grand
father of the informant, due to which there
was enmity between them. On account of
that enmity, it so happened that the
informant was sleeping on the cot with his
maternal grand father on 24.6.1984 and at
the same time Hoti Lal and two other
persons were also sleeping on their
respective cots at short distance. It was
700 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
around 10.00 p.m. when Girraj Singh,
Jalim Singh and Fatte Singh appeared on
the spot and asked that since the land was
not given to them, therefore, he (the
informant's maternal grand father) will not
be spared. After saying so, Jalim Singh
opened fire on the deceased Munga Ram,
due to which he died on the spot. The
incident was also witnessed by Hoti Lal
and Lakhan Singh. It was stated that the
dead body was lying in the village. Report
be lodged and action be taken. This written
report is Exhibit- Ka- 4.

5. On the basis of the check F.I.R.
(Ext. Ka-5), its corresponding G.D. entry
was prepared, which is Ext. Ka.-6, and the
case was registered under section 302
I.P.C. and the investigation ensued and it
was entrusted to Ajay Kumar Yadav PW5, who pursuant to the lodging of the FIR,
took note of the relevant contents of the
FIR, made entry in the G.D. and proceeded
to the spot around 9.00 a.m. for preparing
inquest report.

6. A perusal of the record reflects
that after the report was lodged by the
informant, the inquest was prepared,
which commenced at 9.00 a.m. and
completed at 10.15 a.m. on 25.6.1984.
Thereafter, on the basis of the relevant
papers and the statement of the inquest
witnesses, it was thought proper for
sending the dead body for post mortem
examination in order to ascertain cause of
death. In the process, certain papers were
prepared by the Investigation Officer for
sending the dead body for conduction of
post mortem examination to the mortuary.
These papers have been proved as Ext. Ka7, Ext. Ka-8, Ext. Ka-9, Ext. Ka-10 and
Ext.
Ka-11.
Consequently,
the
post
mortem examination was conducted by Dr.
R.C. Chauhan P.W. 3, at 3.00 p.m. on
26.6.1984 who noted the following ante
morterm injuries:-

1. Firearm wound of entry 1.5
cm x 1.5 cm x cavity deep on front of right
chest, 5 superior and medial to right
nipple. Lung is protruded out. Margin
lacerated and inverted. Blackening present
around the wound.

2. Firearm wound of exit 3 cm x
3 cm x cavity deep on back of the left side
abdomen in middle part,6 cm superior and
medial to left posterior iliac crest, Margin
everted. Loops of intestine coming out,
communicated to injury no. 1.

7. In the opinion of the doctor, the
cause of death was shock and haemorrhage
due to ante mortem injuries. The testimony
of the doctor PW-3 shows that death might
have occurred in the intervening night of
24/25.6.1984 at 10:00 p.m. He has proved
the post mortem examination report which
is Exhibit Ka-1.

8. Record further reflects that the
Investigating Officer PW-3, also prepared
the site plan Exhibit Ka-12 and also
collected head/cap of the cartridge (Tikli)
and prepared the memo of the same which
is Exhibit Ka-13. Besides, he prepared
memo of the simple and blood stained clay
which is Ext. Ka-14. He also prepared
memo of the lantern Exhibit Ka-15 and
recorded the statement of Hoti Lal, Lakhan
Singh and the informant's mother. He has
proved the memo of vest Ext.- Ka 16
prepared by Head Constable Shri Kishan.
After completing the investigation, he filed
the charge sheet Ext. Ka-17 against the
accused.

9. As a sequel to that, the case was
committed to the court of Sessions from
where it was transferred for conduction
2 All. Girraj Singh & Ors.Vs. State of U.P.
701
and disposal of trial to the aforesaid trial
court ? i.e. - II-Additional Sessions Judge,
Mathura who after hearing the accusedappellant and the prosecution on point of
charge and perusing the record was
satisfied with prima facie case against the
accused-appellant
and,
accordingly,
framed charge under Section 302/34 IPC.
Charge was read over and explained to the
accused-appellant who abjured the charge
and opted for trial.

10. Thereafter, the prosecution was
required to adduce its testimony in support
of the charge in order to establish guilt of
the accused-appellant beyond reasonable
doubt. In turn, the prosecution produced in
all seven witnesses, reference of whom is
given here in below:

11. Hoti Lal PW-1 and Lakhan Singh
P.W. 2. are eyewitnesses and they have
admitted the occurrence but have turned
hostile on the point of identification of the
culprits/assailants as to who caused the
incident, they have been declared hostile
and cross examined by the prosecution as
well. Dr. R.C. Chauhan P.W. 3 who
conducted the post mortem examination
has proved the same. Basant Kumar PW-4,
the informant is also the eye witness of the
occurrence.
He
has
supported
the
prosecution version and has proved the
written report Exhibit- Ka-4. S.I. Ajay
Kumar Yadav P.W. 5 is the Investigating
Officer. He has detailed various steps
taken in completing the investigation and
has filed charge sheet Ext. Ka-1. However,
he also proved the entry made in the check
FIR and the relevant entries made in the
concerned G.D. whereby the case was
registered against the accused. Shiv Lal
PW-6 is the Constable who took the dead
body of Munga Ram to the mortuary and
has proved the fact before the trial court.
Virpal Singh P.W. 7 is the constable, he
brought the chemical report and various
material from the laboratory at Agra.

12. Except as above, no other
testimony was adduced by the prosecution.
Consequently,
evidence
for
the
prosecution was closed and statement of
the accused-appellant was recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the incident
has been specifically denied by the
accused-appellant and it has been claimed
that he has been falsely implicated in the
present case on account of enmity. He has
further submitted that some miscreants had
committed the incident and Basant Kumar
has wrongly and falsely roped in him in
this case.

13. The defence got examined Man
Singh D.W. 1 who scribed the written
report and has tried to persuade the court
that he, in fact, was called around 8.00 to
9.00 p.m. the next day after the occurrence
took place and then the written report was
scribed by him. No other evidence was
adduced. Thereafter, evidence for the
defence was closed and the case was
posted for arguments.

14. Learned trial Judge after hearing
the parties on merit recorded aforesaid
finding of conviction against the accusedappellant
and
sentenced
him
to
imprisonment for life under Section
302/34 IPC vide impugned judgment and
order dated 15.02.1986.

15. Consequently, this appeal.

16.

It
has
been
vehemently
contended on behalf of the accusedappellant that there is no specific motive
for the accused- appellant to indulge in
any such act as alleged against him. More
702 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
so, had he participated in the incident at
the time and on the date of the occurrence
then he must not have appeared on the
scene empty handed without any weapon.
At the most, the case is made out against
the co-accused Jalim Singh who is stated
to have opened fire on the deceased
Munga Ram. There is only one firearm
wound in the shape of entry wound as well
as exit wound. Peculiarity of this case is
that there are witnesses who are said to
have witnessed the incident. However, two
of the eye witnesses namely PW-1 and
PW-2 have not supported the case of the
prosecution. The case does not attract the
provisions of Section 34 I.P.C. and no
culpability can be fastened upon the
accused-appellant
on
the
ground
of
applicability of common intention.

17. It has been further contended that
apart from various other aspects of the
case, FIR is ante timed and was not lodged
at the time when it is stated to have been
lodged at 7.00 a.m. on 25.6.1984. The
testimony of Maan Singh D.W. 1 in that
regard cannot be overlooked that gives
credence to the case of the accusedappellant
that
his
involvement
is
afterthought and it is due to deliberation
between the police and the informant.

18. While replying to the aforesaid
argument, learned A.A.G. assisted by the
learned A.G.As. has claimed that in this case,
the quality of the evidence regarding the
occurrence alleged to have been caused at
10.00 p.m. on 24.6.1984 in the intervening
night of 24/25.6.1984 cannot be denied in view
of the innocuous testimony of the eye witness
Basant Kumar P.W. 4, No doubt, the other two
independent witnesses were also present and
their names have been mentioned in the FIR,
but they have been wonover by the defence as
they resiled from their statement recorded
earlier under section 161 Cr.P.C. and are not
stating the correct fact. However, their
testimony after all confirms and establishes the
time of the occurrence as 10.00 p.m. To say,
that the unknown assailants committed the
incident is nothing but an argument without
any basis not supported by the attendant
circumstances of the case and not a single
suggestion has been made to Basant Kumar
P.W. 4, eye witness in regard to the
commission of the offence by any other
person. That being the case, the incident stands
proved beyond all reasonable doubt against the
appellant.

19. So far as the applicability of
ingredients of Section 34 I.P.C. is concerned,
the totality of the circumstances when taken as
a whole establishes the prevalence of common
intention amongst all the three accused, who
con-jointly committed the offence. No doubt,
Jalim Singh caused the firearm injury and the
other two assailants, who were empty handed,
were present on the spot, but they shared the
common intention and had only one motive to
kill the deceased Munga Ram. That way, the
case of the prosecution under sections 302/34
I.P.C. stands proved against the appellant
beyond reasonable doubt. Evidence on record
profusely indicates involvement of the
accused-appellant in the occurrence. The trial
court has taken correct view of law and facts
and has justifiably recorded conviction against
the accused-appellant.

20.

We have
considered
the
respective submissions and also perused
the entire record.

21. As far as the incident is
concerned, a bare perusal of the first
information report is indicative of the that
the incident occurred at 10.00 p.m. in the
intervening
night
of
24/25.6.1984
regarding which description has come
2 All. Girraj Singh & Ors.Vs. State of U.P.
703
forth that it was around 10.00 p.m. Giriraj
Singh, Jalim Singh and Fatte Singh arrived
on the spot and asked the deceased that
they will not spare him because he has not
given his land to them. Upon saying so,
Jalim Singh opened fire on the deceased
Munga Ram by a single shot which caused
his death. In that regard, ocular testimony
of the prosecution witnesses of fact
becomes relevant for its evaluation and
appreciation.

22. The testimony of the two eye
witnesses say - Hoti Lal P.W.1 and
Lakhan Singh P.W. 2 on the point of the
occurrence is indicative of fact that some
incident occurred at 10.00 p.m. in the
intervening
night
of
24/25.6.1984.
However, these two witnesses could not
identify the assailants as to who committed
the crime. At this stage, these two
prosecution witnesses were confronted
with cross examination recorded by the
Investigating Officer in which they had
clearly indicated/stated that they saw Jalim
Singh, Giriraj Singh and Fatte Singh
committing the offence in the illuminated
light of the lantern. These two witnesses
have been challenged specifically that they
have been wonover by the defence due to
which they are not siding with the
prosecution. These suggestions have been
denied by these two witnesses.

23. Now, the story does not complete
here and proceeds on to the appreciation
and analogy of the testimony of Basant
Kumar P.W. 4, the informant who is also
an eyewitness. He has detailed the entire
incident and has proved the version
recorded in the first information report. He
has stated that it was 10.00 p.m. in the
intervening night of 24/25.06.1984 when
the incident occurred and the incident was
witnessed in the light of the lantern, which
was illuminating light over there at five to
six paces. Jalim Singh was possessing the
gun in his hand and two other accused
present were empty handed, they asked the
maternal grand father of the informant
PW-4 that since he did not give them the
land, therefore, they are firing on him and
after firing, they secured their escape. The
incident was witnessed by him, blood
oozed out from the deceased and it clotted
his waist. The deceased died on the spot.

24. The point is that insofar as the
time and place of the occurrence is
concerned, it is virtually proved by
testimony of all the three witnesses but
insofar
as
identifiabilty
and
the
involvement of the accused in the
commission of the offence is concerned,
testimony of Basant Kumar PW-4, on its
face, is innocuous, consistent to the point
and nothing concrete or adverse has
emerged even in the strenuous cross
examination which may create any doubt
about the involvement of the accused in
the offence that the incident was not
committed by the present accused but by
some unknown or unidentified person.
That way, testimony of P.W. 2 and P.W. 4
when
taken
in
wholesome
then
a
cumulative study and reading would
indicate fact of participation with same
intent stands proved against the present
accused along with others in the incident.

25. Now, insofar as the point of
prevalence of common intention on the
spot against the accused is concerned, the
same is found to be based on the analogy
of the facts and circumstances of the case
and scrutiny of the evidence on record,
while insofar as the occurrence is
concerned, it is stated that three persons
including the appellant-accused arrived on
the spot and asked the deceased for a while
704 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
thereafter one single shot was fired by
Jalim Singh, the another co-accused and
thereafter all the three co-accused secured
their escape then natural and reasonable
analogy would be that all the three have
one motive and the same mens rea to
commit the offence because as per section
34 I.P.C. a criminal act when committed
by several persons in furtherance of
common intention of all each one of such
person shall be responsible for the act of
another, as if, it was done by him alone.
That way, the liability is imputed on the
appellant that he had the same intention as
was there for the other co-accused say -
Jalim Singh and another present on the
spot, their presence on the spot has not
been challenged by the defence.

26. We also take note of
testimony of doctor witness Dr. R.C.
Chauhan, PW- 3 who noted two ante
mortem injuries in the shape of entry
wound and exit wound and has proved
the post mortem examination report
Exhibit Ka-1, even not a single
suggestion has been made to the doctor
that the incident did not occur at 10.00
p.m. in the intervening night of
24/25.06.1984.

27. May be that the Investigating
Officer committed minor lapses at the
time of the investigation, but these
lapses on the part of the Investigating
Officer cannot be considered to be
material one carrying weight to throw
the entire prosecution version. Once
the
incident
stands
proved,
participation of the accused in the
incident is cogently proved by the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses
at the time and place of occurrence and
nothing adverse emerges in the cross
examination of the eye witnesses
Basant Kumar P.W. 4, then only
conclusion drawn from the evidence,
facts and circumstances of the case is
the guilt of the accused.

28. In view of above discussion,
the prosecution has been able to
establish
reasonably
guilt
of
the
accused under charges brought against
him and the prosecution has proved its
case beyond reasonable doubt.

29. Learned trial court while
appraising the evidence on record and
marshaling
facts
considered
every
aspect of the case and has recorded just
finding of
conviction
against
the
appellant and has imposed proper
sentence under section 302/34 against
him which warrants no interference by
us in instant appeal. We uphold the
judgment and order of conviction dated
15.2.1986
passed
by
the
IInd
Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura in
Session Trial No. 174 of 1985 State
Versus
Giriraj
Singh
and
others,
arising out of Case Crime No. 113 of
1984 under section 302 I.P.C., P.S.
Baldev, District Mathura.

30. In the result, the instant
appeal being
devoid of merit is
dismissed. In this case, appellant Girraj
Singh is on bail. His bail bonds are
cancelled and sureties are discharged.
He
shall
be
taken
into
custody
forthwith for serving out his remaining
sentence imposed upon him by the trial
court.

31.

Let
a
copy
of
this
judgment/order be certified to the court
concerned for necessary information
and follow up action.
----------
2 All. Sundu & Ors.Vs. State of U.P.
705
(2020)02ILR A704

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.05.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJIT SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 623 of 1989

Sundu & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri
Hemendra
Kumar,
Sri
Anupama
Tripathi, Sri Rakesh Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A., Sri Dushyant Kumar

A. Criminal
Law-Indian Penal CodeSection 452, 323/34 - Appeal against
conviction.

Considering the facts and circumstance of the
case, the alleged incident which took place in
the year 1987 about 32 years ago and now
appellants are more than 60 years of age and
considering that the accused/appellants had
suffered the agony of conviction for more than
32 years and no criminal antecedents have
been shown to their credit after passing of so
much long period out of jail, at this stage it
does not appear appropriate to send the
accused-appellant to jail. (Para 17)

The accused-appellants are sentenced to the
period already undergone by them in jail during
trial. (Para 19)

Criminal Appeal partly allowed. (E-2)

List of cases cited:-

1. Bankat and another Vs. St. of Mah., (2005) 1
SCC, 343,

2. Sattan Sahani Vs. St. of Bihar and others,
(2002) 7 SCC, 604,
3. Uthem Rqajanna Vs. St. of A.P., 2005 (11)
SCC, 531,

4. Neelam Bahal and another Vs. St. of
Uttarakhand, (2010) 2 SCC, 229;

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Singh, J.)

1. Heard learned Counsel for the
appellants and learned AGA for the State.

2. This criminal appeal has been filed
against the judgment and order dated
27.02.1989 passed by IVth Additional
Sessions Judge, Bijnor passed in Session
Trial No.311 of 1987, by which the
appellants have been convicted to undergo
one year R.I. under Section 452 I.P.C. And
Rs.1,000/- fine each under Section 323/34
I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine
shall undergo R.I. for six months and it
was further ordered to pay this amount of
fine to complainant as compensation.

3. The present appeal, as per report
of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor the
appellant no.3, namely, Lokendra has
expired. The present appeal with regard to
appellant no.3, Lokendra is concerned was
abated vide order dated 19.11.2018 passed
by coordinate Bench of this Court. The
present appeal is confined to appellant
nos.1 Sundu and appellant no.2 Jagga
only. The appellant no.2, Jagga is
presently lodged in jail. Since the nonbailable warrants were also issued against
the appellant no.1 but it could not be
served upon the appellant no.1 so the
appellant no.1 was not arrested but now
the learned counsel for the appellants is
arguing the appeal on behalf of the
appellant nos.1 and 2.

4. Brief facts of the case are that on
22.07.1987 at about 4.00 p.m. the