# Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 572
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-11-15
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 5293 of 2011
- **Bench:** Suneet Kumar, Brij Raj Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mahendra-pratap-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46626
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 323/34, 324/34, 325/34, 504, 506 &
307/34 - Section 101 - appeal against acquittal
- when such rights extends to causing any
harm other than death - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 313 - scope of
interference in an appeal or revision against
acquittal - If two views of the evidence are
reasonable
possible,
one
supporting
the
acquittal and other indicating conviction, the
High Court should not, in such a situation,
reverse the order of acquittal recorded by the
trial Court - If two reasonable or possible views
can be reached - one that leads to acquittal,
the
other
to
conviction
-
the
High
Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of
the accused.(Para - 21,22,23)

F.I.R. lodged in pursuance to the direction under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. - conclusion of trial court
while acquitting accused - F.I.R. not lodged
promptly - after four days from the date of incident
- application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed -
complainant
side
were
aggressor
-
accused
assaulted in self-defence - accused safeguarded
under Section 101 I.P.C. - view taken by the court
below is one of the possible view - Present Appeal
has been filed by the complainant against
acquittal.. Para - 13,20)
HELD:- Considering the circumstances, evidence and
material, trial court has drawn conclusion of
acquitting the respondent. The view taken by the
court below is one of the possible view and it cannot
be said to be perverse. Trial Court was fully justified
in acquitting the respondent. Trial court judgement
needs no interference. (Para - 20)

Criminal Appeal dismissed at admission stage.
(E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

572 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2021)11ILR A572
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 5293 of 2011

Mahendra Pratap Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri G.P. Dikshit

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 323/34, 324/34, 325/34, 504, 506 &
307/34 - Section 101 - appeal against acquittal
- when such rights extends to causing any
harm other than death - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 313 - scope of
interference in an appeal or revision against
acquittal - If two views of the evidence are
reasonable
possible,
one
supporting
the
acquittal and other indicating conviction, the
High Court should not, in such a situation,
reverse the order of acquittal recorded by the
trial Court - If two reasonable or possible views
can be reached - one that leads to acquittal,
the
other
to
conviction
-
the
High
Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of
the accused.(Para - 21,22,23)

F.I.R. lodged in pursuance to the direction under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. - conclusion of trial court
while acquitting accused - F.I.R. not lodged
promptly - after four days from the date of incident
- application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed -
complainant
side
were
aggressor
-
accused
assaulted in self-defence - accused safeguarded
under Section 101 I.P.C. - view taken by the court
below is one of the possible view - Present Appeal
has been filed by the complainant against
acquittal.. Para - 13,20)
HELD:- Considering the circumstances, evidence and
material, trial court has drawn conclusion of
acquitting the respondent. The view taken by the
court below is one of the possible view and it cannot
be said to be perverse. Trial Court was fully justified
in acquitting the respondent. Trial court judgement
needs no interference. (Para - 20)

Criminal Appeal dismissed at admission stage.
(E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. St. of Karn. Vs K. Gopalkrishna , (2005) 9 SCC 291

2. Sudershan Kumar Vs St. of Himachal , (2014) 15
SCC 666

3. Dilawar Singh Vs St. of Har., (2015) 1 SCC 737

(Delivered by Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.)

1. Heard on admission.

2. The present Appeal has been filed by the
complainant against the judgment and order
dated 06.07.2011 passed by the Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Ist Auraiya in
Sessions Trial No.500 of 2000 (State Vs. Umesh
and others) arising out of Case Crime No.328 A
/1998, under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 325/34,
504, 506, 307/34 I.P.C., Police Station -
Bidhuna, District - Auraiya.

3. Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh filed an
application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on
9.10.1998 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Etawah with a complaint that he was coming
from his field on 5.10.1998 at 5.00 p.m. Sri
Umesh Singh and Shiv Mangal Singh sons of
Varnam Singh armed with knife, Aniruddha
Singh son of Varnam Singh armed with Lathi
and Indrabhan Singh son of Varnam Singh
armed with country made pistol came in front of
his house. Indrabhan exhorted that he should be
killed today as he is contesting many cases.
Indrabhan Singh who was armed with country
made pistol fired at him and he escaped. In the
11 All. Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
573
meantime, Umesh Singh, Shiv Mangal Singh
and Aniruddha Singh who were armed with
knife and Lathi started assaulting the Mahendra
Pratap Singh due to which he received serious
injuries. On hearing the noise, father of applicant
Raghunandan Singh, brother Satya Narayan
Singh, Gyan Singh son of Mahendra Pratap
Singh and others reached to the spot and saw the
incident. The accused ran away from the spot by
threatening the applicant to kill him. The
applicant could not go to the police station,
however, he had informed the Superintendent of
Police through telegram on 6.10.1998. He got
himself examined by the Doctor and x-ray was
done at Sadar Hospital, Etawah. No action was
taken against the accused, therefore, he filed the
application before the Court for necessary
action. The case was registered at police station
Kotwali Bidhuna vide chik F.I.R. The case was
investigated by the Investigating Officer who
prepared the site plan and thereafter he filed the
charge sheet against the accused.

4. On the basis of charge sheet filed against
the accused persons they were summoned by the
concerned Court under Sections 323/34, 324/34,
325/34, 504, 506, 307/34 I.P.C. Accused persons
denied the charges. The trial was conducted by
adducing the evidence i.e. P.W.-1 Mahendra
Pratap Singh, P.W.-2 Raghunandan Singh,
P.W.-3 Nahar Singh, P.W.-4 Parmanand Kaler,
P.W.-5 Dr. P.C. Pandey and P.W.-6 Tarak Nath.

5. The accused were afforded opportunity
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused persons
denied all the charges and the incident. The
accused also said that the false and fabricated
doctor's report has been obtained and due to
enmity
the
accused
persons
have
been
implicated. It is further pleaded under Section
313 Cr.P.C. that due to cross case lodged in
Case Crime No.328 of 1998 against the
complainant he has implicated the accused. The
trial court after adducing the evidence on record
and affording opportunity of hearing to accused
as well as prosecution side recorded the finding
in the following manner:

6. P.W.-1 Mahendra Pratap Singh had
submitted in his chief examination that he was
coming to his house from the field on 5.10.1998
at 5.00 p.m. Sri Umesh Singh, Shiv Mangal
Singh, Aniruddha and Nawab and Indrabhan
Singh came in front of his house, Shiv Mangal
Singh and Umesh Singh were armed with knife,
Aniruddha Singh armed with Lathi, Indrabhan
Singh
armed
with
country
made
pistol.
Indrabhan Singh exhorted and said that
Mahendra Pratap Singh is contesting many
cases, therefore, he should be killed and he fired
upon him but he got narrow escape. Shiv
Mangal Singh and Aniruddha Singh armed with
knife and Lathi assaulted on him. Mahendra
Pratap Singh got injury and who shouted loudly,
therefore, his father and brother came to the
spot. The accused ran away from the place by
threatening to kill him. The complainant could
not lodge the F.I.R. due to threat and fear.
Complainant did telegram on 6.10.1998 to
Superintendent of Police, Auraiya. He has
further stated in his chief examination that there
is no other person in the name of Mahendra
Pratap Singh who residing in his village. He
further stated that he got himself examined by
the doctor in Sadar Hospital, Etawah on
6.10.1998 and x-ray was also conducted on
8.10.1998. Since, no action was taken by the
police, therefore, he filed an application before
the A.C.J.M. - IInd, Etawah to lodge the F.I.R.
The Investigating Officer taken his statement.
The civil litigation is going on with the accused
thats why the incident took place.

7. P.W.-2 Raghunandan Singh was also
examined and he stated that the said incident
took place on 5.10.1998 at 5.00 p.m. in the
evening. He heard the noise of his son Mahendra
Pratap Singh. After hearing the noise, P.W.-2
Raghunandan Singh and Gyan Singh reached to
the house of Satya Narayan and he saw that
574 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accused, Indrabhan Singh, Shiv Mangal Singh,
Umesh Singh and Aniruddha Singh were armed
with certain weapons. Shiv Mangal Singh,
Umesh Singh, Aniruddha Singh were armed
with knife, Indrabhan Singh was armed with
country made pistol and they assaulted the
Mahendra Pratap Singh. Indrabhan Singh fired
at Mahendra Pratap Singh, but he escaped
narrowly. Umesh Singh, Shiv Mangal assaulted
with knife, Aniruddha Singh assaulted with
Lathi due to which Mahendra Pratap Singh
received injuries. Gyan Singh, Satya Narayan
Singh, Shiv Prakash Singh and the other
witnesses of the village came to the spot who
saw the incident and they also saved Mahendra
Pratap Singh. They could not lodge the F.I.R.
due to fear and threat of the accused. The
medical was conducted in Etawah.

8. Umesh Singh had also filed F.I.R.
(Exhibit No.197 Kha/2) in Case Crime No.328
of 1998, under Sections 323, 324, 506, 307
I.P.C., Police Station Bidhuna. In the said
report, the incident took place on 5.10.1998 at
5.00 p.m. due to this reason the present case
was treated in cross case.

9. The site plan was also prepared by the
Investigating
Officer.
The
Investigating
Officer had not given any evidence of disputed
land.

10. P.W.-5 Dr. P.C. Pandey, who
conducted the medical report, was examined as
Exhibit No.4 and the following injuries were
found on the body of Mahendra Pratap Singh:-

(i) Incised wound 1 cm X 0.2 cm skindeep, 07 cm from the nipple on the left side of
chest, in the shape of 1.00 o'clock; margins were
swollen.

(ii) Incised wound 1.5 cm X 0.2 cm
skin-deep, on the right side of abdomen; 13 cm
away.

(iii) Bruise of deep blue colour, 8 X 2
cm on the left pakka?

(iv) Swollen injury 6 X 5 cm on the
right side of back, 8 cm below pakkhe?

(v) Blue contusion 6 X 1 cm in the mid
of the outer part of the right arm.

(vi) Complaint of pain in the back and
in the right wrist.

11. In the examination, Dr. P.C. Pandey
stated that he has not prepared supplementary
injury report Exhibit-4. All the injujries are
simple in nature. The Doctor further stated that
the x-ray was not placed before him, therefore,
he could not tell what type of injury was
received by the injured. It is relevant to mention
here that no witness was produced regarding the
x-ray report by the prosecution side and Dr. P.C.
Pandey did not certified the x-ray report legally.
The Court opined that there is no serious injury
found on the basis of the medical report
available on record.

12. The trial court had given the reasons
for acquittal which is worth to be mentioned
here. The F.I.R. was lodged in pursuance to the
direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. As per
the said F.I.R., the application was given on
9.10.1998 and no reason for delay is mentioned.
The cross case being Case Crime No.328 of
1998 was lodged prior to the present date of
incident i.e. prior to 2.40 hours. The distance of
place of incident from the place of police station
is 8 kilo meters. Sri Raghunandan P.W.-2 has
accepted in his cross examination that he had
gone to lodge the report in police station after
the incident and he had no idea whether the
accused were in the village or had gone
somewhere else. He has further stated that he
had gone to the police station just after the
incident. When he reached the police station, the
Inspector asked him to call his son Mahendra
11 All. Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
575
Pratap Singh. He has further mentioned that he
had reached the police station at 7.00 to 8.00
p.m. on the date of incident. He has further
mentioned that Umesh Singh has not reached the
police station. When his son Mahendra Pratap
Singh did not reach the police station, he came
back to the house from the police station. The
same witness has accepted in his oral
examination that he was present in the police
station till 8.00 p.m. the timing of the cross case
was 7.40 p.m. i.e. the said cross case was lodged
against
Mahendra
Pratap
Singh
and
Raghunandan Singh. Had he been present in the
police station, he would have been arrested by
the police for commission of the offence in the
cross case. As per his version, he was present in
the police station till 8 o'clock, whereas, the
cross F.I.R. was lodged at 7.40 p.m. Thus, the
trial court had disbelieved the testimony of
P.W.-2, Raghunandan Singh.

13. The trial court has given conclusion
while acquitting the accused in the last part of
the judgment mentioning that the F.I.R. was not
lodged promptly and after four days from the
date of incident the application under Section
156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed. Lastly, the Court was
of the opinion that the complainant side were the
aggressor and the accused assaulted in selfdefence. The accused are safeguarded under
Section 101 I.P.C. The accused have been
acquitted
under
Sections
323/34,
324/34,
325/34, 504, 506, 307/34 I.P.C.

14. Heard learned A.G.A. at length and
perused the lower court record with the
assistance of the learned counsel.

15. Raghunandan Singh, P.W.-2 has
accepted in his cross-examination that he had gone
to lodge the F.I.R. in the police station after the
incident and he had no idea whether the accused
were in the village or they had gone elsewhere. He
has further stated that he had gone to the police
station just after the incident and police Inspector
asked him to call his son Mahendra Pratap Singh.
He had further mentioned that he had reached
police station between 7.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. on
the date of incident. He mentioned that Umesh
Singh accused had not reached the police station.
When his son did not reach to the police station he
came back to the house from the police station.
The same witness has accepted in his oral
examination that he was present in the police
station till 8.00 p.m. The timing of lodging the
cross F.I.R. was 7.40 p.m. The said F.I.R. was
lodged against Mahendra Pratap Singh and
Raghunandan Singh while Raghunandan Singh
was already present in the police station as per his
version. The testimony of Raghunandan Singh is
discarded.

16. We have also perused the record of Dr.
P.C. Pandey who has said that he has not prepared
the supplementary report (Exhibit No.4). All the
injuries are simple in nature. The doctor further
stated that the x-ray was not placed before him,
therefore, he could not state what type of injuries
were received by the injured. It is relevant to
mention here that no witness was produced. The xray report prepared by the prosecution side. Dr.
P.C. Pandey was not certified the x-ray report.
There are no serious injuries on the basis of
medical report.

17. Mahendra Pratap Singh was medically
examined belatedly on the next date of the incident
i.e. about 4.10 p.m. In the cross case accused
Umesh Singh was medically examined on the
same date of the incident.

18. As per site plan, the place of incident is
near to the house of Umesh Singh and the house
of the complainant is not mentioned. It implies
that the accused were present in their house and
there is no evidence to indicate that they had
reached to the place of incident.

19. The complainant stated that the
incident took place at 8.00 p.m. and he had gone
576 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to lodge the F.I.R., is in contradiction to the
cross case being already lodged by the accused
at 7.40 p.m. against the complainant. Thus, the
presence of the complainant in the police station
at 8.00 p.m. is highly doubtful.

20.

Considering
the
circumstances,
evidence and material, trial court has drawn
conclusion of acquitting the respondent. The
view taken by the court below is one of the
possible view and it cannot be said to be
perverse.

21. While considering the scope of
interference in an appeal or revision against
acquittal, it has been held by the Supreme Court
that if two views of the evidence are reasonable
possible, one supporting the acquittal and other
indicating conviction, the High Court should
not, in such a situation, reverse the order of
acquittal recorded by the trial Court. In the
matter
of
State
of
Karnataka
vs.
K.
Gopalkrishna reported in (2005) 9 SCC 291,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with
an appeal against acquittal, observed as under:

"In such an appeal the Appellate Court
does not lightly disturb the findings of fact
recorded by the Court below. If on the basis of
the same evidence, two views are reasonably
possible, and the view favouring the accused is
accepted by the Court below, that is sufficient
for upholding the order of acquittal. However, if
the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that
the findings of the Court below are wholly
unreasonable or perverse and not based on the
evnidence on record, or suffers from serious
illegality including ignorance or misreading of
evidence on record, the Appellate Court will be
justified in setting aside such an order of
acquittal."

22. In Sudershan Kumar v. State of
Himachal reported in (2014) 15 SCC 666 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus;-

"31.It has been stated and restated that
a cardinal principle in criminal jurisprudence that
presumption of innocence of the accused is
reinforced by an order of the acquittal. The
appellate court, in such a case, would interfere
only for very substantial and compelling reason.
There is plethora of case laws on this proposition
and we need not burden this judgment by referring
to those decisions. Our purpose would be served
by referring to one reasoned pronouncement
entitled Dhanapal v. State which is the judgment
where most of the earlier decisions laying down
the aforesaid principle are referred to. In para 37,
propositions laid down in an earlier case are taken
note of as under: -

"37. In Chandrappa v. State of
Karnataka, this Court held: ( SCC p. 432 para
42), (1) An appellate court has full power to
review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence
upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on
exercise of such power and an appellate court on
the evidence before it may reach its own
conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

(3) Various expressions, such as,
"substantial and compelling reasons", "good
and
sufficient
grounds",
"very
strong
circumstances",
"distorted
conclusions",
"glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to
curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in
an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies
are more in the nature of "flourishes of
language" to emphasise the reluctance of an
appellate court to interfere with acquittal than
to curtail the power of the court to review the
evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

(4) An appellate court, however, must
bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is
double presumption in favour of the accused.
Firstly, the presumption of innocence is
11 All. Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
577
available to him under the fundamental
principle of criminal jurisprudence that every
person shall be presumed to be innocent unless
he is proved guilty by a competent court of law.
Secondly, the accused having secured his
acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is
further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened
by the trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are
possible on the basis of the evidence on record,
the appellate court should not disturb the
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."

32. Thereafter, in para 39, the Court
curled out five principles and we would like to
reproduce the said para hereunder:

"39. The following principles emerge
from the cases above:

1. The accused is presumed to be
innocent until proven guilty. The accused
possessed this presumption when he was before
the trial court. The trial court's acquittal
bolsters the presumption that he is innocent.

2. The power of reviewing evidence is
wide and the appellate court can re- appreciate the
entire evidence on record. It can review the trial
court's conclusion with respect to both facts and
law, but the Appellate Court must give due weight
and consideration to the decision of the trial court.

3. The appellate court should always
keep in mind that the trial court had the distinct
advantage of watching the demeanour of the
witnesses. The trial court is in a better position
to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.

4. The appellate court may only
overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's
acquittal if it has "very substantial and
compelling reasons" for doing so.

5. If two reasonable or possible views
can be reached - one that leads to acquittal, the
other to conviction - the High Courts/appellate
courts must rule in favour of the accused."

23. In Dilawar Singh v. State of
Haryana, (2015) 1 SCC 737, the Supreme
Court reiterated the same in paragraphs 36 and
37 as under :

"36. The court of appeal would not
ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal
unless the approach is vitiated by manifest
illegality. In an appeal against acquittal, this
Court will not interfere with an order of
acquittal merely because on the evaluation of
the evidence, a different plausible view may
arise and views taken by the courts below is not
correct. In other words, this Court must come to
the conclusion that the views taken by the
learned courts below, while acquitting, cannot
be the views of a reasonable person on the
material on record.

36. In Chandrappa v. State of
Karnataka, the scope of power of appellate
court dealing with an appeal against acquittal
has been considered and this Court held as
under: (SCC p.432 para 42) "42....(4) An
appellate court, however, must bear in mind that
in case of acquittal, there is double presumption
in
favour
of
the
accused.
Firstly,
the
presumption of innocence is available to him
under the fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence that every person shall be
presumed to be innocent unless he is proved
guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the
accused having secured his acquittal, the
presumption of his innocence is further
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the
trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are
possible on the basis of the evidence on record,
578 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the appellate court should not disturb the
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."

Unless there are substantial and
compelling reasons, the order of acquittal is not
required to be reversed in appeal. It has been so
stated in State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram."

24. Considering the above legal position
and the factual aspects of the case, we are of the
view that the trial Court was fully justified in
acquitting the respondent.

25. Taking all the circumstances and after
perusing the evidence on record, we are of the
considered opinion that trial court judement
needs no interference. Thus, the appeal is
dismissed at the admission stage itself
----------
(2021)11ILR A578
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.
THE HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 7387 of 2018

Sarwari ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Nazrul Islam Jafri, Sri Mainuddin Ahamad, Sri
Mohd. Irfan, Sri Raghuraj Kishore, Smt. Archana
Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860
- appeal against conviction under Section
302 read with 120B IPC - acquitted of the
charge for offences under Sections 147,
452, 326, 149 and 376 IPC - The Code of
criminal procedure, 1973 - Section 313 ,
319 - Dying declaration can be the sole
basis of conviction and it does not require
any corroboration - It is equally true that
dying declaration goes against the cardinal
principle of law that 'evidence must be
direct - Dying declaration must be judged
and appreciated in light of the surrounding
circumstances and its weight determined
by reference to the principle governing the
weighing of evidence.(Para - 48)

(B) Criminal law - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 313 - a solemn
duty is cast on the court in dispensation of
justice to adequately consider the defence
of the accused taken under Section 313
Cr.P.C. and to either accept or reject the
same for reasons specified in writing -
appellant come with a specific and plausible
defence but the trial court did not consider it -
convicted the appellant - held - conviction of
appellant unsustainable.(Para - 60,61)

Informant lodged an FIR against appellant and
four
others
-
informant's
(PW-1's)
niece
(deceased) residing with him for the last about
one and half years after death of her parents -
Co-accused
developed
illicit
relations
with
deceased and exploited her - deceased asked coaccused to marry her - co-accused refused -
deceased warned accused that she will inform
Police - co-accused, his father, his uncles and his
mother (appellant) entered the house of the
informant (PW-1) - set deceased ablaze after
pouring kerosene oil on her - dying declaration
recorded by Naib Tehsildar - convicted the
appellant and acquitted rest of the accused
persons.(Para - 3,4)

HELD:-Court unable to accept reasons given by
trial court in convicting appellant . Prosecution
failed to
prove
guilt of appellant beyond
reasonable doubt. Incident does not appear to
have happened in the manner stated by the
prosecution . Appellant entitled to benefit of
doubt & acquitted of all the charges for which
she was tried. Conviction & sentence set aside.
(Para - 62,63)

Criminal Appeal allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-