# Ram Nath (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2019) 1 ILRA 325
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-07-24
- **Bench:** Bala Krishna Narayana, Pankaj Bhatia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-nath-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-44459
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

evidence
and
suspicion. Prosecution must establish
each
instance
of
incriminating
circumstance, by way of reliable and
clinching
evidence,
and
the
circumstances so proved must form a
complete chain of events, on the basis of
which, no conclusion other than one of
guilt of the accused can be reached.
Undoubtedly, suspicion, however grave it may
be, can never be treated as a substitute for
proof.
While
dealing
with
a
case
of
circumstantial evidence, the court must take
utmost precaution whilst finding an accused
guilty, solely on the basis of the circumstances
proved before it.(Para 17)

Criminal Appeal allowed.

Chronological list of Cases Cited:-

## Text

1 All. Ram Nath Vs. Stae of U.P.
325
specific mark of identification nor it was
established before Trial court by way of
producing the same nor its identity was
established in identification parade nor the
same was recovered in presence of informant,
who had disputed alleged preparation of
recovery memo.

23. Under Section 380 IPC, essential
ingredient for offence, punishable under
Section 380 IPC is that accused committed
theft, i.e., theft was committed in any building,
tent or vessel and that such building, tent or
vessel was used as human dwelling or was
used for custody of the property. Hence,
prosecution has to prove points required for
proving of an offence, under Section 379 IPC
plus that the moveable property was taken
away or moved out of a building, tent or
vessel and that such building, tent or vessel
was being used for human dwelling or
custody of moveable property. Intention to
take this dishonestly must be proved.

24. In present case, offence of theft was
got registered by informant against unknown
thieves. Subsequently, alleged recovery of
alleged stolen cash money was said to have
been made from convict-appellants. Offence of
theft or taking of articles from building, by
convict appellants, was not proved by any
witness and on the basis of possession and
presumption, under Section 114, Evidence Act,
offence under Section 380 IPC was deemed to
be proved whereas identification of alleged
recovered cash, with no specific mark of
identification, was neither established, by way
of identification parade, or by way of proving it
before Trial court.

25. Hence, learned Trial court failed
to appreciate facts and law placed before
it and thereby passed judgment of
conviction and sentences therein, against
evidence on record.

26. In view of what has been
discussed above, this Criminal Appeal
deserves to be allowed.

27. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
judgment and order of conviction dated
23.07.2018, passed by the Trial Court, is
hereby set aside and the appellants are
acquitted of all the charges. The appellants
are in jail. They shall be released forthwith, if
not wanted in any other case.

28. Keeping in view the provisions of
section 437-A Cr.P.C. appellants are directed
to forthwith furnish a personal bond and two
reliable sureties, each, in the like amount, to
the satisfaction of Trial court before it, which
shall be effective for a period of six months,
along with an undertaking that in the event of
filing of Special Leave Petition against the
instant judgment or for grant of leave, the
appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall
appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

29. Let a copy of this judgment
along with lower court's record be sent
back to the court concerned for immediate
compliance.
-------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.07.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4318 OF 2014

Ram Nath ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri D.K. Singh, Sri Girraj Singh, Sri Sharad
Chandra, Ms. Zia Naz Zaidi, Sri Brijesh Sahai.
326 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

A.
Circumstantial
evidence
and
suspicion. Prosecution must establish
each
instance
of
incriminating
circumstance, by way of reliable and
clinching
evidence,
and
the
circumstances so proved must form a
complete chain of events, on the basis of
which, no conclusion other than one of
guilt of the accused can be reached.
Undoubtedly, suspicion, however grave it may
be, can never be treated as a substitute for
proof.
While
dealing
with
a
case
of
circumstantial evidence, the court must take
utmost precaution whilst finding an accused
guilty, solely on the basis of the circumstances
proved before it.(Para 17)

Criminal Appeal allowed.

Chronological list of Cases Cited:-
1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622

2. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra) (E-2)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. Heard Sri Girraj Singh, Advocate
holding brief of Ms. Zia Naz Zaidi,
learned counsel for the appellant and Ms.
Manju Thakur, learned AGA for the State.

2. The appeal has been filed by Ram
Nath son of Chhaviram Thakur against
the judgment and order dated 28.10.2014
passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Court
No.2,
District
Firozabad,
in
Sessions Trial No.125 of 2013 convicting
the appellant for an offence under Section
302 IPC and sentencing him to life
imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-.

3. The prosecution case, before the
trial Court, was that one Bihari Lal lodged
a first information report with Police
Station Nagla Sindhi, District Firozabad
alleging that he was the resident of village
Niyamatpur, Police Station Nagla Sindhi.
On 17.5.2013 his father Viddya Ram son
of Jyoti Ram had gone to village Nauni
and his cousin brother Rahul son of
Kundan Singh and Ela alias Dinesh were
at home. At about 3.00 in the morning
loud cries were heard. On hearing the
cries his cousin brother Rahul and uncle
Kanta Prasad reached the house of Ram
Nath Dhakrey and saw Ram Nath and
Ayodhya Prasad, both sons of Chhaviram
coming out of the house of Ram Nath
Dhakhrey shouting that they had killed
Sundari and Ela alias Dinesh as the love
relationship in between them was not
acceptable to them. He and his brother
went inside Ram Nath's house and saw
that his brother Ela's body was lying near
the door and the body of the girl Sundari
lay in the Courtyard. It was further stated
that after seeing the incident, on account
of fear they returned home and on the
next date they gathered the courage to
report the offence to the Police Station.

4. On the basis of the said written
report, Exhibit Ka-2, Case Crime No.29/13
under Section 302 IPC & 3(2)5 SC/ST Act
was registered against the two accused Ram
Nath and Ayodhya Prasad and the Chick FIR
Exhibit Ka-2 was prepared.

5. The gist of the prosecution case
was recorded by P.W.4 Constable Clerk
614 Mahendra Pratap Singh in the
General Diary at serial no.12 at 8.00 A.M.
on
18.5.2013
Exhibit
Ka-3.
The
investigation of the case was entrusted to
P.W.6 Circle Officer Kehar Singh Rana,
who after registration of the case, reached
the place of incident, recorded the
statements of the witness Santosh held
inquest on the bodies of the deceased and
got inquest reports Exhibit Ka-8 &
1 All. Ram Nath Vs. Stae of U.P.
327
Exhibit Ka-9 prepared along with the
related documents through S.O. Police
Station Nagla Sindhi. He also inspected
the place of incident and prepared the site
plan Exhibit Ka-6. After completing the
inquest proceeding he dispatched the dead
bodies
in
sealed
condition
to
the
DistrictHospital
for
post-mortem
examination.

6. The post-mortem was carried out
by P.W.5, the Doctor on 19.5.2013 and in
the report the injuries on the body as well
as the cause of death with regard to
deceased Ela alias Dinesh, the following
was recorded:-

"lwtu 6 x 5 lh0 ,e0 Left lumber
region
(2)
Multiple
abrasion
with
contusion over the front of chest 15 cm. x
10 cm. (3) Multiple abraded contusion
over the upper part front of (vi0) in an
area 6 cm. x 4 cm. (4) Mainly left
Temporal Bone. Brain esa clotted Blood gSA
(5) Hips esa Fracture gS 2 cm. ls 5 cm. left
side esa (6) Plura & lungs QV x;s FksA (7)
nkfguk QsQMk congested FkkA Chest cavity esa
blood FkkA vek'k; [kkyh FkkA NksVh vkar es semi
digested food FkkA cMh vkar es feacal Matter
1⁄4YSfV`u ds ikVZl1⁄2 FksA Death due to coma as a
result AMI (Head Injury)."

With
regard
to
deceased
Sundari, the following was recorded:-

"Ligature mark 35 cm. x 2 cm.
situated around the neck 5 cm. Below the
chin
in
circuling
complete
neck
Horizontally Place. Death is due to
asphyxia as a Result of Anti-mortem
strangulation."

7. The Investigating Officer after
completing the investigation filed charge
sheet under Sections 302 IPC & 3(2)5
SC/ST Act, Exhibit Ka-7 against the
appellant
before
the
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, Forizabad, who committed the
accused for trial to the Court of Sessions
Judge, Firozabad where the case was
registered as Sessions Trial No.125 of
2013, State Vs. Ram Nath & another and
made over for trial from there to the Court
of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2,
Firozabad, who on the basis of the
material on record framed charge against
both the accused under Sections 302 IPC
& 3(2)5 SC/ST Act. The accusedappellant abjured the charge and claimed
trial.

8. The prosecution in order to prove
its case produced as many as seven
witnesses out of whom P.W.1 Bihari Lal,
P.W.2 Rahul, P.W.3 Kanta Prasad were
examined as witnesses of fact while P.W.4
Constable Clerk 614 Mahendra Pratap Singh,
who had prepared the Chik FIR and the
relevant general diary entry, P.W.5 Dr.
Manoj Kumar Katara, who had conducted
the post-mortem examination on the dead
bodies of the deceased Ela alias Dinesh and
Km. Sundary and prepared their postmortem reports Exhibit Ka-4 & Exhibit Ka5, P.W.6 Circle Officer Kehar Singh the
Investigating Officer of the case who had
completed the investigation and filed charge
sheet Exhibit Ka-7 against both the accusedappellants and the P.W.7 Inspector Ramesh
Chandra Tiwari, who prepared the inquest
reports of the deceased Exhibit Ka-8 &
Exhibit Ka-9 and other related documents,
namely specific scene, photo nash, letters
addressed to Chief Medical Officer, letters
addressed to R.I. and Challan Lash Exhibit
Ka-10, Exhibit Ka-11, Exhibit Ka-12,
Exhibit Ka-13 and Exhibit Ka-14 pertaining
to deceased Ela alias Dinesh and letter
addressed to Chief Medical Officer, sample
seal, photo nash, letter addressed to R.I and
Challan nash of deceased Sundary Exhibit
Ka-15, Exhibit Ka-16, Exhibit Ka-17,
328 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Exhibit Ka-18 & Exhibit Ka-19 were
produced as formal witness.

9. The statement of the accused was
recorded on 24.9.2014 under Section 313
Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the charges
levelled against him.

10. During trial, the accusedappellants in their statements recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 24.9.2014
denied all the charges levelled against
them and alleged false implication.

11. The learned Sessions Judge,
Court No.2, Firozabad considered the
submissions as well as the depositions
made before him and also took the notice
of the fact that all the material witnesses
had turned hostile. Learned Sessions
Judge after considering the evidence of
D.W.1 recorded that D.W.1 Bachan Singh
had stated in the cross-examination that
his house was at a distance of 12 Kos
from the house of Ram Nath and based
upon the said deposition alone, recorded
that
it
appears
on
account
of
circumstances that Ram Nath came to his
home in the night and on seeing both the
deceased in compromising position, killed
both of them. The learned Sessions Judge
further recorded that when the deceased
Ela alias Dinesh tried to run, they were
pulled and killed and because of the same
mud must have appeared on the bodies.
Learned Sessions Judge also recorded that
it was not plausible that a person in whose
residence murder took place did not report
the same to the Police which fact goes
against the accused Ram Nath which
establishes that Ram Nath was guilty of
the murders. He further recorded that in
the era of modern means of transport like
motorcycle a distance of 12 Kos is not
much and can be covered easily. Thus,
recording that the witnesses can lie but
the circumstances cannot, he proceeded to
hold Ram Nath guilty of offences under
Section 302 IPC and proceeded to
sentence Ram Nath to life imprisonment
under Section 302 IPC and also imposed a
fine of Rs.10,000/- and provided that on
failure to pay the fine, appellant-Ram
Nath will undergo a further rigorous
imprisonment of three months. Hence,
this appeal.

12. It is contended by the appellant's
counsel that the evidence on record does
not in any way established the complicity
of Ram Nath, the evidence on record does
not in any way implicate the appellant
with the offence. There is no positive
evidence on record against the appellant
to establish the charges, the theory of
circumstantial evidence is without any
basis as there is no chain of evidence
established by the prosecution and, thus,
the judgment impugned in appeal is liable
to be set aside.

13. Per contra, Ms. Manju
Thakur,
learned
Additional
Government Advocate tried to defend
the judgment on the ground that the
bodies were recovered from the house
of Ram Nath and the reasoning given
in the impugned judgment cannot be
faulted with and the appellant has
been rightly convicted and awarded
the sentence.

14. We have heard the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the
entire lower Court record carefully.

15. The questions to be considered
by us, are whether the prosecution has
been able to prove its case against the
appellant beyond all reasonable doubts
1 All. Ram Nath Vs. Stae of U.P.
329
and whether the appellant can be
prosecuted
only
on
the
basis
of
circumstantial evidence as has been done
by the Court below.

16. There is no dispute about the
fact that the instant case is based upon
circumstantial evidence and no one had
seen the accused-appellants committing
the murder of the deceased.

17. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda
v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC
1622, it was held by the Apex Court that,
the onus is on the prosecution to prove,
that the chain is complete and that falsity
or untenability of the defence set up by
the accused, cannot be made the basis for
ignoring any serious infirmity or lacuna in
the case of the prosecution. The Court
then proceeded to indicate the conditions
which must be fully established before a
conviction can be made on the basis of
circumstantial evidence. These are:

(1) the circumstances from
which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn should be fully established. The
circumstances
concerned
''must'
or
''should' and not ''may be' established;

(2) the facts so established
should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that
is to say, they should not be explainable
on any other hypothesis except that the
accused is guilty;

(3) the circumstances should be
of a conclusive nature and tendency;

(4) they should exclude every
possible hypothesis except the one to be
proved; and

(5) there must be a chain of
evidence so complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the
accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done
by the accused".

Thus, in a case of circumstantial
evidence, the prosecution must establish
each
instance
of
incriminating
circumstance, by way of reliable and
clinching evidence, and the circumstances
so proved must form a complete chain of
events, on the basis of which, no
conclusion other than one of guilt of the
accused can be reached. Undoubtedly,
suspicion, however grave it may be, can
never be treated as a substitute for proof.
While
dealing
with
a
case
of
circumstantial evidence, the court must
take utmost precaution whilst finding an
accused guilty, solely on the basis of the
circumstances proved before it."

18. We now proceed to evaluate and
scrutinize the evidence on record in the
background of the principles propounded
by the Apex Court in the case of Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda (supra) which a
Court must keep in mind while deciding a
case based upon circumstantial evidence.

19. P.W.1 Bihari Lal son of Viddya
Ram in the statement before the Court
below categorically stated in his crossexamination that he had not seen Ram
Nath killing his brother Ela alias Dinesh.
He also stated that he was informed of the
incident at about 6.00 A.M. in the
morning that his brother Ela alias Dinesh
and Sundari had been killed by someone
and their bodies were lying in the house
of Ram Nath. He also categorically stated
that he has not seen anyone killing his
brother Ela alias Dinesh and Sundari, He
had no information as to who had killed
them. He further stated that he was
unhappy on account of death of his
330 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
brother and on the instigation of certain
villagers, he had signed the report. He
further categorically stated that on the
date of the incident, he had not seen
Ayodhya Prasad and Ram Nath coming
out of the house at 3.00 A.M. He also
categorically stated that he had not heard
Ram Nath saying that he has killed
Sundari and Ela alias Dinesh and that the
Police had not enquired anything from
him.

20. P.W.2, Rahul son of Kundan
Singh was declared hostile by the Court.
He categorically stated that he had not
heard Ram Nath saying that he had killed
Ela alias Dinesh and his daughter Sundari
nor had he heard Ram Nath saying that he
had seen both of them in compromising
position which could not be tolerated.

21. P.W.3, Kanta Prasad son of
Chiranji Lal, categorically stated that on
the date of the incident i.e. 18.5.2013 he
was not in the village Niyamtpur and
further stated that he had not gone to the
house of Ram Nath and he was not aware
as to who had killed his nephew Ela alias
Dinesh and Sundari. The Session Court
declared the said witness as hostile.

22. It is noteworthy that despite the
fact that P.W.1 had failed to support the
prosecution case, he was neither declared
hostile nor he was recalled by the
prosecution for re-examination. Similarly,
when P.W.2 and P.W.3 Rahul and Kanta
Prasad were declared hostile and upon
being
confronted
by
the
D.G.C.
(Criminal) during their cross-examination
with their statements recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which they had
allegedly supported the prosecution case,
they denied having made any such
statements
before
the
Investigating
Officer, P.W.6 Kehar Singh, Investigating
Officer of the case, was not confronted by
the D.G.C. (Criminal) with the above
mentioned portions of the testimonies of
P.W.2 & P.W.3.

23. P.W.4, the Clerk of the Police
Station deposed that a report was lodged
with regard to the said incident on which
the first information report was registered.
There was no deposition with regard to
the incident.

24. P.W.5, the Doctor who had
conducted the post-mortem examination
deposed with regard to the injuries found
over the bodies which had led to death of
Ela alias Dinesh and Sundari.

25. P.W.6, Sri Kehar Singh, Circle
Officer deposed with regard to the
lodging of the first information report and
drawing of the site plan as well as the
arrest of the accused. He specifically
stated in his cross-examination that the
dead body of Ela alias Dinesh was coated
with mud (Keechad). He also in his crossexamination stated that his signatures
were absent on the Panchayat Nama.

26. P.W.7, Ramesh Chandra Tiwari,
Inspector in his deposition stated that the
body of the victim was coated with black
mud. During his cross-examination, he
stated that the body of Ela alias Dinesh
appeared to have been taken from one
spot to the other.

27. The accused in his support had
adduced the evidence of D.W.1, Bachan
Singh, the brother-in-law of Ram Nath
who deposed before the Court below that
his daughter Neeraj was getting married
on 17.5.2013 and for the said marriage,
Ram Nath along with entire family had
1 All. Ram Nath Vs. Stae of U.P.
331
come to their village on 15.5.2013 except
Sundari, who stayed in her house and that
Ram Nath and his family stayed with
them till 7.00 A.M. on 18.5.2013.

28. The records of the case and
deposition of witnesses as quoted herein
above reveal that the deposition of P.W.1
does not in any way prove or establish the
complicity
of
the
appellant.
The
deposition of P.W.2, who was declared as
hostile also does not in any way establish
the complicity of the offence in any
manner. The deposition of P.W.3 also
who was declared hostile does not in any
way establish the complicity of the
appellant with the offence in question.
The depositions of P.W.4, P.W.5 & P.W.6
as already discussed herein above do not
in any manner link the appellant with the
commission of the offence in question.

29. Coming to the deposition of
D.W.1, which is the sole basis for the
learned Sessions Judge to presume the
circumstances against the appellant, in the
cross-examination there is neither any
suggestion nor any attempt by the
prosecution to establish the circumstances
which could lead to the presumption of
Ram Nath going from the house of
Bachan Singh to his own house at a
distance of 12 Kos to commit the murder.
No suggestion was put forwarded to
establish that Ram Nath owned any
Motorcycle or any vehicle as has been
recorded in the impugned judgment.
There is no suggestion to establish that
Ram Nath went from the house of Bachan
Singh to his own house and came back
after committing the murder as has been
believed by the learned Sessions Judge.

30. The evidence of the witnesses
considered along with the evidence of D.W.1
do not in any way link the appellant directly
or indirectly with the actual act leading to the
death of the deceased. It is well settled law
that suspicion however, grave cannot take
place of proof and the prosecution in order to
succeed, cannot succeed only on the
evidence which in the realm of "may be true"
but has to conform to "must be true".

31. In the present case, learned
Sessions Judge has erred in convicting the
appellant by adopting the theory of
circumstantial evidence whereas no such
circumstances were either established or
even came out of the evidence deposed
before the learned Sessions Judge. No
attempt was made by the prosecution or
by the Sessions Judge to establish that
now a single person, namely the appellant
could murder two adults without any
weapon whatsoever. The case in hand,
clearly
establishes
that
the
learned
Sessions
Judge
has
completely
misdirected himself in convicting the
appellant
without
there
being
any
evidence on record to establish his
complicity with the offence in question.

32. We have no hesitation in holding
that the prosecution has failed to establish
its case against the appellant beyond all
reasonable doubts.

33. The appeal is allowed. The
judgment and order dated 28.10.2014
passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Court No.2, District Firozabad, in Special
Sessions Trial No.125 of 2013, convicting
the appellant for an offence under Section
302 IPC and sentencing him to life
imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, is
set aside. The appellant Ram Nath is
acquitted of all the charges framed against
him. He shall be discharged forthwith.
The appellant is in jail, he shall be
332 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
released forthwith, if he is not wanted in
any other case. However, he shall comply
with the mandatory requirement of
provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

34. There shall be no order as to
costs.

35. Let a copy of this judgement be
sent to the learned Sessions Judge,
Firozabad for ensuring compliance.
----------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.08.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5207 OF 2018

Arvind Parmar @ Banti Raja and Ors.
 ...Appellants (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Ram Datt Dauholia, Sri Nanhe Lal
Tripathi.

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

Section 457 IPC. The accused must be
proved to have committed lurking housetrespass or house breaking. A charge,
under
Section
457
IPC
must
be
substantiated by evidence and cannot be
assumed from nothing.
If a person is charged of house breaking and
theft
and
the
commission
of
theft
is
established,
it
would
not
follow
that
commission of other offence of house-breaking
has also been established. When evidence
does not justify a finding that the accused,
who entered inside the house, had same
intention to commit an offence, it is not
trespass. So, then Section 457 IPC goes out of
the way.(Para19)
This Criminal Appeal allowed.
Chronological list of Cases Cited:-

41 Cr.L.J, 623 (Allahabad), Chhadami v.
Emperor,AIR 1954 SC 39, Trimbak vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh. (E-2)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam, J.)

1. This Appeal, under Section 374
(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(In short hereinafter referred to as
''Cr.P.C.'), has been filed by the convictappellants, Arvind Parmar @ Bunty Raja,
Rajan @ Rajendra, and Rahim Khan,
against the judgment of conviction, dated
24.07.2018
and
sentences
awarded
therein, by the Court of Additional
Sessions
Judge/Special
Judge
(U.P.
Dacoity Affected Area Act), Lalitpur, in
Sessions Trial No. 48 of 2013 (State vs.
Arvind Parmar @ Banti Raja and others),
arising out of Case Crime No. 701/2012,
under Sections 457, 380 and 411 of Indian
Penal Code (Hereinafter, in short, referred
to as ''IPC'), Police Station- Kotwali,
District
Lalitpur,
whereby
convictappellants, Arvind Parmar @ Bunty Raja,
Rajan @ Rajendra and Rahim Khan have
been sentenced with five years' rigorous
imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-,
each, under Section 380 IPC, and Ten
years' rigorous imprisonment, with fine of
Rs.10,000/-, each, under Section 457 IPC,
and three years' rigorous imprisonment,
with fine of Rs.3,000/-, under Section 411
IPC. In case of default of deposit of fine
of Rs.10,000, they will have to serve one
year's simple imprisonment, in default of
deposit of fine of Rs.5,000/-, they will
have
to
serve
six
months'
simple
imprisonment and in default of deposit of
fine of Rs.3,000/-, they will have to serve
three months simple imprisonment, with