REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.993 OF 2012 
                                                              
Amrik Singh                  ...Appellant 
Versus  
The State of Punjab                            ...Respondent
With
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.992 OF 2012
Subhash Chander  …Appellant
Versus
The State of Punjab …Respondent
J U D G M E N T 
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   dated   01.04.2011   passed   by   the   High
Court   of   Punjab   and   Haryana   at   Chandigarh   in   Criminal
1

Appeal   No.645   of   2004   and   Criminal   Appeal   No.563   of   2004
by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed
the said appeals preferred by  the accused and has confirmed
the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court
convicting the accused Amrik Singh and Subhash Chander for
the   offences   punishable   under   Section   302  read   with   Section
34 and Section 392 of the IPC, the accused Amrik Singh and
Subhash Chander have preferred the present appeals.
2. That   the   appellant   herein   was   charged   along   with   one
Subhash   Chander   and   Pritpal   Singh   for   committing   robbery
and murdering one Gian Chand (deceased) during the course
of   the   robbery.     As   per   the   prosecution   case,   the   deceased
Gian   Chand,   one   Munshi   Ram,   father   of   the   deceased   along
with the complainant Des Raj (PW1) were proceeding from the
office   of   Sub­registrar   District   Fazilka   and   after   dropping   of
the   father   of   the   deceased   at   the   local   bus   stand,   they
proceeded towards their village.  It was further alleged that on
route   to   their   village,   three   persons   came   on   a   scooter   and
tried stopping them.   When the complainant who was driving
the scooter did not stop, co­accused Subhash Chander thrown
2

red chilli powder into the eyes of the complainant after which
the   scooter   stopped   and   the   complainant   was   temporarily
blinded.     That  all  the   three  tried   to   snatch   the   scooter   of   the
complainant   and   in   the   said   scuffle,   present   appellant   –
accused – Amrik Singh  shot the  deceased Gian  Chand in the
chest.     The   complainant   arrived   into   the   fields   and   upon   his
return he saw that the assailants have taken away the scooter
and Gian Chand was lying unconscious with blood oozing out
of   his   chest.     As   per   the   case   of   the   prosecution   the   motive
was that the father of the deceased had executed a sale deed
in favour of sons of the complainant (PW1) for the purpose of
which   they   had   gone   to   the   office   of   the   Sub­registrar.     The
consideration for the sale had not been paid and an amount of
Rs.5   lakhs   was   in   the   dicky   of   the   scooter,   which   the
assailants   had   stolen.     That   thereafter   PW1   proceeded   to   the
police station.  His statement was recorded by PW11 Inspector
Karamjit Singh who proceeded to the scene of occurrence and
found   the   dead   body   of   Gian   Chand   lying   over   there.       He
prepared inquest report.  He collected the necessary evidence.
PW6  Dr.  M.M.  Singh   conducted  post  mortem  examination  on
the dead body of Gian Chand.  Post mortem was conducted on
3

08.05.2001   at   about   6.30   p.m.     As   per   the   medical   evidence
death   could   have   occurred   about   6   hours   prior   to   the
examination.  In course of the investigation Subhash Chander
and Amrik Singh – accused were arrested on the basis of the
disclosure statement of the appellant accused – Amrik Singh.
ASI ­ PW7 recovered a sum of Rs.1 lakh alleged to have been
looted   out   of   Rs.5   lakhs   which   according   to   the   complainant
PW1 was kept in the dicky of the scooter.  On the basis of the
disclosure   statement   of   the   co­accused   Subhash   Chander   a
further   sum   of   Rs.1   lakh   was   recovered.     After   completion   of
the   investigation,   the   IO   filed   the   charge­sheet.     As   the   case
was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was
committed   to   the   Sessions   Court.     The   accused   pleaded   not
guilty   and   therefore   they   came   to   be   tried   by   the   Sessions
Court   for   the   offence   punishable   under   Sections   302/34   and
392 read with Section 397 IPC.
2.1 To   bring   home   the   guilt   of   accused,   prosecution
examined   as   many   as   11   witnesses   which   included   PW1   the
original   complainant   ­   the   eye   witness   Karamjit   Singh,
Inspector   ­   PW11,   Dr.   M.M.   Singh   –   PW6   and   other   police
4

officials.     After   the   cross­examination   of   the   prosecution
witnesses   the   accused   were   examined   and   their   further
statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded.   All the
incriminating   circumstances   appeared   against   them   in   the
prosecution   evidence   were   put   to   them   in   order   to   enable
them   to   explain   the   same.     They   denied   all   such
circumstances   and   pleaded   their   innocence.     That   thereafter
on   appreciation   of   evidence   and   mainly   relying   upon   the
deposition   of   PW1   –   original   complainant   who   was   cited   as
eye­witness   and   on   the   recovery   of   Rs.1   lakh   from   the   place
suggested   by   the   accused,   the   learned   Trial   Court   held   the
accused   guilty   for   the   offences   punishable   under   Sections
302/34   and   392   IPC   and   sentenced   the   accused   to   undergo
life   imprisonment   for   having   committed   the   murder   of
deceased Gian Chand.
2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
order   of   conviction   and   sentence   by   the   learned   Trial   Court
convicting   the   accused   for   the   offence   punishable   under
Sections   302/34   and   392   IPC,   the   accused   Amrik   Singh   and
Subhash   Chander   preferred   the   Criminal   Appeal   No.645­DB
5

of 2004 and Criminal  Appeal No.563 of  2004 before the High
Court.   By the impugned judgment and order the High Court
has dismissed the said appeals and has confirmed the order of
conviction   and   sentence   passed   by   the   learned   Trial   Court.
The   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   is   the
subject matter of present appeals.
3. Ms. Roohina Dua, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the   accused   has   vehemently   submitted   that   in   the   facts   and
circumstances of the case and on the evidence on record both,
the   learned   Trial   Court   as   well   as   the   High   Court   have
committed   serious   error   in   convicting   the   accused   for   the
offence   punishable   under   Section   302   read   with   Section   34
and Section 392 IPC respectively.
3.1 It   is   submitted   that   as   such   the   appellants   have   been
convicted   on   the   deposition   of   PW1   –   original   complainant   –
informant   and   the   identification   of   the   accused   in   the   Court
by PW1.
3.2 It   is   submitted   that   in   the   present   case   admittedly   no
Test Identification Parade (hereinafter referred to as ‘TIP’) has
6

been   conducted   to   identify   the   accused.     It  is   submitted  that
in the present case as such non­conducting the TIP is fatal to
the case of the prosecution more particularly when PW1 is the
original   complainant   who   did   not   disclose   any   description   of
the accused before the I.O. and even in the FIR.
3.3 It is submitted that even the conviction of the accused on
the alleged recovery of Rs.1 lakh each is also not sustainable.
It   is   submitted   that   even   the   learned   Trial   Court   has   also
disbelieved   the   case   on   behalf   of   the   prosecution   that   the
complainant and the deceased were carrying Rs.5 lakhs in the
dicky of the scooter.  It is submitted therefore that the factum
of Rs.5 lakhs being carried in the scooter by the complainant
and   the   deceased   has   not   been   established   and   proved,   the
recovery   of   Rs.1   lakh   each   from   the   accused   becomes
insignificant.       It   is   submitted   that   the   prosecution   has   to
prove by leading cogent evidence that the complainant and the
deceased were carrying Rs.5 lakhs in the dicky of the scooter
as   alleged   and   the   amount   which   is   recovered   from   the
accused   is   the   very   amount   which   the   complainant   and   the
deceased were carrying in the scooter. 
7

3.4 It   is   submitted   that   therefore   the   accused   cannot   be
convicted   on  the   basis   of   the   identification  of   the   accused   by
PW1 in the Court which is for the first time and on the basis
of the recovery of Rs.1 lakh each from the accused.
3.5 It   is   submitted   that   therefore   in   absence   of   any   cogent
evidence   on   the   identification   of   the   accused   and   it   can   be
seen that the prosecution has failed to prove the identification
of the accused beyond doubt, to convict the accused solely on
the   basis   of   the   identification   of   the   accused   by   PW1   for   the
first time in the Court is not warranted.   It is submitted that
in the facts and circumstances of the case it is not safe to rely
upon the identification of the accused for the first time in the
Court.
Making   above   submissions,   it   is   prayed   to   acquit   the
accused.
4. Present   appeals   are   vehemently   opposed   by   Ms.   Richa
Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – State.
4.1 It   is   vehemently   submitted   by   learned   counsel   for   the
State   that   in   the   present   case   when   PW1   –   eye­witness   has
8

identified the accused in the Court Room, non­conducting the
TIP would not vitiate the trial and the case of the prosecution.
4.2 It   is   submitted   that   PW1   –   complainant   is   an   eye­
witness.  It is submitted that he has deposed in the Court that
“One of those boys fired a gun shot at Gian Chand which hit
him at his chest on the seat of heart.  All the three said young
persons   are   the   accused   who   are   present   in   Court   today.
(Witness   has   pointed   out   towards   one   of   the   accused   as   a
person   who   had   fired   at   Gian   Chand   and   that   accused   has
disclosed   his   name   as   Amrik   Singh).     The   accused   who   is
standing on one side had put the chili powder in my eyes (the
name   of   accused   pointed   out   by   the   witness   has   been
disclosed as Subhash Chander)”. 
4.3 It is vehemently  submitted by learned counsel on behalf
of  the  State  that  in   every  case  non­conducting  the  TIP  would
not   vitiate   the   trial   and/or   case   of   the   prosecution.     It   is
submitted that the TIP is conducted only to make sure by the
Investigating   Officer   that   the   investigation   is   going   on   in   the
right direction as against the real culprit.  It is submitted that
it   is   also   conducted   to   refresh   the   memory   of   the   witnesses
9

who   saw   the   accused.     It   is   submitted   that   as   held   by   this
Court in a catena of decisions, TIP is not substantive evidence
and in fact the substantive evidence is that of identification in
Court.     It   is   submitted   that   holding   of   TIP,   if   the   accused   is
not   known   to   the  complainant   earlier   is  to   ascertain  whether
the   investigation   is   being   conducted   in   a   proper   manner   and
with   proper   direction   and   is   admissible   in   evidence   as
corroborative evidence under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence
Act.     It   is   submitted   that   however,   the   absence   of   test
identification   parade   may   not   ipso­facto   sufficient   to   discard
the testimony of witness who has identified the accused in the
Court.   It is submitted that even in a given case, the Court if
comes to the conclusion that the testimony of the prosecution
witness specially of an eye­witness is of a sterling quality, and
trustworthy, the testimony of such a witness can be accepted
with   regard   to   identification   of   the   accused   in   court   and
conviction can be sustained without any doubt upon the said
testimony.  In support of the above learned counsel appearing
for   the   State   has   heavily   relied   upon   the   decisions   of   this
Court   in   the   case   of   Malkhansingh   and   Ors.   Vs.   State   of
Madhya Pradesh; (2003) 5 SCC 746 (paras 16 and 17)   and
10

Md.   Kalam   Vs.   State   of   Rajasthan,   (2008)   11   SCC   352
(para 7).
4.4 It   is   submitted   that   even   in   the   present   case   there   is   a
recovery   of   Rs.1   lakh   from   the   accused   and   from   the   place
disclosed   by   the   accused.     It   is   submitted   that   as   such   the
accused   have   failed   to   explain   and/or   failed   to   account   the
recovery of Rs.1 lakh each.
4.5 It   is   submitted   that   therefore   the   High   Court   as   well   as
the   learned   Trial   Court   have   not   committed   any   error   in
convicting   the   accused   for   the   offence   punishable   under
Sections 302 and 392 read with Section 34 IPC (so far as the
accused Subhash Chander is concerned).
Making   above   submissions   it   is   prayed   to   dismiss   the
present appeals.
5. Heard.     We   have   gone   through   the   impugned   judgment
and   order   passed   by   the   learned   Trial   Court   as   well   as   the
High Court convicting the accused and the findings recorded.
We have minutely gone through the entire evidence on record
more particularly the FIR as well as the deposition of PW1.
11

6. At   the   outset,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   the
appellants   –   accused   have   been   convicted   mainly   on   the
identification   of   the   accused   by   PW1   in   the   Court   Room   and
on   the   recovery   of   Rs.1   lakh   each   from   the   accused   persons
which   were   recovered   from   the   places   suggested   by   the
accused.     Thus,   the   conviction   of   the   accused   in   the   present
case   is   solely   on   the   identification   of   the   accused   by   PW1   in
the   court   room.     Prior   thereto   no   TIP   has   been   conducted   by
the Investigating Agency.
6.1 Now   so   far   as   the   conviction   based   on   the   recovery   of
Rs.1 lakhs each from the accused is concerned, at the outset
it is required to be noted that even the learned Trial Court has
also   specifically   given   the   finding   that   the   prosecution   has
failed to prove that the original complainant and the deceased
were   carrying   Rs.5   lakhs   cash   in   the   dicky   of   the   scooter   as
alleged.     To   connect   the   accused   for   having   conducted   the
evidence   of   loot   of   Rs.5   lakhs,   primarily   the   prosecution   was
required   to   establish   and   prove   that   the   person   from   whom
the amount  which  was  having  to have looted.   Thereafter  the
prosecution   is   required   to   establish   and   prove   that   the
12

amount   which   is   recovered   from   the   accused   is   the   very
amount   which   the   complainant/the   person   from   whom   the
amount   is   looted.     Even   the   learned   Trial   Court   has   also   not
given much stress on the recovery of Rs.1 lakh each from the
accused.   Be that it may we are of the opinion that when the
prosecution  has  failed  to  prove  that  the   complainant  and  the
deceased   were   carrying   Rs.5   lakhs   cash   in   the   dicky   of   the
scooter   and   it   was   the   very   looted   amount   which   was
recovered from the accused, the accused cannot be convicted
on the basis of recovery of some cash.
6.2 Now so far as the conviction of the accused on the PW1 –
eye­witness   identifying   the   accused   in   the   Court   Room   and
non­conducting   the   TIP   is   concerned,   while   appreciating   the
said aspect the averments in the FIR which was given by PW1­
eye­witnesses   are   required   to   be   referred   to.     It   may   be   true
that   as   per   the   settled   position   of   law   the   FIR   cannot   be
encyclopedia.     However,   at   the   same   time   when   no   TIP   was
conducted the first version of the complainant reflected in the
FIR   would   play   an   important   role.     It   is   required   to   be
considered whether  in  the FIR and/or  in the  first version  the
eye­witness either disclosed the identity and/or description of
13

the accused on the basis of which he can recollect at the time
of deposition and identify the accused for the first time in the
Court Room?   Having gone through the FIR on the identity of
the accused it is stated as under:
“I   was   driving   the   scooter   and   Gian   Chand   was
sitting   behind   me.   When   we   were   at   link   road   shaterwala
from   Fazilka   A   bohar   G.T.   road   about   1­1 1/2
  kilometer
ahead,  three  young   persons  reached  with us  on a  scooter
from   the   backside,   out   of   them,   two   clean   shaven   young
persons   having   ages   of   30­35   year   and   one   Sikh   (sardar)
who  had   tied  a   (Thathi)  a   piece  of  cloth  having   the  age  of
about   30­   32   years,   who   was   sitting   in   the   middle   was
having a 12 bore gun of small barrel all these three young
persons while reaching with us tried us to stop. When we
did   not   stop   then   a   clean­shaven   young   person   who   was
sitting on the rear seat of the scooter thrown chilly powder
on our  faces  and  eyed  with his  hand  as  a result  of which
we   could   not   see   and   we   stopped   our   scooter   being
helpless a  and opened our  eyes after placing  hand on the
eyes.   In   the   meantime   these   young   persons   stopped   their
scooters ahead of our scooter and came forward to snatch
our scooter. We tried to prevent them, in the meantime, a
Sikh  Youngman   fired   a  shot   at  Gian  Chand  in  a   strength
way   with   his   12   bore   gun   hitting   him   on   the   chest   as   a
result of which he fell down on the ground.”
6.3 Thus,   from   the   aforesaid   it   is   seen   that   except   stating
that   the   accused   were   three   young   persons   out   of   which   two
were   clean   shaven   and   the   one   Sikh   (sardar)   who   had   tied   a
(Thathi)   having   the   age   of   30­32   years   no   further   description
had been given by the complainant – PW1.   Nothing has been
mentioned in his first statement that he had seen the accused
earlier   and   that   he   will   be   able   to   identify   the   accused.     In
14

light of the above, the deposition of PW1 in the Court and his
identifying   the   accused   for   the   first   time   in   the   Court   is
required to be appreciated.   In the examination­in­chief, PW1
has stated as under:
“When at about 1­30 p.m. when we had covered a
distance   of   about   eight   k.m.s   from   G.T.   road   and   were
going   on   the   link   road   of   Shaterwala,   three   young
persons   came   from   our   back   side   on   a   scooter.   They
tried to stop us but we did not stop. They over took our
scooter   and   put   chillies   powder   in   my   eyes.   That   chilly
powder   entered   in   my   right   eye   and   I   had   to   stop   my
scooter.   After   rubbing   the   eye   I   opened   the   same.   Gain
Chand alighted from my scooter.”
                    xxx     xxx  xxx
“Out of three young persons, two young boys tried
to   snatch   my   scooter.   Gian   Chand   came   parallel   to   me
and   tried   to   prevent   those   boys   from   snatching   the
scooter.   One   of   those   boys   fired   a   shot   at   Gian   Chand
which   hit   him   at   his   chest   on   the  seat   of   heart.   All  the
three   said   young   persons   are   the   accused   who   are
present in the court today (witness has pointed towards
one of the accused as the person who had fired at Gian
Chand   and   that   accused   has   disclosed   his   name   as
Amrik Singh). The accused who is standing on one side
had   put   the   chili   powder   in   my   eyes   (the   name   of   the
accused   pointed   out   by   the   witness   has   been   disclosed
as Subhash Chand).”
In the cross­examination he had deposed as under:
“I   had   not   stated   before   the   police   that   the   chilli
powder had effected only my right eye and I opened the
same after rubbing it. I had stated before the police that
chilli   powder   was   put   in   our   eyes   as   a   result   of   which
were not in position to see.”
xxx        xxx         xxx
“In connection with the investigation of this case I
had   been   going   to   the   police   station   quite   often.   The
accused   were   never   shown   to   me   during   investigation.)
15

Before   the   occurrence,   I   had   seen   them   in   the   City   on
one or two occasions. I After the occurrence I have seen,
them in the court today for the first time. At the time of
occurrence their names were not known to me. I do not
know   where   they   had   been   residing   before   the
occurrence.   When   I   made   my   statement   before   police   I
had   only   disclosed   the   age   of   accused   and   not   their
description. It is incorrect that I have deposed falsely, lit
is   incorrect   that   accused   were   known   the   earlier.   It   is
further   incorrect   that   accused   have   been   falsely
implicated   in   this   case   as   Pritpal   Singh   had   filed   writ
petition   against   the   police   in   the   month   of
August/September 2001.”
6.4 From the aforesaid it can be seen that as such there are
some contradictions in the first statement of the complainant
recorded   in   the   form   of   FIR   and   in   the   deposition   before   the
Court.     In   the   deposition   before   the   Court,   he   has   tried   to
improve the case by deposing that he had seen the accused in
the   city   on   one   or   two   occasions.     The   aforesaid   was   not
disclosed   in   the   FIR.     Even   in   the   cross­examination   as
admitted   by   PW1   he   did   not   disclose   any   description   of   the
accused.     At   this   stage   it   is   to   be   noted   that   PW1   has
specifically   and   categorically   admitted   in   the   cross­
examination that it is incorrect that the accused were known
earlier.  He disclosed only the age of the accused.  In that view
of   the   matter   conducting   of   TIP   was   necessitated   and,
therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not
16

safe   to   convict   the   accused   solely   on   their   identification   by
PW1 for the first time in the Court.
6.5 Now   so   far   as   the   reliance   placed   upon   the   decision   of
this Court in the case of  Malkhansingh (supra)  relied upon by
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State in support of
her submissions that the TIP is not substantive evidence and
in   fact   the   substantive   evidence   is   that   of   identification   in
Court   is   concerned,   on   facts   the   said   decision   shall   not   be
applicable to the facts of the case on hand.   Even in the said
decision   it   is   observed   what   weight   must   be   attached   to   the
evidence of identification in court, which is not preceded by a
test identification parade, is a matter for  the courts of fact to
examine.   In the case before this Court, it was found that the
crime  was  perpetrated   in   broad   daylight;   the   prosecutrix   had
sufficient opportunity to observe the features of the appellants
who   raped   her   one   after   the   other;   before   the   rape   was
committed, she was threatened and intimated by the accused;
after   the   rape   was   committed,   she   was   again   threatened   and
intimidated by  them.   On such facts it was found that it was
17

not   a   case   where   the   identifying   witness   had   only   a   fleeting
glimpse of the accused on a dark night.
6.6 Similarly,   another   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Md. Kalam (supra)   relied upon by learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the State also shall not be applicable to the facts
of   the   case   on   hand.     It   is   observed   in   the   said   decision   that
the   evidence   of   mere   identification   of   the   accused   person   at
the trial for the first time is from its very nature inherently of
a   weak   character.     It   is   observed   that   the   purpose   of   TIP
therefore is to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of that
evidence.     It   is   observed   that   it   is   accordingly   considered   a
safe rule of prudence to generally look for corroboration of the
sworn testimony of witnesses in Court as to the identity of the
accused   who   are   strangers   to   them,   in   the   form   of   earlier
identification proceedings.  It is further observed that the said
rule of prudence, however, is subject to exceptions, when, for
example,   the   Court   is   impressed   by   a   particular   witness   on
whose   testimony   it   can   safely   rely   without   such   or   other
corroboration.  Therefore, on facts it was observed that failure
to   hold   a   TIP   would   not   make   inadmissible   the   evidence   of
18

identification in Court.   It is further  observed that the weight
to   be   attached   to   such   identification   should   be   a   matter   for
the courts of fact.
6.7 Even   applying   the   law   laid   down   by   this   Court   in   the
aforesaid   decisions   and   looking   to   the   facts   narrated
hereinabove,   we   are   of   the   opinion   that   it   would   not   be   safe
and/or   prudent   to   convict   the   accused   solely   on   the   basis   of
their identification for the first time in the Court.
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we
are   of   the   firm   opinion   that   both,   the   learned   Trial   Court   as
well   as   the   High   Court   have   committed   a   grave   error   in
convicting   the   accused.     The   judgment   and   orders   passed   by
the   learned   Trial   Court   confirmed   by   the   High   Court
convicting   the   accused   for   the   offence   under   Sections   302
read   with   Section   34   and   Section   392   IPC   respectively   are
unsustainable   and   they   deserve   to   be   quashed   and   set   aside
and the accused are to be acquitted for the purpose for which
they were tried. 
19

8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above the
appeals   succeed.     The   impugned   judgment   and   order   passed
by the learned Trial Court as well as the High Court convicting
the   accused   for   the   offences   punishable   under   Sections   302
read with Section 34 and Section 392 IPC are hereby quashed
and set aside.
The   accused   are   acquitted   from   the   charges   for   which
they   were   tried.     The   appellants   –   accused   be   released
forthwith, if they are not required in any other case.
The Appeals are allowed accordingly.
         …………………………………J.
                                                     (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
                                                 (ANIRUDDHA BOSE)
New Delhi, 
July, 11 2022.
20

ITEM NO.1501               COURT NO.11               SECTION II-B
(For Judgment)
               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal  No(s).  993/2012
AMRIK SINGH                                        Appellant(s)
                                VERSUS
THE STATE OF PUNJAB                                Respondent(s)
([HEARD BY : HON. M.R. SHAH AND HON. ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.] )
 
WITH
Crl.A. No. 992/2012 (II-B)
 
Date : 11-07-2022 These appeals were called on for pronouncement 
of judgment today.
For Appellant(s) Mr. Shree Pal Singh, AOR
                   
For Respondent(s) Ms. Richa Kapoor, Adv.
Ms. Shivani Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Prateek Bhandari, Adv.
                    Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, AOR
                    
****
Hon'ble   Mr.   Justice   M.R.   Shah   pronounced   the   reportable
judgment   of   the   Bench   comprising   His   Lordship   and   Hon’ble   Mr.
Justice Aniruddha Bose. 
The operative portion of the judgment reads thus:
“8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above the
appeals   succeed.     The   impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by  
the learned Trial Court as well as the High Court convicting  
the   accused   for   the   offences   punishable   under   Sections   302  
read   with   Section   34   and   Section   392   IPC   are   hereby   quashed  
and set aside.
The accused are acquitted from the charges for which they
were tried.   The appellants – accused be released forthwith,  
if they are not required in any other case.
The Appeals are allowed accordingly.”
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(R. NATARAJAN)                                  (NISHA TRIPATHI)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS                         ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)