REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1200 ­ 1202  OF 2022
[Arising out of SLP(Criminal) Nos.8624­8626 of 2019]
KHEMA @ KHEM CHANDRA ETC.          ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH     ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These   appeals   challenge   the   judgment   and   order
dated 30 th
 April 2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature
at   Allahabad   in   Criminal   Appeal   Nos.   6961,   7260   and   6227
of   2006,   thereby   dismissing   the   appeals   filed   by   the
appellants and confirming the judgment and order dated 28 th
September   2006   passed   by   the   Additional   Sessions   Judge,
Court No.4, Mathura  (hereinafter   referred to  as “trial court”)
1

in   Sessions   Trial   Nos.   515   and   655   of   2002   convicting   the
appellants   for   offences   punishable   under   Section   302   read
with   Section   149,   Section   307   read   with   Section   149   and
Section   148   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code,   1860   (for   short   ‘IPC’)
and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life with a
fine of Rs. 5,000/­ each.
3. The prosecution case in brief is thus:
The   marriage   of   two   daughters   of   deceased   Prakash
was to be solemnized on 1 st
 May 2002.  On 27 th
 April 2002 at
around 08.00 am, when deceased Prakash and his wife Kripa
were   going   to   extend   invitation   to   their   relatives,   near   the
house   of   accused   Deepi,   all   the   accused   persons   who   were
hiding   themselves   inside   the   house,   came   out   carrying
weapons.     Accused   Deepi   and   Kanhaiya   were   having   farsa
with   them   whereas   accused   Khema   @   Khem   Chandra   was
having  a club. Accused Jasram, Balveer  and Mahaveer  were
having   country  made  pistols with  them.    All of  them  started
assaulting   deceased   Prakash   and   threw   him   on   the   brick
road.     Inder   (PW­2),   brother   of   deceased   Prakash,   his   sister
Omwati   and   wife   Kripa   came   forward   to   save   the   life   of
2

deceased   Prakash.     However,   accused   persons   assaulted
them   as   well.     In   the   said   assault,   Inder   (PW­2)   suffered
gunshot injury.  On the basis of information given by Omveer
(PW­1),   brother   of   deceased   Prakash,   an   FIR   came   to   be
lodged  on  27 th
  April  2002 at  10.10 am.    On the  basis of  the
said FIR, a crime for the offences punishable under Sections
147,   148,   149,   307,   302   and   506   of   the   IPC   came   to   be
registered   against   the   accused   persons.   After   completion   of
investigation,   a   charge­sheet   came   to   be   filed   in   the   trial
court.  Since the case was triable exclusively by the Sessions
Judge, it was committed to the learned Sessions Judge.  The
learned   Sessions   Judge   framed   the   charges   against   the
accused   persons   for  the   offences   punishable   under   Sections
147,   148,   302   read   with   149   and   307   read   with   149   of   the
IPC.  Charge was also framed against accused Balveer under
Section   25   of   the   Arms   Act,   1959   (hereinafter   referred   to   as
the   “Arms   Act”)   and   against   accused   Deepi   under   Section
4/25   of   the   Arms   Act.     The   accused   persons   pleaded   not
guilty and claimed to be tried.  At the conclusion of the trial,
the   trial   court   convicted   the   appellants   as   aforesaid.     Being
aggrieved thereby, the appellants had filed appeals before the
3

High   Court,   which   were   also   dismissed,   thereby   confirming
the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by
the trial court.   Being aggrieved thereby, the appellants have
approached this Court.
4. We   have   heard   Shri   Rajul   Bhargav,   learned   Senior
Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellants,   Ms.   Garima
Prashad,   learned   Additional   Advocate   General   for   the   State
and   Shri   S.R.   Singh,   learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   on
behalf of the first informant.
5. Shri  Bhargav  submitted that  the  trial  court  and  the
High   Court   have   grossly   erred   in   convicting   the   appellants.
He   submitted   that   the   appellants   have   been   falsely
implicated   in   the   case.     It   is   submitted   that   though   Omveer
(PW­1)   is   projected   as   an   eye   witness,   it   is   clear   from   his
testimony that he could not have witnessed the incident.  He
submitted   that   even   the   trial   court   has   held   that   from   the
deposition   of   Omveer   (PW­1),   it   is   clear   that   he   has   not
witnessed   the   incident.     He   further   submitted   that   Inder
(PW­2) who is said to be an injured witness, also appears to
be a planted witness.   It is submitted that from the evidence
4

of   the   prosecution   witnesses,   there   is   serious   doubt   with
regard   to   the   timing   as   to   when   Inder   (PW­2)   has   sustained
injuries   and   as   to   when   he   was   medically   examined.     He
submitted   that   there   are   material   contradictions   and
inconsistencies   in   the   evidence   of   Inder   (PW­2)   and   Dr.
Anoop Kumar (PW­6).  
6. The   learned   Senior   Counsel   further   submitted   that
the so­called recoveries at the instance of appellants are also
false   and   could   not   have   been   relied   upon.     The   learned
Senior   Counsel   submitted   that   the   prosecution   has   not
examined Vijay Singh, brother of the deceased, who was the
first to inform the incident to the Police Station Shergarh on
telephone.  It is submitted that the station diary entry on the
basis of telephonic information given by Vijay Singh has also
not been brought on record by the prosecution. It is therefore
submitted that the prosecution has tried to suppress the real
genesis   of   the   incident.     It   is   further   submitted   that   though
Kripa and Omwati, wife and sister of the deceased are said to
have   received   injuries,   they   have   not   been   examined.     It   is
further   submitted   that   though   independent   witnesses   were
5

available, the prosecution has failed to examine them and as
such,   an   adverse   inference   is   required   to   be   drawn   against
the   prosecution.   The   learned   Senior   Counsel   therefore
submitted   that   the   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   trial
court   and   maintained   by   the   High   Court   is   liable   to   be
quashed and set aside.  
7. Ms. Prashad submitted that merely because Omveer
(PW­1)   and   Inder   (PW­2)   are   relatives   of   the   deceased,   it
cannot   be   a   ground   for   discarding   their   testimonies.     It   is
submitted   that   both   of   them   have   undergone   cross­
examination and nothing damaging could be elicited in their
cross­examination.     She   further   submitted   that   the   ocular
testimonies   of   Omveer   (PW­1)   and   Inder   (PW­2)   are   duly
corroborated by the recovery of incriminating material on the
memorandum   under   Section   27   of   the   Evidence   Act,   1872
(hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   “Evidence   Act”).     The   learned
Senior   Counsel   therefore   submitted   that   no   interference   is
warranted in the concurrent orders passed by the trial court
and the High Court.
6

8. Shri   Singh,   learned   Senior   Counsel   submitted   that
Inder   (PW­2)   is   an   injured   witness.     He   therefore   submitted
that in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of
Jarnail   Singh   and   Others   v.   State   of   Punjab 1
,   the
testimony   of   the   injured   witness   will   have   a   special
evidentiary   status.     He   also   relies   on   the   judgment   of   this
Court   in   the   case   of   Abdul   Sayeed   v.   State   of   Madhya
Pradesh 2
 to further buttress his submission.
9. Shri Singh further submitted that the findings of the
trial   court   as   well   as   the   High   Court   are   based   upon
appreciation   of   evidence.     He   submitted   that   this   Court   will
not   normally   enter   into   re­appraisement   or   review   of   the
evidence unless the decision of the High Court is vitiated by
error of law or procedure.   He relies on the judgment of this
Court in the case of  Smt. Dalbir Kaur and Others v. State
of Punjab 3
. 
10. A perusal of the judgment of the trial court as well as
the   High   Court   would   reveal   that   the   conviction   is   based
1   (2009) 9 SCC 719
2   (2010) 10 SCC 259
3   (1976) 4 SCC 158
7

basically   on   the   testimonies   of   Omveer   (PW­1)   and   Inder
(PW­2).     The   Court   has   sought   corroboration   to   the
testimonies   of   these   witnesses   from   the   recoveries   made   on
the basis of memorandum of the accused under Section 27 of
the Evidence Act.  The trial court observed that the  farsa  was
seized   on   the   basis   of   identification   done   by   accused
Kanhaiya. The trial court further observed that the weapons
farsa   and   rifle   were   seized   at   the   instance   of   accused   Deepi
and Balveer.
11. To examine the correctness of these findings, we will
first assess the testimony of Omveer (PW­1) and Inder (PW­2).
Both   these   witnesses   are   brothers   of   deceased   Prakash.     As
such, they would fall in the category of interested witnesses,
being   related   to   the   deceased.     However,   their   testimonies
cannot   be   discarded   only   on   the   ground   that   the   witnesses
are   interested   witnesses.     The   only   requirement   would   be
that   the   evidence   of   such   witnesses   is   required   to   be
scrutinized with greater care and circumspection.
12. Omveer   (PW­1)   states   that   when   his   deceased
brother Prakash and Kripa (wife of Prakash) along with their
8

sister   Omwati   were   going   to   extend   invitation   for   the
upcoming   marriage,   all   the   accused   persons   were   hiding
themselves   in   the   house   of   Deepi.     On   seeing   deceased
Prakash, all of them came out.  Accused Deepi and Kanhaiya
were   armed   with   farsa ,   accused   Khema   @   Khem   Chandra
was   armed   with   lathi ,   accused   Jasram   and   Mahaveer   were
armed   with   country   made   pistols   and   accused   Balveer   was
having   a   rifle   and   they   assaulted   his   deceased   brother
Prakash.     He   states   that   the   blows   were   given   from   the
reverse side of the   farsa .   He states that on hearing hue and
cry, he as well as other residents of the village reached at the
spot and saw the occurrence. There are many improvements
in   the   deposition   of   Omveer   (PW­1).     It   will   be   relevant   to
refer   to   an   excerpt   from   the   cross­examination   of   Omveer
(PW­1):
“When   the   quarrel   started,   then   I   was   inside   my
house. I heard four­five rounds of firing. I came out
of   the   house   after   hearing   the   sound   of   firing   and
after   reaching   the   spot,   then   I   found   that   Prakash
was   lying   dead.     When   I   reached   at   the   spot,   then
Inder   was   at   the   spot.   Inder   had   fallen   after
sustaining   the   injury.   He   was   not   fully
unconscious.”
9

13. It will also be relevant to note that even Inder (PW­2)
has   also  admitted  that  Omveer  (PW­1)  was  inside   the  house
when the incident occurred.  
14. Not  only   this,   but  the   trial  court   itself   has  observed
in its judgment thus:
“It is explicit on perusal of testimony of said witness
in entirety that said witness was not present at the
spot   since   earlier,   but   he   reached   at   the   spot   after
hearing the gunshots.   Therefore he did not see the
occurrence,   but   due   to   he   having   reached   at   the
spot after hearing the hue and cry, so the testimony
of   said   witness   is   significant   with   respect   to
presence   of   the   accused   at   the   spot   and   they   had
been armed with the weapons as disclosed and that
having   been   given   by   them   that   in   case   anybody
would   get   the   first   information   lodged,   then   he
would be killed.”
15. It is thus clear that even the trial court has come to
a   conclusion   that   Omveer   (PW­1)   could   not   have   witnessed
the incident.
16. That   leaves   us   with   the   testimony   of   Inder   (PW­2).
No   doubt   that   Inder   (PW­2)   is   an   injured   witness   and
therefore,   his   testimony   could   not   be   brushed   aside   lightly.
The   reliance   placed   by   Shri   Singh   on   the   judgments   of   this
Court   in   the   cases   of   Jarnail   Singh   (supra)   and   Abdul
10

Sayeed   (supra)   is   well   merited .   The   fact   that   the   witness
received   injuries   establishes   his   presence   at   the   scene   of
occurrence .     The   evidence   of   such   a   witness   cannot   be
rejected   unless   there   are   strong   grounds   for   such   rejection.
Inder   (PW­2)   has   given   detailed   narration   as   to   how   the
incident   has   occurred.     He   has   stated   that   accused   Deepi
and   Kanhaiya   assaulted   with   farsa ,   accused   Khema
assaulted   with   lathi   and   accused   Balveer,   Mahaveer   and
Jasram   assaulted   with   the   butts   of   their   guns.     Accused
Balveer,   Mahaveer   and   Jasram   fired   simultaneously.     He
states   that   when   Omwati   lay   on   him   to   save   him,   accused
persons assaulted Omwati with stones and  danda .
17. The   incident   had   occurred   on   27 th
  April   2002.
However,   the   statement   of   Inder   (PW­2)   was   recorded   under
Section   161   Cr.P.C.   on   21 st
  May   2002.     In   his   cross­
examination,   he  admitted  that   the   police  did  not   interrogate
him   on   30 th
  April   2002.   Not   only   is   there   a   long   delay   in
recording   his   statement   but   there   are   serious   discrepancies
with   regard   to   the   medical   examination   of   Inder   (PW­2)   as
well.  In the injury report (Ex.­P7), the time of examination is
11

stated to be 10.20 pm.   From the evidence of Omveer (PW­1)
and Inder (PW­2), it is clear that after the incident occurred,
they   had   gone   to   Police   Station   Shergarh   and   they   were   in
the Police Station Shergarh from 10.00 am  to 11.00 am.   In
his evidence, Inder (PW­2) has stated that he has reached the
hospital at 12.00 o’clock and that his medical check­up was
done during day time. In his examination­in­chief, Dr. Anoop
Kumar (PW­6) has stated that there was a possibility that the
injuries were inflicted at 08.00 am on 27 th
 April 2002.  In his
cross­examination,   he   admits   that   in   the   report   of   medical
examination, he has mentioned the injuries as fresh meaning
thereby that such injuries had been inflicted within a period
of   2   hours   to   6   hours.     He   further   admits   that   the   medical
examination   was   done   at   10.20   pm   on   27 th
  April   2022.     As
such, the injuries could be inflicted subsequent to 04.20 pm.
He has further admitted that there are no entries made with
respect   to   the   injuries   caused   to   Inder   (PW­2)   in   the
concerned register.  
18. It   is   pertinent   to   note   that   after   noticing   such
inconsistencies with regard to time of injuries sustained and
12

the   time   of   medical   examination   of   Inder   (PW­2),   Dr.   Anoop
Kumar   (PW­6)   was   recalled   at   the   request   of   the   Additional
District   Government   Pleader.     In   his   re­examination,   he  has
stated that due to some mistake, 10.20 pm was mentioned in
the medical examination report and actually, it was done on
27 th
  April   2002   at   10.20   am.     In   his   further   cross­
examination,   he   has   given   contradictory   answers.     He   has
stated   that   he   had   never   done   duty   in   the   night   and
therefore,   he   could   say   that   he   had   not   done   the   medical
examination at 10.20 pm.   He has further admitted that the
duties are fixed on the basis of the roster and the duties are
not on a regular basis.  He has further admitted that they are
required to do the duties on shift basis.  It could thus clearly
be   seen   that   there   are   serious   discrepancies   with   regard   to
the   time   of   injuries   sustained   and   the   time   of   medical
examination of Inder (PW­2).
19. The version of Dr. Anoop Kumar (PW­6) that he had
examined   Inder   (PW­2)   at   10.20   am   itself   is   falsified   by   the
evidence   of   Omveer   (PW­1)   and   Inder   (PW­2).     According   to
both  of   them,  they  were  in   the  Police  Station  Shergarh  from
13

10.00   am   to   11.00   am   and   thereafter,   Inder   (PW­2)   left   for
Mathura.     Even   according   to   Inder   (PW­2),   he   reached
Mathura   after   12.00   o’clock.     He   stated   that   after   reaching
the hospital, he was examined after about 2 hours.  As such,
even   if   the   version   of   Dr.   Anoop   Kumar   (PW­6)   in   re­
examination that he had examined Inder (PW­2) at 10.20 am
is   to   be   accepted,   the   same   is   totally   inconsistent   with   the
testimony of Omveer  (PW­1) and Inder (PW­2).   As such, the
possibility of some fabrication in the injury certificate cannot
be rejected.
20. We   are   conscious   that   on   the   ground   of   minor
inconsistencies,   the   evidence   of   Inder   (PW­2)   cannot   be
brushed   aside.     However,   it   is   to   be   noted   that   there   are
material   improvements   in   his   evidence.     His   evidence
therefore   is   required   to   be   scrutinized   with   greater   caution
and   circumspection.     It   is   further   to   be   noted   that   even
according   to   the   prosecution,   there   is   previous   enmity
between   the   accused   and   the   deceased.     As   held   by   this
Court   in   the   case   of   Ramashish   Rai   v.   Jagdish   Singh 4
,
previous   enmity   is   a   double­edged   sword.     On   one   hand,   it
4   (2005) 10 SCC 498
14

provides   motive   to   the   crime   and   on   the   other,   there   is   a
possibility of false implication.
21. This   Court,   in   the   celebrated   case   of   Vadivelu
Thevar v. State of Madras 5
, has observed thus:
“…….Hence,   in   our   opinion,   it   is   a   sound   and
well­established   rule   of   law   that   the   court   is
concerned   with   the   quality   and   not   with   the
quantity   of   the   evidence   necessary   for   proving   or
disproving   a   fact.   Generally   speaking,   oral
testimony   in   this   context   may   be   classified   into
three categories, namely:
( 1 ) Wholly reliable.
( 2 ) Wholly unreliable.
( 3 ) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
In   the   first   category   of   proof,   the   court   should
have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either
way   —   it   may   convict   or   may   acquit   on   the
testimony   of   a   single   witness,   if   it   is   found   to   be
above   reproach   or   suspicion   of   interestedness,
incompetence   or   subornation.   In   the   second
category,   the   court   equally   has   no   difficulty   in
coming  to   its   conclusion.   It   is   in   the  third   category
of   cases,   that   the   court   has   to   be   circumspect   and
has to look for corroboration in material particulars
by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial..……”
5   [1957] SCR 981
15

22. We find that the testimony of Inder (PW­2) would fall
under   the   3 rd
  category   i.e.   his   evidence   can   be   said   to   be
“neither   wholly   reliable   nor   wholly   unreliable”.     As   such,   it
will   be   necessary   that   there   is   some   corroboration   to   his
ocular testimony.
23. The   trial   court   had   relied   on   the   recoveries   of   the
weapons on the memorandum of the accused persons alleged
to have been used in the commission of crime.  Insofar as the
seizure at the instance of accused Kanhaiya is concerned, he
was arrested on 1 st
 May 2002.  It is to be noted that there are
no   independent   panchas   to   the   seizure   memo.     Apart   from
that, the memorandum statement of accused Kanhaiya, as is
required to be recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act,
has also not been brought on record.  
24. Insofar   as   the   recoveries   at   the   instance   of   accused
Deepi   and   Balveer   are   concerned,   the   said   accused   have
surrendered   in   court   on   7 th
  May   2002.   Inspector   Ashok
Kumar Singh, Investigating Officer (PW­7) has stated that on
8 th
 May 2002, a search for the weapons was made in Burji at
Kosi   Road,   but   he   could   not   recover   any   weapon.     However
16

on   17 th
  May   2002,   the   recoveries   are   alleged   to   have   been
made   at   the   instance   of   accused   Deepi   and   Balveer.     Even
the   seizure   memo   of   the   recovery   in   respect   of   these   two
accused is not signed by any independent panch witness.  In
the   case   of   these   two   accused,   the   memorandum   recorded
under   Section   27   of   the   Evidence   Act   is   also   not   placed   on
record.  As such, the said recoveries cannot be said to be free
from doubt.
25. It   is   further   to   be   noted   that   immediately   after   the
incident, Vijay Singh, brother of deceased Prakash as well as
Omveer (PW­1) and Inder (PW­2), informed about the incident
to Police Station Shergarh on telephone which fact has come
on record in the evidence of Omveer (PW­1) and Inder (PW­2).
Neither   Vijay   has   been   examined   nor   has   the   station   diary
entry with regard to the said telephonic message been placed
on   record.     Though   Inder   (PW­2)   has   admitted   that   the
incident   was   witnessed   by   Parmal,   Rajveer   and   other
residents,   none   of   them   was   examined.   As   such,   the
possibility of the prosecution not bringing on record the real
genesis of the incident cannot be ruled out.
17

26. Shri   Singh   has   strongly   relied   on   the   judgment   of
this   Court   in   the   case   of   Smt.   Dalbir   Kaur   (supra)   in
support   of   the   submission   that   in   view   of   the   concurrent
findings   of   fact,   this   Court   should   not   re­appreciate   the
evidence.  No doubt that the reliance placed by Shri Singh  on
the judgment of this Court in the case of   Smt. Dalbir Kaur
(supra)   is   well   merited.     However,   it   is   to   be   noted   that   this
Court, in a catena of cases, has held that though in cases of
concurrent   findings   of   fact   this   Court   will   not   ordinarily
interfere   with   the   said   findings,   in   exceptional
circumstances,   this   Court   is   empowered   to   do   so.   If   this
Court finds that the appreciation of evidence and findings is
vitiated by any error of law or procedure or found contrary to
the   principles   of   natural   justice,   errors   of   record   and
misreading   of   the   evidence,   or   where   the   conclusions   of   the
High Court are manifestly  perverse, this Court would not be
powerless   to   reappreciate   the   evidence.       Reliance   in   this
respect could be placed on the judgments of this Court in the
cases   of   Himachal   Pradesh   Administration   v.   Shri   Om
Prakash 6
,   Arunachalam   v.   P.S.R.   Sadhanantham   and
6   (1972) 1 SCC 249
18

Another 7
,   Mithilesh   Kumari   and   Another   v.   Prem   Behari
Khare 8
,   State   of   U.P.   v.   Babul   Nath 9
,   and   Pattakkal
Kunhikoya   (Dead)   By   LRs.   v.   Thoopiyakkal   Koya   and
Another 10
.  
27. Recently,   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Ashoksinh
Jayendrasinh   v.   State   of   Gujarat 11
  had   also   held   that
when   the   High   Court   has   failed   to   appreciate   the   oral
evidence, this Court would certainly be entitled to appreciate
the   evidence   in   correct   perspective.     In   the   said   case   also,
this   Court,   finding   that   the   conviction   was   recorded   after
ignoring   the   vital   evidence,   has   set   aside   the   order   of
conviction and acquitted the accused.  
28. In the present case, we notice that the trial court as
and the High Court have failed to take into consideration the
vital discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses.
29. From   the   perusal   of   the   evidence   as   well   as   the
findings of the trial court itself, it is clear that Omveer (PW­1)
7   (1979) 2 SCC 297
8   (1989) 2 SCC 95
9   (1994) 6 SCC 29
10   (2000) 2 SCC 185
11   (2019) 6 SCC 535
19

cannot be said to be an eye witness.  Though, Inder (PW­2) is
an   injured   eye   witness,   there   are   serious   discrepancies   and
inconsistencies  with  regard  to   time  of  the  injuries  sustained
and   time   at   which   he   was   medically   examined.     Dr.   Anoop
Kumar   (PW­6),   in   his   evidence,   has   changed   his   stance   on
several occasions. His testimony is totally contrary to that of
Omveer (PW­1) and Inder (PW­2). As held by us, it will not be
safe   to   base   the   conviction   on   the   sole   testimony   of   Inder
(PW­2)   though   he   is   an   injured   witness.   The   corroboration
sought by the prosecution with regard to alleged recoveries of
the   weapons   used   in   the   crime   is   also   not   free   from   doubt.
Neither   the   station   diary   entry   with   regard   to   telephonic
intimation given by Vijay Singh at 9.05 am has been brought
on   record   nor   has   Vijay   Singh   been   examined.   Though
independent   witnesses   were   available,   the   prosecution   has
failed to examine them.  We therefore find that this is a case
wherein the appellants are entitled for benefit of doubt.
30. In the result, we pass the following order:
(i) The appeals are allowed;
20

(ii) The judgment and order dated 30 th
 April 2019 passed
by   the   High   Court   of   Judicature   at   Allahabad   in
Criminal   Appeal   Nos.   6961,   7260   and   6227   of   2006
and   the   judgment   and   order   dated   28 th
  September
2006 passed by the trial court in Sessions Trial Nos.
515 and 655 of 2002 are quashed and set aside; and
(iii) The   appellants   are   acquitted   of   all   the   charges
charged with.  Deepi, who has been enlarged on bail,
shall have his bail bonds cancelled, while the rest of
the accused are directed to be set at liberty forthwith,
if not required in any other case.
31. Pending   application(s),   if   any,   including   application
for bail, shall stand disposed of in the above terms.
…..….......................J.
[B.R. GAVAI]
…….................................................J.       
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 10, 2022.
21