IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA

Cr. Appeal No. 611 of 2017 along
with Cr. Appeal Nos. 612 of 2017
and 613 of 2017.

.

Reserved on: 27th August, 2018.

Date of Decision: 13th September, 2018.

1. Cr. Appeal No. 611 of 2017.

Peer Mohammad Azad …..Appellant.

State of H.P.
r to
Versus

…Respondent.

2. Cr. Appeal No. 612 of 2017.

Gulzar Ahmad Hakim …..Appellant.

Versus

State of H.P. …Respondent.

3. Cr. Appeal No. 613 of 2017.

Gulam Hassan Hakim …..Appellant.

Versus

State of H.P. …Respondent.

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

17/09/2018 22:58:29 :::HCHP
2

For the Appellant(s): Mr. Anoop Chitkara, Mr. Syed
Wasiq, Advocate, Mr. Ab. Majid
and Ms. Sheetal Vayas,
Advocates.

.

For the Respondent(s): Mr. Hemant Vaid, Additional

Advocate General.

_

Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.

All the aforesaid appeals are being disposed of

by a common judgment, as, all arise, from, a common

verdict rendered, by the learned trial Court.

2. The learned trial Court convicted besides

sentenced the accused/convicts, namely, Gulam Hassan

Hakim, Gulzar Ahmad Hakim, and, Peer Mohammad Azad,

in, the hereinafter extracted manner:-

Sr. Name of the Under Sentence Fine In default of
No. accused Section payment of fine

1. Gulam Hassan U/s 376 Rigorous Rs.10,000 Simple
Hakim IPC imprisonment /- imprisonment
for 7 years for 3 months

U/s 406 Rigorous Rs.5,000/ Simple
IPC imprisonment – imprisonment
for three years for 1 month

U/s 420 Rigorous Rs.5,000/ Simple
IPC imprisonment – imprisonment
for three years for 1 month
U/s 494 Rigorous Rs.5,000/ Simple
IPC imprisonment – imprisonment
for three years for 1 month
U/s 495 Rigorous Rs.5,000/ Simple
IPC imprisonment – imprisonment
for seven years for three
months
U/s 496 Rigorous Rs.5,000/ Simple
IPC imprisonment – imprisonment
for three years for 1 month

17/09/2018 22:58:29 :::HCHP
3

U/S 467 Rigorous Rs.5,000/ Simple
IPC imprisonment – imprisonment
for 7- years for thee months
U/s 468 Rigorous Rs.5,000/ Simple
IPC imprisonment – imprisonment
for three years for 1 month

.
U/s 471 Rigorous Rs.5,000/ Simple

IPC imprisonment – imprisonment
for three years for 1 month
U/S 120- Simple
B, IPC imprisonment — —

for 6 months
2. Gulzar Ahmad U/s 406 Rigorous Rs.5,000/ Simple
Hakim IPC imprisonment – imprisonment
for three years for 1 month
U/s 420 Rigorous Rs.5,000/ Simple

IPC imprisonment – imprisonment
for three years for 1 month
U/s 495 Rigorous Rs.5,000/ Simple
IPC imprisonment – imprisonment
r for seven years for three
months

U/s 496 Rigorous Rs.5,000/ Simple
IPC imprisonment – imprisonment
for three years for 1 month
U/S 467 Rigorous Rs.5,000/ Simple

IPC imprisonment – imprisonment
for 7- years for thee months
U/s 468 Rigorous Rs.5,000/ Simple
IPC imprisonment – imprisonment

for three years for 1 month
U/s 471 Rigorous Rs.5,000/ Simple

IPC imprisonment – imprisonment
for three years for 1 month
U/S 120- Simple

B, IPC imprisonment — —
for 6 months
3. Peer Mohammad U/s 495 Rigorous Rs.5,000/ Simple
Azad IPC imprisonment – imprisonment
for seven years for three
months
U/s 496 Rigorous Rs.5,000/ Simple
IPC imprisonment – imprisonment
for three years for 1 month
U/S 467 Rigorous Rs.5,000/ Simple
IPC imprisonment – imprisonment
for 7- years for thee months
U/s 468 Rigorous Rs.5,000/ Simple

17/09/2018 22:58:29 :::HCHP
4

IPC imprisonment – imprisonment
for three years for 1 month
U/s 471 Rigorous Rs.5,000/ Simple
IPC imprisonment – imprisonment
for three years for 1 month
U/S 120- Simple

.
B, IPC imprisonment — —

for 6 months

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. The facts relevant to decide the instant case

that on 24.10.1995 complainant/prosecutrix lodged a

complaint against accused Gulam Hassal Hakim, Gulzar

Ahmad and Peer Mohammad Azad to the effect that she

was carrying the business of export and import and was

living in India for the last 14 years. That during this period

she visited her native place in California 64 times and in

September, 2001 she came to Mcleodganj and stayed in

Mount View for a night and, thereafter, stayed in Hotel

Annex Him Queen Mcleodganj. That Gulam Hassan invited

her for dinner and introduced himself as a tourist guide

and complainant stayed in Hotel Annex Him Queen for

three days. That accused Gulam Hassan told her that he

sells Kashmiri carpets and upon request of the

complainant saw her carpets and had chosen two carpets.

That complainant encashed her traveler cheque from

Western Union and paid 1200 US dollars to Gulam Hassan

17/09/2018 22:58:29 :::HCHP
5

towards price of those carpets. That Gulam Hassan had

promised to post these two carpets to her native place in

California, but she did not received the said carpets. That

.

the complainant went to Delhi where Gulam Hassan had

already booked a hotel room for complainant and Gulam

Hassan had telephonically communicated to the

complainant on 11.09.2001 regarding bomb blast in USA

and called the complainant to Kashmir. The complainant

wanted to visit her children to California but there were no

flights to USA as per the directions of the US President and

she stayed at Delhi for a week. That initially complainant

refused to visit Kashmir, but since there were riots in Delhi,

so complainant visited Kashmir on 1.10.2011 and accused

Gulam Hassan met her at Srinagar airport with his friends.

Complainant stayed for one night in Mother Indian

Houseboat and thereafter left for Pehlgaum. That

complainant stayed at Pehalgaum for two weeks. Accused

Gulam Hassan had borrowed 1800 US dollars from the

complainant for which she enachsed her traveler cheque

at JK Bank, Srinagar and, thereafter, she left for

California. That when complainant left India accused

Gulam Hassan continuously telephoned her on various

occasions and even during midnight and Gulam Hassan

17/09/2018 22:58:29 :::HCHP
6

also talked to her family members and, thereafter, after

ten weeks complainant returned to India and Gulam

Hassan proposed her for marriage. The accused Gulam

.

Hassan gave reference of his being unmarried.

Complainant also told that said proposals were given to

her telephnically by Gulam Hassan when she was in

California. That Gulam Hassan also talked abut the

marriage with complainant’s mother and children. That

complainant came to Dharamshala and checked in Hotel

Annex Him Queen and went to Pehalgaum. On

30.05.2002, she was married with Gulam Hassan at

Srinagar. That the marriage ceremonies were solemnised

by a Muslim Priest, regarding this marriage, Nikahnama

was prepared which was signed by the complainant,

Gulam Hassan and remaining accused. That the aforesaid

marriage agreement was prepared in the same day at

High Court of Srinagar and the said agreement was signed

by Advocate Hakak, Ajay Ahmed and by Gulam Hassan

and accused Peer Mohammad and accused Gulazar Ahmad

Hakim as well as complainant, but this agreement was not

proper as it was declared in the agreement that both the

parties were un-married at the time of aforesaid marriage.

That after marriage, the complainant, stayed for five days

17/09/2018 22:58:29 :::HCHP
7

with Gulam Hassan as husband and wife and, therefore,

complainant returned to California. That Gulam Hassan

instructed the complainant to closure her business at

.

California and return to Pehalgaum. That complainant

purchased many items worth 3000 US Dollars for the use

of Gulam Hassan and when complainant came back,

Gulam Hassal picked her at Delhi Airport. That

complainant had eight big boxes with her and she stayed

during night in hotel at Delhi and had also given to Gulam

Hassan 9600 US Dollars in order to purchase piece of land.

That Gulam Hassan and complainant returned back to

Dharamshala, Gulam Hassan has sexually assaulted her

and left for Pehalgaum. They stayed at Dharamshala being

husband and wife in a separate house and she purchased

fridge and other house holds articles worth 2500 US

dollars. ON 8.11.2002 Gulam Hassan left in the morning

for Kashmir and complainant was alone at her house at

Dharamshala. That after some time accused Gulzar came

to the house of complainant with three porters and told

the complainant that Gulam Hassan was not coming back.

The complainant had sold all the articles of her house to

Gulzar for Rs.1,00,000/-. Complainant was sitting in the

van and Gulzar brought a blank paper having a stamp on

17/09/2018 22:58:29 :::HCHP
8

the top and Peer Mohammad gave her cold drink as she

was very upset. That the person wearing glasses asked

the complainant to sign the blank paper on both the sides

.

and also asked whether she had received Rs.1,00,000/-,

and he also told her to first collect the money and then

sign the register. Accused Gulzar paid her Rs.1,00,000/- in

the presence of accused Mohammad and the person who

was wearing glasses. That thereafter Gulam Hassan told

the complainant to go back to California. That after this

she returned again in March, 2003 and accused Gulzar told

her to stay with Gulam Hassan as it is customary in India

to buy gold for the family and the complainant had

purchased gold worth 1000 US dollars and for Gulam

Hassan and Gulzar at Dharamshala being family members.

Whens he questioned Gulam Hassan about her carpets

and the land so purchase,d Gulam Hassan told her that he

had bought land for her at Pehalgaum to construct a house

and she did not remember how much money she had paid

to Gula Hassan, her husband for the construction of house.

That Gulam Hssan sent her back to Dharamshala and

asked her to send more money and on this she had

deposited Rs.15,000/-. That Gulam Hassan had pretended

to complainant to be single and, therefore, complainant

17/09/2018 22:58:29 :::HCHP
9

married Gulam Hassan. Accused Gulzar and Peer

Mohammad signed the receipt and continuously lied with

her that Gulam Hassan was single and thereby accused

.

conspired to cheat her. Accused cheated her as Gulam

Hassan was already married. Accused Peer Mohammad is

signatory of the Nikhanama, marriage agreement and

receipt and in September, 2005, the complainant came to

know that Gulam Hassan was already married. It is stated

that Gulam Hassan also cheated Japanese girl, who

disclosed to the complainant that Gulam Hassan had

already married and thereby Gulam Hassan cheated many

women and accused Gulzar had also cheated many other

women and had extracted more than Rs. One crore from

them. The complainant went to the police to lodge the

report but the police refused to register any complaint,

and, thereafter she approached the Magistrate to lodge a

complaint and on the direction of the Magistrate, the FIR

was registered against the accused in the police station

concerned. Thereafter police completed all the

investigating formalities and arrested the accused.

4. On conclusion of the investigation, into the

offence, allegedly committed by the accused, a report,

17/09/2018 22:58:29 :::HCHP
10

under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was

prepared, and, filed before the learned trial Court.

5. The accused/convict Gulam Hassan Hakim

.

stood charged, by the learned trial Court, for, his

committing offences punishable under Sections 406, 420,

494, 495, 496, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120 B, IPC

and Section 376 of the IPC, accused/convict Gulzar Ahmad

Hakim stood charged for his committing offences

punishable under Sections 406, 420, 495, 496, 467, 468,

471 and read with Section 120-B, IPC, whereas, accused

Peer Mohammad Azad stood charged for his committing

offences punishable under Sections 495, 496, 467, 468,

471 and read with Section 120-B, IPC. In proof of the

prosecution case, the prosecution examined 31 witnesses.

On conclusion of recording, of, the prosecution evidence,

the statements of the accused, under, Section 313 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, were, recorded by the learned

trial Court, wherein, the accused claimed innocence, and,

pleaded false implication in the case. They have also

examined two witnesses in defence.

6. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the

learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction, upon,

17/09/2018 22:58:29 :::HCHP
11

the accused/convicts, for theirs hence committing, the,

aforesaid offences.

7. The appellants herein/accused, stands

.

aggrieved, by the findings of conviction, recorded, by the

learned trial Court. The learned counsel appearing, for,

the appellants herein/accused, has concertedly, and,

vigorously contended, qua the findings of conviction,

recorded by the learned trial Court, standing not, based on

a proper appreciation, by it, of the evidence on record,

rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-

appreciation, by it, of the material on record. Hence, he

contends qua the findings of conviction warranting

reversal by this Court, in the exercise of its appellate

jurisdiction, and, theirs being replaced by findings of

acquittal.

8. On the other hand, the learned Addl. Advocate

General has with considerable force and vigour,

contended qua the findings of conviction, recorded, by the

learned trial Court, rather standing based, on a mature

and balanced appreciation, by it, of the evidence on

record, and, theirs not necessitating any interference,

rather theirs meriting vindication.

17/09/2018 22:58:29 :::HCHP
12

9. This Court with the able assistance of the

learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and

incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record.

.

10. The learned trial Court, had, pronounced a

verdict, of, conviction, and, consequent imposition of

sentence, upon, accused Gulam Hassan Hakim, for, his

committing, the, apt criminal misdemeanor(s), of, his

forging Ex. PW1/E, (i) forgery whereof, purportedly ensues,

from, his appending thereon, the, false signatures, of, one

Josephine Marray alias Tabasum. However, the apt

conviction, and, consequent imposition of sentence, upon,

convict Gulam Hassan Hakim, for his purportedly, hence,

forging the signatures, of, aforesaid, upon, Ex.PW1/E, is

palpably fallacious, (ii) given the learned trial Court, rather

misreading the opinion rendered by the FSL concerned,

and, as borne in Ex.PW26/A, (iii) wherein, the handwriting

expert concerned, on making apt comparison, of, the

sample signatures of the aforesaid, with, the disputed

signatures, earmarked as Q-1 to Q-3, and, as, borne in

Ex.PW1/E, his making a clear opinion, qua, the aforesaid

rather not authoring, the afore referred disputed

signatures, (iv) reiteratedly, hence, the conviction and

consequent imposition of sentence, upon, Gulam Hassan

17/09/2018 22:58:29 :::HCHP
13

Hakim hence for his forging, the, signatures of the

complainant, upon, Ex.PW1/E, is set aside.

11. The marriage agreement, entered inter se, the

.

complainant, and, accused Gulam Hassan Hakim, is, borne

in Ex.PW1/D, and, thereunder, the, complainant hence

contracted marriage, with, accused one Gulam Hasan

Hakim. The complainant, does not, deny qua hers

executing EX.PW1/D. The criminal misdemeanor(s)

ascribed by the complainant, vis-a-vis, accused Gulam

Hassan Hakim, and, the witnesses thereto, namely Peer

Mohammad Azad, and, one Imtiyz Ahmad Hakak, is,

anvilled, upon, (a) all aforesaid rather beguiling, her to

execute it, (b) the, apt deception practised, upon, her is,

embodied in the complaint, besides, is, testified, by her

rather to arise, from, its rather containing a false recital,

vis-a-vis, accused Gulam Hassan Hakim, not, at the stage

contemporaneous to the execution of Ex.PW1/D, being

single or unmarried, rather his thereat being married to

one Jamila, (c) AND, his not annulling his marriage with

Jamila, though, assured to her by accused Gulam Hassan

Hakim, and, the witnesses to Ex.PW1/D. The prosecution

in proving the aforesaid factum, had, depended upon the

testification, in consonance therewith, rendered by the

17/09/2018 22:58:29 :::HCHP
14

complainant/prosecutrix, and, upon Ex.PW29/B, wherein,

Jamila, is, continued to be reflected, as, wife of accused

Gulam Hassan Hakim, besides reliance was placed, upon,

.

Ex.PW29/A, wherein similar therewith reflections also

stand carried. The afore reflections, borne, in the afore

referred exhibits, do carry, a presumption of truth, and,

even though there, is, no strict interdiction, under, Muslim

Law, against, the contracting, of, second marriage, inter se

Muslims, despite, subsistence, in contemporaneity thereto,

of, a prior marriage, of, either of the spouses concerned.

(i) Dehors, afore, the prosecutrix’s ascription of penal

misdemeanors, to her husband, and, the witnesses to

Ex.PW1/D, may, when stand founded, upon, a purported

false recital, rather standing borne therein, and,comprised

in one Gulam Hassan Hakim, rather in contemporaneity

thereto hence cohabiting with one Jamila, also may hence

achieve success, (ii) upon, best evidence, in, consonance

therewith standing adduced. (iii) However, since reliance

is placed, upon, the afore exhibits, thereupon, the falsity

or otherwise ,of, the aforesaid recitals borne therein, is

enjoined to be tested, given, the, afore reflections, borne,

in the aforesaid exhibits, rather tentatively, carrying forth,

the, prosecutrix’s ascriptions. However, for the reasons to

17/09/2018 22:58:29 :::HCHP
15

be assigned hereinafter, the reliance placed thereon, by

the learned trial Court, is fallacious, (iii) given the learned

trial Court, not, bearing in mind, the deposition rendered

.

by DW-1, the son, of, the deceased Moulvi, of, the village

concerned, (iv) especially, when, the apt defence

evidence, unless cogently eroded, rather stands at a

pedestal at par with the prosecution evidence, hence, also,

if, efficacious, rather does also enjoin, meteing, of,

apposite credence, and, probative vigour thereto. In his

testification, borne in his examination-in-chief, DW-1, has

with utmost candour, hence, made voicings therein, qua

his deceased father, the Moulvi of the village concerned, in

his presence, and, the in presence of 5-6 people rather

dissolving besides annulling, the, marital ties inter se

Jamila Begum, and, one Gulam Hassan Hakim. The afore

rendered testification, was, concerted to be shred, of, its

efficacy, by the learned PP concerned, by his subjecting

the aforesaid witness, to cross-examination, (v) yet, he

was unable to elicit, from him, any articulation, qua, no

custom prevailing in the area concerned, against any oral

dissolution, of, a muslim marriage, under, the aegis, of

the Moulvi, of, the area concerned. Consequently, with the

prosecution not thereafter, through, an appropriate

17/09/2018 22:58:29 :::HCHP
16

motion, being made therebefore, producing the relevant

best evidence, with open pronouncements therein (a) that

the father of DW-1 being not the Moulvi of the village

.

concerned, (b) nor it producing evidence, that, under the

apt custom prevailing in the area concerned, there being a

mandate, for, dissolution of marital ties, only, through a

written deed, (c) thereupon, want of adduction thereof,

rather leads, hence, to an inevitable conclusion qua the

deposition, of, DW-1 hence carrying worth, and, apt

probative vigour.

12. Be that as it may, even if, in the afore exhibits,

borne in Ex.PW29/A, and, in Ex.PW29/B, one Jamila Begum,

is continued, to be reflected to be residing in the house, of,

Gulam Hassan Hakim, yet the afore reflections, would not,

hence belittle, the testification of DW-1, as, her residing, in

the house of the accused, may not per se, beget any

further inference, of hers yet continuing to cohabit, with,

one Gulam Hassan Hakim, as his wife. The further reason

for making the aforesaid inference, arises, from the factum

qua with the testification, of, the aforesaid, rather

constituting the best evidence, for, belittling the efficacy,

of, the testification of DW-1, (i) whereas, the prosecution,

not, citing her, as a prosecution witness, nor hers stepping

17/09/2018 22:58:29 :::HCHP
17

into the witness box, rather hence galvanizes, a firm

inference qua the testification of DW-1, rather remaining

hence uneroded. In aftermath, it is to be concluded qua

.

the apt recitals, borne in Ex.PW1/D, qua in

contemporaneity, to the execution thereof, Gulam Hassan

Hakim being single, not hence holding any vice, of, any

falsity.

13. Furthermore, it is also to be determined

whether the ascriptions, made by the prosecutrix, against

the accused, appertaining to mis-appropriations, rather

holding any credibility or not. For gauging the credibility,

of, the prosecutrix’s ascriptions qua the aforesaid factum,

(i) it is imperative, to, allude to her testification, borne in

her cross-examination, (ii) importantly when, upon,

rather occurrence therein, of, gross improvements, and,

embellishments, vis-a-vis, the apt echoings occurring in

her examination-in-chief, and, vis-a-vis, her previous

statement recorded in writing, whereupon, rather her

credibility, would, stand pronounced, to, be hence eroded.

During the course, of, the exacting cross-examination, of,

the prosecutrix, by the learned defence counsel, the latter

confronted her, with, her previous statement, borne in

Ex.PW17/A, and, was able to therethrough, hence, make

17/09/2018 22:58:29 :::HCHP
18

emergences, qua her testification, in her examination-in-

chief, vis-a-vis, Gulam Hasan, borrowing 1800 US dollars,

being both an improved, and, an embellished version,

.

given, it, visibly standing not embodied in Ex.PW17/A.

Likewise her version in her examination-in-chief qua hers

lending 9600 US dollars, to accused Gulam Hassan, for

purchasing land, in Pehalgaum, is also an apt improved or

embellished version, as it, upon hers being confronted,

with, her previous statement, recorded in writing, borne

Ex.PW17/A, rather not finding any mention therein.

Further more, her testification in her examination-in-chief,

qua hers being asked by accused Gulam Hassan, to close

her business at California, and, to return to his house, at

Pehalgaum, is also ridden with an aura of falsity, given,

Ex.PW17/A, wherewith, the prosecutrix, during, the course

of her cross-examination, stood, confronted with, by the

learned defence counsel, rather not carrying any

concurrent therewith articulations. Likewise her version, in

her examination-in-chief, qua, upon, hers returning from

California, thereupon, accused Gulam Hassan picking her

at Delhi Airport, whereat,she had eight big boxes with her,

and, hers staying in a hotel in Delhi, is, also an improved

or an embellished version, (i) as it, upon, hers being

17/09/2018 22:58:29 :::HCHP
19

confronted with her previous statement recorded in

writing, and, as, borne in Ex.PW17/A, it, not finding any

mention therein. (ii) Furthermore, her version in her

.

examination-in-chief qua the accused Gulam Hassan

hence sexually assaulting her at Dharamshala, is also, an

improved, and, an embellished version, (iii) given, upon,

hers, being confronted by the learned defence counsel,

with her previous statement recorded in writing, and, as

borne in Ex. PW17/A, it, not finding any mention therein.

(iv) Likewise her version, in her examination-in-chief, qua,

theirs staying at Dharamshala, in, a separate

accommodation, as husband and wife, and, hers

purchasing T.V. Fridge etc, worth 2500 US dollars, (v) as

also her version, qua, on, 8.11.2002, accused Gulam

Hassan, leaving, in the morning to Kashmir, and, hers

being alone at Dharamshala, and, her friend coming to his

house, and, after some time, accused Gulzar Ahmed,

coming to her house, with three porters, and, telling that

accused Gulam Hassan, is, not coming back, and, hers

selling the articles lying in house to accused Gulzar, for

Rs.1,00,000/-, (vi) are all hence an apt improved, and,

embellished version(s), given, on hers being confronted,

by the learned defence counsel, with, her previous

17/09/2018 22:58:29 :::HCHP
20

statement, borne in Ex.PW17/A, the aforesaid factum, not,

finding any mention therein. Moreover, her version

occurring, in her examination-in-chief, qua, a Muslim

.

Priest hence coming to the houseboat, wherein, she was

staying, for rather solemnizing her marriage, with, accused

Gulam Hassan, as also, her version occurring in her

examination-in-chief qua after, the, solemnising, of, their

marriage in the houseboat, theirs, coming to High Court at

Srinagar, (vii) whereat, the apt marriage agreement, borne

in Ex.PW1/D, was prepared, is also ridden with an aura of

falsity, given, Ex.PW17/A, wherewith the prosecutrix stood

confronted, during, the course of her cross-examination,

not carrying, any, concurrent therewith apt recital(s).

Furthermore, her version in her examination-in-chief qua

accused Gulzar Ahmed after purchasing the aforesaid

articles, hence, bringing her, to, the court, on the pretext

of giving her, a receipt, and, hers signing a blank paper, is

also an improved besides an embellished version, vis-a-vis,

her previous statement recorded in writing, as, borne in

Ex.PW17/A, given hers, on, being confronted therewith, it,

not, finding any mention therein.

14. The afore apparent gross embellishments, and,

improvements, as, made by the prosecutrix, in her

17/09/2018 22:58:29 :::HCHP
21

examination-in-chief, vis-a-vis, her previous statement

recorded in writing, and, as borne in Ex.PW17/A, do, on all

fronts, hence render all her echoings, as, borne in her

.

examination-in-chief, to be hence ridden, with, a pervasive

vice of falsity, (b)with, the further concomitant effect qua

her testification, in, purported corroboration, of, the

contents of Ex.PW17/A, being not amenable, for meteing,

of, any probative vigour or any credence thereto.

15. The effect of the aforesaid discussion, is, qua

despite the testification of the prosecutrix, as, comprised

in her examination-in-chief, being omnibusly incredible, it

rather being hence grossly improper, for, the learned trial

Court, to proceed to render an order of conviction, upon,

the convicts/appellants herein. In aftermath, the findings

of conviction, as, recorded by the learned trial Court, upon,

the convicts , hence, suffer from gross perversity or

absurdity of gross mis-appreciation, of, evidence on

record.

16. For the reasons which have been recorded

hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court,

has not appraised the entire evidence on record in a

wholesome and harmonious manner, apart therefrom, the

analysis of the material, on record, by the learned trial

17/09/2018 22:58:29 :::HCHP
22

court, hence, suffers from, a, gross perversity or absurdity

of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of germane

evidence on record.

.

17. Consequently, all the appeals are allowed and

the judgement of conviction, impugned before this Court,

is, set aside. In sequel, all the convicts/appellants are

acquitted of the offences charged. The convicts/appellants

are ordered to be released forthwith, from, judicial

custody, if they are not required in any other case or

process of law. Fine amount, if any, deposited by the

convicts be refunded to them. Release orders be prepared

accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed

of. Records be sent back forthwith.

(Sureshwar Thakur)
Judge

13th September, 2018.

(jai)

17/09/2018 22:58:29 :::HCHP