Page No.1 of 18 IN CRA-905-2019, CRA-945-2019, CRA- 990-2019 & CRA-1721-2019 2025:CGHC:7727-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR [Arising out of a common impugned judgment dated 17.05.2019, passed in Special Criminal (Atrocities) Case No.27 of 2017, by the Special Judge (Atrocities), North Bastar, Kanker (CG)] CRA No. 905 of 2019 1 - Krishan Jain S/o Saumaiyayya Jain Aged About 50 Years R/o Bazar Para, Durgukondal, District Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chandra Vijay Jain S/o Krishna Jain Aged About 25 Years R/o Bazar Para, Durgukondal, District Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh --- Appellants Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Durgukondal, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System [CIS]) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Tapan Chandra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. T.K. Jah, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. Adv. General ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CRA No. 945 of 2019 B. Venkatesh S/o Somaiya Jain Aged About 40 Years R/o Kodapakha, Police Station- Durgukondal, District- Kanker, Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Durgukondal, District- North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System [CIS]) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Date: 2025.02.21 17:09:01 +0530 Page No.2 of 18 IN CRA-905-2019, CRA-945-2019, CRA- 990-2019 & CRA-1721-2019 For Appellant : Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. Adv. General ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CRA No. 990 of 2019 Hanshraj Jain S/o Ramchandra Jain Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Edanar, Police Station- Tadoki, District- Kanker, Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Durgukondal, District- North Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System [CIS]) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Shivang Dubey, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. Adv. General ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CRA No. 1721 of 2019 Gajendra Suryavanshi S/o Mansha Ram Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Adanar, Police Tadoki, District Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Durgukondal, District North Bastar - Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System [CIS]) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. Adv. General ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (13.02.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J (1) Regard being had to the similitude of the questions of fact and law involved and being arising out of a common impugned judgment dated 17.05.2019, on the joint request of learned counsel for the Page No.3 of 18 IN CRA-905-2019, CRA-945-2019, CRA- 990-2019 & CRA-1721-2019 parties, all these appeals are clubbed together, heard together and being decided by this common judgment. (2) In these 04 criminal appeals filed under Section 374(2) of CrPC, total 05 accused-appellants, namely, Krishna Jain (A-1), Chandra Vijay Jain (A-5), B. Venkatesh (A-2), Hanshraj Jain (A-4) and Gajendra Suryavanshi (A-3) respectively are calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of a common impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.05.2019, passed in Special Criminal (Atrocities) Case No.27 of 2017, by the Special Judge, constituted under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the54 Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the “Atrocities Act”), North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.), whereby they all have been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence U/s. 458/34 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 07 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- each and, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 year each. U/s. 342/34 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 06 months with fine of Rs.500/- each and, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 15 days each. U/s. 376D/34 of IPC Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- each and, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 year each. U/s. 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- each and, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 year each. Page No.4 of 18 IN CRA-905-2019, CRA-945-2019, CRA- 990-2019 & CRA-1721-2019 U/s. 395/34 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- each and, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 year each. U/s. 294 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 15 days with fine of Rs.100/- each and, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 07 days each. U/s. 506 (Part-II) of IPC [wrongly mentioned as 506B of IPC in the impugned judgment] Rigorous imprisonment for 06 months with fine of Rs.500/- each and, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 month each. U/s. 323/34 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 06 months with fine of Rs.100/- each and, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 month each. U/s. 120B/34 of IPC Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,000/- each and, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 year each. [All the sentences are directed to run concurrently] (3) The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 21.03.2017, at about 09:45 PM in the night, all the accused-appellants herein, who are neither members of Scheduled Castes community nor Scheduled Tribe, firstly conspired with each other and, in furtherance of their conspiracy, illegally trespassed into the house of the victim (PW-01), situated at Durgukondal, thereafter, illegally confined Harish Kumar Sahu (PW-03) and Ku. Deepika (PW-23) near the pond and, also, committed gang rape with the victim (PW- 01), knowing fully well that she belongs to Scheduled Caste community against her will and consent, abused her with filthily Page No.5 of 18 IN CRA-905-2019, CRA-945-2019, CRA- 990-2019 & CRA-1721-2019 words and threatened her to kill and further looted mobile phone and, thereby, said to have committed the aforesaid offences. (4) The further case of the prosecution is that after the incident, when victim (PW-01) reported the matter to the police by submitting written complaint (Ex.P/01), FIR (Ex.P/02) was registered by the police against two unknown persons wearing mask and wheels of investigation started running, in which, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/04A. Victim’s statement under Section 164 of CrPC was recorded vide Ex.P/11. After obtaining necessary consent and permission, the victim (PW-01) was subjected to medical examination, which was conducted by Dr. Bhagya Laxmi Kosma (PW-10) and, as per her MLC report Ex.P/20, it has been opined that no injuries were found over the body of the victim (PW-01) and she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Further, victim’s vaginal slide were also prepared and handed over to the police alongwith her undergarment for analysis, which were seized vide Ex.P/24. Some other clothes of the victim (PW-01) i.e. gown, petticoat and blouse were also seized vide Ex.P/08. The accused-appellants were arrested vide Ex.P/36 to Ex.P/40. Memorandum statements of the appellants were recorded vide Ex.P/14, Ex.P/15, Ex.P/17, Ex.P/26 & Ex.P/27 respectively. (5) From the possession of the appellants following articles were seized as under: Name of accused Exhibit Seized Article Page No.6 of 18 IN CRA-905-2019, CRA-945-2019, CRA- 990-2019 & CRA-1721-2019 No. Krishna Jain (A-1) Ex.P/31 Motorcycle B. Venkatesh (A-2) Ex.P/32 Motorcycle Gajendra Suryavanshi (A-3) Ex.P/28, Ex.P/29 & Ex.P/34 Axe, knife, Mobile phone, undergarment & slides Hanshraj Jain (A-4) Ex.P/30 & Ex.P/35 Axe and naxal letter Chandra Vijay Jain (A-5) Ex.P/33 2 Gamcha, 2 T-shirt, 2 Barmuda (6) Thereafter, out of the aforesaid seized articles, clothes of the victim alongwith her vaginal slide and undergarment of appellant- Gajendra Suryavanshi (A-3) alongwith his slides were sent for chemical analysis and, as per FSL report (Ex.P/45), it has been opined that human semen were found on the slide of the victim (PW-01) as also on the slide of appellant- Gajendra Suryavanshi (A- 3) and stains of human sperm/semen were found on the undergarment of appellant- Gajendra Suryavanshi (A-3). Victim’s caste certificate (Article-A) was also obtained/seized vide Ex.P/09. The injured witnesses, namely, Harish Kumar Sahu (PW-03) and Ku. Deepika (PW-23) were also subjected to medical examination. Further, naxal letter which was seized from the spot vide Ex.P/35 was sent to State Examiner of Questioned Documents, Raipur for handwriting expert opinion alongwith sample letters of appellant- Hanshraj Jain (A-4) and, as per the opinion of handwriting expert (Ex.P/50), the person who wrote the red enclosed writing stamped Page No.7 of 18 IN CRA-905-2019, CRA-945-2019, CRA- 990-2019 & CRA-1721-2019 and marked S1 to S14 also wrote the red enclosed questioned writing similarly stamped and marked as A1 to A3. Thereafter, statements of witnesses were recorded and, after due investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences in the competent criminal Court having jurisdiction, which was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and trial in accordance with law, in which, the appellants abjured their guilt and entered into defence by stating that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. (7) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 24 witnesses and exhibited 51 documents apart from Article-A, whereas the appellants in support of their defence have only examined 01 witness and exhibited 02 documents. (8) The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, proceeded to convict all the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 458/34, 342/34, 376D, 395/34, 294, 506(Part-II), 323/34, 120B/34 of IPC as also under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act and sentenced them as mentioned in Para-02 of this judgment, against which these 04 appeals have been preferred by the appellants/accused questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. (9) Mr. B.P. Singh, Mr. Tapan Chandra, Mr. Shivang Dubey and Mr. Shikhar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respective Page No.8 of 18 IN CRA-905-2019, CRA-945-2019, CRA- 990-2019 & CRA-1721-2019 appellants would jointly submit that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting all the appellants for the aforesaid offences. They vehemently argued that the victim (PW-01) has not named any of the appellants herein either in the written complaint (Ex.P/01) or in the FIR (Ex.P/02). Even in victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC also and in her Court’s statement, she failed to identify any of the accused- appellants herein to be the authors of the crime in question. Test Identification Parade has also not been conducted in the present case, which the learned trial Court has also recorded in Para-82 of the impugned judgment. As such, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the identification of the appellants to be the persons who on the date and time of the offence have committed the crime of gang rape with the victim (PW-01). Furthermore, Harish Kumar Sahu (PW-03) and Ku. Deepika (PW-23), who are said to have been illegally confined by the appellants, have also not identified any of the accused persons/appellants herein, who have allegedly illegally confined them by trespassing into the house of the victim (PW-01) and committed gang rape with the victim. Learned counsel further submits that as per MLC report (Ex.P/20), duly proved by Dr. Bhagya Laxmi Kosma (PW-10), no injuries were found on the body of the victim (PW-01) and she is habitual to sexual intercourse being married lady, therefore, there is no medical evidence available on record to show that any force was used by the appellants to commit Page No.9 of 18 IN CRA-905-2019, CRA-945-2019, CRA- 990-2019 & CRA-1721-2019 gang rape on the victim (PW-01). As such, there is no evidence on record to show that the victim (PW-01) was subjected to gang rape by the appellants herein. (10) It is contended on behalf of appellant- Gajendra (A-3) that though FSL report (Ex.P/45) found positive with regard to appellant- Gajendra Suryavanshi (A-3), but a bare perusal of the said FSL report (Ex.P/45) would show that the seized articles were sent for chemical examination to FSL, Raipur on 11.05.2017 (seized on 22.03.2017), which were received therein on 27.05.2017, i.e. after more than 02 months from the date of incident and there is no evidence on record to show that the said articles were kept in safe custody for the said period, as such, chances of manipulation and tempering with the said seized articles is on higher side and, therefore, it creates a doubt on the credibility and authenticity of the FSL report (Ex.P/45). Consequently, opinion of FSL report (Ex.P/45) pales into insignificance and cannot be relied upon to hold the appellant guilty of the offence in question that too when no DNA profiling has been conducted in the present case. Learned counsel jointly argued that once it is found that the offence under Section 376D of IPC is not made out, offence under Section 450 & 342 of IPC as also offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act are also liable to be set aside. Though, in the present case one mobile phone of Harish Kumar Sahu (PW-03) is said to have been looted by appellant- Gajendra Suryavanshi (A-3), but there is no Page No.10 of 18 IN CRA-905-2019, CRA-945-2019, CRA- 990-2019 & CRA-1721-2019 document/evidence on record to show that the said mobile phone was originally owned by Harish (PW-03) and even Harsih (PW-03) himself has not identified the said mobile phone seized vide Ex.P/28 from appellant- Gajendra (A-3). Hence, all the appeals deserves to be allowed in full and all the appellants are liable to be acquitted from all the charges on the basis of benefit of doubt. (11) Per-contra, learned State counsel would submit that prosecution has been able to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent-State that in view of statements of the victim (PW-01), Harish (PW-03) and Ku. Deepika (PW-23) and husband of the victim (PW-02) coupled with other evidence available on record, the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced all the appellants for the offences mentioned herein- above. Therefore, all the appeals are liable to be dismissed. (12) We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. (13) In the instant case, the main offence that is said to have been committed by the appellants is offence under Section 376D of IPC, whereby it is alleged that on the date and time of the offence, all the accused/appellants conspired with each other and, in furtherance of their common intension, appellants- Chandra Vijay Jain (A-5), B. Venkatesh (A-2), Hanshraj Jain (A-4) and Gajendra Suryavanshi (A- Page No.11 of 18 IN CRA-905-2019, CRA-945-2019, CRA- 990-2019 & CRA-1721-2019 3) unauthorizedly trespassed into the house of the victim (PW-01) and, thereafter, appellants- Chandra Vijay Jain (A-5), B. Venkatesh (A-2), Hanshraj Jain (A-4) and Gajendra Suryavanshi (A-3) illegally confined Harish (PW-03) and Ku. Deepika (PW-23) and appellant- Gajendra Suryavanshi (A-3) committed rape with the victim (PW- 01). (14) A careful perusal of the statement of the victim (PW-01) would show that though in Para-01 she stated that the appellants herein are resident of Durgukondal and Edanar respectively, but in the entire statement before the Court she did not name any of the accused persons/appellants to be the authors of the crime in question. According to the victim (PW-01), on the date and time of the offence, two persons, who came to her house and illegally confined Harish (PW-03) and Deepika (PW-23) have covered their faces by mask and, therefore, she could not identify them. The victim (PW-01) has also stated that one of the person who committed sexual intercourse with her, has also covered his face by mask and, thus, she could not identify him also. Further, though the victim (PW-01) has lodged written complaint (Ex.P/01), but she did not name any of the accused persons/appellants herein to be the author of the crime. Even otherwise, in victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 (Ex.P/12) she did not name any of the appellants herein. In this regard, the learned trial Court in Para-82 of the judgment has also stated that Test Identification Parade (TIP) Page No.12 of 18 IN CRA-905-2019, CRA-945-2019, CRA- 990-2019 & CRA-1721-2019 has also not been conducted in the present matter. As such, there is no evidence available on record to show that the victim (PW-01) has identified the appellants to be the authors of the crime in question. Merely on the basis of victim’s statement before the Court that she knew that the appellants herein are resident of Durgukondal and Edanar respectively, it cannot be said that she has identified the appellants before the Court as authors of the crime. (15) In an identical matter of Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana 1 their Lordships of the Supreme Court held in Para-26 as under: “26. Admittedly, no identification parade was conducted to identify the appellant as the description given by the prosecutrix about the details did not match with his appearance. All through, she has been describing the appellant as gitta (short-statured) man with beard, whereas a statement before the Bench has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant, after verification from the appellant's wife, that he is 5′ 6″ tall. This fact has been independently corroborated by the jailor's report on this specific query. Even though a man having a height of 5′ 6″ cannot be said to be tall but by no stretch of imagination, could he be called a gitta (short- statured) man. Admittedly, she was already shown the appellant and the other accused at the police station, after they were arrested. Thus, her dock identification in the court had become meaningless.” (16) In the present case also no TIP was conducted to identify the accused/appellants and even no other efforts have been made by the investigating agency to identify the accused persons. The victim (PW-01) in her statement before the Court has also not identified 1 (2011) 7 SCC 130 Page No.13 of 18 IN CRA-905-2019, CRA-945-2019, CRA- 990-2019 & CRA-1721-2019 any of the accused person who on the date and time of the incident illegally entered into her house, illegally confined Harish (PW-03) and Deepika (PW-23) and committed rape with her. Therefore, the statement of the victim (PW-01) is of no help to the prosecution in this regard. So far as Harsih (PW-03) is concerned, he has also not clearly identified any of the accused persons. He only stated that the unknown persons’ faces were covered with mask and their age might be about 32 years. He also stated that at the relevant time, it was dark night and there was one short heighted man and one long heighted man, but he fairly stated that who were those persons, he could not identify as their faces were covered with mask. As such, the statement of Harish (PW-3), who is alleged eye-witness to the incident is also of no use to the prosecution. So far as Ku. Deepika (PW-23) is concerned, in cross-examination, she admitted the fact that in the night hours the incident took place whereby two persons came to the house, but who were those persons she could not identify, as their faces were covered. Ku. Deepika (PW-23) has also admitted that the police authorities have not conducted any TIP in front of her. Further, from the statement of Dr. Bhagyalaxmi Kosma (PW-10), who medically examined the victim and gave MLC report (Ex.P/20) has clearly stated that no injuries were found over the body of the victim and, as she is a married lady. (17) The learned trial Court has also relied upon the FSL report (Ex.P/45), in which, it has been opined that human semen was Page No.14 of 18 IN CRA-905-2019, CRA-945-2019, CRA- 990-2019 & CRA-1721-2019 found on the slide of the victim (PW-01) as also on the slide of appellant- Gajendra Suryavanshi (A-3) and stains of human sperm/semen were found on the undergarment of appellant- Gajendra Suryavanshi (A-3). However, a bare perusal of the said FSL report (Ex.P/45) would show that the seized articles i.e. slides of the victim and appellant- Gajendra (A-3) and his undergarment were seized on 26.04.2017, which were sent for chemical examination to FSL, Raipur on 11.05.2017 and the same were received therein on 27.05.2017, i.e. after delay of about 01 months from the date of its seizure and there is no evidence on record to show that the said articles were kept in safe custody for the said period, as such, chances of manipulation and tempering with the said seized articles is on higher side and, consequently, it creates a doubt on the credibility and authenticity of the FSL report (Ex.P/45). Therefore, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Santa Singh v. State of Punjab 2 , wherein it has been held that if there exists a suspicious delay in sending the sealed parcel to the expert, the result is vitiated. Consequently, the opinion of the FSL report (Ex.P/25) pales into insignificance and cannot be relied upon to convict the appellant- Gajendra Suryavanshi (A-3) for the offence of rape with the victim (PW-01) that too when no DNA profiling or matching of semen of any of the appellants with that found on the slide of the victim (PW-01) was conducted in the 2 AIR 1956 SC 526 Page No.15 of 18 IN CRA-905-2019, CRA-945-2019, CRA- 990-2019 & CRA-1721-2019 present case. As also held in Krishan Kumar Malik (supra) in Para- 44 that it has become necessary for the prosecution to got in for DNA test in such type of cases, facilitating the prosecution to prove its case against the accused. The prosecution could have resorted to the procedure of getting the DNA test or analysis and matching of semen of the appellant with that found on the undergarments of the prosecutrix to make a foolproof case, but they did not do so, thus, they must face the consequence. (18) As such, in view of aforesaid discussion, from the statements of victim (PW-1), Harish (PW-03), Ku. Deepika (PW-23) and Dr. Bhagyalaxmi Kosma (PW-10) and in light of vitiated result of the FSL report (Ex.P/45) and further in absence of any DNA profiling, it is not proved whether the victim (PW-01) was subjected to gang rape by any of the appellants on the date and time of the offence and the prosecution has also miserably failed to established the same beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, all the appellants are entitled for acquittal from charge under Section 376D of IPC on the basis of benefit of doubt. We hereby hold accordingly. (19) Now, so far as recovery of certain articles for the appellants is concerned, in the present case, firstly it is alleged that from the possession of appellant- Gajendra Suryavanshi (A-3) mobile phone belonging to Harish (PW-03) was seized vide Ex.P/28. But no evidence either ocular or documentary has been brought on record to show that the said mobile phone was originally owned by Harish Page No.16 of 18 IN CRA-905-2019, CRA-945-2019, CRA- 990-2019 & CRA-1721-2019 (PW-03) or he has purchased the same by any dealer. Even no identification of the said mobile phone was conducted in the present case to establish that it was the same mobile which was looted by any of the appellants or used in commission of the offence in question on the date and time of the offence. As such, recovery of mobile phone vide Ex.P/28 is of no help to the prosecution, as looting/dacoity of the said mobile phone is not established beyond reasonable doubt. Further, so far as recovery of: (i) motor-cycles from Krishna Jain (A-1) and B. Venkatesh (A-2); (ii) clothes from Chandra Vijay Jain (A-5); & (iii) two Axe and one knife from Hanshraj Jain (A-4) and Gajendra Suryavanshi (A-3) are concerned, it is nowhere established on record that the said articles were used by any of the appellants in commission of the crime in question. Therefore, the recovery of said articles is also of no help to the prosecution and cannot be relied upon to hold the appellants herein guilty of the offence in question. (20) Similarly, the recovery of naxal letter vide Ex.P/35 is concerned, which was also sent to State Examiner of Questioned Documents, Raipur for handwriting expert opinion alongwith sample letters of appellant- Hanshraj Jain (A-4) and, as per the opinion of handwriting expert (Ex.P/50), the person who wrote the red enclosed writing stamped and marked S1 to S14 (sample letters of A-4) also wrote the red enclosed questioned writing similarly stamped and marked as A1 to A3 (naxal letter). However, the fact Page No.17 of 18 IN CRA-905-2019, CRA-945-2019, CRA- 990-2019 & CRA-1721-2019 remained that the said naxal letter was seized from the spot and it was neither seized from the possession of appellant- Hanshraj (A-4) or from the possession of any of the appellants herein. The said letter was also not seized pursuant to the memorandum statement of any of the appellant herein. No witness has supported the recovery of said naxal letter from the appellants herein and it was simply recovered from the spot. Therefore, the same is also of no use to the prosecution and cannot be relied upon under the facts and circumstances of the present case. As such, neither the charge of loot/dacoity, house trespassing and use to criminal force on the victims etc. is established in the present case beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, all the appellants herein are liable to be acquitted of the said charges on the basis of benefit of doubt. We hereby hold accordingly. (21) So far as offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act is concerned and, for which, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, since all the accused-appellants have been held to be entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt by us in foregoing paragraphs and they have been exonerated from the main charge i.e. for offence under Section 376D of IPC, therefore, the charge for offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act is also liable to be set aside qua each of the appellants. We hereby hold accordingly. (22) Accordingly, in view of above discussion, the conviction and Page No.18 of 18 IN CRA-905-2019, CRA-945-2019, CRA- 990-2019 & CRA-1721-2019 their respective sentences of all the appellants for offences punishable under Sections Sections 458/34, 342/34, 376D, 395/34, 294, 506(Part-II) [wrongly mentioned as 506B of IPC in impugned judgment], 323/34, 120B/34 of IPC as also under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act, as imposed upon him by the learned trial Court, are hereby set aside. They are acquitted of the said charges on the basis of benefit of doubt. Since appellants- Gajendra Suryavanshi (A-3) and Hanshraj Jain (A-4) are reported to be in jail, we direct that they be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other matter/crime. Further, since appellants- Krishna Jain (A- 1), Chandra Vijay Jain (A-5) and B. Venkatesh (A-2) are reported to be on bail, therefore, they need not to surrender, however, their bail bonds shall remain in force for a further period of 06 months in view of provisions contained under Section 437-A of CrPC. (23) Consequently, all 04 criminal appeals are allowed to the extent indicated herein above. (24) Let a certified copy of this judgment alongwith the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned as well as to the Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are languishing for necessary information and action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge s@if