1 2025:CGHC:14381 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 532 of 2017 1 - Chandraprakash @ Chand Kumar S/o Radheshyam Sarthi, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Jhagarha, Police Station Balko Nagar, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. , 2 - Rajesh Goswami S/o Ramesh Goswami, Aged About 22 Years Present Age 24 Years, R/o Village Kotmarra, Police Station Pasan, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Pollice Station Balko, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant No.1 For Appellant No.2 : : Mr. Ashesh Kumar, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Dashrath Prajapati, Advocate Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate with Mr. T.R. Patel, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, P.L. for the State. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 25/03/2025 1. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.02.2017 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act), District – Korba (C.G.) 2 in Special Sessions Case No.10 of 2015, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- (Appellant No.1 Chandraprakash @ Chand Kumar) Conviction Sentence Under Section 363 of I.P.C. : R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine Additional R.I. for 6 months. Under Section 366 of IPC : R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.3,000/- in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 1 year. Under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC & 6 of Protection of children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act, 2012) : R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 2 years. Under Section 506 (B) of IPC : R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 6 months. (All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.) (Appellant No.2 Rajesh Goswami) Conviction Sentence Under Section 363 of IPC R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 6 months. 2. The brief facts of the case are that in the month of September 2014, the victim PW-14 and her younger sister PW-10 were allured by the appellants to go to Mumbai to meet the film stars, and they had taken the victim and her younger sister with them. But instead of going to Mumbai, they took them to Ahmedabad. The accused persons kept the victim and her younger sister in the Smooth Chocolate Factory for about 3 months; thereafter, they came back to Raipur and stayed at the village Kolar for about two months. 3 While staying with the victim PW-14, the appellant No.1 Chandraprakash @ Chand Kumar committed rape upon her repeatedly at Ahmedabad and even at village Kolar. They also threatened them that if they tried to flee from the place, they would be thrown into prostitution, and they would kill them. Somehow, they informed their mother PW-11 through mobile phone, and then her mother brought them back with her and lodged the FIR Ex.P/11 on 27.01.2015 against the appellants. The police have registered the FIR for the offence under Section 363, 366, 376, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short “the POCSO Act”) and Section 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (in short “SC/ST Act”). The victim was sent for her medical examination to District Hospital, Korba, where she was being medically examined by PW-1, Dr. K.B. Shonkar, who, after her examination, gave report Ex.P/1. During her medical examination, the doctor had not noticed any external injuries on her body and opined that the victim was habitual in intercourse. Two slides of her vaginal swab were prepared sealed and handed over to police for its chemical examination. The victim was also referred for her X-ray examination for age determination. PW-2 Dr. V. Verma has radiologically examined the victim and given his ossification report, Ex.P/2. According to the ossification report Ex.P/2, the doctor PW-2 has opined that the age of the victim is between 15 to 17 years. Spot map Ex.P/4 was prepared by the patwari, and Ex.P/12 was prepared by the police. The social status certificate of the victim has been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/14, and her social status certificate is Ex.P/10. The appellants were arrested on 28.01.2015, and the appellant Chandraprakash was sent for his medical examination to the District Hospital, Korba, where he was examined by PW-5, Dr. Ashok Shakya, who, after his examination, gave report Ex.P/6. After medically examining the appellant Chandraprakash @ Chand Kumar, the doctor has opined that he 4 found nothing suggestive that the person cannot perform sexual intercourse. The vaginal slides of the victim and the semen slide, underwear and pubic hair of the appellant Chandraprakash were sent for chemical examination to State FSL Raipur from where FSL report Ex.P/25 was received. According to the FSL report semen and sperm were found on the vaginal slide of the victim as well as semen slides of the appellant Chandraprakash, however, no semen and sperm were found on other articles. The statement of the witnesses have been recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and statement of the victim and other witnesses were recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and after completion of usual investigation charge-sheet was filed before the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 363, 366, 376, 506 & 34 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 3(1)(xii) of SC/ST Act. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellant Chandraprakash @ Chand Kumar for the offence under Section 363, 366, 376(2)(n) and Section 506(B) of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act and against the appellant Rajesh Goshwami charge under Section 363 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xii) of SC/ST Act were framed. The appellants denied the charge and claimed trial. 3. In order to establish the charge against the appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses. The statement of the appellants under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has also been recorded in which they denied the circumstances that appear against them, pleaded innocence and have submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. The appellant Chandraprakash has further stated that there was a land dispute between his father (father of the appellant Chandraprakash @ Chand Kumar) and the father of the victim, for which a false report has been lodged against him. It is stated by the accused Rajesh Goshwami that the elder brother of the accused Chandraprakash @ Chand Kumar is his brother-in- 5 law and therefore, they have been falsely implicated in the offence. Two defence witnesses have been examined by the appellants in their defence. 4. After appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties, the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Mr. Ashesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Chandraprakash @ Chand Kumar, would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Which cannot be made the basis to convict the appellant of the offence in question. There is no legally admissible evidence with respect to the age of the victim that she was minor on the date of the incident. There is no birth certificate or any school record of the victim has been produced. The prosecution has produced the ossification test report of victim in which the doctor has opined that the age of the victim was in between the 15 to 17 year and there is error of margin of two years on either side and applying the principle of error of margin of two years in positive side the victim comes to more than 18 years of age. The victim, along with her younger sister, had voluntarily gone with the appellants. They stayed with them at Ahmedabad for a considerable period of about 2-3 months. Thereafter, they stayed with them at village Kolar Raipur, where the appellant Chandraprakash and the victim frequently had physical relations with each other, and throughout that time, she did not raise any alarm or make any complaint to anyone. She has not raised any objection while travelling with them or when they were residing at Ahmedabad or Kolar. He would further submit that the victim herself has given Rs. 20,000/- to the appellants to go to Mumbai to meet the film stars, which shows their own conduct that they themselves wanted to go with the appellants. He would also submit that no injuries have been 6 found on the body of the victim and no sign of any protest was found by the doctor, who medically examined her. He would also submit that even there is no evidence on record that when they had gone along with the appellants in the month of September 2014, their parents has lodged any missing report or they tried to search them rather from the evidence it appears that the victim was having contact with her mother and she made a telephonic call and asked to sent Rs.7,000/- to her. Looking to the conduct of the victim as also the evidence available on record and further considering that she stayed with the appellant Chandraprakash @ Chand Kumar for about 4 to 5 months proves that she was the consenting party in eloping with the appellant, staying with him and making consensual physical relation with him for which no offence of Section 363, 366 or even 376 of IPC or Section 4 of POCSO Act are made out and he is entitled for acquittal. 6. Mr. Vikas Pandey, along with Mr. T.R. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Rajesh Goshwami, would also submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant Rajesh Goshwami. There is no allegation in the present case against Rajesh Goshwami that he too has committed the offence of rape whereas the allegation against him is that he along with the other co-accused Chandraprakash @ Chandra Kumar kidnapped the minor victim they took them to Ahmedabad where the co-accused Chandraprakash @ Chandra Kumar committed rape upon the victim (PW-14). He would also submit that the allegation against the present appellant Rajesh Goshwami is that he kidnapped the younger sister of the victim PW-14 and kidnapped her and took her to Ahmedabad and committed rape upon her for which another offence has been register in which the appellant Rajesh Goshwami has been convicted for the offence under Section 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC read with Section 6 of POCSO Act and 506 of IPC and 3(1)(xii) of SC/ST Act and his appeal has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this 7 Court vide judgment dated 12.04.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.552 of 2017. So far as the present case is concerned the only allegation against the appellant is that he kidnapped the victim PW-14 and he has been convicted for the offence under Section 363 of IPC, whereas, the age of the victim has not been proved that she was minor on the date of incident and thus no offence under Section 363 of IPC has been proved against the appellant Rajesh Goshwani and he is entitled for acquittal. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the state opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective appellants and submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. But for minor omissions or contradictions, the evidence of prosecution witnesses is fully reliable. The evidence of victim PW-14 itself is sufficient to hold conviction of the appellants for the offence in question. The prosecution has proved that the victim was minor on the date of incident by producing her ossification test report Ex.P/2 in which the age of the victim is opined by the doctor in between 15 to 17 years and in the evidence of doctor PW-2, he clearly denied that there may be any error of margin of 2 years on either side. The minor victim was being allured by the appellants, they took them towards Ahmedabad on the pretext that they would go to Mumbai to meet the film stars. He would also submit that when the victim raised objections, they threatened her that if they protested, they would be thrown into prostitution or they would kill them. Though no injuries were found on the body of the victims, that itself is not sufficient to disbelieve the evidence of the victim, as the injuries are not necessary in every case to be found on the body of the victim, and it depends on the facts of each case. The appellants Chandraprakash @ Chandra Kumar has been convicted in another case with respect to the offence with PW-10, who also kidnapped by the appellant at the same time and the appellant Rajesh Goshwami committed rape upon her. A separate FIR has been registered for that offence and in 8 the separate sessions trial both the accused persons have been convicted for kidnapping of PW-10 and appellant Rajesh Goshwami has been convicted for the offence of rape upon her their appeal has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 12.04.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.552 of 2017 and Criminal Appeal No.520 of 2017. He would also submit that there is ample evidence against the appellants in the present case to hold their conviction, and there is no merit in their appeal. The judgment passed by the learned trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence, and the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial court with utmost circumspection. 9. The first and foremost question that arises for consideration would be the age of the victim as to whether, on the date of the incident, she was minor or not? 10. The prosecution has relied upon the ossification test report Ex.P/2 of the victim, which is proved by PW-2 Dr. B. Verma, who conducted the ossification test of the victim. The prosecution has also relied upon the school register of the victim, Ex.P/8-C which is sought to be proved by PW- 7, Headmaster of the school. The PW-2, Dr. B. Verma, has stated in his evidence that on 03.02.2015, he radiologically examined the victim and after examination of various bones joints of her body, he opined that she was aged about 15 - 17 years and his report is Ex.P/2. 11. In cross-examination, he admitted that there are many methods to determine the age of the victim. He himself has not taken the X-ray of the victim, but it was taken by the technician of the X-ray department. He denied that there may be a variation on either side on the age so determined on the basis of the X-ray report. He admitted that there are no details of the various bone joints of the body of the victim in his X-ray report. 9 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Prahlad and Others Vs. State of Haryana, 2015 (8) SCC 688, that the ossification report is advisory in nature and not binding. In paragraph 9 of its judgment, it was held as under : “9. In this regard, we may, with profit, refer to the decision in Vishnu alias Undrya vs. State of Maharashtra[2] wherein a contention was raised that the age of a prosecutrix by conducting ossification test was scientifically proved, and that it deserved acceptance. The court rejected the said submission by stating that:- “We are unable to accept this contention for the reasons that the expert medical evidence is not binding on the ocular evidence. The opinion of the Medical Officer is to assist the court as he is not a witness of fact and the evidence given by the Medical Officer is really of an advisory character and not binding on the witness of fact.” Similar view has been expressed in Arjun Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh." 13. Further, in Jaya Mala Vs. Home Secretary, Govt. of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr. 1982(2)SCC538 in paragraph 9, the Supreme Court has held as under: “9…..However, it is notorious and one can take judicial notice that the margin of error in age ascertained by radiological examination is two years on either side…..” 14. The prosecution has produced the school register Ex.P/8-C, which is sought to be proved by PW-7, but from perusal of the school register Ex.P/8-C, it appears that this school register is with respect to the younger sister (PW- 10) of the victim and not with respect to the victim (PW-14) in the present case. 15. PW-7 have also proved the said school register with respect to the younger sister (PW-10) of the present victim (PW-14), therefore, this cannot be taken into consideration in the present case when the victim is the elder sister of PW-10. 16. The victim PW-14 has stated in her evidence that her date of birth is 3rd December, but she could not remember the year of her birth. She also stated that presently she is about 19 years old, and at the time of the 10 incident, she was 17 years of age. In cross-examination, she stated that there are 4 sisters and 1 brother. She did not know the age of her elder sister and what is the age difference between her and elder sister she did not know. She studied in Class-I at Jammu State, but what date of her birth was recorded at Jammu school, she did not know. She also did not know as to on which year she studied Class-I and Class-3. She also did not know the age of her youngest sister, she also did not know the age of her brother. 17. PW-11 is the mother of the victim had stated that the age of her daughter is 17 years, she did not disclose her date of birth. 18. From all this evidence when the ossification age of the victim suggests that she is aged about 15-17 years, and by giving the benefit of the error of margin of 2 years in positive side, the victim crossed the age of majority. There is no documentary evidence regarding school education or any other evidence, like birth certificate or kotwari register. When she is unable to disclose the age of her brother and sister, the age shown by her his shaky, In view of other evidence available on record. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove that the victim was a minor on the date of the incident. Yet the learned trial Court has held her minor. 19. So far as the involvement of the appellants in the offence in question is concerned, I again examine the evidence of the witnesses. 20. PW-14 is the victim in the present case. She stated in her evidence that the appellants allured her that they would take her to Mumbai to see the hero and heroine and when they disclosed that they did not have any money with them to go there, then asked to withdraw the amount which was sent by her father, and then they took Rs. 20,000/- from the amount of her father and gave it to her younger sister, who subsequently gave it to the appellant Rajesh. On the next date, they were called at CSEB Chowk at about 06:00 a.m. When they had gone to CSEB Chowk on the fixed date and time, the appellants took the victim and her younger sister to Bilaspur by bus, and 11 from there, then they took them to Mumbai. The appellant Rajesh has informed them on the train that the amount of Rs. 20,000/-, which was given to him by them, is misplaced. The appellants, instead of taking them to Mumbai, took them to Ahmedabad and kept them in the smooth factory. When they asked to go back, then they requested that the amount is missing, and whenever they collected money, they would send them back. The appellant Chandraprakash has committed rape upon her in the room where she was being kept by them and the appellant Rajesh committed rape upon her younger sister. When they protested, they threatened them that they would sell them in any brothel. They stayed there at Ahmedabad for about 03 months, and appellant Chandraprakash committed repeated sexual intercourse with her. After 03 months, they took them from Ahmedabad to Raipur and kept them at the village Kolar. They again requested that they do not have sufficient money with them, and whenever they collected money, they would send them back. At village Kollar also the appellant Chandraprakash committed rape upon her and the appellant Rajesh committed rape upon her younger sister. At village Kollar they stayed for about 02 months and both of them subjected to rape by them. While residing at village Kolar, when they were in need of some money, the appellant Rajesh made a telephonic call to her father, and then the appellant Rajesh disclosed that they were at village Kolar. Thereafter, her father came there to take them back. The appellants have taken a loan from the factory where they were working. Her father took them back to Korba. 21. In cross-examination, she stated that the appellant Chandraprakash is her cousin brother, therefore, they had gone with him and Rajesh. They came to CSEB Chowk from their house on walking and they had not met any person on the way. She did not know as to on what time she reached to Bilaspur. They boarded the train at Bilaspur Railway Station at about 09:10 a.m. She admitted that they were being kept by the accused persons inside the 12 smooth chocolate factory at Ahmedabad. She did not know whether any other labourer were working or not. Since the accused persons were not permitted her to go outside the room, she did not know whether the other persons were also residing in the same premises or not. They were being taken from Ahmedabad Railway Station to the smooth chocolate factory by bus. The other passengers were also there in the bus, but she had not made any complaint to anyone that the appellants had kidnapped them. She voluntarily stated that she was having faith in the Chandraprakash, therefore, she has not made any complaint to anyone. During their stay at Ahmedabad, the accused persons kept the door closed when they were going to their work. They tried to seek help from others by raising their hands from inside the room, but no one came forward to help them. She denied the suggestion given by the defence that they had gone to Ahmedabad to work as a labourer. She further voluntarily stated that they tried to inform the people in the vicinity about the incident, but due to different languages, they could not help them. When the accused persons took them back, they came to Ahmedabad Railway Station by auto from the factory. The other persons were also there in the auto, but they had not made any complaint to them also. Since the accused persons have threatened them that they will sell them in a brothel house, they scared and have not disclosed the incident to anyone. She further stated that, from Raipur Railway Station to Kolar bus stand, they have not disclosed the incident to anyone. She admitted that at village Kolar, the houses of other persons were adjoining to the house where they had resided, but she had not disclosed the incident to anyone. She further stated that the accused persons have confined them in the room and not permitted to go outside the room. She did not know whether there was any property dispute between the father of the appellant, Chandraprakash and her father. She stated that the threats given by the accused persons and giving Rs. 20,000/- to them 13 were disclosed in her police statement, but if it is not there, she could not tell the reason. She deviated from her police statement and stated that all the incidents that she disclosed had been disclosed in her police statement, and if it is not there she could not tell the reason. 22. From the evidence of the victim PW-14, it is quite vivid that on the date of the incident, she and her younger sister had gone to Ahmedabad along with the appellants and stayed there for about 03 months. In between that period, she has not made any complaint to anyone and has not raised any alarm even when the appellant Chandraprakash made physical relation with her, she has not protested. Though she stated that the accused persons have given threats to them that they will be sold in any brothel house but it is missing in her police statement. Further, residing for about 03 months at Ahmedabad without making any complaint, and engaged in sexual relations with the appellant Chandraprakash, further came back to village Kolar and stayed there for about 02 months, despite that they have not made any complaint to anyone, clearly suggesting that she was a consenting party in eloping with the appellant Chandraprakash and engaged in making consensual physical relations with him. When she was not found to be minor and had gone with the appellant Chandraprakash up to Ahmedabad, resided there for a considerable period, came back to village Kollar, Raipur and resided there for about 02 months and it is only when they were need in some money, they made a telephonic call to her father and then they were taken back by their parents. The conduct of the victim does not demonstrate that the appellant Chandraprakash has committed any forceful act with her or that he kidnapped her. 23. PW-10 is the younger sister of the victim, and she stated in her evidence that on the date of the incident, she, along with her elder sister, was taken by the appellants to Ahmedabad. Initially, they were asked to go with them to Mumbai to see hero heroine, and instead thereof they had taken them to 14 Ahmedabad and kept them there for about 03 months. The appellant Chandraprakash committed rape with her elder sister and the appellant Rajesh committed rape with her. After about 03 months when they insisted to go back to their house, the appellants took them to back to village Kollar at Raipur where they were kept for about 02 months and appellant Rajesh committed rape with her and Chandraprakash committed rape with her elder sister they threatened them that they will sale them to any brothal house. When they were need in some money, they made a telephonic call to her father, and then they were taken back by their parents. She also stated in her cross-examination in the same fashion as her sister stated, because all of them were together during the entire period. With respect to this witnesses PW-10 another offence was registered against the accused persons in which they have separately tried and convicted for the commission of offence with this witness PW-10 and their conviction and sentence ultimately confirmed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 12.04.2023 passed in CRA No. 552/2017 and CRA No. 502/2017, 24. PW-11, is the mother of the victim who stated in her evidence that when her two daughters were missing, they searched for about 03 months; thereafter, they had gone to Jammu Kashmir to earn their livelihood. At that time, the appellant Rajesh made a telephonic call to them, informed them that they were in Rajasthan and also informed them that her two daughters were with them, but they did not disclose their location. After 03 months, when they returned from Jammu Kashmir, the appellant Rajesh had made a telephonic call to the person of the village Risdi and asked about them. Then he disclosed that they had not come from Jammu. In the evening of the same day, the person from the village of Risdi informed that the appellant Rajesh had come from Jammu, and they had a talk with the appellant, and then they informed that both daughters are at Dongargarh, thereafter, he 15 switched his mobile off. They also searched them at Dongargarh and nearby places, but could not trace out. The appellant Rajesh had made a repeated call to them and asked for money, and then appellant Rajesh called her husband along with money at Raipur. When he made a telephonic call to the appellant Rajesh and then he instructed the auto driver about his address and then asked him to come there. Since the auto driver demanded Rs. 1200/-, they asked to come to their house in the next morning. On the next morning, somehow they reached to the location disclosed by the appellant Rajesh, then they met with their daughters and they took them back. The daughters have disclosed the entire incident to her. She remained firm in her cross-examination that her two daughters were taken by the appellants and kept with them. The appellant Chandraprakash committed rape with her elder daughter (PW-14) and appellant Rajesh committed rape with her younger daughter (PW-10). Although this witness have supported the prosecution case that her two daughters were being kidnapped/abducted by the appellants and kept at Ahmedabad to Raipur and they have committed rape upon them. In view of the evidence of PW-14, it cannot be said that the victim PW-14 suffered any forceful act of the appellant Chandraprakash or that she was kidnapped by the appellant Rajesh. 25. PW-1, Dr. K. B. Sonkar, who medically examined the victim PW-14, have stated in her evidence that on 27.01.2015 she medically examined the victim PW-14 and did not find any external injuries on her body; she was habituated to sexual intercourse. 26. PW-8 is the person to whom the appellant Rajesh has made a telephonic call in the village, but he turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution’s case. 27. From all these evidence, the evidence of the victim and PW-14 does not inspire confidence that she was being kidnapped and subjected to rape by 16 appellant Chandraprakash was being kidnapped by the appellant Rajesh so far as the offence with respect to her younger sister PW-10 is concerned the separate offence has been registered against the accused persons and they have already been convicted for that offence and the present case relates to alleged offence with the victim PW-14. From the evidence of the victim PW- 14 there are various components which are missing to constitute the offence of kidnapping and rape. When the victim was found major and had gone with the appellants stayed with them at Ahmedabad for about 03 months without raising any complaint or objection to anyone returned to Raipur again and stayed at village Kolar for about 02 months without raising any objection or complaint. Clearly shows that she was not the consenting party in eloping with the appellants and engaged in making consensual physical relations with the appellant Chandraprakash, therefore, I do not find any ground to uphold their conviction and sentence in the present case. 28. Although in the FSL report Ex.P/25 the semen and sperms were found in vaginal slide of the victim but in the fact that she was not consenting party in making physical relation with the appellant Chandraprakash it does not have any bearing. 29. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed. Their conviction and sentence are hereby set aside, and they have been acquitted of all the offences. 30. The appellants are reported to be in jail; they shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 31. The trial Court record, along with a copy of this judgment be sent back to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Vaibhav/alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.06.09 11:18:45 +0530