Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4384 (ALL)

Rajendra v. State of U. P.

2026-01-09

Chandra Dhari Singh, Devendra Singh I

body2026
JUDGMENT : Chandra Dhari Singh, J. 1. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by appellant against a judgment dated 20.09.2019 and order dated 23.09.2019 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Deoband, Saharanpur in Sessions Trial No. 603 of 2015 arising out of Case Crime No. 247 of 2015, under Section 302 IPC whereby the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in case of default in payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo additional imprisonment of one year. Brief Facts of the case 2. The brief facts of the case as set up in the first information report is that a written report was filed by Smt. Babita, wife of Harpal Singh, resident of Rankhandi, Police Station Deoband, District Saharanpur that Rajendra Singh, son of late Subedar Singh (hereinafter referred to as “the accused- appellant”) wanted to sell the ancestral property of his part, which was being opposed by her husband Harpal Singh (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) for the future of his (accused) children due to which the accused-appellant harbour enmity with the deceased and used to abuse the deceased. He also extended threat to the deceased for dire consequences. On 28.04.2015, some dispute took place between the accused and the deceased in the evening and thereafter accused left the place. At about 09:30 or 10:00, the accused-appellant came back and sat in ambush in his earlier house and as soon as deceased reached there, the accused- appellant attacked him indiscriminately by Balkati over head and body. On hearing the noise, when the first informant came out of the house, she saw the accused assaulting her husband (deceased). On her shrieks, members of her family and co- villagers rushed to the spot. Seeing the witnesses, the accused fled away along with Balkati towards north. Her husband was taken to the Government Hospital, Deoband, where doctor referred him to District Saharanpur, where he succumbed to his injuries. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a case was registered against the accused-appellant at Case Crime No.247 of 2015, under Section 302 IPC, which was entered in GD at 12:20 hours. 4. Her husband was taken to the Government Hospital, Deoband, where doctor referred him to District Saharanpur, where he succumbed to his injuries. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a case was registered against the accused-appellant at Case Crime No.247 of 2015, under Section 302 IPC, which was entered in GD at 12:20 hours. 4. After the registration of the FIR, the law set into motion and investigation of the case was entrusted to PW-7, Braj Mohan Yadav, who rushed to the spot and recorded the statement of the informant-Smt. Babita, wife of the deceased, inspected the spot and also recorded the statements of witnesses Rampal and Mahipal. He also collected plain and bloodstained earth from the spot, sealed it and prepared memo thereof. On 03.5.2015, he recorded the statements of witnesses Raj Kumar, Kunwar Pal, Mukesh Kumar, Hariom Gulshan, Vijendra Singh, Chirag, Bittu, Monti, Smt. Baby and Smt. Anita. On 30.05.20215 he copied the postmortem report in the case diary. On 04.6.2015, he arrested the accused and recorded his statement. On 07.6.2015, he recorded the statements of witnesses Amit Tomar, Raj Kumar, Mange Ram, Constable Pradeep Kumar and Constable Rajendra Singh. He also prepared site plan for recovery of the weapon of assault. After culmination of investigation, the investigating officer submitted charge sheet against the appellant under Section 302 IPC, which he proved as Ext. Ka-11. 5. PW-7, Braj Mohan Yadav, the investigating officer of the case has also recovered the weapon of assault (Balkati) on the pointing out of the accused-appellant from the bushes of sugarcane field of Kumri, son of Phool Singh Thakur in the presence of Raj Kumar, PW-2 and Amit Tomar. The accused- appellant confessed to his crime and stated that from the Balkati he assaulted/cut the deceased in the night of 28.04.2015. 6. After submission of charge sheet, the learned Sessions Judge, Saharanpur framed the charges against the appellant under Section 302 IPC on 14.09.2015, which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi. However, the charge was later on modified vide order dated 10.01.2017. 7. To bring home guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as seven prosecution witnesses. However, the charge was later on modified vide order dated 10.01.2017. 7. To bring home guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as seven prosecution witnesses. PW-1, Babita is the first informant and wife of the deceased, PW-2, Raj Kumar is the witness of inquest and brother of the deceased and the appellant, PW-3 is the witness of recovery of bloodstained and simple earth, PW-4 HCP 197 Mange Ram, PW-5, Dr. Hemant Rastogi, who conducted postmortem examination on the cadaver of the deceased, PW-6, Head Constable 43 Nita Sharma, who prepared the Chik FIR and PW-7, Braj Mohan Yadav, the investigating officer of the case, who submitted the charge sheet. 8. PW-1, Smt. Babita is the first informant and wife of the deceased. She reiterated the versions given in the FIR. She further stated that the accused-appellant had suspicion that the deceased has illicit relation with his wife. 9. PW-2, Raj Kumar Singh, son of Subedar Singh, in his examination-in-chief, which was recorded on 11.09.2018 deposed that he lives outside Deoband in connection with his job. On 28.04.2015, he got information on telephone that Rajendra (accused) has killed his elder brother Harpal (deceased) with Balkati. He further deposed that Harpal used to support accused’s family. Both accused and appellant live in the same house in different rooms. Accused-Rajendra wanted to sell his land, which was objected to by the deceased because accused used to drink liquor after selling the land. Due to the aforesaid reasons accused killed the deceased. This witness also deposed that Inquest on the body of deceased Harpal was conducted in his presence. In his opinion, the cause of death of the deceased was due to the antemortem injuries sustained by the deceased by Balkati. He also put his signature on the inquest report. He also proved his signature on paper No. 9/1 and 9/2. In addition to him, Mukesh, Kanwar Pal, Hariom and Gulshan also signed on the inquest report. 10. PW-3, Chirag Kumar, son of Ved Pal in his examination- in-chief deposed that on 28.04.2015, he got information in the night that his uncle Rajendra has caused injuries to Harpal by Balkati and member of his family took the injured to the hospital at Saharanpur. On the way to hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. 10. PW-3, Chirag Kumar, son of Ved Pal in his examination- in-chief deposed that on 28.04.2015, he got information in the night that his uncle Rajendra has caused injuries to Harpal by Balkati and member of his family took the injured to the hospital at Saharanpur. On the way to hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. On 29.04.2015 police visited the village and collected plain and bloodstained earth and after preparing memos thereof, took his signature on the same, which he proved as paper No 8/1. 11. PW-4, HCP 197 Mange Ram, in his examination-in-chief, which was recorded on 19.03.2019, deposed that on 28.04.2015, he was posted at police station Deoband as HCP. On that date on the information received by police station Janakpuri, Saharanur, he took the dead body of the deceased from mortuary and got the inquest conducted. After getting the dead body sealed, sent the same for postmortem examination by Constable Rajendra and Constable Pradeep. 12. PW-5, Dr. Hemant Rastogi, in his examination-in-chief, which was recorded on 26.06.2019 deposed that on 29.04.2015, he was posted as Anesthetist in SBD District Hospital, Saharanpur. On that date he conducted the autopsy on the cadaver of the deceased, who was brought by Constable Pradeep Kumar and Constable Rajendra Singh. Doctor found the following antemortem injuries on the cadaver of the deceased: 1. Incised wound 16 cm x 2 cm bone deep on left side head, just above left ear. Left parietal and temporal bone was fractured. Margin clean cut. 2. Incised wound 12 cm c 1 cm bone deep on right side back of head, 2.5 cm behind right ear. Right temporal and occipital bone fractured. Margin clear. 3. Incised wound 9 cm x 2 cm brain deep on back of head, injury No 3 communicate to injury No. 2 underneath occipital bone fractured. Magin clean cut. 4. Incised wound 10 cm x 2 cm bond deep on back of head, 8 cm above C-7 vertebra underneath occipital bone fractured. Margin clean cut. 5. Incised wound 6 cm x 1.5 cm bone deep on inter scapular region, just below base of neck, margin clean cut. 6. Incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm bone deep on outer aspect of right upper arm upper part, margin clean cut. 7. Incised wound 3 cm x 2 cm x through and through on right pinna. 13. 5. Incised wound 6 cm x 1.5 cm bone deep on inter scapular region, just below base of neck, margin clean cut. 6. Incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm bone deep on outer aspect of right upper arm upper part, margin clean cut. 7. Incised wound 3 cm x 2 cm x through and through on right pinna. 13. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death of the deceased was shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries. Doctor further opined that between the time of death and conducting postmortem report, the duration was half to one day. 14. The evidences of PW-6, Head Constable 43 Nita Sharma, Chik writer of the FIR and PW-7, Inspector Braj Mohan, the investigating officer of the case has already been discussed above. 15. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., who denied the charges leveled against him and claimed to be tried. He further stated that he is innocent and the first informant and the deceased kept accused’s wife and children to their favour and that they also harbour enmity with him. 16. Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Deoband, Saharanpur after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and assessing, evaluating and scrutinizing the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as indicated herein above. 17. Hence, this appeal. Submissions on behalf of appellant 18. Sri Pravin Kumar Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant, who has been appointed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.05.2023, vehemently submitted that there are several contradictions in the statement of P.W.-1. The trial court while examining the entire evidences, has committed gross error in not considering the contradictions in the statement of PW-1. It is also submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the motive for killing of the deceased by the appellant. It is also submitted that no other independent witness of the locality has been examined by the prosecution to prove the incident. Submissions on behalf of State 19. It is also submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the motive for killing of the deceased by the appellant. It is also submitted that no other independent witness of the locality has been examined by the prosecution to prove the incident. Submissions on behalf of State 19. On the other hand, Sri S.K. Ojha, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State vehemently opposed the instant appeal and submitted that there is no contradiction in the statement of P.W.-1 who is the sole eye- witness of instant incident and, if any, minor contradiction has occurred in her statement, the same may be the result of long gap as she has been cross-examined after one and half year after recording of her examination-in-chief, which is not sufficient to negate the prosecution story. 20. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submitted that as per the postmortem report there are total seven injuries sustained by the deceased, out of which, six were on the vital part of the body and one on the hand and all the injuries sustained by the deceased were caused by sharp edged weapon, therefore, the postmortem injuries also support the prosecution case. Sri Ojha, learned AGA further submitted that weapon of assault (Balkati) was recovered on the pointing out of appellant. Sri Ojha, learned AGA for the State submitted that taking into consideration all the evidences on record, prosecution was successful in proving the case against the appellant beyond the hilt for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., therefore, there is no illegality or error in the judgement of the trial court and this appeal being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. Analysis and conclusion 21. Heard Sri Pravin Kumar Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant, Sri S.K. Ojha, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State and perused the evidences on record. 22. The first contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that there is contradiction in the statement of PW-1, Babita. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the trial court while examining the entire evidences, has committed gross error in not considering the contradictions in the statement of PW-1, who is stated to be the eyewitness of the occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the trial court while examining the entire evidences, has committed gross error in not considering the contradictions in the statement of PW-1, who is stated to be the eyewitness of the occurrence. He has also pointed out that in her examination-in-chief, PW-1 has stated that on hearing her hue and cry, the other family members had also reached the spot and saw the incident, whereas in her cross-examination she has stated that when other family members of her family reached there, by that time, the accused fled away. Therefore, there is contradiction in her statement and it is high chance that he has not seen the occurrence. 23. In the depositions of witnesses there may always be some normal discrepancies. These discrepancies are due to lapse of time and mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of the occurrence. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and go to the root of the prosecution case and not expected of a normal person. Therefore, such a minor contradiction mentioned by the learned counsel for the appellant is of no help to the appellant inasmuch as the examination-in-chief of PW-1, Smt. Babita was recorded on 08.12.2016, whereas her cross-examination was done on 04.5.2018, i.e. after one and a half year after the recording of her examination-in-chief and, therefore, such a minor contradiction is bound to occur by lapse of time. 24. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab , (2015) 3 SCC 220 , has dealt with a situation where a witness after rendering testimony in line with the prosecution’s version completely abandoned it, in view of the long adjournments given permitting an act of maneuvering. Hon’ble Supreme Court while expressing its anguish, observed as under: “It is necessary, though painful, to note that PW- 7 was examined-in-chief on 30.09.1999 and was cross- examined on 25.5.2001, almost after 1 year and 8 months. The delay in said cross-examination, as we have stated earlier had given enough time for prevarication due to many a reason. A fair trial is to be fair both to the defence and the prosecution as well as to the victim. An offence registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act is to be tried with all seriousness. The delay in said cross-examination, as we have stated earlier had given enough time for prevarication due to many a reason. A fair trial is to be fair both to the defence and the prosecution as well as to the victim. An offence registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act is to be tried with all seriousness. We fail to appreciate how the learned trial Judge could exhibit such laxity in granting so much time for cross-examination in a case of this nature. It would have been absolutely appropriate on the part of the learned trial Judge to finish the cross-examination on the day the said witness was examined. As is evident, for no reason whatsoever it was deferred and the cross-examination took place after 20 months. The witness had all the time in the world to be gained over. We have already opined that he was declared hostile and reexamined.” 25. The aforesaid decision was further followed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Yadav and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) 12 SCC 200 . 26. Further the contradiction in the statement of PW-1, Smt. Babita is very trivial in nature, which cannot negate or demolish the prosecution story. It is settled proposition of law that even if there are some omissions, contradictions and discrepancies, the entire evidence cannot be disregarded. After exercising care and caution and sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the Court comes to a conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witnesses. As the mental abilities of a human being cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details of the incident, minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of witnesses. 27. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Kalki (1981)2 SCC 752 , High Court of Rajasthan acquitted the accused on the grounds that PW-1 was highly interested witness because she is the wife of the deceased and that there was discrepancies in her statement. Against the order of High Court, State of Rajasthan preferred a Criminal Appeal. Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and convicted the accused. Against the order of High Court, State of Rajasthan preferred a Criminal Appeal. Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and convicted the accused. The Court in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 held as under: “5. As mentioned above the High Court has declined to rely on the evidence of P.W.1 on two grounds: (1) she was a "highly interested" witness because she "is the wife of the deceased", and (2) there were discrepancies in her evidence. With respect, in our opinion, both the grounds are invalid. For, in the circumstances of the case, she was the only and most natural witness; she was the only person present in the hut with the deceased at the time of the occurrence, and the only person who saw the occurrence. True, it is she is the wife of the deceased; but she cannot be called an 'interested' witness. She is related to the deceased. 'Related' is not equivalent to 'interested'. A witness may be called 'interested' only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be 'interested'. In the instant case P.W.1 had no interest in protecting the real culprit, and falsely implicating the respondents. 6. The second ground on which the High Court refused to place reliance on the evidence of P.W. 1 was that there were "material discrepancies". As indicated above we have perused the evidence of P.W. 1. We have not found any "material discrepancies" in her evidence. The discrepancies referred to by the High Court are, in our opinion, minor, insignificant, natural and not 'material'. The discrepancies are with regard to as to which accused "pressed the deceased and at which part of the body to the ground and sat on which part of the body; with regard to whether the respondent Kalki gave the axe blow to the deceased while the latter was standing or lying on the ground, and whether the blow was given from the side of the head or from the side of the legs. In the depositions of witnesses there are always some normal discrepancies however honest and truthful they may be. In the depositions of witnesses there are always some normal discrepancies however honest and truthful they may be. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of the occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. As indicated above we have not found any material discrepancies in the evidence of the P. W. 1. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appeal involved only appreciation of evidence and this Court may not interfere with the findings of facts resulting from appreciation of evidence. It is true that in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution this Court normally does not interfere with findings of facts arrived at by the High Court. But when it appears that the findings of facts arrived at are bordering on perversity and result in miscarriage of justice, this Court will not decline to quash such findings to prevent the miscarriage of justice.” 28. In State represented by Inspector of Police Vs. Saravanam and another , (2008)17 SCC 587 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters without effecting the core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety. The Trial Court, after going through the entire evidence, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate Court in normal course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons. 29. In State of U.P. Vs. M.K. Anthony , (1985)1 SCC 505 , Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. 29. In State of U.P. Vs. M.K. Anthony , (1985)1 SCC 505 , Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, draw-backs and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper-technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the : root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. If the court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals. Cross examination is an unequal duel between a rustic and refined lawyer. Having examined the evidence of this witness, a friend and well-wisher of the family carefully giving due weight to the comments made by the learned Counsel for the respondent and the reasons assigned to by the High Court for rejecting his evidence simultaneously keeping in view the appreciation of the evidence of this witness by the trial court, we have no hesitation in holding that the High Court was in error in rejecting the testimony of witness Nair whose evidence appears to us trustworthy and credible.” 30. So far as next contention of learned counsel for the appellant that there was no motive for the accused to have committed the murder of his brother (deceased) is concerned, it is to be mentioned that it is stated by PW-1, Smt. Babita that accused Rajendra wanted to sell the ancestral land, which was being opposed by the deceased. PW-1, Smt Babita in her evidence has also stated that accused-appellant had suspicion that deceased had illegal affairs with with wife. PW-2, Raj Kumar Singh, son of Subedar Singh, who is the real brother of the accused and the deceased, in his evidence has stated that accused Rajendra wanted to sell his land, which was being opposed by the deceased as accused used to drink liquor after selling his land. Due to that reason, accused has killed the deceased. In view of the statements of both PW-1, Smt Babita and PW-2 Raj Kumar the motive to kill the deceased is very much clear. 31. The last contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that witnesses are related to deceased and no independent witness of the vicinity has been produced. It may be noted that the incident took place in the house of the deceased and the accused, which was only witnessed by the first informant, who is the wife of the deceased and has been examined as PW-1 in the case, therefore, the question of production of witness from the vicinity does not arise, whose deposition finds full support from the postmortem report. It is to be noted that murder are not committed with previous notice to witnesses soliciting their presence, if murder is committed in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are the natural witnesses and not the witnesses of the vicinity. 32. In Hari Obula Reddy and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , (1981) 3 SCC 675 , a three Judge Bench of the Supreme court has observed thus: “ It is well settled that interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable evidence. Even partisanship by itself is not a valid ground for discrediting or rejecting sworn testimony, nor can it be laid down as an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence.” 33. In Arjun and others Vs. Even partisanship by itself is not a valid ground for discrediting or rejecting sworn testimony, nor can it be laid down as an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence.” 33. In Arjun and others Vs. State of Rajasthan , 1994 Suppl (1) SCR 616, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: “We are not convinced by the aforesaid argument that either on account of animosity or on account of relationship, the witnesses did not divulge the truth but fabricated a false case against the appellants. It is needless to emphasis that enmity is a double edged sword which can cut both ways. However, the fact remains that whether the prosecution witnesses are close relatives of the deceased victim or on inimical terras with the deceased involved in the crime of murder, the witnesses are always interested to see that the real offenders of the crime are booked and they are not, in any case, expected to leave out the real culprits and rope in the innocent persons simply because of the enmity. It is, therefore, not a safe rule to reject their testimony merely on the ground that the complainant and the accused persons were on inimical terms. Similarly the evidence could not be rejected merely on the basis of relationship of the witnesses with the deceased.” 34. In Mano Dutt Vs. State of U.P. (2012, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “More often than not, in such cases involving family members of both sides, it is a member of the family or a friend who comes to rescue the injured. Those alone are the people who take the risk of sustaining injuries by jumping into such a quarrel and trying to defuse the crisis. Besides, when the statement of witnesses, who are relatives, or are parties known to the affected party, is credible, reliable, trustworthy, admissible in accordance with the law and corroborated by other witnesses or documentary evidence of the prosecution, there would hardly be any reason for the Court to reject such evidence merely on the ground that the witness was family member or interested witness or person known to the affected party. There can be cases where it would be but inevitable to examine such witnesses, because, as the events occurred, they were the natural or the only eye witness available to give the complete version of the incident.” 35. Moreover, PW-1, Smt Babita was subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but nothing could be elicited to make her evidence unreliable. 36. Appellant has committed the gruesome murder of his brother. The presence of the first informant, who is the wife of the deceased at the place of occurrence was natural as the incident happened in the house of the deceased and the appellant. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses find full corroboration by the postmortem examination report. There is no reason for the false implication of the accused-appellant by the prosecution witnesses leaving the real culprits to go scot free. 37. In view of what has been indicated herein above, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgement dated 20.09.2019 and order dated 23.09.2019 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Deoband, Saharanpur in ST No. 603 of 2015 arising out of Case Crime No 247 of 2015, under Section 302 IPC Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. 38. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties are discharged. He is directed to surrender before the court concerned within four weeks to serve out the remaining sentence awarded by the Trial Court. 39. Office is directed to send a copy of this judgement along with record of this case to the court concerned/learned Sessions Judge, Saharanpur forthwith for immediate compliance and compliance report be submitted to this Court.