CIVIL APPEAL 2356 of 2004 on 5 June 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : Crl. Appeal No.690-DB of 2004Date of Decision : January 14, 2009

Gurdip Singh @ Baba and another....AppellantsVs.State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB SINGH GILL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

* * *

Present :Mr. Sanjeev Manhas, Advocatefor the appellants.

Mr. S. S. Gill, Addl. A. G., Punjab.

* * *

L. N. MITTAL, J. :

By this common judgment, we are disposing of Crl. AppealNo. 690-DB of 2004, instituted by Gurdip Singh @ Baba, Baldev Singh andRachhpal Singh,Crl. Appeal No. 2040-SB of 2004, instituted by BalwinderKaur andCrl. Revision No. 2356 of 2004, instituted by Balwinder Singh-complainant, as the same have arisen out of the same judgment and orderdated 05.06.2004 of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Patiala.

Appellants of Crl. Appeal No.690-DB of 2004 stand convictedand sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- each andin default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for one year under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC) and to undergorigorous imprisonment for 07 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000 each and indefault of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment forone year under Section 120-B IPC. Balwinder Kaur-appellant of Crl.Appeal No. 2040-SB of 2004 stand convicted and sentenced to undergorigorous imprisonment for 07 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and indefault of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment forone year under Section 120-B IPC. Harjinder Kaur-accused (respondentno.5 in Crl. Revision No.2356 of 2004) stands acquitted and the revisionpetition has been preferred by complainant Balwinder Singh praying thatshe be also convicted.

This case has a checkered version. Balwinder Singh-complainant (PW-11) is brother of Mehnga Singh (since deceased). On26.02.1999, Balwinder Singh made statement Ex.PW-11/A to SI GurdevSingh of Police Station Samana that on 25.02.1999, Balwinder Singh andMehnga Singh had gone to Nasupur Peer to offer milk. Then they went totheir maternal uncle. On 26.02.1999, they were returning to their village onseparate scooters. The complainant was 15-20 karams behind the deceased.At about 04:00 A.M., a Maruti car driven by a sikh gentleman,appearing/dressed as Baba, came, being driven very rashly and negligentlyand after overtaking the complainant, the car hit the scooter of MehngaSingh, who fell down and suffered injuries and died at the spot. On thisstatement, FIR Ex.PW-20/B was registered under Section 304-A IPC.Gurdev Singh prepared inquest report Ex.P-C on the dead body and sent itfor post-mortem examination. The spot was also got photographed. Fromthe spot, scooter bearing No.PB-42-6200, which was being driven by thedeceased, and its registration certificate in the name of one Vijay Kumar,were seized vide Memos Ex.P-K and Ex.P-L. Also, a purse containingphotograph of Gurdip Singh and Baldev Singh-accused was seized vide Memo Ex.P-J.

On post-mortem examination, 10 injuries were found on thedead body. Injury no.8, resulting in fracture of underlying skull bone andsub-dural hemorrhage, was opined to be fatal and sufficient to cause deathin ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante mortem. Injuryno.8, which proved fatal, is described as under :- “8.Lacerated wound 5 cm x 1 cm into bonedeep over right occipital region of scalp, on dissectionunder lying bone was fractured.”

Probable duration between injuries and death was within fewhours. Dr. Satish Arora, who conducted post-mortem examination, alsoopined in the witness-box that injury no.8 could be result of blow with ironrod/Sabbal and injury no.6 was possible by twisting of cord around theneck.

On 27.02.1999, Balwinder Singh-complainant madesupplementary statement Ex.D-X to SI Gurdev Singh adding that on26.02.1999, he was nervous and under shock due to death of his youngerbrother. In fact, after the accident took place, the offending Maruti car cameback and in the meantime, Mehnga Singh had stood up. Accused BabaGurdip Singh of Dera Shri Chand Dattal stopped the car and came out andinflicted iron rod blow on the head of Mehnga Singh, who fell down anddied. The other convicts Rachhpal Singh, Baldev Singh and BalwinderKaur were sitting in the car at that time. Motive for the occurrence was thatHarjinder Kaur-accused (since acquitted), wife of Mehnga Singh-deceased,was having illicit relation with Baba Gurdip Singh, to which Mehnga Singhobjected. The four convicts murdered Mehnga Singh at the instance ofHarjinder Kaur. On 29.03.1999, SHO Krishan Kumar, who had taken overthe investigation of the case, was present at T-point, Rethgarh. Rattan PalSingh, Commission Agent, produced Gurdip Singh and Baldev Singh- accused along with car No.DL-1C-2348. Both the accused were arrestedand the car was seized vide Memo Ex.P-D. Rattan Pal Singh disclosed thaton 28.03.1999, accused Gurdip Singh, Baldev Singh and Balwinder Kaurcame to him and separately made extra-judicial confession that they, alongwith Rachhpal Singh-accused, had conspired to kill Mehnga Singh at theasking of Harjinder Kaur-accused and on 26.02.1999, at about 04:00 A.M.,Mehnga Singh was coming on scooter, whereas these four convicts werecoming in a Maruti car being driven by Gurdip Singh and they hit the carinto the scooter of Mehnga Singh, who fell down and then Gurdip Singhinflicted iron rod blow on the head of Mehnga Singh, who died at the spot.Motive for the same was also disclosed that Harjinder Kaur used to come toGurdip Singh, to which Mehnga Singh objected. On 30.03.1999, oneSukhdeep Singh produced Balwinder Kaur-accused before Krishan Kumar.She was arrested. On 31.03.1999, Gurdip Singh-accused, after makingdisclosure statement, got recovered an iron rod allegedly used in theoccurrence.

On 16.04.1999, Surat Singh (PW-10) made statement before B.Chandrashekher, the then Superintendent of Police (HQ), Sangrur, that on20.02.1999, he (PW-10) had gone to Dera Baba Gurdip Singh and stayedthere. At about 11:30 P.M., he went to the room of Baba and saw and heardHarjinder Kaur telling Gurdip Singh that Mehnga Singh had come to knowabout their illicit relation and therefore, Mehnga Singh should be finished,otherwise, Mehnga Singh would kill them. Sahib Singh also madestatement on 16.04.1999 that on 25.02.1999, he had gone to Nasurpur Peerto offer milk in the evening and Kehar Singh also met him. After offeringmilk, when they came out, all the four convicts met them. Mehnga Singhalso came there on his scooter. Then Baldev Singh went on the scooter ofMehnga Singh, whereas the other three convicts and Mehnga Singh went incar No. DL-1C-2348 of Gurdip Singh. Next morning, Sahib Singh came to know of the death Mehnga Singh.

know of the death Mehnga Singh.

On 18.04.1999, Balwinder Singh-complainant made statementthat on 25.02.1999, at about 05:30 P.M., Mehnga Singh had gone toNasurpur Peer to offer milk. However, when he did not return, his motherwoke up Balwinder Singh in the morning on 26.02.1999 and asked him tosearch Mehnga Singh. Accordingly Balwinder Singh went on his scooterand after searching at the Peer, he was coming on the road at about 04:30A.M., when in the revenue limits of Village Assarpur, he saw that RachhpalSingh and Baldev Singh-accused were strangulating Mehnga Singh withparna (a piece of cloth) and Gurdip Singh throttling Mehnga Singh withhands. Balwinder Kaur was sitting in the Maruti car nearby and onescooter was also there. When Balwinder Singh tried to rescue his brother,Gurdip Singh took out pistol from the car and threatened the complainant,who went at some distance and then saw that Gurdip Singh and BaldevSingh threw Mehnga Singh on road and ran over him under the car. Thecomplainant returned to his house and narrated the incident to his motherand also narrated it to the respectables in the Village. Motive for theoccurrence was illicit relationship of Harjinder Kaur, wife of the deceasedMehnga Singh, with Gurdip Singh-accused.

On 18.04.1999, Devinder Singh stated that on 26.02.1999 atabout 01:30 A.M., he reached Bhakra Canal near Hotel and found scooterof Mehnga Singh and Maruti car No.DL-1C-2348 parked there and all thefour convicts were present there along with Mehnga Singh. The convictsbecame nervous on being asked by Devinder Singh as to where they weregoing. Devinder Singh went to his village and next day learnt that MehngaSingh had died.

On completion of investigation, all the four convicts andHarjinder Kaur (since acquitted) were sent up for trial.

Charge under Sections 120-B and 302 IPC was framed against all the five accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

To prove its case, the prosecution examined 20 witnesses. Dr.Satish Arora (PW-1) stated about post-mortem examination of the deceasedand cause of death. ASI Sakkatar Singh (PW-2) stated that on 29.03.1999,Rattan Pal Singh produced accused Gurdip Singh and Baldev Singh beforeSI Krishan Kumar. They came in Car No. DL-1C-2348, which was alsotaken into possession. Head Constable Narsi Ram (PW-3) stated that herecorded FIR Ex.P-G in Police Station Khanauri on 20.03.1999. The saidFIR was lodged by Balwinder Kaur (convict herein) against the other threeconvicts and one Amrik Singh, under Sections 307 and 342 read withSection 34 IPC. Parshotam Kaushik (PW-4) is a photographer. Hephotographed the place of occurrence. The said photographs are missingfrom the trial court file and could not be reconstructed despite efforts.Karamjit Singh (PW-5) stated that a purse containing a photograph ofaccused Gurdip Singh and Baldev Singh was seized from the spot vidememo Ex.P-J. The aforesaid scooter, which the deceased was driving, wasalso seized from the spot vide memo Ex.P-K, whereas its registrationcertificate was seized vide memo Ex.P-L. ASI Raj Pal Singh (PW-6) statedthat he recorded statements of some witnesses in the case and arrestedaccused Harjinder Kaur. Balkar Singh (PW-7) stated that he preparedscaled site plan. Rattan Pal Singh (PW-8), witness of extra judicialconfession allegedly made before him by Gurdip Singh, Baldev Singh andBalwinder Kaur, has resiled from the said version and stated that he did notknow the parties and that the accused had not come to him nor made anyconfession before him. He was declared hostile, but even in cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, the witness denied the aforesaidprosecution version. He also denied that he produced the aforesaid twoaccused before the police along with their car. Devinder Singh (PW-9),Surat Singh (PW-10) and Balwinder Singh (PW-11) have broadly stated

according to the prosecution version, as stated by them before B.Chandrashekhar, Superintendent of Police (HQ), Sangrur, as already noticedherein above. Kirpal Kaur (PW-12) is sister of the deceased. She statedthat about 15 days after the death of her brother Mehnga Singh, BalwinderKaur-accused came to Harjinder Kaur-accused at the latter's house in thefield and the witness overheard their conversation. Balwinder Kaur wastelling Harjinder Kaur that at latter's instance, the former along with otherthree convicts had murdered Mehnga Singh. The witness stated that theyapproached the police, but were told that they would be called in case ofneed. She also stated that her statement was not recorded by the police. B.Chandrashekhar (PW-13) has stated that on 16.04.1999 and 18.04.1999, hehad recorded statements of different witnesses, as already noticed above.Head Constable Rakesh Kumar (PW-14) and Constable Angrej Singh (PW-15) are formal witnesses. They tendered their affidavits. Ram Pal (PW-16)and Inspector Nirbhai Singh (PW-19) have stated about the case lodged on20.03.1999 by Balwinder Kaur against the other three convicts and AmrikSingh. Inspector Manjeet Singh (PW-17) partly investigated the instantcase and stated about the same. Krishan Kumar Panthey, SHO (PW-18) andSI Gurdev Singh (retired) (PW-20) stated about investigation of the case.

The accused in their statements under Section 313 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) denied all the incriminatingcircumstances appearing against them in prosecution evidence and claimedto be innocent. Harjinder Kaur alleged that after the death of her husband,his brothers and sister wanted to oust her from the property of her husbandand they also forged a Will, but mutation has been sanctioned in favour ofthis accused and her children and the Will was found to be forged by theRevenue Officer. Except some documents, no other evidence was led by theaccused in their defence.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc, Patiala vide impugned judgment and order dated 05.06.2004, convicted and sentencedthe four accused and acquitted the fifth accused Harjinder Kaur, as alreadynoticed herein above. Feeling aggrieved, three convicts have preferred Crl.Appeal No.690-DB of 2004 and fourth convict has preferred Crl. AppealNo.2040-SB of 2004, whereas complainant Balwinder Singh has preferredCrl. Revision No. 2356 of 2004 challenging the acquittal of Harjinder Kaur.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused thecase file with their assistance.

Learned trial court has found the prosecution witnesses reliableand therefore convicted four of the five accused. However, on carefulconsideration of the material on record, we find, for the reasons to berecorded herein after, that the statements of the prosecution witnesses arenot worthy of credence so as to prove the charges of conspiracy and murder.However, guilt of Gurdip Singh-accused for offence under Section 304-AIPC is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Rattan Pal Singh (PW-8), witness of alleged extra judicialconfession by Gurdip Singh, Baldev Singh and Balwinder Kaur, has turnedhostile and has categorically stated that no accused came to him nor madeany confession before him.

Statement of Devinder Singh (PW-9) that he had seen all thefour convicts with the deceased at about 01:30 A.M. on 26.02.1999 is notreliable because he made this statement for the first time before the policeon 18.04.1999 i.e. more than seven weeks after the occurrence. Presence ofDevinder Singh at the said place at odd hour of the night is also highlydoubtful. He being photographer, had allegedly gone to a ColourLaboratory in Patiala in connection with developing and printing work ofphotographs, but he had no receipt of any such Lab for getting any workdone on 25.02.1999. In addition to it, the initial prosecution version is thatthe deceased and his brother Balwinder Singh had stayed at the house of

their maternal uncle after offering milk at the peer and were returning fromthere at about 04:00 A.M. So, the statement of Devinder Singh that he hadseen all the four convicts along with the deceased at about 01:30 A.M. at thestated place, cannot be believed. Even otherwise, Sahib Singh stated duringinvestigation that he had also seen all the four convicts and Mehnga Singhand then Baldev Singh-convict went on the scooter of Mehnga Singh,whereas the other three convicts and Mehnga Singh went in the car ofGurdip Singh. Sahib Singh has not been examined as witness during trial,but the statement of Devinder Singh (PW-9) cannot be believed in view ofaforesaid statement of Sahib Singh during investigation and in view ofinitial version given by Balwinder Singh in the FIR and also in view of thefact that the occurrence had allegedly taken place at 04:30 A.M. as statedby Balwinder Singh in his last version and therefore, the convicts would nothave kept Mehnga Singh with him for so many hours during the night, ifthey intended to kill him.

Statement of Surat Singh (PW-10) also cannot be believed. Hisversion came before the police for the first time on 16.04.1999 i.e. morethan 1 ½ months after the occurrence. It is not explained why he kept quitefor such a long period. Moreover, according to his testimony, he had heardthe conversation between Harjinder Kaur and Gurdip Singh on 20.02.1999regarding conspiracy to kill Mehnga Singh, whereas Mehnga Singh wasallegedly murdered on 26.02.1999, but the witness remained silent duringthe intervening six days inspite of danger to the life of Mehnga Singh. Evenafter the alleged murder of Mehnga Singh, the witness Surat Singh remainedsilent for another 1 ½ months. Moreover, such conspiracy is hatched insecrecy. However, according to Surat Singh, even the door of the room,where the conspiracy was being hatched, was not fully closed and windowwas also open so as to provide opportunity to the witness to peep in.

Less said the better about the statement of the star witness of

Less said the better about the statement of the star witness of the prosecution namely Balwinder Singh (PW-11), he has come out withdifferent versions at different stages. Initially, he lodged FIR about 5 ½hours after the occurrence claiming to be eye-witness of the occurrence andstated that Mehnga Singh died on account of accident caused by a Maruticar being driven by a sikh gentleman, whose appearance was that of a baba.However, after a day, Balwinder Singh came out with a supplementaryversion that after the accident, Gurdip Singh-accused came out of the carand inflicted iron rod blow on the head of Mehnga Singh resulting in hisdeath and at that time, other three convicts were sitting in the car. However,if all the four convicts were already known to Balwinder Singh, it is notexplained why he did not name them in the FIR. Moreover, even if he wasnervous and under shock due to death of his brother while lodging the FIR,he could not have omitted the material fact that Gurdip Singh had alsoinflicted iron rod blow on the head of Mehnga Singh nor the complainantwould have omitted to mention the names of all the four convicts in the FIR,particularly so because the FIR was lodged after 5 ½ hours of theoccurrence and during this period, the complainant could have composedhimself to some extent and there could not be such material omissions in theFIR. Subsequently, the complainant came out with a completely newversion on 18.04.1999. According to the original version, the complainantand the deceased had both gone together to offer milk at the peer and thenafter staying at the house of their maternal uncle, they were returningtogether on their separate scooters. However, according to the new version,only Mehnga Singh had gone to offer milk at the peer and when he did notreturn during night, his mother woke up the complainant in the morning tosearch for Mehnga Singh and thereupon Balwinder Singh went to search hisbrother and found that at about 04:30 A.M., accused Rachhpal Singh andBaldev Singh were strangulating Mehnga Singh with parna (a piece ofcloth), whereas Gurdip Singh was throttling Mehnga Singh with hands and Balwinder Kaur was sitting in the Maruti car. This completely new versionsaw the light of the day for the first time on 18.04.1999 i.e. more than sevenweeks after the occurrence. If Balwinder Singh was eye-witness of theoccurrence, which allegedly took place in the manner stated in this newversion, there is no reason why Balwinder Singh would have initiallylodged FIR of accident case and then on the next day, would have statedabout iron rod blow being inflicted after the accident by Gurdip Singh onthe head of the deceased. The statement of Balwinder Singh is completelyunreliable as he has changed his version many times. Moreover, theaccused would not have killed the deceased on the metalled road near bus-stop of Village Assarpur, as stated by Balwinder Singh in the new version,so as to be seen by Balwinder Singh. There was possibility of other passers-by also to see such an occurrence and the accused would not have done so.On the other hand, the deceased was allegedly with the convicts throughoutthe night. They would have killed him at some deserted and isolated placeand not at a public road. The complainant also came out with the newversion that after killing Mehnga Singh by strangulating/throttling him, hisdead body was ran over underneath the car and it was repeated three times,as stated by Balwinder Singh in the witness-box, although even in hisstatement made to police on 18.04.1999, it was stated that the dead bodywas ran over only once. This version is also conflicted by medical evidencebecause no such crush injuries were found on post-mortem examination. Ifthe dead body had been crushed under the car once or thrice, there wouldhave been crush injuries, but no crush injuries were found.

Statement of Kirpal Kaur (PW-12) lacks any credence. She issister of the deceased. She stated that she did not make any statement topolice during investigation. Even if police officials of Police Station werenot recording her statement, B. Chandrashekhar, Superintendent of Police(HQ), recorded statements of some witnesses, but Kirpal Kaur did not state that she made any statement even before him. Her version came in theCourt for the first time. Moreover, on 27.02.1999, the complainant in thesecond version, had named all the four convicts and had also stated aboutillicit relationship between Gurdip Singh and Harjinder Kaur-accused. Inthese circumstances, it is improbable that after 15 days of the occurrence,Balwinder Kaur-accused would go to Harjinder Kaur-accused and wouldopenly talk about the murder of deceased by the four convicts at theinstance of Harjinder Kaur, so as to be overheard by Kirpal Kaur, sister ofthe deceased.

The last version of the prosecution, as stated by BalwinderSingh in the witness-box also, is that accused Baldev Singh and RachhpalSingh had strangulated the deceased with a piece of cloth and accusedGurdip Singh had throttled the deceased with hands. However, Dr. SatishArora has not stated that the death was by strangulation or throttling. Therewere no marks of strangulation. Thus, this version of the prosecution hasbeen falsified by medical evidence as well. Dr. Satish Arora also stated thatinjury no.8, which was fatal, could be result of iron rod blow. However, thecomplainant did not state about the iron rod blow in the witness-box andversion of strangulation or throttling is not corroborated by medicalevidence.

Motive for the occurrence was stated to be alleged illicitrelationship between Harjinder Kaur and Gurdip Singh. However, this factwas not even put to the accused in their statements under Section 313Cr.P.C. and therefore, cannot be used as incriminating evidence againstthem. Even otherwise, there is no reliable evidence about the same.Balwinder Singh has also not stated about the said relationship whileappearing in the witness-box.

If Harjinder Kaur, wife of the deceased, had illicit relationshipwith Gurdip Singh-accused and if the deceased and other family members knew about it and had objection to the said relationship, it sounds highlyimprobable that the deceased was still with all the four convicts on thefateful night for a considerable time before he was allegedly done to deathby them.

For the reasons recorded herein above, we are of the consideredopinion that the prosecution version regarding alleged conspiracy andmurder, is completely unreliable and highly doubtful.

However, the first version of accident is very reliable. The FIRwas lodged promptly stating that the accident was caused by rash andnegligent driving of Maruti car by a sikh gentleman, appearing/dressed asBaba. Gurdip Singh-accused is also a Baba of a dera. Purse containing aphotograph of Gurdip Singh and Baldev Singh was also seized from thespot on 26.02.1999 itself. It thus becomes manifest that Gurdip Singh, bydriving the Maruti car No. DL-1C-2348 rashly and negligently, caused theaccident resulting in the death of Mehnga Singh and therefore, GurdipSingh is liable to be convicted under Section 304-A IPC. Statement ofKaramjit Singh (PW-5) proves the recovery of purse along with photographof Gurdip Singh and Baldev Singh therein from the spot. The said recoverywas made on 26.02.1999 itself, even before any of the accused was namedby the complainant being involved in the occurrence. The said recovery istherefore very significant to link accused Gurdip Singh @ Baba with theaccident.

Arguments

Learned counsel for the appellants contended that no suchrecovery was shown in Col. No. 23 of inquest report Ex.P-C and the saidcolumn was left blank. However, this circumstance does not create anydoubt about the recovery of the purse with photograph because even scooterwas lying there and it was not mentioned in Col. No. 23 of the inquestreport. Karamjit Singh (PW-5) is an independent witness and recovery ofthe purse in his presence is proved not only from his statement but also from the statement of SI Gurdev Singh (PW-20). The FIR regarding the accidentwas also lodged very promptly.

Learned counsel for the appellants contended that mechanicaltest of the car was not conducted. However, the car was seized more than amonth after the occurrence and therefore, its mechanical test could not haveserved any purpose. It was also argued that it has not come in evidence asto who is owner of the aforesaid car. However, ownership of the car is notrelevant to prove offence under Section 304-A IPC. Moreover, the car wasseized from the possession of Gurdip Singh-accused at the time of his arrest.Omission to mention registration number of the car in the FIR is not somaterial in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Learned State counsel contended that Balwinder Singh in hisstatement made on 27.02.1999 named all the four convicts. However,Balwinder Singh, in the witness-box, denied having made this statement tothe police. He also did not state in the witness-box the version contained inthe said statement. So, the said statement, allegedly made to the police,cannot be used as substantive statement when its maker has disowned it.

Learned State counsel also contended that the FIR was lodgedvery promptly. However, the FIR was regarding the accident and the saidversion is being accepted by us.

For the reasons recorded herein above, we find that theprosecution has failed to prove its case for offences under Sections 302 and120-B IPC and therefore, all the four convicts are acquitted of the saidcharges and acquittal of Harjinder Kaur by the trial court is also affirmed.However, accused Gurdip Singh @ Baba is convicted for offence underSection 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twoyears and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, toundergo further simple imprisonment for three months. Consequently, Crl.Appeal No. 2040-SB of 2004, instituted by Balwinder Kaur is allowed and she be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Crl.Revision No. 2356 of 2004, instituted by Balwinder Singh-complainant,challenging the acquittal of Harjinder Kaur, is dismissed. Crl. Appeal No.690-DB of 2004, instituted by Gurdip Singh @ Baba, Baldev Singh andRachhpal Singh, is allowed qua Baldev Singh and Rachhpal Singh-appellants and they be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any othercase. The said appeal qua Gurdip Singh @ Baba is allowed partly to theextent indicated herein above and he be set at liberty forthwith if he hasundergone the sentence as awarded by us and if he is not required in anyother case.

( L. N. MITTAL )JUDGE

January 14, 2009monika

( MEHTAB SINGH GILL )JUDGE