Abdul @ Natiya & Ors. v. State

10.0 Testimony of above witnesses is further corroborated by PW-8 „R‟. She deposed that she got married to Mohd. Akbar (PW-14) on 11.05.2011 and her neighbour/appellant Gulshan used to defame her. Her husband came to know about this fact. On 30.07.2013, her parents, her husband Akbar, her bua Lata and bua’s son Sonu went to the house of the appellants to make enquiry in this regard. On their enquiry, the appellant Gulshan and his mother started abusing them and quarreling with them and even slapped her husband and mother. Thereafter, they returned home. However, at about 10:30 pm, the appellant and his mausi along with her sons came to their house with danda and started abusing them. This fact came to the knowledge of brothers of Akbar namely Asgar and Akram and they also came at about 11:00 p.m. An altercation took place between Akbar‟s brothers and family members of the appellant Gulshan. After that, brothers of Akbar went away. However at about 11:30 pm, the appellants and two mausis of the appellant Gulshan came to their house with danda. They dragged them out of their house and started beating them with danda and fist blows. Meanwhile, Shabbu, brother of Abdul @ Natiya also reached and started beating them. Meanwhile, her brother Vishal/deceased came to intervene. Appellant Football caught hold of Vishal‟s hands and the appellant Natiya took out knife and caused knife injury on the left side of his stomach and the appellant Gulshan and Football were saying “aaj iska kaam tamam kar do”; appellant Shabbu and JCL „B‟ also exhorted in the same words. On receiving knife injury, her brother fell down and was bleeding. Her cousin brother Sonu (PW-12) made a call at number 100. PCR van came and removed Vishal to SGM Hospital. PW-8 duly identified all the appellants in the court. 10.[1] PW-8 stood by her deposition in her cross examination and denied that no such incident took place. She stated that on the date of incident, she was present at her parental home. The fact that she was staying with her parents, is admitted by the appellant Ashfaq by virtue of his own suggestion to PW-8 that she was living with her parents as she had strained relations with her husband. She also stated that the appellant used to sully her image by saying “ye achi ladki nahi hai, characterless hai”; and that they had been using such words even prior to her marriage but she had not disclosed this to her parents, her husband and other family members and did not lodge complaint with police. She also stated that they were dragged till outside the gali and were beaten by danda also. They had suffered injuries due to such dragging but they had not undergone any medical examination. She further stated that there was no darkness at the spot as street lights were on, at a distance of 5-6 paces from the spot. She further stated that she had told the police that the appellant Football and Gulshan caught hold of hands of Vishal and the appellant Natiya had given knife blows on left side of stomach of her brother. She also stated that the appellants fled away from the spot by the time police came. She explained that they could not intervene while Vishal was assaulted as they were also being beaten. She further stated that her brother Vishal/deceased was taken to hospital in a PCR in which her parents were present. 10.[2] On one hand, it was put to PW-8 in cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for the appellant Ashfaq @ Shabbu that it was her husband Akbar and his brothers who murdered her brother Vishal as they nursed a grudge against him as the deceased and her mother were instrumental in creating a rift between her (PW-8) and her husband Akbar. On the other hand, it was suggested to her (PW-8) that Akbar held a grudge against the appellant Abdul @ Natiya as he suspected him of having illicit relations with PW-8 as he used to visit them for giving tuitions to her brother, thus pointing towards false implication of Abdul @ Natiya. PW-8 denied that the appellant Abdul @ Natiya used to give tuitions to her brother Vishal. Interestingly, yet another suggestion was given to PW-8 that she along with her husband Akbar eliminated her brother Vishal and named the appellants falsely. But, no such suggestion was put to any other witness i.e, the deceased‟s mother Maya (PW-5), deceased‟s bua (PW-7) and not even to her husband Akbar (PW-14) against whom such grudge and killing of Vishal is alleged. To Akbar only a simple suggestion was put that he held a grudge against the appellants and therefore, falsely implicated them. It is noteworthy that no such defence has been taken by the appellant Ashfaq in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, which clearly shows that he took a false defence, which itself amounts/adds up an incriminating circumstances against him. (Sharad Biridhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 and Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1396). 10.[3] In her cross examination on behalf of other appellants, PW-8 stated that one of the appellants had taken the knife along with him while fleeing from the spot. She denied that appellant Shabbu was not present at the spot and had not participated in the incident.

11.0 PW-14 Mohd. Akbar, husband of PW-8 „R‟ also deposed on the same lines as her. He testified that the appellant Gulshan used to defame his wife. On 30.07.2013, he visited his in-laws‟ house and made enquiry with his mother in law about the same. Thereafter, he along with his mother in law Maya (PW-5), bua of his wife, Lata (PW-7), her son Sonu (PW-12) went to the appellant Gulshan‟s house to make enquiry in this regard. During that enquiry, an altercation took place in which the appellants Abdul @ Natiya and Football (duly identified) beat them up. After the said quarrel, they had returned to his in-laws‟ house. He informed his brothers and their friends about the incident, who came to his in-laws house and left after discussion. While he was still present at his in-laws‟ house, at about 11:30 pm, the appellants namely Abdul @ Natiya, Jameel @ Football, Gulshan, Shabbu (duly identified) and one JCL „B‟ came there and started beating him, his wife „R‟ and mother in law with danda. Meanwhile, his brother in law Vishal/deceased came there and intervened to pacify the quarrel. Appellant Football and Gulshan caught hold of Vishal and the appellant Natiya stabbed him in abdomen and the appellants Shabbu and JCL „B‟ were saying “kaam tamam kar do”. Due to the said injury, his brother in law Vishal fell on the ground. Cousin of Vishal namely Sonu (PW-12) who had come to the spot during the incident made a call at number 100. 11.[1] PW-14 also stood by his deposition in his cross examination. He stated that they had gone to the appellant Gulshan‟s house for enquiry at about 10:00 p.m., and had returned to his in-laws house at about 10:30 p.m.; and at that time other appellants were not present there but they had reached when altercation started. In that altercation, he, his mother in law Maya (PW-5) had suffered danda blows. They did not take any treatment for the injury suffered by them nor did they lodge any police complaint. The appellants suggested to PW-14 that he and his other family members had visited appellant Gulshan‟s house to which he replied “It is correct that after returning to my in laws house from the house of accused Gulshan, I informed my brothers. It is also correct that thereafter my brothers and their friends reached at my in laws house”. Any such suggestion put to a witness can be admitted as an evidence (Balu Sudam Khalde and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355). PW-14 further stated that the quarrel which occurred on the second occasion, had started at 11:00 p.m. The appellants started beating them all of a sudden with dandas and he suffered danda blows on his head, nose and hand; Maya and Lata had also suffered danda blows. His brother-in-law Vishal/deceased reached there and Sonu (PW-12) also reached at the spot after arrival of Vishal. Firstly, Vishal was given blows by JCL „B‟ and he was caught hold of by the appellant Gulshan and Football while Abdul @ Natiya stabbed him; the said quarrel continued for about 5 to 7 minutes, but no-one from the crowd intervened to save them. On receiving stab injury, Vishal fell down on the ground. He also stated that the spot was lighted with street light and there was no darkness. He further stated that police was called by Sonu (PW-12) and PCR arrived at the spot within 5 to 7 minutes and the deceased was removed through PCR van by Sonu and Maya and that he went to SGM Hospital with his wife on his bike. He also explained that his mother-inlaw Maya and bua Lata were not medically examined as they were busy in saving Vishal. He denied that he has deposed falsely in this case as he held a grudge against the appellants.

12.0 PW-12 Sonu also corroborated the version of the above witnesses except that he did not identify the assailant, who stabbed deceased Vishal. He deposed (on 22.02.2016) that he could not remember the date or month but about three years ago at about 11:30 p.m., an altercation (gaali galoch ho gai) took place between the appellant Gulshan and „R‟. Thereafter, gaali galoch took place with Akbar, husband of „R‟. Subsequently, brother of Akbar advised Gulshan not to disturb family of Akbar, but gaali galoch increased; family members of Gulshan also reached there and some altercation took place between the family members of Akbar and family members of Gulshan. He (PW-12) tried to intervene but family members of Gulshan brought danda and started beating Akbar, his mama Satya Prakash and also abused his sister „R‟ and his mami. When his cousin Vishal tried to intervene, one boy stabbed him but further stated that the said boy was not present in the court. He also stated that after stabbing Vishal, all the appellants fled from the spot threatening them “abhi to isko mara hai, agar tum kuch karoge toh tumhe bhi maar denge”. He made a call at number 100. PCR van arrived on the spot; ASI Satbir and Beat Constable of the area also reached at the spot; injured Vishal was shifted to the SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri. He further stated that the next day morning, at his instance, Abdul @ Natiya, Mohd. Jamil @ Football and Gulshan @ Juned (duly identified) were apprehended and arrested vide arrest memos Ex.PW6/B, Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW6/D, respectively, and were personally searched vide personal search memos Ex.PW6/E, Ex.PW6/F and Ex.PW6/G, respectively. His statement Ex.PW12/A was recorded by the police. Subsequently, on 02.09.2013, the appellant Ashfaq @ Shabhu (duly identified) and appellant JCL „B‟ (not present in the court) were apprehended at his instance and were arrested vide memos Ex. PW-12/B (of Ashfaq @ Shabhu) and Ex. PW-12/A (JCL B). He further stated that on one occasion, police had shown him dandas and knife at Police Station Mianwali Nagar and he had identified the same as weapons used by the appellants at the time of incident.

12.1. As PW-12 did not disclose complete facts, he was cross-examined by the ld. Prosecutor. In that cross-examination, he admitted that the appellant Gulshan @ Junaid and his associates used to spread rumors about his cousin „R‟ and also used to instigate her husband Akbar. He further admitted that on 30.07.2013, he along with Akbar, his maternal uncle Satya Prakash, his maternal aunt Maya and „R‟ went to the house of appellant Gulshan for confronting him with the same; and on reaching there, they asked the appellant Gulshan not to do so. But the appellant Gulshan and his mother started abusing and quarreling with them and both of them also gave them beatings. PW-12 also admitted that after coming back from the appellant Gulshan‟s house, Akbar informed his brother about the incident and after sometime, brother of Akbar and 4-6 of his associates came to the house of his maternal uncle at about 11.00 pm. He further admitted that at the same time, he saw JCL B and the appellant Abdul @ Natlya gathered near the jhuggi of the appellant Gulshan @ Juned and an altercation took place between the brother of Akbar, his associates with JCL B, the appellant Natiya @ Abdul and the appellant Gulshan @ Juned in the gali and after sometime, they left; at about 11.30 pm, JCL B, appellants Gulshan, Football @ Jamil and Natiya came in the gali outside the house of his maternal uncle armed with dandas and started abusing them. Thereafter, he alongwith his maternal aunt Maya, Akbar and „R‟ also came out of their house and objected to the same. On this, JCL B, Gulshan, Football and Natiya started beating them with the dandas and also slapped them. Meanwhile, appellant Ashfaq @ Shabbu also came there and joined other appellants in beating them. He also admitted that his cousin Vishal tried to intervene in quarrel, but denied that he had stated to the police that when his cousin Vishal tried to intervene, appellant Natiya @ Abdul took out a knife and waved the same in the air and said „iska aaj kaam tamam kar dete hai’ or that the appellants Football and Gulshan caught hold of the deceased and the appellant Natiya stabbed the deceased on the left side of his abdomen with intention to kill him. He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW12/A, where it was so recorded. He rather stated that one JCL B, who was also beating them, took out a knife and stabbed the deceased and ran away from the spot. He denied that he was intentionally suppressing the true facts regarding the appellant Abdul @ Natiya having stabbed the deceased while appellants Gulshan and Football caught hold of the deceased, as he has been won over by the appellants.

12.2. PW-12 stood by his deposition in his cross-examination on behalf of the appellants. Presence of both Akbar and „R‟ on 30.07.2013 at „R‟‟s parents‟ house is admitted by way of suggestion to PW-12 that they were residing at PW-12‟s maternal uncle‟s home at that time. He also stated that the appellant Gulshan used to say to Akbar that „R‟ was having relations with other boys, which corroborates the version of other witnesses that the appellant Gulshan was defaming „R‟. He also stated that they had come to know about this fact on the day of incident itself. Regarding the second incident, PW-12 stated that when the deceased Vishal was beaten, he had not sustained any injuries, however his maternal uncle, aunt, „R‟ and Akbar had sustained injuries at that time also and Akbar was even bleeding. He categorically denied that no such incident took place on 30.07.2013 or that the appellants (present in the court) did not cause injuries to anyone. Thus, PW-12 also supported prosecution case except identifying the appellant Abdul @ Natiya as the one who gave stab injury to the deceased.

13.0. PW-16 ASI Satyabir Singh, Investigation Officer (IO), deposed that on 30.07.2013, he was posted at Police Station Mianwali Nagar. On receipt of DD no. 3-A (PW-2/A) at about 12.02 a.m., regarding quarrel in the area of Bhim Nagar, Sabji Mandi, he along with Ct. Anil went to the spot and came to know that the injured had already been shifted to SGM Hospital. Thereafter, he went to SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri, where injured Vishal was found admitted. He collected MLC of the injured, who was under treatment and was in operation theater. The injured was declared unfit for statement. However, one eye witness Sonu Kumar (PW-12) met him in the hospital and he recorded his statement Ex. PW- 12/A and made endorsement on the same and got the FIR (Ex.PW2/B) registered through Ct. Anil. The doctor had handed over vest of the injured and blood in gauze with sample seal, which was seized vide him vide seizure memo Ex. PW-6/A. He also stated that inquiries were made with other witnesses Akbar, „R‟, Maya & Lata and their statements were recorded. Said witnesses had also received injuries during the incident, but they did not get themselves medically examined. He visited the spot along with Ct. Anil and Sonu also reached the spot. He prepared the site plan Ex. PW-16/A at the instance of the complainant Sonu Kumar. He tried to lift blood from the spot, but same could not be done due to garbage in the subzi mandi. Thereafter, he searched for the accused persons and accused/appellants Gulshan @ Juned, Abdul @ Natiya and Jamil @ Football were found in Bhim Nagar, Sabji Mandi and on the pointing out of the complainant Sonu, they were apprehended. These three accused persons/appellants were interrogated and arrested and their personal search was also conducted. Their disclosure statements Ex. PW-6/H, Ex. PW-6/J and Ex. PW-6/K, respectively, were recorded. 13.[1] PW-16 further deposed that the appellant Gulshan led them to his house at Bhim Nagar, Sabzi Mandi and took out one danda from under the cot, which was sealed and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-6/A. Thereafter, the appellant Abdul @ Natiya led them to his house at Bhim Nagar, Sabzi Mandi, from where he took out one knife from Deewan. He prepared the sketch Ex. PW-6/L of the said knife, measured it and then it was sealed and seized vide memo Ex. PW-6/M. Appellant Jamil @ Football, who is real brother of appellant Abdul @ Natiya, took out one danda kept by him behind the door and it was sealed and sealed vide seizure memo Ex. PW-6/N. The aforesaid exhibits were deposited in the malkhana. PW-16 further deposed that on 09.08.2013, he reached at SGM Hospital, Mangolpuri, where injured Vishal was found admitted and he recorded his statement. On 02.09.2013, he apprehended JCL B. As the appellant Ashfaq @ Shabbu was found major, he was arrested on 24.09.2013 vide arrest memo Ex. PW-16/B. He was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded. He further testified that on 23.11.2013, DD no. 13A was received regarding death of the injured and accordingly, he along with Ct. Krishan reached RML Hospital, where he obtained death summary and death report of injured Vishal. His dead body was shifted to mortuary of the SGM hospital; postmortem of the dead body was got conducted and thereafter, same was handed over to his father. After post-mortem, the doctor handed over blood gauze of the deceased, which was sealed and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-15/A. On 24.03.2014, he got prepared the scaled site plan Ex. PW-4/A of the spot through Ct. Hardeep Singh, Assistant Drafts-man, PS Dwarka- South. PW-16 identified knife (Ex. P-2), bamboo stick (Ex. P-3), another thicker bamboo stick (Ex. P-4), in court.

13.2. In his cross-examination, PW-16 stood by his deposition. He stated that he reached the spot at 12.15 am and at that time 50-60 public persons were present. He had made enquiry from the said public persons about the quarrel and had also requested the eye-witnesses for medical examination, but they refused. He stated that danda found/recovered at the instance of appellant Jamil was not having any identification mark but could not recollect whether there was some special mark on the recovered knife. PW-16 denied that no weapon of offence was recovered from the possession of or at the instance of the accused persons/appellants and that the same were planted upon them.

14.0. Testimonies of the above witnesses about call at number 100 being made by Sonu (PW-12) is corroborated by DD no 3-A (Ex. PW-2/A) recorded at 12.02 at night on 31.07.2013 at PS Mianwali Nagar, which is proved by PW-2 ASI Tata Dutt, who was not cross-examined. DD NO. 3A records that information has been received that „Nangloi ke pass, Bhim Nagar, Camp No. 4, Subzi Mandi Nale ke pass, Jabardast Jagra 7503561090 from W/Ct. Bharti‟.

15.0. Testimonies of the above witnesses i.e. PW-5 Smt. Maya, PW-7 Smt. Lata, PW-8 Ms. „R‟ and PW-14 Mohd. Akbar and even PW-12 Sonu (who did not identify appellant Abdul @ Natiya as the person who stabbed the deceased) are quite cogent and consistent in material particulars and have remained unimpeached. As pleaded by the Ld. defence counsel, their testimonies cannot be discarded, merely because these witnesses are relatives and are interested witnesses. Moreso when the same inspire confidence (Dalip Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab 1953 SC 364).

16.0. All the eye witnesses have consistently stated and corroborated each other as to the genesis of the entire incident i.e. defaming of „R‟ (PW-8) by the appellant Juned @ Gulshan; their visit to his (Gulshan) house to confront him in that regard; quarrel ensuing on such confrontation, which resulted in scuffle and the witnesses suffered injuries and returned to PW-5 Maya‟s home. After return, PW-14 Akbar, husband of „R‟ called his brother, who arrived along with his associates. Matter was discussed and resolved. However later, at about 11:00 -11:30 p.m., the appellants came to PW-8 „R‟‟s house and they started abusing and assaulting the aforesaid witnesses and dragged them out of the house; on which, the deceased Vishal intervened to save his family members. But the appellants Juned @ Gulshan, Football @ Jamil caught hold of the deceased and the appellant Abdul @ Natiya gave him stab injury in the abdomen with knife (Ex. P-2). Appellant Shabbu also gave beatings and exhorted to kill the deceased. Though, PW-12 Sonu did not assign to the appellant Abdul @ Natiya, role of stabbing, he also deposed that the deceased was stabbed in abdomen with knife. Thus merely, because no public witness was joined/examined cannot be a ground to disbelieve the consistent and cogent testimony of these eye-witnesses. [Ashok Kumar Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar (2008) 12 SCC 173]. More so, in view of the explanation, which has come on record vide the testimony of PW-7 that no one intervened/joined out of fear. 16.[1] The deceased‟s MLC Ex. PW-17/A further corroborates the version of eye witnesses, which mentions that the deceased arrived in the hospital at 12.25 am on 31.07.2013 with alleged history of assault, as told by the patient himself and records stab wound, and his injury was subsequently opined as grievous.

17.0. Further, merely because the eye witnesses did not get themselves medically examined or no medical document was placed on record does not in any manner show their absence from the spot or that they did not suffer any injury, in view of their consistent testimony about the incident and assault by the appellants. Rather PW-8 has explained that her parents were busy in looking after the treatment of the deceased, they did not get themselves medically examined. Fact that the complainant side had got injured has even come in the testimony of PW-16 ASI Satyabir Singh.

18.0 Learned counsel for the appellants also argued that after treatment, the deceased was discharged on 13.08.2013 and died after about four months not because of stab injury but because of septicemia caused by negligence of the injured/his family member in taking proper care, post surgery. 18.[1] Vide MLC (Ex.PW17/A) of the deceased and testimony of PW17 Dr. P.C. Prabhakar, CCMO, SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi, it has come on record that the deceased had suffered stab wound of the size 4 cm in left iliac fossa (left lower part of abdomen) with part of the intestine visible through wound; and the surgeon, who attended to the injured, mentioned injury as 1 ½ inch wide. His testimony remained uncontroverted. 18.[2] Further, father of the deceased Satya Prakash (PW-13) testified that after being stabbed, the deceased was discharged from the hospital on 13.08.2013. But his condition deteriorated and he was again admitted to SGM Hospital on 26.08.2013 and thereafter on 28.08.2012 and was discharged only on 04.10.2013. Thereafter on 05.11.2013, his condition again deteriorated and was taken to RLM hospital where he remained admitted till 23.11.2013 when he died at 8:30 pm during treatment. PW- 13 denied that Vishal died as proper care, nourishment and treatment was not provided and rather stated that condition of Vishal/deceased never improved since the day he was stabbed and every time they took him to the hospital they were informed that his condition was deteriorating due to stab injury. 18.[3] As per post mortem report Ex. PW1/A, cause of death has been opined to be “shock associated with septicemia”. Vide testimony of PW-

10 Dr. M.M. Kohli, Deputy Medical Superintendent, SGM Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi, it has come on record that at the request of police officials, he constituted a Medical Board consisting of Dr. Manoj Dhingra, Dr. Nymphea Kaul, Dr. Vandna Dhingra and Dr. Kartik Sexana to conduct an enquiry into the death of the deceased. Member of this Board Dr. Nymphea Kaul (PW-11) deposed that the enquiry committee was of the opinion that the death of the deceased on 23.11.2013 was a consequence of stab injury on 31.07.2013 and furnished its report Ex. PW 1/C, which inter alia records: “on reviewing the sequence of events, the enquiry committee feels that it is possible that the death was a consequence of stab injury on 31.07.2013” 18.[4] In her cross examination, PW-11 even explained that they had arrived at the above opinion on the basis of the post mortem report, death summary of the patient, case sheet and treatment record. She even stated that when the deceased was admitted in ICU from 04.09.2013 to 07.09.2013 under her supervision, he was bleeding from the side ileostomy. She categorically stated that they could make out from the record that the patient had actually never recovered from the injuries from the beginning at any point of time and reiterated the above opinion. 18.[5] In view of the above, it is established that the deceased died due to “shock associated with septicemia” caused as a consequence of stab injury on 31.07.2013.

19.0 It may be mentioned that in somewhat similar situation in case titled as Sangit vs. State of Maharashtra, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 490, when the deceased intervened trying to convince the accused, the accused got annoyed and pierced a gupti (which he had brought with him) in his abdomen and also gave one more blow on the back of the deceased. The deceased died after four days of the incident and the doctor had opined “septicemia due to multiple stab injuries‟ as a cause of death. High Court of Bombay modified the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 IPC to 304 Part I IPC. In the instant case also on deceased‟s intervening, he was stabbed in the abdomen, later resulting in his death. In view of the same and considering the above facts and circumstances in entirety and taking into account the nature of injury caused to the deceased, we are of the considered opinion that the conviction of the appellants calls for modification from Section 302 to Part I of Section 304 IPC.

20.0 Conviction of all the appellants is therefore, modified from Section 302 IPC to Part 1 of Section 304 IPC. Conviction of all the appellants u/S. 323/34 IPC does not call for any interference. 20.[1] It is noted that no charge u/S. 27 Arms Act was framed against the appellant Abdul @ Natiya and hence, no opportunity was accorded to him to meet the charge, causing, prejudice to him. Hence, the appellant Abdul @ Natiya‟s conviction u/S. 27 Arms Act cannot be sustained.

21.0 Considering the factual background and other attending facts and circumstances, age of the appellants and strata of society to which they belong, we are of the considered opinion that for offence punishable under Part I of Section 304 IPC, sentence of imprisonment for eight years shall meet the ends of justice. 21.[1] As far as sentence u/S. 323 IPC is concerned, same does not call for any interference. 21.[2] Compensation as directed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to be paid by all the appellants also calls for no interference.

22.0 As per nominal roll, the appellant Abdul @ Natiya has undergone imprisonment of 08 years, 08 months and 13 days including remission, as on 31.05.2023; and the appellant Jamil @ Football has undergone imprisonment of 08 years, 07 months and 03 days including remission, as on 31.05.2023. They be released forthwith. 22.[1] As per nominal roll, the appellant Ashfaq @ Shabbu was admitted to bail vide order of this court dated 03.06.2020 and has undergone imprisonment of 04 years 02 month and 06 days including remission, as on 05.06.2020; and the appellant Juned @ Gulshan was admitted to bail vide order of this court dated 29.06.2020 and has undergone imprisonment of 04 years, 10 months and 22 days including remission, as on 03.07.2020. Accordingly, sentence of these appellants is reduced from life imprisonment to a period of eight years. Fine and imprisonment in default to remain the same. 22.[2] The appellants namely, Juned @ Gulshan and Ashfaq @ Shabbu shall surrender before the concerned Superintendent Jail, within four weeks, to undergo the remaining period of imprisonment.

23.0 Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

24.0 Superintendent Jail to release forthwith the appellants namely, Abdul @ Natiya and Jamil @ Football, if not required in any other case.

25.0. Copy of the judgment be uploaded on the website and be sent to the Superintendent Jail for updation of record and intimation to the appellants and for necessary action.

(POONAM A. BAMBA) JUDGE (MUKTA GUPTA)

JUDGE MAY 31, 2023