Judgment:
Garg, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 28.7.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Pali in Sessions Case No. 25/97 by which the learned Special Judge while acquitting the accused appellant for the offence under Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC/ST Act') and for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Sections 302, 341 IPC and 4 read with Section 25(1)(B)(B) of the Arms Act and sentenced in the following manner :-
Name ofaccused appellant
convicted
under section
sentenceawarded
KaluSingh
302 IPC
LifeImprisonment & fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to furtherundergo one month SI
341 IPC
One month SI.
4 read with section
5(1)(B)(B) ofArms Act
Threeyears SI and fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 daysSI.
2. It may be stated here that by the same judgment and order, the learned Special Judge acquitted other two co-accused, namely, Devi Singh and Jabar Singh for the offence under Section 302/34, 341 IPC and 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act and 27 of the Arms Act after giving benefit of doubt to them.
3. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows:-
On 23.2.1997 at about 7.15 PM, PW25 Rakesh Puri, SHO Police Station Kotwali, Pali received a cryptic telephonic message from unknown person to the effect thati near the puliya of Ramdeo road, Pali Kalu Singh (present accused appellant), Devi Singh and Jabar. Singh (other accused who have been acquitted by the learned Special Judge), who are brothers, had caused grievous injuries to one Taxi Driver Ramesh (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') by swords and when PW25 Rakesh Puri asked as to who gave that information, that person put the receiver off. PW25 Rakesh Puri reduced that information in Rojnamcha (Ex. P/39A) and thereafter, he alongwith Madanlal, ASI, Bhop Singh, ASI (PW13), Amar Singh, ASI (PW23) and other police officials proceeded towards the site in a Government Jeep and on the site, Narain Singh and Jogaram, who were at that time Constables in the Dhanmandi Chowki, were . already there and on being asked, they informed PW25 Rakesh Puri that the deceased had been taken to Bangar Hospital, Pali and thereafter, PW25 Rakesh Puri reached Bangar Hospital (Troma Ward) where he found Bhojraj Singh, ASI (PW12), who informed him that the deceased had died. PW12 Bhojraj Singh further informed PW25 Rakesh Puri that before the deceased succumbed to his injuries, he mentioned the names of assailants and they were Kalu Singh (present accused appellant), Devi Singh and Jabar Singh. PW12 Bhojraj Singh further informed PW25 Rakesh Puri that when he started to record the statement of the deceased, he died and the name of the assailants disclosed by the deceased were written in the dairy Ex. P/20 by Constable Pratap Singh (PW20).
The further case of the prosecution is that on 23.2.1997 at about 8.15 PM, PW4 Rupa Ram gave a written report Ex. P/13 to PW25 Rakesh Puri in the Bangar Hospital, Pali stating inter-alia that on 23.2.1997 in the evening at about 7.00 PM, he alongwith deceased and PW7 Mithu Singh, after sitting in a three wheeler Taxi, reached near Ramedeo road where Kalu Singh (present accused appellant), came in front of Taxi and they managed to stop the Taxi and thereafter, they, after caught holding the hands of the deceased, got him down from the Taxi and all the three accused persons were armed with naked swords and they all gave sword blows on the person of the deceased. It was further stated in the report Ex.P/13 by PW4 Rupa Ram that he and PW7 Mithu Singh tried to save deceased, but they tried to attack them also and on hearing their'cries, PW6 Devi Das and PW21 Mangla Ram also reached on the spot and they had also witnessed the occurrence. It was further stated in the report Ex. P/13 that all the above three accused persons had enmity with the deceased. It was further stated in the report Ex. P/13 that thereafter, deceased was taken to Bangar Hospital where he was admitted and where Bhojraj Singh (PW12), ASI of Bangar Chowki came and simultaneously, Praveen Mehta and Rajat Vyas (PW18) also came there and when PW12 Bhojraj Singh asked about the incident from the deceased, then the deceased told him that Kalu Singh (present accused appellant), Devi Singh and Jabar Singh had caused injures to him by swords and as soon as PW12 Bhojraj Singh took the papers in hand for recording the statement of deceased, he succumbed to his injuries.
Thereafter, the said report Ex. P/13 was sent by PW25 Rakesh Puri to the Police Station Kotwali, Pali through PW23 Amar Singh, where a regular FIR Ex. P/14 was chalked out and investigation was started.
During investigation, the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased was got conducted through Medical Board and the post mortem report is Ex. P/28 where it was opined by the Medical Board that the cause of death of the deceased was haemor-rhagic shock due to injuries to spleen (vital organ).
The further case of the prosecution is that PW25 Rakesh Puri received a secret information from Mukhbir to the effect that the accused appellant had gone towards Agrasen Bhawan having a blood stained sword in his hand and upon this, he alongwith PW13 Bhop Singh, ASI reached Agrasen Bhawan where they saw accused appellant Kalu Singh and at that time, he was having a sword in his hand and seeing them, the accused appellant tried to run away, but he was caught hold by them and the sword, which was in the hand of the accused appellant, was taken by PW25 Rakesh Puri in-his possession and thereafter, Chowki where he produced that sword and accused appellant before Ashok Kumar Gupta, PW24, who was at that time CO, Pali and thereafter, the fard of seizure of sword Ex. P/2 was got prepared by PW24 Ashok Kumar Gupta in presence of PW1. Rbshan Singh and PW2 Shyam Lal and at that time, the sword was stained with blood.
The accused appellant was arrested through arrest memo Ex.P/1. The blood stained clothes of the accused appellant were also seized by the police through Ex. P/3. The site plan is Ex. P/10. The FSL report is Ex. P/43.
After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the accused appellant Kalu Singh and two other accused persons, namely, Devi Singh and Jabar Singh in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali and from where the case was committed to the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Pali.
On 24.7.1997, the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Ca'ses, Pali framed Charges for the offence under Sections 302/34, 341 IPC, 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act and 27 of Arms Art against the present accused appellant Kalu Singh and other two accused persons namely, Jabar Singh and Devi Singh. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons. They denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, as many as 26 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and many documents were got exhibited. Thereafter, statement of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr. P.C. were recorded. The accused persons did not lead any evidence in defence, but got exhibited some documents in their defence.
After conclusion of trial, the learned Special Judge, SC/St Cases, Pali through his judgment and order dated 28.7.2000 acquitted the co-accused Devi Singh and Jabar Singh of all the charges framed against them and also acquitted the present accused appellant of the charges for the offence under Sections 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act and 27 of the Arms Act, but convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Sections 302, 341 IPC and 4 read with Section 25(1)(B)(B) of the Arms Act and sentenced in the manner as stated above holding inter-alia:-
(i) That Ex. P/39A Rojnamcha, which was prepared by PW25 Rakesh Puri on the information given to him on telephone by unknown person is not the first information report in the present case and the first information report is Ex. P/13, which was lodged by PW4 Rupa Ram.
(ii) That the scribe of first information report Ex. P/13 was Surendra Nihalani and non-production of him would not affect the case of the prosecution.
(iii) That if some of the statements of the witnesses were recorded after one or two days of the incident, it would not affect the case of the prosecution.
(iv) That the Investigation Officer PW24 Ashok Kumar Gupta tried to record the statements of those independent witnesses, who were present at the time of occurrence, but none came forward and therefore, it cannot be said that PW24 Ashok Kumar Gupta did not try to record the statements of independent witnesses.
(v) That no doubt PW19 Dr. 'K.N. Mathur had not opined that the injuries, which were received by the deceased, were caused by sword, but looking to the injuries received by the deceased, it can easily be said that such types of injuries could be caused by sword. Therefore, if the sword was not shown to Dr. K.N. Mathur, PW19, it would not affect the case of the prosecution.
(vi) That the accused appellant and other accused persons had enmity with the deceased and because of that enmity, deceased was murdered.
(vii) That the case of the prosecution that the deceased before succumbed to his injuries gave oral dying declaration to PW12 Bho-jraj Singh in the hospital was disbelieved by the learned Special Judge.
(viii) That the incident took place at the place mentioned in the site plan Ex. P/10 near crossing.
(ix) That the statements of two eye witnesses, namely, PW6 Devi Das and PW21 Mangla Ram were disbelieved by the learned Special Judge.
(x) That the statement of PW7 Mithu Singh, another eye witness, was also disbelieved by the learned Special Judge on the point that in his earlier statement and in cross-examination, he supported the case of the prosecution, but later on, in his further cross-examination, which had taken place on, 5.2.1999, he retracted to his earlier version.
(xi) That from the statement of PW4 Rupa Ram, another eye witness and who lodged the report Ex. P/13, the learned Special Judge came to the conclusion that no doubt even though he has been declared hostile so far as the involvement of other co- accused persons, namely, Devi Singh and Jabar Singh is concerned, but so far his statement involving the accused appellant Kalu Singh is concerned, that portion of his statement was found reliable by the learned Special Judge and on the basis of that statement, he convicted the accused appellant Kalu Singh under Section 302 IPC for the murder of deceased.
(xii) That the injuries, which were received by the deceased, were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
(xiii) That death of the deceased was homicidal and was caused by the accused appellant Kalu Singh by sword.
Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 28.7.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Pali, the present appeal has been filed by the accused appellant.
4. In this appeal, the main submission of the learned counsel appearing for the accused appellant is that when the learned Special Judge has himself disbelieved the statement of eye witnesses, namely, PW6 Devi Das, PW21 Mangla Ram and PW7 Mithu Singh and further, he has partly disbelieved the statement of only remaining eye witnesses PW4 Rupa Ram in respect of other two co-accused Devi Singh and Jabar Singh and furth'ermore,.PW4 Rupa Ram has been declared hostile by the prosecution, therefore, in these declared hostile by the prosecution, therefore, in these circumstances, the conviction of the accused appellant Kalu Singh on the sole testimony of PW4 Rupa Ram was absolutely unwarranted and thus, the accused appellant is also entitled to acquittal in the same manner as other two accused persons, namely, Devi Singh and Jabar Singh were acquitted by the learned Special Judge.
5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Special Judge are based on correct appreciation of evidence and thus, no interference is called for with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Pali.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the accused appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and gone through the record of the case.
7. Before proceeding further, we would like to discuss first the medical evidence, which is found in the statement of PW19 Dr. K.N. Mathur, who was one of the members of the Medical Board conducting post mortem of the dead body of the deceased.
8. PW-19 Dr. K.N. Mathur in his statement recorded in Court has stated that on 24.2.1997 he was Medical Jurist in the Banger Hospital, Pali and on that day, on the request of the police, he and other members of the Medical Board, namely, Dr. A.K. Mathur and Dr. D.K. Vyas conducted the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased at about 7.30 PM and found the following injuries on the body of the deceased :-
(1) Incised wound 4cm x 1/2cm x muscle deep (transversely) on mid and left side of chin.
(2) Incised wound 4cm x 4cm x deep abdominal cavity with profusion of omentum on mid of epigastic region.
(3) Incised wound 5.5 cm x 4cm x deep abdominal (obliquely placed) cavity on left side of epigastic just below coast margin with profusion of omentum.
(4) Incised wound 2cm x 1cm x deep abdominal cavity (obliquely placed) on the left hypochondrum region.
(5) Incised wound 4 x 5cm x deep abdominal cavity with profusion of small intestine on outer aspect of right lumber region at umblicus level.
(6) Incised wound 3.5 cm x 1 cm x deep abdominal cavity on right iliac fossa.
(7) There is tear of ilium at two places with tear of mesentery of adjacent area.
(8) The peritoneum is cut at the side of all the abdoniminal wound (1 to 5).
(9) Incised wound 3 x 1cm x 1/2cm (obliquely) on lower part of occipital region on left side.
(10) Incised wound 5cm x 1cm x muscle deep on lower part or right cervical region.
(11) Incised wound 1cm x 1/2 x 1cm on outer aspect and upper part.
(12) Incised wound 1cm x 1/2cm x 1/2cm on outer aspect and lower half part and the abdominal cavity is full of blood. The spleen is normal in size, shape and weight.
(13) Incised wound vertically 2cm x 1cm x 1cm on outer aspect oflower left arm.
(14) Incised wound 1cm x 1/2cm x 1cm deep, 2cm below the injury No. 1 (13).
(15) Incised wound 6cm x 3cm x muscle deep on one third of right arm anteriorly.
(16) Incised wound 3cm x 1cm x deep tender on web space between the index and thumb of left hand.
(17) Incised wound 2cm x 1cm x deep tendor (skin pealed off) of leftindex.
(18) Incised wound 2cm x 1cm x skin deep on mid of middle finger, left hand.
(19) Incised wound 2cm x 1cm on ring and little finger of left hand.
(20) Incised wound 1cm x 1/2cm x skin deep on right ring and little finger.
(21) Incised wound 3 x 1 cm x skin deep on dorsal aspect of mid and left forearm.
(22) Abrasion 3cm linear on one half of dorsom of left forearm.
(23) Abrasion 4cm x 1cm on half of left forearm.
(24) Abrasion 2cm x 4cm on outer aspect of left forearm.
(25) Abrasion 5cm x 1cm on medical side of left shoulder.'
PW19 Dr. K.N. Mathur has further stated that the cause of death of the deceased was Haemorrhagic Shock due to injuries to Spleen (vital organ). He has proved the post mortem report Ex. P/28.
9. Thus, from the statement of PW19 Dr. K.N. Mathur and the post mortem report Ex. P/28, it becomes crystal clear that the deceased died because of Haemorrhagic Shock due to injuries to spleen, and therefore, death of the deceased was not natural one, but it was homicidal and the findings of the learned Special Judge in this respect are liable to be confirmed.
10. In this case, the learned Special Judge in his impugned judgment and order dated 28.7.2000 has elaborately discussed evidence of each and every eye witness pertaining to each and every point and after elaborate discussion and analytical and meticulous examination of evidence available on record, he came to the conclusion that the statements of eye witnesses, namely, PW6 Devi Das, PW7 Mithu Singh and PW21 Mangla Ram were not reliable and thus, he did not place any reliance on the statements of those eye witnesses, but there is no doubt on the point that the names of the above eye witnesses were found in the first information report Ex.P/13 lodged by PW4 Rupa Ram.
11. From perusing the statement of PW7 Mithu Singh, it clearly appears that in the very beginning and upto some cross- examination, he supported the case of the prosecution, but later on, he changed his whole statement and that is why, his statement was not found reliable by the learned Special Judge and the learned Special Judge has further observed in para 61 at page 38 of the impugned judgment and order that proceedings under Section 193 IPC be initiated against him.
12. Similarly, the statements of PW6 Devi Das and PW21 Mangla Ram were not found reliable by the learned Special Judge as per the reasons given by him in his impugned judgment and order.
13. PW4 Rupa Ram, who lodged the report Ex.P/13, has categorically stated in his report Ex. P/13 that all the three accused persons, namely, Kalu Singh (present accused appellant), Devi Singh and Jabar Singh caused injuries to deceased and that report Ex. P/13 was lodged just after the occurrence, but in his statement recorded in Court, he has clearly stated that only the accused appellant Kalu Singh gave sword blows on the person of the deceased and the other two accused, namely, Devi Singh and Jabar Singh did not cause any injury to the deceased and on that point, this witness was declared hostile, but so far as his statement involving the accused appellant Kalu Singh is concerned, that was found categorically consistent through out and his statement was not shattered or affected in cross- examination and got corroborated from his report Ex. P/13 and furthermore, from medical evidence, which is found in the statement of PW19 Dr. K.N. Mathur and post mortem report Ex. P/18 and thus, on the basis of statement of PW4 Rupa Ram involving the accused appellant with the commission of crime, the learned Special Judge convicted the accused appellant.
14. The question for consideration is when PW4 Rupa Ram, who lodged the report Ex. P/13, has been declared hostile for remaining two co-accused persons, namely, Devi Singh and Jabar Singh and his statement was partly believed by the learned Special Judge in respect of accused appellant Kalu Singh, whether in suchcircumstances, a conviction can be based on such statement of PW4 Rupa Ram asdone by the learned Special Judge or not or his statement should have been rejectedin toto.
15. Before proceeding further and before appreciating the evidence of PW4 Rupa Ram, something should be said about motive.
16. The motive is that which moves a man to do a particular act. There can be no action without a motive, which must exist for every voluntary act. Motive plays an important role and becomes a compelling force to do a crime. Therefore, motive behind the crime is relevant factor for which evidence may be adduced. The evidence of motive is material in criminal Cases. To say that motive is an important factor only in circumstantial evidence is a wrong conception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision in State of UP v. Baguram (1), has held that motive is equally relevant where case is based on direct evidence and where the case is based on circumstantial evidence.
17. Therefore, since the present case is based on direct evidence, motive would also be very much relevant and the same is found in the report Ex. P/13 and also in the statement of PW4 Rupa Ram. Thus, the findings of the learned Special Judge that the accused appellant had strong motive against deceased are liable to be confirmed.
18. It may be stated here that when dealing with the serious questions of the guilt or innocence of persons charged with crime, the following general rules may be helpful to the Court for determining whether the evidence in a particular case is admissible or not :-
(1) The onus of proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge against the accused lies on the prosecutor.
(2) The evidence must be such as to exclude, to a moral certainty, every reasonable, doubt of the guilt of the accused.
(3) In matters of doubt it is safer t acquit, than to condemn, since it is better that several guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer.
(4) There must be clear and unequivocal proof of the corpus delicit (substance of the offence).
(5) The hypothesis of delinquency should be consistent with all the facts proved.
19. It may be further stated here that the fact that a witness improves his testimony at the trial does not ruin the value of his testimony in its entirety.
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of UP v. Noorie (2), has held that for appreciating the evidence of eye witnesses, the Court has to adhere to two principles:-
(1) Whether it was possible for witnesses to be present, and
(2) Whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable.
21. In respect of both these, considerations, circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbablise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence.
22. Since in this case, the statement of PW4 Rupa Ram was partly believed and partly disbelieved by the learned Special Judge, therefore, some thing should be said about the maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus'.
falsus in uno falsus in omnibus
23. The maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' is in itself worthless, first in point of validity and secondly, in point of utility because it merely tells the jury what they may do in any event, not what they must do must not do, therefore, it is a superfluous form of words. It is also in practice pernicious, (Wigmore on Evidence, Vol. III, para 1008).
24. This maxim - falsus in uno falsus in omnibus - has not received general acceptance in different jurisdictions in India; nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of a rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to is that in such cases the testimony may be disregarded and not that it must be disregarded.
25. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false ineverything) is neither a sound rule of law nor a rule of prudence. Hardly one comesacross a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rateexaggerations, embroideries or embellishments. It is, therefore, the duty of the Courtto scrutinise the evidence carefully and, in terms of the felicitous metaphor, separatethe grain from the chaff.
26. On this point, the decisions in Bhe Ram v. State of Haryana (3), State of Punjab v. Surja Ram (4) and Jeevan v. State of M.P. (5), may be seen.
27. In Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab (6), while interpreting the maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that merely because one portion of evidence of eye witnesses is disbelieved does not mean that court is bound to reject all of it. Non acceptance of eye witnesses' account regarding involvement of the co-accused in the offence would not render their evidence in respect of involvement of the accused suspect.
28. In Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v. State of Orissa (7), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting the maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' observed that this principle is not applicable in India. It is only a rule of caution. Even when major portion of evidence of a witness is found unreliable, if the remaining part of the evidence inspires confidence and is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, conviction can be based thereon. Court has to separate chaff from grain and to find in each case as to what extent the evidence is acceptable. If separation cannot be done, the evidence has to be rejected in toto.
29. Thus, the law is well settled that evidence of a witness need not necessarily be true in all respects. It may be partly true and partly untrue and the said maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' is not applicable in India and it is open to the Court in India to accept a part of evidence of a witness while rejecting the rest of it.
30. In our considered opinion, keeping in mind the law said down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the maxim 'falsus in no falsus in omnibus', if the learned Special Judge has partly disbelieved the statement of PW4 Rupa Ram in respect of other accused persons Devi Singh and Jabar Singh and partly believed his statement in respect of accused appellant Kalu Singh, he has committed no illegality in doing so.
31. We have perused the statement of PW4 Rupa Ram and also gone through the first information report Ex. P/13 lodged by PW4 Rupa Ram. In his report Ex.P/13, which was lodged just after the occurrence, PW4 Rupa Ram has categorically stated that all the three accused persons, namely, Kalu Singh (present accused appellant), Devi Singh and Jabar Singh caused injuries to deceased, but in his statement recorded in Court, he has clearly stated that only the accused appellant Kalu Singh gave sword blows on the person of the deceased and the other two accused, namely, Devi Singh and Jabar Singh did not cause any injury to the deceased and on that point, this witness was declared hospital. However, his statement involving the accused appellant Kalu Singh with the commission of crime that he caused sword blow on the person of deceased appears to be consistent through out and that part of his statement was not shattered or affected in cross-examination and rather, it gets corroboration from his report Ex.P/13 and furthermore, it was corroborated from medical evidence, which is found in the statement of PW19 Dr. K.N. Mathur and post mortem report Ex. P/28.
32. Apart from this, the statement of PW4 Rupa Ram in respect of accused appellant further gets corroboration from the fact that just after the occurrence, the accused appellant Kalu Singh was found with sword stained with blood and that was taken from him by PW25 Rakesh Puri in presence of PW13 Shop Singh and thereafter, PW25 Rakesh Puri produced accused appellant alongwith that sword before PW24 Ashok Kumar Gupta, Co, who got prepared fard of seizure of sword Ex. P/2 and the blood stained clothes of the accused appellant were also seized. This aspect leads to the conclusion that the accused appellant gave sword blows on the person of the deceased, as a result of which he died.
33. Thus, if the learned Special Judge has partly relied upon the statement of PW4 Rupa Ram pertaining to the accused appellant Kalu Singh that he caused injuries to the deceased by sword, he has committed no illegality in doing so, as that part of his statement is corroborated from his report Ex. P/13, which was lodged just after the occurrence and also corroborated from medical evidence and other facts, just stated above. Furthermore, the learned Special Judge has given so many cogent reasons in the impugned judgment and order (paras 62 to 67) while partly relying upon the statement of PW4 pertaining to accused appellant.
34. In view of the above, no interference is called for with the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Special Judge against the accused appellant Kalu Singh as they are based on correct appreciation of evidence on record and it cannot be said that the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Special Judge are perverse or erroneous or based on no material or evidence.
35. For the reasons stated above, the argument of the learned counsel for the accused appellant that the statement of PW4 Rupa Ram should have been rejected in toto cannot be appreciated and stands rejected and this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
36. Before parting with this judgment, we may observe that we do not want to comment on the acquittal of two other co-accused persons, namely, Devi Singh and Jabar Singh as there is no State appeal filed against their acquittal.
Accordingly, this appeal filed by the accused appellant is dismissed, after confirming the impugned judgment and order dated 28.7.2000 passed b the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases Pali.