' Appellants have assailed a judgment delivered by the Court of Sessions Judge, Layyah on 26-5- 1998 whereby both of them have been convicted under section 377, P.P.C. And have been sentenced to R.I. For five years each and a fine of Rs,5,000 each. In default to pay the amount of fine, the defaulting convict shall further undergo R.I. For six months. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
Has been also extended.
2. Briefly speaking, the story of prosecution is that one Noor Ahmed (P.W.5) filed a written complaint Exh.P.B at Police Station City Layyah on 29-12-1996 wherein he alleged that his son Sajid Hafeez Ahmed aged 12/13 years is a student and he himself has a shop of spare parts. His abovementioned son brings milk from Maqbool Husain every evening. While he was bringing milk on the day of report, he came across appellant Nadeem Akhtar who was armed with a churri and appellant Javed Iqbal. Nadeem Akhtar slapped his son and asked him to go with them. On resfusal, he inflicted a churri injury on the hand of his son. Then out of fear, he became silent and both of them took him in the nearby grass field. Both of them asked the victim to open his shalwar. On refusal he was threatened of murder by appellant Javed Iqbal. Appeal Nadeem Akhtar took the string of the shalwar of victim in his hand and made him to fall down. First of all Javed lqbal committed carnal intercourse with him and then he was followed by Nadeem Akhtar. On the cries of the victim, the complainant and Muhammad Asif were attracted who were going to enquire from Maqbool Ahmed about the victim. They saw that appellant Nadeem Akhtar was committing sodomy whereas appellant Javed Iqbal had caught hold the hands of the victim. On seeing them, both the accused/appellants ran away while taking away their churri with them.
' Appellants were arrested, challaned and charged under Article 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and section 377, P.P.C. To which they pleaded not guilty.
3. To prove its case prosecution examined 8 witnesses. Khadim Hussain (P.W.1), P.C., has proved escorting Sajid Hafeez victim for medical examination. After medical examination the doctor gave him sealed envelope, a phial containing swabs which were handed over by him to Investigating Officer. Investigating Officer took the same in his possession vide memo Exh. P.A. On 12-2-1997 he took sealed parcel of shalwar and delivered it in the office of Chemical Examiner Multan.
Muhammad Ramzan (P.W.2), H.C. And Moharrir has deposed that on 29-12-1996. He was posted as Moharrir at Police Station City Layyah. On receipt of the complaint. Exh. P.B. He drafted the formal F.I.R. With is Exh.P.B/1. On 1-2-1997 Muhammad Younis, S.I., handed over to him one sealed parcel of shalwar which was kept intact by him in the Mal Khana and the same was handed over to Khadim Hussain constable on 12-2-1997 for onward transmission to the office of the Chemical Examiner, Multan. On 29-12-1996 the same S.I. Muhammad Younis also handed over to him one sealed envelope and one sealed bottle containing swabs for safe custody which were handed over to Arif constable for onward transmission of the same to the office of the Chemical Examiner Multan.
These were kept by me safely in the Malkhana. Dr. Manzoor Hussain (P.W.3) had deposed that he was posted as C.M.O., at D.H.Q. Hospital, Layyah on 29-12-1996. On this day Sajid Hafeez Ahmed, aged 13 years was examined by him at 8.05 p.m. And found the following injuries-- "(1) An incised wound 2.5 c.m. x .25 c.m. x skin deep on the space of palm between the thumb and index finger.
(2) An incised wound 2.5 c.m. x .25 c.m. x .25 x skin deep on the palm of hand 1.00 c.m. Away from injury No, 1 .
(3) An incised wound 1.00 c.m. x .25 c.m. x skin deep on the palmar aspect of right little finger on the distal crease.
(4) A laceration 1.00 c.m. x .25 c.m. On the left side of upper lip.
(5) A laceration 1.00 c.m. x .25 c.m. On the right part of forehead.
(6) A lacerated wound .75 c.m. x .25 c.m. x skin deep on the right side of front of neck, 1/2 c.m. From the mid-line.
(7) A laceration 2 c.m. x 1/2 on the back of right elbow.
(8) A laceration 2.5 c.m. x 1. c.m. On the back of left elbow.
(9) Multiple lacerations in the area of 6 c.m. x 12 c.m. On the front of left knee.
(10) A laceration 11 c.m. x 6 c.m. On the front of right knee." On examination of anal area he found the Following:-- "There was pari-anal induration. The sphincter tone was normal but painful on declaration. On internal examination there were two lacerations (a) at 8.00 Clock, (b) at 12.00 O'Clock. Three swabs were taken from the anis, (a) superficial, (b) deep, (c) intermediate and were sent to the Chemical Examiner, Multan for detection of semen, if any."
' He reserved his opinion till the receipt of chemical examiner' report. He has proved his M.L.R. As Exh.P.C. He gave his final report which is Exh.P.D/1 and according to it act sodomy of was committed upon the victim but the penetration was without ejaculation. Muhammad Arif Ali (P.W.4) P.C., has deposed that on 13-12-1996 Muhammad Ramzan Moharrir, H.C., delivered to him two sealed parcel alleged to contain an envelope and one phial for depositing the same in the office of the chemical examiner Multan which was delivered by him intact in the concerned office. Noor Ahmed (P.W.S), the complainant, has proved his complaint Exh.P.B. Sajid Hafeez Ahmed (P.W.6) a boy about 13/14 years and the victim, has deposed that he was a student of 7th class on the date of occurrence. At about Maghrab prayer time he went to the house of Maqbool Ahmed to bring milk and while coming back to his house after fetching the milk, when he reached the fields of one Ahmed Bakhsh, appellant Nadeem Akhtar having churri in his hand and appellant Javed Akhtar came there and then Nadeem Akhtar slapped him and asked him to accompany them to the nearby grass. On refusal Nadeem Akhtar caused a churri blow which landed on his hand. Thereafter both the accused forcibly caught hold of the string of his shalwar and took him on the grass and asked him to remove his shalwar but he refused. Then Nadeem Akhtar forcibly removed his shalwar and after that first of all Javed Iqbal committed sodomy with him while Nadeem Akhtar remained catching hold of his hands. Then Nadeem Akhtar committed sodomy with him and Javed Iqbal remained catching hold of his hands. He made hue and cries which attracted his father Noor Ahmed and Muhammad Asif. On seeing them the accused/appellants fled away. While leaving the spot Nadeem Akhtar was holding churri in his hand and Javed Iqbal took away his shalwar also in his hand. He narrated the whole episode to his father and Muhammad Asif. He was got medically examined by the doctor. While in police custody appellant Nadeem Akhtar led to the recovery of churri, Article P-1, from a field of grass nearby his house. It was taken into possession by the police vide memo. Exh.P.E and he attested the same. Ghafoor Ahmed and Khalid Farooq also attested recovery memo. On the same day, while in police custody, Javed Igal led to the recovery of his shalwar, article P-2, from grassy field which was taken into possession by the police vide memo.
Exh.P.A. And attested by him, Ghafoor Ahmed and Farooq. The shalwar was made into a sealed parcel. Muhammad Younas (P.W.7), Sub-Inspector of police, had deposed that on 29-12-1996 he was posted at police station City Layyah. On the same day, on the application of Noor Ahmed he drafted the complaint Exh.P.B and sent the same to the police station for registration of the case. A formal F.I.R. Was recorded by Muhammad Ramzan HC/Moharrir. Thereafter, he sent the victim to the hospital through Khadim Hussain P.C. For medical examination. On the basis of the injury statement Exh.P.C./1 prepared by him, the victim was medically examined by the doctor. He inspected the spot and prepared the site plan which is Exh.P.F. And marginal notes Nos.1 and 2 are in his hand. He recorded the statement of the P.Ws. Under section 161, Cr.P.C. On 1-2-1997 he arrested both the accused persons and got them medically examined. On 1-2-1997 Nadeem Akhtar, while in police custody, led to the recovery of churri, article P-1, from grass field and the same was taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.P.E attested by the witnesses. On the same day Javed Iqbal led to the recovery of shalwar belonging to the victim (Article P-2) from the grassy filed which was taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.P.K and was attested by witnesses. On 29-12-1996 Khadim Hussain, P.C. Handed over to him one sealed phial containing swa bs and one sealed envelope which also was taken into possession by him vide memo recovery Exh.P.1 attested by the P.Ws. He also prepared rough sketch plan and shalwar vide Exh.P.J. After the completion of the investigation he challenged both the appellants. Dr. Muhammad Salim Akhtar (P.W.8), has proved the medical examination of both the appellants/accused and has proved his report which is Exh.P.G/1 and Exh..P.H/1. His finding about both the appellants was that there was nothing to suggest that they were unable to perform sexual inter-course.
' In his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Appellant Javed Akhtar has denied all the specific questions. To question No,6 as to why P.Ws. Had deposed against him he replied as under:-- ' "The P.Ws. Are interested and inimical. They have deposed falsely. I have deposed falsely. I have heard the statememt of my co-accused Nadeem Akhtar and my statement is the same."
' He has declined to be examined on oath but has produced some witnesses in his defence.
Appellant Nadeem Akhtar, in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Has also denied all the specific questions. To question No,8 as to why the P.Ws. Have deposed against him he has replied as under:-- ' The P.Ws. Are related inter se and inimical towards me. They have deposed falsely. This is a false case in order to avenge the dishonour of the complainant party in case F.I.R. No,47 of 1996 and the previous enmity. No such occurrence has taken place. The alleged place of occurrence is an open place and all around it are thickly populated houses, a thorough fare and a pacca road. The people and the vehicle run round the clock on those roads. At the alleged time of occurrence, the women-folk, children and the farmers work in the fields. Doctor Javed lqbal Bhutta was posted as C.M.O. At D.H.Q. Hospital Layyah who is still posted there and is a influential person. Doctor Manzoor Hussain and Dr. Saleem Akhter are his colleagues. The M.L.C. And the report of the potency are false one. We were never produced before the doctor. The people of the locality appeared before the Investigating Officer and made solemn statement that no such occurrence took place. This case was investigated by Shahab Mazher Bahalli S.S.P. Range Crimes D.G. Khan and other officials who after thorough investigation found me and my-co-accused innocent."
' He has declined to be examined on oath but has produced witnesses in defence.
' Niaz Ahmed (D.W.1), produced the register of check list maintained in the office of S.P. Layyah according to which at page 166, the record of S.I. Muhammad Yunas No,DG-32 was sent vide Reference No,18556 of 6-10-1996 to S.P. Muzaffargarh and the office copy of the same No,152-55/ST, dated 10-4-1997 was retained in the office of the S.P Layyah alongwith office copy of report No,239- RC, dated 27-3-1997. The photostat office copy of final report of case F.I.R. No,362, dated 29-12-1996 under section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 under section 377, P.P.C. At P.S. City Layyah was also retained in the office of S.P. Layyah. I have brought with me the said record today. According to this record S.I. Muhammad Yunas No,DG 32 was placed under suspension by the order of S.P. Layyah as directed by D.I.G., D.G., Khan from 10-4-1997 for allegedly having committed irregularities while handing the investigation of Case No,362, dated 29-12-1996 under section 12/7 of 79, Islamic Law and under section 377, P.P.C. Police station City Layyah.
Thereafter the said S.I. When he was under suspension was transferred from Layyah to District Muzaffargarh. Ghulam Qasim (D.W.2) had deposed that his house is situated near the place. He remained in his lands from 2-00 p.m. To 9.00 p.m. He was watering his crops. Place of alleged occurrence is at a distance of 5 karms from the place where he was present and in his presence the appellants did not commit sodomy with Sajid Hafeez. A.S.P. And D.S.P. Police went to the place of occurrence for investigation. He appeared before them. About 200/300 persons from the locality also appeared before them and he made his statement before the police at the spot. On that day wife of Ahmed Bakhsh was sick whose house is also near by the place of occurrence. People from the neighbourhood of the house of Ahmed Bakhsh were coming to enquire about the health of his wife. Some other persons were also present in the fields near the place of occurrence on the date of occurrence. Ahmad Bakhsh (D.W.3) has deposed his house is near the place of alleged occurrence. On the fateful day, he was in his house upto night due the illness of his wife who died on the same night. On that day people of area remained visiting his house due to the illness of his wife and that there is Abadi around the place of alleged occurrence. He appeared before A.S.P.
Crimes D.G Khan during investigation at the spot. Shahab Mazhar Ellahi (D.W.4), S.S.P. Crimes Branch had deposed that on 15-3-1997 he conducted the investigation of this case. He visited the place of occurrence and interrogated different persons. From the circumstances obtained on the spot as well as from the statements of the persons of the vicinity the occurrence did not take place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. Except the medical report, all the facts have been twisted by the complainant party in connivance with the local police. He has deposed further that he is of the view that the occurrence had not taken place at least at the spot alleged by the complainant. In his opinion prima facie, the appellants are innocent. In his view and according to his investigation, Muhammad Yunas S.I/I.O was found to be in league with the complainant party and he padded the evidence against accused/appellants. On the basis of his report against the said Muhammad Yunas, he was suspended on the orders of the D.I.-G.
4. I have heard the counsel for the appellants and State. Counsel for appellants has contended that as indicated by the site plan (Exh.P.F.), the place of occurrence is surrounded by the houses and the thoroughfares and it was not possible for the appellants to have committed the offence at this spot in the manner in which the prosecution has alleged; that it does not appear natural that only the father of the victim has seen the occurrence and was examined as such whereas the second ocular witness Muhammad Asif was given up by the prosecution vide application of State counsel, dated 25-11-1997; that since the alleged occurrence had taken place on the grass of Sarsu/Losun the clothes of the victim should have indicated marks of grass as well as blood stains but is not. So; that the medical evidence has indicated 10 injuries on the body of the victim at different parts of the body from the lip up to knee, but it is not possible that with one below of the knife will cause so many injuries that no blood has been detected on the clothes of the victim, therefore, injuries Nos.1 to 3 appears to be fabricated and since the victim himself has deposed that he was not dragged therefore, injuries Nos.4 to 10 also appear to be fabrication of the doctor who appears to be in league with the complainant party; that the 3 swabs sent to the chemist have not indicated the existence of the stains of semen which creates doubt in the case of the prosecution; that allegedly victim was not habitual and two adult persons had molested him but the type of the injuries which have been shown in the anal area are such which create doubt in the case; that medical report as prepared by Dr. Manzoor Hussain has been clearly influenced by Dr. Javed Iqbal Bhutta who was enemical towards the accused/appellants; that the complainant and F.I.R. Do not indicate about the shalwar of victim taken away by the appellants, therefore, the recovery of the same made after two months of occurrence and on pointation of the appellants is a ,clear fabrication, that the recovery of churri has not been believed by the trial Court itself; that there are material conflicts among the P.Ws.; that it has been admitted that there has been a case of narcotics against the complainant party and in this respect the defence witnesses have not been dislodged by the prosecution; that it stands proved through the evidence of the witnesses of defence as well as suggestions made to the witnesses of the prosecution that the Investigating Officer was in conspiracy with the complainant party and had fabricated this case and for this offence he was placed under suspension by has own department; that the trial Court has not discussed the depositions of the witnesses of defence who have also made their statements on oath before the trial Court and, therefore, a Minn (balance) has not been introduced in the impugned judgment; that alternatively it has also been contended that both the appellants are students and on the day of occurrence they were raw youth of about 16 years of age and since conviction they are kept at Bahawalpur Boster Jail and in view of this position it shall be in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence in case the appellants are not acquitted: The counsel for State on the other hand has vehemently argued that this is a clear case of the commission of offence under section 377, P.P.C. As all the ingredients of the Constitution of section 377, P.P.C. Are found; that the evidence proves that at least penetration had taken place and penetration itself is enough to prove the guilt of the apellants; that as per Exh.P.L the shalwar of the victim was found stained with semen by the Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government of Punjab which indicates that objection had taken place outside the anus;. That victim is corroborated by the medical evidence and the defence has not produced enough material to prove the existence of enmity with the complainant party and that finally the learned counsel for State has also contended that even if some trifling enemity existed between the parties it was not of that magnitude that the father shall bring his family honour at stake while complaining falsely about the commission of sodomy upon his teen aged son.
5. When I look into the site plan Exh.P.F, I find that the alleged place of occurrence is bordered by a katcha path towards the north, open land of Muhammad Hussain Lohar towards the East, open land of Ahmed Bux towards the West and open plot of Ahmed Bux towards the sought from where at point No,2 the run away spot of the accused/appellants has been shown. The place of occurrence is, located about middle of an agricultural field with a crop of grass. Point No,1 in the site plan is that place where sodomy was committed and there some grass is found in the condition of being broken which indicates that something abnormal has happened there. Consequently I find the contention about site plan is not helping the plea of innocence of the appellants.
6. Another contention for the appellants is that the victim is not corroborated by any other ocular witness except his father whose presence at the place of occurrence appears to be unnatural. This contention is misconceived as the victim has been completely corroborated by Dr. Manzoor Hussain (P.W.3) and this, corroboration in itself is enough to prove that the victim's complaint about the commission of sodomy upon him stands proved.
7. The contention that the medical evidence has indicated 10 injuries on the body of the victim at different parts from lip up to the knee and it was not possible that one below of churri could have caused so many injuries and it has also been contended that injuries Nos.1 to 3 appears to be fabricated and injuries Nos.4 to 10 also of a fabrication of the doctor as the victim himself has not alleged dragging. This contention is also totally misconceived inasmuch as that injury No,1 is an incised wound skin deep on the space of palm between the thum and index finger. Injury No,2 is skin deep incised wound on plam of hand 1.00 c.m. Away from injury No,1 and injury No,3 is an incised wound skin deep on the palmer aspect of right little finger on the distal crease. All these injuries, although shown separately are in such a straight line and in such manner that, prima facie, these are caused by a single below of the churri and this is what Sajid Hafeez Ahmed (P.W.6), the victim, has explained in the following words:- ' "I refused whereupon Nadeem Akhtar caused a churri below which landed on my hand."
' Consequently, injuries Nos.1 to 3 cannot be considered as a fabrication or as a medical evidence coming into conflict with the evidence of the victim. So far as injuries Nos.4 to 10 are concerned, No,4 is a laceration on the left side of upper lip and No,5 is a laceration on the right part of the forehead, injury No,7 is a laceration on the back of right of elbow, injury No,8 is a laceration on the back of left elbow, injury No,9 is a multiple laceration on the front of left knee and No,10 is a laceration on the front of right knee. All these injuries are in fact the result of the posture in which the victim was made to fall to facilitate the commission of the offence of sodomy upon him. This is clarified by the following piece of deposition of the victim (P.W.6):-- ' "Both the accused asked me to remove my shalwar but I refused. Then Nadeem Akhtar forcibly removed my shalwar, whereafter Javed Iqbal after removing his shalwar committed sodomy with me while Nadeem Akhtar accused remained catching hold my hands at that time. Then Nadeem Akhtar committed sodomy with me and Javed Iqbal accused caught hold my hands."
' Now remains the question of injury No,6 which is a lacerated wound, skin deep, on the right side of front of neck, 1/2 c.m. From the mid line. It appears that either this injury has been caused due to throwing the victim on the ground while keeping hold of him from neck or it is resulted due to front of his neck on the right side getting friction and rubbing alongwith the grass and land on which this portion of his body had landed during the commission of sodomy being committed upon him.
Consequently it is a clear falsity on the part of the appellant to allege that the doctor who examined the victim is in league with the complainant party.
8. Now comes the turn of the contention that the 3 swabs sent to the chemist have not indicated the existence of stains of semen. Indeed it is so, the Report of Chemical Examiner (Exh.P.K) indicates that the 3 anal swa bs were not stained with semen. However, another report of chemical examiner which is Exh.P.L is indicating that the shalwar of the victim was stained with semen. This matter is solved by the following piece of evidence of Dr. Manzoor Hussain (P.W.3) 'The act of sodomy was committed upon the victim but the penetration was without ejaculation.' The doctor who examined the victim was not, supposed to indicate the existence of semen upon the shalwar of the victim because the shalwar was not produced before him. The conclusion, therefore, shall be that the ejaculation had not taken place during the penetration but rather A it had taken place out side on the shalwar of the victim and this way the two reports of chemical examiner are in coherence with the story of the prosecution.
9. It has been vehemently argued for the appellant that in case the two adults persons had committed fullfledged sodomy upon the victim and the victim was molested first time in this manner, then the injuries which have been shown in the anal area should have been much more than what they appear to be. This is again a misconceived point of view which has been explained properly by the examining doctor Manzoor Hussain (P.W.3) in the following words:- "There is less possibility of damage to sphincter of the anus in this case even if the two adult commit sodomy. The object penetrating the anus has to over come the tone of sphincter of the anus before entrance. Mucus membrain was injured in this case. It is incorrect to suggest that I have not given any finding with respect to mucus membrain. I have mentioned it in my report under internal examination that there were two lacerations which are really the injuries of the mucus membrain of the anus. I have not mentioned the measurements of the laceration on the inside of the anus because usually these are not measureable."
' Consequently this line of arguments also fails.
10. The allegation that the examining doctor Manzoor Hussain (P.W.3) was influenced by his colleague Javed Iqbal Bhutta who was enemical towards the appellant has not been proved by the appellant and is rejected accordingly. The contention that the Investigating Officer was in conspiracy with the complainant and for that offence he was placed under suspension by his own department does not find any corroboration as it could not be said as to whether the Investigating Officer was placed under suspension due to the present case or due to some other delinquency.
On this point further discussion shall follow later in this judgment.
11. The contention that the defence witnesses have also made their statements on oath and, therefore, a Minn (balance) should have been created between the P. Ws. And D.Ws. In the impugned judgment. This contention is incorrect as the deposition of D.Ws. Nos.1 to 3 have been discussed summarily, whereas the deposition of D.W.4 has been discussed in details. The deposition of Niaz Ahmed (D.W.1), Naib O.S.I. S.P. Office Layyah in only to the extent that there have been other cases cropping up against the complainant party. The existence of other cases against the complainant party does not prove that the accused/appellant party is not involved in the present case. This defence witness has also made an indication towards the suspension of S.I.
Muhammad Yunas Investigating Officer in the present case, by the order of S.P. Layyah as directed by D.I.-G. D.G. Khan from 10-4-1997 for allegedly having committed irregularities while handing the investigation of the present case. During the cross this very witness admitted that the documentsbrought by him were in photostat copies and were not even attested by any officer. In view of this position the documents produced by D.W:1 have no evidentiary value and this evidence is rejected accordingly. The evidence of Ghulam Qasim (D.W.2) is only to the extent that his house is situated near the place of occurrence and that he remained in his lands form 2.00 p.m. To 9.00 p.m. On the fateful day. He has further stated on oath that in his presence the appellants did not commit sodomy with Sajid Hafeez the victim. Since he has himself admitted that he was not in his house between 2.00 p.m. To 9.00 p.m. And was watering his own crops somewhere else, therefore, at the time of the occurrence he could not come to know in the natural course about the offence due to his non-presence. Then his statement that house of Allah Bux was nearby and people from the neighbourhood were coming to the house to enquire about the health of his wife is of no help to the appellants as the house of Ahmed Bux, according to the site plan, does not appear somewhere near the place of occurrence which was the field of grass and the people who were coming to the house of Ahmed Bux were coming from some other side and, therefore, they could never come to know about the commission of the offence. The deposition of Ahmed I3ux (D.W.3) is also on the same lines that his wife was ill and died on the same night and he was in his house throughout the day and people were coming to him. All were asking about the health of his wife Mst. Naziran Bibi. As discussed above, this plea of defence is of no avail to the appellant. Finally comes the deposition of I D.W.4 namely Shahab Mazhar Bhatti, S.S.P. Crimes branch, who has deposed that according to his investigation Muhammad Yunas S.I./I.O. Of the present case was found to be in league with the complainant party and he padded the evidence against the accused. Be it as it may but it is clear that the victim has been corroborated by his father and the medical evidence and also the documents Exh.P.L which is a positive report of the chemical examiner about the shalwar c of the victim found to be stained with semen. This witness has admitted the commission of the offence. Once the depositions are made before the trial Court, investigation of the officers of police are set aside in case these investigations are in conflict with the evidence brought on the record of the trial Court. Consequently the findings of this witness were altered by trial Court on the sound principles of justice and I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the trial Court in the impugned judgment.
12. The learned counsel for State has correctly pointed out that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond the reasonable doubt and that the ingredients of the constitution of 377, P.P.C. Are available. He has also argued that already a lenient view has been taken by the trial Court while awarding the sentence to the appellants. He has taken pains in assisting this Court to come to the correct conclusions
13. In view of the abovementioned discussion the impugned judgment is E upheld and the appeal is dismissed. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Shall remain intact.