Pious, S/O Mente's D'Cruz v. State of Kerala

# `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. FRIDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF MAY 2023 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1945 ``` ``` CRL.A NO. 917 OF 2006 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.04.2006 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOLLAM IN SESSIONS CASE NO.259/2000] ``` ## `APPELLANT/S:` ``` PIOUS, S/O. MENTE'S D'CRUZ, AGED 37 YEARS RESIDING AT PARAKKALA VILA VEEDU,, SOUTH OF MADANKAVU, KALACKODU CHERI, POOTHAKULAM VILLAGE, PARAVUR, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.HARISH GOPINATH ``` ## `RESPONDENT/S:` ``` STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,, PARAVUR POLICE STATION, PARAVUR, THROUGH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ``` ``` BY SHRI.RANJIT GEORGE, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.05.2023, THE COURT ON 26.5.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` CRL.APPEAL No. 917/2006 2 ## `J U D G M E N T` ``` The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.259/2000 on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Court (Adhoc)-II, Kollam. The aforesaid case arose from Crime No.341/98 of Paravoor Police Station, which was registered for the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). ``` ``` 2.The prosecution case is that on 2.12.1998 at 8.45 p.m., while CW1 and CW2 were standing near the shop of one Imamudheen, the appellant came there walking through the road and CW1 asked him where he was going “Annan”. The accused became violent and caught hold of CW1’s neck by asking on what ground the appellant is his brother. CW1 also caught hold of the shirt of the appellant, and immediately, the appellant took out a knife and stabbed CW1. Upon seeing this, CW2 immediately intervened to prevent the ``` CRL.APPEAL No. 917/2006 3 ``` appellant from committing further assault on ``` ``` CW1, and thereupon, the appellant inflicted two or three stab injuries on the stomach of CW2. Upon hearing the hue and cry, the local people gathered, and the appellant ran away from the spot with the weapon immediately. The injured persons were taken to Holy Cross Hospital, Kottiyam, by one Imamudheen and they underwent treatment in the said hospital. FIS given by CW1 was recorded on 3.12.1998 at 10 a.m., and the crime was registered accordingly. During the investigation, the appellant was arrested. After ``` ``` completing the investigation, the final report was submitted before the Magistrate Court, ``` ``` Paravoor, where it was taken into file as C.P.No10/1999. Later, the matter was committed ``` ``` to Sessions Court, Kollam, and the same was made ``` ``` over to the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc)- II, Kollam, where it was tried as SC ``` ``` No.259/2000. In support of the prosecution case, ``` CRL.APPEAL No. 917/2006 4 ``` PWs.1 to 10 were examined, Exhibits P1 to P12 were marked, and Material Objects 1 and 2 were ``` ``` identified. ``` ``` 3.Aftercompletingtheprosecution ``` ``` evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.PC, and he denied all the ``` ``` incriminating materials. No defence evidence was ``` ``` adduced. After appreciating the materials placed ``` ``` on record, the learned Sessions Judge arrived at ``` ``` the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the offence under section 307 IPC, and ``` ``` thereupon, the appellant was sentenced to ``` ``` undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- with a defaultsentencetoundergorigorous ``` ``` imprisonment for six months. It was also ordered that the appellant should be entitled to set off 289 days under section 428 Cr.PC for the period during which he was under judicial custody pending trial. This appeal is submitted in such ``` CRL.APPEAL No. 917/2006 5 ``` circumstances by the appellant being aggrieved ``` ``` by the aforesaid conviction and sentence. ``` ``` 4. Heard Sri. Harish Gopinath, the learned ``` ``` counsel for the appellant and Sri.Ranjit George, ``` ``` the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the State. ``` ``` 5.The learned counsel for the appellant raised various contentions. It was mainly contended that the materials produced by the prosecution were not sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant. It was contended that the prosecution failed to provide any ``` ``` independent witness to establish the guilt of the appellant. There was delay in registering the FIR, and the said FIR reached the court ``` ``` only on the next day of its registration. It was ``` ``` also contended that wound certificates produced ``` ``` as Exhibits P2 and P3 are false and fabricated ``` ``` documents as they contain certain details pertaining to events that occurred subsequent to ``` CRL.APPEAL No. 917/2006 6 ``` their issuance. The learned counsel for the ``` ``` appellant also contended that the Court should not have relied upon Exhibit P4 treatment records as the same was marked without examining the doctors who treated the victims and prepared ``` ``` the same. The recovery of the weapon based on the alleged confession statement given by the appellant was also seriously disputed. According to him, the appellant was falsely implicated in the said case because of certain personal rivalry which PWs.1 and 2 were having against the appellant. ``` ``` 6.On the other hand, the learned Public ``` ``` Prosecutor would oppose the contentions. It was pointed out that the evidence of Pws.1 and 2, which are consistent in nature as to the ``` ``` sequence of events, perfectly aligns with the ``` ``` prosecution case. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 ``` ``` was corroborated by the evidence of PW4 and also ``` ``` by Exhibits P7 and P7(a), seizure mahazar and ``` CRL.APPEAL No. 917/2006 7 ``` confession statement of the appellant consequent ``` ``` to which the recovery of weapon was affected. Exhibit P12 scientific examination report of the ``` ``` MO1 knife used for the commission of the offence ``` ``` also fortifies the prosecution case, which shows ``` ``` that human blood samples were detected on the said knife. In such circumstances, it was ``` ``` pointed out that no interference in the judgment ``` ``` rendered by the learned Sessions Judge is ``` ``` necessary as the findings were based on valid ``` ``` materials produced by the prosecution. ``` ``` 7.I have gone through the records. Exhibit ``` ``` P1 is the F.I.S. PW1 gave the same and it was ``` ``` recorded by PW8. As per Exhibit P1, on ``` ``` 2.12.1998 at 8.45 p.m., while CWs.1 and 2 were ``` ``` talking to each other near the shop of PW4, the ``` ``` appellant came there. Upon seeing him, CW1 asked ``` ``` where he was going brother. Presumably, because ``` ``` of the fact that the same created an impression in the mind of the appellant that CWs.1 and 2 ``` CRL.APPEAL No. 917/2006 8 ``` were making fun of him, he got infuriated and caught hold of the neck of CW1. When CW1 resisted, the appellant took out a knife concealed under the cloth on his waist and ``` ``` inflicted a stab injury on the right side of his ``` ``` stomach of CW1. Immediately, CW2 intervened, and ``` ``` thereupon, the appellant stabbed on the left ``` ``` side of the chest and stomach of CW2 and thereby committed the offence. ``` ``` 8.While being examined as PW1, he ``` ``` reiterated more or less the same version as contained in Exhibit P1 statement. Even though PW1wassubjectedtocross-examination ``` ``` extensively by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the credibility of PW1 could not be shattered. ``` ``` 9.PW2 is another witness who sustained injuries. He also deposed perfectly in tune with the deposition of PW1, and his version regarding the manner in which the incident occurred was also intune with the ``` CRL.APPEAL No. 917/2006 9 ``` statement of PW1. PW2 was also subjected to ``` ``` lengthy cross-examination, but no discrepancy could be brought out by the defence with respect to his deposition. PW3 was a person who came to the shop of PW4 Imamudheen to purchase some goods. According to him, the incident of assault by the accused occurred in front of him, and he witnessed the entire incident. The description of the event made by PW3 also as per the depositions given by PWs.1 and 2. PW2 also stated that immediately after the incident, PW1 and PW2 were taken to the hospital by him along with PW4 Imamudheen. It is also to be noted in this regard that all the witnesses had clearly stated in their respective depositions that they could identify the appellant very clearly as there was a tube light in front of the shop of PW4, and the incident had occurred near the shop. ``` ``` 10.PW4 is the owner of the shop, and the ``` CRL.APPEAL No. 917/2006 10 ``` incident occurred near his shop. According to ``` ``` him, he did not witness the incident of stabbing by the appellant. However, he clearly deposed that PWs.1 and 2 came to his shop in an injured condition, and immediately, he, along with PW3, took them to the hospital in his car. PW4 was declared hostile by the prosecution as he changed his version from the section 161 statement regarding witnessing the act of inflicting injuries upon PWs.1 and 2. However, the facts such as PWs.1 and 2 sustained injuries, the presence of PW3 and the act of taking Pws.1 and 2 to the hospital by him along with PW3 were clearly stated by him in his deposition, and to that extent, his deposition supports the prosecution case. ``` ``` 11. PW5 was the employee of the shop of PW4 who turned hostile to the prosecution. PW6 is the doctor who attended the injured persons at 9.30 p.m. in Holy Cross Hospital and prepared ``` CRL.APPEAL No. 917/2006 11 ``` Exhibits P2 and P3 wound certificates. He ``` ``` clearly stated the nature of the injuries ``` ``` sustained and the cause of the same. In Exhibits ``` ``` P2 and P3 wound certificates, which were proved ``` ``` by PW6, the injuries of Pws.1 and 2 noted ``` ``` therein are as follows: ``` ``` “Stab injury on the right inguinal region (intra abdominal 2.5x0.5 cms, it was a bleeding injury, The injury noted in relation to PW2 as per Ext.P2 are: ``` ``` 1) Stab injury on the left upper part of abdomen with anterior axiliary line-C with Omenturn pushed outside. ``` ``` 2)Stab injury left lower chest with posterior auxiliary line ``` ``` 3)Stab injury posterior aspect of left upper arm.” ``` ``` 12. During cross-examination, he was asked as ``` ``` to the lack of measurements of the injuries ``` ``` sustained by the injured in Exts.P2 & P3. He ``` ``` explained by stating that as the condition of the ``` ``` victims was serious, the measurement could not ``` ``` be made, and immediate surgery was also ``` ``` necessitated. Exhibit P4 is the treatment record of ``` ``` the injured persons, which was also marked through ``` CRL.APPEAL No. 917/2006 12 ``` PW6. PW7 is the attestor of scene mahazar, who ``` ``` supported the prosecution. PW8 is the head constable who recorded FIS, and he mentioned ``` ``` that the statement of PW1 was recorded while he ``` ``` was undergoing treatment in the hospital on ``` ``` 3.12.1998 at 10 a.m. and thereafter at 11 a.m. on the same day, FIR was registered. ``` ``` 13.PW9 is a witness to the recovery ``` ``` mahazar based on which the recovery of the ``` ``` weapon was affected. PW9, although admitted his ``` ``` signature in the mahazar, had stated that the ``` ``` said mahazar was signed by him while he was near ``` ``` the shop of PW4. According to him, at the relevant time, neither the Circle Inspector of Police nor the accused were present. He also did ``` ``` not see the weapon. The prosecution declared PW9 hostile. ``` ``` 14. PW10 is the Investigation Officer who ``` ``` deposed in tune with the prosecution case. He ``` ``` clearly stated about the manner in which the ``` CRL.APPEAL No. 917/2006 13 ``` recovery of the weapon was affected. Exhibit P7 ``` ``` is the recovery mahazar, and Exhibit P7(a) is the confession statement of the appellant, which led to the aforesaid recovery. As per the confession statement given by the appellant, he stated that he had concealed the weapon in a pit on the northern part of his residence, and he also agreed to show the weapon if he was taken there. Based on the aforesaid confession statement, the appellant was taken to the spot, and he took out the weapon, which was lying concealed in the pit and the seizure was affected thereby. ``` ``` 15. These are the materials mainly relied on by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused. On scrutinizing the materials as aforesaid, it could be seen that Pws.1 and 2 are the injured, and both have given a consistent version as to the manner in which the incident ``` ``` occurred. Their evidence was perfectly in tune ``` CRL.APPEAL No. 917/2006 14 ``` with the prosecution case. The evidence of PW3, ``` ``` an eyewitness to the incident, clearly ``` ``` corroborates the evidence of Pws.1 and 2. His ``` ``` evidence is also consistent with the sequence of events revealed from the deposition of Pws.1 and 2. ``` ``` 16. Even though the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the aforesaid witnesses are interested witnesses and, therefore, no ``` ``` reliance could be placed upon their evidence, I am not inclined to accept the same. Even if Pws.1 and 2 were to be treated as interested witnesses, as regards PW3, no such link could be ``` ``` attributed. From the nature of the statement given by him, it is evident that he does not ``` ``` have any close relationship with the injured and under no circumstances can his evidence be treated as an interested person. Besides the same, another crucial aspect to be noticed in this regard is that even if declared hostile, ``` CRL.APPEAL No. 917/2006 15 ``` deposition of PW4, to some extent, corroborates ``` ``` the evidence of Pws.1 to 3. First of all, from his deposition, it is evident that he had seen Pws.1 and 2 with injuries immediately after the ``` ``` incident, and he, along with PW3, had been taken ``` ``` to the hospital. Thus the injuries were ``` ``` sustained by the victims, and also the presence ``` ``` of PW3 was clearly mentioned by PW4. Exhibits P2 ``` ``` and P3 wound certificates and the nature of ``` ``` injuriesspecifiedthereinwouldalso corroborate the version of Pws.1 to 3. The ``` ``` specific case of Pws.1 and 2 is that both of ``` ``` them were inflicted with stab injuries using a ``` ``` knife, and the evidence of PW6 coupled with ``` ``` Exhibits P2 and P3 would corroborate the aforesaid cause of injuries. ``` ``` 17.Another crucial aspect to be noticed is that Pws.1 to 3 have clearly identified the appellant, a person known to all of them. Pws.1 ``` ``` to 4 have clearly mentioned about the existence ``` CRL.APPEAL No. 917/2006 16 ``` of sufficient light in the place of occurrence ``` ``` at the relevant time. Pws.1 to 3 clearly stated that they could identify the appellant in the tube light of the shop of PW4. The existence of ``` ``` ample light is also evident from the deposition ``` ``` of PW5. When all these aspects are taken into ``` ``` consideration, there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence given by Pws.1 to 3 as to the ``` ``` manner in which the incident occurred and the ``` ``` role of the appellant herein. ``` ``` 18.The aforesaid evidence is further ``` ``` corroborated by the recovery of the weapon ``` ``` affected based on a statement given by the appellant under section 27 of the Evidence Act. ``` ``` It was contended by the learned counsel for the ``` ``` appellant that Exhibits P7 and P7(a) cannot be ``` ``` relied upon by the prosecution, but I am not ``` ``` inclined to accept the same. It is true that the person who was cited as a witness to the said ``` ``` mahazar had turned hostile to the prosecution. ``` CRL.APPEAL No. 917/2006 17 ``` However, merely because of the reason that the mahazar witness turned hostile to the prosecution, it cannot be concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the recovery as such. I have carefully scrutinized the deposition of PW7. It is evident therefrom that PW7 was a person close to the appellant as he was residing near his residence. It is also evident from the characteristics of the said witness that he was called to the court at the time of the trial by the wife of the accused, who was present. These aspects clearly show the acquaintance of PW7 with the accused, and it explains the hostility shown by the witness while he was put in the witness box. On the other hand, the evidence of the Investigation Officer/PW10 is very clear as to the recovery affected based on the statement of the appellant given under section 27 of the Evidence Act. In Exhibit P7, the confession statement made by the ``` CRL.APPEAL No. 917/2006 18 ``` victim is clearly recorded, and the same is ``` ``` separately marked as Exhibit P7(a). The ``` ``` aforesaid statement has all the characteristics ``` ``` of a statement to be treated as an admissible piece of evidence under section 27 of the Evidence Act. The abovementioned statement led ``` ``` to the recovery of the weapon, which was in a ``` ``` concealed state. The fact of recovery based on ``` ``` such a statement indicates the knowledge of the ``` ``` appellant as to its concealment and the place of concealment. There is nothing to discard the aforesaid evidence which is admissible in ``` ``` evidence. Thus, the consistent depositions of ``` ``` Pws.1 and 2, which were corroborated by the ``` ``` evidence of PW3, further corroborated to some ``` ``` extent by the evidence of PW4 and fortified by ``` ``` the recovery of the weapon based on the ``` ``` statement of the appellant under Section 27 of ``` ``` the Evidence Act, would clearly establish the ``` ``` prosecution case. In this regard, it is also to ``` CRL.APPEAL No. 917/2006 19 ``` be noted that Exhibit P12 is the FSL report ``` ``` which contains an indication that the presence of human blood was there on the weapon so seized. When all these aspects are taken into ``` ``` consideration, the irresistible conclusion possible is that the learned Sessions Judge arrived at the finding of guilt based on valid materials. ``` ``` 19. The learned counsel for the appellant, ``` ``` however, raised serious contention about the ``` ``` admissibility of treatment records in Exhibit P4. It was pointed out that Exhibit P4 was marked through PW6, and according to the learned counsel for the appellant, he was not the doctor who treated the victims, and Exhibit P4 was not prepared by PW6 as well. The learned counsel for the appellant places reliance upon the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in PRS Hospital (M/s.), Thiruvananthapuram and ``` ``` Another v. P. Anil Kumar [2021(1) KLJ] 923 ``` CRL.APPEAL No. 917/2006 20 ``` wherein certain observations were made by this ``` ``` Court as to the circumstances under which a court of law can rely upon a document. The relevant observations relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, which is in paragraph 26 of the said judgment, read as follows: ``` ``` “26. There are four stages before a Court of law can rely upon a document. They are (i) marking of a document, (ii) admissibility of a document, (iii) proof of contents of the document, and (iv) evaluation of the document. Reliance upon a document can be made by the court only if all the above four stages are complied with or satisfied. By the mere marking of a document, it does not become admissible in evidence. Further, the marking of a document and being admissible in evidence, will still not render the contents of a document as 'proved'. When a document, admissible in evidence, is marked, still to be relied upon by the courts, its contents will have to be proved. For the contents of a document to have a probative value, the person who wrote the contents or is aware of the contents and its veracity must be invited to give evidence about it. It is thereafter the last stage i.e. evaluation takes place. Evaluation of the document is a judicial exercise. Unless all these stages are done, a court of law cannot rely upon any document produced or marked before it.” ``` ``` There is no dispute as to the legal proposition laid down by this Court in the observations referred to above. In this case, it can be seen ``` ``` that PW6 is not a person who was completely alien to Exhibit P4 document. He was a doctor ``` CRL.APPEAL No. 917/2006 21 ``` working in the very same hospital, and it was he who attended to the victims when they were brought to the hospital. Indeed, he did not treat the aforesaid victims. However, the nature ``` ``` of the injuries mentioned in Exhibits P2 and P3 are in tune with the narration of the incident given by Pws.1 to 3. Exhibit P4 contains the details of the treatment availed by the witnesses. In the light of the other materials available on record, I do not find much significance as far as Exhibit P4 is concerned. Even as per the observations made by this Court in PRS Hospital’s case (supra), it can be seen that the contents of a document can be proved by a person who is aware of the same. In this stage, PW6 is a person who was aware of the contents of the same, and therefore, he could be treated as a person competent to give evidence concerning the contents of Exhibit P4. Thus, under no circumstances the contention put ``` CRL.APPEAL No. 917/2006 22 ``` forward by the learned counsel for the appellant ``` ``` in this regard can be accepted. ``` ``` 20. Similarly,the learned Counsel challenged Ext P2 and P3 wound certificates, as it contained the date of discharge of the PWs 1 and ``` ``` 2, which was after the date of the issuance of ``` ``` the wound certificate. However, this aspect was ``` ``` clarified by PW6 by stating that, when the wound ``` ``` certificate is applied for at later point of time, they used to include the date of discharge ``` ``` of the patient as well. In the light of the said ``` ``` explanation and also in view of the facts that, ``` ``` the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, the victims, and ``` ``` the nature of injuries mentioned in the wound ``` ``` certificates tallies with each other, much ``` ``` significance need not be given to the aforesaid discrepancy highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant. ``` ``` 21. Another contention put forward by the ``` ``` learned counsel for the appellant is that the ``` CRL.APPEAL No. 917/2006 23 ``` materials placed on record would not justify the ``` ``` conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC. It was pointed out that, to attract the offence under section 307 IPC, the prosecution must establish that the appellant, while inflicting injuries, had the intention to commit the murder of the injured. According to him, there are no materials to establish such intention in this ``` ``` case. The learned counsel also places reliance upon Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar [AIR 1965 SC 843]and Jai Narain Mishra and Others v. State ``` ``` of Bihar [1971(3) SCC 762]. I have gone through the aforesaid decisions as well. The burden is indeed on the prosecution to establish that the accused committed the act with the intention to commit murder or with the knowledge that such an act is likely to cause the death of the accused. In this case, when the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned ``` CRL.APPEAL No. 917/2006 24 ``` decisions are applied, the only possible conclusion is that there are ample materials to hold that the offence under section 307 IPC is established. To establish the offence under section 307, the prosecution must show that the act was committed by the accused with the intention or knowledge that by committing the said act, he would be guilty of murder. In this case, the appellant inflicted injuries on PW1 on his abdomen and immediately when PW2 intervened, he inflicted three stab injuries on the left side of his abdomen and chest. The repeated injuries caused on the vital parts of the victim's body clearly indicate the appellant's intention and knowledge. It is also evident from the records produced by the prosecution that the injuries sustained by PW2 were severe, and a part of his small intestine was removed. It is also evident that a part of the intestine came ``` CRL.APPEAL No. 917/2006 25 ``` out consequent to the injuries sustained. When ``` ``` all these aspects are taken into consideration, ``` ``` I am of the view that there are sufficient ``` ``` materials to attract the offence under section ``` ``` 307 IPC and the finding entered by the learned Sessions Judge in this regard is based on sound reasoning and hence no interference is warranted. ``` ``` 22. Another contention raised by the learned ``` ``` counsel for the appellant is about the delay in ``` ``` registering the F.I.R. It is seen that the ``` ``` incident occurred at about 8.45 p.m. on ``` ``` 2.12.1998, the FIS was recorded at 10 a.m. on ``` ``` the next day and the FIR was registered at 11 ``` ``` a.m. However, the FIR reached the court only on ``` ``` 4.12.1998 at 10.30 a.m. According to the learned ``` ``` counsel for the appellant, there is no plausible ``` ``` explanation for the delay. However, from the ``` ``` evidence of PW6, it is clear that the ``` ``` information was received by the police at 9 a.m. ``` CRL.APPEAL No. 917/2006 26 ``` on 3.12.1998, and the FIS was recorded at 10 ``` ``` a.m. that day. Thereafter, FIR was registered. It is true that FIR reached the court only on ``` ``` the next day. However, when taking note of the entire sequence of events, I am unable to give any significance to the delay of one day in reaching the FIR before the court. On careful scrutiny of the entire materials placed on record, I do not find any chances of any ``` ``` manipulation as regards the registration of the FIR is concerned. In such circumstances, I am not inclined to accept the contention put ``` ``` forward by the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard. ``` ``` 23.Thus, after examining the entire ``` ``` materials placed on record, I do not find any justifiable reasons to interfere with the finding entered by the learned Sessions Judge. The acts committed by the appellant and the manner in which the same was executed were ``` CRL.APPEAL No. 917/2006 27 ``` clearly mentioned by Pws.1 and 2, who are the ``` ``` injured persons, and the evidence of PW3 ``` ``` corroborates the same. The injuries sustained by ``` ``` the victims are consistent with the evidence of ``` ``` Pws.1 to 3, and the medical records produced by the prosecution also substantiate the same. ``` ``` The recovery of the weapon was affected based on the statement of the appellant under section 27 of the Evidence Act further corroborates the ``` ``` evidence adduced by the prosecution as to the culpability of the appellant. When all the aforementioned aspects are considered, ``` ``` I do not find any merit in this appeal. ``` ``` Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of conviction and ``` ``` the sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The appellant shall be entitled for set off of the period of imprisonment ``` ``` undergone during the trial or on the basis of the order of conviction, against the ``` CRL.APPEAL No. 917/2006 28 ``` sentence imposed. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE ``` pkk