CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusKISHORE SINGH & OTHERS

                   [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 95


            CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION                      A
                                     v.
                  KISHORE SINGH & OTHERS
            (Criminal Appeal No. 2047-2049 of 2010)
                         OCTOBER 25, 2010
                                                                 B
       [MARKANDEY KATJU AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.]

      Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 326, 308, 323, 343 and 1208 -
 Grievous injury caused to person in police custody by police
officials - Allegation that the victim was kept in police lock- C
 up for 4 days and was subjected to third degree methods -
Accused-constable causing the injury while the accused-AS/
holding the victim - Conviction by trial court - High Court
acquitting the accused AS/ and SHO and reducing the
sentence of accused-constable - On appeal, plea that the D
injury was caused on sudden provocation, thus attracting s.
335 /PC and not s. 326 - Held: On facts, no sudden
provocation and hence case covered uls. 326 - Plea of alibi
of AS/ not reliable in view of the evidence of the victim-injured
eye-witness - Accused SHO also guilty as he was aware of E
the event and was responsible for violating Article 22(2) of
Constitution and s. 57 Cr. P. C - Accused are also guilty of
flouting the directions given by Supreme Court in *D.K.
Basu's1 case - Acquittal of the accused AS/ and SHO set
aside and conviction of accused-constable affirmed -
                                                                  F
Sentence of accused-constable enhanced - Fine imposed on
the accused - Direction to pay the amount of fine to the victim
- Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 22 (2) - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 57 - Sentence/Sentencing.

   Sentence/Sentencing - Imposition of sentence for              G
commission of criminal acts by policemen - Held: Such

1.   D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal. 1997 (1) SCC 416.

                                    95
    96   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   policemen deserve harsher punishment because it is their
    duty to protect and not to break the law themselves.

        The respondents-accused, who were police officials,
    alongwith another accused 'B' were prosecuted for
    having caused grievous injury to one person in police
8
    custody.

       The prosecution case was that the victim was
  employed with accused 'B' and he also used to live in the
  house of the accused. Accused 'B' suspected illicit
C relation of the victim with his wife and daughter. Accused-
  constable was the relative of accused 'B'. There occurred
  a scuffle between the accused-constable and the victim.
  Thereafter, the accused-constable took the victim to the
  police-station, where accused-SHO was present.
D Accused-SHO assaulted the victim. Accused 'B' also
  came to the police-station. The victim was kept in the
  police lock-up for 4 days. He was beaten up in the lock-
  up by accused 'B', accused-constable and accused-AS!.
  The victim admitted his illicit relation with the wife of
E accused 'B'. At this accused 'B' and accused-AS! caught
  hold of the victim and then the accused-constable
  chopped off the penis of the victim with a barber's knife.

       FIR was registered ulss. 307/326 IPC. The
  investigation wa~ transferred to CID which added the
F offences of ss. 343 and 1208. Thereafter, at the instance
  of the State, the investigation was transferred to CBI.

      Accused 'B' died during the trial. The trial court
  convicted the accused-constable u/ss. 326, 308, 323 and
G 343 IPC. Accused-AS! was convicted u/ss. 3261114, 3081
  114 and 1208 IPC. High Court acquitted accused-AS! and
  Accused-SHO and reduced the sentence of accused-
  constable.

H
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. KISHORE             97
              SINGH & ORS.
      In the instant appeals, the accused-constable          A
contended that assault on his part was as a result of
sudden and grave provocation as the victim admitted his
illicit relations with the wife of accused 'B' and as such
his case would be covered u/s. 335 IPC and not u/s. 326
IPC. Accused-AS! contended that he was not present in        B
the Police Station on the day of occurrence. Accused-
SHO contended that he was unaware of the incident and
the allegation against him was only that he had slapped
the victim when he was brought to the Police Station.

     Allowing the appeals, the Court
                                                             c
    HELD: 1.1 The judgment of the High Court acquitting
accused SHO and ASI and reducing the sentence of
accused-constable cannot be sustained as it amounts to
gross travesty of justice. [Para 17) [103-G-H]               D
      1.2 It cannot be said that there was a sudden grave
 provocation so as to attract Section 335 IPC, rather it was
 a pre-meditated act by accused-AS! and Constable. The
 penis of the victim was cut off by accused-constable by E
 a razor after accused-AS! held the victim. Accused-
 constable was carrying a sharp-edged weapon with him
 at the time when he cut off the victim's penis. Policemen.
 do not normally carry any sharp-edged weapon, like a
 barber's razor, with them. Thus it is evident that it was a
 pre-meditated act on the part of accused-constable. Also,
                                                             F
 accused-AS! cannot say that there was a sudden and
 grave provocation to him when he held the injured
 witness. Accused-AS! is not related to the deceased
 accused or his wife. Hence, neither accused-constable
 nor accused-AS! could have any sudden and grave G
 provocation. The evidence on record reveals that third-
 degree methods were applied to the injured witness ever
 since he was brought to the police station on 2.2.1994 .
.Thus Section 335 IPC will not apply and instead Section
                                                             H
    98    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A 326 IPC applies in this case. There is no reason to
  disbelieve the deposition of the injured witness . [Paras
  19 and 20) [104-D-H]

         1.3 Presence of any witness other than the victim
8   (injured eye-witness) and the policemen was not possible
    in the police station. A police station is not a public road
    or public place where people can see what is going on.
    [Para 21) [105-A-B]

       1.4 It is not correct to say that the accused-AS! was
C not present at the police station when the incident
  occurred. The victim (injured eye-witness) clearly stated
  in his deposition before the court (and earlier in his FIR)
  that accused-AS! had caught his neck and put his hand
  on the victim's mouth and accused-constable chopped
D off his penis with a sharp-edged weapon. The victim had
  no enmity with accused-AS! and hence there was no
  reason for him to make a false statement against
  accused-ASL Moreover, it is difficult to believe that one
  person unaided can chop off the penis of an adult. The
E version of the witnesses who are CBI officials and who
  deposed that accused-AS! was not present at the police
  station at the time of the incident, cannot be believed. At
  any rate their version is based o.n. inferences drawn from
  the case diary maintained by the accused police officers.
F On the other hand, there is no reason for disbelieving the
  victim. He is an injured witness, and normally the court
  gives more weight to the evidence of an injured witness.
  [Paras 22 and 23] [105-B-F]

       1.5 It cannot be said that the accused-SHO was
G unaware of the events. When a person is brought to the
  police station and locked up there, obviously, he is under
  arrest. Article 22(2) of the Constitution requires that within
  24 hours of the arrest, the arrested person must be
  produced before a Magistrate, and the same is the
H
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. KISHORE              99
              SINGH & ORS.
requirement in Section 57 Cr.P.C. It is admitted by the       A
accused that the victim was never produced before the
Magistrate within 24 hours, rather he was kept in the
police station from 8 p.m. on 2.2.1994 upto 8 a.m. on
5.2.1994 when he was tortured in the police station
leading to the incident after which he was shifted to the     B
hospital. The accused being the S.H.O. is squarely to
blame for this deliberate lapse. It has come in the
evidence of the victim that when he was brought to the
police station on 2.2.1994 accused-SHO was present
there and he slapped the victim. There is no reason to        c
disbelieve this statement. Hence the accused-SHO
cannot be absolved of the charge against him u/s. 342
IPC. [Paras 25 and 26) [106-A-E]

     1.6 All the accused are guilty of totally flouting and
throwing to the winds the directives of this Court in *D.K.   D
Basu's case. That decision outlaws third degree methods
in police stations, but it is well known that third degree
methods are still widely used in many of the police
stations, as this case reveals. [Para 26) [106-D-E)
                                                              E
     *D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal 1997 (1) SCC 416
- relied on.

    1.7 On the facts of the case, there is no reason to
disbelieve the prosecution case, and the High Court
                                                              F
should not have acquitted the accused-SHO and
accused-AS! and reduced the sentence of accused-
constable. It was a barbaric act on the part of the
accused, who deserve no leniency. [Para 30) [107-C)

    2.1 The policemen who commit criminal acts deserve        G
harsher punishment than other persons who commit
such acts, because it is the duty of the policemen to
protect the people, and not break the law themselves. If
the protector becomes the predator, civilized society will
cease to exist. [Para 31) [107-D-E]                           H
    100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A      2.2 On the facts of the case, the sentence of accused-
  constable is enhanced to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment
  u/s. 326 IPC with a fine of Rs.50,000/- . He is also found
  guilty u/s. 342 IPC and sentenced to six months rigorous
  imprisonment. The acquittal of accused-AS! is set aside
B and he is found guilty of the offence u/s. 326 r/w s.1208
  IPC and is sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment
  and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. He is also found guilty
  of the offence u/s. 342 IPC and is sentenced to six
  months rigorous imprisonment. The sentences of both
c the accused shall run concurrecly. The acquittal of
  accused-SHO is set aside and he is held guily u/s. 342
  IPC and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment
  with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. The amounts of fine shall be
  paid to the victim as compensation. [Paras 32, 33 and 34]
D [107-F-H; 108-A-C]
                         Case Law Reference:
        1997 (1) sec 416          Relied on.           Para 26
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
E Nos. 2047-2049 of 2010.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 19.11.2008 of the High
    Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in Division Bench
    Criminal Appeal No. 235 of 2006 and Single Bench Criminal
F   Appeal No. 31 & 70 of 2006.

        J.S. Atri, Krishna Kumar, Arvind Kumar Sharma for the
    Appellant.

      K.T.S. Tulsi, Rakesh Dwivedi, Gp. Cap. Karan Singh Bhati,
G Aishwarya Bhati, Kuber Bodh, Priyanka Agarwal, Nikhil
  Sharma, Rasheed Khan, Yash Wardhan Tiwari for the
  Respondents.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. KISHORE 101
              SINGH & ORS.
    MARKANDEY KATJU, J. 1. Leave granted.                          A

     2. What should be done to policemen who 'bobbitt' a
person in a police station and think that they can get away with
it? That is the question to be decided in this case.

     3. These appeals by special leave have been filed against     B
the impugned judgment and order dated 19 .11 .2008 passed
in D.S. Criminal Appeal No. 235/2006, SB Criminal Appeal
No. 31/2006 & SB Criminal Appeal No. 70/2006 of Rajasthan
High Court at Jodhpur.
                                                                   c
    4. This case reveals how some policemen in our country
have not got over their old colonial mentality and are still
persisting in barbaric acts in a free country which claims to be
run by a democratic Constitution and the rule of law. It also
reveals a grisly state of affairs prevailing in our police set up D
even today.

     5. Heard Mr. J.S. Atri, learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellant, CBI, Mr. KTS Tulsi, learned seniofcounsel
for respondent constable Kishore Singh, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi,
learned senior counsel for respondent Assistant Sub-Inspector E
Sumer Dan and Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned counsel
appearing for respondent S.H.O. Sohan Singh.

     6. The prosecution case is that one Jugta Ram, the injured
witness in this case, was an employee of one Bheru Singh and F
was working in his liquor shop. Jugta Ram also lived in the
house of Bheru Singh in one room of the upper floor, while the
family of Bheru Singh was living in the ground floor. Bheru Singh
had two sons and three daughters. Jugta Ram is said to have
had an affair with Bheru Singh's wife and eldest daughter. This G
was suspected by Bheru Singh, whose relative was accused
constable Kishore Singh.

    7. On 2.2.1994, at about 8 P.M. Jugta Ram was carrying
a bottle of liquor when accused constable Kishore Singh met
                                                                   H
    102    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   him and snatched the liquor bottle and in the course of the
    scuffle the bottle fell down and got broken. Kishore Singh then
    took Jugta Ram to the Sadar police station where the accused
    SHO Sohan Singh and some policemen were also present.
    Sohan Singh allegedly assaulted Jugta Ram and at that time
B   Bheru Singh also came to the police station. Accused Kishore
    Singh, constable, is the son of Bheru Singh's brother-in-law
    (sala).

         8. Jugta Ram was taken to the police station on 2.2.1994
C   and kept locked up there till 5.2.1994. He was beaten up in the
    police lockup by Bheru Singh, constable Kishore Singh and
    A.S.I. Sumer Dan. On 4.2.1994 at about 2 or 3 P.M., Jugta
    Ram's brother Kheraj Ram came to the police station and he
    stated that the policemen demanded Rs. 40-50 thousand
    otherwise Jugta Ram will not be released.
D
          9. On 5.2.1994, Jugta Ram was again assaulted by Bheru
    Singh, Sumer Dan and Kishore Singh who kept asking about
    his illicit relationship and then he stated that he had illicit
    relationship with Gaj Kanwar, wife of Bheru Singh. At this, Bheru
E   Singh and Sumer Dan caught hold of Jugta Ram. Accused
    A.S.I. Sumer Dan held Jugta Ram by the neck and put his hand
    on his mouth and then accused constable Kishore Singh
    chopped off Jugta Ram's penis with a sharp edged weapon
    ('ustra' or barber's razor). At this, Jugta Ram became
F   unconscious and when he gained consciousness he found that
    he was admitted in Barmer hospital.

        10. Jugta Ram related the story to the doctors in the
    hospital and also his brother Kheraj Ram who came there with
    some persons.
G
         11. The police registered the F.l.R. of Jugta Ram on
    5.2.1994 unde·r sub-Section 307 /326. Initially the investigation
    was handed over to the Additional S.P., Barmer, but thereafter
    it was transferred to the C.l.D., Crime Branch which added the
H   offences of Sections 343 and 120B l.P.C. Thereafter, at the
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. KISHORE 103
    SINGH & ORS. [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
instance of the State Government the investigation was              A
transferred to the C.8.1., which investigated the case and
submitted a charge sheet.

       12. The accused denied the prosecution case, but the trial
court found all the three accused guilty vide its judgment dated
                                                                    B
21.12.2005. The fourth accused Bheru Singh died during the
trial.

     13. The trial court sentenced accused Kishore Singh to
rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/- under
Section 326 IPC and 7 years rigorous impr.isonment and a fine       C
of Rs. 1000/- under Section 308 IPC. It also sentenced him
under Sections 323 and 343 IPC. The trial court sentenced
accused Sohan Singh to 6 months rigorous imprisonment under
Section 323 IPC and 1 years' rigorous imprisonment under
Section 343 IPC.                                                    D

     14. The trial court also sentenced accused Sumer Dan to
10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- under
Sections 3261114 IPC and also 7 years' rigorous imprisonment
and a fine of Rs. 2000/- under Sections 308/114 IPC and further
5 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 1208 IPC read          E
with some other provisions of the IPC.

     15. In appeal the High Court acquitted Sohan Singh and
Sumer Dan and reduced the sentence of Kishore Singh to the
sentence already undergone for the conviction under Section         F
326 IPC and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, and 1 years' rigorous
imprisonment for the offence under Section 343 IPC which was
altered to Section 342 IPC.

    16. Now this appeal has come up before us against the
judgment of the High Court.                                         G

     17. We are of the opinion that the judgment of the High
Court acquitting accused Sohan Singh and Sumer Dan and
reducing the sentence of accused Kishore Singh cannot be
sustained as it amounts to gross travesty of justice.               H
    104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A      18. Mr. KTS Tulsi, learned senior counsel appearing for
  accused Kishore Singh, submitted that in this case Section
  335 of the IPC applies and hence Section 326 is not
  applicable. He argued that there was a sudden and grave
  provocation to accused Kishore Singh by the injured witness
B Jugta Ram whose penis was chopped off. Learned counsel
  submitted that before 5.2.1994 there was only a suspicion that
  Jugta Ram was having an affair with the wife of Bheru Singh,
  but on 5.2.1994 when he admitted this fact there was a sudden
  and grave provocation since Kishore Singh is a .relative of
c Bheru Singh. With respect, we do not agree.
         19. It may be mentioned that Jugta Ram had been kept in
    police lockup from 2.2.1994 to 5.2.1994 without even producing
    him before a magistrate as is required by Article 22 of the
    Constitution and Section 57 Cr.P.C .. Jugta Ram's penis was
D   cut off by accused Kishore Singh by a razor after accused
    Sumer Dan held Jugta Ram. In our opinion, it cannot be said
    there was a sudden grave provocation so as to attract Section
    335 IPC, rather it was a pre-meditated act by Sumer Dan ancl
    Kishore Singh. Kishore Singh was carrying a sharp edged
E   weapon with him at the time when he cut off Jugta Ram's penis.
    Policemen do not normally carry any sharp edged weapon, like
    a barber's razor, with them. Thus it evident that it was a pre-
    meditated act on the part of Kishore Singh. Also, Sumer Dan
    cannot say that there was a sudden and grave provocation to
F   him when he held Jugta Ram. Sumer Dan is not related to
    Bheru Singh or his wife. Hence, neither Kishore Singh nor
    Sumer Dan could have any sudden and grave provocation. The
    evidence on record reveals that third-degree methods were
    applied to Jugta Ram ever since he was brought to the police
G   station on 2.2.1994. Thus Section 335 will not apply and
    instead Section 326 IPC applies in this case.

         20. We have carefully perused the evidence on record and
    we see no reason to disbelieve the deposition of the injured
    witness Jugta Ram.
H
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. KISHORE 105
    SIN~H & ORS. [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]

     21. As regards the argument that there were no witnesses        A
other than Jugta Ram, in our opinion in a police station it is
nardly possible for there to be any witness there except the
policemen and the victim. A police station is not a public road
or public place where people can see what is going on.
                                                                     B
     22. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel for Sumer
Dan submitted that Sumer Dan was not present at the police
station when the incident occurred. We do not agree. Jugta
Ram clearly stated in his deposition before the court (and earlier
in his FIR) that Sumer Dan had caught his neck and put his           C
hand on Jugta Ram's mouth and Kishore Singh chopped off
his penis with a sharp edged weapon. Jugta Ram had no
enmity with Sumer Dan and hence there was no r~son for him
to make a false statement against Sumer Dao.. Moreover, we
find it difficult to believe that one person unaided can chop off
the penis of an adult.                        r .,                   D

     23. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned coL;f!Jlfihen submitted
that some of the witnesses.who are CBI offrc!'tils had deposed
that Sumer Dan was not present at the police station at the time
of the incident. We are not inclined to believe those witnesses.     E
At any rate their version is based on inferences drawn from the
case diary maintained by the accused police officers. On the
other hand, there is no reason for disbelieving Jugta Ram, for
the reasons already stated above. He is an injured witness, and
normally the Court gives more weight to the evidence of an           F
injured witness.

     24. As regards SHO Sohan Singh, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati,
learned counsel for this accused, submitted that the only
evidence against him is that he was present at the police station
when Jagt,a Ram was brought there and he slapped Jugta Ram.          G
However, bemg the SHO of the police station we find it difficult
to believe that he was unaware of what was going on at the
police station, and we see no reason to disbelieve Jugta Ram.

     25. When a person is brought to the police station and          H
    106    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A locked up there, obviously he is under arrest. Article 22(2) of
  the Constitution requires that within 24 hours of the arrest the
  arrested person must be produced before a magistrate, and
  the same is the requirement in Section 57 Cr.P.C. It is admitted
  by the accused that Jugta Ram was never produced before the
B magistrate within 24 hours,. rather he was kept in the police
  station from 8 p.m. on 2.2.1994 upto 8 a.m. on 5.2.1994 when
  he was tortured in the police station leading to the incident after
  which he was sh'ifted to the hospital. Sohan Singh being the
  S.H.O. is squarely to blame for this deliberate lapse. It has
c come in the evidence of Jugta Ram that when he was brought
  to the police station on 2.2.1994 Sohan Singh was present
  there and he slapped Jugta Ram. We see no reason to
  disbelieve this statement. Hence it cannot be said that Sohan
  Singh was unaware of the events.
D       26. Also all the accused are guilty of totally flouting and
  throwing to the winds the directives of this Court in D.K. Basu
  vs. State of West Bengal 1997 (1) SCC 416 (vide paragraph
  35). That decision outlaws third degree methods in police
  stations, but it is well known that third degree methods are still
E widely used in many of our police stations, as this case reveals.
  Hence accused Sohan Singh cannot be absolved of the charge
  against him under Section 342 IPC.

       27. The doctor (Madan Mohan Purohit) who examined
F Jugta Ram deposed that on 5.2.1994 he inspected Jugta Ram
  at Govt. hospital Barmer and he found an injury about 8 x 8 cm,
  deep up to the muscle. There was no penis and blood was
  seeping from the injury. The injury was up to the basis of the
  penis and towards the scrotum. The injury was serious in nature
G and was made by a sharp edged weapon about 4 hours earlier.
  Jugta Ram was brought to the hospital by two constables one
  of whom was Moolararn. Obviously after cutting off Jugta Ram's
  penis the accused must have got scared that Jugta Ram may
  die of bleeding, and hence they sent him to the hospital.

H         28. Jugta Ram was also examined by Dr. M.L. Motiyani
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. Kl SHORE 107
    SINGH & ORS. [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.]
in the hospital and he found that Jugta Ram's penis had been           A
cut off. We have also seen the deposition of Dr. H. K. Singhal,
Medical Officer in the Barmer hospital who deposed to the
~ame effect.

     29. We have also seen the evidence of Jugta Ram's
                                                                       B
brother Kheraj Ram, and the other witnesses.

     30. On the facts of the case we see no reason to disbelieve
the prosecution case and we are surprised how the High Court
has acquitted Schan Singh and Sumer Dan and reduced the
sentence of accused Kishore Singh. It was a barbaric act on            C
the part of the accused, who deserve no leniency.

     31. In our opinion, policemen who commit criminal acts
deserve harsher punishment than other persons who commit
such acts, because it is the duty of the policemen to protect          D
the people, and not break the law themselves. If the protector
becomes the predator civilized society will cease to exist. As
the Bible says "If the salt has lost its flavour, wherewith shall it
be salted? (Matthew 5, Mark 9.50 and Luke 14.34-35)", or as
the ancient Romans used to say "Who will guard the praetorian
guards?"                                                               E

     32. On the facts of the case we enhance the sentence of
accused Kishore Singh to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment
under Section 326 IPC and a fine of Rs.50,000/- failing which
he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.         F
Kishore Singh is also found guilty under Section ·342 IPC and
sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment. The two
sentences shall run concurrently. In case the fine is deposited
the same shall be paid to the victim as compensation.

     33. As regards accused Sumer Dan, his acquittal is set ' G
aside and he is found guilty of the offence under Sections 326
read with Section 120B IPC and is sentenced to 3 years
rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- failing which
he shall further suffer 1 years' rigorous imprisonment. He is also
                                                                       H
    108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A found guilty of the offence under Section 342 IPC and is
  sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment. The two
  sentences shall run concurrently. The amount of fine if
  deposited shall be paid as compensation to the victim.

         34. As regards accused Sohan Singh, we set aside his
8   acquittal and hold him guilty under Section 342 IPC and
    sentence him to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of
    Rs. 10,000/- failing which he shall further suffer one month's
    simple imprisonment. The amount if deposited shall be paid
    to the victim as compensation.
c
        35. The appeals filed by the CBI are allowed, and the High
    Court judgment is set aside.

    K.K.T.                                      Appeals allowed.