Punjab-Haryana High Court
Udey Singh vs State Of Haryana on 19 April, 2010
Criminal Appeal No. 483 SB of 2005 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 483 SB of 2005 (O&M)
Date of decision: 19-4-2010
Udey Singh ......... Appellant
Vs
State of Haryana .........Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL
Present: Mr. J.S.Cooner, Advocate, for Udey Singh appellant
(in Criminal Appeal No. 483 SB of 2005)
Mr. Mohit Jaggi, Advocate for Lajja Ram appellant
(in Criminal Appeal No. 764 SB of 2005)
Mr. Raja Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana
HARBANS LAL, J.
This judgment shall disposed of Criminal Appeal No. 483 SB of 2005 filed by Udey Singh appellant and Criminal Appeal No.764 SB of 2005 moved by Lajja Ram appellant through jail, having arisen out of judgment dated 23.2.2005/order of sentence dated 25.2.2005 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala whereby he convicted and sentenced both these appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC and in default of payment of fine, the defaulter to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
Shortly put, facts of the prosecution case that the prosecutrix (to prevent social victimization, name of the prosecutrix/victim is not being indicated in view of Premiya alias Prem Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan Criminal Appeal No. 483 SB of 2005 (O&M) 2 2008(4) Recent Criminal Reports 539 SC) used to go to Shiv temple of village daily for paying obeisance. Around 10/15 days prior to the making of this complaint, she had some trouble in her body. Due to that her father asked his wife Sunita to inquire about it. The prosecutrix disclosed that accused Lajja Ram and Udey Singh had committed rape on her in a room of 'Dharamshala' situated at the back of the temple. Her father asked the accused about it. They offered her to bear the medical expenses of her. To eschew ignominy, her father did not narrate this incident to his brothers or relatives. A few days later, her father having mustered the courage told about this incident to his relatives and friends. The Baba (priest) of the temple also knew about this incident. Her father made a complaint to Superintendent of Police, Ambala for initiating action against the accused for having committed rape on his minor daughter. The case was registered. In due course, the accused were put under arrest. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, who committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial of the accused.
The accused Lajja Ram and Udey Singh were charged under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined Ashwani Kumar PW-1, Baba Bhushan Dass PW-2, EHC Daya Nand PW-3, UGC Balwan Singh PW-4, H.C. Suresh Kumar PW-5, Constable Harkesh Kumar PW-6, Dr. V.K. Sharma PW-7, Dr. Ms. Archna Jindal PW-8, Prosecutrix PW-9, ASI Jagdish Kumar PW-10, Dr. Ms. Surjit Sahni PW- 11, Tara Chand PW-12, SI/SHO Randhir Singh PW-13, SI/SHO Babu Ram PW-14, Constable Ram Saran Draftsman PW-15, Dr. Ashwani Kumar PW- Criminal Appeal No. 483 SB of 2005 (O&M) 3 16 and closed its evidence.
When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., both the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them and pleaded innocence as well as false implication. Udey Singh appellant has come up with the following plea:-
"I have been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of party-faction in the village. There is a strong party faction in the village. S/Shri Raj Kumar, Ashwani Kumar, Surinder Mohan, Rameshwar, Govind Lal and others are of rival group than that of ours and they are having enmity against me. The present case is an outcome of party faction and my name was given to police at the instance of rival group people, who joined hands to humiliate, harass and tarnish my image in the village and in society. After reporting to police, the matter was investigated by SHO Babu Ram who thoroughly investigated the case in the village and found me innocent. Thereafter, the matter was investigated by DSP Ashok Sabharwal, who also found me innocent and then matter was also investigated by I.O. Jagdish Kumar, who also found me innocent in this case. The investigation made by Randhir Singh SI is not correct. Even he did not visit the village and arrested me at the instance of rival group, who has a political say. Even eye-witness did not depose against me and I am innocent."
In their defence they did not adduce any evidence.
After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned Criminal Appeal No. 483 SB of 2005 (O&M) 4 trial Court convicted and sentenced both the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, they have preferred these appeal.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection.
Criminal Appeal No. 483 SB of 2005(filed by Udey Singh) First of all, I take up this appeal. On behalf of appellant Mr. J.S.Cooner Advocate has strenuously urged that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the date and time of the alleged occurrence. Even the prosecutrix has failed to specify the same. Sequelly, the whole story of the prosecution is rendered highly improbable. The only eye witness Baba Bhushan Dass has categorically stated that this appellant was not seen at the time of the occurrence, nor he was ever named. He has denied to have made supplementary statement before the police. On appraisal of his evidence, it transpires that this appellant is not involved in the alleged occurrence. During investigation by SI Babu Ram, D.S.P. Ashok Sabharwal and Jagdish Kumar ASI, it was found that he did not participate in the commission of this offence and he was declared innocent. However, he was later on implicated falsely in the occurrence. There is inordinate unexplained delay of as many as eight days in lodging the F.I.R. A fortiori, as emanates from the prosecution evidence, the prosecutrix was tutored by her father as well as their counsel before she stepped into witness box. Had the occurrence taken place in the manner as suggested by the prosecution, the prosecutrix being a well grown up female would have certainly narrated the occurrence to her parents or other relatives at the earliest possible. There being party faction in the village as pleaded by this appellant in his statutory statement, he has been falsely roped in this case.
Criminal Appeal No. 483 SB of 2005 (O&M) 5
To controvert these submissions, the learned State counsel maintained that as per the supplementary statement made by Baba Bhushan Dass, the involment of this appellant is clearly established. As regards delay, the same is not per se fatal to the prosecution case.
I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions.
Baba Bhushan Dass PW-2 has stated in no uncertain terms that "I have been residing in village Durana for the last about three years. I have been working as priest in Shiv Mandir Durana. In Nov.Dec.2003, I was praying in the Mandir. I had come out of the Mandir for urinating. Then I noticed that fan of Dharamshala adjacent to Mandir was on. I went to put off the fan. I heard the noise from dilapidated room adjacent to Dharamshala and saw that Lajja Ram was having intercourse with the prosecutrix. Lajja Ram accused is present in the court today. I did not see any body else there at that time." On being declared hostile, when he was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, no material favourable to the prosecution qua this appellant could be wrenched out. When he was cross-examined on behalf of this appellant, he testified that "From the very beginning, I had named only Lajja Ram accused who had committed rape upon the prosecutrix. I had not named Udey Singh accused having committed rape upon the prosecutrix." This evidence clearly and unambiguously exculpate the appellant Udey Singh. Coming to the statement of the prosecutrix PW- 9, she has testified that "I used to go to the temple of Shiv Ji in the village. Lajja Ram accused present in the court committed rape on me. I shouted for help. Baba of the Mandir came there. He took me outside. At that time, Lajja Ram and accused Udey present in the court, were there. Both of them Criminal Appeal No. 483 SB of 2005 (O&M) 6 had committed rape on me. Thereafter, I had gone to my house. I did not tell about this incident to any body in my house." Ostensibly, initially she deposed that Lajja Ram accused had committed rape on her. In her next breath, she has also named Udey. As has been projected by the prosecution, Baba Bhushan Dass (sic) had witnessed the occurrence. There is nothing on the record to show that for any reason worth mention, he had a soft corner for the appellant Udey Singh to conceal his name. The record is quite barren to show that in any manner he was inimically disposed of towards the appellant Lajja Ram or to shield Udey. On assessing his entire evidence, it emerges out that Udey in no manner is being connected with this occurrence. The prosecutrix has stated in categoric terms that on the date and time of the incident, only Baba of the temple was present there and no one else was there. She too has admitted the presence of Baba Bhushan Dass at the time of occurrence. To add further to it, he being priest of the temple, his presence at the material time is probablized.
ASI Jagdish Kumar PW-10 has stated in his cross-examination that "It is correct that SHO Babu Ram had investigated the case before handing over it to me. I cannot tell if there was any evidence against Udey Singh in the investigation of Babu Ram, it can only be told by him. It is correct that I had made a thorough investigation in the case from the whole village. It is further correct that prior to it, the DSP Ashok Kumar Sabharwal and SHO Babu Ram had also made the thorough investigation in the case. It is correct that during my investigation, no body from the village stated against Udey Singh. It is correct that there is no name of accused Udey Singh in the site plan prepared by Ram Saran on 8.6.2004." SI/SHO Babu Ram PW-14 has stated in his cross-examination that "I visited the Criminal Appeal No. 483 SB of 2005 (O&M) 7 village the same day and whole of the village was present and none of the villagers stated against Udey Singh. Baba Bhushan Dass PW had only stated against accused Lajja Ram being the eye-witness. The very same day, I had investigated the matter from the prosecutrix in question/answer form. She made answer to my question that she was naming accused Udey Singh on the asking of her father and others." This evidence palpably lets the cat out of bag that it was at the instance of her father and others she had named appellant Udey Singh. It further surfaces in the cross-examination of this witness that "The father of prosecutrix had also not made any statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. against Udey Singh. Raj Kumar and others were not present when I received the complaint. ASI Jagdish also conducted the investigation of this case and during his investigation and the investigation of the DSP, there was nothing against Udey Singh. It is correct that the prosecutrix was tutored by her parents and then she named against Udey Singh." This entire evidence cumulatively crystalizes the conclusion that Udey Singh appellant did not commit rape on the prosecutrix nor he took part in the commission of the crime in any manner worth mention. There being no cogent, convincing and clear evidence to substantiate the charge against Udey Singh appellant, his appeal is accepted setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction/order of sentence qua him. Sequelly, he is acquitted of the charged offence.
Criminal Appeal No. 764 SB of 2005 On behalf of the appellant Lajja Ram, it has been argued by Mr. Mohit Jaggi Advocate that there being unexplained delay of as many as eight months in registration of the case, the version put forth by the prosecution can be hardly accepted. Besides this, Baba Bhushan Dass (sic) Criminal Appeal No. 483 SB of 2005 (O&M) 8 went on to say in his cross-examination that "I had told about this incident to father of the prosecutrix in the evening of that day." If it was so, it has been left in the womb of mystery as to why the father of the prosecutrix kept tightened his lips and did not swing into action. The prosecutrix PW-9 has deposed that "It is correct that I told the names of these two persons whose names were told to me by my parents and the Advocate." This evidence can be well construed to mean that in fact the prosecutrix had vomited whatsoever was tutored to her by her parents and their counsel. When there is such evidence, it would not be free from risk to maintain conviction qua this appellant. It is further argued that it is in the cross-examination of SI/SHO Babu Ram PW-14 that the prosecutrix had stated that "the occurrence took place about seven months ago but she did not tell the exact date, month or year." This evidence speaks volumes of the fact that the prosecutrix did not disclose the month or year of the occurrence. If so, no implicit reliance should be placed either on her statement or of Baba Bhushan Dass PW. It has been further pressed into service that there being party faction in the village the possibility of this appellant being falsely implicated in this case cannot be ruled out.
To controvert these submissions, the learned State counsel canvassed at the bar that the name of this appellant figures as a rapist throughout the evidence let in by the prosecution. That being so, the alleged delay is rendered inconsequential. May be that due to some sort of pressure being exerted upon the prosecutrix's father, the matter could not be reported to the police with promptitude.
I have well considered these submissions.
In Karnel Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh A.I.R. 1995 Criminal Appeal No. 483 SB of 2005 (O&M) 9 S.C. 2472 which was also a case under Section 376 of I.P.C., it has been held by the Supreme Court that delay in lodging the complaint in such cases in India does not raise inference that complaint was false. In Sat Pal Vs. State of Punjab 1997(1) Recent Criminal Reports(Criminal)92 which was also a case under Section 376 of IPC, there was delay of as many as 10 days in filing the F.I.R. The prosecutrix had not disclosed the incident, but waited for her husband. It was held that the act of the prosecutrix cannot be said to be unreasonable. In State of Punjab Versus Gurmit Singh 1996(1) Recent Criminal Reports(Criminal) 533, which was also a case of rape, the matter was reported to the village panchayat which failed to provide any relief. The F.I.R. was lodged thereafter. It was held by the Apex Court that "in sexual offences delay in lodging the F.I.R. could be due to variety of reasons particularly reluctance of prosecutrix or family members to approach the police and lodge complaint about the incident, which concerns the reputation and honour of family and victim." In State of Rajasthan Vs. N.K.(Accused) respondent, 2000 Criminal Court Journal 2205 (SC) a case of rape, it has been laid down that a mere delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be a ground by itself for throwing the entire prosecution case overboard. The court has to seek an explanation for delay and test the truthfulness and plausibility of the reason assigned. If the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the court, it cannot be counted against the prosecution. In Satya Pal Vs. State of Haryana (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 635, it has been observed that "This court can take judicial notice of the fact that ordinarily the family of the victim would not itend to get a stigma attached to the victim. Delay in lodging the first information report in a case of this Criminal Appeal No. 483 SB of 2005 (O&M) 10 nature is a normal phenomenon." Adverting to the instant one, the complaint Ex.P-1 which became the basis of the F.I.R. was made to Superintendent of Police, Ambala on 31.3.2004. As mentioned in this document, Ashwani Kumar PW father of the prosecutrix being ashamed of the incidence did not disclose this occurrence of rape with her daughter to his brothers or relatives residing in the village. A few days later, by mustering his courage, he disclosed the same to the members of his family as well as relations. Needless to say this incident concerns the reputation, honour of family and the victim. It is a common place experience that the prosecutrix or her family members in such matters more often than not are reluctant to approach the police. Before reporting such incident to the police, the prosecutrix apprehends harassment at the hands of certain unscrupulous police officials and then at the hands of the cross-examining counsel in the court. Thus, variety of reasons occur or lurk in her mind. As regards the members of her family, they also feel apprehensive that the Police Officer while recording her statement, may humiliate her or put scandalous questions to her. Similar situation she may happen to face in the court. She may also have a qualm of the matter being highlighted in the society, albeit this offence in fact is against the society. The victim and the members of the family too often anticipates that such reporting may create hurdle in the way of her marriage subsequently. Rape is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. A rapist degrades her soul. The parents or relatives of the victim of rape before giving information of rape incidence to the police, thinks over it several times for the sole reason that such reporting may ultimately turn to be a slur on the victim and none may come forward to marry with her. These reasons in fact discourage the victim, her Criminal Appeal No. 483 SB of 2005 (O&M) 11 parents and her relatives from reporting the matter to the police. It is because of this reason that numerous cases of rape go unreported daily. Sometimes in such a case, the police behaves in an irresponsible manner. The prosecutrix as PW-9 has stated that " I did not tell about this incident to any body in my house." It clearly indicates that she concealed this occurrence from her parents or other members of the family. May be for the reasons enumerated above. Of course, Baba Bhushan Dass (sic) has deposed in his cross-examination that "I had told about this incident to father of the prosecutrix in the evening of that day." Ashwani Kumar PW-1 father of the prosecutrix has also stated that my daughter (prosecutrix) told me that the above said accused have committed rape on her. For the reasons referred to hereinbefore, he being father of the prosecutrix would have been shirking or avoiding to narrate this occurrence to the police to save his daughter from being stigmatized.
In Jaswant Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab 2010(1) Recent Criminal Reports(Criminal) 117, the rape was committed on a minor girl aged 16 years by four accused persons. The case was registered after 15 days when a complaint was sent to S.S.P. A panchnama was produced in defence. Prosecutrix stated that her signatures were obtained by giving her beatings. It was held by the Supreme Court that " It was neither surprising nor shocking as such instances are galore in this country where the police, instead of protecting law, take the law into their own hands for extraneous considerations." To my mind, it would be going too far to throw away the prosecution case out of hand which stands otherwise proved to the hilt qua appellant Lajja Ram, merely because of there being delay in lodging the F.I.R.
Criminal Appeal No. 483 SB of 2005 (O&M) 12
The learned counsel for the appellant had been emphatic in the course of arguments that the prosecutrix has admitted in so many words that the name of this appellant as well as the other were told by her parents and their counsel. Thus, the necessity has arisen to find out as to whether Lajja Ram appellant has committed rape on her. The prosecutrix has stated in unambiguous terms that "Lajja Ram accused present in the court committed rape on me and I shouted for help, which attracted Baba (referring to Baba Bhushan Dass PW) of the Mandir to the place of the occurrence." This evidence finds corroboration from the statement of Baba Bhushan Dass PW, who has stated in unequivocal terms that "on hearing the noise from dilapidated room adjacent to Dharamshala, I saw that Lajja Ram was having intercourse with the prosecutrix. That Lajja Ram is present in the court." This evidence is supportive of the fact that it was Lajja Ram appellant who had committed rape on the prosecutrix who was less than 16 years of age at the material time. As noticed earlier, no previous ill will, motive or animosity has been attributed to Baba Bhushan Dass (sic) for deposing against Lajja Ram appellant. He being priest of the temple could be there as the occurrence has taken place in a dilapidated room of the Dharamshala. By no stretch of speculation, the presence of this witness at the time of the occurrence can be doubted. A careful delving into his cross-examination would reveal that he has repeatedly said that "Lajja Ram appellant was in the process of committing rape on the prosecutrix when I saw from the window." This act of his appears to be natural. As shall appear in the testimony of Dr. Archna Jindal PW-8 that "on 1.4.2004, I medico-legally examined the prosecutrix aged about 14 years and that on perspeculam examination hymen was ruptured. Old laceration of hymen i.e. carunculae Criminal Appeal No. 483 SB of 2005 (O&M) 13 myritiformis were present." The old rupture of hymen almost corresponds to the date of the occurrence. Because the matter was reported to the police after the passage of a considerable period, so the laceration of hymen was found to be old. The absence of hymen clearly indicates that there was penetration. According to Dr. V.K.Sharma PW-7 on 7.4.2004 he medicolegally examined Lajja Ram (accused) and nothing was suggestive that he was incapable to perform sexual intercourse. In Satyapal's case (supra) it has been held that "medical evidence in such cases needs to be appreciated in context of ocular evidence and other circumstances surrounding thereto. The discepancies in evidence of the prosecutrix were also inconsequential because she was a minor." These observations are fully applicable in this case. As per Ex.P-6 the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, the semens could not be detected on the clothes, pubic hair and swabs. The reason therefor is that the medico legal examination of the prosecutrix was carried out after a long time. The spermatozoa survives for 72 hours. Thus, the same were bound to disappear from the clothes and pubic hair after the passage of 72 hours. The absence of semens on clothes or pubic hair does not demolish the case of the prosecution for the stated reasons. In Satya Pal's (supra) also no semen was detected on any of the exhibits sent to Chemical Examiner. However, hymen was found absent. The prosecutrix was medically examined after a long time.
It is in the evidence of Dr. Ashwani Kumar that "on 8.6.2004, I radiologically examined the prosecutrix daughter of Ashwani Kumar resident of Durana for conducting ossification test, which is based upon age of fusion of various epiphyses of long bones. Five X-ray plates were prepared under No. 358 under my supervision based upon the above data Criminal Appeal No. 483 SB of 2005 (O&M) 14 and in accordance with Modi's Text Book of Jurisprudence and Toxicology, that age of the prosecutrix daughter of Ashwani Kumar seems to between 14½ to 15½ years." Obviously as per this evidence, she was less than 16 years of age. The appellant Lajja Ram has put forth that "I am innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case." It is not his case that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. The question regarding consideration of variation of two years in the age of the prosecutrix on either side would have arisen only if this appellant had come up with the plea that the prosecutrix was a consenting party in view of State of Karnataka Vs. Bantara Sudhakara alias Sudha and Another 2008(3)Recent Criminal Reports(Criminal) 923(SC) As ruled in Jaswant Singh and Others' case (supra) parents will not go to the extent to lodge a false report at the stake of reputation of young girl. Herein the co-appellant Udey Singh having since been acquitted the charged offence is altered to the one under Section 376(1) of IPC. As observed in State of Rajasthan Vs. N.K.(Supra) a father would not ordinarily subscribe to a false story of sexual assault involving his own daughter and thereby putting at stake the reputation of the family. In the present one, there is nothing on the record to show that the father of the prosecutrix was on terms of enmity with the appellant or that the prosecutrix wanted to wreak any vengeance. Accordingly, the conviction is maintained.
At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this appellant is handicapped and on 11.5.1987 he was given 70 % disability certificate by the Disability Board of Civil Hospital, Ambala City. Besides this, he has two children out of whom the daughter is 27 years of Criminal Appeal No. 483 SB of 2005 (O&M) 15 age and the son is 25 years old. There is none to look after them as his wife had breathed her last about 15 years back. In these premises his sentence may be reduced to the already undergone.
I have seriously cogitated this submission. Surprisingly enough that helpless girl of about 14 years was raped by this appellant within the precincts of a religious place where she used to go in routine to pay her obeisance. It goes without saying that this appellant was about 50 years of age at the time of occurrence. Sexual lust vary from person to person and it does not have any barrier of age or social or political status of the person. In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sheikh Shahid 2010(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 220 (SC), the respondent accused Sheikh Shahid was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with a fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court had reduced the sentence to the already undergone (six months) on the ground that the accused belonged to rural areas. The order of the High Court was set aside by the Supreme Court by holding as under:-
"(1) Court can reduce the sentence for adequate and special reasons. The fact that accused belonged to rural areas cannot be considered either adequate or special.
(2) By imposing meager sentence or taking too sympathetic a view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be result-wise counter productive in the long run."
It was further held as under:-
"(1) The aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances Criminal Appeal No. 483 SB of 2005 (O&M) 16 in which a crime has been committed are to be delicately balanced on the basis of really relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the Court. Such act of balancing is indeed a difficult task.
(2) The social impact of crime e.g. where it relates to offences against women, dacoity, kidnapping, misappropriation of public money, treason and other offences involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency which have great impact on social order and public interest cannot be lost sight. (3) Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic a view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be result wise counter productive in the long run."
It was also held that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats. Justice demands that court should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the Courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime as ruled in Dhananjoy Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal 1994(1) Recent Criminal Reports(Criminal) 429. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim, but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong as held in Ravji Vs. State of Rajasthan 1996(2) Supreme Court Cases 175. In the instant case, the conscience of the rape victim, her parents, relatives and co- Criminal Appeal No. 483 SB of 2005 (O&M) 17 villagers would be shocked, if the sentence is reduced to the already undergone. The doctrine of proportionality contemplates that the sentence must commensurate with the gravity of offence. However, in view of the fact that the offence has been converted to the one under Section 376(1) of IPC, the sentence of Lajja Ram appellant is reduced to seven years rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the fine as well as its default clause. With this modification in the order of sentence, this appeal of Lajja Ram fails and is dismissed.
Vide order dated 19.3.2009 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 9693 of 2009, the appellant Lajja Ram was released on bail. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the learned trial Court as well as learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala for taking necessary steps to send this appellant to the prison for serving the unexpired portion of his sentence.
Since both the appeals have been decided, all pending Criminal Miscellaneous,if any, also stand disposed of.
(HARBANS LAL) JUDGE April 19, 2010 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes