Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chutkan Singh Kaurav vs State Of M.P. on 5 May, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 MP 970
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1 Cr.A.No.280/2007 & Cr.A.No.313/2007
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
:SINGLE BENCH:
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.280/2007
Chhutkan Singh Kaurav & Anr.
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.313/2007
Krishna Morari Mishra & Ors.
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Arun Pateriya and Shri Sangam Jain, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Shri M.M. Tripathi, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present : Hon. Mr. Justice Anand Pathak
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 5th May, 2020) 1- Regard being had to the commonality of the facts and arising out of the same judgment dated 14-03-2007 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahar District Bhind in S.T. No.245/2004. Cases were heard together and decided by common judgment. For sake of convenience, facts of Criminal Appeal No.280/2007 have been taken into consideration.
2- Both these appeals arise out of the judgment dated 14-03-2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Lahar, District Bhind 2 Cr.A.No.280/2007 & Cr.A.No.313/2007 wherein the appellants were convicted for the offence under Sections 148, 307 read with Section 149 and 397 Section of IPC and sentenced respectively to 3 years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-, 10 years RI with fine of Rs.20,000/- and 10 years RI with fine of Rs.20,000/- each respectively with default stipulation. 3- Brief facts for adjudication of the case are that on 08-05-1996, an FIR has been registered at the complaint with the allegations that victim Bhagwan Singh after selling out his agriculture produce at Lahar, coming back to his home at village Jaitpura and when he reached there and trying to knot the oxen at cattle shed then accused Malkhan Singh, Shambhu, Chhutkan Singh, Mehtab Singh, Rajkumar Bore alias Satish, Ramprakash, Krishnamorari, Surendra, Rajjulal, Surtan, Mangal wielding 12 bore gun, Katta and other sharp edged weapons and Lathi and with intention to kill the victim fired over him and with other deadly weapons inflicted severe injuries. Victim fell down and his brother Vijay Singh taken him to the Police Station Aswar and made a complaint on which FIR vide crime No.21/1996 was registered. He was referred to Community Health Center, Lahar and thereafter referred for further treatment to District Hospital, Bhind. He remained there for one and half month.
4- It was the case of the victim that police did not respond proactively to the complaint and tried to shield the culprits, therefore, he filed a private complaint under Section 190 of 3 Cr.A.No.280/2007 & Cr.A.No.313/2007 Cr.P.C. against 11 accused persons on 17-07-1996. Later on, police filed the charge-sheet on 25-04-1997 against four persons namely Shambhu Singh, Malkhan Singh, Bore alias Satish and Ramprakash under Sections, 326, 324, 294, 336 of IPC on the basis of FIR (Ex-P/1).
5- On 02-12-1998, trial Court took cognizance against 12 persons under Sections 147, 148, 307, 149, 395/397 of IPC. Later on, the trial Court vide order dated 30-11-2004 committed the matter to the Sessions Court, Bhind for trial. Since Sessions Court considered the case, committed through private complaint as well as charge-sheet filed by the police against four persons, therefore, trial held jointly 6- Appellants abjured their guilt and sought trial. Resultantly, trial proceeded and charges were framed against accused persons and trial held. On behalf of prosecution, total 11 witnesses were examined whereas on behalf of accused/defence, 3 witnesses were examined beside recording of their statements under Sections 313 of Cr.P.C.
7- After considering the documentary as well as oral evidence led by the parties, trial Court acquitted other accused persons except five accused; namely, Chutkan, Malkhan, Krishnamorari, Surendra and Ramprakash i.e., present appellants of both criminal appeals. Therefore, both these appeals were preferred by the appellants against the said judgment passed by the trial 4 Cr.A.No.280/2007 & Cr.A.No.313/2007 Court.
8- It is submitted by learned counsel of the appellants that the charges framed against the appellants were defective. Only one person was injured but the charge has been framed under Section 307 of IPC on three counts, therefore, the conviction is also defective. It is further submitted that conviction has been recorded under Section 397 of IPC whereas it ought to had been given under Section 395 of IPC because Section 395 only refers minimum sentence (7 years) and therefore, apparently the trial Court acquitted all the accused under Section 395 of IPC and convicted them only under Section 397 of IPC, therefore, conviction is defective.
9- Learned counsel for the appellants also referred the fact that some of the accused were included in the list of accused persons through private complaint but copy of complaint was never exhibited as document in trial, because for those accused it was like FIR, therefore, it is a material omission and benefit of doubt ought to be given to the accused persons.
10- It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that initially the case was registered against 4 accused by the police that later on, private complaint was preferred and thereafter 8 more accused have been included and it is a case of over implication. Learned counsel refers the injuries sustained by the injured Bhagwan Singh (PW-1) and submits that most of the 5 Cr.A.No.280/2007 & Cr.A.No.313/2007 injuries were simple in nature, therefore, the ingredients of charge under Section 307 of IPC was missing and x-rays plate never exhibited by the prosecution therefore, nature of injuries cannot be ascertained.
11- Learned counsel also referred the testimony of Dr. R.K. Rajoriya (PW-9) and submitted that injuries could not have been received through gunshot. Medical report as well as statement of doctor run contrary to the statement of injured witness Bhagwan Singh (PW-1) because this witness in para 1 of examination -in -chief says that he sustained three injuries by gunshots but doctor denies any gunshot injury. This is an omission which cannot be ignored. All other witnesses turned hostile. Under these circumstances, he prayed for acquittal of the appellants. 12- On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that several injuries have been sustained by the injured witness and dying declaration Ex-D/1 was also recorded in which he referred the name of some of the accused persons. When the police officer did not respond to the complaint of complainant proactively then he was compelled to file private complaint against all other accused persons and statement under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. of different witnesses were recorded and thereafter cognizance has been taken by the concerned trial Court (JMFC, Lahar District Bhind). Since injuries (total 18 in number) were supported by Dr. R.K. Rajoriya 6 Cr.A.No.280/2007 & Cr.A.No.313/2007 (PW-9), therefore, it is not a false case and defence of the accused that victim sustained injuries after falling down from the tree did not find favour by the trial Court and trial Court rejected the said theory. He prayed for dismissal of appeals and affirmation of judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court against accused persons.
13- Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record available in respect of crime No.425/1996 as well as crime No.436/1996 (registered on the basis of private complaint). 14- Case in hand is in respect of commission of offence under Sections 148, 307/149 and 397 of IPC. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellants regarding defective charge is concerned, charge has not been imposed under Section 307 of IPC on three counts but Shambhu, Malkhkan, Chhutkan and Mehtab were saddled with the liability of Section 307 of IPC and other accused were included with the help of common object theory under Section 148 as well as Section 307/149 of IPC. Here, the accused knew well about the charge and therefore not taken by surprise about the charge they faced, therefore, even if it was on three counts then it nowhere affected adversely and conviction has been recorded singularly under Section 307/149 of IPC, therefore, submission lacks merits.
15- So far as Section 397 of IPC vis -a -vis Section 395 of IPC is concerned, it appears that out of two provisions since Section 7 Cr.A.No.280/2007 & Cr.A.No.313/2007 397 of IPC is graver wherein, minimum sentence of 7 years is prescribed, therefore, conviction has been recorded in Section 397 of IPC and since charge of Section 395 and 397 of IPC, both were framed, therefore, conviction has to be seen in juxtaposition to Section 395 of IPC and cannot be seen under Section 397 of IPC alone. Therefore, this plea also deserves rejection.
16- Now so far as appreciation of evidence is concerned, same discloses registration of FIR at the instance of brother of injured, namely Vijay Singh (PW-2). He was the person who heard three firearms shots and as per contents of FIR when he reached cattle shed (place of incident), he was intercepted by Shambhu, Malkhan, Ramprakash and Bore so he returned back. Later on, when Chowkidar Chhote, Gayadin told him about the critical condition of his brother, then he went to the place where his brother Bhagwan Singh (PW-2) was lying and took his brother to police station and then to hospital. Police recorded his statement (Vijay Singh PW-2) vide Ex-P/2 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and here he included the name of his cousin Lallu Singh also who was present along with him at the time of incident. On 06-02- 1998 in private complaint, Lallu Singh made his statement under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. (vide Ex-P/3) in which he reiterated the story of using firearm by Chhutkan (12 bore gun), Malkhan and Shambhu (Katta) and refers the injuries sustained by his brother 8 Cr.A.No.280/2007 & Cr.A.No.313/2007 Bhagwan Singh.
17- Later on, in the Court statement, as witness (PW-2); Vijay Singh turned hostile and did not support the story of prosecution. Not only he, but another alleged eye-witness Chhote also declared hostile. Other eye-witnesses Gayadin and Lallu Singh were not examined by the prosecution. Therefore, testimony of injured witness Bhagwan Singh (PW-1) only assumes importance and it is the only evidence which would decide the fate of the accused persons.
18- Since FIR was registered by the brother of injured witness, namely Vijay Singh (PW-1), therefore, for the first time after incident on 25-08-1996 when he was referred to hospital, his dying declaration (Ex-D/1) was taken on 09-05-1996 at 9 am by Tahsildar in which he referred the fact that 4-5 people inflicted injuries in which Chhutkan, Malkhan and Shambhu inflicted firearm injuries through Katta and thereafter they took him to the house where Morari, Sultan Bhadoriya, Mangal and Surendra beaten him with Lathi and axe and took money, watch and clothes. He referred some previous incident of animosity between the parties. Although this witness survived but dying declaration was not produced by the prosecution as document of prosecution but it was filed on behalf of defence and marked as Ex-D/1. In this document, injured witness/victim refers the name of 4-5 persons only.
9 Cr.A.No.280/2007 & Cr.A.No.313/200719- Later on, he filed a private complaint and although it was the duty of the prosecution to exhibit the said complaint because for some of the accused persons this private complaint was like FIR, because their respective name and role were referred for the first time but nonetheless this private complaint refers different roles of different accused persons. In para 2 he details out the incident in which presence of his brother Vijay Singh (PW-2) has been referred (as eye-witness who was present) on the spot. Chhutkan through 12 bore gun, Shambhu and Malkhan through Katta fired over him and he sustained injuries over his hand, below right knee, left ankle and over his back. According to him, pellets penetrated and he fell down. Thereafter all accused took him to the house of Shambhu, where with Lathi and Farsa they inflicted several injuries to the complainant, snatched away money and watch etc. and he fell unconscious. Here the complainant includes other accused persons also. Similarly in his Court statement he included Chhutkan, Shambhu and Malkhan in the same fashion in which he referred the presence of Malkhan and Surendra in specific terms with Farsa and axe but does not refer the name of other accused persons in specific terms. Further Chhutkan, Shambhu and Malkhan were described as wielding guns then weapons used in crime ought to had been seized but interestingly no firearm weapon was seized from the possession of Chhutkan who allegedly possessed 12 bore gun and 10 Cr.A.No.280/2007 & Cr.A.No.313/2007 understandably so because same injured witness Bhagwan Singh in his cross-examination in para 22 admits that gun of Chhutkan was deposited in Police Station due to Parliamentary Elections. 20- He further tried to clarify the fact in same breathe that Chhutkan tried to kill him with the help of gun of his father but later on again admitted that his father died 25 years back. At this juncture, it was the duty of the prosecution either to seize the weapon or to establish the fact that gun of Chhutkan was not lying with the Police Station due to Parliamentary Elections or even the fact that after the death of his father gun was transferred in the name of accused Chhutkan and he could have used the said gun legitimately. But no such effort has been made by the prosecution therefore, the very existence of weapon and its use comes into doubt.
21- Although it is true that seizure of weapon is corroborative piece of evidence but in the present case it assumes material bearing because injured witness Bhagwan Singh (PW-1) himself admitted the fact that weapon of Chhutkan was lying with the Police Station because of Parliamentary Election. No firearms weapon was seized from the possession of Chhutkan. Not only this, if the medical opinion Ex-P/16 and x-rays report Ex-P/17 along with Court statement of Dr. R.K. Rajoriya (PW-9) who medically examined the witnesses are seen then it is clear that no firearm injury was sustained by the witness. In para 6 of cross- 11 Cr.A.No.280/2007 & Cr.A.No.313/2007 examination specific question was asked by the defence and he admitted that no injury has been sustained by firearms and when he was suggested by the defence that these types of injuries can be sustained after falling from the tree then he admitted that some of the injuries (not all) could possibly be sustained by a person falling from the tree. Therefore, when weapon was not seized and when it was lying with the police and no firearms injury was sustained by the victim Bhagwan Singh then presence of Chhutkan while wielding firearms has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt whereas it was the duty of the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. Inconsistent story goes further.
22- In para 25 of cross-examination the same witness Bhagwan Singh (PW-1) admits that some pellets were received by Lallu Singh over his knees but he did not make any report. It means Lallu Singh was an eye-witness of the incident. Another person sustained certain gunshot injuries thus he could have been the best witness for prosecution to support the case and could have explained the role of each individual in categorical terms; but neither the police statement nor the Court statement of Lallu Singh were taken. Interestingly, in private complaint, statement of Lallu Singh under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. was recorded on 16- 08-1996 in which he narrated the incident and referred the fact that Surendra was wielding Farsa and on the same day another 12 Cr.A.No.280/2007 & Cr.A.No.313/2007 witness Anand Mohan also made statement under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. in which he referred the fact that although Surendra came witih Farsa but Farsa was wielded by Mehtab Singh as well as Rajkumar. Rest other wielded Lathi. This narration goes against fact referred by Lallu Singh, who under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. referred regarding Mehtab wielding Lathi but Anand Mohan in his statement referred role of Mehtab with Farsa. Lallu Singh referred the fact that Mehtab Singh wielded Lathi and immediately thereafter he referred the fact that Mehtab also inflicted injury through Farsa and therefore Bhagwan Singh fell down. Testimonies of witnesses of private complaint show omissions and contradictions since inception. 23- Injured witness Bhagwan Singh (PW-1) in private complaint does not refer role of Lallu Singh at all because in para 2 he nowhere referred the fact that Lallu Singh was also present on the spot. In fact, he referred the presence of his real brother Vijay Singh but as referred above Vijay Singh (PW-2), did not support the story of prosecution and declared hostile. Such anomalies indicate that complainant tried to implicate the appellants on the pretext or the other.
24- One more contradictory fact surfaced in the case whereby injured witness Bhagwan Singh (PW-1) in private complaint referred the fact that because of firearms of Chhutkan, he sustained injuries over his "Head" and said fact has been 13 Cr.A.No.280/2007 & Cr.A.No.313/2007 corroborated by Vijay Singh in his statement under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. exhibited as Ex-P/3 by the prosecution but in his Court statement, same witness Bhagwan Singh (PW-1) attributes the injuries to Chhutkan over his left elbow and referred the fact that because of said injuries his bone of left elbow was broken. It is true that with the passage of time, memory (or minor details) diminishes but it is not true that the person who suffered injuries would forget the person or the place of injury and understandably so, because he knows the person who inflicted the injuries and he would never be casual unless win over by the other side or improving a false case. Here, in the present case this witness remained firm and tried to support the story of prosecution, therefore, it is not expected from him to forget such important factual details. Even otherwise, he is making other descriptions graphically but casual and inconsistent about other important details, therefore such material omission further relegates the case into the realm of doubt and on the basis of tentative evidence accused persons cannot be saddled with the liability of conviction and jail sentence. Conjectures, surmises and probability cannot replace the cogent and material testimony/evidence.
25- So far as other aspect of accused Shambhu and Malkhan is concerned as per the case of prosecution they wielded Katta (firearms). As per prosecution case both these accused fired over 14 Cr.A.No.280/2007 & Cr.A.No.313/2007 injured witness therefore he sustained injury over his head and shoulder. From the possession of Shambhu vide seizure memo Ex-P/3 stick (Lathi) has been seized and from the possession of Malkhan vide seizure memo Ex-P/4 Lathi has been seized. This is something absurd when injured witness, Bhagwan Singh (PW-
1) throughout his testimony in police case as well as in private complaint took the stand regarding these two accused about using firearms then seizure of Stick from their possession is ridiculous.
Prosecution nowhere explained whether the respective seizures of Lathis from their possession made as seizure of weapons of other accused persons who allegedly weilded Lathi. Police Officer, Jai Singh Suliya (PW-8) in his testimony nowhere referred the fact that seizure of Lathi from the possession of Shambhu and Malkhan were in fact seizure of weapon of other accused. Such anomaly further demolishes the case of prosecution.
26- In his dying declaration Ex-D/1 Bhagwan Singh referred the fact about previous dispute and referred the fact that his brother Lakhan Singh was beaten up by the opposite party. Said witness Lakhan was examined by prosecution as PW-7 and in his Court statement he admitted the fact that at the time of incident he was not present on the spot and he was ill and admitted in hospital at Seondha and he remained there for 15 days and when he returned back he was told by Bhagwan Singh about the incident. 15 Cr.A.No.280/2007 & Cr.A.No.313/2007 This Court statement is contrary to the police statement of same witness placed by defence as Ex-D/2 and his testimony was challenged by defence while referring his police statement Ex- D/2 in which he referred the fact that at the time of incident he was at home along with Shambhu Singh, Pancham, Lallu Singh and Vijay Singh and in his cross-examination para 4 he admitted that he never given any statement vide Ex-D/2 to police. Considering the veracity in his police statement and Court statement wherein he himself made two contrary statements and referred the presence of Lallu Singh and Vijay Singh at his home as well as looking to the fact that testimony of Lallu Singh and Vijay Singh if any, did not support the story of prosecution because Vijay Singh appeared in the dock and declared hostile and Lallu Singh did not appear in the dock, it further appears that the case of prosecution is doubtful.
27- From the discussion made above, it appears that Chhutkan, Malkhan and Shambhu (absconding) never wielded firearms and never gave firearm injuries to the injured witness Bhagwan Singh. His consistent change of stand, change of narration and attempt to include more and more accused persons in fray indicate that he wanted to implicate the appellants on false pretext. He nowhere explained about subsequent addition of more accused in private complaint, especially when he made dying declaration (Ex-D/1) in presence of Tahsildar immediately 16 Cr.A.No.280/2007 & Cr.A.No.313/2007 after one day of incident, in which he referred only 5 persons. 28- Previous enmity between families has been accepted by the witness in paras 19 and 20 of his cross-examination. Therefore, it appears that driven by the previous enmity he used this opportunity to implicate more and more appellants forgetting that enmity is double edged sword like Rapier and cuts both ways, therefore, such case with chequered history is to be seen carefully and holistically specially when all witnesses are from the injured's family and apparently interested witnesses. Independent witnesses like Gayadin and Lalta Prasad who were referred to be present in FIR and the person whose tractor has been used by complainant party to take the injured witness to police station and hospital were the witnesses who could have appeared in the dock and substantiated the prosecution case but in failing so, prosecution also failed in its endeavour to implicate the appellants beyond reasonable doubts.
29- So far as other accused Surendra, Krishnamorari and Ramprakash are concerned, in his Court statement Bhagwan Singh (PW-1) refers the role Surendra with Axe but in respect of Krishnamorari and Ramprakash he nowhere referred any weapon wielded by them or their role in causing injuries in categorical terms. Even the role of Surendra has not been described in Examination -in
-Chief. If this testimony is seen in juxtaposition to dying declaration Ex-D/1 where he nowhere referred the name of 17 Cr.A.No.280/2007 & Cr.A.No.313/2007 Ramprakash and limited role of Krishnamorari and Surendra confined to taking him into the house of Shambhu Singh then also omissions and contradictions sufficiently appeared. Although he referred the fact that accused had beaten him with Lathi and axe but again in private complaint he did not elaborate the role of appellants Surendra, Krishnamorari and Ramprakash in categorical terms about injuries caused. He had to describe their role at least to explain whether they wielded any weapon and by the said weapon injuries were sustained by him over his person.
30- In FIR Vijay Singh (PW-2) nowhere referred the name of Surendra, Chhutkan and Krishnamorari. He referred the role of Shambhu, Malkhan and Ramprakash. Interestingly, in his statement under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. in private complaint vide Ex-P/3 he included the role of Chhutkan and other accused persons by resorting to omnibus allegations. It is true that minor details of weapons wielded or injuries sustained by the victim may not be remembered by the eye-witness or hearsay witness but presence of accused cannot be interchanged because eye- witness always remembers presence of any accused over the spot and cannot forget even after lapse of time. Here the accused were excluded or incorporated in different versions of witnesses at different stages or in different proceedings.
31- Other witnesses Chhote (PW-3), Kalyan PW-4) and Mahesh (PW- 18 Cr.A.No.280/2007 & Cr.A.No.313/2007
5) turned hostile and did not support the story of prosecution and Leela (PW-11) in para 1 of examination -in -chief did not recognize the accused but make the statement that accused committed crime and that too this statement is contrary to the statement Ex-P/18 made by her under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. When she did not recognize the accused how she made statement that accused person committed crime. Although she declared hostile and did not support the story of prosecution in her statement but it shows the real motive of complainant. As referred earlier, the same witness Bhagwan Singh (PW-1) nowhere referred the role of Surendra, Ramprakash and Krishnamorari in his statement under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and statements of Lallu Singh, Anand Mohan and Vijay Singh of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. in private complaint suffer from infirmity, therefore, all these contradictions and omissions render the case of the prosecution doubtful and prosecution could not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
32- Dr. R.K. Rajoriya (PW-9) and Dr. JPN Kushwah (PW-10) in their medical opinion nowhere referred the fact that the injuries sustained by the witnesses were sufficient to cause death whereas they ought to have referred such fact to bring the case into the ambit of case of Section 307 of IPC.{See: Merambhai Punjabbhai khachar Vs. State of Gujrat, 1997 SCC (Cri) 1078 and Shiv Kumar Singh Vs. State of M.P., 2016(3) 19 Cr.A.No.280/2007 & Cr.A.No.313/2007 Cr.L.R. (M.P.) 834.}.
33- In the considered opinion of this Court, prosecution could not prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. Oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution do not implicate the appellants beyond reasonable doubts. Trial Court acquitted some of the accused persons as their role was not found in the incident and trial Court erred in convicting the other accused (appellants in the present appeals) and caused illegality and perversity. In fact in para 26 of the judgment, trial Court referred the fact that no suggestion was given by the defence regarding felling down of injured witness Bhagwan Singh from the tree but such suggestion has been given by the defence to the injured witness Bhagwan Singh (PW-1) in para 26 in specific terms and witness denied the said fact.
34- When injured witness was sharing civil litigation against the accused Krishnamorari and against other accused person due to Panchayat dispute and dispute regarding purchase of house and series of litigations have been referred in the cross-examination of witnesses then it can be deciphered from the evidence that it was a case of false implication. No doubt, injured witness suffered injuries and medical report and testimony of Dr. R.K. Rajoriya (PW-9) indicate so but at the same time prosecution could not establish the case beyond reasonable doubts that the said injuries were caused by these accused persons. Possibility 20 Cr.A.No.280/2007 & Cr.A.No.313/2007 cannot be ruled out that injuries were sustained by victim either from falling from three or at the end of some other miscreants but certainly not in the fashion in which the role of appellants have been described.
35- One more fact which deserves consideration is the fact that it is a long drawn litigation of 24 years. Appellants not only suffered the jail sentence for some months/year but suffered the rigours of litigation for almost a quarter of century.
36- Resultantly, both the appeals filed by the appellants/accused are allowed. Appellants, namely Chhutkan Singh Kaurav and Malkhan Singh (Cr.A.No.280/2007) and Krishnamorari Mishra, Surendra and Ramprakash (Cr.A.No.313/2007) are acquitted from all the charges. Appellants are already on bail, therefore, their bail bonds stand discharged and they are set free. Fine amount if any deposited be returned back to them immediately. 37- Copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for information and necessary compliance.
38- Appeals allowed and disposed of.
Anil* (Anand Pathak)
Judge
ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
KUMAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR, postalCode=474001,
CHAURASI st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=8512f40a1a9eaa50b6802d068
b51dae27e84c266b09d283f0799e67cdc
YA
7df50f, cn=ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA
Date: 2020.05.05 13:35:58 -07'00'