Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hans Raj vs State Of Haryana on 24 December, 2014
Author: Kuldip Singh
Bench: Kuldip Singh
CRA No. S-1554-SB of 2010 (O/M) -1-
SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA
2014.12.24 12:49
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA No. S-1554-SB of 2010 (O/M)
Date of Decision : 24.12.2014
Hans Raj ...... Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana ........ Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH
Present:- Mr. Sarvjit Singh Khurana, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, Assistant A.G. Haryana.
1. Whether the Reporters of local newspaper may be allowed
to see the judgment ? Yes.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not. Yes.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
Yes.
-.- -.-
KULDIP SINGH, J.
This appeal has been filed by the accused/appellant Hans Raj against the judgment and order dated 15/17.4.2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, vide which he was convicted under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one and a half year under Section 363 IPC. The accused/appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half year under Section 366 IPC. The accused/appellant was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default CRA No. S-1554-SB of 2010 (O/M) -2- SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.12.24 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two and a half years under Section 376 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. It was further directed that 50% of the total amount of the fine imposed upon the convict shall be paid as compensation to the prosecutrix in accordance with the provisions of Section 357 Cr.P.C.
The brief facts of the case are that on 19.8.2009, complainant Desh Raj (father of prosecutrix) moved an application (Ex.PA) before the Station House Officer, Police Station Pataudi, wherein he stated that on 16.8.2009, he had lodged a report regarding the missing of his daughter Miss 'S' (identification withheld). It was stated that subsequently, the complainant has come to know that his minor daughter Miss 'S' was enticed away by Hans Raj Kaushik son of Murari Kaushik, resident of village Ramchand Pura (Chamarbas), Tehsil Behrod, District Alwar, Rajasthan. The accused is having two mobile phone numbers i.e. 9928960279 and 9996715404. Therefore, a case should be registered against accused Hans Raj for enticing his minor daughter and that his minor daughter should be traced. He further stated that his daughter's age is about 16 years. On the complaint (Ex.PA) of the complainant, a formal FIR (Ex.PA/1) was registered at Police Station Pataudi under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC. On 18.9.2009, the prosecutrix was recovered from the custody of accused Hans Raj. After recovery, the custody of the prosecutrix was handed over to the complainant, vide memo Ex.PB. Accused/appellant Hans Raj was also apprehended. CRA No. S-1554-SB of 2010 (O/M) -3- SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.12.24 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Vide memo Ex.PH, the accused admitted to have enticed away the prosecutrix and committed rape with her. He also identified the place of rape, vide memo Ex.PJ. The site plan (Ex.PK) of the place of rape was also prepared. Accused was got medico legally examined. The prosecutrix was also medico legally examined. Her (prosecutrix's) age determination test was also got conducted. Her school admission record was also taken into possession through memo Ex.PD. After the receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, offence under Section 376 IPC was also added. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was presented in the Court.
The accused was chargesheeted under Sections 363, 366 and 376, to which the accused plead not guilty and claimed trial.
To prove its case, prosecution examined complainant Desh Raj, father of the prosecutrix (PW1), the prosecutrix (PW2), Draftsman Manoj Kumar, (PW3), ASI Shamshudeen (PW4), Dharam Pal Yadav, Head Master (PW5), SI Rajinder Singh (PW6), Dr. Manoj Kumar (PW7), ASI Kanwar Singh (PW8), Constable Anil Kumar (PW9), Dr. Monika (PW10) and closed the evidence.
When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused raised the following plea :-
"I am innocent. Prosecutrix was aged more than twenty years and she left the house of her parents of her own sweet will to marry me. Even marriage talks were going between the families during the period of one month and thirteen days when she remained with him. Prosecutrix had consented to return to the house only when her parents assured to marry her with me. After the CRA No. S-1554-SB of 2010 (O/M) -4- SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.12.24 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document prosecutrix came to the house of her parents, she was forced to depose against me and the present false case was foisted upon me."
In defence, accused examined Dr. Parveen, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Gurgaon, as DW1, who proved the age determination test of the prosecutrix and the submission of his report (Ex.D1).
After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State, learned counsel for the accused and going through the file, the learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, convicted and sentenced the accused as detailed above.
I have heard learned counsel for the accused/appellant, learned Assistant Advocate General for the State and have also carefully gone through the file.
First of all, it is necessary to determine the age of the prosecutrix at the time of alleged crime. The crime was committed on 15.8.2009. As per the complaint (Ex.PA) lodged by complainant Desh Raj, father of the prosecutrix, the age of prosecutrix was about 16 years. In order to prove the date of birth of the prosecutrix, the prosecution examined Dharam Pal Yadav, Headmaster, Government High School, Janola, Gurgaon (PW5). He brought the admission and withdrawal register of the school and stated that the prosecutrix was got admitted in their school on 11.4.2008 in 9th standard. Her name was struck off on 28.8.2009. The date of birth of the prosecutrix, as per the school record, is 2.10.1993. He produced the extract of the register (Ex.PE). In cross examination, he stated that initially the CRA No. S-1554-SB of 2010 (O/M) -5- SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.12.24 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity th of this document prosecutrix was got admitted in their school in 6 standard on 16.4.2004. He cannot say as to in which school the prosecutrix was studying in 5th standard. He also cannot say on which basis, the date of birth was entered in the school records. If the date of birth as per the school record is accepted as correct, the age of the prosecutirx on the date of crime will come about 1½ months less than 16 years.
The complainant Desh Raj (father of the prosecutrix) was extensively examined regarding the date of birth of the prosecutrix. He (father of the prosecutrix) stated that his age is 49 years. He is having 6 children. The prosecutrix is at number 5 and thereafter his younger son Radhey Sham was born. The complainant further stated that his marriage was solemnized in April, 1979. His first daughter, Nirmala was born after one year of his marriage. According to the complainant, then there is difference of 1 ½ years of age between his daughters, Nirmala, Kamlesh, Krishan, Poonam, the prosecutrix and thereafter son Radhey Sham. If the statement of Desh Raj (complainant) is treated as correct, then his second daughter Kamlesh was born towards the end of 1981, then his child Krishan was born in the middle of 1983, his daughter Poonam was born somewhere towards the end of 1984 and the prosecutrix was born in the middle of 1986 and thereafter, his son Radhey Sham was born in the middle of 1988. Therefore, if the age is determined as per the statement of Desh Raj, the date of birth of the prosecutrix comes somewhere in the middle of 1986. This is in complete contradiction to the school record where the date of birth of the prosecutrix is CRA No. S-1554-SB of 2010 (O/M) -6- SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.12.24 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document recorded as 2.10.1993. If the age of the prosecutrix is calculated as per the abovenoted calculation of age as given by Desh Raj, her (prosecutrix's) age at the time of alleged crime comes to 23 years. However, it appears that the complainant Desh Raj, who is an illiterate person having thumb marked his statement made before the Court, has not given proper/approximate age of his children. At the time of medico legal examination of the prosecutrix, the doctor had recorded her age to be 16 years. The prosecutrix was referred to the Radiologist and Dentist for estimation of her age. Dr. Parveen Kumar, who was the member of the board which conducted the test, appeared as DW1 and stated that he was the member of the board consisting of Dr. D.B. Aggarwal and other doctor from casualty, who had examined the prosecutrix. His report is Ex.D1. He further stated that there is always margin of 2 years in the either side in the age determined by them. The prosecutrix had disclosed her age at the time of medico legal examination as 17 years. As per the report (Ex.D1), from the physical examination, dental examination and radiological examination, the doctors are of the opinion that the age of the person examined is 16½ to 17 years. If the margin of error is added, the possibility of the prosecutrix being marginal above 18 years, cannot be ruled out.
Now, the question is as to whether the age given in the school record is to be accepted or the age as calculated from the statement of the father of prosecutrix is to be accepted or the age as determined by the Radiologist and the Dentist is to be accepted ? CRA No. S-1554-SB of 2010 (O/M) -7- SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.12.24 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
So far as the school record is concerned, the prosecution proved the entry in the admission record without showing the basis on which the entry was made regarding admission of the prosecutrix in the previous year. The birth certificate was not produced. Nor the certificate of admission in the first class was proved. Now, the question is when the basis, on which the entry was made in the school record is not produced and the entry of date of birth in school record is contrary to the statement of the father of the prosecutrix, whether the same can be relied upon ?
In somewhat similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in Jaipal Singh Versus State of Haryana, 2003 (2) RCR (Criminal) 310, did not accept the date of birth given in the school certificate. I am of the view that since the date of birth given in the school record is not supported by the statement of complainant Desh Raj (father of the prosecutrix), who had the first hand knowledge of her (prosecutrix's) date of birth and is also not supported by the medical evidence, therefore, the date of birth mentioned as 2.10.1993 in the school record, is not to be accepted as correct without any proof, on the basis of which the said entry was made. In these circumstances, this Court has to fall back upon the report of Dr. Parveen Kumar (DW1), who stated that the age of the prosecutrix is between 16½ to 17 years and there is error of margin of 2 years on either side. Therefore, the possibility of the prosecutrix being above 18 years cannot be ruled out. In case, where there can be two interpretations, one which is favourable to the accused has to be CRA No. S-1554-SB of 2010 (O/M) -8- SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.12.24 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document accepted. Therefore, the interpretation of age, which is favourable to the accused, has to be accepted.
Now, coming to the present crime, Section 361 IPC defines kidnapping from the lawful guardianship as under:-
"361. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship.- Whoever takes or entices any minor under (sixteen) years of age if a male, or under (eighteen) years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship."
It shows that for the purpose of kidnapping from the lawful guardianship, the accused must 'take' or 'entice' a female under 18 years of age, if she is otherwise of sound mind. Now, it is to be seen whether the accused took or enticed the prosecutrix in the present case. Words "taking" and "enticing" have two different connotation. The matter was examined by Full Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of S. Varadarajan vs. State of Madras, 1965 AIR (SC) 942. In the said case, the prosecutrix Savitri was a minor as on the date she abandoned the guardianship of her father. In the said case, said Savitri left her house and accompanied the accused. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
"She was not a child of tender years who was unable to think for herself but, as already stated, was on the verge of attaining majority and was capable of knowing what was good and what was bad for her. She was no uneducated or unsophisticated village girl but a senior college student who had probably all her life, lived in a modern city and CRA No. S-1554-SB of 2010 (O/M) -9- SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.12.24 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document was thus far more capable of thinking for herself and acting on her own than perhaps an unlettered girl hailing from a rural area".
It went on to observe as under:-
"......the purpose of Section 363 and expressing agreement with this statement of the law observed: "In this case the minor, P.W. 4, would not have left the house but for the promise of the appellant that he would marry her." Quite apart from the question whether this amounts to blandishment we may point out that this is not based upon any evidence direct or otherwise. In 54 Mad LJ 456 Srinivasa Aiyangar J., found that the girl whom the accused was charged with having kidnapped was desperately anxious to leave her husband's house and even threatened to commit suicide if she was not taken away from there....."
While interpreting the word "taking" the Court made the following observations:-
"9. It must, however, be borne in mind that there is a distinction between "taking" and allowing a minor to accompany a person. The two expressions are not synonymous though we would like to guard ourselves from laying down that in no conceivable circumstances can the two be regarded as meaning the same thing for the purposes of Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code. We would limit ourselves to a case like the present where the minor alleged to have been taken by the accused person left her father's protection knowing and having capacity to know the full import of what she was doing voluntarily joins the accused person. In such a case we do not think that the accused can be said to have taken her away from the keeping her lawful guardian. Something more has to be CRA No. S-1554-SB of 2010 (O/M) -10- SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.12.24 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document shown in a case of this kind and that is some kind of inducement held out by the accused person or an active participation by him in the formation of the intention of the minor to leave the house of the guardian.
10. It would, however, be sufficient if the prosecution establishes that though immediately prior to the minor leaving the father's protection no active part was played by the accused, he had at some earlier stage solicited or persuaded the minor to do so. In our opinion, if evidence to establish one of those thing is lacking it would not be legitimate to infer that the accused is guilty of taking the mirror out of the keeping of the lawful guardian merely because after she has actually left her guardian's house or a house where her guardian had kept her, joined the accused and the accused helped her in her design not to return to her guardian's house by taking her along with him from place to place. No doubt, the part played by the accused could be regarded as facilitating the fulfillment of the intention of the girl. That part, in our opinion , falls short of an inducement to the minor to slip out of the keeping of her lawful guardian and is, therefore, not tantamount to 'taking'."
Yet in another case of Punjab and Haryana High Court titled as Jai Narain versus State of Haryana, 1969 P.L.R. 688, a single Bench of our own Hon'ble High Court observed as under:-
"In other words, the prosecution must show that there was either kidnapping or abduction. Section 361, Indian Penal Code, which defines 'kidnapping' says that when any person takes or entices any minor under the age of 18 if a female out of the keeping of lawful guardian of such minor without the consent of such guardian, commits kidnaping. The girl left the house of her father at midnight of her free CRA No. S-1554-SB of 2010 (O/M) -11- SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.12.24 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document will. Raja Ram appellant did not go to her house to persuade her and to bring her from here. She chose the dead of night when other members of the family were, according to her own statement, fast asleep. Soon after reaching the house of Raja Ram who she says, was waiting for her and that suggests that she had on her visit during the day so settled with him, she agreed to accompany him to Bhishamwala well. These facts leave no doubt that she was neither enticed nor taken by Raja Raj from the lawful guardianship of her parents. She has herself chosen to accompany Raja Ram and to be with Jai Narain appellant".
In a relatively latest case Sukh Ram vs. State of Haryana, 2010 (4) RCR (Criminal) 875, a single Bench of our own Hon'ble High Court in case of prosecutrix of 16 years 8 months observed as under:-
"24. The prosecutrix Suman, PW2, accompanied the accused in the night of 1.10.1998. At that time, the age of the prosecutrix was about 16 years and 8 months. The prosecutrix had accompanied the appellant from one place varying from a remote village of Rajasthan to the holy shrine of Vaishno Devi. Fact of the love affair is admitted by the prosecutrix in her statement before the Court. The prosecutrix as well as the appellant have travelled at public places through various modes of transportation. There is nothing on record on the basis of which it can be inferred that the prosecutrix ever raised any protest or alarm. The appellant is not stated to be carrying any weapon. Therefore, it cannot be said that the life of the prosecutrix was under threat.
25. During the trial, love letters written by the prosecutrix Suman, PW2, were placed on record as Exhibits DB and DC. The prosecutrix had admitted having written the said CRA No. S-1554-SB of 2010 (O/M) -12- SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.12.24 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document letters to the appellant. The contents of the letter clearly go to establish that the prosecutrix had a love affair with the appellant. It has also come on record that the prosecutrix and the appellant proposed to marry each other.
26. Another circumstance that goes in favour of the appellant is that no injury marks were found on the person of the prosecutrix during her medico legal examination by Dr. (Mrs.) Meenakshi Goel PW12. She stayed with the appellant for about 2 months and 8 days. It has also come on record that while they were staying at village Rathi Khera in Rajasthan, the appellant had been working as farm labourer and the prosecutrix had also been performing her role as house wife to make and maintain livelihood."
Now, it is to be seen in the present case that whether there is any 'enticing' or 'taking' from the lawful guardianship ? The statements of the prosecutrix and her father are very material in this regard.
In this regard, it is to be noted that the complainant Desh Raj, at the first instance, had reported on 16.8.2009 that his daughter Miss 'S' has gone missing. Thereafter, on 19.8.2009, he lodged the FIR that his daughter has been enticed away by the accused. He has further stated in his examination-in-chief that after 1 month and 13 days, the police apprehended his daughter from the custody of accused in village Pataudi. The prosecutrix was actually recovered from the accused on 18.9.2009 i.e. 33 days after she eloped with the accused. Desh Raj (complainant) further stated that her daughter left the home on 15.8.2009 in their absence, which means that leaving CRA No. S-1554-SB of 2010 (O/M) -13- SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.12.24 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document the house was a voluntary act. It is to be noted that accused Hans Raj was working as a driver on the truck of Tilak Raj, a cousin of the prosecutrix. Desh Raj had admitted in cross examination that accused had contacted him 5/6 times during the period the prosecutrix was with him. He (Desh Raj) had requested him (Hans Raj) to come back alongwith his daughter, so that they can solemnize their marriage. He further stated that her daughter also called her one time. He also requested her to come back, but she told him that she will not come back and she should be presumed dead. He denied the suggestion that he had also visited the house of accused Hans Raj where the prosecutrix and the accused were found present and that the prosecutrix and the accused had refused to accompany him. A suggestion was put to Desh Raj (complainant) that the marriage talks of his daughter were going on with the family of the accused for the last 1 month and 13 days and that the prosecutrix consented to return home on the promise to marry her with the accused. He also denied the suggestion that even today, talks of their marriage are going on.
The prosecutrix, while appearing as PW2, stated in her examination-in-chief that the accused is a driver on the truck of her cousin Tilak Raj and used to tease her. He was again and again asking the prosecutrix to marry him by giving her temptations. She had fallen prey to him. She claimed that on 15.8.2009, the accused had enticed her away in order to marry and committed rape upon her in the fields.
CRA No. S-1554-SB of 2010 (O/M) -14-SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.12.24 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
Regarding her departure and visit to various places from home, she was extensively cross examined. The prosecutrix stated that initially she accompanied the accused in a three wheeler from their village to Manesar around 2:00 PM. From Manesar, they boarded a maxi cab to Gurgaon and from Gurgaon, they went to Delhi in a bus. They stayed in Delhi for about 15 days in a colony in the house of Hans Raj's friend, which was in a thickly populated area. There was a market surrounding the colony. During the 15 days' stay in Delhi, they used to visit the market. In the house in which they were staying in Delhi, the family was having 3 daughters and one son. The residents of other houses were also visiting there on many occasions. She used to talk sweetly with them and residing there as one family. She further stated that thereafter, they went by bus from Delhi to Jaipur and stayed there for about 10 days in the house of Hans Raj's relative at Ajmer byepass Chandwaji. In that house, a couple was residing. From Jaipur, they reached village Ramchandpura in the house of accused and stayed there for 2/4 days. She admitted that her father alongwith his brothers Mir Singh and Murari Lal had visited the house of accused when she was staying there. Though, she denied that her father had promised to marry her with accused Hans Raj, volunteered stated that some other person had promised for the same. Then, from the house of Hans Raj, they went to Behrore in the house of Hans Raj's friend and stayed there for 2/3 days and from there, she alongwith Hans Raj, his parents, his uncle and some other villagers went to Police Station CRA No. S-1554-SB of 2010 (O/M) -15- SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.12.24 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Pataudi, where her parents were also present. She admitted that on the pretext of their marriage, the parents of Hans Raj, after discussing the issue with her parents, took them to Police Station Pataudi. She admitted that accused Hans Raj was residing with them for the last 2½ years, while working as a driver in the truck of her cousin Tilak Raj. Regarding the rape prior to 15.8.2009, she stated that it was committed 10 days' before the said date. She admitted that they belong to the same community. She admitted that even a couple of days before, there were talks of their marriage between both the parties in the presence of respectables of the village. In this way, the statements of the prosecutrix and her father when read together show that the prosecutrix voluntarily left the home. She went to Manesar, then from Manesar to Gurgaon, then from Gurgaon to Delhi, where she stayed for 15 days and then, she went to Jaipur, where she stayed for 10 days. Thereafter, they came back to the village of accused where they stayed for 2/3 days where even her father and his brothers visited them. The statement of her father clearly shows that when the prosecutrix was staying with the accused, he had a telephonic conversation with her and she had refused to come back. The admission of the prosecutrix further shows that the talks of the marriage of prosecutrix and the accused were also going on before the occurrence and even on the promise of marriage, the prosecutrix and the accused were produced before the police where they were apprehended.
Now, in these circumstances, it is to be examined whether CRA No. S-1554-SB of 2010 (O/M) -16- SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.12.24 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document it is a case of kidnapping from the lawful guardianship, I find the reply in negative.
The evidence shows that the proseuctrix was not taken or enticed away from the guardianship of her parents. She voluntarily accompanied the accused. She was mature enough. It also comes out that the prosecutrix was not illiterate. She was studying in 9th standard. She had even signed in English as well as her thumb marks were obtained on her statement recorded in Court, which appears to be as a matter of precaution. She travelled in public transport. If the accused was kidnapping her, she had the opportunity to raise alarm. Even during her stay with the accused, she had a telephonic conversation with her father and refused to come back. Even the father of the prosecutrix had visited the house of the accused where she had stayed for 2/3 days and she had refused to accompany her father. The entirety of the circumstances when put together goes to show that it is not a case of kidnapping, but a case of elopement when the talks of the marriage of the prosecutrix with the accused were going on. They belong to the same community. It appears that something went wrong regarding the proposal of marriage, on which the prosecutrix eloped with the accused and went to different places for 33 days and when the promise of marriage was made, they returned back and appeared before the police.
Now, it is to be examined as to whether the said kidnapping was to compel the prosecutrix for marriage or that she may be forced to illicit intercourse ?
CRA No. S-1554-SB of 2010 (O/M) -17-SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.12.24 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
It appears that the prosecutrix had physical relations with the accused even before her elopement. No injury mark was found on the person of the prosecutrix during the medical examination. Her conduct shows that she was a willing party. She eloped with the accused with her free consent. She intended to marry the accused. She had even stayed in the house of the accused for 2/3 days. Therefore, there is no question of compelling the prosecutrix for illicit intercourse. Since, her age is determined to be above 16 years, therefore, she was competent to give consent for sexual intercourse. It being so, the offences under Sections 366 and 376 IPC are also not made out.
From the foregoing discussion, I come to the conclusion that the impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. I am also of the view that the charges under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC are not proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 15/17.4.2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, are set aside. The accused stands acquitted of the charges framed against him. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Appeal is accordingly allowed.
(KULDIP SINGH) JUDGE 24.12.2014 sjks