Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh @ Ghuggu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 November, 2024
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:55075
1 CRA-2905-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 7 th OF NOVEMBER, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2905 of 2011
RAJESH @ GHUGGU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Smt. Durgesh Gupta - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 188 of 2012
ARUN @ JUNGAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Smt. Durgesh Gupta - Amicus Curiae for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 14199 of 2023
RAMPAL @ RAMFAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Smt. Aparna Singh - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VAIBHAV
YEOLEKAR
Signing time: 12/6/2024
10:40:11 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:55075
2 CRA-2905-2011
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal Smt. Durgesh Gupta is appointed as amicus curiae for the appellant Arun alias Jungal.
These appeals are filed by the appellants Rajesh @ Ghuggu, Arun @ Jungal and Rampal @ Ramfal being aggrieved of the judgment dated 28.11.2011, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pipariya, District Hoshangabad in S.C. No.111/2010, whereby learned Trial Court has convicted the appellants under Section 363/34, 366/34, 376(2)(g)/34 and 302/34 of IPC and have acquitted them from charges under Section 364/34 and 201/34 of IPC. They have been sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 with fine of Rs.500/- each with default stipulation of 6 months rigorous imprisonment. They have also been sentenced under Section 376(2)(g)/34 of IPC with life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and default stipulation of 6 months R.I. They have also been sentenced under Section 363/34 of IPC with 5 years R.I. and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation of 6 months RI. Learned trial Court has also sentenced them under Section 366/34 of IPC with 5 years R.I. and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation of 6 months R.I. It is mentioned in the impugned judgment itself that all the sentences shall run concurrently.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that conviction under Section 302 of IPC or under Section 363/34 and 366/34 of IPC is not sustainable in the eyes of law as theory of last seen is full of contradiction. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that as far as conviction under Section 376(2)(g)/34 of IPC is concerned, is not made out from the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 12/6/2024 10:40:11 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:55075 3 CRA-2905-2011 DNA report (Ex.P/101). It is pointed out that the report is categorical. Vaginal slides and swab of deceased were subjected to DNA profiling vis-a- vis blood sample of accused Jungal @Arun, Rampal and Rajesh. It has come on record that the Y-chromosome STR-DNA profile received from the vaginal smear slide (Ex.B) and swab (Ex.C) contains similar profile and that profile does not match with the Y- chromosome STR - DNA profile obtained from the blood sample of accused Rampal and accused Rajesh. It is submitted that this Y- chromosome profile obtained from the vaginal smear and swab obtained from the body of the deceased matches with the Ychromosome profile obtained from the blood sample of accused Jungal @ Arun, therefore, the conviction of Rajesh and Rampal on the basis of uncorroborated evidence under Section 376(2)(g) is not made out.
It is further submitted that once charge under Section 376(2) (g) is not found to be proved qua Rajesh @ Ghuggu and Rampal @ Ramfal, then conviction of Arun @ Jungal will also be required to be modified inasmuch as Section 376(2) (g) deals with Gang rape. Therefore, it is submitted that conviction of Arun @ Jungal and consequent sentence will also be required to be modified.
Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Government Advocate, in his turn supports the impugned judgment and submits that there is evidence of mother of the victim (PW-1), Deepu (PW-12) and Deena (PW-21), who had last seen the deceased going in the company of these three appellants. It is submitted that dead body was recovered. There is evidence of trousers of the appellants being soaked with mud, which was recovered from the spot and Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 12/6/2024 10:40:11 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:55075 4 CRA-2905-2011 therefore their conviction under Section 302/34, 376 (2)(g) of IPC does not call for any interference. It is also submitted that since the other accused persons were also present, mere absence of their DNA will not be sufficient to exonerate them from charge under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC.
Learned counsel for appellants draws the attention of this Court towards (Ex.P/104) in support of her contention.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, facts of the case in short are that the incident took place on 19/11/2009 when parents of the prosecutrix after having their dinner had gone to the house of Jham Singh to watch T.V. leaving the prosecutrix and their two sons at home. At about 9 P.M., the prosecutrix brought younger brother to her parents and said that since he is crying, he be kept with the parents. The prosecutrix after leaving Sibbu with her parents when was returning to her home, then her mother PW-1 came out of the house of her neighbourer to drop her where she found Arun @ Jungal, Rampal and Rajesh standing. Arun said that since three of them are going towards road, they will drop the prosecutrix at her residence. Since the accused persons were frequently visiting the house of parents of the prosecutrix, therefore, mother of the prosecutrix PW-1 agreed to send the prosecutrix with them and then prosecutrix said that she will give medicine to her brother as he was suffering from fever, then PW-1 again joined her husband to watch television.
When PW-1 mother of the prosecutrix and her husband returned to their home at about 11 P.M., then they found elder sons sleeping. The prosecutrix was not available. As per the prosecution case, she use to Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 12/6/2024 10:40:11 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:55075 5 CRA-2905-2011 sometimes sleep in the house of her maternal uncle, therefore, parents thought that she may be at the house of Mausa, therefore they did not made any attempt to trace her. Thereafter, brother of the prosecutrix PW-12 had informed PW-1 that at night, all the three accused persons had come and they were asking about PW-1, her younger son and the prosecutrix. When he had informed that his parents are watching T.V. at the house of Jham Singh and the prosecutrix had gone to drop her younger brother with her mother, then they said that they are going to the house of Jham Singh. Thereafter, PW-1 and PW-12 searched for the prosecutrix at the house of Munna but she could not be traced.
Some ladies from the colony were returning back from Reshamkendra and were discussing that they had seen a dead body of girl lying on the bank of lake water. PW-1 and PW-12 had gone to the lake side where they found that the deceased was lying in naked state and, therefore, allegation was made that Rajesh, Rampal and Jungal @ Arun rapped her and committed murder. At the instance of PW-12, merg intimation Ex. P-50 was recorded under Section 174 Cr.P.C. bearing no. 21/09. T.D. Athya had issued Safina form Ex. P-51 and had prepared Shav Panchayatnama Ex. P-52 and thereafter sent the body for postmortem along with Head Constable Ram Prasad. Postmortem was carried out by Dr. Atul Jain PW-9 and Dr. Anuradha Dehariya PW-24 who had given their postmortem report Ex. P-
20.T.D. Athya PW-26 had seized clothes and slide obtained from the prosecutrix and then S.H.O. T.D. Athya on the basis of short P.M. Ex. P-21 Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 12/6/2024 10:40:11 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:55075 6 CRA-2905-2011 registered Crime No. 89/09 under Sections 376 and 302 of I.P.C. F.I.R. is Ex. P-53 (A), copy of which was sent to the concerned Magistrate vide Ex. P-57. Spot map Ex. P-1 was prepared. The clothes, necklace, clay and lock of girl's hair were seized from the spot. The photographs were taken by one Ibrahim which are Ex. P-41 to P-48 and negatives are from Ex. P-33 to P-
40. Nafees Khan prepared compact disc. Revenue Inspector Arvind Dubey (PW-4) prepared spot map Ex. P-13 whereas T.D. Athya had recorded statements of PW-3, PW-11, PW-5, PW-6, PW-10, PW-12, PW-1 and PW-
21.PW-1 Laxmibai categorically supported the prosecution case and said that she had seen the deceased in front of the house of Jham Singh where she had come to hand over her youngest son where she had seen all the three appellants namely Rajesh @ Ghuggu, Arun @ Jungal and Rampal @ Ramfal.
Ex.-104 reveals that Article E is the black colour full pant belonging to Rampal having clay particles attached on the knee part of the full pant. Article-D is similarly black colour full pant of Jungal containing clay from the spot whereas Article F is the black colour full pant belonging to Rajesh having clay marks on knees, buttocks and lower part of the shirt.
In the report, it is mentioned that clay available on Ex. A, D and E represent similar characteristics whereas clay available on Ex. F does not display similar characteristics. Thus, it appears that though clay available on the pants of Arun @ Jungal and Rampal @ Ramfal matches with the clay collected from the place of the incident whereas characteristics of the clay Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 12/6/2024 10:40:11 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:55075 7 CRA-2905-2011 collected from the spot does not match with the clay spots found on Ex. F belonging to Rajesh.
Ex. P-103, is the report in regard to bunch of hair seized from the spot. They were taken for examination and marked as B. Packet C contain few hair seized from accused Rampal's head and they were taken for examination and marked as C. A report revealed that hair Article-B and C are of human head origin. Hair Article B and Article C are of similar, morphological and microscopic characteristics. However, no definite opinion was given regarding their origin from one and the same person.
Ex. P-101 is the D.N.A. report that vaginal smear slide of the deceased and the swab contains identical Y-chromosome STR DNA profile. This Ychromosome STR DNA profile does not match with the blood sample of Rampal and that of Rajesh.
However, all the alleles found from the underwear of accused Jungal @ Arun contain mixed D.N.A. profile wherein female D.N.A. profile of the deceased was found to be present on the underwear of Arun @ Jungal. Similarly, it has come on record that the vaginal smear slide and the swab of the deceased contain similar Y-chromosome STR DNA profile as was obtained from the sample of accused Arun.
As per birth certificate of the deceased, her date of birth is 13/10/1998 for which death certificate Ex. P-94 (c) was obtained on 29/01/2010. This certificate was issued on an application made by father of the deceased as contained in Ex. P-95 (c) on the instructions of Chief Executive Officer, Special Area Development Authority Pachmarhi.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 12/6/2024 10:40:11 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:55075 8 CRA-2905-2011 F.I.R. Ex. P-53 (a) was lodged on 20/11/2009 at 11:30 A.M. wherein it is mentioned that the incident took place between 9 P.M. to 11 A.M. starting from 19/11/2009 to 20/11/2009. A report is lodged against unknown persons by PW-26 T.D. Athya. In the report lodged at the instance of father of the prosecutrix, names of none of the accused persons are mentioned in the F.I.R. A dead body was recovered at the instance of one Hakimuddin Bhaijaan. In this report, it is nowhere mentioned that on 19/11/2009, the deceased had left the house of Jham Singh in the company of the accused persons. The statements of father of the victim under Section 161 were recorded on 22/11/2009 vide Ex. P-53 where for the first time, this witness inculpated the accused persons. The statements of PW-1 under Section 161 were similarly recorded on 22/11/2009 whereas that of brother of the deceased were recorded on 5/12/2009 as Ex. D-2.
Naksha Panchayatnama is Ex. P-52 which is signed by Hakimuddin, Mukesh, Pannalal, Dina and Mangal. They gave permission for postmortem. There is no mention of the victim last seen in the company of the appellants, though this Naksha Panchayatnama was prepared on 20/11/2009 and contains signature of father of the victim namely PW-21. Since this Naksha Panchayatnama Ex. P-52 contains signature of Hakimuddin on whose instance, a dead body was recovered, Mukesh PW-28, PW-21 father of the victim, except for these two, others have not been examined. Mukesh Yadav PW-28 signatory on Ex. P-52 Naksha Panchayatnama has clearly stated that he has studied upto VIIIth class. He has not signed the document Ex. P-51 or Ex. P-52 after reading it nor police Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 12/6/2024 10:40:11 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:55075 9 CRA-2905-2011 read it over to him. He has also stated that house of the victim's father is about 10-15 houses away from his house. Both the houses are situated at Nalandatola, path going towards the lake has houses on both sides of it. The path is illuminated with street light. Face of the deceased was in the clay.
PW-27 Pannalal is also the witness of Ex. P-52 Naksha Panchayatnama and Safina form Ex. P-51. He has said that though he had signed Shav Panchayatnama but he had not seen the dead body of the deceased. The police personnel obtained his signatures at the rest house which was neither read nor it was read over to him.
Another witness of Safina form Ex. P-51 Ganga Bai has not been examined in the court of law.
PW-1 is the mother of the prosecutrix. In the cross-examination, this witness has stated that police had not taken all her statements as she was not conscious. Later on, she has said that police made interrogation at Sohagpur. This witness in para 6 admits that police had prepared Naksha Panchayatnama in front of her near the lake and had obtained her signatures at about 1 P.M. in presence of her husband who had signed the Naksha Panchayatnama. She further admitted that she could not state certain things due to loss of memory. In para 8, she admitted that house of Mousi of the deceased is three houses away from her house in the same Tola. She further stated that if a call is given from the house of Mousi, then it is heard uptil her house. She has admitted that the places where she had gone to watch T.V. is the house of her sister and name of Mousa is Jham Singh. Jham Singh was available when they were watching T.V. She further admitted that accused Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 12/6/2024 10:40:11 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:55075 10 CRA-2905-2011 Rampal is son of her sister in relation. She admitted that lake is developed due to overflow of the dam water where there is a rest house of the Irrigation Department and if somebody gives a call from the lake, then voice will reach upto the rest house. Rest house is manned by a Chowkidar.
In para 10, this witness admitted that on the same day, police had interrogated her and by that evening, she did not knew as to what happened with her daughter and after four days of the interrogation on 20th November, police had not caused any further interrogation for another four days. Ex. P- 1 though contains her signatures but it was not read over to her. On the date of the incident, the police had interrogated her son Deepu PW-12, her husband Dina PW-21 and local body Counsellor Durga Prasad PW-3. She admitted that her daughter studied at Anganwadi but no certificate from Anganwadi is produced. The certificate which has been produced on record as Ex. P-94 was prepared after the death of the victim. This witness had admitted that generally persons belonging to her society consume alcohol. Distance of lake is about 400 metres. When one travels from her house, then Mousi's house will come and in the same direction, lake will come. She admitted that her house is in midst of the Basti. She further admitted that to travel from her house upto lake, ten to twelve houses will have to be crossed. Two daughters of her neighbours and that of one Dhokal were playing outside whereas Dhokal was at home with his family. No interrogation of Dhokal or Laxmi was carried out nor their children were interrogated. She admitted in para 13 that distance between her house and that of Mousi is one minute. She is Mousi of Rampal.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 12/6/2024 10:40:11 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:55075 11 CRA-2905-2011 In para 17, PW-1 admitted that children who were playing outside did not inform her that the deceased was accompanied by accused persons after having said that she had seen Rampal under a mango tree. She admitted in para 18 that said mango tree is not visible from the house of Jham Singh because it is in opposite direction.
In para 22, she admitted that she had not given names of the accused persons when police had interrogated her at the place of the incident. She had also not informed them that on reaching home, Deepu had informed her that he had seen the victim going along with Rajesh, Rampal and Jungal. She had also not informed the police as to what conversation took place between her and Durga Prasad. In para 23, she admitted that S.D.M. had also interrogated in the presence of the accused persons and at that time, she had not taken names of the accused persons.
PW-2 Tulsidas Harvanshi denied his case diary statements as contained in Ex. P-2.
PW-3 Durga Prasad is a witness of memorandum. He was declared hostile and leading questions were put to him. He has denied that Rajesh caught hold of the legs of the victim and Rampal had strangulated her. He has denied seizure of black full pant of Rampal vide Ex. P-7 being torn near the left knee and containing clay. Similarly, he denied recovery of black full pant at the instance of Rajesh belonging to NWSBN Gwalior and that of Arun belonging to Raymond Chromine.
In para 8 of his cross-examination, this witness admitted that since he is a counsellor, police often calls him. He signed all the documents in one Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 12/6/2024 10:40:11 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:55075 12 CRA-2905-2011 go. When he was signing these documents, only police personnel were present and nobody else was there. No interrogation was carried out in front of him. PW-4 Arvind Dubey Revenue Inspector had prepared spot map.
PW-5 Suniya Bai is mother of accused Rajesh. She has denied her case diary statements contained in Ex. P-14. In the cross-examination, she has stated that Rajesh was not keeping good health for last eight to fifteen days and was at home only for that duration. PW-6 Mangla Bai denied having knowledge about the incident. She is mother of accused Arun @ Jungal. She was declared hostile.
PW-7 Alok Baghel is the Chief Executive Officer of the Special Area Development, Pachmarhi at whose instance, birth certificate Ex. P-94 was prepared subsequently. He has admitted that he did not initiate any notesheet in relation to the non-availability of birth certificate as mentioned in Ex. P-
95. He admitted that no inward, outward number is mentioned in Ex. P-95. He further admitted that Ex. P-95 was not presented before him personally. He also admitted that in the death and birth register, he had not signed. He admitted that birth certificate for deceased was issued on 29/01/2010. No inquiry was made before issuance of this certificate.
PW-9 Dr. Atul Jain Medical Officer had conducted postmortem who opined that privacy of the victim was violated causing rupture of hymen. Short P.M. report is Ex. P-21. He had also examined the accused persons and had found that there were no injury marks on the private parts. They were capable of performing intercourse. He admitted that there were no external injuries shown on the front of the victim in Ex. P-21 and Asphyxia can be Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 12/6/2024 10:40:11 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:55075 13 CRA-2905-2011 caused due to drowning also. He admitted that semen found on the underwear of the accused is a normal thing.
PW-10 Sangeeta was declared hostile. She did not support the prosecution case. She admitted that her name is not Sunita. She has denied factum of sale of liquor. She further stated that Rajesh and Jungal had not come to her house to purchase liquor but had come to her house seeking some medicine but they had returned back from outside.
PW-11 Satish Lokhande stated that when he had come out of the house at about 8 P.M., he had met accused Jungal. This witness admitted that the place where dead body of the deceased was recovered, police had not interrogated him and he had not informed police that when he had come out of the house at night, then he had met Jungal.
PW-12 Deepu in para 6 admitted that Jham Singh is his Mausiya. His house is three houses away from his house. The house of Jham Singh is visible from his house. If a call is given from his house, then it will reach the house of Jham Singh. Rampal is son of his Mousi.
In para 11, PW-12 admitted that Arun had fallen down from a tree and sustained fracture, as a result of which, a rod was inserted in his leg. He has further stated that there is no need for anybody to drop his family members while commuting between his house and that of Jham Singh.
In para 12, this witness admitted that after three days of the incident, accused persons were brought by the T.I., then his mother had stated that she has no information about the accused persons and police had not recorded their statements.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 12/6/2024 10:40:11 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:55075 14 CRA-2905-2011 Reading from the evidence of aforesaid witnesses especially PW-1 and PW-12, it is evident that none of them had informed the police in time especially at the time of preparation of Naksha Panchayatnama that deceased was last seen in the company of the appellants. As per Ex. P-103, lock of hair was though found to be of the human origin but no definite opinion has been given as to it belongs to Rampal. Therefore, that is not a sufficient circumstance to uphold conviction of Rampal. There is no report of connecting him with two accused persons namely Arun @ Jungal and Rajesh @ Ghuggu. A report Ex. P-104 only points out that soil recovered from the pants of Jungal and Rampal was similar to the soil reported to be present at the site of recovery of the dead body but that being a common place, such recovery will not carry much significance especially when PW-26 T.D. Athya has admitted that accused were arrested on 22/11/2009. They were presented before the Magistrate on 23/11/2009 and were taken on police remand upto 26/11/2009 and they were in his custody on 25/11/2009 when the memorandum statements were recorded. The seizure of hair of Rampal was made on 22/11/2009 whereas memorandum was recorded on 22/11/2009 at 15:45, 15:50 and 16:05 but in the test report Ex. P-104, brand of the full pants recovered from Rajesh is not mentioned of red and blue BSM Gwalior and infact it did not match with the clay recovered from the place of the incident and that clay was recovered vide Ex. P-27 on 20/11/2009 mentioning that red colour soil was seized in a plastic box but colour of the soil is not matched with the clay which was found on the spot and spot being a public place, finding of clay on trousers of Arun @ Jungal and Rampal is Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 12/6/2024 10:40:11 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:55075 15 CRA-2905-2011 not a sufficient circumstance to implicate them especially when there is no evidence of last seen as is admitted by PW-1 and PW-12 that they had not informed the police promptly about the accused seen in the company of the deceased at the time of preparation of Naksha Panchayatnama Ex. P-52.
The only circumstance which exists against the accused persons is that the D.N.A. report which is Ex. P-101 which points out that the vaginal smear slide and swab of the deceased contain same Y-chromosome STR profile as was obtained from the sample of accused Jungal @ Arun. Therefore, in the absence of the evidence of last seen being made out and non-matching of the clay on the trousers of Rajesh does not connect him whereas merely finding clay on the trousers of Rampal is not a sufficient circumstance to complete the chain of events to implicate him. Therefore, conviction of Rampal @ Ramfal and Rajesh @ Ghuggu are hereby set aside. They are acquitted from the charges under Sections 302, 376 (2)(g), 363/34 and 366/34 of I.P.C.
As far as D.N.A. profile of Arun @ Jungal is positive, this positive D.N.A. profile of Arun @ Jungal shows his presence in the company of the victim, as a result of which there is a positive circumstance showing not only presence of Arun @ Jungal with the victim but also demonstrate violation of privacy and, thereafter her homicidal death. Therefore, Arun @ Jungal is to be convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, 376 (2) of I.P.C. Since the prosecution has failed to prove the theory of gangrape and there is no mixed Y-chromosome profile found on the body of the deceased, it is directed that appellant Arun @ Jungal shall undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 of I.P.C. with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of depositing Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 12/6/2024 10:40:11 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:55075 16 CRA-2905-2011 fine shall undergo additional R.I. for six months and he will also undergo imprisonment for ten years under Section 376 (2) of I.P.C. He shall also undergo the sentence for offences under Sections 363/34 and 366/34 of I.P.C. as imposed by the trial court. He is directed to undergo remaining sentence if not completed.
Case property be disposed of in terms of the directions of the trial court.
In above terms, the appeals are disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
vy
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VAIBHAV
YEOLEKAR
Signing time: 12/6/2024
10:40:11 AM