Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vakeel Saav vs State Of M.P. on 23 July, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 23rd OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 116 of 2014
VAKEEL SAAV
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Akshat Jain - learned Counsel for appellant from Legal Aid Department.
Ms. Anjali Gyanani - learned Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Per Justice Hirdesh:-
The instant criminal appeal under Section 383 of CrPC has been filed by appellant- Vakeel Saav from jail challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.12.2013 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha (MP) in Sessions Trial No.270 of 2013, whereby appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's additional rigorous imprisonment.
(2) Prosecution case, in brief, is that Sanman (PW-1) lodged a dehati nalishi (Ex.D1) at Community Health Centre, Kurwai, District Vidisha to the effect that Mrs. Beenabai widow of his younger brother Lachhu lives with her son Vakeel next to his house. On the date of incident i.e. 20-4-2013, around 9:00 pm, on hearing a screaming sound, he with his neighbours Suryapal, Balram and Gorelal reached the house of Beenabai where Beenabai was found unconscious and blood Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 7/30/2025 7:11:49 PM 2 was ozzing from her head. Appellant -Vakeel was standing nearby and bloodstain was also found on the baniyan of appellant. On being asked what was happened, appellant Vakeel told that when he asked his mother Beenabai for matchbox to smoke a bidi, she refused. At this, he picked up a stone slab and hit the temple (near forehead) of her mother, due to which her mother became unconscious. Many people from neighborhood had arrived. Witness Harnam Singh (PW-11) brought his mother to Kurwai Hospital in an unconscious state. It is alleged that appellant had hit his mother with a stone slab with intention to kill her. On the basis of information given by Sanman (PW-1), ASI Narendra Pratap Singh Baghel (PW-9) of Kurwai Police Station Vidisha registered a dehati nlishi (Ex.D1). Due to injuries sustained by Beenabai, she was referred from Kurwai Hospital, Vidisha to Hamedia Hospital, Bhopal and during treatment, Beenabai died on 26.04.2013 and dead body was sent for postmortem where Dr. Ashok Sharma (PW-7) conducted postmortem of deceased and as per PM report Ex.P11, it was found that deceased died due to head injury. After the death of deceased, police lodged an FIR vide Ex.P17 and arrested appellant-accused. After completion of investigation and other formalities, charge- sheet was filed before the Court of JMFC from where the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial.
(3) Charges were framed. Accused denied committing the alleged crime and pleaded trial. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, accused pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in the case due to enmity in the village and prayed for trial.
(4) In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses. In order to lead evidence, appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. After conclusion of trial, the trial Court convicted present appellant and sentenced him accordingly for aforesaid offence, as mentioned in Para 2 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.
(5) It is contended on behalf of appellant learned trial Court has committed an error in convicting present appellant without properly evaluating the prosecution Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 7/30/2025 7:11:49 PM 3 evidence available on record. There are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses i.e. Sanman Singh (PW-
1), Tularam (PW-2) and Harnam (PW-11). He further submitted that Gorelal (PW-
3) and Dheeraj Singh (PW-5) have not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. Seizure of stone slab and baniyan were not wholly proved by prosecution.
Seizure witness Dheeraj Singh (PW-5) turned hostile as blood-stained articles are not sealed on the spot. It is further submitted that trial Court has committed an error in not believing the defence of appellant. He further submitted that deceased was fallen from the roof which was supported by postmortem report and MLC report. He further submitted that extra-judicial confession is not reliable as it is a very weak evidence. Sanman Singh (PW-1) admitted that his confession was made in police station while Tularam (PW-2) & Gorelal (PW-3) admitted that their confession was made in front of Harnam (PW-11) a Home Guard Sainik. Such confession is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. In spite of this, appellant has been wrongly convicted by the trial Court under Section 302 of IPC. (6) It is further contended on behalf of appellant that deceased died due to fallen from roof and there was no intention of the accused to commit murder of deceased leading to her death. Therefore, no offence under Section 302 of IPC is not made out against the appellant and death of deceased is culpable homicidal not amounting to murder. At the most, appellant is liable to be convicted either under Section 304 Part I or Part II of IPC. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentences deserves to be set aside. (7) On the contrary, learned Counsel for respondent/State opposed the contentions of appellant and submitted that appellant is the only son of his mother who had caused blow of a stone slab on the vital part of his mother (deceased) i.e. on head, due to which deceased died during treatment on 26.04.2013 at Hamadia Hospital, Bhopal and learned trial Court has rightly been convicted and sentenced appellant under Section 302 of IPC. Therefore, no leniency can be adopted in favour of appellant. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this appeal. (8) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused impugned judgment as Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 7/30/2025 7:11:49 PM 4 well as record.
(9) The first question comes before this Court is whether the death of deceased was homicidal in nature or not ?
(10) Sanman Singh (PW-1), Tularam (PW-2) and Harnam (PW-11) stated in their statements that they found the deceased in injured condition who was lying on the floor. Home-guard Sainik - Harnam Singh (PW-11) dialed 108 from police station and thereafter, police took the deceased to Kurwai Hospital, Vidisha for treatment from where deceased was referred to Hamadia Hospital, Bhopal where deceased succumbed to injuries during treatment.
(11) Gheesulal Bharti (PW-8) Assistant Sub-Inspector stated in his examination- in-chief that after receiving information regarding death of deceased- Beenabai, he recorded a merg 0/13 under Section 173 of CrPC (Ex.P12) and gave notice to the witnesses and thereafter, safina form regarding naksha panchayatnama of deceased was prepared and after preparation of lash naksha panchayatnama wherein it was found that the death of the deceased was due to scuffle and body of deceased was sent for postmortem.
(12) Dr. Ashok Sharma (PW-7) stated in examination-in-chief that death of deceased was homicidal in nature due to head injury sustained by deceased and its complication.
(13) Considering the evidence of these witnesses and their unrebuttal evidence in their cross-examination by appellant, it is clear that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.
(14) Now, the question comes before this Court is whether the death of deceased was caused by appellant?
(15) Basically, the present case is based on extra-judicial confession. Confession is defined under Section 24 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
''24. Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding.
A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 7/30/2025 7:11:49 PM 5 inducement, [threat or promise] [For prohibition of such inducements, etc., see the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 316.], having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds, which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.'' (16) In the case of Laxman v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 2 Crimes 125 (Raj), it was held that an extra-judicial confession, if it is voluntary and truthful, is an efficacious piece of evidence to establish the guilt of the accused and it is not necessary that the evidence of extra-judicial confession should be corroborated on all material facts.
(17) Further, in the case of Shakhram Shankar Bansode v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1994 SC 1594, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is well-settled now that a retracted extra-judicial confession, though a piece of evidence on which reliance can be placed, but the same has to be corroborated by independent evidence. If the evidence of witness before whom confession made was unreliable and his conduct also doubtful and there is no other circumstance to connect accused with crime, conviction based solely on retracted extra-judicial confession is not proper and the accused is entitled to acquittal.
(18) Also, in the case of Madi Ganga v. State of Orissa AIR 1981 SC 1165, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the general trend of the confession is substantiated by some evidence, tallying with the particulars of confession for conviction of the accused.
(19) The Hon'ble Apex Court further in the cases of Sk. Yusuf v. State of W.B. [(2011) 11 SCC 754] and Pancho v. State of Haryana [(2011) 10 SCC 165] has observed as under:-
''Extra-judicial confession must be established to be true and made voluntarily and in a fit state of mind. The words of the witnesses must be clear, unambiguous and should clearly convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. The extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of conviction, if Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 7/30/2025 7:11:49 PM 6 it passes the test of credibility. The extra-judicial confession should inspire confidence and the court should find out whether there are other cogent circumstances on record to support it.'' (20) Similarly, in the case of Sahadevan & Anr vs State of Tamil Nadu (2012) 6 SCC 403, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
''16.Upon a proper analysis of the above-referred judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles which would make an extra- judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused. These precepts would guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused:
The Principles
i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution.
ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful.
iii) It should inspire confidence.
iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value, if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence.
v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.
vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law.'' (21) In the case at hand, Sanman Singh (PW-1) who is the brother of the husband of deceased and uncle of appellant-accused stated in his evidence that when he heard the sound of screaming at night from the house of deceased where deceased used to live with her son- present appellant, then he went along with Tularam (PW-2), Gorelal (PW-3) and Suryapal (PW-4) to the house of deceased where body of the deceased was found lying and injured. Blood was oozing out from the head of deceased. Meanwhile, appellant came from outside of house and when they asked about the situation, then "आररोपपी वककील नने बततायता कक अपनपी मतामां बपीनताबताई करो पतत्थर कता ससिलबटटता (ओरसिता) मतार ददियता हहै। आररोपपी सिने हम लरोगगों नने पपछता कक कयगों अपनपी मतामां करो ससिलबटटता मतार ददियता तब आररोपपी नने बततायता कक उसिकने दवतारता मतामांगनने पर उसिककी मतामां नने मताचचिसि नहहमां ददियता त्थता". Tularam (PW-2) has also supported the evidence of Sanman Singh (PW-Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 7/30/2025 7:11:49 PM 7
1) who had stated that when he with Sanman Singh went to the house of deceased, they saw that the body of deceased was lying injured and was not in a condition to speak anything. On being asked, appellant stated that "महैनने हह पतत्थर ससिल सिने मतारता।".
Evidence of Tularam (PW-2) has been duly supported by Harnam Singh (PW-11) also.
(22) Learned counsel for appellant submitted that since Harnam Singh (PW-11) is a Home Guard Sainik, therefore, no confession made to Harnam Singh shall be proved as against the appellant like accused of any offence as per provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, but it is undisputed fact that at the time of the confession made before Sanman Singh (PW-1), Tularam (PW-2) & Harnam Singh (PW-11), no FIR was lodged and status of appellant was not as an accused. Since Harnam Singh (PW-11) was not doing his public work, therefore, his statement is not covered as per Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
(23) Learned counsel for appellant further submitted that evidence of Sanman Singh (PW-1) & Tularam (PW-2) have much contradictions, inconsistencies and not reliable. But, considering the evidence of Sanman Singh (PW-1) & Tularam (PW-2), in considered opinion of this Court, there is no material contradiction and omission because these witnesses were lengthy cross-examined on behalf of appellant.
(24) In the case of Rammi @ Rameshwar Vs. State of M.P., 1999 (2) JLJ 354, it has been held that in lengthy cross-examination some omissions and contradictions may be outcome of the evidence. In para 24 of the aforesaid judgment has held as under:-
"24 When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non-discrepant. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 7/30/2025 7:11:49 PM 8 two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny."
(25) In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Taqdir Samsuddin Sheikh Vs. State of Gujrat and another, 2011(10) SCC 158 has held as under:-
"9. We are of the view that all omissions/contradictions pointed out by the appellants' counsel had been trivial in nature, which do not go to the root of the cause. It is settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions/ improvements/ embellishments etc. had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, omissions or improvements on trivial matters without affecting the case of the prosecution should not be made the court to reject the evidence in its entirety. The court after going through the entire evidence must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate court in natural course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons. (Vide:Sunil 8 Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC
657)."
(26) Considering the evidence of Sanman Singh (PW-1) & Tularam (PW-2) (uncle of the appellant) & Harnam Singh (PW-11), it was found that there is no enmity between them, so there is no reason to discard their evidence having some irrelevant omission and contradiction. Therefore, considering the evidence of Sanman Singh (PW-1), Tularam (PW-2) & Harnam Singh (PW-11), extra-judicial confession given by appellant before Sanman Singh (PW-1), Tularam (PW-2) & Harnam Singh (PW-11) was trustworthy, reliable and beyond doubt and it is an important piece of evidence against appellant-accused.
(27) Dr. Ashok Sharma (PW-7) admitted in his cross-examination that there is a possibility of injuries sustained by deceased was due to fallen from the roof, but there is not a single suggestion given by the appellant to witnesses Sanman Singh (PW-1), Tularam (PW-2) & Harnam Singh (PW-11) that the deceased was fallen from the roof of house.
(28) Blood-stained found on the vest (baniyan) of appellant was not sealed on the spot, but it is a part of faulty investigation and, therefore, accused is entitled to Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 7/30/2025 7:11:49 PM 9 get benefit of faulty investigation. Furthermore, human blood was found on the vest (baniyan) of deceased and appellant had to prove as to why and how the human blood was found on his vest (baniyan) which was recovered at his instance. He was unable to give any explanation regarding the blood stained found on his vest (baniyan), so this evidence is also proved against him.
(29) From the above discussion, it was found proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant and deceased (mother of the appellant) lived together at the house in which deceased was found injured and extra-judicial confession given by appellant to Sanman Singh (PW-1), Tularam (PW-2) & Harnam Singh (PW-11) was found proved, reliable, trustworthy and beyond doubt. Accordingly, prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt that appellant had assaulted his mother, due to which she succumbed to injuries during treatment.
(30) An alternative submission was also put forth by learned counsel for appellant that the alleged incident occurred all of a sudden as a result of quarrel between appellant and his mother (deceased) and there was no intention on his part to kill her mother. Therefore, offence under Section 302 of IPC is not made out and at the most, offence falls within the ambit of Section 304 of IPC. Appellant is in custody since date of his arrest i.e. 22-04-2013 and he has already served more than 12 years of incarceration. Therefore, a leniency may be adopted in favour of appellant.
(31) On the other hand, learned Counsel for State opposed the prayer of appellant and submitted that looking to nature of offence, appellant is not entitled for any leniency.
(32) The Indian Penal Code recognizes two kinds of Culpable Homicide. The first one is Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder (Section 299 and 304 of the IPC) and another one is Culpable Homicide amounting to Murder (Section 300 and 302 of IPC). Section 304 of IPC provides punishment for Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder. Under it, there are two kinds of punishments applying to two different circumstances:
(i) If the act by which death is caused is done with intention Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 7/30/2025 7:11:49 PM 10 of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the punishment is imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description of a term which may extend to ten years and fine.
(ii) If the act is done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the punishment is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years, or with fine, or with both.
(33) The provisions have been enshrined under Section 304 of IPC regarding punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Regarding awarding appropriate sentence to accused, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Gummukh Singh vs. State of Haryana (2009) 15 SCC 635 after considering catena of decisions of Jagrup Singh vs. State of Haryana (1981) 3 SCC 616, Gurmail Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab (1982) 3 SCC 185, Kulwant Rai vs. State of Punjab (1981) 4 SCC 245, Jagtar Singh vs. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 342, Hem Raj vs. State (Delhi Administration), [1990] Supp. SCC 291, Abani K. Debnath and Another vs. State of Tripura (2005) 13 SCC 422 and Pappu vs. State of MP (2006) 7 SCC 391, in detail has discussed following relevant factors, which are required to be taken into consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to accused.
''23. These are some factors which are required to be taken into consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused. These factors are only illustrative in character and not exhaustive. Each case has to be seen from its special perspective. The relevant factors are as under:
a) Motive or previous enmity;
b) Whether the incident had taken place on the spur of the moment;
c) The intention/knowledge of the accused while inflicting the blow or injury;
d) Whether the death ensued instantaneously or the victim died after several days;
e) The gravity, dimension and nature of injury;Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 7/30/2025 7:11:49 PM 11
f) The age and general health condition of the accused;
g) Whether the injury was caused without pre-meditation in a sudden fight;
h) The nature and size of weapon used for inflicting the injury and the force with which the blow was inflicted;
i) The criminal background and adverse history of the accused;
j) Whether the injury inflicted was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death but the death was because of shock;
k) Number of other criminal cases pending against the accused;
l) Incident occurred within the family members or close relations;
m) The conduct and behaviour of the accused after the incident.
Whether the accused had taken the injured/the deceased to the hospital immediately to ensure that he/she gets proper medical treatment?
These are some of the factors which can be taken into consideration while granting an appropriate sentence to the accused.'' (34) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (AIR 2017 SC 471) has observed as under:-
''10. However, in the singular facts of the case and noticing in particular, the progression of events culminating in the tragic incident, we are inclined to reduce the sentence awarded to him. Incidentally, the occurrence is of the year 2004 and meanwhile twelve years have elapsed. Further, having regard to the root cause of the incident and the events that sequentially unfolded thereafter, we are of the comprehension that the appellant was overpowered by an uncontrollable fit of anger so much so that he was deprived of his power of self-control and being drawn in a web of action reflexes, fired at the deceased and the injured, who were within his sight. The facts do not commend to conclude that the appellant had the intention of eliminating any one of those fired at, though he had the knowledge of the likely fatal consequences thereof. Be that as it may, on an overall consideration of the fact situation and also the time lag in between, we are of the view that the conviction of the appellant ought Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 7/30/2025 7:11:49 PM 12 to be moderated to one under Sections 304 Part 1 IPC and Further, considering the facts of the case in particular, according to us, it would meet the ends of justice, if the sentence for the offences is reduced to the period already undergone. We order accordingly." (35) Similarly, in the matter of Chand Khan Vs. State of M.P. 2006(3) M.P.L.J. 549, the Division Bench of this Court has also converted conviction of accused in attaining facts and circumstances of the case and held as under:-
"10. If the present case is considered in the light of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, it would show that the appellants caused single injury on the head of the deceased by farsa, which is a sharp edged weapon, but unfortunately Aziz Khan (PW-11) and Ishaq Khan (PW-13) have stated that he gave lathi blow on the head of the deceased. Even after considering this contradictory evidence it has to be taken into consideration that it is a case of single farsa blow inflicted by only appellant Chandkhan and appellant Naseem inflicted only lathi blow on the non-vital part of the body and in the absence of this evidence that the injury no.(i) was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and also looking to the various other circumstances like that the accused as well as the deceased are close relatives and the deceased was a person of criminal background and the deceased himself, we find that the case will not fall within the purview of section 300, Indian Penal Code but it will fall under section 304 Part II, culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
11. Consequently, appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of appellants under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code, is set aside and instead they are convicted under section 304 part II, Indian Penal Code. "
(36) On going through the evidence of prosecution, it is clear that appellant asked his mother/deceased for a matchbox to smoke a bidi and on her refusal, appellant thereafter picked up a stone slab and hit on her head, due to which deceased succumbed to injuries during treatment at Hamadia Hospital, Bhopal. On going through the medical evidence, it was found that only one head injury was found on the body of deceased, which is the only reason of death of deceased. So, in considered opinion of this Court, the act done by appellant-accused was due to sudden provocation as his mother refused to give a matchbox to him. (37) In view of foregoing discussions as well as considering the verdict of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 7/30/2025 7:11:49 PM 13 Hon'ble Apex Court and of this Court, the instant criminal appeal filed by appellant from jail deserves to be allowed in part. So far as the culpability of appellant is concerned, we hereby confirm the findings given by learned trial Court except conviction, which is hereby altered to Section 304 Part II of IPC, instead of Section 302 of IPC.
(38) Accordingly, the instant criminal appeal so far as it relates to present appellant is hereby allowed in part by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.12.2013 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha (MP) in Sessions Trial No.270 of 2013 and instead, he is convicted under Section 304 Part II of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 12 years. The fine amount as awarded by learned Trial Court stands maintained. In default of payment of fine, accused shall have to go further imprisonment as awarded by learned Trial Court. The sentence awarded to appellant by the Trial Court is modified and instead, the period of Life Imprisonment, the appellant is sentenced to the period of 12 years imprisonment. If he is completed jail sentence of 12 years including pre and post-conviction period, then he may be set at free. On completion of aforesaid period of 12 years' jail sentence of appellant and on verifying the same by jail authorities concerned, appellant shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
(39) A copy of this judgment along-with record be sent to concerned Trial Court for necessary information, so also a copy of this judgment be forwarded to concerned Jail Authority for information and compliance.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
*VJ*
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 7/30/2025
7:11:49 PM