Gauhati High Court
Page No. 1/14 vs The State Of Assam on 22 May, 2025
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No. 1/14
GAHC010077622020
2025:GAU-AS:6749
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRL.A(J)/21/2020
KUTU TELIPATHAR
DIMA HASAO, HAFLONG, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY PP, ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B BHAGAWATI, AMICUS CURIAE,
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
JUDGMENT
Date : 22-05-2025 [M. Choudhury, J] This criminal appeal from Jail under Section 383, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ['the Code' and/or 'CrPC', for short] is directed against a Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2019 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Dima Hasao, Haflong in Sessions Case no. 01/2017 [corresponding to G.R. Case no. 64/2016]. By the Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2019, the learned Sessions Judge, Dima Hasao, Haflong has convicted the appellant under Section 302, Indian Penal Code [IPC] after finding him guilty of uxoricide and Page No. 2/14 he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
2. The investigation was set into motion on lodgment of a First Information Report [FIR] before the Officer In-Charge, Maibang Police Station on 31.10.2016 by the informant, Asha Kurmi [P.W.1]. In the FIR, the informant-P.W.1 had inter alia alleged that at about 10-00 p.m. on 30.10.2016, the accused-appellant had inhumanly tortured her daughter, Baby Telepathar [the deceased] who was the wife of the appellant, and caused injuries on her head and other parts of her person with a wooden stick. Baby Telepathar was immediately shifted to Maibang Civil Hospital and it was during medical treatment, Baby Telepathar died at the hospital at about 03-00 a.m. on 31.10.2016.
3. On receipt of the FIR, the Officer In-Charge, Maibang Police Station registered the same as Maibang Police Station Case no. 24/2016 under Section 302, IPC and took up the investigation himself. During the course of investigation, the appellant was arrested. The I.O. [P.W.9] prepared a Sketch Map of the Place of Occurrence [P.O.] [Ext.-4] and seized one wooden stick vide a Seizure List [Ext.-1]. The deadbody of the deceased was forwarded to Haflong Civil Hospital for Post-Mortem Examination [PME]. The statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161, CrPC. The Post-Mortem Examination [PME] on the deadbody of the deceased was performed on 31.10.2016. The I.O. [P.W.9] after completing investigation, submitted a charge-sheet under Section 173[2], CrPC vide Charge-Sheet no. 21 dated 30.11.2016 finding a prima facie case against the appellant for committing murder of his wife.
4. On submission of the Charge-Sheet, the appearance of the appellant was secured by the committal court from custody. Copies were furnished to the appellant in compliance of Section 207, CrPC. Thereafter, the case records of G.R. Case no. 64/2016 was committed to the Court of Sessions by an Order of Commitment dated 24.01.2017. On receipt of the case records of G.R. Case no. 64/2016, the Court of Sessions registered the same as Sessions Case no. 01/2017.
Page No. 3/145. Before the Court of Sessions, the case was opened by the learned Public Prosecutor as per Section 326, CrPC. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel; and upon perusal of the materials on record; the learned Court of Sessions ['the Trial Court'] proceeded to frame the following charge against the appellant on 07.12.2017 :-
That you, on or about the 30.10.2016 at about 10 PM at Village - Saiding, P.S. - Maibong, caused injuries on the person of your wife Baby Telephator and as a result she died later on, and that you thereby committed murder by intentionally causing the death of Baby Telephator and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., The Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.
6. The charge so framed was read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
7. During the course of the trial, the prosecution side examined nine nos. of witnesses and exhibited five nos. of documents in order to bring home the charge of murder against the appellant. After closure of evidence from the prosecution side, the appellant was examined under Section 313, CrPC to bring into his notice the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence led by the prosecution and to provide him an opportunity to explain those. When the appellant was asked whether he would adduce any evidence, he declined to adduce any defence evidence. Thereafter, hearing the learned counsel for the parties; and upon evaluation of the evidence on record; the learned Trial Court proceeded to deliver the impugned Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence, as mentioned above.
8. We have heard Mr. B. Bhagawati, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Ms. S.H. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.
9. Mr. Bhagawati, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution projected two witnesses - P.W.5 & P.W.7 - as eye-witnesses to the incident. However, from the testimony of P.W.7, it would emerge that he was not an eye-witness to the Page No. 4/14 incident. In so far as the testimony of P.W.5 is concerned, he has submitted that the said witness was silent as regards the alleged weapon of assault which is a missing link in the chain of evidence. According to him, the missing link is a vital one. He has further submitted that amongst the other witnesses, few were post-occurrence witnesses and the remaining ones, other than the Autopsy Doctor and the I.O., deposed on hearsay. He has further submitted that the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased were opined to be caused by a heavy sharp weapon by the Autopsy Doctor [P.W.8], which is found to be inconsistent with the ocular testimony of P.W.5. He has further submitted that the appellant provided an explanation during his examination under Section 313, CrPC and since the explanation so provided is a plausible one, the case of the prosecution cannot be said to have established beyond reasonable doubts.
10. Ms. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State has submitted that it is not a case of circumstantial evidence as the sister of the deceased, P.W.5 had testified as an eye-witness to the alleged incident of assault on the deceased by the appellant. It is an admitted position that the death of the deceased was caused in the house wherein the appellant and the deceased used to reside. The house of the eye-witness, P.W.5 was in the immediate vicinity of the house of the appellant and the deceased, and her going to the place of occurrence after hearing commotion was quite natural. Ms. Borah has submitted that in case of inconsistency between the ocular evidence and medical evidence, it is ocular evidence which is given prevalence if the testimony of the eye witness is credible, reliable and not unshaken. The explanation provided by the appellant during his explanation was clearly a false explanation. It has been established from the prosecution evidence that the appellant was in confinement of the house with the deceased, without there being anyone else in the house and as such, either non-explanation or false explanation strengthens the case of the prosecution and it has to be as an additional link in the chain of evidence.
11. We have given our due consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the evidence/materials led during the trial in Sessions Case no. 01/2017, by perusing the materials/evidence made available in the case records, in Page No. 5/14 original.
12. The details of the prosecution witnesses and exhibits are as below :-
Prosecution witnesses P.W.1 Asha Kurmi - Informant P.W.2 Pran Kurmi P.W.3 Sanjay Gowala P.W.4 Sabita Kurmi P.W.5 Nisha Kurmi P.W.6 Helen Kurmi P.W.7 Bikky Kurmi P.W.8 Dr. Kaushik Kachari - Medical & Health Officer P.W.9 Sankar Das - Investigating Officer Exhibits Ext.-1 Seizure Memo Ext.-2 Post Mortem Examination Report Ext.-3 FIR Ext.-4 Sketch map Ext.-5 Charge Sheet
13. P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased and the mother-in-law of the appellant. From the testimony of P.W.1, it has emerged that it was at around 10-00 p.m. on the date of the incident, the incident had happened and in the said incident, the deceased sustained serious injuries on her head and on different parts of her person. Though with such injuries, her daughter was taken to Maibang Civil Hospital, but she died in the early morning hours on the next day of the injuries sustained by her. P.W.1 also testified to the effect that the incident had taken place at the house of the appellant and she lodged the FIR on the following day.
13.1. In her cross-examination, P.W.1 stated that she was not present at the time of the alleged occurrence and therefore, did not know why the alleged incident took place.
Page No. 6/1414. P.W.2 was the Village Headman. As per his testimony, it was around 06-00 a.m. on the morning following the date of the incident, P.W.1 told him that the appellant had killed his wife. He further deposed that with the help of the VDP Party, the appellant was handed over to the Police. He further testified that the Police had seized one wooden stick measuring 2 feet and 5½ inches from the house of the appellant on being led by the appellant while the appellant was in Police custody. He exhibited the Seizure List, Ext.-1 with his signature therein as Ext.-1[1]. P.W.2 further stated that he did not see the appellant resorting to any violence.
15. P.W.4 and P.W.6 were neighbours of the appellant and the deceased as well as of P.W.5. The testimony of P.W.4 and P.W.6 as regards the incident was hearsay in nature. P.W.4 stated that on the date of the alleged incident, she was lying sick on the bed and had heard that due to assault on the deceased by the appellant at night the deceased died of the injuries in the following morning. P.W.4 further stated that she had gone to the hospital to see the deceased. Like P.W.4, P.W.6 also stated that she did not see the alleged occurrence. P.W.6 further stated that she had also gone to the hospital and saw the deadbody of the deceased there.
16. P.W.5 was a sister of the deceased and is the sister-in-law of the appellant. In her testimony, P.W.5 testified to the effect that on the date of the alleged occurrence, she after having meal, had gone to bed with her children. Then suddenly in the night, she heard commotion from the house of the appellant and learnt that the appellant had beaten his wife. Then, she went to the house of the appellant and tried to intervene. But the appellant had also assaulted her. P.W.5 further stated that her sister sustained injuries all over her person and she had to be taken to Maibang Civil Hospital in an ambulance. It was in the early hours of the following morning, her sister expired.
16.1. During cross-examination, P.W.5 reiterated that she went to the house of the appellant on hearing the appellant beating his wife. The appellant was assaulting his wife by dragging her to the verandah of the house. P.W.5 denied a suggestion that at the time of the alleged occurrence, she was sleeping at her house with children and she did not see the incident.
Page No. 7/1417. P.W.7 was a brother of the deceased and is the brother-in-law of the appellant. In his examination-in-chief, P.W.7 testified that he went to the house of the appellant after hearing commotion and going there, he found the appellant assaulting his wife and there was profuse bleeding from the head of the deceased.
17.1. But in his cross-examination, P.W.7 stated that he did not see the alleged occurrence. Thus, the testimony of P.W.7 as regards witnessing any assault on the deceased is of hearing nature which cannot be accepted.
18. We now turn to the medical evidence which are in the form of testimony of the Autopsy Doctor [P.W.8] and PME Report [Ext.-2].
19. P.W.8 stated that on 31.10.2016, he was attached at Haflong Civil Hospital as Medical & Health Officer. On that day, he performed Post-Mortem Examination on the deadbody of the deceased in connection with Maibang Police Station Case no. 24/2016. After conducting Post- Mortem Examination, he found the following :-
1. 7 cm X 2 cm X 2 cm lacerated injury noted on left frontal parietal region of the scalp, 56' from left heel.
2. 1 cm X 1 cm abrasion on left forehead just above the eyebrow, 53 from left heel.
3. 2 cm X 2 cm abrasion on left maxillary prominence, 50 from left heel.
4. Graze abrasion, 4 cm X 4 cm noted on left cheek region, 48 from left heel.
5. 3 cm X 2 cm X 1 cm laceration noted on chin, 45 from left heel.
6. Blood clot, approx. 10 mm, noted in left external auditory canal.
7. Approx. 500 ml of clotted blood noted in left fronto parietal sub-dural region of brain.
19.1. P.W.8 stated that in the PME Report [Ext.-2], he opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to left fronto parietal sub-dural hemorrhage as inferred from signs, which were ante mortem in nature. He further testified that as per the nature of injuries, the injury Page No. 8/14 might have been caused by a heavy sharp weapon. P.W.8 also identified the signature of the Joint Director of Health Services, Dima Hasao in the PME Report as Ext.-2[2].
19.2. In cross-examination, P.W.8 stated that no X-ray and sonography was done in respect of the injuries sustained. He further stated that lacerated injuries and abrasion might result from a fall on a hard substance.
20. P.W.9 was the Investigating Officer [I.O.] of the case. P.W.9 stated that after registration of the FIR, he went to Maibang Civil Hospital along with a Magistrate after examining the informant at the Police Station. After conducting inquest proceeding, the deadbody was sent to Haflong Civil Hospital for Post-Mortem Examination. He then arrested the appellant and examined him at the Police Station. He then and his staff accompanied the appellant to the P.O., and on being led by the appellant, they recovered a wooden stick from the place where the appellant had kept it. It was in the knowledge of the appellant where he had kept the wooden stick used by him in striking the deceased on her head and the appellant had told him that he could show the place where he had kept wooden stick. On information given by the appellant and accompanying by the appellant, the stick was recovered and seized. He had recorded the statement of the appellant and the appellant's statement was also recorded by the Magistrate. P.W.9 [I.O.] exhibited the FIR [Ext.-3], the Sketch Map of the P.O. [Ext.-4] and the Charge-Sheet [Ext.-5].
20.1. In cross-examination, P.W.9 stated that at the P.O., he examined the witnesses who were either related or independent witnesses. He denied the suggestions which were put to him by the defence.
21. Due to the bar contained in Section 25 and Section 26 of the Evidence Act, the part of testimony of P.W.9 on the aspect that the stick [which was recovered by him on being led by the appellant] was used by the appellant to strike the deceased on her head is not admissible in evidence.
22. The testimony of the I.O. that it was after being led by the appellant to his house, the Page No. 9/14 appellant had handed over a stick to him and the stick was seized vide Seizure List [Ext.-1] had received corroboration from the testimony of P.W.2, the Village Headman.
23. It is settled that by virtue of Section 8 of the Evidence Act, the conduct of the accused person is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact.
24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.N. Venkatesh and another vs. State of Karnataka , reported in [2005] 7 SCC 714, has held that the evidence of the circumstance, simplicitor, that the accused pointed out to the Police Officer, the place where the dead body of the kidnapped boy was found and on their pointing out the body was exhumed, would be admissible as conduct under Section 8 irrespective of the fact whether the statement made by the accused contemporaneously with or antecedent to such conduct falls within the purview of Section 27 or not. The evidence of the Investigating Officer and the prosecution witnesses [P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.7 and P.W.4] and the spot mazhar witness that the accused had taken them to the spot and pointed out the place where the dead body was buried, is an admissible piece of evidence under Section 8 as regards the conduct of the accused.
25. In Prakash Chand vs. State [Delhi Administration] , [2013] 7 SCC 45, it has been observed that there is a clear distinction between the conduct of a person against whom an offence is alleged, which is admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, if such conduct is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact and the statement made to a Police Officer in the course of an investigation which is hit by Section 162 of the Code. What is excluded by Section 162 of the Code is the statement made to a Police Officer in the course of investigation and not the evidence relating to the conduct of an accused person [not amounting to a statement] when confronted or questioned by a Police Officer during the course of an investigation.
26. Reverting back to the facts of the case in hand, and following the principle laid down in Section 8 of the Evidence Act, we find that the conduct of the appellant having led the I.O. to his house to hand over the stick after taking it out from his house, even if he was in police Page No. 10/14 custody, is an admissible piece of evidence as regards the conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.
27. Learned Amicus Curiae has made a submission that there is apparent inconsistency in the ocular testimony of P.W.5 vis-à-vis the evidence of the Autopsy Doctor [P.W.8]. P.W.8 had opined that the injuries sustained by the deceased might have been caused by a heavy sharp weapon. Pointing to that aspect, learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that the prosecution had projected that it was the stick, seized vide Seizure List [Ext.-1], which was used by the appellant to assault the deceased leading to her death whereas the opinion of the Autopsy Doctor is that the weapon of assault was a heavy sharp weapon. The wooden stick seized vide Seizure List [Ext.-1] was a wooden stick of length 2 feet 51/2 inches.
28. If we turn once again to the testimony of P.W.5, we find that P.W.5 testified to have witnessed the assault made by the appellant on the deceased when she went to the house of the appellant and the deceased, after hearing commotion from their house. P.W.5 did not say anything about the weapon of assault. Non-mentioning of the weapon of assault may, at best, be an omission on the part of P.W.5. At the same time, the defence also did not elicit anything from P.W.5 as regards the weapon of assault.
29. In Abdul Sayeed vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in [2010] 10 SCC 259, it has been observed that where the eye-witnesses' account is found credible and trustworthy, a medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities cannot be accepted as conclusive. The eye-witnesses' account requires a careful independent assessment and evaluation for its credibility, which should not be adversely prejudged on the basis of any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. A number of previous judgments on the point have been considered by the the Hon'ble Court in Abdul Sayeed. It has been noted that it would be erroneous to accord undue primacy to the hypothetical answers of medical witnesses to exclude the eye-witnesses' account which had to be tested independently and has to be treated not as the 'variable' keeping the medical evidence as the 'constant'. Ordinarily, the value of medical evidence is only corroborative. It proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The Page No. 11/14 use which the defence can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged and thereby, discredit the eye- witnesses. Unless however the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by eye- witnesses, the testimony of the eye-witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence. The position of law in cases where there is a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence has been observed to have crystallised to the effect that the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence. However, when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, that it becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence. It is only when the medical evidence goes to completely rule out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved.
30. In the light of the above exposition of law, when the status of P.W.5 is examined, it is found that P.W.5 was a sister of the deceased and her house was in the vicinity of the house where the appellant and the deceased resided, and where the incident had occurred. Hearing noise from the house of the appellant and the deceased, during night hours, P.W.5 had gone there and found that the appellant was assaulting the deceased. The appellant was found to have dragged his wife to the verandah of the house. There is nothing on record that the testimony of P.W.5 has been shaken in any manner on the points regarding her arrival at the place of occurrence when the assault was being made. Though P.W.5 is a related witness, her rushing to the place of occurrence hearing the beating of her sister from the nearby residence either to rescue or save her sister was quite natural and the testimony of P.W.5 cannot be doubted on that score. There is, therefore, no reason to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.5 on that aspect. By no stretch, that part of the testimony of P.W.5 as an eye-witness can be discarded. There is nothing on record to infer that P.W.5 was an interested witness.
31. When the appellant was examined under Section 313, CrPC, he was found to have provided two different kinds of explanation while stating that he did not hit his wife. Firstly, the appellant stated that his wife herself banged her head against the wall and sustained injuries. Subsequently, the appellant stated that his wife had accidentally hit her head against Page No. 12/14 the wall and sustained injuries. He had admitted that he and his wife were involved in a scuffle. It is worthwhile to mention that a question whether the injuries sustained by the deceased, were possible to be sustained from a wooden stick was not put to the Autopsy Doctor by the defence.
32. The object of examination of an accused under Section 313, CrPC is to enable the accused to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. The process benefits the accused and aids the Court in arriving at the final verdict. It cannot be said that the statement of an accused recorded under Section 313, CrPC does not deserve any value or utility if it contains inculpatory admissions. The need of law for examining the accused with reference to incriminating circumstances appearing against him in prosecution evidence is not for observance of a ritual in a trial, nor is it a mere formality. It has a salutary purpose. It enables the court to be apprised of what the accused person has to say about the circumstances appearing against him from the prosecution evidence. Answers to the questions may sometimes be flat denial or outright repudiation of those circumstances. In certain cases, the accused would offer some explanations to incriminating circumstances. In very rare instances, the accused may even admit or own incriminating circumstances adduced against him, perhaps for the purpose of adopting legally recognized defences. In all such cases the court gets the advantage of knowing his version about those aspects and it helps the court to effectively appreciate and evaluate the evidence in the case. If an accused admits any incriminating circumstance appearing in evidence against him there is no warrant that those admissions should altogether be ignored merely on the ground that such admissions were advanced as a defence strategy. Answers given by the accused during examination under Section 313, CrPC can well be taken into consideration in deciding whether the prosecution evidence can be relied on and whether the accused is liable to be convicted of the offences charged against him. Answers of the accused, when they contain admission of circumstances against him are not by themselves, delinked from the evidence, can be used for arriving at a finding that the accused had committed the offence. Such a statement, as not on oath, does not qualify as a piece of evidence under Section 3 of the Evidence Act. However, the inculpatory aspect as may be borne from the statement may be used to lend credence to the case of the prosecution [Ref : State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Page No. 13/14 Lakshmi; (1998) 4 SCC 336].
33. If the facts which are within the special knowledge of the accused are not satisfactorily explained by him, then that can be a factor against the accused though such factor by itself is not conclusive of guilt. But, it becomes relevant while considering the totality of the circumstance. A proper explanation of one's conduct or a version different from prosecution version, without being obliged to face cross-examination, can provide necessary hint or clue for the court to have a different perspective and solve the problem before it.
34. From what can be observed from the explanation provided by the appellant during his cross-examination, the appellant had admitted about his presence in the house where the incident of assault on his wife took place. There was also admission on the part of the appellant that there was a scuffle between himself and his wife on that night. How his wife had sustained the injuries, that too, at least five, the appellant is found to have provided two kinds of explanations which are at variance to each other. If the deceased had accidentally hit her head, it cannot be logically inferred that she would sustain the five injuries mentioned in the PME Report accidentally. It cannot also be logically inferred that the deceased banging her head herself against the wall would sustain the injuries mentioned in the PME Report, and such number of injuries. Thus, the explanation provided by the appellant as regards the injuries sustained by the deceased is found to be a false one. The same would not enure any benefit to the appellant. Rather, it would add weight to the case of the prosecution.
35. There is no doubt that a conviction can be based on a testimony of a solitary eye- witness if his/her testimony passes the test of reliability. Section 134 of the Evidence Act contains a prescription that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact. Therefore, it is not the number of witnesses but the quality of evidence, that is, material. Reliance can be placed in the testimony of the solitary eye-witness if the Court reached at a conclusion that the version of the solitary eye-witness is the true and correct version of the case of the prosecution. The decisive test to accept the testimony of the solitary eye-witness is that the testimony must have the ring of truth and is cogent, credible, reliable and is not shaken in any manner by the defence.
Page No. 14/1436. Having considered the testimony of P.W.5, the testimony is found to be having the ring of truth and is cogent, credible, reliable and is not shaken in any manner by the defence. The testimony of P.W.5, which itself is sufficient, gets corroboration from the other evidence, as discussed hereinabove.
37. In the light of the discussion made above and for the reasons assigned therein, we find that the prosecution has been able to establish the charge of uxoricide against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts by leading cogent, credible and reliable evidence. Resultantly, the present criminal appeal is found to be bereft of any merits and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. As a corollary, while affirming the Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2019 of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dima Hasao, Haflong in Sessions Case no. 01/2017, the present criminal appeal is dismissed.
38. Before parting with the record, we wish to place our appreciation on record as regards the services rendered by Mr. B. Bhagawati, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant and direct the Registry to make available to him just remuneration as per the notified fee structure applicable to the Amicus Curiae.
39. The District Legal Services Authority is directed to award adequate compensation to the victim[s] after due enquiry under Section 357A, CrPC and the extant Victim Compensation Scheme, 2012 framed thereunder. We further observe that such enquiry shall be undertaken and completed with utmost expediency and thereafter, to award and disburse appropriate compensation thereunder to the victims entitled upon conclusion of such enquiry.
40. The records of the trial court are to be sent back forthwith.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant