Raja Ram & Others vs State Of U.P. on 13 February, 2018

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Raja Ram & Others vs State Of U.P. on 13 February, 2018

(Per Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar,J.) We have heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Panday appearing for the appellants and Sri Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A for the State.

This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgement and order dated 22.09.1983 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Sessions Trial No. 556 of 1982 convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants Raja Ram, Anil, Surender and Pramod to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 I.P.C.

During the pendency of the appeal accused-appellant no.1 namely Raja Ram died and the appeal filed by him has been abated vide order dated 21.05.2012.

The important and relevant facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-

Accused-appellants Anil and Surender are sons of co-accused-appellant Raja Ram. They all are the resident of Mohalla Bagh Birghatan, PS- Kotwali, Bareilly. Other accused-appellant Pramod is said to be friend of accused-appellant Surender. He is resident of Mohalla-Kalibari, PS- Baradari. Devi Das (PW1) is informant of the case who is resident of Mohalla-Shiklapur, PS- Baradari, District-Bareilly. Grand father of the informant and great grand father of Munna Lal (deceased) were real brothers. Originally they were resident of Bareilly. About 5 to 6 years back deceased Munna Lal, father and uncle of Lala Ram etc. shifted from Bareilly to Mohalla Nawabpura, District-Moradabad but Banwari brother of the deceased and his wife continued at Bareilly.

Prosecution alleged that on 17.06.1982 there was marriage function of Sheela daughter of Lala Ram with the son of Joharimal, R/o Aligarh. Joharimal is maternal uncle and related to accused-appellant Raja Ram. The invitation card Ex. 1 is available on record. It is alleged that Devi Das and Munna Lal (deceased) etc. had attended that marriage from the side of Lala Ram. Accused-appellants Anil, Surender and Pramod also participated in that marriage from the side of bridegroom. It is alleged that at the time of marriage function on 17.06.1982 the named three accused-appellants Anil, Surender and Pramod were intoxicated and in that state of mind they made indecent gesture while dancing towards ladies who were attending the function. Munna Lal (deceased) objected to this misbehaviour of the accused and also chastised them. Annoyed with this the accused-appellants threatened deceased Munna Lal that they will teach him a lesson on his arrival at Bareilly. This fact is said to be the genesis and motive of the alleged murder of deceased Munna Lal. It is further alleged that in the night of 6/7.7.1982 deceased Munna Lal along with Devidas (PW1), Satya Deo (PW2), Ram Autar (PW3) and Brindaban had gone to exhibition on the Mission Ground in Bareilly city. On that day Munna Lal came to Bareilly from Moradabad to give invitation of his Tika ceremony to his brother's wife and others and in the evening deceased Munna Lal, Devi Das, Satya Deo and Ram Autar etc. made a programme to see exhibition. They went to Mission ground after 09:00 PM. Allegedly at about midnight when they were returning home from the Exhibition ground via Shiklapur Chauraha where there was a meat shop as well as betel stall near this Chauraha and other shops were situated and most of the shops were closed and at that point of time the deceased was somewhat ahead of his other companions. The four accused persons came out from behind the betel stall and challenged deceased Munna Lal that they will teach him lesson for his misbehaviour and misconduct at the marriage function at Moradabad. Munna Lal (deceased) in order to save himself from the clutches of the accused persons ran away towards Hanuman temple situate on eastern side. Accused persons chased him. Accused-appellants Anil and Raja Ram were armed with Kanta, accused-appellant Surender was armed with spear and accused-appellant Pramod was armed with a lathi. Accused made assault on him with their weapons overpowering him near the temple where deceased Munna Lal received injuries and fell down. Even after his falling down on the ground the accused persons assaulted him with their weapons. The incident was witnessed by the companions of the deceased who also rushed to the spot making alarm and noises. It is also alleged that when Munna Lal (deceased) was coming near the Chauraha, his Bush-shirt was hanging on his shoulder, which fell down on the ground as he was running towards the temple to save his life from the accused persons. On alarm being raised the accused persons fled away towards the east. Further, it is alleged by the prosecution that electric tube light and bulbs were lighted on the electric pole at the Chauraha and on the gate of the temple. All the accused persons were identified by the witnesses in electric light. Devidas and Satya Deo brought the injured Munna Lal in a serious condition on a rickshaw to Sadar Hospital where he was admitted for medical treatment. Thereafter, Devidas came back to his house and dictated written report Ex. KA1 to his neighbour Vinai and had given the same to PS-Baradari at 01:15 A.M. in the night of 6/7.7.1982. On the basis of the written report, a chik report Ex. KA3 was got prepared by HC. Ram Chandra Singh who registered criminal case in the G. D. at report no. 4. Its true copy is Ex. KA4. Injured Munna Lal was examined by Dr. S. C. Gupta at 12:30 A.M. in the night at the hospital. After medical examination on the same night Munna Lal succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. Thereafter, Dr. S. C. Gupta sent its message to PS-Kotwali by the memo Ex. KA11 at 01:15 A.M. S.I. Bhupal Singh reached the hospital at 05:30 A.M. on 07.07.1982 where he came to know that Munna Lal had died. When he returned back to police station, the case was altered from Section 307 I.P.C. to Section 302 I.P.C. vide G. D. No. 24 and its copy is Ex. KA5. The post-mortem examination of the body of the deceased Munna Lal was conducted by Dr. S. K. Saxena on 07.07.1982 at 04:00 P.M. It also transpires from the record that S.I. Bhupal Singh started investigation in this case on 07.07.1982 at 01.20 A.M. He recorded the statement of HC. Ramchander and Devidas (complainant) at police station and went to the place of occurrence at 02:30 A.M. Thereafter, he made search of the accused person and he reached the hospital at 05:30 A.M. where he came to know about the death of victim Munna Lal. Thereafter, again he came to the place of occurrence where he recorded the statement of Satya Deo and prepared the site plan Ex. KA6. He also took the plain and blood stained earth from the place of incident and prepared its memo Ex. KA7. He also took the shirt of the deceased in his possession and gave it in the superdigi of Devidass. Supurdaginama Ex. KA2 was got prepared. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to S.I. Mool Raj Sharma on 08.07.1982. He made arrest of the accused persons. During interrogation accused Anil confessed use of weapon in murder and while in custody on his pointing out Kanta Ex. KA-8 was recovered from the heap of rubbish on the 'Kudaghar'. Its recovery memo Ex. KA8 was prepared on the spot by S.I. Bhupal Singh. The site plan of the place of recovery Ex. KA-18 was prepared by S.I. Mool Raj Sharma. The recovered weapon Kanta was sent to Serologist for chemical examination and after completion of investigation S.I. Mool Raj Sharma submitted a charge-sheet against accused persons Ex. KA-15. Thereafter, four accused persons Raja Ram, his two sons Anil and Surender and one Pramod Kumar were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. for the murder of Munna Lal. All the accused-appellants were convicted by the trial judge for the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment.

During trial prosecution examined PW1 Devi Das, PW2 Satya Dev Sharma, PW3 Ram Avtar, PW4 Ram Chandra Singh, PW5 SI Bhupal Singh, PW6 Dr. S. K. Saxena, PW7 Dr. S. C. Gupta, PW8 S.I. Mool Raj Sharma, PW9 S.I. R. P. Gupta.

Further, it transpires from the record that on receipt of memo Ex. KA11 from the hospital to Kotwali its entry was made in the G. D. of Police Station-Kotwali vide its copy Ex. KA 19 and on this information S.I. R. P. Gupta left the Kotwali for the preparation of the Inquest Report of the deceased and entry to this effect has been made in G. D. No. 21 at 09:35 A.M. S.I. R. P. Gupta prepared the Inquest Report Ex. KA21 in the Hospital. Thereafter relevant papers like photo lash Ex. KA22, challan lash Ex. KA23, letter to R.I. Ex. KA24 and letter to C.M.O. Ex. KA25 were prepared by this witness on the spot for the purpose of conducting post-mortem.

Defence case as stated in the statement of the accused persons is that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity. Accused-appellant Pramod stated that in March, 1982 Devi Das took Rs. 250/- on credit from him but he did not repay the same. On demand altercation took place between them. Accused-appellant Raja Ram stated that he is not related to Joharimal. It was further stated that Dauji is his cousin brother. His son eloped with the sister of Munna Lal (deceased) and brought her to his house. Thereafter, Nathoo Lal, father of the deceased and Devi Das came to his house to take back the girl but they refused, so they were annoyed with him.

Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the prosecution has alleged that incident took place in night but no witness of nearby locality has not been produced. Enmity between accused persons and the complainant is an admitted fact in spite of this no independent witness has been produced by the prosecution and the accused-appellants were falsely implicated for the murder of deceased Munna Lal. It is further contended that motive and immediate cause of the murder of the deceased Munna Lal is neither probable nor proved. Next point of contention is with regard to challenge of lodging the F.I.R. and material omission and deficiency in conducting the investigation, which resulted into prejudice to the accused persons. Presence of the eye witnesses named in the F.I.R. has been challenged and the conduct of the witnesses before and after the commission of the alleged incident has also been made a challenge, certain omissions, discrepancies, contradictions in inter se statements of the eye witnesses have been shown which we will deal later on. It was further argued that medical report does not support the eye version account and further the injuries shown on the body of the victim and the ante mortem injuries shown by Dr. S. K. Saxena, who conducted the post-mortem and the report submitted by him does not correspond with each other. The medical evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case being inconsistent in itself, thus, it cannot be said to be believable and trustworthy. It was lastly argued that the judgement of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court is against the weight of evidence produced in the trial and the finding of the trial court is illegal, perverse and conviction of the accused-appellants are bad in law. Hence, he submitted that appeal be allowed and the judgement of conviction be set aside.

Per contra learned A.G.A. supported the impugned judgement and rebutted the above arguments stating that neither there is any illegality nor perversity in the impugned judgement and order of sentence and the same is well reasoned and based on cogent and credible evidence, nothing adverse comes out in the prosecution evidence tendered before the trial court as such the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

So far as contention with regard to the F.I.R. and motive is concerned we have gone through the record and paper book. We find that the incident happened in the midnight of 06/07.07.1982 and its report was promptly lodged on 07.07.1982 at 01:15 A.M. and the distance from the place of incident to the police station is alleged to be 1 K.M. The complainant who lodged the F.I.R. is Devi Das. Accused-appellants Anil, Surender S/o Raja Ram, Raja Ram and Pramod Kumar are named in the F.I.R. and the weapons assigned to the accused-appellants are Kanta, Ballam and Lathi. During evidence of fact witnesses accused-appellants Anil and Raja Ram are said to be armed with Kanta, accused-appellant Surender with spear and accused-appellant Pramod Kumar with Lathi. PW1 Devi Das, PW2 Satya Dev Sharma and PW3 Ram Avtar are the eye witnesses of the alleged occurrence. According to their statements, at the time of occurrence they were coming back to their house alongwith deceased Munna Lal after seeing the exhibition. They further stated that accused-appellants came out from the back side of the betel stall and challenged Munna Lal (deceased) to teach him lesson for his misbehaviour during the marriage function at Moradabad. Further all the witnesses have stated that the murder of the deceased Munna Lal was committed in order to take the revenge of the misbehaviour of the deceased Munna Lal at the time of the marriage function on 17.06.1982. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants argued that the story of the misbehaviour of the accused-appellant in the marriage at Moradabad is concocted and fabricated to give the colour to the prosecution story. The invitation card of the marriage does not have a mention of Jagdish S/o Joharimal (bridegroom) but the name of the bridegroom is mentioned in the marriage card Ex. KA1 as a Lalamal. Further contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that incident of murder is said to be at midnight 12 O' clock on 06/07.07.1982 and the report was lodged very promptly at 01:15 A.M. The detail description of the incident mentioned in the report itself made it suspicious.

Considering the aforesaid arguments, we have perused the statements of the fact witnesses and found that all of the three fact witnesses PW1 to PW3 have stated that when they were coming back from the exhibition alongwith deceased Munna Lal, near Shiklapur Chauraha they were behind the deceased Munna Lal and at that point of time accused persons came from behind the bushes of the betel shop and chased the deceased to teach him lesson for his misconduct, made earlier in the marriage function at Moradabad. On this challenge made by the accused persons, deceased Munna Lal in order to save himself ran away towards the Hanuman Temple but the accused persons overpowered the deceased and assaulted him with the weapons to which they were armed i.e. Kanta, spear (ballam) and lathi. Further, they have stated that all the witnesses have seen that in the process of assault being completed the shirt of the deceased which at that time was kept on his shoulder fell down. It is important to mention here that Investigating Officer has reached on the spot at 02:30 P.M. in the night but the shirt was taken into custody on the next day and further relevant point is that PW1 during his statement in the Court had not identified the shirt. Further, the witnesses especially PW1 during in his examination has specifically and categorically stated that he took the injured to the hospital and at that time deceased was wearing paint, baniyan and shirt. So the story set up by the prosecution and the recovery of the bush-shirt of the deceased and the inconsistency in the statement of the witnesses comes under cloud of suspicion. It is pertinent to mention that it is highly unnatural that accused persons who are known to the deceased and the witnesses had not attempted to cover their faces in order to conceal their identity because as per prosecution story they kept themselves hidden behind the betel shop and there was source of light near the place of incident. Further, all the fact witnesses PW1 to PW3 are related and interested witnesses.

In Thoti Manohar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2012) 3 SCC Crl. 731, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-

"Interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny, the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient to base conviction in the circumstances of the particular case. Further observed that evidence of a witness cannot be discarded only on the ground that he is either partisan or interested or closely related to the deceased if it is otherwise found to be trustworthy and credible. The said evidence only requires scrutiny with more care and caution, so that neither the guilty escapes nor the innocent is wrongly convicted. If on such careful scrutiny, the evidence is found to be reliable and probable, then only it can be acted upon and if it is found to be improbable or suspicious, it ought to be rejected."

Although we are conscious of the legal proposition that in criminal trial only on the ground that witnesses are related and are interested witness cannot be the sole ground to discard their testimony but law requires that their evidence is to be carefully and cautiously scrutinized. On the touch stone of this legal proposition, we find that post conduct after the incident of the witnesses is found to be highly doubtful because of the fact that Investigating Officer has not interrogated any independent person of the vicinity neither they have been examined by the prosecution during the trial. In the facts situation when the witnesses have stated that the incident of assault took place in front of temple and there was source of light and it has also accrued from the prosecution evidence that there were shops near the place of the incident, neither the Pujari of the temple nor the shopkeepers of the locality have been examined or produced during trial. Only PW1 to PW3 whose statements reveal that they are interested and related to the deceased, have been produced during trial.

"It is a trite law that every prosecution case depends on its own facts and circumstances and it is a common observation that a man can speaks lies but circumstances cannot."

In this case there is delay in the preparation of the Inquest report and the submission of the special report to the concerned Magistrate, which is explicit from the chik F.I.R. that the same has been sent after two days of the incident and the Inquest report was prepared on the next day. Further, the Inquest Report Ex. KA21 creates a reasonable doubt in its preparation because perusal of it reveals that on the 1st page of the Inquest Report only the name and parentage of the deceased is mentioned. On page no. 2 we do not find the signature of the S.I. who prepared the Inquest Report. Further, PW1 stated that Inquest Report was prepared by S.I. of the PS-Baradari but we find that PW-8 who prepared the Inquest Report was not posted at that time at PS-Baradari instead he was posted at PS-Kotwali. Although the prosecution tried to submit an explanation that since the memo Ex. KA11 received from the Hospital at Kotwali but the Inquest Report was actually prepared by PW8 S.I. of the Police Station-Kotwali which is only a defect in the investigation. Further, we find that Inquest Report does not mention any crime number of the case which becomes significant as the defence version is that F.I.R. was anti timed and after due deliberation and concoction with the police personnel. It is an admitted fact that F.I.R. has not been lodged at PS-Kotwali but it was lodged at PS-Baradari in spite of the fact that PS-Kotwali is nearer to the hospital and PW1 explained that since the place of incident situate in PS-Baradari that is why F.I.R. has not been lodged at PS-Kotwali. Considering this fact into consideration, it is a question mark that why the memo Ex. KA11 was sent to the PS-Kotwali and why PW-8 S.I. who was posted at PS-Kotwali conducted and prepared the Inquest Report. So the preparation of the Inquest Report and recovery of the shirt of the deceased comes under the cloud of suspicion.

So far as contention of learned counsel with regard to the medical evidence inter se does not support the eye version account, we have perused the statement of PW7 Dr. S. C. Gupta who examined the injuries of the deceased Munna Lal in the Hospital on 07.07.1982 at 12:30 A.M. and the ante mortem injuries examined by PW6 Dr. S. K. Saxena who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased on 07.07.1982 at 04:00 P.M. It is relevant to mention here that incident is said to be of midnight of 06/07.07.1982 and the complainant of this case brought the injured to the hospital before lodging the F.I.R. PW1/complainant stated that after admitting the injured/victim to the Hospital, he returned back to his house and changed his cloth which is very unnatural conduct. According to him since the blood of the injured/victim was his clothes so he went to change the same and for the said purpose he returned to his house after admitting the injured/victim in Hospital and thereafter, he went to the police station to lodge an F.I.R. which was registered under Section 307 I.P.C. It is also important to mention that according to medical report the death of deceased occurred at 01:10 A.M. A very peculiar and unnatural circumstance that during a short span of the incident to death, the conduct of the complainant that he left the victim in Hospital and went to his house to change his cloth and not dared to rush to the hospital instead of it went to lodge the F.I.R. at 01:15 A.M. Under the above stated facts situation, we are of the view that lodging of an F.I.R. and the conduct of the complainant appears to be highly doubtful. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we find that it shakes the whole prosecution story. Further, PW-7 Dr. S. C. Gupta who has examined the injuries of the deceased Munna Lal before his death found two penetrating wounds, two incised wounds and four lacerated wounds. PW7 also proved the memo Ex. KA11 which is information of the death which shows that Munna Lal expired in the hospital at 01:10 A.M. Prosecution tried to show that PW1 was not present in the Hospital at that point of time and that was the only reason the F.I.R. was lodged under Section 307 of I.P.C. at PS-Baradari as we have already stated that he had gone to his house is a question mark and further PW1 in his cross-examination as to some extent admitted that he left the Hospital for his house when Munna Lal expired. If that fact is true then a question arises why the F.I.R. was lodged under Section 307 I.P.C. and not under Section 302 I.P.C. because while making this statement the witness has changed his version and stated that he left the Hospital and at that time Munna Lal was alive and seeing that bottle of the glucose falling down, he thought that now Munna Lal will not survive. The statement of this witness to the effect of the death of Munna Lal under the peculiar facts and circumstances are not acceptable and does not inspire confidence of the Court. We have no hesitation to record our findings that this witness has not stated truth before the Court. The finding of the trial court on this point that report was not lodged anti timed and after consultation of the police is against the weight of evidence. If we compare the post-mortem report Ex. KA9 and the injury report Ex. KA10 which were duly proved respectively by PW6 Dr. S. K. Saxena and PW7 Dr. S. C. Gupta, we find that PW6 who proved the post-mortem report Ex. KA9 found 11 injuries on the body of the deceased in which 4 injuries are stitched wound, 3 incised wound, 2 lacerated wound and 2 abrasion. PW6 Dr. S. K. Saxena also stated that at the time of the post-mortem the stomach of the deceased was empty. On comparison, we find that in description of injuries nos. 6, 7 and 10 there is some manipulation. Lacerated wound appears to have been changed to incised wound by changing L (Lacerated) to I (Incised). Prima facie we are of the view that injury report proved by PW7 Dr. S. C. Gupta and the ante mortem injuries proved by PW6 Dr. S. C. Gupta do not tally and the finding of the manipulation and his explanation accepted by the trial court is further against the weight of evidence. So we have no hesitation to hold that medical report does not corroborate the eye version account and there is substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants.

With regard to the contradictions, discrepancies and inconsistency in the statement of the fact witnesses, learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that PW1 complainant in his statement before the Court himself has not stated that death of Munna Lal took place before lodging the F.I.R. In his statement he tried to deliberately over shadow the death of the deceased because in his cross-examination he stated that he left the Hospital for his house when Munna Lal was expired but immediately he changed his statement and he stated that when he left the Hospital deceased Munna Lal was alive but he saw the bottle of the glucose was falling down during his treatment, so he thought that Munna Lal (deceased) will not survive.

Appraisal of this statement clearly reveals inconsistency in the statement on the point of death of deceased Munna Lal. It is important to mention here that on the information of the complainant to the police station, F.I.R. under Section 307 I.P.C. was initially registered, this fact gives weight to the defence argument that F.I.R. was lodged with concoction and deliberation and is anti timed. We find discrepancies in the statement of the fact witnesses with regard to the place of exhibition although it is not so material but in the facts and circumstances as per prosecution story that before the incident witnesses alongwith the deceased had gone to see the exhibition so it becomes relevant. In this connection it may be pertinent to mention that name of the school where the exhibition was held is neither given in the report nor this fact has been specified in the statement given under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Further, perusal of the statement of complainant transpires that after the occurrence, the family members of the deceased had come from Moradabad and S.I. had a talk with the person who had come from Moradabad to the Hospital and also talked with Vinay who was the scribe of the F.I.R. It has been specifically stated by the witness PW1 that after the conversation S.I. took the signature of PW1 on some writing, although this question has not been put by the defence specifically to PW1 to explain but under the facts and circumstances, it gives weight to the arguments of the defence counsel that F.I.R. has been lodged after deliberation and consultation. Further, the recovery of the Kanta was made on the disclosure statement of the accused Anil. As per allegation of the prosecution the recovered Kanta was blood stained but the report of the chemical examiner reveals that integrated spot of the blood were found on the Kanta, so it cannot be said that the said Kanta which was recovered at the instance of accused-appellant Anil contained the human blood. Further, this alleged recovery is said to be made on 14.07.1982 but the statement regarding recovery has been recorded by the Investigating Officer with an unreasonable delay on 14.08.1982. So we conclude that this alleged recovery of Kanta does not give strength to the prosecution case. Recovery of the shirt, as we have discussed above, is also found to be doubtful.

With regard to the ante mortem injuries stated in the post-mortem report, doctor has categorically stated in his statement as well as in report that stomach of the deceased was found empty. It is relevant to mention here that facts witnesses have specifically stated that the deceased took Pakoda and Chhola before incident while he was witnessing the exhibition. Although the exact time has not given in the statement but it is an admitted fact that deceased had eaten Pakoda and Chhola before incident and the doctor has admitted that normally food is digested within 2 to 4 hours. Under these facts and circumstances, the finding of the doctor that stomach of the deceased was empty at the time of post-mortem creates a reasonable doubt about the date and time of the alleged incident of murder. It is surprising to note that the fact witnesses have stated in their statements that after the assault when the injured/victim demanded water, instead of water, the witnesses had dropped some liquor in the mouth of the deceased on the spot. On this score, we find that the date and time of the incident as alleged by the prosecution does not stands corroborated with the medical evidence. To some up the above discussion we find that lodging of an F.I.R. is under heavy cloud of suspicion. The motive and immediate cause of the incident, in the facts and circumstances of the case is highly improbable and that has not been even cogently established. The medical testimony is not in consonance with the eye version account. The alleged recovery of the shirt and alleged weapon of Kanta have not been proved by any cogent and credible evidence.

Cumulative effect of all the above facts and circumstances of the case and after carefully scrutinizing the evidence on record, we have come to the conclusion that prosecution failed to prove that accused persons in furtherance of their common intention of committing murder of Munna Lal (deceased) and the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence is against the weight of evidence available on record. Therefore, the impugned judgement of the trial court is liable to be set aside and appeal deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The appellants are on bail. They need not required to surrender. Their bail bonds and sureties bonds are hereby discharged.

Let a certified copy of the judgement and order along with lower court record be sent to the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial court for compliance.

Order Date:- 13.02.2018 AKT

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Allahabad High Court