Allahabad High Court
Gabbu @ Abhishek vs State Of U.P. on 28 January, 2023
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved on: 19.11.2022 Delivered on: 28.01.2023 Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1458 of 2021 Appellant :- Gabbu @ Abhishek Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Upendra Kumar Mishra,A Kumar Srivastava,P.K. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. The present appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant- Gabbu @ Abhishek against the judgement and order dated 04.03.2021 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge / F.T.C. 2, Kushinagar at Padrauna in Sessions Trial No. 80 of 2013 (State of U.P. vs. Gabbu @ Abhishek) convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 363 I.P.C. to 03 years rigorous imprisonment & fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 01 month additional imprisonment, under Section 366 I.P.C. to 05 years rigorous imprisonment & fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 02 months additional imprisonment and under Section 376 I.P.C. to 07 years rigorous imprisonment & fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 03 months additional imprisonment. The trial court has ordered the benefit of set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. to be given to the accused. Further the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. It has further been ordered that out of the fine as recovered Rs. 30,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the victim under Section 357 Cr.P.C.
2. The name of the prosecutrix is not being disclosed and mentioned in the present judgement in the light of directions of the Apex Court in various judgements and as per Section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code. She is, thus, referred to as ''X' in the judgement.
3. The prosecution case as per an application dated 03.09.2010 given by Rohit Prasad Shah to the S.H.O. Kasiya, District Kushi Nagar is that he is a resident of village Baihsahi, Police Station Kasia, District Kushi Nagar and does the work of stitching in Mumbai. His wife along with two children live in the house. His daughter victim 'X' is aged about 16 years who has been lured and enticed away by Gabbu on 13.08.2010 at 8-9 am to Delhi. His wife informed him and then he came to give a report. He searched her a lot but she could not be traced. A report be lodged and action be taken. The said application is Exb: Ka-1 to the records.
4. On the basis of the said application a first information report was lodged on 03.09.2010 at 16.10 hours as Case Crime No. 819/10 under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station Kasia, District Kushi Nagar against the accused-appellant. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station was recorded as 5 kms. The chik first information report is Exb: Ka-4 to the records.
5. The victim was recovered and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 21.09.2010. The same is Exb: Ka-2 to the records.
6. The victim was produced before Dr. Rakhi Sahi the Medical Officer C.H.C., Kasia, District Kushi Nagar who examined her on 15.09.2010 while being brought by two police constables. The doctor in the medical report mentioned as follows:-
"Teeth- 7/7 / 7/7 Ht.- 4'8 1/4".
Weight 37 kg.
age about 16 years.
Sec. sexual characters well developed.
P/v- vagina easily admitting 2 fingers."
The vaginal smear was taken and sent for histopathological examination. The doctor advised for examination of the vaginal smear and X-ray for age verification. The said report is Exb: Ka-10 to the records.
7. A supplementary report dated 21.09.2010 was prepared in which it was mentioned that the vaginal smear is negative for spermatozoa and as per the X-Ray the age of the victim is above 18 years and below 22 years. The conclusion drawn by the doctor is as follows:-
"She is above eighteen years and used to sexual intercourse. No definite opinion of rape can be given."
The said report is Exb: Ka-11 to the records.
8. In between the victim was produced before the C.M.O., Kushi Nagar, U.P. who gave his report dated 20.09.2010 opining that she is above 18 years and below 22 years of age. The said report is Exb: Ka-3 to the records.
9. The vaginal smear examination report giving the opinion that vaginal smear is negative for spermatozoa is dated 18.09.2010 which is Exb: Ka-3 (A) to the records.
10. The site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared by the Investigating Officer being Exb: Ka-7 to the records.
11. An arrest memo was prepared which was Exb: Ka-7 to the records. A Scholar Register / Transfer Certificate of High School was produced in evidence which was Exb: Ka-9 to the records.
12. A Transfer Certificate of class-8th of the victim was produced which is Exb: Ka-13 to the records.
13. The investigation concluded and a charge-sheet No. 305 of 2010 dated 30.09.2010 was filed against the appellant-accused under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. The same is Exb: Ka-8 to the records.
14. By the order dated 29.07.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kushi Nagar charge under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. was framed against the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
15. In the trial Rohit Shah the first informant and father of victim 'X' was produced as P.W.-1, Smt. Chandravati Devi the mother of victim 'X' was produced as P.W.-2, victim 'X' was produced as P.W.-3, Sunil Srivastava the Clerk in the office of the C.M.O. was produced as P.W.-4, Dr. A. Kalam Pathologist was produced as P.W.-5, Head Constable Vishram Chauhan was produced as P.W.-6, Suresh Yadav clerk Kisan Inter College was produced as P.W.-7 and Dr. Rakhi Shah was produced as P.W.-8.
16. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that victim ''X' went with him out of her own sweet-will. She was a major at the time of incident. He is still unmarried. The victim has left him and has married someone. He was further called for his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. where he stated that he wants to give his defence.
17. Akhilesh Kumar Singh was produced as D.W.-1 and Chhotey Lal Verma was produced as D.W.-2. The copy of pariwar register was produced as Exb: Kha-1 from the side of defence.
18. The trial court after conclusion of the trial convicted the accused-appellant as stated above. The present appeal has thus been filed against the judgement and order of conviction.
19. Heard Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
20. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that victim 'X' was a major girl as per the certificate of the C.M.O. and also as per the kutumb register. It is argued that the victim eloped with appellant. No offence whatsoever under Section 363, 366 I.P.C. is made out against the appellant. It is argued that the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that she went with the accused-appellant out of her own sweet-will and physical relationship was established with consent. She was in love with the accused-appellant and wants to live with him. It is argued that no offence under Section 376 I.P.C. is made out. Learned counsel has argued that the victim went with the appellant on 13.08.2010 and was subsequently recovered on 15.09.2010 which is after about a month and during the said period she travelled with the appellant to distant places but did not raise any alarm whatsoever regarding it or resisted the same. It is argued that a first information report has been lodged after an inordinate delay of 20 days. It is argued that the age of the victim as per the medical evidence was opined to be above 18 years and below 22 years by the C.M.O. concerned which is a proper estimation of age as there is no other cogent evidence with regards to her age. The school documents as are being relied by the prosecution are disputed documents. It is argued that in so far as the evidence of P.W.-7 Suresh Yadav the clerk of Kisan Inter College is concerned, although he has filed the Scholar Register which states of the date of birth of the victim as 20.08.1994 and the entry stands as Serial No. 14622 which is Exb: Ka-9 to the records but the same cannot be considered as he was not the persons who had made the said entry and had transcribed it in the said register. It is argued that the person transcribing the said register and making the said entry was the relevant person to prove the same. Even he has not proved the said entry to be done by the person through secondary evidence. He only produces the same and proves the same as being an extract of it which cannot be considered and cannot be relied upon. It is argued that in such an event in the absence of any cogent evidence regarding age of the victim ''X' coming from the source of the school, the medical opinion of the C.M.O. concerned ascertaining the age of the victim ''X' would prevail. It is argued that looking to the said facts and circumstances of the case, the present appeal deserves to be allowed. The appellant be acquitted.
21. Per contra, learned counsel for the State argued that the appellant is named in the first information report. Even in the trial there have been allegations levelled against him. It is argued that there is no consent given by the victim ''X' as no such fact of consent has been stated by her before the trial court. It is argued that as per the school records the victim ''X' was aged about 15 years 11 months and 24 days at the time of incident. It is further argued that even presuming for the sake of argument if victim ''X' was a major, kidnapping her was not permissible under law. She was kidnapped by the accused-appellant. It is argued that the prosecution case is specific of the appellant kidnapping the victim ''X' and then committing rape upon her, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and as such the trial court has convicted the accused-appellant by a well reasoned and cogent judgement and order. The present appeal lacks merit and thus deserves to be dismissed.
22. P.W.-1 Rohit Shah is the first informant of the matter and the father of victim ''X'. He states that incident is of 13.08.2010 about 8-9 am. At the time of incident he was living in Bombay doing the work of stitching. In the house his wife, his daughter victim ''X' and son Sandeep used to live. Gabbu @ Abhishek lured his daughter and enticed her away. His daughter was aged about 16 years at that time. His wife informed the police about the incident. He came back home, searched his daughter at the places of his relatives and at other possible places. He came to know that Gabbu @ Abhishek has enticed away his daughter. He then wrote a report, signed it and gave it at the police station for lodging of the first information report. The same is Exb: Ka-5 to the records. He proves and identifies the first information report which is marked as Exb: Ka-1 to the records. He was interrogated by the Investigating Officer.
In his cross-examination he states that when he came back from Mumbai then his daughter was medically examined. He did not go to the Chief Medical Officer. He had come to know that Gabbu had taken his daughter to Chandigarh. He was told about it by known persons of Gabbu. The name of his daughter is entered in the pariwar report and her age is mentioned as about 16 years. He cannot tell whether his daughter married Gabbu @ Abhishek or not. He does not know what Gabbu does. He was interrogated by the investigating officer at his house. He did not tell the investigating officer that in pariwar register her daughter's age is mentioned as 16 years. He denies to a suggestion that his daughter had gone with Gabbu @ Abhishek out of her own sweet-will and has married him.
23. P.W.-2 Smt. Chandrawati Devi is the mother of the victim ''X' and wife of Rohit Shah P.W.-1. She states that her daughter victim ''X' was aged about 16 years at the time of the incident and was studying in class-11th. Gabbu @ Abhishek is a resident of the same village and often used to visit her house. She had a belief that he would not do any wrongful act with her daughter. He used to talk to her daughter on mobile also. Around four years back he lured her daughter and enticed her for marrying her. Her daughter went from the house at about 8-9 am after receiving a call on her phone. She had a belief that Gabbu @ Abhishek had called her on phone. After her daughter went away she went to the shop of Abhishek where they did not meet her. Later on she called her husband on phone and told him about it and informed at the police station of it and got a report lodged. After the report was lodged police had come to her house and had interrogated her. When her daughter came back home she told her that Gabbu @ Abhishek had done wrongful acts on her. Her daughter has studied in a school. She has studied in a private school. She does not remember its name. She has studied from class 6-8 in Sarvopar. She has studied in the Government school. Her husband had gone to admit her in the primary school. There are five persons in her family. Her father-in-law Madho has died. Rohit is her husband. She does not know whose name is recorded in the pariwar register. She does not know when she was married as she is illiterate. Her daughter was born after one year of marriage. She does not know when her son Sandeep was born. Her daughter came back home after one month of her going away. She had returned back to the police station and not to the house. She had gone from the Police Station Varanasi after paper work was done. She lived in Varanasi for four years. She did not enquire about her well being for four years. She states that since the accused has taken her away why would she enquire of her well being. She came from Varanasi after leaving her daughter. When her daughter came back she said that she will live with Gabbu. She does not know whether she married anyone or not. There is no mobile phone in her house. Her daughter used to talk to Gabbu on mobile of someone else. She does not know its number. She did not see her talking on mobile and as such she did not enquire as to whose mobile it was. She did not listen to any mobile phone call. Her daughter was aged about 16 years at the time of incident. Her husband works in Mumbai and does stitching work. He has studied up to class-8th. To a suggestion she denies that her daughter is above 18 years of age. She further denies to a suggestion that her daughter went with Abhishek @ Gabbu out of her own sweet-will. She further denies that her daughter has married Abhishek. She states that if Abhishek is ready to keep her then the case would be finished or not she does not know. She further denies to a suggestion that it is incorrect that Abhishek did not entice her daughter and did not do any forcible act on her.
24. P.W.-3 Victim ''X' states that the incident is of 13.08.2010 at about 9 pm. The appellant had called her at 4 pm and then told her to accompany him and he would marry her. He lured her and took her to Saharanpur. He kept her there for a month. When she enquired from him as to where he is taking her, he told her that if she asked too much he would beat her. On her opposing it, he would threaten her. In Saharanpur she was kept in a room. In the night he used to do wrongful act with her without her consent. When she used to oppose it he used to threaten her of murdering her. After one month he took her from Saharanpur to Kasia. At the bus stand police apprehended them. She went to the Government Hospital where her medical examination was done. She was taken to the District Court where her statement was recorded. On reading of the said statement, she states that she did not give the same voluntarily but gave it on the pressure of the parents of Gabbu @ Abhishek. She was threatened by the parents of Gabbu @ Abhishek that if she does not give the statement as they say, they would kill her brother. She identifies her signature on the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The same is marked as Exb: Ka-2 to the records. At the time of incident she was studying in Kisan Inter College, Sarovapar in class 11th. At the time of incident she was aged about 16 years. Her date of birth is 20.08.1994. She had gone with Gabbu outside for the first time. She has never heard the name of Saharanpur and Amritsar and had never gone there. The Investigating Officer interrogated her. Gabbu @ Abhishek committed rape on her continuously for about a month. She had told of the entire incident to her mother after coming home.
In her cross-examination she states that at first she studied in Bombay from class 2 to 5 in R.C. Bharti High School. After studying in class-5 she came back home. From class 6th she was admitted in Saraswati Shishu Mandi, Behsahi where her mother had gone for getting her admitted. She was then admitted in class 9th in Kisan Inter College, Sarovapar by her father. There are five persons in her family. She is the eldest amongst her brothers and sisters. Her grand-mother is Lachi Devi. Her younger brother is Sandeep who has studied up to class 9. He is 2-3 years younger than her. She cannot tell the age of her brother as of now. Her medical examination was done. She and Gabbu @ Abhishek were present at the police station from where they were brought to the Mahila Thana. She had gone with a lady constable for her medical examination. The parents of Gabbu had threatened her in the court and police station. She had made a complaint to the lady constable regarding threat being extended by the parents of Gabbu. She was not threatened today. At the time of her recording of her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she and the Magistrate were only present. She was not asked whether she is giving the statement under pressure. She had given the statement to the Magistrate under the pressure of the parents of Gabbu. They had told her to disclose her age as 18 years before the Magistrate. They had threatened her and had told her to tell to the Magistrate that she is in love with Gabbu and wants to marry him. She had given her statement to the Magistrate on the threat given by his parents that she had gone with Gabbu out of her own sweet-will. On their pressure she had told the Magistrate that her parents used to beat her and used to tell her to run away with someone. She does not remember whether she had told the Magistrate about the threat to her or not. She does not know whether her name is recorded in Pariwar Register or not. She states that she did not go to Amritsar and Saharanpur but had only stated what was told to her. She had stayed in Saharanpur and Amritsar for a month. She does not remember whether she had told the Investigating Officer about the threats extended by the parents of Gabbu. To a suggestion that she was aged about 18 years at the time of incident, she denies it. To a further suggestion that she went with Gabbu @ Abhishek out of her sweet-will and stayed with him, she denies it. She further denies the suggestion that she stayed with Gabbu as a friend for a month in Amrtisar. She further denies the suggestions that just to falsely implicate Gabbu @ Abhishek she is giving a false statement.
25. P.W.-4 Sunil Kumar Srivastava is the clerk in the office of Chief Medical Officer. He proves the age certificate given by the then Chief Medical Officer Dr. A.N. Tiwari. He identifies his signature on it and proves it. The same is marked as Exb: Ka-3 to the records.
In his cross-examination he states that in the year 2010 he worked with Dr. A.N. Tiwari. He states that in Exb: Ka-3 which has been proved by him the age of the victim is stated to be above 18 years and below 22 years.
26. Dr. A. Kalam the Pathologist CDH, Kushinagar was examined as P.W.-5. He states that on 18.09.2010 he examined the vaginal smear of victim ''X' and gave his report that in it there is no spermatozoa present. His report was marked as Exb: Ka-3 to the records. The said exhibit number was later on amended vide order dated 16.02.2021 passed by the trial court and it was renumbered as Exb: Ka-3 A.
27. Head Constable Vishram Chauhan was examined as P.W.6. He proves the chik first information report transcribed by him which was Exb: Ka-4 to the records. He further proved the GD of the same which was transcribed by Constable clerk Narendra Kumar Singh and identifies his handwriting and signature. The same was marked Exb: Ka-5. He then proves the writing of Head Constable Madan Mohan Tiwari and proves the arrest memo which Exb: Ka-7 to the records. He further proves the site plan Exb: Ka-6 to the records prepared by Madan Mohan Tiwari which was marked Exb: Ka-8 to the records. He states that Madan Mohan Tiwari died around 31/2 years back while being posted in District Maharajganj in a road accident.
In his cross-examination he states that the first information report of the present case was lodged on 03.09.2010. The investigation of the same was transferred to Madan Mohan Tiwari. He worked with him for about two years. Madan Mohan Tiwari died around 31/2 years back. In the first information report the age of the victim is mentioned as 16 years. The same was mentioned in the application given for lodging of the first information report. The age certificate of the victim is on record. The same is recorded in the case diary also. As per the said certificate the doctor has opined her age as 18-22 years. To a suggestion that the victim was adult and had gone with Gabbu out of her own sweet-will, he denies to it. He further denies to a suggestion that the case is a false case and he is giving false evidence as being a police person.
28. P.W.7- Suresh Yadav is the clerk of Kisan Inter College, Sarvopar, District Kushi Nagar. He states that he is working in the college since 1988. In the year 2014, he was promoted to the post of clerk from the post of Chaprasi. Victim ''X' passed High School from his college in the year 2009. As per the scholar register of the school the date of birth of the victim ''X' is 20.08.1994. He has brought to the court the scholar register after being authorised by the Principal Akhilesh Singh. In the scholar register the entry relating to victim ''X' is at serial no. 14622. Her date of birth is mentioned as 20.08.1994. She was registered in class 9th on 22.08.2007 and had passed High School on 30.06.2009 and then left the school. He proves the transfer certificate which has been marked as Exb: Ka-9 to the records.
In his cross-examination, he states that victim ''X' was registered in class 9th on 22.08.2007 in his school. She had passed class 8th from Ramautar Singh Memorial Poorva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Sadri Khurd, Kushinagar and registration is done on the basis of transfer certificate received in his school. He states that there is no transfer certificate received in his school from Ramautar Singh Memorial Poorva Madhyamik Vidyalaya. To a suggestion that registration in his school was done without receiving transfer certificate, he denies the same.
29. P.W.7- Suresh Yadav was re-examined who states that he has brought the original scholar register and the High School exam result of the year 2009 as per which the date of birth of the victim is 20.08.1994 and has passed the High School Examination in the year 2009. The same was filed by him and proved as Exb: Ka-12 to the records. He states that prior taking admission in his school victim ''X' was a student of Ramautar Singh Memorial Poorva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Sadri Khurd, Kushinagar and had passed class 8th from there. He proves the photocopy of the transfer certificate which was marked as Exb: Ka-13 to the records. In cross-examination he states that victim ''X' had taken admission in class 9 in his school on 22.08.2007 as recorded in the original scholar register. She had come to the school with the original transfer certificate. The photocopy of which has been given by him in which her date of birth is mentioned as 20.08.1994. In consonance of the same date of birth was mentioned in his school also. He states that Exb: Ka-13 was not prepared before him. He does not identify the signature of Principal of Exb: Ka-13.
30. P.W.-8 Dr. Rakhi Shahi had medically examined the victim ''X' on 15.09.2010. She proves the medical examination report which was marked as Exb: Ka-10 to the records. She further proves the supplementary medical examination report given by her which was marked as Exb: Ka-11 to the records. The details of the said report have already been given above.
In her cross-examination she states that victim ''X' may be aged about 20 years. She was not a virgin. Secondary sexual organs were well developed. There was no injury found on her private parts. No definite opinion of rape can be given.
31. In defence the accused produced Akhilesh Kumar Singh as D.W.-1. He was posted as the Village Developement Officer in village Behashi, Village Panchayat Chirgauda. He states that he has brought the pariwar register of the family of Rohit son of Madho in which at page 118 at serial no. 9 the name of victim ''X' is mentioned and her date of birth is mentioned as 01.03.1990. He states that as per the said register Rohit has a son named Sandeep Kumar which is also recorded therein and the name of victim ''X' is also recorded. The date of birth of Sandeep is recorded as 01.07.1996.
In his cross-examination he states that he cannot tell the name of the person who has made entry in the pariwar register, the copy of which has been filed by him. He states that he does not know whether victim ''X' is known by another name also. He states that register is not counter signed by any high official and there is no endorsement about it. He does not know as to on what basis the date of birth is mentioned in the register. He only states of what is mentioned there.
32. Chhote Lal Verma D.W.-2 is the Village Pradhan of village Behashi, District Kushi Nagar. He states that Rohit is of his village, Chandrawati is his wife. There are only two children born from them. One child is a boy and the other is a girl. He states that victim ''X' is also known by another name. The boy is named Sandeep Kumar. Except for the two children there are no other children of Rohit.
In his cross-examination, he states the victim ''X' is known by another name. He can tell the same as he is of the same village. He does not know which name is entered in the Government records. He has come to the court on the saying of father of Gabbu @ Abhishek. He has not received any summon or notice from the court. To a suggestion that as he is a resident of village of Gabbu @ Abhishek and as such he is trying to save him and giving false statement, he denies the same.
33. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that as per the prosecution case the application dated 03.09.2010 given by Rohit Prasad Shah P.W.-1 states of his daughter who is the victim ''X' being aged about 16 years, being lured and enticed away by Gabbu to Delhi. The incident in the present case was of 13.08.2010 of which the first information report was lodged on 03.09.2010 which is after about 20 days of the incident. The High School Certificate of victim ''X' has not been produced in the trial. As per the medical examination report given by P.W.-8, the victim ''X' was not found to have received any injury. In the supplementary report dated 21.09.2010 which is Exb: Ka-11 the age of the victim ''X' was opined to be above 18 years but below 22 years as per the radiological examination. The conclusion drawn therein was also in consonance of the same and she was stated to be above 18 years of age. The certificate of the Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur Nagar dated 20.09.2010 Exb: Ka-3 was proved by Sunil Kumar Srivastava P.W.-4. In the said certificate, the opinion as drawn by the C.M.O. concerned regarding the age of victim ''X' was that she is above 18 years and below 22 years of age. Thus from the said documents which stands duly proved it goes to show that victim ''X' was a major at the time of incident. The statement of victim ''X' recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was proved as Exb: Ka-2 to the records goes to show that she has stated that she went with the accused-appellant out of her own sweet-will as her parents used to beat her and used to tell her to run away with someone. She states of going with the accused-appellant to Amritsar and stayed with him for about one month. She further states that she loves Abhishek and wants to stay with him. During the period of stay for about a month with the accused-appellant the victim does not state of making any effort to either resist the same or even to raise any alarm of her being kept in captivity. The first information report has been lodged after a delay of about 20 days. There is no plausible explanation regarding the delay in lodging of the same. The transfer certificate of victim ''X' has been produced by Suresh Yadav P.W.-7. The scribe of the same has not been produced. Even the same has not been proved by the secondary evidence.
34. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the conduct of the victim and the difference of age as has surfaced in the various documents, a view in favour of the accused would serve the ends of justice.
35. In view of the same, this Court extends the benefit of doubt to the appellant. The judgement and order dated 04.03.2021 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge / F.T.C. 2, Kushinagar at Padrauna is hereby set-aside. The appellant-accused is on bail. The bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged.
36. The appeal is allowed.
37. A copy of this judgement along with the trial court records be sent to the trial court forthwith for communication and necessary action.
Order Date :- 28.01.2023 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.)