Allahabad High Court
Kaptan And Others vs State on 26 September, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Reserved Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:185979 Court No. - 75 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1240 of 1989 Revisionist :- Kaptan (deceased) and others Opposite Party :- State Counsel for Revisionist :- Tej Pal, Amrendu Pal, Rahul Saxena, S.P. Singh, V.K. Rastogi Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A. Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.
1. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionists against the judgment and order dated 25.07.1989 passed by IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit in Criminal Appeal No.6 of 1988 (Kaptan and others Vs. State) and also against the judgment and order of conviction and sentencing dated 04.02.1988 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit in Criminal Case No.2408 of 1984 (State Vs. Kaptan and others), Police Station Bisalpur, District Pilibhit.
2. At this stage, it is mentioned that revisionist no.1, Kaptan has died and this criminal revision survives only in respect of revisionist nos.2, 3 and 4 namely Ram Din, Ram Ratan and Ram Bir.
3. The revisionists have taken ground that the convict Kaptan had also received injuries and the same are not explained either in FIR or in the statement under Section 161 CrPC. The origin of fight is not clear. Thus, the defence version is to be accepted in view of the judgment in Laxmi Singh Vs. State of Bihar, 1976 CrLJ SC 1736.
4. The prosecution has examined PW-1, Lala Ram; PW-2, Ram Sahay and PW-3, Ram Kumar, the independent witnesses have been withheld by the prosecution. Hence, the adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution.
5. PW-3, Ram Kumar has stated that the revisionist no.1, Kaptan was armed with lathi and there is conflict between the medical and the oral evidence. Hence, accused are liable to be acquitted in view of the judgment of Awadhesh and another Vs. State of MP, 1988 CrLJ 1158 (SC). The material evidence has not been put to the accused which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. The revisionists are entitled for probation in view of the judgment passed in Hari Kishan and another Vs. Sukhbir Singh and others, 1989 CrLJ 116 (SC), since no offence is made out against the revisionists, hence, the revision be allowed and the order of conviction be set aside.
6. In brief, facts of the case are that on 27.08.1984 at about 07:00 a.m. when Lala Ram resident of Village Daulatpur Khera, Police Station Bisalpur, District Pilibhit was going from his house for school, accused Kaptan with kanta, Ram Din, Ram Bir and Ram Ratan with sticks met to him and asked the informant that he would not shut the window and started beating him. Hearing the commotion, when his wife Ramwati, daughter Jamyant Kumari and his brother Ram Sahay came to rescue him, they were also beaten by the accused persons. After hearing the hue and cry, two villagers namely, Ram Kumar and Jhankar Singh also reached there and accused persons ran away from there. According to the informant, he had opened a window about which accused persons had objection that by this window privacy of their house is infringed, he was asked to shut the window, but the informant had refused to do the same, therefore, accused persons had enmity with him.
7. On the basis of above written complaint (Ex.Ka-1), Chik FIR (Ex.Ka-10) was registered and entered in General Diary (Ex.Ka-11). The injured were medically examined by Dr. S.S Sharma.
8. The medical examination of Jamyant Kumari is Ex.Ka-2, according to which, she had received injuries on her person which are; (i) contusion of 15cm x 2.5cm on pesterolatral aspect of left hand starting 5cm below elbow and running vertically; (ii) penetrating incised wound of 0.5cm x 0.5cm x fascia deep on posterior aspect of left forearm 1.5cm superior to wrist joint, all the injuries were fresh and simple, injury no.(i) was caused by blunt object and injury no.2 by (broken glass bangle) sharp edged penetrating object.
9. Smt. Ramwati had received contusion injury 7cm x 2cm on the right scapular.
10. Injured Lala Ram had also received five injuries which are;
(i) Lacerated wound of 3cm x 0.5cm x scalp deep in centre of head 9.5cm superior to bridge of nose. Margins of the wound are lacerated and contused, clotted blood present, which when removed fresh bleeding seen.
(ii) Lacerated wound of 3cm x 0.5cm fascia deep on left side of face 2cm in front of ear. Margins are lacerated and contused, clotted blood present, on cleaning fresh bleeding seen.
(iii) Incised would of 14cm x 1cm x bone deep on left side of face. Wound 2cm superior to middle and 4.5cm lateral to angle of mouth and runs in arch shape and ends above upper lip 1cm below to right nostril of nose as shown in diagram. Flap of (lower flap) is of 7cm width, margins of the wounds are incised and clean cut, 1st molar tooth is absent and tooth bed is lacerated. Clotted blood present, on cleaning fresh bleeding seen, traumatic swelling is present on upper lip and left side of face with tenderness.
(iv) Contusion of 17cm x 2cm is present on right scapular area of back ring vertically.
(v) Abraded contusion of 2cm x 1cm on superior part of left shoulder.
11. According to the doctor, all the injuries are fresh, injury no.3 is caused by sharp edged weapon and was grievous, all other injuries are caused by blunt object and were simple in nature.
12. PW-2, Ram Sahay had received one injury of contusion 10cm x 2cm on lateral aspect of right arm 4cm superior to elbow joint. Traumatic swelling with tenderness is present in area of 12cm x 5cm. The patient also complained pain in right scapular area. According to the doctor, all the injuries were simple and were caused by blunt object.
13. The injury reports of Smt. Jamyant Kumari, Smt. Ramwati, Lala Ram and Ram Sahay were proved by the concerned witnesses as Ex.Ka-2 to Ex.Ka-5 respectively.
14. Investigating Officer (IO) visited the spot and prepared the spot map (Ex.Ka-12) and after completion of charge-sheet, all the accused persons were charged under Sections 323, 324, 326 IPC, accused persons denied the charge.
15. During the course of trial, witnesses PW-1, Lala Ram; PW-2, Ram Sahay; PW-3, Ram Kumar; PW-4, Dharam Bir Saxena and PW-5, Jawala Prasad Sharma were examined.
16. After conclusion of the prosecution evidences, the statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which it is stated that witnesses have given false evidence against them. The witnesses were examined from the side of defence namely DW-1, Dr. J.K. Sharma; DW-2, M.P. Saxena and DW-3, Dhoom Bahadur.
17. In brief, evidence of the witnesses are reproduced herein below:
(i) PW-1, Lala Ram deposed that he had opened window in the south side of his house. Accused Kaptan had a complaint that by this window privacy of his house is being infringed, therefore, he wanted to get it closed. He asked to call four persons and if they decide to shut the window, he will shut it. On 27.08.1984 at about 07:00 am, when he reached on the well, accused Kaptan with kanta and rest of the accused with sticks surrounded him and started beating. After hearing his commotion, his elder brother Ram Sahay, wife Ramwati and his daughter Jamyant Kumari reached to save him, but they were also beaten by the accused persons. The complaint Ex.Ka-1 was written by Jograj, on his direction on which he recognized his signature and proved it.
(ii) PW-2, Ram Sahaya has given similar statement as given by PW-1, Lala Ram.
(iii) PW-3, Ram Kumar has deposed that after hearing the hue and cry, he had reached on the place of occurrence, Jhankar Singh had also reached there, accused Kaptan had taken lathi in which he cannot say that something was fixed, rest accused persons had sticks. All the accused persons were beating the injured persons.
18. These injury reports have been proved by PW-4, Dharam Bir Saxena, pharmacist to Dr. S.S Sharma as he had committed suicide.
19. PW-5, Jawala Prasad Sharma, IO of this case has deposed that on the date of occurrence, he was posted as SI at Police Station Daulatpur, Constable Gagan Saran has also been posted with him. This witness has proved chik FIR and carbon copy GD to be in the handwriting and signature of Constable Ganga Saran and that he had also recorded the statements of the injured persons, prepared the map and after concluding the investigation he had submitted the charge sheet-also.
20. DW-1, Dr. J.K. Sharma has deposed that as per medical register when accused Kaptan was admitted in jail, no injury was found on his person.
21. DW-2, M.P. Saxena, Deputy Jailer, District Jail, Pilibhit has deposed that as per gate book, there was an open injury on the neck of Kaptan and an invisible injury was also claimed by him on his left hip. In the cross-examination, this witness has deposed that he had not seen these injuries and he cannot say as to when such injuries had occurred to the accused on the way or any other place. These injuries were seen by the warder.
22. DW-3, Dhoom Bahadur resident of the same village has deposed that on the day of occurrence at about 06:30 a.m. when he was going to flourmil, he saw that Lala Ram, Ram Sahay and Jograj were beating accused Kaptan near his house. Jograj had lathi, Lala Ram had kanta from which they were beating him, he had intervened. Makhan had also kanta, in this fight Kaptan and his wife had received injuries. Kaptan's wife had shown two broken teeths to the IO and blood stained clothes as well. They had not treated themselves by the doctor. Lala Ram, Ram Bir and Ram Din were not there.
23. In cross-examination, this witness deposed that he had narrated the story to the IO. He could not remember the month or date of the incident. This witness has admitted that he was asked by the accused Kaptan for deposition in court. The wife of Kaptan and other women of his family had also reached on the spot. The wife of Kaptan had also received injuries which were shown by her to the IO. Accused Kaptan and his wife had not medically treated themselves. He had not seen the wife of Kaptan. There was propaganda in the village that she had died due to the above injuries. This witness denied that since in the land dispute accused Kaptan had testified himself in his favour, therefore, he has testified himself in this case from his side, this witness admitted that in a land dispute once he was sent to Jail and was released on bail next day.
24. After hearing the argument, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted and sentenced the accused persons under Sections 323, 324, 326 IPC.
25. Being aggrieved, Criminal Appeal No.6 of 1988 was preferred which was partly allowed and the accused persons were acquitted from the charge under Sections 324 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC but the conviction under Sections 323, 323 read with Section 34, 326 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC were affirmed. The sentences awarded under Sections 326 read with Section 34 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC were modified and accused Kaptan was sentenced for two years rigorous imprisonment and Rs.1,000/- fine under Section 326 IPC with default stipulation of six months additional rigorous imprisonment. Rest accused persons were awarded one year rigorous imprisonment and Rs.500/- fine to each with default stipulation of three months additional rigorous imprisonment under Sections 326 read with Section 34 IPC.
26. On 25.07.1989, the accused persons were sent to jail, it was directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently. When this criminal revision was filed, the convict revisionists were enlarged on bail on 11.08.1989.
27. Heard Sri Rahul Saxena, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
28. This revision is being decided as under:
(i) So far as the lodging of FIR is concerned, occurrence had taken place at about 07:00 a.m. on 27.08.1984 and the complaint (Ex.Ka-1) was produced same day in the concerned police station, on which basis FIR had been lodged same day at about 10:00 a.m. The place of occurrence is 11k.m. away from the police station, therefore it is concluded that there was no delay in lodging the FIR. It is also noteworthy that accused persons were first taken to the police station where injury letter was prepared, on which basis injured were examined by Dr. S.S. Sharma and injury reports were prepared.
(ii) It is a case of direct evidences where motive has no role, but in this case, all the witnesses of fact have also proved motive that since Lala Ram was not ready to close the southern window of his house, therefore he was beaten by the accused persons.
29. A ground has been taken by the appellants that the convict Kaptan had also received injuries, he was beaten by Lala Ram, Ram Sahai and Jagroop. In this connection the statement of DW-2 is material. DW-2, MP Saxena the then Deputy Jailer, District Jail Pilibhit has deposed that as per gate book there was injury on the neck of Kaptan and an invisible injury was also claimed by him on his left side of hip. If there are such injuries or after observation if any injury is found to the prisoner, it is recorded by the concerned jail employee. In this case no application was moved by the deceased convict Kaptan through Jailer or Jail Superintendent that he had received injuries in the course of fight by the informant side. This injury was not shown to the jail doctor. Though in the statement under Section 313 CrPC this witness has stated that he was beaten by the informant and his colleagues but in this regard no medical evidence could be produced and thus it cannot be ascertained that these injuries had occurred on the date and time of the alleged occurrence. It also could not be established that the alleged injuries to Kaptan were simple or grievous in nature but from the above, it has been proved that certainly a scuffle had taken place between both the parties but it cannot be concluded that the informant side was the aggressor. In case of fight certainly in an attempt by the loser party to save themselves some injury may also occur to the attacking party.
30. Thus, from the above, it cannot be concluded that the informant and his family members were the aggressor when from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the origin and genesis of the occurrence is very much clear and proved. Thus, the alleged injury present on the person of the deceased convict Kaptan does not help the defence in any way.
31. It has been argued that the prosecution has withheld Ram Kumar and Jhankar Singh and they were not examined who are said to have reached on the spot at the time of the alleged occurrence.
32. It is true that both the aforesaid independent witnesses have not been examined but now-a-days witnesses do not come forward for deposition in favour of the prosecution due to fear of prospective enmity on account of their deposition with the accused side. Now-a-days even in civil cases people do not come to depose the truth in favour of the either side. Sometimes public witnesses are won over or terrorised by the accused, in such a case, non-examination of independent witness is inconsequential as held in Dharnidhar Vs. State of UP, (2010) 7 SCC 759; Dalvir Kaur Vs. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 158.
33. In Mukesh Vs. State for NCT of Delhi and others, AIR 2017 SC 2161 (three-Judges Bench); Bhagwan Jagannath Markad Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2016) 10 SCC 537; Sadu Saran Singh Vs. State of UP, (2016) 4 SCC 357 and in some other cases also it has been held that if independent witnesses are not examined, it would not discard the weight of the testimony available on record. It is settled law that non-examination of independent eye-witness cannot be pressed into service like a ritualistic formula for discarding the prosecution case with a stroke of pen. The court can convict an accused on statement of sole witness even if he is relative of the deceased and non-examination of independent witness would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution.
34. In Dilawar Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2015) 1 SCC 737; Dhari Vs. State of UP, AIR 2013 SC 308; Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318 it has been held that enmity of the witnesses with the accused is not a ground to reject their testimony and if on proper scrutiny, the testimony of such witnesses is found reliable, the accused can be convicted.
35. In this case two injured witnesses have been examined, therefore, non-examination of the alleged independent eye witnesses, Ram Kumar and Jhankar Singh is not fatal for the prosecution when the medical and oral evidence produced by the prosecution are in support of each other and the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons.
36. It has also been argued that it is not a case under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC.
37. In this case there were four accused persons. According to prosecution, accused revisionist nos.2, 3 and 4 were armed with lathi whereas the accused Kaptan (deceased) was armed with kanta. In this case injury no.3 to Lala Ram has been described as grievous in nature by Dr. S.S Sharma who could not be examined as he had committed suicide before his deposition and his medical report has been proved by PW-4, Dharmvir Saxena, Pharmacist. Whether injury no.3 of injured Lala Ram is grievous or simple in nature may be decided in the light of Section 320 IPC which reads as under:-
"320. Grievous hurt.--The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous":--
(First) -- Emasculation.
(Secondly) --Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
(Thirdly) -- Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear, (Fourthly) --Privation of any member or joint.
(Fifthly) -- Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.
(Sixthly) -- Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
(Seventhly) --Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
(Eighthly) --Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits."
38. As per report of Dr. S.S. Sharma, injury no.3 was grievous in nature which was caused by sharp edged weapon and rest of the injuries were caused by blunt object and were simple in nature. None of the other injured has received any grievous injury except simple injuries. Though a penetrating incised wound in an area of 0.5cm x 0.5cm had occurred in the left forearm of Jamyant Kumari but it was caused by broken glass bangles and it has not been opined by the concerned doctor that it was grievous in nature.
39. As per Dr. S.S Sharma the molar tooth was absent and tooth bed was lacerated but it is not opined that it had rooted out in the alleged occurrence, nor it was produced before him by the victim. PW-1, Lala Ram has also not deposed that he had lost his molar tooth in the alleged incident.
40. As has already been stated that injury no.3, an incised wound had occurred to the injured Lala Ram which was caused by sharp edged weapon like kanta which was in the hand of the accused Kaptan. With the help of Section 34 IPC, rest of the accused persons were also convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC.
41. According to this Court, injury no.3 of the injured Lala Ram is not grievous in nature. As per serial no.6 of Section 320 IPC if the hurt (injury) has permanently disfigured the head or face only then it would be a grievous hurt. In this case no supplementary medical report had been prepared at the time of medical examination or later on that injury no.3 to the injured Lala Ram had permanently disfigured his face as it was on the left side of his face. Therefore, this Court is of the view that in absence of permanent disfiguration of the face of the injured Lala Ram, the injury no.3 cannot be said to be grievous in nature. Now it would be expedient to discuss Section 326 IPC which reads as under:-
"326. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means--Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
42. From the above, it is very much clear that if any grievous hurt is caused voluntarily by dangerous weapon or means as described under Section 326 IPC only then an accused would be liable to be convicted and sentenced under Section 326 IPC. According to this Court, since injury no.3 of Lala Ram has not been proved to be grievous hurt, therefore, the revisionist could not be convicted and sentenced under Section 326 IPC or under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and in absence of that this case would fall under the provisions of Section 324 IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. Section 324 IPC is almost transformation of Section 325 IPC except the fact that under Section 325 IPC, in place of Section 334, Section 335 IPC has been described as exception. Section 324 IPC reads as under:-
"324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.--Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
43. From the above discussion, this Court comes to the conclusion that it is not a case under Section 326 IPC or Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC but this case falls under Section 324 IPC in respect of the deceased convict revisionist Kaptan and under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC in respect of rest of the convicted accused revisionist nos.2, 3 and 4. So far as the conviction under Section 323 IPC and Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC is concerned this Court is in concurrence with the finding recorded by the trial Magistrate and the appellate court as well. Thus, this revision is liable to be allowed so far as the conviction and sentencing under Section 326 IPC and Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC is concerned.
44. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the revisionists that since the time of the alleged occurrence 39 years have been elapsed, the surviving convicted revisionist nos.2, 3 and 4 have also become senior citizens. No previous or post criminal antecedents of these three convicts have been produced by the prosecution. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served if revisionist nos.2, 3 and 4 are sent to jail to serve rest of the sentence. According to this Court, in the changed circumstances and in case of non-applicability of Section 326 and Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and considering the long pendency of this case it would be proper to release the revisionist nos.2, 3 and 4 on probation to maintain good behaviour for two years from the date of execution of their personal bonds, sureties and undertaking.
45. In this regard learned counsel for the accused-revisionists has placed reliance on the following judicial precedents:
(a) State of Karnataka Vs. Muddappa, (1999) 5 SCC 732. In this case, the offence under Section 302 IPC was converted into Section 304 Part II IPC. Relevant portion of which is being reproduced herein below:
"2. The learned Counsel for the appellant is not in a position to assail the acquittal of the accused under Section 302 I.P.C., but he vehemently contends that the Court did not bear in mind germane considerations for releasing the accused on probation after convicting him under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. Whether the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act could be extended in any particular case depends upon the circumstances of that case. Admittedly, there is no statutory bar for application of the Act to an offence under Section 304 Part II where the maximum punishment is neither death nor imprisonment for life. In that view of the matter and on examining the impugned judgment of the High Court, we find that the Court did consider the relevant material and then came to the conclusion that the accused should be released on probation by applying the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. We see no infirmity with that order to be interfered with by this Court after this length of time, more so when nothing has been pointed out as to whether the accused has, in any way, violated the terms and conditions of allowing him on probation."
(b) Mohd. Monir Alam Vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 26. In this case the offence under Section 302 IPC was converted into Section 304 part II and the Apex Court found it fit to enlarge the appellant on probation instead of sending him to jail for serving the sentence. Relevant part of this judgment is reproduced herein below:
"8. We have considered Mr. Suri's submissions very carefully. We see from the documents that the appellant has secured a Doctorate and is presently employed as a Senior Assistant Professor in the Department of Strategic and Regional Studies, University of Jammu and that he had secured this appointment in the year 1997. His profession qualifications have also been provided to us which show his expertise in his speciality and also portray his association with prestigious organisations worldwide in the field of strategic studies. We are, therefore, of the opinion that his conduct that his conduct and attainments after his involvement in this matter justify his release on probation. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal but direct that he shall be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on terms to be settled by the trial court."
(c) Krishna Deo and Others Vs. State of UP, Criminal Appeal No.735 of 1982 decided on 11.08.2017. Relevant portion of this judgment is reproduced as follows:
"23. We are also not interfering with the conviction of appellants- Smt. Jaikali and Smt. Bhagwandei under Section 147 & 323/149 of the IPC. As discussed above, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, instead of sentencing the appellant no. 1 for the offence under Section 304 Part-II r/w Section 34, 147, 323/149 of the IPC., we think it proper in the interest of justice to release the appellant- Krishnadeo, after giving him the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. We are not inclined to interfere with the sentence passed against the appellant- Smt. Jaikali, Smt. Bhagwandei, who were only directed to pay fine. Appellant-Krishna Deo is directed to surrender in the court below. The learned court below is directed to release him as per the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The learned court below shall take all coercive steps for realizing the fine from appellants-Jaikali and Bhagwandei, if the same has not been deposited by them."
46. On the basis of above discussion, it is concluded that the accused persons had committed the offence under Section 323 IPC and also an offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC for which they are liable to be released on probation in place of sentencing.
47. Accordingly, this revision is partly allowed so far as the conviction and sentencing under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC is concerned and the revisionists nos.2, 3 and 4 are convicted under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and are acquitted under the charge of Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC. The conviction and sentencing under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC is affirmed.
48. The revisionist nos.2, 3 and 4 are released on probation to maintain good conduct and behaviour for two years. They are directed to execute a personal bond, undertaking and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- before the District Probation Officer, Pilibhit. The period of probation would start from the date when they execute the aforesaid bonds and undertaking. In case they do not comply with the order of this Court regarding probation, they shall serve the sentence awarded under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC as directed by the trial court and shall also undergo for two years simple imprisonment and Rs.1,000/- fine with default stipulation of six months additional imprisonment for the commission of offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC.
49. A copy of this order alongwith the lower court record be sent to the CJM, Pilibhit and a copy of this order be also provided to the District Probation Officer, Pilibhit, for necessary compliance and consignment of original records.
Order Date :-26.09.2023 Shahroz/A.N. Mishra (Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.)