Patna High Court
Yogi Yadav And Anr vs The State Of Bihar on 28 March, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 PAT 1336
Author: Prakash Chandra Jaiswal
Bench: Rakesh Kumar, Prakash Chandra Jaiswal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.670 of 2012
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-213 Year-2009 Thana- KHARIK District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
1. Yogi Yadav, Son of Late Saryug Yadav, resident of Village - Bagri, Police
Station - Kharik, District - Bhagalpur.
2. Rupesh Yadav @ Bihru Yadav, Son of Yogi Yadav, resident of Village -
Bagri, Police Station - Kharik, District - Bhagalpur.
... ... Appellants.
Versus
The State of Bihar. ... ... Respondent.
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay Mishra, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR
AND
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL)
Date : 28-03-2019
Heard Mr. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellants and Mr. Ajay Mishra learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State on this criminal appeal.
2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against
the judgment and order of conviction dated 21.05.2012 and
order of sentence dated 24.05.2012 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-III, Naugachia in Sessions Trial Nos.
911 of 2010 and 1132 of 2010, arising out of Kharik P.S. Case
No. 213 of 2009, whereby the learned Trial Court convicted the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.670 of 2012 dt.28-03-2019
2/20
accused Yogi Yadav under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter in short referred to as the 'IPC') and Section 27 (1)
of the Arms Act and convicted the accused Rupesh Yadav alias
Bihru Yadav under Section 302/34 IPC and acquitted him under
Section 27 (2) of the Arms Act and sentenced Yogi Yadav to
undergo life imprisonment and also slapped him with a fine of
Rs.1000/- under Section 302 I.P.C. and further sentenced him to
undergo R.I. for three years and also slapped him with a fine of
Rs.500/- under Section 27 (1) of the Arms Act. Both the
sentences of Yogi Yadav were directed to run concurrently and
sentenced Rupesh Yadav alias Bihru Yadav to undergo life
imprisonment and also slapped him with a fine of Rs.1000/-
under Section 302/34 IPC. In case of default of payment of fine
both the convicts were directed to undergo S.I. for three months.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that Kharik P.S.
Case No. 213 of 2009 was instituted under Section 302/34 IPC
and Section 27 of the Arms Act against accused Rupesh Yadav
alias Bihru Yadav, Chhotan Yadav and Yogi Yadav, on the basis
of fardbeyan of Sumitra Devi, wife of Late Umesh Yadav
recorded by S.I. Sanjay Kumar, S.H.O. of Kharik P.S. on
05.12.2009at 6 AM at the Basa of the informant with the allegation in succinct that in the past night the informant and her Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.670 of 2012 dt.28-03-2019 3/20 husband, namely, Umesh Yadav were sleeping together on the chauki in her basa after taking meal. At around 12 at night, she woke up on the noise of passing train and spotted three persons standing in front of her Basa. She identified them as Rupesh Yadav alias Bihru Yadav, Chhotan Yadav and Yogi Yadav in the moon light. In the meantime, the aforesaid accused persons came close to the chauki and Yogi Yadav resorted firing on the head of her husband. She tried to apprehend them but they managed to escape towards north shoving her. Responding her screaming and firing sound her uncle in-law Deo Narain Yadav, brother-in-law Nanhe Yadav, Manoj Yadav and son Sanjay Yadav alias Mantu Yadav and Bisheshwar Kumar Yadav and others, who were sleeping in the near by Basa, rushed there and found her husband in the injured condition. Her husband succumbed to his injury after a short while. She divulged the occurrence to her son and the other persons present there. Then they gave chase to the accused persons and witnessed them escaping towards north in Bahiyar. The bone of contention is said to be that preceding to the occurrence in the month of Asarah Rupesh Yadav alias Bihru Yadav had stolen colour television and DVD from her house. Her son Sanjay Yadav @ Mintu had caught him red handed and assaulted him. There was Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.670 of 2012 dt.28-03-2019 4/20 a panchayati regarding the aforesaid occurrence and mother of Rupesh Yadav alias Bihru Yadav, namely, Rinku Devi had tendered written apology in the panchayati and got the accused extricated. Due to the aforesaid grudge, Yogi Yadav and his two sons had extended threatening to them of taking revenge of the said occurrence and the aforesaid occurrence has been committed by them in the revenge.
4. Aforesaid case was investigated by the police and on conclusion of the investigation, I.O. submitted charge- sheet against the accused Yogi Yadav and Rupesh Yadav alias Bihru Yadav under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act showing Chhotan Yadav as not sent up.
5. On receiving the charge-sheet and the case diary and perusing the same, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and committed the case of Yogi Yadav on 16.07.2010 to the Court of Sessions which was numbered as Sessions Trial No.911 of 2010 after separating the case of Rupesh Yadav alias Bihru Yadav which was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board, finding the said accused as juvenile. But, subsequently, the case of the aforesaid accused Rupesh Yadav alias Bihru Yadav was also committed to the Court of Sessions on 21.09.2010, which was numbered as Sessions Trial No.1132 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.670 of 2012 dt.28-03-2019 5/20 of 2010. After commitment and on transfer finally the case came in seisin of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Naugachia for trial.
6. Charge against the accused Rupesh Yadav alias Bihru Yadav was framed on 01.12.2010 under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 27 (2) of the Arms Act and later on charge against the accused Yogi Yadav was framed on 09.12.2010 under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 27 (2) of the Arms Act. Charge was read over and explained to them by the Court to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Subsequently, the aforesaid two Sessions Trials were amalgamated on 22.01.2011 and tried jointly.
7. To substantiate its case, in ocular evidence, the prosecution has examined altogether ten prosecution witnesses, namely, Nanhe Yadav alias Naresh Prasad Yadav, who happens to be brother of the deceased, as P.W.1, Deo Narain Yadav uncle of the deceased as P.W.2, Brajesh Kumar Yadav nephew of the deceased as P.W.3, Bisheshwar Yadav son of the deceased as P.W.4, Manoj Kumar Yadav, cousin brother of the deceased and son of P.W.2, as P.W.5, Sanjay Yadav son of the deceased as P.W.6, Vijay Kumar Yadav, co-villager of the deceased, as P.W.7, informant Sumitra Devi as P.W.8, Dr. Rakesh Kumar, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.670 of 2012 dt.28-03-2019 6/20 who had conducted the autopsy of the cadaver of the deceased, as P.W.9 and I.O. Sanjay Kumar Gupta as P.W.10. Out of the aforesaid witnesses P.W.7-Vijay Kumar Yadav turned hostile. The prosecution has also filed and proved some documents by way of documentary evidence in the case.
8. The statement of only one accused Yogi Yadav was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure who had denied the occurrence and claimed himself to be innocent. No incriminating material brought on record was put to the accused Rupesh Yadav @ Bihru Yadav under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in utter violation of said Section. The accused persons examined one witness, namely, Bilash Yadav as D.W.1 in buttress of their case.
9. After hearing the parties and perusing the record, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence as detailed in the earlier paragraph.
10. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the convicts have preferred this criminal appeal.
11. The point for consideration in this case is, as to whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.670 of 2012 dt.28-03-2019 7/20 levelled against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts or not.
12. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that there is only one eye witness of the occurrence who happens to be informant, Sumitra Devi (P.W.8) of the case but her statement is quite contradictory and not reliable. Moreover, as per account of the witnesses Manoj Kumar Yadav (P.W.5) and Sanjay Yadav (P.W.6) they had given statement to the police prior to the informant and after recording their statement they put their signature thereon in the night but the aforesaid statement of the said witnesses, which happens to be first information report has not been brought on record by the prosecution rather concealed which creates serious doubt about the prosecution case. Though other witnesses do not happen to be eye witness of the occurrence rather they claimed to have witnessed the accused persons escaping from the place of occurrence just after the occurrence, but they are not reliable as there is vital contradiction between their testimonies regarding their presence on the place of occurrence and also regarding the number of accused persons escaping from there. It is further submitted that Manoj Kumar Yadav (P.W.5) in para-1 of his examination-in-chief has stated that he spotted two persons Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.670 of 2012 dt.28-03-2019 8/20 escaping from the place of occurrence in the torch light but he did not identify them. The said statement of P.W.5 also creates serious doubt about the prosecution case as the appellants happen to be next door neighbour of the said witness. So had they been involved in the occurrence they must have been identified by the said witness. It is further submitted that the deceased was gunned down from the short range while he was sleeping on the chauki so the profuse blood must have oozed out from his persons and fallen on the chauki and the floor but the I.O. has not reported about finding of any blood or empty cartridge from the place of occurrence which also creates serious doubt about the manner of occurrence and place of occurrence as well. Thus, the prosecution has utterly and miserably failed to substantiate the prosecution case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt by adducing trustworthy, convincing and reliable evidence. Hence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by the learned Trail Court is liable to be set aside and the appellants are entitled to be acquitted.
13. Per contra, learned APP advocating the correctness and validity of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence submitted that though the informant Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.670 of 2012 dt.28-03-2019 9/20 happens to be sole eye witness of the occurrence but she has supported the prosecution case in toto and conviction can be made even on the solitary eye witness of the occurrence. Moreover other witnesses have also witnessed the appellants escaping from the place of occurrence just after the occurrence and the doctor has found the firm arm injury on the head of the deceased inflicted from short range. Thus, the ocular evidence also stands corroborated by the medical evidence and the learned Trial Court correctly appreciating the facts and evidence on record has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence which is liable to be upheld and this appeal is shorn of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
14. From perusal of record, it appears that to substantiate its case the prosecution has examined eight material witnesses in the case, out of them Vijay Kumar Yadav (P.W.7) has turned hostile. From perusal of the testimony of the rest witnesses, it appears that only Sumitra Devi (P.W.8), who happens to be informant of the case, has claimed to have witnessed the occurrence, while rest other witnesses are not the eye witnesses of the occurrence rather they have claimed to have witnessed the accused persons escaping from the place of occurrence just after the occurrence. But from perusal of the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.670 of 2012 dt.28-03-2019 10/20 testimony of the said witnesses there appears to be serious doubt about the presence of the aforesaid witnesses at the place of occurrence and witnessing the accused persons escaping after the occurrence. As Nanhe Yadav alias Naresh Prasad Yadav (P.W.1) has stated in para-1 of his examination-in-chief that when he arrived at the place of occurrence responding the firing sound he found the dead body of the deceased Umesh Yadav on the chauki. Deo Narain Yadav (P.W.2), Brajesh Kumar Yadav (P.W.3), Manoj Kumar Yadav (P.W.5) and Sanjay Yadav (P.W.6) had arrived there by that time indicating that the aforesaid witnesses had arrived at the place of occurrence preceding to arrival of Nanhe Yadav alias Naresh Prasad Yadav (P.W.1). But in quite contradiction to the aforesaid statement of P.W.1, P.W.2 has stated in para-7 of his cross-examination that Nanhe Yadav (P.W.1) did not disclose him as how long before his arrival he had arrived at the place of occurrence indicating that the P.W.1 had arrived at the place of occurrence preceding to P.W.2. Brajesh Kumar Yadav (P.W.3) in para-2 of his cross- examination has stated that at the time of occurrence he was sleeping at his house. He was awaken by his father (P.W.1). He also awoke Sanjay Yadav (P.W.6) and Manoj Kumar Yadav (P.W.5) disclosing that there is firing sound from the Bathan. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.670 of 2012 dt.28-03-2019 11/20 His father (P.W.1) went to Bathan at first. He was followed by him. Thereafter, Sanjay Yadav (P.W.6), Manoj Kumar Yadav (P.W.5) and other villagers rushed there. Manoj Kumar Yadav (P.W.5) has stated in para-2 of his cross-examination that Brajesh Kumar Yadav (P.W.3), Sanjay Yadav (P.W.6), Bisheshwar Yadav (P.W.4), Nanhe Yadav alias Naresh Prasad Yadav (P.W.1) and Deo Narain Yadav (P.W.2) had arrived at the place of occurrence following him. They had arrived there one minute later to his arrival. As per the prosecution case and the statement of the informant the aforesaid witnesses spotted all the three accused persons escaping from the place of occurrence. But in quite contradiction to the statement of the informant and the prosecution case, Bisheshwar Yadav (P.W.4) has stated in para-1 of his examination-in-chief that he had witnessed in the torch light only Yogi Yadav and Rupesh Yadav alias Bihru Yadav escaping from the place of occurrence. Likewise Manoj Kumar Yadav (P.W.5) has stated in para-1 of his examination-in-chief that he had witnessed only two accused persons escaping towards north in the torch light but he did not identify them. Sanjay Yadav (P.W.6) has stated in para-1 of his examination-in-chief that he witnessed only two accused persons, namely, Yogi Yadav and Rupesh Yadav alias Bihru Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.670 of 2012 dt.28-03-2019 12/20 Yadav escaping from the place of occurrence in the torch light.
15. Deo Narain Yadav (P.W.2) in para-4 of his examination-in-chief and Manoj Kumar Yadav (P.W.5) in para-1 of his cross-examination have stated that they had listened the firing sound & the sound of screaming amid the sound of horn of the train & of passing train at 20 hands from the house. Then they took the torch and proceeded to the Basa of Umesh Yadav where the Sumitra Devi (informant) was wailing and Umesh Yadav was lying on chauki. But it is not possible to listen the sound of firing and screaming amid ear defining sound of horn of the passing train and of the train at the distance of 20 hands while as per prosecution case said witnesses had arrived at the place of occurrence after hearing the sound of firing and screaming and they had seen the accused persons escaping from the place of occurrence. The aforesaid aspect of the case creates serious doubt about arrival of the aforesaid witnesses at the place of occurrence. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we find and hold that the aforesaid witnesses have not witnessed the appellants escaping from the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence.
16. Manoj Kumar Yadav (P.W.5) has stated in para-1 of his examination-in-chief that he had witnessed only Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.670 of 2012 dt.28-03-2019 13/20 two accused persons escaping towards north in the torch light, but he did not identify them. Said statement of P.W.5 creates serious doubt about complicity of the appellants in the occurrence. As said witness happens to be cousin of deceased and resides in the same house in which other witnesses and informant reside while the appellants happen to be next door neighbour of them and P.W.5 must be familiar to his physique. But P.W.5 failed to identify them in the torch light.
17. From perusal of the testimony of the informant Sumitra Devi (P.W.8), it appears that though she has made an abortive bid to support the prosecution case by stating in her examination-in-chief in consonance to the prosecution case as adumbrated in the fardbeyan that at the time of occurrence she was sleeping in her Basa on the chauki along with her husband Umesh Yadav. She woke up on the sound of train and spotted Yogi Yadav, Rupesh Yadav and Chhotan Yadav standing near the chauki. When she wanted to ask them about the reasons of standing, in the meantime Yogi Yadav shot at the head of his husband Umesh Yadav. It was moonlit night. When she tried to apprehend them the accused fled away shoving her. Sustaining injury her husband died instantly. Deo Narain Yadav (P.W.2), Nanhe Yadav alias Naresh Prasad Yadav (P.W.1) and Sanjay Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.670 of 2012 dt.28-03-2019 14/20 Yadav (P.W.6) and others arrived there responding hulla made by her. She divulged the occurrence to them. But from perusal of statement of the informant made in para-8 of her cross- examination, it appears that she had fallen senseless following the death of her husband and had regained the sense after 10 days. After regaining sense by her, police had not recorded her statement, albeit fardbeyan of the informant Sumitra Devi (P.W.8), was recorded on 05.12.2009 i.e. on the very date of the occurrence which creates serious doubt about the prosecution case and the fardbeyan. As million dollar question arises as how the fardbeyan of the informant was recorded on the date of occurrence while she was senseless at that time and she regained sense after ten days and she has candidly denied to have given the statement to the police. Moreover, informant Sumitra Devi (P.W.8) in paras-4 & 5 of her cross-examination has stated that her devar Manoj Yadav had given statement regarding the occurrence to the police, while P.W.2 in para-7 of his cross- examination has stated that Mantu (Sanjay Yadav) had taken the administration at the P.O. within one hour. Mantu had given statement at the P.S. and I.O. (P.W.10) in para-2 of his cross- examination has stated that son of deceased, namely, Mantu had given information of the occurrence to the police and his Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.670 of 2012 dt.28-03-2019 15/20 statement was recorded by the police and Sanjay Yadav (P.W.6) has stated in para-9 of his cross-examination that his statement was recorded by the police on 04.09.2009 at 12:30 to 1 PM in the night and thereafter his statement was recorded on 05.09.2012 at 6 AM while P.W.3-Brajesh Kumar Yadav has stated in para-2 of his cross-examination that he had divulged the occurrence to the police at P.S. at first and he had put his signature on his statement. Aforesaid stands of said witnesses indicates that the statement of the said witnesses were recorded earlier to the informant and the statement of the aforesaid three witnesses, namely, Manoj Kumar Yadav (P.W.5), Mantu Yadav @ Sanjay Yadav (P.W.6) and Brajesh Kumar Yadav (P.W.2) must be the first informant report which they had given to the police prior to the informant but the aforesaid statement of the said witnesses, which happens to be first information report, has not been brought on record by the prosecution rather concealed, which creates serious doubt about the prosecution case. More so, number of witnesses have stated that it was the Pinku Yadav who had given the information to the police on phone in the night of the occurrence and on the said information police had arrived at the place of occurrence within short while but the aforesaid Pinku Yadav has also not been examined by the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.670 of 2012 dt.28-03-2019 16/20 prosecution and no plausible reason has been assigned by the prosecution for non-examination of the said material witness of the case which also creates serious doubt about the prosecution case.
18. From perusal of the record, it appears that the alleged fardbeyan of the informant was recorded on 05.09.2009 at 6 AM but Manoj Kumar Yadav (P.W.5) has stated in para-2 of his cross-examination that A.S.I. had recorded the statement of the informant at 2 AM in the night. He did not obtain L.T.I. or signature of the informant on the said statement. The aforesaid aspect of the case and the statement of the witness creates serious doubt about the prosecution case and sanctity of fardbeyan of informant.
19. As per the prosecution case, the deceased was gunned down by the appellant Yogi Yadav from the close range while he was sleeping on the chauki so the profuse blood must have oozed out from his person and fallen on the chauki and nearby ground but the I.O. Sanjay Kumar Gupta (P.W.10) has stated in para-1 of his examination-in-chief that he did not find any incriminating article at the place of occurrence. The aforesaid statement of the I.O. indicates that the I.O. has neither found any blood nor empty cartridge on the place of occurrence Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.670 of 2012 dt.28-03-2019 17/20 which creates serious doubt about the manner and place of occurrence.
20. From perusal of record, it appears that the alleged fardbeyan of the informant Sumitra Devi (P.W.8) was recorded on 05.12.2009 at 6 AM and on the basis of the said fardbeyan F.I.R. was instituted on 05.12.2009 at 11:30 AM but the said F.I.R. was sent to the Court after inordinate delay of two days i.e. on 07.12.2009. The prosecution has not assigned any plausible and convincing reason for the said delay, which also creates serious doubt about the prosecution case.
21. Nanhe Yadav alias Naresh Prasad Yadav (P.W.1), Deo Narain Yadav (P.W.2), Brajesh Kumar Yadav (P.W.3), Bisheshwar Yadav (P.W.4), Manoj Kumar Yadav (P.W.5), Sanjay Yadav (P.W.6) and informant Sumitra Devi (P.W.8) have unanimously stated in their respective examination-in-chief in consonance to the prosecution case that preceding to the occurrence appellant Rupesh Yadav alias Bihru Yadav had stolen colour television and DVD from the house of the informant and the son of the informant, namely, Sanjay Yadav had caught hold him red handed and assaulted him. Thereafter, a panchayati regarding the aforesaid occurrence was organized and the accused persons had extended threatening to Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.670 of 2012 dt.28-03-2019 18/20 the prosecution party due to aforesaid grudge. The sons of the informant, namely, Bisheshwar Yadav (P.W.4) and Sanjay Yadav (P.W.6) have also stated that there was a row over watering of the field by the accused Yogi Yadav at first preceding to the occurrence and the said accused had also threatened for the same. The aforesaid aspect of the case indicates that there is animosity between both the parties. Animosity cuts both the edges. But in view of not establishing the manner of occurrence and place of occurrence, not bringing on record earlier statement of P.W.3, P.W.5 & P.W.6, recording of fardbeyan of the informant in the state of senseless, material contradiction between the testimony of the witnesses regarding their presence at the place of occurrence and witnessing the accused persons escaping from the there and their number, non identification of the accused persons escaping from the place of occurrence by the family member of the informant, though the accused persons happen to be next door neighbour of the said witness, inordinate delay in sending the F.I.R. to the Court and not bringing on record any objective evidence of the occurrence, false implication of the appellants at the hand of the prosecution due to aforesaid animosity cannot be ruled out.
22. From perusal of the record, it appears that Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.670 of 2012 dt.28-03-2019 19/20 while recording the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. no incriminating circumstance brought on record by the prosecution has been put to accused Rupesh Yadav alias Bihru Yadav to enable him to explain the same. As the learned Trial Court has not noted down the reply of the said accused in the format and kept it blank and obtained the signature of the aforesaid accused on the blank format. Hence, aforesaid circumstances cannot be considered against the appellant Rupesh Yadav @ Bihru Yadav. Hon'ble Apex Court in Vikramjit Singh Alias Vicky Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2006) 12 SCC 306 has been pleased to rule that the circumstances which according to the prosecution lead to proof of the guilt against the accused must be put to him in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., this having not been done, appellant acquitted. Hon'ble Apex Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 has been pleased to rule that circumstances in respect of which accused not examined under, cannot be used against him.
23. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we find and hold that the prosecution has utterly and miserably failed to substantiate the prosecution case and bring home the charges levelled against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.670 of 2012 dt.28-03-2019 20/20 by adducing convincing, cogent, consistent and worth credence evidence. Hence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Trial Court against the appellants is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. As the appellant no.1 Yogi Yadav is in custody, he is directed to be released forthwith from the custody, if not wanted in any other case, whereas the appellant no.2 Rupesh Yadav alias Bihru Yadav is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.
24. Before parting with the judgment, we would like to observe that the learned trial Court must be cautious in future while recording the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
(Rakesh Kumar, J.) (Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J.) Trivedi/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 02.04.2019 Transmission Date 02.04.2019