Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brajkishore Mandloi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 January, 2024
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vishal Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPU R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 990 of 2010
BETWEEN:-
BRAJKISHORE MANDLOI S/O SUALAL
MANDLOI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, WARD NO.2
TIMARNI DISTRICT HARDA (M.P.)
.... APPELLANT
(BY SHRI RAJESH SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION TIMARNI DISTRICT HARDA
(M.P.)
.... RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI PRAMOD THAKRE - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 11.10.2023
Pronounced on : 05.01.2024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment,
coming on for pronouncement this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice Vishal
Mishra passed the following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 1/5/2024
2:22:22 PM
2
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 14.05.2010 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Harda District Harda in S.T. No.102 of 2006, whereby the appellant-accused stood convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default, to suffer R.I. for 3 years.
2. As per the prosecution story, the incident took place on 10.07.2006 at the house of the accused wherein he poured kerosene on his wife Anuradha who succumbed to the burn injuries on 17.08.2006. In pursuance of the information by the hospital situated at Timarni, the police authorities got registered an FIR (Ex.P/24) for the offence under Section 307 of IPC; collected various documents during investigation; recorded the statements of the parents of the deceased and related persons as well as dying declaration of the deceased on two occasions. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the accused. The accused was charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, he denied the allegation and therefore, was put to trial. To establish the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 27 witnesses and exhibited several material documents including two dying declarations. In defence, Akhilesh was examined as DW1. Upon completion of the trial, the learned trial Judge vide impugned judgment dated 14.05.2010 has convicted and sentenced the accused as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Imprisonment Fine In default of fine
302 of IPC For Life Rs.15000/- R.I. for 3 years
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 1/5/2024
2:22:22 PM
3
3. The aforesaid judgment was put to challenge by filing this appeal.
4. Legality and propriety of the impugned judgment of conviction has been challenged by the accused/appellant on the ground of misappreciation of evidence on record. The counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no cogent and reliable evidence in support of the accusations of ill-treatment or beating by accused. Further, there is no evidence to show that accused poured kerosene oil and set his wife Anuradha on fire. No motive whatsoever has been established by prosecution inspite of examining as many as 27 witnesses. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. Hence, the impugned conviction cannot be sustained.
5. The counsel appearing for the accused has challenged the judgment of conviction basically on the ground that there are two dying declarations recorded by the authorities which are contrary to each other. It is argued that the first dying declaration which was recorded by Naib Tahsildar (PW7) on 10.07.2006 was a prompt dying declaration exhibited as Ex.P/4. The deceased (injured at relevant time) has not stated anything against the appellant; on the contrary, she has stated that while she was working in kitchen, her clothes caught fire resulting into burn injuries. Her husband has made efforts to save her by extinguishing the fire and she was taken to the hospital by him. The opinion of the doctor was reflected in the dying declaration that she was in a conscious state to give oral statement. The dying declaration was recorded by the Naib Tahsildar. It is argued that there was no occasion for the prosecution to record the second dying declaration Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 1/5/2024 2:22:22 PM 4 which was recorded on 13.08.2006 i.e. after one month of the incident whereas the appellant has been implicated for burning his wife by pouring kerosene. Both the dying declarations are contrary to each other. This creates a serious doubt on the genuineness of the dying declarations. The prosecution should have explained why and under what circumstances there was a requirement of recording of second dying declaration and in absence of any explanation, the same could not have been believed. It is further pointed out that the first dying declaration (Ex.P/4) was recorded on 10.07.2006 i.e. on the same day of the incident whereas the second dying declaration was recorded on 13.08.2006 i.e. almost after a month without there being any explanation for the same. The prosecution failed to create any doubt over the first dying declaration. All the paramaters were taken note off while recording the first dying declaration by the prosecution. Therefore, there was no occasion for the learned trial Court to disbelieve the earlier dying declaration. Even the statements of the witnesses, which have been recorded, are after a considerable period. Therefore, the first dying declaration should not have been discarded by the learned trial Court. The contents of the first dying declaration were similar to the statements of the independent witnesses. The learned trial Court has placed heavy reliance upon the second dying declaration and held the appellant guilty of the offence charged with.
6. The second limb of argument is that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses. The statements of parents viz. PW2 and PW3 and brother PW4 do not clearly reflect that there was any demand of dowry or harassment being Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 1/5/2024 2:22:22 PM 5 caused to the deceased. Some small incidents were pointed out in the statements for which there was no complaint made by them at any point of time. Even the statement of the neighbours who were being called by the daughter of the deceased i.e. PW9 and PW10 have not supported the prosecution story and have not denied or explained first dying declaration. The aforesaid aspect was not properly appreciated by the learned trial Court.
7. Naib Tahsildar (PW7) has initially recorded the dying declaration (Ex.P/4) on 10.07.2006. In his statement, he has supported the first dying declaration clearly stating the manner in which the same was recorded and the opinion of the doctor was taken that whether she was in a fit condition and state of mind to give the dying declaration. It is nowhere mentioned in any of the statements that the first dying declaration was recorded under pressure or under threatening. Under these circumstances, the learned trial Court has committed an error in discarding the initial/first dying declaration.
8. The accused-appellant being the husband has made all possible efforts to extinguish the fire and he has received burn injury for which he was medically examined and some treatment was given to him. The aforesaid aspect clearly establishes the fact that the accused has not caused any burn injuries to the deceased. The deceased passed away on 17.08.2006 owing to cardio-respiratory failure, resulted due to burn injury. She was under continuous treatment for almost more than a month. Medical report shows that there was a pus formation in the body of the deceased which could have been due to proper treatment not administered to her by the doctors. The doctor has opined that she had Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 1/5/2024 2:22:22 PM 6 70% burn injuries. There is a huge gap between the date of incident and date of death, which has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court. This goes to show that she died due to lack of proper medical treatment.
9. The learned trial Court has placed heavy reliance upon the evidence of Kratika (PW5) who is the daughter of the appellant and deceased. She has narrated the incident supporting the second dying declaration. The statement of Kratika was recorded on 17.09.2006 i.e. after a considerable delay from the date of incident and even after almost a month from the date of death. During this intervening period, she resided with her Nana and Nani. Therefore, there is every possibility of the witness being a tutored witness. The statement of PW5 does not gather confidence. The trial Court has not taken note off the aforesaid aspect of the matter and placing heavy reliance upon the second dying declaration and corroborating the same with the statement of PW5, has held the appellant guilty of the offence. Thus, the conviction based upon the second dying declaration as well as on the basis of the statement of PW5 is per se illegal and deserves to be set aside.
10. Counsel appearing for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of witnesses who are so-called neighbours and have not supported the prosecution story. PW9 Jarina Bi, in para 2 of her deposition, has stated that when she went to the spot, she found Anuradha burning and the accused/appellant was making efforts to extinguish the fire, as a result of which, his hands were burnt. The deceased was taken to the hospital by her husband and she along with Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 1/5/2024 2:22:22 PM 7 Vashu Bai has accompanied them. There she was told by Anuradha that while she was cooking food, kerosene oil fell on her clothes and caught fire. Similar statement was given by PW10 Vashu Bai. PW11 Shakoor Khan who while supporting the depositions of PW9 and PW10 has further added that he has given an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the accused to enable him to take Anuradha to Bhopal hospital. All the aforesaid statements support the first dying declaration which was recorded on the date of the incident in question. Thus, there was no doubt to disbelieve the statement and the first dying declaration. The learned trial Court has overlooked the aforesaid evidence and has held the appellant guilty based upon the statement of PW5 and second dying declaration. In addition, it is argued that the appellant has already undergone a substantial period of custody of about 19 years 8 months in terms of the report dated 24.09.2023 and there are chances of he being released, but he is arguing for acquittal as he is a Government servant. No other arguments have been advanced by the counsel appearing for the appellant.
11. Per contra, State counsel has supported the impugned judgment pointing out the fact that the accused/appellant is himself a Sainik (Home Guard). There is every possibility that due to pressure of the appellant, Anuradha has not deposed the correct facts at the time of recording of first dying declaration. He has drawn attention of this Court to the statement of PW16 who has recorded the second dying declaration vide Ex.P/15. He has pointed out that in pursuance to the letter dated 13.08.2006 received from the Police Station Habibganj, he went to the hospital i.e. Shivam Medical and Research Institute, Bhopal Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 1/5/2024 2:22:22 PM 8 to record the second dying declaration. Prior to recording the same, he has taken the certificate from the doctor with respect to the fit state of the deceased. After recording the deposition, the same was read over to the injured (since deceased). He has taken the thumb impression of her left leg which is reflected on Ex.P/15. The second dying declaration Ex.P/15 was recorded on 13.08.2006 at 11:40 a.m. after completing all the formalities. The certification from the doctor was taken prior to starting the recording of the dying declaration and also after completion of the same. There is nothing on record which creates an apprehension that the second dying declaration was recorded under suspicious circumstances. As there are two dying declarations, the supportive evidence is required to be seen to consider the authenticity of the dying declaration. To this effect, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of PW5 who is the daughter of the deceased. She was the first person and an eyewitness to the incident. She has categorically stated and supported the prosecution story and narrated the entire incident and the manner in which it happened. She has remained firm in her statement and the defence could not shake the statement made by her. The statement given by her is corroborated by the second dying declaration. All the other depositions which have been recorded are mere hearsay evidence because they are not eyewitnesses to the incident. Their presence at the time of commission of offence was subsequent and on the call being raised by PW5. Thus, there is no occasion to disbelieve the statement of PW5 merely by stating that her statement was recorded after some delay and there is possibility of she being tutored, as she was residing with Mama and Nana after the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 1/5/2024 2:22:22 PM 9 incident. The learned trial Court has correctly relied upon the statement of PW5 and has corroborated the same with the second dying declaration and rightly held the appellant guilty.
12. He has further drawn attention of this Court to the post-mortem report which again supporting the prosecution story. Statement of PW5 recorded under Section 161 of CrPC is also supporting the prosecution story. The articles which were seized by the police authorities also have a smell of kerosene. The doctor has reported smell of kerosene from the body of the deceased. If the first dying declaration is taken note off i.e. Ex.P/4, it is stated that while she was cooking food her Pallu fell into container having kerosene oil and she caught fire. Immediately her husband came there and tried to extinguish the fire. It is argued that the doctor has reported smell of kerosene coming from burnt clothes as well as from the body of deceased which could only be possible once the kerosene oil has been poured on the deceased. Had it been the condition that the part of the clothes which was burnt by the deceased caught fired as it fell on the kerosene oil, then presence of kerosene on the entire clothes and the body of the deceased was not possible. This creates a serious doubt over the statement which has been recorded as Dying Declaration No.1 vide Ex.P/4. There is no argument on the aforesaid from the appellant side. It is argued that the injured herself made a request to the doctor that she wants to give her statement. She was under continuous treatment and remained in the hospital. She has clarified that she was under threat as her husband is a Sanik (Home Guard) and he used to beat her and harass her. Ex.P/11C is the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 1/5/2024 2:22:22 PM 10 Rojnamcha entry and Ex.P/22 is dehati nalishi recorded at the instance of the deceased.
13. The learned Public Prosecutor has also drawn attention of this Court to the statement of PW12 ASI Mahendra Kumar Mishra who has recorded the dying declaration and has clarified the entire position. The second dying declaration which has been recorded appears to be correct and genuine dying declaration. It is argued that in cases of multiple dying declarations, the Court has to look into both the dying declarations and should consider the available evidence on record to arrive at a conclusion that which one of the dying declaration is correct. Looking to the evidence available on record, the first dying declaration appears to have been recorded under pressure and threat whereas the second dying declaration is free from threat and is duly supported by the statement of PW5 Kritika who is the daughter of the deceased. The learned trial Court has not committed any error in placing reliance upon the second dying declaration and the evidence available on record in convicting the appellant. Even otherwise, the appellant being a husband and member of a disciplined force, is having utmost responsibility towards his wife but he failed to do so. He has submitted that the impugned judgment does not call for any interference and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. No other arguments have been made.
14. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
15. It is an admitted position that the appellant is the husband of the deceased and was serving as a Sainik (Home Guard) and at the relevant point of time, he was posted at Harda Thana which is reflected from Dehati Nalishi recorded at the instance of the deceased in terms of Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 1/5/2024 2:22:22 PM 11 Ex.P/22. Further, PW5 Kritika who is the minor daughter of the deceased and an eyewitness to the incident, has narrated the entire incident. The argument that her statement was recorded after a considerable delay is of no help to the appellant as there is nothing on record to show that she was tutored to give such a statement. Her testimony is duly supported by the subsequent statement of the deceased which was given on 12.08.2006 wherein she has clarified the position that when she has given earlier statement which was recorded as Ex.P/4 in the form of a dying declaration, she was under a continuous threat of her husband as he is a Sanik (Home Guard). The person who came to take the earlier statement was an officer from the same police station. The deceased was not having good terms with the husband as he has harassed her and beaten her regularly.
16. The entire case of the prosecution revolves around the two dying declarations which have been recorded by the prosecution and exhibited as P/4 and P/15. Both the dying declarations are contrary to each other. The first dying declaration (Ex.P/4) which has been recorded on 10.07.2006 by PW7 Naib Tahsildar J.L. Thakur wherein she has not levelled any allegation against the husband i.e. the appellant. She has stated that while working in the kitchen, her clothes caught fire from the gas and she sustained the injuries. Thereafter, she was immediately taken to the hospital at Timarni wherein the initial MLC was got done. The document (Ex.P/3) which is a medico-legal register wherein it is mentioned that the deceased had sustained 60- 65% II-III burn injuries. There were burns on her face, neck, chest, abdomen, upper limbs and both legs and thighs. The first dying Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 1/5/2024 2:22:22 PM 12 declaration recorded as Ex.P/4 reflects the thumb impression of the deceased. If the second dying declaration is seen, then the same reflects thumb impression of the left leg of the deceased and the certificate of the doctor is given that she was fully conscious during the entire period when she has given her statement. When the medical report is seen and the injuries found over the upper and lower limbs, there should be a clarification as far as the thumb impression of the deceased which was taken on the dying declaration. The first dying declaration does not reflect the clarification, it only reflects thumb impression of the deceased. Whereas, the second dying declaration clarifies the position that thumb impression of left leg of the deceased was taken. The second dying declaration was recorded by PW16 Rajendra Pawar, Naib Tahsildar who has clarified the position that why he has taken thumb impression of the leg. Statement of PW12 Mahendra Kumar Mishra who was posted as ASI in Police Station Habibganj District Bhopal is relevant wherein he has pointed out that he received a phone call from Shivam Hospital regarding the fact that the injured wants to give her statement. He immediately went to the hospital and to that effect, a Rojnamcha Saha No.954 was prepared on 12.08.2006 at 1.30 p.m. vide Ex.P/7. Thus, the argument advanced that what was the occasion by the authorities to record the second dying declaration is clarified by the statement of PW12. Prior to recording the dying declaration, he has taken the certification from the doctor regarding health condition of the injured (since deceased). It is reflected that a letter (Ex.P/8) was given by the doctor for the said purpose. Thereafter, second dying declaration of the deceased was recorded in terms of Ex.P/15. Dehati Nalishi was Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 1/5/2024 2:22:22 PM 13 also got registered in terms of Ex.P/22 wherein the injured has given an explanation that why she has not given correct statement to the police authority when the first dying declaration was got recorded. Under these circumstances, the second dying declaration appears to be correct and genuine coupled with the fact that the same is in consonance with the statement of PW5 as well as the medical report.
17. If the evidence of PW5 Kritika who happens to be the eyewitness to the incident and the daughter of the deceased is seen, it is clear that she has narrated the entire story as seen by her. She has categorically stated her father i.e. the appellant was beating her mother i.e. the deceased by broom (>kMw). She tried to save her and went inside the bathroom but her father started beating her. When she shouted for help, her mother came out of the bathroom and thereafter her husband had taken her to the kitchen and poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. The medical report indicates that almost 70% burn injuries were seen on the body of the deceased from head to toe. The aforesaid clarifies the prosecution story. Had it been a condition that the deceased's clothes got fire from the gas then it cannot be position that the entire body was burnt particularly the upper side of the body. The doctor had noticed smell of kerosene coming out from the entire body of the deceased as well as from her burnt clothes.
18. The similar position arose in a case which came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagabhushan vs State of Karnataka reported in (2021) 5 SCC 222 which also pertains to multiple dying declarations wherein while Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 1/5/2024 2:22:22 PM 14 considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, it has been held as under :
"11. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, and on evaluation of both the dying declarations independently, dying declaration recorded as Ext. P-5 reflects the true state of affairs and the contents are supported by the medical evidence and the injuries sustained by the deceased. The plea put forth by the defence that it was a case of an accident and while pouring the kerosene from kerosene can to the bottle, the same had fallen on the clothes placed on the ground and when the deceased tried to remove the clothes from that place, the candle fell on the ground, as a result, her clothes caught fire and she sustained burn injuries is disbelieved by the High Court considering the circumstances noted by the High Court that the deceased sustained injuries on the face, chest and back and to the upper limbs. The main injuries are found on the upper limbs of the body. Therefore, as rightly observed by the High Court, the aforesaid injuries can be possible when the kerosene is poured on the deceased. According to the defence and as per the evidence of DW 1/A-1, while putting the kerosene into the stove, accidentally the kerosene had fallen on the ground and also on her clothes, and thereafter when the candle fell on the ground, the same had come in contact with her clothes and kerosene. If that is the case, there would have been injuries to her feet also. However, no burn injuries are found on her feet. No stove was found at the place of occurrence. Therefore, the defence came out with a false case of accidental fire, which, as such, is not supported by any other reliable evidence. On the contrary, this evidence speaks otherwise. Therefore, when A-1 came with a false defence and the dying declaration Ext. P-5 is corroborated by other surrounding circumstances and evidence and after independent evaluation of Ext. P-5 and Ext. D-2, when the High Court has found that Ext. P-5 is reliable and inspiring confidence and thereafter when the High Court has Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 1/5/2024 2:22:22 PM 15 convicted the accused, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error."
19. The aforesaid case is exactly identical to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, the position is clarified from the perusal of the dying declarations, the medical report, the post- mortem report as well as the statement of PW5 Kritika. If the statement of PW5 is seen, then it is clear that she has remained firm in her statement throughout and the defence has failed to destroy her statement. She has given a statement that she has not been tutored by anyone although she was living with her grandparents i.e. Nana and Nani but the fact remains that whether she was tutored during this period or not, is clarified by her. The medical report shows burn injuries all over the body of the deceased except back. She was 70% burned. She remained under continuous treatment. The doctor has observed that smell of kerosene was coming from her clothes and body. The same is possible when kerosene is poured on the upper side of the body.
20. The other argument that the independent witnesses who were called by PW5 have not supported the prosecution story is of no help to the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the present case as they are mainly hearsay evidences having lesser corroborative and evidentiary value. If the statement given in the form of second dying declaration of the deceased is considered coupled with the statement of PW5 and other relevant documents i.e. MLC and post-mortem report, it is apparently clear that the prosecution has established its case beyond any reasonable doubt. It was for the appellant to explain the entire Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 1/5/2024 2:22:22 PM 16 circumstances. The facts and circumstances of the case are going contrary to the defence which has been taken by the appellant. It is but natural that when an attempt is made to save a burning person then obviously the hands of the person who is trying to save may be burnt. The same was the situation in the present case. Therefore, the argument advanced that the husband also has got burn injuries on his hands and he was given medical treatment is of no help to the appellant.
21. The law with respect to multiple dying declarations was considered in a catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, one such being is Nagabhushan (supra) wherein it is held that in cases of multiple dying declarations, the court is required to consider each dying declaration independently on its own merit as to its evidentiary value and the same cannot be rejected because of contents of the other.
22. As discussed hereinabove that if both dying declarations are examined independently, the second dying declaration appears to be more genuine and correct as it is having more corroborative and evidentiary value by circumstances. The entire record clearly points out that the death was homicidal in nature and was a result of burning by pouring kerosene and set her ablaze by the husband i.e. appellant.
23. So far as other argument regarding independent witnesses not supporting the case of the prosecution and corroborating the first dying declaration is concerned, it is suffice to mention that the deceased while giving her statement and recording Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/22) on 13.08.2006 has clarified that she was under threat as her husband was working in a police department and she was continuously being harassed and beaten by him, therefore, she could not state correct facts Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 1/5/2024 2:22:22 PM 17 at the time when her first dying declaration was recorded. However, the second dying declaration which was exhibited as Ex.P/15 is duly corroborated with the statement of PW5 who is an eyewitness to the incident and the daughter of the deceased. Evidence of independent witnesses are hearsay as they were called by PW5 subsequent to the incident in question. Once the eyewitness account is available on record which is supporting the second dying declaration as well as Dehati Nalishi coupled with the explanation being given by the prosecution for recording the second dying declaration, non-supporting version of the independent witnesses will be of no help to the appellant.
24. The entire prosecution story and the evidence available on record clearly show that the deceased was under the continuous treatment and was taken from one hospital to another but she was never taken to home till she succumbed to death. The entire proceedings and the statements have been recorded by the police authorities in the hospital only. Once this Court has arrived to the conclusion that the death was rightly pointed out to be homicidal in nature and the factum of second dying declaration being authentic dying declaration as it has been corroborated with the medical evidence as well as the evidence of PW5 who is the eyewitness to the incident, we affirm the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court has rightly considered all the aspects of the matter and has held the appellant guilty under Section 302 of the IPC for committing murder of his wife by pouring kerosene over her body and set her ablaze.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 1/5/2024 2:22:22 PM 1825. For these reasons, there is no merit or substance in the appeal. As such, the conviction and consequent sentences under challenge do not call for any interference.
26. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and impugned conviction of the appellant and consequent sentences are hereby affirmed.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
VV
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 1/5/2024
2:22:22 PM