Allahabad High Court
Jai Ram Harijan vs State Of U.P. on 15 February, 2019
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal, Rajendra Kumar-Iv
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Reserved on: 30.01.2019 Delivered on: 15.02.2019 Court No. - 34 Case :- JAIL APPEAL No. - 1096 of 2017 Appellant :- Jai Ram Harijan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- From Jail,Rashmi Srivastava (A.C.) Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A. Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV)
1. Present Jail Appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 03.07.2015 passed by Additional Session Judge, / Fast Track Court, Gorakhpur in Session Trial No. 104 of 2011 (State v. Jai Ram) under Sections 376, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act., Police Station Gagha, District Gorakhpur, whereby Trial Court has convicted accused Jai Ram and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.50,000/- under Section 376 IPC while acquitting accused under Section 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act.
2. Prosecution case in short is that PW-1 Smt. Kuma presented a written report (Exhibit Ka-1) in the police station concerned stating therein that on 12.11.2010 at about 7.00 p.m., she was cooking food inside the house while her daughter (victim name withheld by us) aged about 10 years was playing on the door. She called her to take meal but getting no response, she came out of her house and found her nowhere. By that time her nephew Arvind also came. She along with Arvind went in her search to garden (Bagg). On being heard scream of victim, she saw in the light of torch that accused-Jairam was committing rape on her daughter. On seeing them coming, he began fleeing from spot. In the meantime Baiju and Ajai (both not examined) came there and saw accused-appellant Jairam running from there. Her daughter was lying down and her genital was bleeding. PW-1 went to Police Station concerned along with victim and her nephew to lodge the F.I.R..
3. On the basis of written report (Ex. Ka-1) supported by P.W.-1, Chik FIR (Ex. Ka-10) was registered by C.O. Yogendra Ram (not examined) in police station being Case Crime No.863 of 2010 under Sections 376, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act..
4. Investigation of the case was handed over to PW-4 Mithlesh Kumar Mishra, who visited the spot, prepared site plan (Ex.Ka-6) and after taking underwear of the accused prepared memo (Ex. Ka-7) and recorded the statement of PW-1 (informant) and PW-2 (victim).
5. PW-3 Dr. Sadia Siddiqui medically examined victim, prepared medico legal report (Ex.Ka-4) and supplementary report (Ex. Ka-5) under her signature.
6. PW-4 Investigation Officer got recorded the statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before Magistrate concerned and after completing all necessary formalities of investigation submitted charge sheet (Ex. Ka-9) against the accused-appellant under Sections 376, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act.
7. Case being exclusively triable by Court of Sessions was committed to Session Judge for trial wherefrom, it was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.11, Gorakhpur for disposal according to law.
8. A charge was framed against accused appellant on 18.04.2011 under Sections 376, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act to which accused denied and claimed trial. Charges reads as under :-
eSa] jes'k xqIr ] vij ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh'k dksVZ ua0&11 xksj[kiqj ,rn~n}kjk vki t;jke dks fuEu vkjksi ls vkjksfir djrk gwWA izFke%& ;g fd fnukad 12-11-10 dks lk;a 7-30 cts ls 10-30 cts ds igys fdlh le; xzke gkVk cktkj Fkkuk&xxgk ftyk xksj[kiqj esa okfnuh eqdnek Jherh dqek iRuh ';ke lqUnj dh yMdh dqekjh cUnuk mez djhc 10 o"kZ ds lkFk xkao ds mRrj fn'kk esa fLFkr dksBhok ds cxhpk ckoyh ds ikl mlh bPNk ds fo:) tcjnLrh cykRdkj fd;sA bl izdkj vkius ,slk vijk/k dkfjr fd;k tks Hkk0 na0 la0 dh /kkjk 376 ds vUrxZr n.Muh; gS vkSj bl U;k;ky; ds izlaKku esa gSA f}rh;%& ;g fd mijksDr frfFk ] le; o LFkku ij vkius okfnuh eqdnek dh yM+dh dq0 cUnuk ds lkFk mldh bPNk ds fo:) tcjnLrh cykRdkj fd;s vkSj mls /kedh fn;s fd fdlh dks crkvksxh rks rqEgsa tku ls ekj nsxsaA bl izdkj vkius ,slk vijk/k dkfjr fd;k tks Hkk0 na0 la0 dh /kkjk 506 ds vUrXkZr n.Muh; gS vkSj bl U;k;ky; ds izlaKku esa gSA r`rh;%& ;g fd mijksDr frfFk ] le; o LFkku ij vkids }kjk fd;s x;s dk;Z ¼cykRdkj½ ls iwjs xkao es vQjk rQjh ep x;h vkSj ng'kr rFkk Hk; dk ekgkSy gks x;kA bl izdkj vkius ,slk vijk/k dkfjr fd;k tks /kkjk &7 fdzfeuy yk ves.MesUV ,sDV ds vUrXkZr n.Muh; gS vkSj bl U;k;ky; ds izlaKku esa gSA ,rn~ }kjk vkidks vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd mDr vkjksiks ds vUrxZr vkidk ijh{k.k bl U;k;ky; }kjk fd;k tk;sxkA "I, Ramesh Gupta, Addl District & Sessions Judge, Court No 11, Gorakhpur charge you as follows:-
First- That on 12.11.10, some time between 7.30 and 10.30 pm, at Village Hata Bazaar, P.S. Gagha, District Gorakhpur, you committed rape on Km Bandana, aged about 10 years, daughter of complainant of the case Smt Kuma w/o Shyam Sunder in a forcible manner and against her will near Bagicha Bawli of the Kothiwa situated in the north of village, thereby committing an offence punishable under section 376 of IPC which is in the cognizance of this court.
Second- That on the aforesaid date, place and time you committed rape on Km Bandana daughter of complainant of the case in a forcible manner and against her will and threatening that if she dared to report to anybody, she would be killed. Thus, you committed an offence punishable under section 506 IPC which is in the cognizance of this court.
Third- That on the aforesaid date, time and place, this act (rape) committed by you led to a chaos in the entire village, causing fear and terror. Thus, you committed an offence punishable under section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, which is in the cognizance of this court.
It is hereby directed that you be tried by this court for the aforesaid charges."
(English Translation by Court)
9. In support of its case, prosecution examined PW1-Kuma Devi, PW-2 (victim), PW-3 Dr. Sadia Siddiqui conducting medical examination. PW-4 Mithlesh Kumar Verma, Investigating Officer. PW-1 and PW-2 are the witnesses of fact. PW-3 and PW-4 are formal witnesses, PW-4 has proved FIR, written report, recovery memo, and charge sheet as documentary evidence. PW-3 proved medical report and supplementary report of victim. Ultimately, case came to be heard and decided by A.S.J./ Fast Track Court, Gorakhpur.
10. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by Court explaining all incriminating other evidence and circumstances. Accused denied prosecution story in toto and all formalities of investigation were said to be wrong. He claimed false implication on account of property dispute but produced no defence.
11. After analyzing entire evidence led by prosecution, learned Trial Court convicted accused appellant as stated above. Feeling aggrieved with impugned order of conviction, present appeal has been filed from Jail.
12. We have heard Smt. Rashmi Srivastava, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) for appellant and Sri Udit Chandra, learned A.G.A for State-respondents at length and have gone through the record available on file carefully.
13. Learned Amicus Curiae made following submissions :-
(i) PW-1 is mother of victim (close relative).
(ii) No independent witness named in F.I.R. has been examined from the side of prosecution.
(iii) Medical evidence is not compatible with oral evidence.
(vi) There are several contradictions rendering prosecution case doubtful.
(v) FIR has been lodged by PW-1 (mother of victim) close relative after three hours without explaining any sufficient reason for delay in lodging FIR.
(vi) If Court finds conviction of appellant well and good, he is languishing in Jail since his arrest, hence a lenient view may be taken against him by reducing sentence.
14. Per contra learned AGA opposed submissions by submitting that PW-1 and 2 are witnesses of fact, who had supported prosecution case; at the time of incident, victim was ten years old; she was brutally ruptured by the accused; the circumstances whereunder offence was committed by accused, he deserves no sympathy of the Court and he deserves exemplary punishment.
15. We now proceed to consider rival submissions on merits.
16. It is evident from record that PW-1 and 2 are the witnesses of fact. They proved prosecution story. Both witnesses established that victim was subjected to rape by accused at about 7:30 p.m. on the date of incident.
17. PW-1 real mother of victim has lodged FIR on the same day, very promptly, within three hours at the distance of three kilometers. It has come in evidence of PW-1 that on being searched, victim was found lying down in garden (Bagg) in injured position. Her genital was bleeding. Police Station was situated at the distance of 3.0 kilometers from the spot. Therefore, we do not find any delay in lodging F.I.R.
18. Main victim of the case is P.W.-2 who has stated in her examination that at the time of incident she was playing in front of her house. Jai Ram came there and told her to bring Gutkha. She was going to take Gutkha. He proceeded with and tied her mouth by Gamchha (Cloth) and took her in garden (Bagg) where he committed rape with her (Uske Saath Galat Kaam Kiya). She further stated that Jai Ram entered his penis in her vagina; she became unconscious and sustained serious injuries in her private part. On seeing her mother and cousin Arvind, Jai Ram ran away from the spot. She was taken to hospital by her mother from where she was referred to medical college where she was operated. She remained admitted for 10 days in medical college. PW-2 was cross-examined at length but nothing material could be brought in the cross-examination as to disbelieve the prosecution version.
19. PW-3 Dr. Sadia Siddiqui conducting medical examination of victim deposed that on 13.11.2010, she was posted as Medical Officer in District Mahila Hospital, Gorakhpur. Victim was brought by Lady Constable Shyam Kumari Yadav for medical examination. She (P.W.-3) conducted medical examination in presence of her mother. On external examination, she found the breast of victim undeveloped. Auxillary and pubic hairs undeveloped. No exit injury seen on the person of victim. On internal examination, she found lobia majora minora not developed. Irregular wound at 6:00 O clock in position, tenderness, himan torn and swollen. Witness prepared medico legal report Ex.Ka-4 and Supplementary report Ex. Ka-5 under her signature. In cross-examination, doctor opined that at the time of examination, vagina was torned and swollen.
20. PW-4 Mithlesh Kumar Mishra Investigation Officer deposed that on 13.11.2010 he was posted as Sub Inspector in Police Station Gagaha. Investigation of case Crime No. 863 of 2010 was handed over to him under the instruction of then S.O. During investigation he recorded statement of Yogendra Ram. Informant Smt. Uma Devi and Arvind visited the spot at the instance of informant; prepared site plan (Exbt. Ka-6); arrested accused; recorded his statement; and thereafter on 26.11.2010 entered the copy of medico legal report, X-ray report, pathology supplementary report in case diary. On completion of investigation he submitted charge sheet (Exbt. Ka-9) against the accused. In Cross-examination witness deposed that at the time of registering F.I.R. he was not present at police station. He was cross-examined at length but nothing could be brought at to disbelieve his statement.
21. From the statement of PW.-1, PW-2 PW-3 and PW-4 time, date and place stands proved. Moreso it was not disputed by accused. Medical evidence is consistent with oral evidence.
22. Admittedly, PW-1 is real mother of the victim claims to be witness of occurrence. She has deposed that she along with her nephew namely Arvind went to garden (Bagg) in search of her daughter and saw that accused was committing rape on her daughter. On seeing them, he ran away from the spot. Nothing material could be elicited from her cross-examination, which could dent the prosecution case. She is found natural and reliable.
23. Testimony of eye witness merely because she happens to be a relative of the victim cannot be discarded as 'close relative' would be last one to screen out the real culprit and implicate innocent person as law laid down in Dilip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR,1953, SC 364. Court has held as under :-
"A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause' for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalisation. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts."
24. In Dharnidhar v. State of UP (2010) 7 SCC 759, Court has observed as follows :-
"There is no hard and fast rule that family members can never be true witnesses to the occurrence and that they will always depose falsely before the Court. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. In the case of Jayabalan v. U.T. of Pondicherry (2010) 1 SCC 199, this Court had occasion to consider whether the evidence of interested witnesses can be relied upon. The Court took the view that a pedantic approach cannot be applied while dealing with the evidence of an interested witness. Such evidence cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from a person closely related to the victim"
25. In Ganga Bhawani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy and Others, 2013(15) SCC 298, Court has held as under :-
"11. It is a settled legal proposition that the evidence of closely related witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated before any conclusion is made to rest upon it, regarding the convict/accused in a given case. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased. In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon.
(Vide: Bhagalool Lodh & Anr. v. State of UP, AIR 2011 SC 2292; and Dhari & Ors. v. State of U. P., AIR 2013 SC 308)."
26. It is settled that merely because witnesses are closed relatives of victim, their testimonies cannot be discarded. Relationship with one of the parties is not a factor that affects credibility of witness, more so, a relative would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegation against an innocent person. However, in such a case Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse the evidence to find out that whether it is cogent and credible evidence.
27. Behaviour of the PW-1 is challenged by saying that she had not seen the victim going towards garden (Bagg) but PW-1 along with her nephew directly reached there in search of her daughter which could not be possible for her. PW-1 stated in her statement that on hearing the scream raised by victim, she along with Arvind proceeded to the place from where alarm was coming and had seen the accused committing rape on victim.
28. In Tehseen Poonawala v. Union of India in Writ Petition (Civil) No.19 of 2018, decided on 19.4.2018, Court held that:
"To attribute motives to his colleagues who were with him and took immediate steps to shift him to a hospital nearby is absurd, if not motivated. In hindsight, it is easy to criticise actions which are taken by human beings when faced with an emergency. It is easy for an observer sitting in an arm-chair at a distant point in time to assert that wisdom lay in an alternate course of action. That can never be the test for judging human behaviour."
29. We, in the light of statement of PW-1 and above legal preposition as discussed hereinbefore, are of the view that no abnormality could be attached to the aforesaid behaviour of PW-1.
30. So far as non-examination of eye witnesses Baiju and Ajay shown in F.I.R. is concerned, in view of Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act,1872 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act,1872'), we do not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant.
31. Law is well-settled that as a general rule, Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he/she is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of Act, 1872, but if there are doubts about the testimony, Court will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is not the numbers, the quantity, but the quality that is material. Time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. Test is whether evidence has a ring of truth, cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise.
32. In Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 14 SCC 150, Court re-iterated the view observing that it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is necessary for proving or disproving a fact. The legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused inspite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence.
33. In Kunju @ Balachandran vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2008 SC 1381 a similar view has been taken placing reliance on earlier judgments including Jagdish Prasad vs. State of M.P., AIR 1994 SC 1251; and Vadivelu Thevar vs. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614.
34. In Yakub Ismailbhai Patel Vs. State of Gunjrat reported in (2004) 12 SCC 229, Court held that :-
"The legal position in respect of the testimony of a solitay eyewitness is well settled in a catena of judgments inasmuch as this Court has always reminded that in order to pass conviction upon it, such a testimony must be of a nature which inspires the confidence of the Court. While looking into such evidence this Court has always advocated the Rule of Caution and such corroboration from other evidence and even in the absence of corroboration if testimony of such single eye-witness inspires confidence then conviction can be based solely upon it."
35. In State of Haryana v. Inder Singh and Ors. reported in (2002) 9 SCC 537, Court held that it is not the quantity but the quality of the witnesses which matters for determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. The testimony of a sole witness must be confidence-inspiring and beyond suspicion, thus, leaving no doubt in the mind of the Court.
36. It is now well-settled that conviction for an offence of rape / sexual assault can be based on the sole testimony of prosecutrix. If the same is found to be natural, trustworthy and worth being relied on. If the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of entire case and Trial Court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations. [Vide:State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh & Ors. (1996) 2 SCC 384; [State of Rajasthan Vs. N.K., (2000) 5 SCC 30, State of Himach Pradesh Vs. Lekh Raj & Anr. - (2000) 1 SCC 247, Madan Gopal Kakkad Vs. Naval Dubey and Anr. - (1992) 3 SCC 204].
37. In Rajoo & Ors. V State of M.P., (2008) 15 SCC 133, in this regard, Court observed as under:
"The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the courts should not overlook. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The court while appreciating the evidence of a prosecutrix may look for some assurance of her statement to satisfy its judicial conscience, since she is a witness who is interested in the outcome of the charge leveled by her, but there is no requirement of law to insist upon corroboration of her statement to base conviction of an accused. The evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost on a par with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. Just as a witness who has sustained some injury in the occurrence, which is not found to be self-inflicted, is considered to be a good witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield the real culprit, the evidence of a victim of a sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. It must not be overlooked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an accomplice. Inferences have to be drawn from a given set of facts and circumstances with realistic diversity and not dead uniformity lest that type of rigidity in the shape of rule of law is introduced through a new form of testimonial tyranny making justice a casualty. Courts cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if, taken as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable."
38. So far as discrepancies, variation and contradiction in the prosecution case are concerned, we have analysed entire evidence in consonance with the submissions raised by learned counsel's and find that the same do not go to the root of case.
39. In Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri, (2012) 4 SCC 124, Court has held that minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and sense of observation differs from person to person.
40. We lest not forget that no prosecution case is foolproof and the same is bound to suffer from some lacuna or the other. It is only when such lacunae are on material aspects going to the root of the matter, it may have bearing on the outcome of the case, else such shortcomings are to be ignored. Reference may be made to a recent decision in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2018, Smt. Shamim v. State of (NCT of Delhi), decided on 19.09.2018.
41. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances and legal preposition discussed herein before, we are satisfied that prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused-appellant and has rightly convicted him for having committed an offence under Section 376 IPC.
42. So far as sentence of accused-appellant is concerned, it is always a difficult task requiring balancing of various considerations. The question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion to be exercised on consideration of circumstances aggravating and mitigating in the individual cases.
43. It is settled legal position that appropriate sentence should be awarded after giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, nature of offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. It is obligation of court to constantly remind itself that right of victim, and be it said, on certain occasions person aggrieved as well as society at large can be victims, never be marginalised. The measure of punishment should be proportionate to gravity of offence. Object of sentencing should be to protect society and to deter the criminal in achieving avowed object of law. Further, it is expected that courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects conscience of society and sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against individual victim but also against society to which criminal and victim belong. Punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality which the crime has been perpetrated, enormity of crime warranting public abhorrence and it should 'respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal'. [Vide: Sumer Singh vs. Surajbhan Singh and others, (2014) 7 SCC 323, Sham Sunder vs. Puran, (1990) 4 SCC 731, M.P. v. Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554, Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 2 SCC 175].
44. Hence, applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments and having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of case, nature of offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed, we find that punishment imposed upon accused-appellant-Jai Ram by Trial Court in impugned judgment and order is not excessive and it appears fit and proper and no question arises to interfere in the matter on the point of punishment imposed upon him.
45. In view of above discussion, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. Impugned judgement and order dated 03.07.2015 passed by Additional Session Judge, / Fast Track Court, Gorakhpur in Session Trial No. 104 of 2011 (State v. Jai Ram) under Sections 376 IPC, Police Station Gagha, District Gorakhpur, is maintained and confirmed.
46. Lower Court record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to Court concerned for necessary compliance. A Copy of this judgment be also sent to accused-appellant through Jail Superintendent concerned for intimation forthwith. Compliance report be also submitted to this Court.
47. Smt. Rashmi Srivastava, learned Amicus Curiae for appellant has assisted the Court very diligently. We provide that she shall be paid counsel's fee as Rs. 11,000/-. State Government is directed to ensure payment of aforesaid fee through Additional Legal Remembrancer posted in the office of Advocate General at Allahabad, to her without any delay and, in any case, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
Order Date:-15.02.2019 Akram