Karnataka High Court
Ajay S/O Venkatesh Madar vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 November, 2022
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
CRL.A No. 100328 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100328/2019 (C)
BETWEEN:
AJAY S/O. VENKATESH MADAR,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: MASON,
R/O. 7TH CROSS, JANNAT NAGAR,
DHARWAD-580001.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.L.VANTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH DHARWAD VIDYAGIRI POLICE STATION,
R/BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD-580001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374
OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.07.2019 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD IN SC
Digitally signed
by ROHAN
ROHAN HADIMANI T
HADIMANI Date:
T 2022.12.08
14:41:21
+0530
-2-
CRL.A No. 100328 of 2019
NO.116/2018 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 323, 324, 504, 302, 201 READ WITH SECTION 34
OF IPC AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE APPELLANT.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 15.11.2022, COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT', THIS DAY,
G BASAVARAJA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. The accused No.1-Ajay S/o.Venkatesh Madar has preferred this appeal under Sections 374 of Cr.P.C., seeking to allow this appeal and set aside the judgment dated 09.07.2019 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Dharwad in SC.No.116/2018 and consequently acquit the appellant.
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that:
2.1. On 27.02.2018 at 01:30 p.m., the complainant Maitap S/o. Mohammed Rafiq -3- CRL.A No. 100328 of 2019 Mulgund, filed the written complaint as per Ex.P.1 before the SHO of Dharwad Vidyagiri P.S., alleging that he is the resident of Tejaswi Nagar Dharwad and is a Mason by profession and he had two brothers by names Altaf and Shanur and his younger brother Shanur was given in adoption to his maternal uncle Suleman and he was residing with his adoptive father.
2.2. It is further alleged in the complaint that on 27.02.2018 in the morning at 09:00 a.m., himself and his brothers Altaf and Shanur were sitting in the house of their friend Shivu Kurli in 7th Cross, Jannat Nagar, Dharwad and at about 09:45 a.m., on that day accused No.1 Ajay came there and warned them not to make galata and again by 10:00 a.m., he came there and -4- CRL.A No. 100328 of 2019 started abusing them in filthy language and when his brother Altaf questioned accused Ajay, he abused Altaf in filthy language and on hearing the galata, his younger brother Shanur came out of the house and questioned the act of accused Ajay and being enraged by the same accused Ajay took a knife from his pocket and stabbed on the left side of the chest of Shanur and caused grievous injuries. 2.3. It is further alleged that when himself, his brother Altaf and his friend Imam tired to intervene accused Ajay, assaulted them with the same knife and at that time accused No.2 Ramesh also came there and assaulted them with his hands. In the meantime, his friend Shivu Kurli and the owner of Kirana shop Nasir Khazi pacified the quarrel and when injured Shanur was -5- CRL.A No. 100328 of 2019 taken to the hospital for treatment the Doctors declared him dead. Thus, he lodged the complaint as per Ex.P.1 before Vidyagiri Police Station, Dharwad.
3. Police have registered the case in Crime No.36/2018 against the accused No.1 and 2 and after filing of charge sheet the case was registered in C.C.No.1648/2018.
4. After committal of the case, the learned Sessions Judge has registered the case in SC.No.116/2018.
Accused No.1 and 2 was produced from judicial custody before the learned Sessions Judge and on hearing the charges, the learned Sessions Judge has framed the charges against the accused for the alleged commission of offences. Same was read out and explained to the accused, who having understood the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
-6-CRL.A No. 100328 of 2019
5. To prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution has examined 20 witnesses as PWs.1 to 20, got marked 22 documents as Exs.P.1 to 22 and 15 material objects got marked as MOs.1 to 15. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., is recorded as to the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused who totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses but have not chosen to lead any defense evidence on their behalf.
5.1. On hearing to the arguments, the Trial Court has convicted the accused No.1 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 201, 302, 324 and 504 of IPC and acquitted the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC.
6. The accused No.2 is convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and acquitted for the commission of offences punishable -7- CRL.A No. 100328 of 2019 under Sections 201, 302, 324 read with Section 504 of IPC and passed sentence as under:
"Accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence under section 302 I.P.C., and in default to pay fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
Accused No.1 is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 02 years and pay fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence under section 201 I.P.C. and in default to pay fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 06 months.
Accused No.1 is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 year and pay fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence under section 324 I.P.C. and in default to pay fine he shall further undergo 324 I.P.C. and in default to pay fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 01 month.
Accused No.1 is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 06 months and pay fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under section 504 I.P.C. and in default to pay fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 01 month.
Accused No.2 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 06 months for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and as he is in custody since 28/02/2018 he is -8- CRL.A No. 100328 of 2019 ordered to be released forthwith by extending the set off under section 428 Cr.PC.
If fine is paid by accused No.1, out of the same a sum of Rs.50,000/- is ordered to be paid to the Complainant P.W.1 as compensation under section 357 Cr.P.C. All the substantive sentences awarded on accused No.1 shall run concurrently. Accused No.1 is also entitled for set-off under section 428 Cr.P.C. in respect of the period undergone in custody during investigation and trial.
MO Nos.1 to 15 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of the appeal period and if appeal is filed only after disposal of the appeal. Office is directed to supply free copy of the judgment to accused and to issue conviction warrant accordingly."
7. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the accused No.1, the present criminal appeal is filed.
8. Sri. M.L.Vanti, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant has submitted his arguments that: -9- CRL.A No. 100328 of 2019
8.1. The impugned judgment is illegal and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
8.2. That the Court below has erred in accepting the evidence of PWs.1, 5, 6 and 7 who are the brothers and friends of the deceased respectively, in the absence of independent witnesses.
8.3. That there are lot of contradictions and omissions in the evidence of above said witnesses. So the Trial Court ought not have accepted the case of the prosecution.
8.4. The Court below has failed to take into consideration that, there was sudden provocation. Due to this reason the scuffle took place between the deceased Shanur and accused No.1 which is evident from
- 10 -
CRL.A No. 100328 of 2019
the evidence of PWs.1, 5, 6 and 7, as such the conviction of accused No.1 for offence under Section 302 is incorrect, unjust and not in accordance with law. 8.5. The Court below failed to apply the principle of mens-rea which has resulted in miscarriage of Justice.
8.6. The Court below has failed to take into consideration the fact of grave and sudden provocation between deceased Shanur and accused No.1 and conviction under Section 302 of the IPC is improper and incorrect.
8.7. Looked at from any angle the judgment under challenge is opposed to law, evidence on record and facts of the case, as such the same is liable to be set aside.
- 11 -
CRL.A No. 100328 of 2019 8.8. The Court below has wrongly held that the prosecution established that it has proved the case behind reasonable doubt and convicted the accused No.1 which has resulted in miscarriage of Justice. 8.9. The prosecution has failed to produce Sharp weapon which was stated to be used for attempt of murder.
8.10. The prosecution failed to prove the motive. There is no intention to kill the victim.
8.11. The incident took place sudden, rash and provocation, hence it is not applicable under Section 302 of the IPC.
8.12. To substantiate his arguments, he relied on the decision in the case of RAMPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH reported in (2012) 8 SCC 289. On these
- 12 -
CRL.A No. 100328 of 2019 grounds, he sought for allowing this appeal.
9. As against this, Sri. V.M.Banakar, the learned Additional SPP for the respondent-State has submitted that 9.1. After appreciation of the evidence placed by the prosecution in accordance with law, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for the commission of aforesaid offences. 9.2. During the course of cross-examination, the prosecution witnesses not elicited that due to grave and sudden provocation, the accused No.1 has assaulted the deceased with knife. Even accused has not offered any explanation in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Only for the first time in the appeal, the accused have set-up the defense that the alleged
- 13 -
CRL.A No. 100328 of 2019 act of the accused will not come under the definition of murder and the accused has committed this offence due to grave and sudden provocation which come under Section 304 sub-Clause (1) of IPC which is not admissible.
9.3. Even on perusal of the materials placed by the prosecution absolutely there are no materials to attract the offence punishable under Section 304 sub-Clause (1) of the IPC. The accused No.1 has assaulted the deceased with knife which shows that he has committed the murder of deceased with an intention to kill him.
9.4. If the accused No.1 has not used the deadly weapon like knife which has caused the death of the deceased, this Court would have considered the defense taken by the accused but in the case on
- 14 -
CRL.A No. 100328 of 2019 hand, the accused No.1 has stabbed the deceased with knife and also has assaulted CWs.11 and 12 when they came to the rescue the deceased with knife causing simple injuries to them. 9.5. To substantiate his arguments, he has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MRITUNJOY BISWAS Vs. PRANAB ALIAS KUTI BISWAS AND ANOTHER reported in (2013) 12 SCC 796 and submitted his arguments that non recovery of knife does not detract from the case of the prosecution where the direct evidence is acceptable and sought for dismissal of this appeal.
10. We have carefully examined the evidence of prosecution witnesses, impugned judgment and arguments of both sides.
- 15 -
CRL.A No. 100328 of 2019 10.1. Ex.P.1-complaint filed by the complainant-
PW.1-Maitaf Mulgund reveals that on 27.02.2018 around 9:45 a.m., he along with his two brothers PW.5-Altaf and deceased Shanur came on their motorcycle to the house of their friend PW.7-Shivu Kurli and at that time Imam Irfan-PW.6 also came there and they were sitting in the house of PW.7-shivu chit chatting with each other and at that time accused No.1-Ajay Madar came in front of the house of Shivu Kurli, called him out of the house and questioned about they talking loudly by sitting inside the house and went away. Further it is alleged that even after accused No.1 warning Shivu Kurli continued their talks. At about 10:00 a.m., again accused No.1 came in front of the house of Shivu Kurli and called him
- 16 -
CRL.A No. 100328 of 2019 out of the house and in pursuance of such call, one by one they came out of the house and accused No.1 picked up a quarrel with PW.5-Altaf and abused him in filthy language and in the meantime, deceased Shanur being the brother of Altaf, intervened and pushed accused No.1 about questioning his galata and at that time being enraged by the act of deceased Shanur accused No.1 stabbed Shanur on his left side of his chest with a knife and immediately deceased fell on the ground with severe bleeding injuries on his chest and in the mean time accused No.1 assaulted PW.5-Altaf and PW.6-Imam Irfan and caused simple injuries to them. Later accused No.2- Ramesh Madar came there and assaulted them with his hands.
- 17 -
CRL.A No. 100328 of 2019 10.2. On the basis of this complaint, Vidyagiri Police, Dharwad has registered the case in Crime N.36/2018 against the accused No.1 and 2 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 324 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and submitted the FIR to the Court on the same day at 12:15 p.m., as per Ex.P.14. 10.3. On the same day Police have conducted inquest panchnama as per Ex.P.2 and taken photos as per Exs.P.3 and 4 and on the same day Police have also visited the spot and conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P.6 and taken photos at the time of spot panchnama as per Exs.P.7 and 8. 10.4. On the same day Police have conducted the seizure panchnama in respect of seizure of cream colour shirt, white & blue colour jeans pant, white plastic belt and
- 18 -
CRL.A No. 100328 of 2019 blue colour nicker all blood stained as per Ex.P.10. Police have also conducted rough sketch of spot as per Ex.P.13 and also collected wound certificates of the injured as per Exs.P.15 and 17 and after obtaining wound certificates and FSL report, Police have submitted the charge sheet against the accused.
10.5. PW.1-Maitaf Mulgund has clearly deposed in his evidence as to the contents of Ex.P.1 and also deposed as to the seizure of properties under mahazars, this evidence of PW.1 corroborated by the evidence of eyewitnesses PWs.5 to 7. In their evidence, each one of them in clear terms have deposed on oath about their presence in the house of PW.7 prior to the incident and they have further deposed as to how the quarrel had started between
- 19 -
CRL.A No. 100328 of 2019
the accused No.1 with them. In unequivocal terms PWs.1 and 5 to 8 have deposed before the Court that around 10:00 a.m. when accused No.1 came to the house of PW.7 and when the complainant and his friends came out of the house, he had abused the complainant-PW.1 and PWs.5 and 6 in filthy language and in the meanwhile, deceased Shanur intervened and pushed accused No.1 and at that time accused No.1 took off the knife, stabbed and caused bleeding injuries to the deceased Shanur on his left side of the chest. With regard to the actual assault made by accused No.1 with knife, the evidence of PWs.1 and 5 to 8 are corroborative with each other. The evidence of the complainant and the eyewitnesses are
- 20 -
CRL.A No. 100328 of 2019 cogent, corroborative, believable and trustworthy.
10.6. Apart from this, the PM report which is marked as Ex.P.12 reveals the final opinion of the RFSL authorities that the cause of death is due to hemorrhagic shock due to punchered wound in chest and heart. The doctor PW.9-Rangu Rathod has clearly deposed as to the contents of PM report and also cause of death as shown in Ex.P.12(c), same is not disputed by the other side.
10.7. PW.5-Altaf and PW.6-Iman have clearly deposed in their evidence that when they tried to rescue the deceased, the accused No.1 has assaulted PW.5 with knife on his left shoulder and PW.6 has also received the injuries on his left hand. The prosecution has also produced the wound
- 21 -
CRL.A No. 100328 of 2019 certificates which are marked as Exs.P.15 and 17. Ex.P.15-wound certificate reveals that Imam Irfan Mulla-PW.6, 20 years, an inhabitant of Janath Nagar, Dharwad came with the history of assault and he is examined by the doctor on the same day at 01:45 p.m., and found the injuries as shown in Ex.P.15. Ex.P.16 is the MLC extract. Ex.P.17 is the wound certificate pertaining to PW.5-Altaf Mulagund which reveals that on 27.02.2018 he has taken treatment in the hospital with a history of assault. The injuries shown in Ex.P.17 are also simple in nature. Ex.P.18 is MLC extract.
10.8. Dr. Sharanappa Katti has also deposed as to the examination of the injured and issuance of wound certificates-Exs.P.17 and 18. Another doctor who has examined
- 22 -
CRL.A No. 100328 of 2019 Imam Irfan Mulla has deposed in his evidence as to the injured and also issuance of wound certificate-Ex.P.15.
11. On perusal of all the material evidences along with the medical evidence, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 has committed the murder of the deceased Shanur with knife and also proved that the accused No.1 has voluntarily caused simple injuries to PWs.5 and 6 and after the incident, accused No.1 has gone away from the scene of the offence with the knife used for the commission of offence and he has thrown the same with his clothes in a movable vehicle moving towards Hubli. Therefore, the IO has submitted the charge sheet against accused No.1 under Section 201 of IPC. The Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective manner and come to the conclusion that the accused No.1 has
- 23 -
CRL.A No. 100328 of 2019 committed the offences punishable under Sections 201, 302, 324 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC.
12. Sri. M.L.Vanti, learned Amicus Curiae has vehemently submitted his arguments that though the grave and sudden provocation offence is not set up by the accused in the Trial Court to the contents of Ex.P.1 and the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses reveal that when the deceased Shanur has pushed the accused No.1 questioning him why he is abusing Altaf, then the accused No.1 enraged and stabbed him with knife on is chest. This evidence is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the accused No.1 has committed this offence only due to grave and sudden provocation.
13. In this regard, we have carefully examined the contents of Ex.P.1 and prosecution witnesses. perusal of the contents of complaint-Ex.P.1, it is crystal clear that the deceased has pushed accused No.1 questioning as to abusing of Altaf. Then
- 24 -
CRL.A No. 100328 of 2019 accused No.1 enraged stabbed him with knife. During the course of cross-examination of PWs.1, 5 and 6, it is suggested by accused counsel that in a scuffle between the deceased and the accused, the deceased has received the injuries with sharp edged object on his chest and has sustained the injuries. Further it is suggested that the murder of the deceased has not caused due to the stabbed injuries with knife. Same suggestion is also denied by the prosecution witnesses.
14. For the first time, the appellant counsel has submitted the arguments before the Court that due to grave and sudden prosecution the accused No.1 has committed the offence. The knife is also not seized by the prosecution but this argument submitted on behalf of the accused cannot be accepted at this stage for the reason that accused has not explained why he had kept knife in his pocket and further accused has not only stabbed the
- 25 -
CRL.A No. 100328 of 2019 deceased with knife but also assaulted PWs.5 and 6 with knife when they tried to rescue the deceased. This conduct of the accused No.1 clearly reveals that he has got motive and intention to commit the murder of the deceased, for that, he had kept the knife in his pocket and caused the injuries with knife to the deceased. Ex.P.12-PM report reveals that the death is caused due to injuries caused to chest and heart. This evidence shows that how the accused No.1 has used the force with knife on the deceased.
15. We have carefully gone through the decision cited by the learned Amicus Curiae in the case of RAMPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH reported in (2012) 8 SCC 289 but these facts and circumstances are not consistent to this case on hand. Therefore, on the basis of this judgment the accused is not entitled for alteration of sentence from Section 302 of IPC to the one under Section 304 part I of the Cr.P.C.
- 26 -
CRL.A No. 100328 of 2019
16. We have also gone through the decision produced by the learned Additional SPP to substantiate his arguments i.e., in the case of MRITUNJOY BISWAS Vs. PRANAB ALIAS KUTI BISWAS AND ANOTHER reported in (2013) 12 SCC 796 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court as observed in paragraphs No. 34 to 37 of judgment as under:
"34. In Lakshmi v. State of U.P. (2002) 7 SCC 198 this court has ruled that: (SCC p.205, para
16) "16. Undoubtedly, the identification of the body, cause of death and recovery of weapon with which the injury may have been inflicted on the deceased are some of the important factors to be established by the prosecution in an ordinary given case to bring home the charge of offence under Section 302 IPC.
This, however, is not an inflexible rule. It cannot be held as a general and broad proposition of law that where these aspects are not established, it would be fatal to the case of the prosecution and in all cases and eventualities, it ought to result in the acquittal of those who may be charged with the offence of murder."
35. In Lakhan Sao v. State of Bihar (2000) 9 SCC 82 it has been opined that: (SCC p.87, para
18)
- 27 -
CRL.A No. 100328 of 2019
"18. The non-recovery of the pistol or spent cartridge does not detract from the case of the prosecution where the direct evidence is acceptable."
36. In State of Rajasthan v. Arjun Singh (2011) 9 SCC 115 this Court has expressed that:
(SCC p.122, para 18) "18....mere non-recovery of pistol or cartridge does not detract the case of the prosecution where clinching and direct evidence is acceptable. Likewise, absence of evidence regarding recovery of used pellets, bloodstained clothes, etc. cannot be taken or construed as no such occurrence had taken place."
Thus, when there is ample unimpeachable ocular evidence and the same has been corroborated by the medical evidence, non-recovery of the weapon does not affect the prosecution case.
37. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court being wholly unsustainable is set aside and the judgment of conviction of the trial court is restored. The respondent is directed to surrender to custody to serve out the sentence."
17. In the instant case also there is ample unimpeachable evidence supported with eyewitnesses, same has been corroborated by the medical evidence. Hence, non recovery of knife does not affect the prosecution case. Apart from this, the
- 28 -
CRL.A No. 100328 of 2019 prosecution has also made accusation against accused No.1 under Section 201 of IPC for disappearance of evidence after commission of offence.
18. The learned Amicus Curiae has failed to convince this Court that the alleged act of accused No.1 comes under the provisions of Section 304 sub-Clause (1) of IPC.
19. The learned Sessions Judge has not passed any order as to the victim compensation as required under Section 357A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1987. In this regard, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has issued a Circular No.4/2019 dated 23.09.2019. In view of said Circular, all the Judicial Officers in the State are instructed to follow the Guidelines issued in the judgment dated 29.08.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.770/2013 and has also directed to comply with the object and intent of Section 357 and 357A
- 29 -
CRL.A No. 100328 of 2019 of Cr.P.C. while awarding compensation to the victims under Victim Compensation Scheme.
20. The learned Sessions Judge has not assigned any reasons for non compliance of Circular and decision passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
21. In the instant case, accused No.1 has committed murder of one Shanur Mulugund aged 17 years, Occupation: Mason work, resident of Kolikeri, near Churumari Batti, Dharwad. The accused No.1 is not having financial capacity to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased and the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad has not awarded any compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased as required under Section 357A of the Cr.P.C., and in view of the circular issued by this Court.
22. For the aforesaid reasons and keeping in mind the afore cited decisions, we do not find any grounds to
- 30 -
CRL.A No. 100328 of 2019 interfere the impugned judgment and sentence passed by the Trial Court. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. The appeal filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed. ii. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad in SC.No.116/2018 dated 09.07.2019 is confirmed.
iii. Member Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Dharwad is directed to take necessary steps to award compensation to the legal heir of the deceased Shanur Mulugund in accordance with law as observed by this Court.
- 31 -
CRL.A No. 100328 of 2019 iv. Registry is directed to pay honorarium of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) to the Amicus Curiae for the legal assistance rendered to this Court.
v. Registry is directed to furnish the copy of this judgment to accused No.1 through Jail Authorities free of cost and inform him of his right to appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and transmit the Trial Court Records to the Trial Court along with a copy of this judgment.
vi. Registry is also directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Member Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Dharwad to take necessary steps to award compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased in accordance with law within a
- 32 -
CRL.A No. 100328 of 2019 period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(Sd/-) JUDGE (Sd/-) JUDGE RH