Himachal Pradesh High Court
Mahesh Gautam vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 4 April, 2019
Author: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
Bench: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 107 of 2009 Reserved on: 20.03.2019 .
Decided on: 04.04.2019
Mahesh Gautam .....Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ......Respondent
______________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
1Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the appellant : Mr. Anoop Chitkara and Ms. Sheetal Vyas, Advocates.
For the respondent:
r Mr. S.C. Sharma, Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans and Mr. P.K. Bhatti, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Deputy Advocate General.
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
The present criminal appeal has been maintained by the appellant-accused-convict (hereinafter to be called as "the accused") against the judgment dated 15th May, 2009, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P., in Sessions trial No. 4-NL/7 of 2008/06, whereby co-accused Rameshwar Dass Gautam, Nirmala Gautam and Rajwanti Gautam were acquitted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be called as "IPC") and there is no appeal against them, whereas learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2019 21:58:56 :::HCHP 2present appellant for commission of offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC.
.
2. The allegations on the accused, as per the prosecution story are that after his marriage with the deceased, he started ill treating and humiliating her on account of the reason that she has not brought sufficient dowry. The accused also demanded the land from the father of the deceased. The accused was also not satisfied with the deceased, as she could not give birth to a child and had adopted daughter of her brother. It has been alleged that on account of cruelty meted out to the deceased by the accused, ultimately, she consumed heavy dose of Barbiturate, owing to which, she fell unconscious. Firstly no medical aid was provided to her, however, on arrival of the father of the deceased accompanied by some other persons, she was shifted to PGI, Chandigarh, where on the next day she died. Statement of the father of the deceased was recorded, who also produced written complaint, on the basis of which, FIR was registered. Post mortem of the deceased was conducted and viscera was sent for chemical analysis. After report of chemical analysis, it was found that the deceased had consumed heavy dose of Barbiturate medicine, which she was taking in routine for cure as regular treatment. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court, under Sections 306 and 498-A, read with Section 34 of IPC.
::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2019 21:58:56 :::HCHP 33. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined .
as many as eighteen witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C., in which they denied the case of the prosecution in its entirety. In defence, one witness was examined on behalf of the accused persons.
4. The learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 15.05.2009, acquitted all the co-accused, however, accused Mahesh Gautam was convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC and sentenced as follows:
"Thereby, the accused/convict is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for 3 months for offence under Section 498-A IPC. In addition to this, he is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 40,000/- for the offence under Section 306 IPC. In case of non deposit of fine amount he shall have to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months, in addition to substantive imprisonment under Section 306 Indian Penal Code.
Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently, hence the present appeal.
5. Mr. Anoop Chitkara, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that only the present appellant is convicted of the offence on the basis of document, Ext. PW-5/E, which was procured by PW-10, HC Neelam Kumar and there is nothing on record to show that Ext. PW-5/E has been procured by PW-10. PW-5, while ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2019 21:58:56 :::HCHP 4 appearing in the witness box has not exhibited this document (Ext.
PW-5/E) and how it is exhibited is also doubtful. He has further .
argued that except this document, there is nothing on record to conclude that the deceased fell ill/unconscious on 08.07.2005. He has argued that document, Ext. PW-5/E, is not at all reliable, as it is suspicious and seems to be introduced later on by PW-10 to fortify the case of the prosecution. So, this document cannot form base of the conviction. He has argued that there is nothing on record other than this document to conclude that the deceased fell unconscious on 08.07.2005. Mr. Chitkara, Advocate, has also referred to the statement of PW-1 and argued that there are improvements in the statements of PW-1 given in the Court and before the police and in cross-examination of PW-1, his denial towards many things, which he suppose to know about her daughter, itself shows that PW-1 wants to get the appellant convicted. He has further argued that the deceased has died on account of overdose of barbiturate medicine, which she was taking from many years. Lastly, he has argued that the judgment of conviction passed against the appellant be set aside and he be set free.
6. On the other hand, Mr. P.K. Bhatti, Additional Advocate General, has argued that the appellant has rightly been convicted by the learned trial Court and the present appeal deserves to be ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2019 21:58:56 :::HCHP 5 dismissed, as there is no evidence to show that the deceased was unhappy with her life, due to epilepsy. He has further argued that .
document, Ext. PW-5/E has rightly been relied upon by the learned trial Court and as the appellant was totally negligent in not taking the deceased to the hospital, who was unconscious on 08.07.2005, his conviction required to be upheld.
7. In rebuttal, Mr. Chitkara, Advocate, has argued that the death of the deceased has occurred after seven years of the marriage and when the family was living happily. Further, there is no complaint ever made by the deceased/wife or any in-laws to any authority. There is also nothing in the evidence that the deceased/wife had ever left the house of her husband even for few days. The photo album produced on record shows that how happy the family was and thus, it cannot be said that it was the appellant, who compelled the deceased to consume heavy dose of barbiturate.
8. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, we have gone through the record carefully and in detail.
9. Sh. Krishan Chand, father of the deceased, while appearing in the witness box as PW-1 has deposed that the marriage of his daughter with accused No. 1 was solemnized in the year 1994-95, as per Hindu rites and he provided dowry and articles as per his capacity. After the marriage, the accused person ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2019 21:58:56 :::HCHP 6 started harassing the deceased for bringing less dowry and getting land from him. They also used to taunt her for not bearing any .
child. Accused Mahesh was demanding land at Bhararighat and for this purpose he sent the deceased to him thrice. However, he expressed his inability to give any land as he had five daughters.
As per this witness, Mami of the accused had visited his house with his daughter and told him that in case the land was not given, his daughter may be killed. He further deposed that he gave amount of Rs. 14,000/- to 15,000/- to accused No. 1 for running a shop. Not even this, his daughter pledged her ornaments with neighborer Subhash chand and took loan of Rs. 50,000/-. As per this witness, parents of the accused as per the victim used to say that she should grant divorce and they will remarry accused No. 1.
On account of this, mental health of the deceased was effected and she was getting weak day by day. His daughter tried to get the matter settled with the accused persons on number of occasions, but they did not bother and continued to ill treat his daughter. He deposed that on 08.07.2005, he received a telephonic message from the house of the accused that his daughter is ill. On 09.07.2005, he alongwith his son and daughter-in-law went to the house of the accused and noticed that his daughter was lying unconscious in her room. No medical facility was being provided to her. He took his daughter to PGI, Chandigarh and reported the ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2019 21:58:56 :::HCHP 7 matter to the police. This witness, in his cross-examination, feigned ignorance about the year when his daughter came to him .
for money. However, stated that Mami of the accused came to his house in the year 2003. He deposed that he did not disclose about the making of demand of land by his son-in-law to anyone. As per this witness, his daughter started having epilepsy fits after 2000.
He feigned ignorance as to from where his daughter was got treated by the accused. He admitted that 3-4 years prior to the death of her daughter, she remained admitted in PGI, Chandigarh for 2-3 days and he went to see her there, but he did not inquire about the cause of her illness. He feigned ignorance as to whether his daughter remained admitted in Nalagarh Hospital in the year 2004-2005. He also feigned ignorance as to whether accused Mahesh took her daughter to the hospital at Nalagarh from where she was referred to Chandigarh. Self stated that she was taken to Chandigarh and accused Mahesh and his mother had also gone with her. He deposed that he had no conversation with his daughter as she was unable to speak.
10. PW-2, Sh. Krishan Lal, has deposed that he was told by PW-1 that his daughter was ill treated and maltreated by the accused persons, on the pretext of bringing less dowry. As per this witness, PW-1 had requested him to accompany him to Nalagarh to report the matter to the Panchayat. This witness was deferred ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2019 21:58:56 :::HCHP 8 and again examined on 08.04.2009 and deposed that he was told by the father of the deceased to visit matrimonial house of the .
deceased to look into the matter, since the accused had again started giving beatings to the deceased. Thereupon, he accompanied the father of the deceased, Krishan Lal Khurana, Karam Chand, Rakesh Baga, Babu Ram alias Vinod Kumar and visited the house of the deceased. When they reached there it was told by the accused persons that despite 5-6 years of marriage, the deceased could not give birth to a child, but they promised that in future they will treat the deceased well. After 2-3 days of Deepawali, some Mr. Gupta from Nalagarh contacted PW-1 telephonically and told that deceased had been administered beatings by all the accused and she had injuries on her arms. All those persons who already participated in the meeting at Nalagarh, came to his house and again asked him to accompany to the house of the accused, where all the accused persons were present. The deceased told them that the accused administered her beatings. She also told them about the injuries on her arm and started weeping. On both the wrists of the deceased there were 5- 6 injuries, which were on account of breaking of bangles. On inquiry, the sister-in-law of the deceased told that the girl who had been brought by the deceased had been made co-owner in their property, who should immediately be taken to Marinda, as they ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2019 21:58:56 :::HCHP 9 cannot tolerate her in their house. Again the family of the accused was advised not to ill treat the deceased and they agreed to .
behave well with the deceased. On 10 th July, 2005, the deceased died. When they were standing outside the mortuary, accused No. 1 asked him to forgive him, since he has committed wrong, so that his family is not ruined. This witness, in his cross-examination, feigned ignorance about the dates and years of visiting the house of the accused persons. He denied that the deceased was suffering from epilepsy and was getting treatment from different hospitals from long time. He denied that accused No. 1 used to celebrate the birthday of the adopted daughter every year. He admitted that no report qua ill treatment was ever made to the police or any other authority before the death of the deceased.
11. PW-3, Hargopal Gupta, has deposed that deceased was known to him and during the year 2005, 2-3 days prior to Diwali, she came to him and disclosed that she had been administered beatings by her father-in-law and mother-in-law. She had injuries on her both arms. He called accused Mahesh to his house and asked him as to why deceased had been administered beatings. Accused told him that deceased was not of his choice and she could not give birth to a child. The accused also told him about the land in Bhararighat, which he demanded from the father of the deceased to open a petrol pump. As per this witness, the ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2019 21:58:56 :::HCHP 10 deceased had adopted the daughter of her brother, which was objected by accused No. 1. He deposed that on receiving .
telephonic information from his wife qua critical condition of the deceased, he intimated the father of the deceased telephonically.
Thereafter, father of the deceased came to his house and they went to the house of accused and when they reached there, the deceased was lying unconscious. No medical attendant was present there. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to PGI, Chandigarh for treatment, where she died. This witness, in his cross-examination, has admitted that girl was adopted by accused Mahesh and deceased jointly. He also admitted that birthday of girl used to be celebrated every year. He deposed that he never visited the house of the deceased after her marriage. He feigned ignorance as to whether he disclosed to the police that accused was demanding land and used to say that he will get the deceased divorced, as she was not of his choice.
12. PW-4, Karam Chand, has deposed that accused used to proclaim that the deceased was not in a position to bear a child and used to call her 'Banj', they also used to torture her. As per this witness, he visited the house of the accused four times alongwith other Panchayat members and had advised them not to ill treat the deceased. In cross-examination, this witness feigned ignorance whether deceased was suffering from epilepsy for the ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2019 21:58:56 :::HCHP 11 last 10-12 years, on account of which she had turned weak.
13. PW-5, Dr. Krishan Dutt, Assistant Professor, Forensic .
Medicines, Chandigarh, has deposed that on 10.07.2005, he conducted post mortem of the body of the deceased. On internal examination, stomach was found to contain 100 ml of brownish fluid with yellow particles in it. Medicine like smell was appreciated. All other internal viscera were congested. Whole brain pieces of both lungs, whole heart piece of live, half of each kidney were preserved and sent for histopathological examination and routine viscera were preserved for chemical examination.
According opinion was not given for want of report of the test. He issued post mortem report, Ext. PW-5/A. On 27.12.2005, he received an application from S.I. Lal Singh, Crime Branch Shimla alongwith copy of Chemical analysis report for giving final report in this case. After going through the findings of the post mortem examination, histopathological examination vide report Ext. PW-
5/B and FSL report, Ext. PW-5/C, cause of death was given as bronchopneumonia and pulmonary edema associated with acute tubular necrosis, both of which could be complications of acute barbiturate poisoning. He issued final report, Ext. PW-5/D. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that phenobarbital is used for treatment of epilepsy. He further deposed that one tablet of phenobarbital contains 30 mg or 60 mg of drugs. As per ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2019 21:58:56 :::HCHP 12 this witness, death may be on account of consumption of phenobarbital tablets, but it cannot be said with certainty, as .
concentration was not provided in the FSL report. Consumption of 50-60 tablets can lead to poisoning.
14. PW-8, Smt. Alka (friend of the deceased), in her cross-
examination, has deposed that she was in visiting terms with the family of the deceased. The deceased had no child thereby she adopted daughter of her brother. She denied that in-laws of the deceased used to administer beatings to her and they used to call her 'Banj'. She deposed that Part A to A of Ext. PW-8/A has been recorded incorrectly. This witness, in her cross-examination, has deposed that after adoption of the child the couple was leading happy life. She admitted that the deceased used to remain upset, as she was suffering from epilepsy.
15. PW-10, H.C., Neelam Kumar, has deposed that on 10.07.2005, on receipt of information from Police Post at PGI Chandigarh, vide report, Ext. PW-9/A, he alongwith Constable Raman Kumar visited PGI Chandigarh. The dead body of the deceased was lying in the mortuary. He moved application, Ext.
PW-10/A to Senior Medical Officer, PGI, Chandigarh. He procured information, Ext. PW-10/B regarding the death of the deceased given by Doctor concerned to Police Post, PGI Chandigarh. He also procured death summery of the deceased, Ext. PW-5/E. He ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2019 21:58:56 :::HCHP 13 prepared inquest reports, Exts. PW-1/B and PW-1/C. Since on that day it was holiday, the post mortem was not conducted at PGI, .
Chandigarh and it was advised that the dead body be taken to Government Hospital at Sector 16, Chandigarh. Accordingly, the dead body was taken there and post mortem was conducted. He procured post mortem report, Ext. PW-5/A and viscera of the deceased and deposited the same with MHC. On application, Ext.
PW-1/A, moved by the complainant, he prepared rukka, Ext. PW-
10/C and sent the same through Constable Ram Kumar to Police Station, Nalagarh, on the basis of which FIR was registered. This witness, in his cross-examination, has admitted that as per inquest report, the deceased was patient of epilepsy.
16. PW-12, Smt. Sudha Sharma (sister-in-law of the deceased), has deposed that the deceased used to tell her that her in-laws used to ill treat her, as she could not give birth to a child. The deceased also used to tell her that the accused was having objection qua adoption of child, as the child would become successor of their property. As per this witness, she alongwith her father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband went to the house of the accused and asked them as to why they were ill treating the deceased. The accused assured them that nothing would be repeated in future. Before Diwali she alongwith her husband and father-in-law had visited the house of the accused and deceased ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2019 21:58:56 :::HCHP 14 told that beatings had been administered to her. They found the bangles of the deceased broken and scratches on her arms. As per .
this witness, the accused used to ask for land from them at Bhararighat, as he wanted to install a petrol pump there. On 26 th June, 2005, the deceased came to attend the marriage of her cousin at Kurali and she was not found wearing proper dress and ornaments. On inquiry, the deceased told that proper clothes and ornaments are not being provided to her. On 09.07.2005, they received information that the deceased is not well and she accompanied by her husband, sister-in-law, father-in-law went to the house of the accused at Nalagarh, where they were told that the deceased is unconscious from 24 hours. They asked them to consult some doctor. Accordingly, a doctor was called by the accused and thereafter the deceased was taken to Chandigarh for medical treatment. On the next day, the deceased died in PGI, Chandigarh. This witness, in her cross-examination, has denied that function at the time of adoption was celebrated by the accused in their house. However, they celebrated it in their house and only Mahesh Gautam had participated in that function. She admitted that mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased used to reside separate. She feigned ignorance if accused used to celebrate the birthday of adopted child. Self stated that he celebrated the birthday once, but they did not participate despite ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2019 21:58:56 :::HCHP 15 invitation, because accused were not treating the deceased well.
She feigned ignorance as to whether accused Mahesh .
accompanied by the deceased had visited Vrindavan etc. However, stated that they visited Vaishnu Devi Temple twice. This witness is confronted with her statement, Ext. DA, where nothing found recorded regarding any scratches having been found on the wrist of the deceased, breaking of bangles etc. She denied that the deceased was taken to PGI, Chandigarh by accused Mahesh and his parents. r
17. PW-13, Kumari Astha (daughter of the deceased), has deposed that accused persons used to administer beatings to her mother (deceased) with fist and also used to quarrel with her. This witness, in her cross-examination, has deposed that her birthday was celebrated by her parents at Nalagarh once. She denied that her mother used to remain ill. She deposed that in her presence no beatings were ever administered to her mother by the accused persons.
18. PW-16, Dr. Sharad Gargaya, has deposed that the deceased had undergone his treatment at CHC Nalagarh. She remained admitted in the hospital w.e.f. 04.12.2000 to 06.12.2000, as she was undergoing treatment for epilepsy from Rishikesh Neeraj Clinic. At the time of her admission, she was not having any record with her regarding her illness.
::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2019 21:58:56 :::HCHP 1619. PW-17, Dr. Ajit Pal Jain, has deposed that one or two days prior to the death of the deceased, accused Mahesh came to .
him and told him that his wife had consumed some medicine and fell unconscious. Thereafter, he sent his assistant Mr. Anil to diagnose her, who on return told him that the deceased was unconscious. He advised the accused to take her to Civil Hospital.
20. PW-18, S.I. Mukesh Kumar, has deposed that the investigation of the present case was entrusted to State C.I.D. Nalagarh and subsequently he recorded the statements of the witnesses. After recording the statements of the witnesses, the case file was handed over to Dy. SP Sawaran Singh for further investigation. This witness, in cross-examination, has denied that as per his investigation the death of the deceased has occurred on account of heavy dose of medicine. Self stated that death may have taken place on account of heavy dose of medicine.
21. In defence, Dr. M.R. Verma, M.O., FRU Nalagarh, has been examined on behalf of the accused as DW-1. He deposed that deceased was suffering from epilepsy and the medicines which she was taking were prescribed by him after clinical examination of the deceased. Certificates Ext. DB and Ext. DC were issued by him. As per this witness, in case of excessive consumption of epilon one can fell unconscious and can die. In cross-examination, he deposed that the deceased was having the ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2019 21:58:56 :::HCHP 17 history of epilepsy, but he had not jotted down any history. He feigned ignorance as to what tests were conducted to reach the .
conclusion that the deceased was suffering from epilepsy. No ECG and CT Scan were conducted. In case of normal consumption of phenobarbitals the death cannot be caused. For death at least 20- 25 tablets are required.
22. Besides aforesaid witnesses, the prosecution has also examined PW-6, Sh. Rajiv Kumar, PW-7, Inspector Som Dutt, PW-9, HC Brij Lal, PW-11, S.I. Lal Singh, PW-14, Inspector Kamal Kishore and PW-15, Sh. Swaran Singh, who are formal witnesses.
23. After analyzing the evidence which has come on record, there is nothing to conclude that document, Ext. PW-5/E was exhibited by PW-5 while appearing in the witness box. There is no question put to PW-5 with respect to Ext. PW-5/E. Further, the date on which the deceased fell unconscious is mentioned as 09.07.2005, however in document, Ext. PW-5/E, the date is mentioned as 08.07.2005. It has also come in the evidence that the deceased was taking medicines regularly and after she fell unconscious, she was taken to PGI, Chandigarh, where she ultimately died. As per the statement of PW-10, HC Neelam Kumar, on 10.07.2005, in receipt of information at Police Station Nalagarh, from PGI, Chandigarh, he accompanied by Constable Raman visited PGI, where dead body of the deceased was lying in ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2019 21:58:56 :::HCHP 18 mortuary. He moved an application and procured Ext. PW-5/E, i.e. death summary of the deceased, which could be very important .
document in the present case, however, the origin of this document is suspicious. The Doctor who appeared in the witness box and who was supposed to have prepared this document was not put this document, neither this document was exhibited by him. How this document got exhibited is one suspicion and secondly how PW-10 deposed about this document when he could not say from which Doctor he procured this document, makes the document unreliable. Further, the deceased fell unconscious on 09.07.2005, not on 08.07.2005, but, the learned trial Court only on this basis, hold the present appellant guilty for having committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC, all other co-accused were however acquitted by the learned trial Court and there is no appeal against them, as stated by learned Additional Advocate General in the Court.
24. As per Ext. PW-5/A, the deceased had consumed 50-60 tablets on 08.07.2005. It has also come on record that deceased was taking medicines for her treatment regularly. The prosecution has failed to prove anything on record that the deceased was taken to PGI Chandigarh, only after her father accompanied by some other persons reached the house of the accused. Rather from Ext. PW-5/D, it is clear that deceased fell unconscious in the ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2019 21:58:56 :::HCHP 19 morning of 09.07.2005, thereafter in the same morning she was taken to Civil Hospital Nalagarh and then to PGI Chandigarh. There .
is nothing on record that the deceased was taken to hospital by her parents and not by the accused. The evidence also shows that the couple had adopted a daughter, who was studying in good school. The photographs placed on the file shows that the couple was living happily. The father of the deceased has admitted in his cross-examination that his daughter started having epilepsy after 2000, which fact is also corroborated by PW-16, Dr. Sharad Gargaya. The present appellant also provided treatment to the deceased through PW-17, which is admitted by PW-17. Document, Ext. PW-5/D, which stands proved as per the Evidence Act, shows that the deceased fell unconscious on 09.07.2005 and on the same day in the morning she was taken to PGI, Chandigarh. As per final opinion on Ext. PW-5/D, the deceased died due to overdose of the medicine, which is given to the epilepsy patients.
25. The facts are clear that it was the present appellant, who took the deceased to Civil Hospital Nalagarh and then to PGI, Chandigarh, as PW-1, father of the deceased, has stated in his cross-examination that the deceased was taken to PGI, Chandigarh by accused Mahesh and his mother, which amply makes it clear that the accused made every sincere effort to save the deceased and immediately call the doctor to sent his assistant. The accused ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2019 21:58:56 :::HCHP 20 firstly took the deceased to Civil Hospital, Nalagarh then to PGI, Chandigarh before 10.00 O'Clock in the morning. The reliance, as .
placed by learned trial Court on document, Ext. PW-5/E, ignoring all other documents to hold that the deceased fell unconscious on 08.07.2005, is contrary to records, as the factum of Ext. PW-5/E was not proved by the doctor, who was supposed to prepare the same.
26. In these circumstance, the judgment of conviction passed by learned trial Court cannot said to be sustainable in the eyes of law and as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of appellant-convict Mahesh Gautam beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt, the judgment of conviction passed against him is required to be set aside. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction passed by learned trial Court is set aside and present appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. The appeal, so also pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) Judge April 04, 2019 (raman) ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2019 21:58:56 :::HCHP