Bombay High Court
Raju Jaishriram Telgote (Langda) (In ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ... on 30 July, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 BOM 705, 2019 CRI LJ 4199, 2019 (3) ABR(CRI) 200, (2020) 1 MH LJ (CRI) 173
Author: Rohit B. Deo
Bench: Rohit B. Deo
1 apeal586.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.586 OF 2017
Raju Jaishriram Telgote (Langda),
Aged about 54 years, Occ.- Labour,
R/o Khanapur Ves, Akot, Tq. Akot,
District - Akola. .... APPELLANT
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Akot City, Tq. Akot,
District - Akola. .... RESPONDENT
______________________________________________________________
Shri P.S. Wathore, Counsel for the appellant,
Smt. Ritu Kaliya, Addl.P.P. for the respondent-State.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : ROHIT B. DEO, J.
DATED : 30th JULY, 2019
ORAL JUDGMENT :
This appeal questions the judgment dated 05-4-2017 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akot in Sessions Case 64/2015, whereby the appellant is convicted for offence punishable under Section 376(2)(l) of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to payment of fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2019 03:23:13 ::: 2 apeal586.17 one year, and is further convicted for offence punishable under Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to payment of fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.
2. The prosecution case :
(i) PW 3-Shubhangi Lanke lodged report dated 25-7-2015 (Exhibit 49) at Police Station, Akot City alleging that the mentally challenged daughter of her deceased brother-in-law Arun Lanke and his deceased wife Manda Lanke was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the accused.
(ii) PW 3 states in the report that she is a housewife and is married to Sharad Lanke. The elder brother of her husband and his wife expired leaving behind the victim, aged 30 years and son Shashank, who are mentally challenged.
(iii) PW 3 states that she has been looking after the two mentally challenged children since last two years and is in a position to understand their language and signs.
(iv) PW 3 states that on 18-7-2015 she alongwith her husband Sharad Lanke, son and sister-in-law left Akot for Bhopal and the two mentally challenged children were at home. While PW 3 was in Bhopal, at 1.30 p.m. on 23-7-2015, she received a call from her ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2019 03:23:13 :::
3 apeal586.17 neighbour Smt. Sunita Hemant Kashikar who conveyed that the victim is constantly crying and that PW 3 and others should return home. PW 3 and her family members returned to Akot at 11-00 p.m. on 24-7- 2015. PW 3 made enquiries with the victim who was crying unceasingly and was sleeping.
(v) PW 3 then states that at 5-00 p.m. on 25-7-2015 the victim disclosed by sign language that after PW 3 and others left for Bhopal, the accused entered the house while the victim was sleeping, the accused pressed her chest, removed her clothes and slept on her person. PW 3 asked the victim what was done by the accused and the victim indicated by signs that she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse and her chest was pressed. The victim further disclosed by signs that she was suffering pain in private parts.
(vi) On the basis of report Exhibit 49, Crime 105/2015 was registered vide printed first information report (Exhibit 50) for offence punishable under Sections 452 and 376(2)(l) of the Indian Penal Code.
(vii) Investigation ensued. The Investigating Officer visited the spot and prepared spot panchanama. The victim was medically examined. The accused was arrested. Biological samples were collected and sent for chemical analysis. Statements of witnesses were recorded and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed in the Court of jurisdictional Magistrate who committed the proceedings ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2019 03:23:13 ::: 4 apeal586.17 to the Sessions Court.
(viii) The learned Sessions Judge framed charge (Exhibit 6) under Sections 450 and 376(2)(l) of the Indian Penal Code. The accused abjured guilt and claimed to be tried in accordance with law.
(ix) The prosecution examined four witnesses. PW 1 is the victim. PW 2-Manoj Ratan is the witness to the spot and seizure panchanama. PW 3-Shubhangi Lanke is the informant. PW 4-Manlavi is the Investigating Officer.
(x) The accused did not step into the witness box nor was any witness examined in defence.
(xi) In response to question 24 in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code ("Code" for short), the accused stated thus :
"Since 2006 to 2015 I was doing the work of cleaning and household in Aditya Agencies. A rod is put in my leg and therefore, I cannot sit and attend natures call by sitting. Hence, I was given the work of cleaning so also the household work like bringing vegetables, milk, flour, medicines, wash the vehicles etc. There is urinal near to our shop. It was very smelling and the owner was scolding. Therefore, one day I went to the hand pump with a bucket. There were many buckets. I filled the bucket with water. Meanwhile one mentally differently able girl came there stating that, there is her turn and poured water from my bucket. I asked her why she threw away water. I needed only one bucket. The said girl became annoyed and threw the dirt of pig near the hand pump on my mouth. The dirt had gone in my mouth also. When I went on the tap to wash the mouth, she closed the tap. I asked her why she threw the dirt. She did not reply and went to the home running and called her uncle and aunt ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2019 03:23:13 :::
5 apeal586.17 and she was stating to her uncle and aunt that I filled the bucket when there was her turn. I became annoyed and slightly slapped on her head and asked her why she thrown dirt on his mouth. Her uncle and aunt came on my person and pushed me in a corner. Her uncle and aunt called me, "Dhed Ka Baccha" and they were torturing me since the beginning. After abusing they threatened me how will you serve and if I went to Police Station one leg is handicap and other leg will also be broken. Therefore, I was frightened and did not go to the Police Station. The owner of the Agency where I was working was not present in the town. On the next day when he returned I firstly informed him the incidence and asked him you should scold and other should not and hence, it is sorrowful. The owner stated that he has to live in the society and therefore, he does not say. The owner also stated that if you want to serve or not, you have to hear all. I did not speak with owner thinking that he will remove me from the service I closed the office and went to home at 5.00 by handing over key to the wife of owner. All staff members also had gone. I did not narrate the incident to my brothers and sisters. When I woke up from the sleep my brother and sisters asked me what happened, why are you sad ? I told them that one mentally differently able girl has thrown dirt on my mouth. After went to the home I took bath. There was bad smell of dirt to my mouth for four days. When I was present in my house at about 6.00 to 7.00 p.m. police vehicle came. I was found in the house. They asked me who is Raju Telgote ? I told them that I am. By taking help of mentally differently able girl, the uncle and aunt charged me under Section 376 and under other sections. The police were not in uniform when they arrested me. They were in the civil dress. When I asked them why I am arrested they stated that you are charged under Section 376 and you have to come to Police Station and asked me to come and took me to Police Station and sat me down."
The learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused as afore stated.
3. Shri P.S. Wathore, learned Counsel for the accused argues ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2019 03:23:13 ::: 6 apeal586.17 thus :
(a) The prosecution has not adduced any evidence to pinpoint the day, date and time of the incident.
(b) The evidence of PW 1-victim and the evidence of PW 3-
informant is inconsistent.
(c) The victim was tutored. The failure of the Investigating Officer to record the statement of the victim is fatal since immense prejudice is caused to the accused.
(d) The medical evidence belies the version of the victim.
(e) Material witnesses are not examined. Sunita Hemant Kashikar is cited as witness. However, she is not examined.
(f) The reports of the Chemical Analyzer exclude the possibility of the victim having been subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. The investigation is unfair. PW 4-Investigating Officer admits to have recorded the statement of the neighbour of the victim. The statement is not filed alongwith charge-sheet.
(g) The Investigating Officer has admitted that there was no witness who saw the accused entering the house of the victim or exiting therefrom. The house of the victim is situated in busy and crowded area with shops and temples in the neighbourhood. Several residential houses are situated nearby including infront of the house of the victim. The accused is physically handicapped and is lame, which is admitted ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2019 03:23:13 ::: 7 apeal586.17 by PW 3. The version of the prosecution is that the incident took place in the afternoon hours. The fact that nobody noticed the accused entering the house of the victim is eloquent.
(h) The version of the prosecution is doubtful. Benefit of any doubt must necessarily go to the accused.
4. Smt. Ritu Kaliya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would support the judgment of conviction.
5. The edifice of the prosecution case is constructed on the testimony of PW 1-victim. Irrefutably, neither the reports of the Chemical Analyzer (Exhibits 64, 65 and 66) are incriminating material nor is the medical examination report of the victim or the accused of any assistance to the prosecution. The medical certificate (Exhibit 67) is exhibited on admission without examining the author thereof. The medical certificate records that there was no evidence of any injury to the genitals or of any injury suggestive of application of force. The labia majora, labia minora, clitoris, fourchette and introitus/vagina were normal. No bleeding or oedema or injury to the hymen detected. The chemical analysis did not detect any semen on the matress cover or the clothes worn by the victim. Nor is any semen detected on the clothes of the accused. Neither blood nor tissue matter is detected on ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2019 03:23:13 ::: 8 apeal586.17 the sample of nail clippings of the accused. Similarly, neither blood nor tissue matter is detected on the sample of nail clippings of the victim. No semen is detected on the vagina and urethral swab of the victim.
6. The conviction is substantially, if not entirely, based on the testimony of the victim and her evidence may now be scrutinized. The evidence of the victim shall have to be analysed keeping in mind the admitted position that her statement was not recorded during the investigation, either under Section 161 or Section 164 of the Code. The learned Sessions Judge did appoint Smt. Jayshree Deshmukh as an interpretor. However, most of the questions are put to the victim by the learned Sessions Judge and the translator was required to assist the learned Sessions Judge only once or twice. The learned Sessions Judge recorded the answers which are given by the victim without the assistance of the translator except on an occasion or two.
7. PW 3-the aunt of the victim who is the informant admits in the cross-examination that the victim can talk. She further admits that she disclosed to the police that the victim cannot talk and, therefore, the police did not record her statement. PW 3 further admits that she disclosed similarly to the learned Magistrate and, therefore, the statement of the victim was not recorded by the learned Magistrate. ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2019 03:23:13 :::
9 apeal586.17 PW 4-Manlavi-Investigating Officer admits that he did not record the statement of the victim and the further admission is that the victim can speak although the witness volunteers that she can speak with difficulty.
8. I have scrutinized the record to ascertain whether there is any acceptable explanation offered by the prosecution for not recording the statement of the victim under Section 161 of the Code, but in vain.
9. The evidence of the witness whose statement is not recorded under section 161 of the Code is indeed admissible. However, the evidence would have to be tested with extreme caution. Recording of statement of material witnesses without any undue delay serves a salutary purpose. The earlier the statement is recorded the less the possibility of the introduction of embellished or coloured or concocted version. The use of the statement recorded under section 161 is limited. However, from the perspective of the accused and the right of effective defence, the importance and significance of the statement recorded under section 161 is immense. The witness can be contradicted with such part of the statement as is duly proved. The prosecution is also entitled to use the statement to contradict a witness who resiles from the 161 statement, albeit with the permission of the ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2019 03:23:13 ::: 10 apeal586.17 Court. Section 173(5) of the Code provides that the statements recorded under section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses shall be forwarded to the Magistrate alongwith the final report. Section 207 of the Code recognizes the right of the accused to be furnished copies of the statements recorded under section 161(3) of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses and the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under section 164 of the Code. The rational underlying the statutory scheme is that the accused is entitled to be made aware of the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce and further the accused must be in a position to effectively cross-examine the prosecution witnesses by bringing on record the contradictions and embellishments in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in the manner provided by section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act.
10. The statements recorded during investigation not only assist the accused to effectively cross-examine the witness, the duty of the Court to ascertain the truth is subserved since the bar imposed by section 162 of the Code does not impair the powers of the Judge under section 165 of the Evidence Act to put any question to a witness in order to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts or to put ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2019 03:23:13 ::: 11 apeal586.17 any question the Judge pleases, in any form, at any time, about any fact relevant or irrelevant. In Raghunandan..vs.. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1974 SC 463 the Hon'ble Apex Court observes thus:
"14. It is true that the ban, imposed by section 162 Criminal Procedure Code, against the use of a statement of a witness recorded by the Police during investigation, appears sweeping and wide. But, at the same time, we find that the powers of the Court, under section 165 of the Evidence Act, to put any question to a witness, are also couched in very wide terms authorising the Judge "in order to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts" to "ask any question he pleases, in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties, about any fact relevant or irrelevant". The first proviso to section 165 Evidence Act, enacting that, despite the powers of the Court to put any question to a witness, the judgment must be based upon facts declared by the Act to be relevant, only serves to emphasize the width of the power of the Court to question a witness. The second proviso in this section preserves the privileges of witnesses to refuse to answer certain questions and prohibits only questions which would be considered improper under section 148 and 149 of the Evidence Act. Statements of witnesses made to the police during the investigation do not fall under any prohibited category mentioned in Section 165 Evidence Act. If Section 162 Criminal Procedure Code was meant to be so wide in its sweep as the Trial Court thought it to be, it would make a further inroad upon the powers of the Judge to put questions under Section 165 Evidence Act. If that was the correct position, at least Section 162 Criminal Procedure Code would have said so explicitly. Section 165 of the Evidence Act was already there when section 162 Criminal Procedure Code was enacted".
"15. It is certainly quite arguable that Section 162 Criminal Procedure Code does, amount to a prohibition against the use even by the Court of statements mentioned there. Nevertheless, the purpose of the prohibition of Section 162 Criminal Procedure Code being to prevent unfair use by the prosecution of statements made by witnesses to the Police during the course of investigation, while the proviso is intended for the benefit of the defence, it could also be urged that, in order to secure the ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2019 03:23:13 :::
12 apeal586.17 ends of Justice, which all procedural law is meant to subserve, the prohibition, by taking into account its purpose and the mischief it was designed to prevent as well as its context must be confined in its scope to the use by parties only to a proceeding of statements mentioned there".
"16.We are inclined to accept the argument of the appellant that the language of Section 162 Criminal Procedure Code, though wide, is not explicit or specific enough to extend the prohibition to the use of the wide and special powers of the Court to question a witness, expressly and explicitly given by Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act in order to secure the ends of justice. We think that a narrow and restrictive construction put upon the prohibition in Section 162 Criminal Procedure Code, so as to confine the ambit of it to the use of statements by witnesses by parties only to a proceeding before the Court, would reconcile or harmonize the two provisions considered by us and also serve the ends of justice. Therefore, we hold that Section 162 Criminal Procedure Code does not impair the special powers of the Court under Section 165 Indian Evidence Act. Consequently, we think that the Trial Court could and should have itself made use of the statement made by Jailal during the course of the investigation. If that had been done, it is possible that it may have affected appraisal of evidence of other prosecution witnesses".
Considering that the statements recorded under section 161 of the Code serve twin objective i.e. having on record the earliest version of the witness which would minimize if not eradicate introduction of embellished and coloured version and which would give the accused an opportunity to test the veracity of the witness with the assistance of section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act and creating a record which would assist the Judge in ascertaining the truth by taking recourse to power under section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, it would be safe to ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2019 03:23:13 ::: 13 apeal586.17 presume that failure of the Investigating Officer to record the 161 statement of a material witness would cause prejudice to the accused.
11. In Pulukuri Kottaya and others..vs..Emperor, AIR (34) 1947 Privy Council 1967 the decision authored by Sir John Beaumont considered the provisions of section 162(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 which provision reads thus:
"162. (1) No statement made by any person to a police-officer in the course of an investigation under this Chapter shall, if reduced into writing, be signed by the person making it; nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police-diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement or record, be used for any purpose (save as hereinafter provided) at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made:
Provided that, when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing as aforesaid, the Court shall, on the request of the accused, refer to such writing and direct that the accused be furnished with a copy thereof, in order that any part of such statement, if duly proved, may be used to contradict such witness in the manner provided by S. 145, Evidence Act, 1872. When any part of such statement is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the re-examination of such witness, but for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross-examination".
The Privy Council articulates that if the statements were never made available to the accused, an inference, which is almost irresistible, arises of prejudice to the accused.
12. Section 162 of the 1973 Code is not couched in the ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2019 03:23:13 ::: 14 apeal586.17 mandatory language of the parimateria provision in the 1898 Code and does not provide that on the request of the accused, the Court shall direct that the accused be furnished with a copy thereof. However, the conjoint reading of section 173(5)(b) and section 207 would show that statements recorded under section 161 shall be forwarded alongwith the final report and the same shall be furnished to the accused. While it is not necessary in the factual matrix to consider the implication or impact of the failure of the prosecution to furnish to the accused statements recorded under section 161 of the Code, the decisions which enunciate the law that failure to furnish copies of the statements to the accused would cause prejudice to the accused bring into focus the importance and significance of the statements in the context of the right of the accused of effective defence.
13. The failure to record the statement of the witness under section 161 of the Code, does not render the evidence of the witness inadmissible, as is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tilkeshwar Singh vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 but such failure may certainly effect the evidentiary value of the evidence. The prejudice caused to the accused is obvious. It would be for the Court to determine in the facts of the case the impact of the prejudice on the fate of the prosecution. It is neither necessary nor possible to device and apply a ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2019 03:23:13 ::: 15 apeal586.17 straight jacket formula with any degree of precision. However, I have no doubt in my mind that if the statements of a material witness is not recorded under section 161 of the Code, the evidence of such witness would have to be scrutinized minutely with extreme caution and unless the evidence is of extremely sterling quality corroboration would be necessary for the Court to attach any significant weight to such evidence.
14. I have already noted supra that the reports of the Chemical Analyzer and the medical certificate do not take the case of the prosecution any further. PW 3 - Shubhangi Lamke has deposed that while she was at Bhopal, she received phone call from Sunita Kasikar on 24.7.2015 who asked PW 3 to return since the victim was crying continuously. Inexplicably, the prosecution did not examine Sunita Kasikar nor did the prosecution examine the brother of the victim who admittedly was with her when PW 3 and other family members left for Bhopal. The version of PW 3 - Shubhangi Lamke is that she and the other family members returned on 24.7.2015 and on that day the victim did not reveal anything and it was on the next day that in the evening the victim disclosed that the accused removed her clothes, pressed her chest and slept on her person. It is elicited in the cross- examination that the victim did not state the words as deposed. PW 3 ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2019 03:23:13 ::: 16 apeal586.17 Shubhangi volunteers that the victim communicated by words and signs and in the next breath the witness admits that the victim can talk. It is further elicited that the accused is lame and there are five stairs to be climbed to enter her house from the road. PW 3 denies the suggestion that the victim used to fetch water and that there was an altercation between the victim and the accused, which evidence is inconsistent with the evidence of the victim which shall be considered at a later stage.
15. The central evidence is that of the victim who is examined as PW 1 and on whose evidence the edifice of the prosecution case is constructed. It is extracted in the cross-examination that there was an altercation between the victim and the accused on the issue of fetching water. It is further elicited in the cross-examination that the victim was told what is to be deposed by her aunt PW 3 - Shubhangi.
16. The evidence of the victim will have to be analyzed keeping in mind -
(i) her statement was not recorded during investigation and there is no satisfactory explanation, au contraire, it has come on record that the victim could speak and that her aunt PW 3 - Shubhangi told the police and the Magistrate that the victim was not in a position to speak which persuaded the ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2019 03:23:13 ::: 17 apeal586.17 police and the Magistrate not to record the statement of the victim;
(ii) the victim and the accused did have an altercation on the issue of fetching water, which is admitted by the victim though denied by her aunt PW 3;
(iii) there is no corroborative evidence on record since there is nothing incriminating either in the Chemical Analysis reports or the medical certificate which is exhibited on admission; and
(iv) the material witnesses who could have unfolded the story of the prosecution are not examined.
17. The victim has not disclosed the time or date of the incident. She was put questions by the learned Sessions Judge. I am impelled to record that certain questions were leading questions in the sense that the victim was clearly led to state the real or supposed fact which would be consistent with the prosecution story. Illustratively, while Smt. Sunita Kasikar is not examined although the version of PW 3 is that she was asked to return from Bhopal by Sunita Kasikar, the question formulated and put to the victim was "whom did Simi's mother called?" (sic) Be that as it may, if the examination in chief of the victim is carefully perused, the distinct impression which is gathered is that she was tutored. Apart from the fact that it is elicited in the cross- ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2019 03:23:13 :::
18 apeal586.17 examination that the victim was told what to depose by her aunt PW 3
- Shubhangi, the only coherent answers given by the victim are in response to the questions which were asked to her as regards the overt act attributed to the accused in the report. In sharp contrast, the answers to the other questions are extremely incoherent and unintelligible. Illustratively, the victim was asked where did PW 3 take her, presumably to illicit that she was taken to the police station and the answer is that the victim was taken to the temple. The victim was then asked where else was she taken by PW 3 and the answer is that she went with PW 3 to Simi. The victim was again asked whether else did she go and the answer is "nowhere". Similarly, when the victim was asked what did she disclose to her aunt PW 3?. The answer is "nothing".
18. I am satisfied that the evidence of the victim is not of such sterling quality as would obviate the need to seek corroboration or assurance of short of corroboration. I am further satisfied that there is no evidence on record of any significant corroborative value. Neither the scientific evidence nor the medical evidence implicates the accused. The material witnesses are not examined. The Investigating Officer admits that he did not come across any witness who saw the accused entering the house of the victim or exiting therefrom. The accused is ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2019 03:23:13 ::: 19 apeal586.17 admittedly lame and considering that the house of the victim is situated in busy and crowded area with residences, shops and temples in the neighbourhood, that nobody saw the accused approaching the house of the victim or exiting therefrom is significant. In the absence of corroboration, it would be absolutely unsafe to base the conviction on the evidence of the victim, particularly in view of the admitted failure omission of the Investigating Officer to record her statement during investigation. Shri P.S. Wathore, learned Counsel for the accused is justified in submitting that the prosecution has failed to bridge the gulf between suspicion and proof and that the benefit of the doubt must undoubtedly go to the accused.
19. The judgment of conviction dated 05-4-2017 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akot in Sessions Case 64/2015 is set aside.
20. The accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(1) and 450 of the Indian Penal Code.
21. Fine paid by the accused, if any, be refunded. ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2019 03:23:13 :::
20 apeal586.17
22. The accused shall be released from Jail custody forthwith unless his custody is required in any other matter.
JUDGE adgokar/RSB ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2019 03:23:13 :::