Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ballu @ Jamuna vs State Of M.P. on 10 November, 2017
Bench: S.K. Seth, Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1
Cr.A.No.1373/2005, 1419/2005 & 1584/2005
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
Criminal Appeal No.1373/2005
Shriram & Ano.
V.s
The State of M.P.
Criminal Appeal No.1419/2005
Gorelal and others
V.s
The State of M.P.
And
Criminal Appeal No.1584/2005
Ballu @ Jamuna
V.s
The State of M.P.
======================================================
Shri Vidya Prasad, counsel for the appellants in Cr.A.No.1373/2005.
Ku. Aishwarya Singh, counsel for the appellants in Cr.A.No.1419/2005.
Shri Umesh Shrivastava, counsel for the appellants in Cr.A.No.1584/2005.
Shri Yogesh Dhande, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
PRESENT:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.K. SETH &
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY
JUDGMENT
(10/11/2017) As per :- Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.
This common judgement shall govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No.1373/2005, Criminal Appeal No.1419/2005 & Criminal Appeal No.1584/2005.
2Cr.A.No.1373/2005, 1419/2005 & 1584/2005
2. These criminal appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 23.05.2005 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST (Atrocities) Act), Satna in Special Sessions Trial No.6/2002, whereby learned Special Judge found appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced as under:-
Appellants Deceased/ Sections Jail Sentence Fine Default Injured stipulation Ballu 148, 3 Yrs. R.I., nil (Bablu) @ Jamuna Bhaiyalal & 302, 302 of L.I. & Rs.500/- & 1 Yr. R.I. & Ramesh IPC Rs.500/-
L.I. 1 Yr. R.I.
(Two
Counts)
Deceased 302/149 IPC L.I. Rs.500/- 1 Yr. R.I.
Thakurdeen
Injured Beliya, 323/149 IPC 6 month R.I.
Ramsajeevan,
Lalita, Tara,
Savita &
Rajendra
Deceased 3 (2)(5) of L.I., L.I. Rs.500/- 1 Yr. R.I.
Bhaiyalal, SC/ST Act
Ramesh & & L.I. Rs.500/- 1 Yr. R.I.
Thakurdeen (Three
Counts) &Rs.500 1 Yr. R.I.
Sriram 148 IPC 3 Yrs. R.I.
Deceased 302 of IPC L.I. & L.I Rs.500/-& 1 Yr. R.I. & 1
Bhaiyalal & Rs.500/- Yr. R.I.
Thakurdeen (Two
Counts)
Deceased 302/149 IPC L.I. Rs.500/- 1 Yr. R.I.
Ramesh
Injured Beliya, 323/149 6 Months
Ramsajeevan, R.I.
Lalita, Tara,
Savita &
Rajendra
Deceased 3 (2) (5) of L.I., L.I. Rs.500/- & 1 Yr. R.I.
Bhaiyalal, SC/ST Act. Rs.500/-
Ramesh & & L.I.
Thakurdeen (Three
Counts)
Ramadhar & 148 IPC 3 Yrs. R.I.
Kaidilal
Deceased 302 IPC L.I Rs.500/- 1 Yr. R.I.
Thakurdeen
Deceased 302/149 IPC L.I. & L.I. Rs.500/- & 1 Yr. R.I. & 1
Ramesh & Rs.500/- Yr. R.I.
Bhaiyalal (Two
Counts)
3
Cr.A.No.1373/2005, 1419/2005 & 1584/2005
Injured Beliya, 323/149 IPC 6 Month R.I.
Ramsajeevan,
Lalita, Tara,
Savita &
Rajendra
Deceased 3 (2)(5) of L.I., L.I., & Rs.500/-, 1 Yr. R.I., 1 Yr.
Bhaiyalal, SC/ST Act. L.I. Rs.500/- & R.I. & 1 Yr. R.I.
Ramesh & Rs.500/-
Thakurdeen (Three
Counts)
Rajendra 148 IPC 3 Yr. R.I.
Deceased 302 IPC L.I. Rs.500/- 1 Yr. R.I.
Thakurdeen
Deceased 302/149 IPC L.I., L.I. Rs.500/-& 1 Yr. R.I.&
Bhaiyalal &
Ramesh (Two Rs.500/ 1 Yr. R.I.
Counts)
Injured Savita, 323 IPC 6 Months
Lalita & R.I., 6
Taradevi (Three Months R.I.
Counts) & 6 Months
R.I.
Injured Beliya, 323/149 IPC 6 Month R.I.
Ramsajeevan
& Rajendra
Deceased 3 (2)(5) of L.I., L.I., & Rs.500/-, 1 Yr. R.I.
Bhaiyalal, SC/ST Act L.I. Rs.500/-&
Ramesh &
Thakurdeen (Three Rs.500/-
Counts)
Pooranlal 148 IPC 3 Yrs. R.I.
Deceased 302/149 IPC L.I., Rs.500, 1 Yr. R.I.,
Bhaiyalal,
Ramesh & L.I. Rs.500/-& 1 Yr. R.I.&
Thakurdeen & L.I. Rs.500/- 1 Yr. R.I.
Injured Beliya 323 IPC 6 Months
R.I.
Injured 323/149 IPC 6 Months
Ramsajeevan, R.I.
Lalita, Tara,
Savita &
Rajendra
Deceased 3 (2)(5) of L.I., Rs.500, 1 Yr. R.I.,
Bhaiyalal, SC/ST Act
Ramesh & L.I. Rs.500/-& 1 Yr. R.I.&
Thakurdeen & L.I. Rs.500/- 1 Yr. R.I.
Gorelal, 148 IPC 3 Yr. R.I.
Rajaram,
Ashok
Kumar,
Babulal,
Kunjilal,
4
Cr.A.No.1373/2005, 1419/2005 & 1584/2005
Jitendra
Bundilal
&
Shravan Deceased 302/149 IPC L.I., Rs.500, 1 Yr. R.I.,
Kumar Bhaiyalal,
Ramesh & L.I. Rs.500/-& 1 Yr. R.I.&
Thakurdeen & L.I. Rs.500/- 1 Yr. R.I.
Injured Beliya, 323/149 IPC 6 Month R.I.
Ramsajeevan,
Lalita, Tara,
Savita &
Rajendra
Deceased 3 (2)(5) of L.I., Rs.500, 1 Yr. R.I.,
Bhaiyalal, SC/ST Act.
Ramesh & L.I. Rs.500/-& 1 Yr. R.I.&
Thakurdeen & L.I. Rs.500/- 1 Yr. R.I.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased Bhaiyalal and appellant Sarman lived in the same vicinity at village Kalyanpura Tikuritola. On 14/11/2001 at 10 p.m appellant, Rajendra son of Sharava molested Savita (PW/5) daughter of Bhaiyalal. Savita narrated the incident to her brother Manoj and other family members. On the next day i.e. on 15/11/01 at about 4:30 P.M Manoj spoke to Rajendra about the incident. On that appellant Rajendra, Kunjilal and other co-accused Laxman and Virendra assaulted Manoj by sticks. Manoj sustained injuries on his head and other body parts and after returning home from the spot Manoj narrated the incident to Bhaiyalal and lodged the report of the incident at P.S. Maihar. Bhaiyalal went to the Advocate Ravikant Panday's house for consulting him regarding the incident. When Bhaiyalal was returning to his house after meeting with advocate Pandey along with Ramakant by Moped, on the way at about 6 pm when they were passing in front of appellant Shravan's house, appellant Ramadhar armed with Iron Pipe, Ashoke armed with hockey stick, Sriram armed with Iron rod, Bablu armed with sword and Shravan Kumar, Kaidi, Javendra, Rajaram, Kunjilal, Babulal, Pooranlal, Bundilal, Rajendra and Gorelal and other co-accused Laxman, Virendra, Ramlakhan and Rajesh armed with sticks came shouting 'Maro Maro' and cordoned them off.
Ramakant ran away from the spot to escape and entered into his house. Appellants and other co-accused assaulted Bhaiyalal. On that Taradevi (PW/3) shouted, on hearing, Ramakant (PW/2), Lalita (PW/4), Savita (PW/5) and Ramsajivan came out from the house and reached the spot 5 Cr.A.No.1373/2005, 1419/2005 & 1584/2005 where they saw that Bhaiyalal lying in an injured state, blood was oozing out from his head. Appellants also assaulted Taradevi (PW/3), Lalita (PW/4), Savita (PW/5), Ramsajivan, Belia and Rajendra. At that time deceased Ramesh and Thakurdeen also came there from field side. Appellants and other co-accused assaulted them too. Appellant Sriram and Shravan assaulted deceased Bhaiyalal on his head, due to which, he died on the spot. In the incident deceased Thakurprasad, Ramesh, injured Taradevi, Lalita, Savita, Ramsajivan, Belia and Rajendra also sustained injuries. Kamal Prasad (PW/1), Chhotuku Lodhi (PW/6) and Vinod Kumar (PW/16) also came on the spot and saw the incident. Soon after the incident Kamal Prasad (PW/1) lodged the FIR (Ex.P/1) of the incident at Police Station Maihar. On that police registered Crime No.597/2001 for the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323 of IPC and investigated the matter. During investigation, police went to the spot and took Ramesh, Thakurdeen and Rajendra to Civil Hospital Maihar where Dr. R.M. Sharma (PW/9) examined Ramesh and Rajendra and gave MLC report Ex.P-32 & 34 respectively and also examined Thakurdeen and declared him dead and gave report (Ex.P-33). On 16/11/01 Inspector D.D. Tripathi (PW/18) reached the spot and seized blood stained and simple soil from the spot and prepared seizure memo (Ex.P/4 to Ex.P/6), spot map (Ex.P/3) and also prepared inquest memo of dead body of deceased Bhaiyalal (Ex.P/2). He also sent the dead body of Bhaiyalal for postmortem along with application (Ex.P/58) and also sent injured Ramsajivan, Belia, Lalita (PW/4), Savita (PW/5) and Taradevi (PW/3) for medical examination along with request letters (Ex.P/57 to Ex.P/61) to Civil Hospital Maihar. During treatment Thakurdeen and Ramesh died. On that information on 16/11/01 Head Constable Babulal (PW/15) reached the hospital and prepared inquest memo (Ex.P/36 and Ex.P/37) of their dead bodies and gave the request letter (Ex.P/41 and Ex.P/42) for postmortem of dead bodies. Dr.Abhay Raj Singh (P.W.8) conducted postmortem of dead body of deceased Ramesh, Bhaiyalal and Thakurdeen and gave postmortem reports (Ex.P-24 to Ex.P-26). He also seized blood stained cloths from the dead bodies of deceased Ramesh, Bhaiyalal and Thakurdeen and sent it to P.S. Maihar in three sealed packets which were seized by D.D, Tripathi who prepared seizure memo (Ex.P/61).
6Cr.A.No.1373/2005, 1419/2005 & 1584/2005 Dr. Abhay Raj Singh (P.W.8) also examined injured Ramsajeevan, Baliya, Lalita, Savita & Taradevi and gave MLC report (Ex P-27 to Ex.P-31).
4. During investigation, D.D. Tripathi (P.W.18) arrested the appellants Gorelal, Rajaram Kushwaha, Bablu @ Jamuna, Ashok Kumar Kushwah, Babulal Kushwah, Kunjilal Kushwah, Javendra Kushwah, Kaidilal Kushwah, Bundilal Kushwah, Rajendra Kushwaha, Shriram Kushwah, Shravan Kumar Kushwaha, Pooran Lal Kushwaha, Ramadhar Kushwaha, and co-accused Virendra Kushwaha, Ramlakhan Kushwaha and Laxman Kushwaha, prepared arrest memo (Ex.P 63 to Ex.P/66 and Ex.P/68 to Ex.P- 78 and Ex.P/67) respectively. The co-accused Rajesh was arrested by Sub- Inspector Tiwari who prepared arrest memo (Ex.P/79). On the information of appellant Ramadhar one Iron Pipe, Shriram one Iron Rod, Bablu @ Jamuna one Sword, Pooran Lal Kushwaha one Hockey Stick and from the possession of other appellants Gorelal, Rajaram Kushwaha, Laxman Kushwaha, Babulal Kushwah, Kunjilal Kushwah, Javendra Kushwah, Kaidilal Kushwah, Bundilal Kushwah, Rajendra Kushwaha, Shravan Kumar Kushwaha, Ashok and co-accused Virendra Kushwaha sticks were seized by D.D. Tripathi (P.W.18) and information memo (Ex.P/6, Ex.P/10, Ex.P/12, Ex.P/14 and Ex.P/35) and seizure memo (Ex.P/3 to Ex.P/5, Ex.P/7, Ex.P/9, Ex.P/11, Ex.P/13, Ex.P/15, Ex.P/17, Ex.P/20, Ex.P/22 & Ex.P/23) were prepared and all seized articles were also sent for chemical examination to FSL Sagar from where FSL report (EX.P/82 &Ex.P/84) was received. After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellants Gorelal, Rajaram, Ballu @ Jamuna, Ashok Kumar, Babulal, Kunjilal, Javendra, Kaidi Lal, Bundilal, Rajendra, Shriram, Shravan Kumar, Pooran Lal, Ramadhar and co-accused Laxman, Virendra Kumar Ramlakhan before JMFC, Satna and against Rajesh who was juvenile at the time of incident before Juvenile Court. The JMFC, Satna committed the case to the Court of Sessions. On that charge-sheet, learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Atrocities) Act framed charge against the appellants and other co-accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, in alternate 302 read with 149, 323 read with 149 of IPC and Section 3 (2)(V) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and tried the case. The appellants and other co-accused abjured their guilt and took the defence that they have falsely been implicated in the case.
7Cr.A.No.1373/2005, 1419/2005 & 1584/2005 Appellants Pooranlal and Babulal also took the defence that at the time of incident, they were not present on the spot, they were at Village Korvara and in this regard also produced Har Prasad Vishwakarma (DW-1) and Foolchand Kushwaha (DW-2) as defence witness and appellants Gorelal, Rajaram, Ashok and Kunjilal also took the defence that at the time of incident, they were in the house of Dhaniram Kushwaha situated at village Korvara and were playing cards. In this regard, they also produced Dhaniram (DW-3) and Badri Patel (DW/4) in their defence, however, after trial learned trial Court acquitted the co-accused Virendra, Laxman and Ramlakhan from all the aforesaid charges but found the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced them as mentioned above. Being aggrieved by that judgment, appellants Shriram and Pooranlal filed Criminal Appeal No.1373/2005, appellants Gorelal, Rajaram, Ashok Kumar and Kunjilal filed Criminal Appeal No.1419/2005 and appellants Ballu @ Jamuna, Babulal, Javendra, Kaidilal, Bundilal, Rajendra, Shravan Kumar and Ramadhar filed Criminal Appeal No.1584/2005.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that as per prosecution case, 17 persons allegedly participated in the incident of assaulting three deceased. Learned Trial Court relying on the testimony of Kamal Prasad (P.W.1), Ramakant (P.W.2), Tara (P.W.3), Lalita (P.W.4), Savita (P.W.5), Chotku (P.W.6) and Vinod (PW/16) found the appellants guilty for the murdering deceased Ramesh, Bhaiyalal and Thakurdeen. But their statements are not corroborate from the medical evidence regarding participating of seventeen persons in the incident. They all belongs to kori community and therefore partisan witnesses. From the statements of these witnesses, it is clear that they were not in a position to identify the assailants. The incident allegedly occurred at 6 PM after sunset in winter season when darkness falls early in the evening. Therefore, it would not be possible for the witnesses to ascribe the overt acts of each accused on account of the prevailing darkness which shows that all witnesses have given false statement regarding involvement of the appellants in the incident. There are many contradictions and omissions in their statement regarding incident, so their statements are unreliable. The incident allegedly occurred in front of appellant Shravan's house so merely on the ground that appellants were seen 8 Cr.A.No.1373/2005, 1419/2005 & 1584/2005 at the spot of incident, Section 149 of IPC does not attract. Learned Trial Judge without appreciating all these facts wrongly found the appellants member of unlawful assembly which was prepared for committing the aforesaid offences. He further submitted that the incident occurred without any premeditation due to a petty quarrel. The common object, if any, was to give a good thrashing to the member of the opposite party. This would only make the persons of the unlawful assembly liable for an offence under Section 326/149 of IPC. Learned Trial Court without appreciating these facts committed mistake in holding the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offences. Hence, counsel prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and the accused be acquitted from the said offences.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State has vehemently opposed the submissions of the counsel for the appellants and fully supported the judgment of the Trial Court and submitted that from the prosecution evidence the guilt of the appellant is clearly proved. Learned trial Court did not commit any mistake in holding the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offences and prayed for rejection of appeal.
7. Point of determination in this appeal is whether the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court to the appellants for the aforesaid offences is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the memo of appeal and argued before this Court.
8. On the point that Ramesh, Bhaiyalal and Thakurdeen died due to injuries sustained by him on 15/11/06 and their death was homicidal and Taradevi, Savita Ramsajivan and Belia also sustained injuries on 15.11.2001, Dr. R.M. Sharma (P.W.9) deposed that on 15.11.2001, he was posted at Civil Hospital Maihar. On that date, at 9:30 PM, Constable No.193 Arun Kumar brought Ramesh Kumar for medical examination. On his examination, he found following external injuries on his body:-
(i) Incised wound antero posterior direction with cutting of underlying bone size 8"x2" bone deep over mid of parietal of scalp. Injury was dangerous to life.
(ii) Abrasion red in color size 2"x1" over left cheek.9
Cr.A.No.1373/2005, 1419/2005 & 1584/2005 Duration of both the injuries was with in 24 hour from the examination. He also gave MLC report (Ex.P/32)
9. Dr. R.M. Sharma (P.W.9) further deposed that on 15.11.2001 at 9:30 PM, he also examine Thakurdeen and found following external injury on his body;-
(i) Incised wound size 6"x2" over mid parietal region. Skull bone was fractured. He was brought dead to hospital. He also gave MLC report (Ex.P/
33) And Dr. Abhayraj Singh (P.W.8) deposed that on 16.11.2011 he was posted as Medical Officer at Civil Hospital, Maihar. On that date at 10:30 AM, he conducted post mortem of dead body of deceased Thakurdeen and found following external injuries on his dead body:-
(i) Lacerated wound size 2½" x 3/4" x bone deep transversely placed in occipital region of scalp just below occipital protuberance. Clotted blood was present. Injury was caused by hard and blunt object and grievous in nature and injury was dangerous to life.
(ii) Lacerated wound size 4" x 1" x bone also fractured, triangular placed in left occipito - parieto-temporal region of scalp (posterior end 2 ½", anterior end ½" and lateral end 1") pieces of fractured bone and brain tissue seen from (skull cavity), injury was caused by hard and blunt object, grievous in nature, and injury was dangerous to life.
(iii) Abrasion size 1"x 1" on right upper arm just above elbow joint anteriorly, longitudinally direction, oozes blood stain present.
(iv) Incised wound 1 ½"x ½" x bone deep clean cut everted margin, centrally wider, longitudinally direction at middle part of left upper arm, anterior - lateral aspect clotted blood present. Caused by sharp cutting object.
(v) Abrasion size 5"x ½" on antero-lateral aspect of upper part of left forearm, oozes blood stain present caused by hard and blunt object.
(vi) Contusion 2"x1" left deltoids region and upper arm caused by hard and blunt object.10
Cr.A.No.1373/2005, 1419/2005 & 1584/2005
(vii) Contusion size 3"x1" transversely placed on mid axillary line of lower part of left chest, reddish blue in colour caused by hard and blunt object.
(viii) Abrasion size 1 ½" x 1 ½" spherically just 1" above of left side of umbilicus of abdomen caused by hard and blunt object.
(ix) Lacerated wound size ½" x ½" muscle deep on anterior aspect of lower part of right knee joint of right leg, clotted blood also present. Injury was caused by hard and blunt object.
(x) Incised wound size 1"x ½" x muscle deep clean cut everted centrally wider. Longitudinally placed at anterior aspect of left middle thigh, clotted blood present, caused by sharp cutting object.
(xi) Abrasion size ½" x ½" on anterior aspect of left knee joint caused by hard and blunt object.
All these injuries were ante-mortem in nature.
He further deposed that on the internal examination, he found that occipital bone and temporal bone were fractured. Clotted blood was present on left side of chest. In his opinion, Thakurdeen died due to the injury sustained by him in skull (brain) and death was homicidal in nature and duration of death was within 24 hours of postmortem. In this regard, he also gave PM report Ex.P-26.
10. Dr. Abhayraj Singh (P.W.8) further deposed that on the same day, at 12:30 PM, he also conducted postmortem of dead body of deceased Bhaiyalal and found following external injuries on his body:-
(i) Lacerated wound size 2"x1"x muscle deep. Lateral to right eye to face in Latero - medial direction, clotted blood present. Injury was caused by hard and blunt object.
(ii) Incised wound size 1"x ½" bone cut clean cut margin everted centrally wider clotted blood present. Obliquely - upper posteriorly at upper part of right occipito temporal region of skull, caused by sharp cutting penetrating objected. Injury was grievous in nature and dangerous to life.
(iii) Incised wound size ¾"x ½" x bone deep clean cut margin everted centrally wider anteroposteriorly at 1" below - anterior to injury No.(ii).11
Cr.A.No.1373/2005, 1419/2005 & 1584/2005 Clotted blood also present on the injury. Which was caused by sharp cutting penetrating object, grievous in nature and dangerous to life.
(iv) Contusion size 3"x2" near right mastoid and postero - interior region of base of skull, caused by hard and blunt object reddish blue in colour.
(v) Incised wound size ½" x ½" x muscle deep clean cut everted margin on lower part of right upper arm in inner aspect. Caused by sharp cutting object. Blood clot also present on the injury.
(vi) Abrasion size 1"x 1" on upar part of right forearm-ulnar reason- Posteriorly. Caused by hard and blunt object.
(vii) Abrasion size 1"x 1" near and just above right iliac prominens of abdomen. Caused by hard and blunt object.
All injuries were ante mortem in nature.
He further deposed that on internal examination, he found that right occipital bone, right temporal bone, right parietal bone and right mastoid bone were fractured. Laceration was present in temporal lobe and large hematoma was present in right parieto temporal region. In his opinion deceased Bhaiyalal died due to injury sustained by him in skull (brain) which were caused by sharp cutting penetrating object and death was homicidal in nature and duration of death was within 24 hours from the postmortem. His statement also corroborated from the postmortem report Ex.P-25.
11. Dr. Abhayraj Singh (P.W.8) further deposed that on the same day at 01:30 PM he started conducting the postmortem of dead body of deceased Ramesh and found following external injuries on his dead body:-
(i) Stitched (incised) wound size 8"x1" Longitudinally placed at Central Fronto - Parietal Region (Right side) of skull. Brain tissues were seen. Injury was caused by sharp cutting object, and grievous in nature and dangerous to life.
(ii) Abrasion size 1"x1" left side of forehead middle part, oozes blood stain present, which was caused by hard and blunt object.
Both injuries were ante-mortem in nature.
12Cr.A.No.1373/2005, 1419/2005 & 1584/2005
12. He further deposed that in internal examination, he found that his right frontal, right parietal and left parietal bone were fractured. Brain tissue was cut. Blood clot present adjacent cut region, hematoma was present in frontoparietal region. In his opinion, Ramesh died due to shock which was caused due to injuries of skull (Brain). Death was homicidal in nature. Injury sustained by Ramesh was sufficient to cause his death in ordinary course of nature. Duration of death within 24 hour from the post mortem. He also gave post Mortem report Ex.P-24 and also removed blood stained clothes from the dead bodies of deceased Thakurdeen, Bhaiyalal, and Ramesh and handed over to concerned Constable in sealed packets.
13. He further deposed that on 16.11.2001 he also examined Ram Sajeevan Kori and found following external injuries on his body:-
(i) Contusion with small swelling size 1 ½" x 1" bluish blackish colour transversely over middle part of right upper arm at postero lateral aspect.
(ii) Abrasion blackish in colour size ½" x ½" over posterior aspect of middle part of neck .
(iii) Contusion size 1 ½" x 1" transversely over left upper part of forearm at posterior aspect, blackish in colour.
All injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and were simple in nature caused within 24 hours from examination. He gave MLC report Ex.P-
27.
14. He further deposed that on the same day at 11:50 AM, he also examined Beliya and found following injury:-
(i) Contusion with small swelling - bluish - blackish colour transversely size 1 ½" x 1" over Middle part of left upper arm.
(ii) Contusion with small swelling bluish blackish colour transversely size 1 ½" x 1" over antero lateral aspect of left middle thigh. All the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and simple in nature and duration was within 24 hours from the examination and he also gave MLC report Ex.P-28 after examination.
15. He further deposed that on the same day at 12:00 noon, he examined Savita and found following external injury on her body :-
13Cr.A.No.1373/2005, 1419/2005 & 1584/2005
(i) Abrasion with swelling blackish in colour size 1 ½ x 1" over right shoulder region of inner side of upper part. The injury was caused by hard and blunt object and duration was within 24 hours from the examination. He also gave MLC report Ex.P-30.
16. He also deposed that on 16.11.2001, he also examined Tara daughter of Bhaiyalal Kori at 12:05 pm and found following injury:-
(i) Abrasion blackish in colour size ½" x ½" over antero medial aspect of left knee joint of left leg. The injury was caused by hard and blunt object and duration was within 24 hours from the examination and also gave MLC report Ex.P-31 in this regard.
17. Dr. R.M. Sharma (P.W.9) and Dr. Abhayraj Singh (P.W.8) are the independent witnesses and there is no infirmity in their statements in this regard. So there is no reason to disbelieve their statements. From their statement it is clearly proved that on 15/11/06 Ramesh, Bhaiyalal and Thakurdeen sustained injuries and died due to that injuries and their death was homicidal and Taradevi, Savita, Ramsajivan and Belia also sustained injuries.
18. As regards to the fact whether on 15/11/01 appellants/accused Ramadhar armed with iron pipe, Ashok armed with hockey stick, Sriram armed with Iron rod, Bablu armed with sword and Shravan Kumar, Kaidi, Javendra, Rajaram, Kunjilal, Babulal, Pooranlal, Bundilal, Rajendra and Gorelal were armed with sticks gathered on the spot with intention to kill Ramesh, Bhaiyalal and Thakurdeen and injured Taradevi, Savita Ramsajivan, Belia and Rajendra and assaulted them due to which, Ramesh, Bhaiyalal and Thakurdeen died and Taradevi, Savita Ramsajivan, Belia sustained injuries Ramakant (P.W.2) clearly deposed that on 15.11.2001 at 5:30 pm, he was at his home when Manoj informed him that some persons had beaten him up at Kharkhoni. On that he informed Bhaiyalal and sent Manoj to police station to lodge the report then he and Bhaiyalal went to Advocate Ravikant Panday's house and informed him regarding the incident. When he and Bhaiyalal were returning after meeting him by moped, on the way as they reached in front of appellant Sharavan's house, 15-20 persons cordoned them off shouting "kill them". Accused Pooranlal, Shravan Kumar, Shriram, Kaidilal, Rajesh, Ashok, Ramadhar, Bablu, Javendra, Babulal, 14 Cr.A.No.1373/2005, 1419/2005 & 1584/2005 Rajaram, Gorelal, Virendra, Laxman, Rajendra Kunjilal rushed towards him. He entered in his house for saving himself and informed regarding the incident to his grandmother and thereafter when he came outside his house he saw appellant Bhaiyalal being assaulted by accused. Shriram used rod, Shravan stick, Ramadhar iron pipe, Bablu sword, and Ashok hockey to assault him. Other accused Shriram, Ramadhar, Shravan and Kaidilal armed with sticks, first hit Bhaiyalal thereafter other accused assaulted him. At that time, Thakurdeen and Ramesh came there. All appellants assaulted them too. Appellant Ramadhar assaulted Thakurdeen by iron pipe, Ramadhar used rod, Rajendra and Puranlal assaulted him with stick on his head and other appellants also assaulted him. Shriram assaulted Ramesh by rod, Shravan used stick on his head, Bablu assaulted him by sword due to injury Bhaiyalal died on the spot. Appellants also assaulted Belia, Savita, Lalita, Shyamabai, Tara and Ramsajivan. They also sustained injury. He also sustained two lathi blows. Regarding incident his statement is also corroborated by the statements of other eyewitnesses of the incident, Kamal Prasad (P.W.1), Taradevi (P.W.3), Lalita (P.W.4), Savita (P.W.5), Chotku Lodhi (P.W.6) and Vinod Kumar (P.W.16) and Kamal Prasad's statement was also supported by the FIR (EX.P/1) lodged by him soon after the incident which was also proved by D.D. Tripathi (PW/18).
19. In this regard prosecution story is also corroborated from the circumstantial evidence collected by D.D. Tripathi (PW/18) during investigation. He deposed that on 15/11/01 he was posted as Station House Officer, police station Maihar. On that date he registered crime number 597/01 regarding incident and investigated the matter. During Investigation, he arrested the appellants Gorelal, Rajaram Kushwaha, Bablu @ Jamuna, Ashok Kumar Kushwah, Babulal Kushwah, Kunjilal Kushwah, Javendra Kushwah, Kaidilal Kushwah, Bundilal Kushwah, Rajendra Kushwaha, Shriram Kushwah, Shravan Kumar Kushwaha, Pooran Lal Kushwaha, Ramadhar Kushwaha, and co-accused Virendra Kushwaha and Laxman Kushwaha, and prepared arrest memo (Ex.P 63 to Ex.P/66 and Ex.P/68 to Ex.P-78 and Ex.P/67) respectively and seized on the information of Appellant Ramadhar one Iron Pipe, Shriram one Iron Rod, Bablu @ Jamuna one Sword, Pooran Lal Kushwaha one Hockey Stick and sticks from the 15 Cr.A.No.1373/2005, 1419/2005 & 1584/2005 possession of other accused Gorelal, Rajaram Kushwaha, Laxman Kushwaha, Babulal Kushwah, Kunjilal Kushwah, Javendra Kushwah, Kaidilal Kushwah, Bundilal Kushwah, Rajendra Kushwaha, Shravan Kumar Kushwaha, Ashoke and co accused Virendra Kushwaha and Laxman Kushwaha, prepared information memo (Ex.P/6, Ex.P/10, Ex.P/12, Ex.P/14 and Ex.P/35) and seizure memo (Ex.P/3 to Ex.P/5, Ex.P/7, Ex.P/9, Ex.P/11, Ex.P/13, Ex.P/15, Ex.P/17, Ex.P/20, Ex.P/22 & Ex.P/23) and also sent all seized articles for chemical examination to FSL Sagar. From where FSL report (EX.P/82 & Ex.P/84) was received. In the report (EX.P/82) it is mentioned that blood stains were found on Iron Pipe (Artical-L), seized from the possession of Appellant Ramadhar, Hockey type Stick (Artical-M) seized from the possession of Appellant Ashok and sticks (Artical- J,K,Q.R,S,T,U,V,) seized from the possession of Appellants Gorelal, Shravan Kumar Kushwaha, Rajendra Kushwaha, Bundilal Kushwah, Kaidilal Kushwah, Javendra Kushwah, Kunjilal Kushwah and Babulal Kushwah respectively which further strengthens the prosecution story regarding involvement of these appellants in the incident.
20. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that all eye witnesses belong to a particular community and are relatives, no independent witness is produced by the prosecution to prove its case. So the statement of eyewitness of the incident who are highly interested can not be relied upon. But this argument has no force.
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh & others V/s. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2011 SC 2552 clearly held that:-
"Non-examination of independent witness - when two persons had been killed and one had been seriously injured, no neighbour, even if he had witnessed the incident, would like to come forward and give evidence against accused. - Investigation Officer also not cross-examined on this point, so accused cannot take advantage."
22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gosu Jairam Reddy & another V/s. State of A.P. reported in 2011 SC 3147 held that, "Every witness that the prosecution may have listed in their charge sheet need not be examined. If prosecution examined some of them at the trial and their evidence is accepted as 16 Cr.A.No.1373/2005, 1419/2005 & 1584/2005 trustworthy, - non-examination of others would become inconsequential."
23. The Hon'ble Apex Court also in the case of Mallanna and others V/s. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 8 SCC 523 held that, "Merely because of the witnesses being related or interested or not injured, their evidence cannot be discarded if same is otherwise found to be credible, especially when they have supported the prosecution case in material particulars."
24. So on the ground that prosecution witnesses Kamal Prasad (P.W.1), Taradevi (P.W.3), Lalita (P.W.4), Savita (P.W.5), Chotku Lodhi (P.W.6) and Vinod Kumar (P.W.16) are relatives or belongs to same community and no other independent witness has been produced by the prosecution to prove its case, their statement regarding incident which is also corroborated from medical and other evidence can not be disbelieved.
25. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that there are many contradictions in the statements of the eyewitness on the point that on what part of the body of the deceased did each accused individually hit. It also appears from their statements that they did not see the incident. Kamal Prasad (P.W.1), deposed that he reached at the spot on hearing the shouts, which clearly shows that this witness reached the spot after incident and did not see the incident. Ramakant (P.W.2) deposed that when appellants ran towards him for assaulting him, he entered into his house to save himself which shows that at the time of incident, this witness was also not present on the spot. Likewise, Tara Devi (P.W.3) stated that in the incident she sustained injury on her right leg which is not mentioned in her MLC report (Ex.P/31). Lalita (P.W.4) deposed that Rajendra assaulted her by stick. She sustained injury on her leg, while in her MLC report (Ex.P/29) there is no mention of any external injury being found on her body. Savita (PW.5) also stated that she did not see Tara Devi sustaining injury on any body part. Savita (P.W.5) and Vinod (PW/16) stated that they could not see who assaulted Tara Devi, Lalita, Ramsajivan in the incident. Chotku Lodhi (P.W.6) admitted in his statement that when he reached the spot all appellants were assaulting Bhaiyalal, Thakurdeen and Ramesh while according to prosecution case, appellants first assaulted Bhaiyalal thereafter when Thakurdeen and Ramesh came to the spot, they assaulted Thakurdeen and Ramesh. which shows that all these witness also did not see the incident. He further submits that the 17 Cr.A.No.1373/2005, 1419/2005 & 1584/2005 incident allegedly occurred at 6 pm after sunset in winter season when darkness falls early in the evening. Therefore, it could not have been possible for the witnesses to identify all appellants due to the prevailing darkness which shows that all witnesses were giving false statements regarding involvement of the appellants in the incident. Learned Trial Court committed mistake in relying on the statement of these witnesses. But this argument also has no force.
26. Although, the incident occurred at 6 PM in winter season in the month of November when darkness falls early in the evening but Appellants and eyewitnesses were familiar with each other. They are neighbours so they could easily identify appellants. Likewise, in the statements of the eyewitness there are contradictions on the point that who hit what body part of the deceased and inflicted injury thereon and there is also some exaggeration regarding incident but where many accused were assaulting three or more people it is not always possible to tell exactly identify the overt act of each individual and on that ground also their statements cannot be discarded. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gosu Jairam Reddy & another V/s. State of A.P. (Supra) held that, "Discrepancy in ocular evidence and medical evidence - How to appreciate? It is not always easy for an eyewitness to a ghastly murder to register the precise number of injuries that were caused by the accused and the part of the body on which the same were caused - A witness who is terrorized by the brutality of the attack cannot be disbelieved only because in his description of who hit the deceased on what part of the body there is some mix up or confusion - It is the totality of the evidence on record and its credibility that would eventually determine whether the prosecution has proved the charge against the accused."
27. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh & others V/s. State of Haryana (Supra) also held that, "The testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law.Such a witness comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone. Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness. Thus, the evidence of an injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein".
18Cr.A.No.1373/2005, 1419/2005 & 1584/2005
28. In a case like at hand, where three persons died on the spot and other received injuries, the eye witnesses also made an attempt to save themselves and rescue the persons under attack in such a fact-situation, the witness is not supposed to be perfectionist to give the exact account of the incident. Some sort of contradiction, improvement, embellishment is bound to occur in his statement. There are no important contradictions and omissions in the statement of Kamal Prasad (P.W.1), Ramakant (PW/2), Taradevi (P.W.3), Lalita (P.W.4), Savita (P.W.5), and Vinod Kumar (P.W.16). In the incident Taradevi (P.W.3) and Savita (P.W.5) also sustained injuries which shows that they were present at the time of incident. Their statement is also corroborated by the medical evidence and also other circumstantial evidence. The incident occurred at 6 PM and Kamal Prasad (P.W.1) lodged the report soon after the incident at 6:50 PM and in the report name of all the appellants are mentioned. So there is no reason to discard their statements.
29. Although, appellants Sarman and Shriram took defence that at the time of incident, they were not present at the spot and also produced Harprasad Vishwakarma (D.W.1) and Phool Chand Kushwaha (D.W.2) in their defence. Harprasad (D.W.1) deposed that on the date of incident appellant Pooran and Babulal came to his house. He went with him to Korbara and then they went to Phool Chand's house where they were playing cards up to 10 PM and Phool Chand Kushwaha (D.W.2) deposed that on the date of incident, Pooranlal, Babulal and Lalley Vishwakarma came to his house at 11 AM in the morning and stayed at his home up to 9 PM. Likewise, appellants Gorelal, Rajaram, Kunjilal and Ashok also took the defence that at the time of incident they were at Village Korbara and also produced Dhaniram (D.W.3) and Badri Prasad Patel (D.W.4). In this regard, they deposed that on the date of incident, ie next day of Diwali, Gorelal, Rajaram, Ashok and Kunjilal came to Village Korbara where they were playing cards up to 7 PM but the appellants Pooranlal and Babulal did not give any suggestion to eye witnesses of the incident that they were present with Harprasad Vishwakarma (D.W.1) and Phoolchand (D.W.2) at the time of incident and appellants Gorelal, Rajaram, Kunjilal and Ashok also did not give any suggestion to the eye witnesses of the incident that at the time of incident they were present with Dhaniram (D.W.3) and Badri Prasad Patel 19 Cr.A.No.1373/2005, 1419/2005 & 1584/2005 (D.W.4). Even, in their examination under Section 313 of CrPC they did not disclose this fact that at the time of incident they were with above mentioned defence witnesses. So in this regard, statement of Harprasad (D.W.1) and Phool Chand (D.W.2) Dhaniram (D.W.3) and Badri Prasad Patel (D.W.4) appear to be afterthought and only on the basis of their statements the statements of eyewitnesses that these appellants also took part in the incident cannot be discarded.
30. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that only on the ground that appellants were present on spot, it cannot be said that they were all members of unlawful assembly because there are many contradiction and omission in the statements of eyewitnesses regarding the act of appellant. According to P.M. reports of deceased Ramesh, Bhaiyalal and Thakurdeen they died due to head injuries and they sustained injuries in his head by sharp cutting object as mentioned in the injury reports of Ramesh and Thakurdeen (Ex.P/32 and ExP/33) and P.M. report of Bhaiyalal (Ex.P/25). So other appellants who were allegedly armed with hard and blunt object like stick, rod and pipe at the time of incident cannot be held liable for murdering the deceased persons. But these arguments also have no force. From the statement of eyewitness of the incident Kamal Prasad (P.W.1), Ramakant (PW/2), Tara Devi (P.W.3), Lalita (P.W.4), Savita (P.W.5) and Vinod (P.W.6) it is clear that all appellants were present on the spot armed with sword/pipe/rod/stick and took part in the incident which clearly shows that all appellants were the members of the unlawful assembly.
31. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Virendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2010) 8 SCC 407 held;-
"Common intention" and "common object"- Both Sections 34 and 149 IPC deal with combinations of persons who become punishable as sharers in an offence- whereas in a case where Section 149 applies, a constructive liability arises in respect of those persons also who do not actually commit the offence.
32. In Allauddin Mian & Ors. Sharif Mian & Anr. vs State Of Bihar reported in AIR 1989 SC 1456 the import of Section 149 IPC was explained by apex court as under :-
"....... This section creates a specific offence and makes every member of the unlawful assembly liable for the offence or offences committed in the course of the occurrence provided 20 Cr.A.No.1373/2005, 1419/2005 & 1584/2005 the same was/were committed in prosecution of the common object or was/were such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed. Since this section imposes a constructive penal liability, it must be strictly construed as it seeks to punish members of an unlawful assembly for the offence or offences committed by their associate or associates in carrying out the common object of the assembly. What is important in each case is to find out if the offence was committed to accomplish the common object of the assembly or was one which the members knew to be likely to be committed. There must be a nexus between the common object and the offence committed and if it is found that the same was committed to accomplish the common object every member of the assembly will become liable for the same. Therefore, any offence committed by a member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of anyone or more of the five objects mentioned in Section 141 will render his companions constituting the unlawful assembly liable for that offence with the aid of Section 149 of IPC
33. The Apex Court in the case of Ramesh and Ors. v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2011 SC 169 also held Section 149 --- Common object of unlawful assembly has to be gathered from the nature of assembly, arms possessed by them and behaviour of assembly at or before occurrence- Each of accused need not commit some illegal overt act- An assembly, which is not unlawful, when assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly- When the assembly is found to be unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object, every member of the unlawful assembly shall be guilty of the offence committed by another member of the assembly.
34. So, only on the ground that it did not appear from the statement of prosecution witnesses that some of the appellants had inflicted any injury on the deceased or injured persons or inflicted fatal injury to the deceased persons it cannot be said that they were not involved in the incident. On the contrary from the prosecution evidence it appears that at the time of incident appellants were present on the spot armed with deadly weapons like sword, iron pipe, iron rod and sticks which shows that appellants knowingly that the murder of deceased persons is likely to be committed by the members of the assembly remained a member of the assembly. In these circumstances all appellants are also liable for the act of other appellants as a member of unlawful assembly.
21Cr.A.No.1373/2005, 1419/2005 & 1584/2005
35. From the statements of prosecution witnesses Kamal Prasad (P.W.1), Ramakant (PW/2), Taradevi (P.W.3), Lalita (P.W.4), Savita (P.W.5), and Vinod Kumar (P.W.16) which is also corroborated from other evidence it is clearly proved that out of the appellants accused Bablu @ Jamuna armed with sword Ramadhar with Iron Pipe, Shriram with Iron Rod, Pooran Lal Kushwaha Hockey Stick and other appellants Gorelal, Rajaram Kushwaha, Babulal Kushwah, Kunjilal Kushwah, Javendra Kushwah, Kaidilal Kushwah, Bundilal Kushwah, Rajendra Kushwaha, Shravan Kumar Kushwaha, Ashoke armed with stick gathered on the spot with intention to kill Ramesh, Bhaiyalal and Thakurdeen and caused the injuries to Taradevi (P.W.3) and Savita (P.W.5), Beliya and Ramsajivan and due to which, deceased Ramesh, Bhaiyalal, Thakurdeen died and Taradevi (P.W.3) and Savita (P.W.5) Beliya and Ramsajivan sustained injuries.
36. But as far as findings of trial court regarding Lalita and Rajendra Kumar sustaining injury in the incident is concerned, Although Lalita (PW4) deposed that appellant Rajendra assaulted her by stick and she sustained injury in her leg but Dr.Abhay Raj (PW/8) who conducted medical examination of Lalita deposed that on her examination he did not find any injury on her body. Had appellants also assaulted Lalita by stick in the incident she must have sustained external injury on her leg.
37. Regarding Rajendra although Dr. R N sharma deposed that on 15-11- 2016 at 9:30 pm he examined Rajendra Kumar and found following external injuries on his body:-
(i) Abrasion size 4" x ½ "x bone deep over left side of head.
(ii) Contusion reddish in colour size 6" x 2" inch over left scapula. both the injuries are caused by hard and blunt object and within 24 hours from the examination and simple in nature.
38. But prosecution did not produce Rajendra. In the evidence Ramakant (PW/2), Tara Devi (P.W.3), Lalita (P.W.4), Savita (P.W.5) Chotku (PW/6) and Vinod (P.W.16) did not depose that Rajendra Kumar was also present on the spot at the time of incident and he sustained injury in the incident. Only Kamal Prasad (PW/1) deposed that Rajendra also sustained injury in the 22 Cr.A.No.1373/2005, 1419/2005 & 1584/2005 incident. But he also did not disclose as who inflicted injury to Rajendra and where if Rajendra had sustained injuries in the incident Ramakant (PW/2), Tara Devi (P.W.3), Lalita (P.W.4), Savita (P.W.5), Chotku (PW/6) and Vinod (P.W.6) would also have deposed this fact in their statement. So on that point statement of Kamal Prasad (PW/1) can not be believed. In the considered opinion of this court learned trial court committed mistake in holding appellants guilty for assaulting Lalita (PW/4) and Rajendra.
39. Likewise Apex court in the case of Dinesh alias Buddha v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 771 held, to constitute offence u/s 3(2) (v), of Scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes (prevention of atrocities) act, 1988-the same must have been committed against person on the ground that such person is a member of SC/ST-community. The Apex court also in the case of Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman V. State of Maharashtra , AIR 2000 SC 1876 held that:-
For applicability of S.3(2)(v) it is necessary that offence was committed against Complainant on the basis (on the ground) that such person is a member of SC/ST and not otherwise. and in the case of Ramdas & Ors. V. State of Maharashtra , AIR 2007 SC 155 also held - Rape against girl belonging to Scheduled Caste -Unless rape committed on the ground that person belongs to Scheduled Caste, it is not covered by S. 3(2)
(v) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act, 1989. Which shows that offence under section S. 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act, 1989 is only made out when offence is committed on the member of SC ST act on the ground that person belongs to schedule caste community While in this case in the FIR (Ex.P/1) it is not mentioned that appellants murdered Thakurdeen, Bhaiyalal and Ramesh on the ground that they were belonging to Scheduled Caste community. Kamal Prasad (PW/1), Ramakant (PW/2), Tara Devi (P.W.3), Lalita (P.W.4), Savita (P.W.5) Chotku (PW/6) and Vinod (P.W.16) did not depose that applicants murdered Thakurdeen, Bhaiyalal and Ramesh on the ground that they belongs to Scheduled Caste community, although Lalita (P.W.4) and Vinod (PW/16) deposed that at the time of incident appellants saying that " ममरर करररयय कर" But this fact was not mentioned in their case diary statements (Ex.D/4 & Ex.D/7) respectively. So in this regard their statement become afterthought and can not be believed.23
Cr.A.No.1373/2005, 1419/2005 & 1584/2005
40. So in the considered opinion of this court learned trial court committed mistake in finding the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3 (2)(V) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, hence, all the appeals are partly allowed and all the appellants are acquitted from the charge punishable under Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (In Three counts) and appellant Rajendra is acquitted from the charge punishable under Section 323 of IPC for assaulting Lalita and other appellants are also acquitted from the charge punishable under Section 323 r/w 149 of IPC for assaulting Lalita and also all the appellants are acquitted from the charge punishable under Section 323/149 of IPC for assaulting Rajendra. The remaining finding of conviction and sentence of Trial Court is hereby upheld. All the jail sentences shall run concurrently. The period already undergone shall be set off from the period of substantive jail sentence. The appellant Gorelal is directed to surrender before the Trial Court on 04.12.2017 and the Trial Court is directed to send him to jail for serving the remaining part of jail sentence. If the appellant Gorelal does not surrender as directed above, the trial court shall take action according to law for the arrest of appellant.
41. All, the appeals disposed of accordingly.
42. A copy of this judgment be placed in the record of Criminal Appeal No.1419/2005 & Criminal Appeal No.1584/2005.
(S.K. Seth) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
(ra)
Digitally signed by
RANJEET AHIRWAL
Date: 2017.11.14
12:18:38 +05'30'