Karnataka High Court
State By Psi,Town vs Shivakumar @ Shivu on 10 November, 2020
Bench: B.Veerappa, K.Natarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1551/2015
BETWEEN:
STATE BY PSI, TOWN
POLICE STATION
CHITRADURGA-577501.
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR
BENGALURU-01.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S. RACHAIAH, HCGP)
AND:
1. SHIVAKUMAR @ SHIVU
S/O RAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
OCC: CAR DRIVER
2. C. PREMANANDA @ ANANDA
S/O P. CHITRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
OCC: CAR DRIVER
2
3. S. HARISHA
S/O SHIVALANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
OCC: HAMALI AND RADIUM
STICKER WORK
(ALL ARE R/O BESIDE
KOLLAPURADAMMA TEMPLE
PILLEKERANAHALLI
CHITRADURGA-577501.)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI AMITH DESHPANDE, AMICUS CURIAE FOR R1 VIDE
ORDER DATED 20.10.2020;
SRI P.B. UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI R. B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI N. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R3.. ABSENT)
*****
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1)
AND (3) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
ACQUITTAL DATED 22.04.2015 PASSED IN S.C. No.53 OF 2014
BY THE LEARNED ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHITRADURGA, ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 364A, 506 R/W
SECTION 34 OF IPC AND CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE
ACCUSED FOR THE SAID OFFENCESS.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR HEARING
THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA, J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
The State filed the present criminal appeal against the Judgment & Order of acquittal dated 22.4.2015 made in S.C. No.53/2014 on the file of the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga acquitting the Accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 364A, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
I. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 10.3.2014 at about 7.15 p.m. near the gate of the house of Smt. Deepa, Teacher (PW.13) at Chitradurga, Accused Nos.1 to 3 with common intention, made a plan to kidnap one Mr. Piyush (PW.15), a minor boy, aged about 11 years with an intention of demanding Rs.one crore as ransom amount from his father Dr. Prashanth (PW.7) and in pursuance of the same, Accused No.2 came by riding a Honda Pulsar two wheeler bearing Registration No.KA.16/W 6034 and 4 introduced himself as new driver of the car owned by PW.7 (father of the victim) and made minor boy - Piyush (PW.15) to sit as a pillion rider in the two wheeler and picked up Accused No.3 at 3rd Cross, Basaveshwara Nagar, Chitradurga, who sat behind the victim boy - Piyush as a pillion rider and when the victim boy raised hue and cry on the way, Accused No.3 threatened with a knife to kill the victim boy and took him to Chikkagondanahalli village, from where they made a phone call to PW.7 - Dr. Prashanth (father of the victim) and demanded ransom of Rs. 1 Crore for the release of the victim boy - Piyush (PW.15) and later, left the kidnapped boy near Venkataramana Swamy temple on Turuvanur road.
3. PW.1, grand-father of the victim lodged the complaint before the jurisdictional Police. On the basis of the complaint, the jurisdictional Police registered Crime No.122/2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 364A of IPC. After investigation, the jurisdictional Police 5 filed the final report for the offences punishable under Sections 364A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. The jurisdictional Magistrate committed the matter to the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charges on 19.8.2014 and read over to the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in all examined 16 witnesses as per PWs.1 to 16 and got marked the material documents - Ex.P1 to Ex.P46 and the material objects - Mos.1 to 6. The accused has not chosen to lead any defence evidence nor got marked any documents.
5. After completion of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the statement of the accused persons as contemplated under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. The accused denied all the incriminating 6 evidence adduced against them and also the case set up by the prosecution.
6. The learned Sessions Judge based on the aforesaid pleadings, formulated a point for consideration, which reads as under:
"Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 10.03.2014 at 7.15 p.m., from/near gate of the house of P.W.13-Smt. Deepa, Teacher, Chitradurga, accused No.1 to 3 with common intention in prosecution of a plan made to kidnap P.W.15-Piyush to grab money from P.W.7-father of P.W.15, accused No.2 came by riding a Honda Pleasure two wheeler No.KA.16/W.6034 introduced himself to P.W.15-Piyush as new driver of the Car owned by P.W.7, made P.W.15-Piyush to sit on the pillion of the two wheeler, at 3rd Cross, Basaveshwara Nagar, Chitradurga, accused No.3- Harish sat on the pillion of the two wheeler behind P.W.15, when P.W.15 made alarm, accused No.3 Harish shown a knife threatened to kill, took P.W.15 to Chikkagondanahalli, through mobile call insisted P.W.7-Dr. Prashanth to pay one crore rupees, if he 7 want Piyush, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 364A, 506 r/w. section 34 of IPC?"
7. After considering both the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge answered the point raised in the negative holding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons committed offences punishable under Sections 364A, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and accordingly acquitted the accused for the said offences. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the State.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. II. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY SRI RACHAIAH, LEARNED HCGP FOR THE APPELLANT - STATE
9. Sri Rachaiah, learned HCGP contended that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court acquitting the Accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 364A, 506 r/w Section 8 34 of IPC, is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. He further contended that the trial Court is not justified in acquitting the accused without considering the oral and documentary evidence on record in the right perspective and therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. He also contended that the learned Sessions Judge has failed to notice that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt based on the oral and documentary evidence. He would further contend that the evidence of PW.1 - complainant (grand-father of the victim), PW.15 - victim, PW.9 - Tahasildar and PW.16 - Investigating Officer is sufficient to show the complicity of the accused persons in the commission of the offences charged against them and the said material has not been considered by the learned Sessions Judge while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
9
10. The learned HCGP further contended that merely on minor discrepancies found in the course of investigation, the learned Judge cannot ignore the entire investigation on certain technical grounds. He also contended that the Police have seized the mobile phones and have given a list of call details and merely because the said call list was not signed by the person, who has got the list downloaded from the internet/e.mail, the same is not a ground to disbelieve the call details. He further contended that in the identification parade conducted by the Taluka Executive Magistrate (PW.9), the victim has identified the accused persons. However, he could not remember those persons during the trial. But, the statements of PWs.9 and 15 corroborate with each other. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in acquitting the accused persons for the offences charged against them and therefore, sought to allow the appeal.
10III. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY SRI AMITH DESHPANDE, LEARNED AMICUS CURIAE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1
11. Per contra, Sri Amith Deshpande, learned amicus curiae appointed by this Court vide order dated 20.10.2020 while justifying the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, contended that the scope of the appeal filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal under the provisions of Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is very limited and unless the State shows perversity in the judgment of the trial Court, this Court cannot interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. He would further contend that the accused is entitled to double presumption of innocence as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arulvelu and another -vs- State represented by Public Prosecutor and another reported in (2009)10 SCC 206. He would further contend that PW.7, who is the father of the victim has turned hostile; PW.15, the victim 11 has not identified the accused persons; and PW.13 - Teacher also not stated anything about Accused Nos.1 to 3. He also contended that PW.1, who is the complainant has not proved the involvement of the accused persons in the commission of the offence based on the oral and documentary evidence on record. In fact, the averments in the complaint lodged by PW.1, are not supported by the evidence of PWs.7,15 and 13. Therefore, he submits that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is just and proper and there is no ground to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court and sought to dismiss the appeal. IV. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY SRI UMESH, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR REPSONDENT NO.2
12. Sri Umesh, learned counsel representing Respondent No.2 while adopting the arguments of amicus curiae for Respondent No.1, sought to justify the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court 12 and contended that the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution does not depict the involvement of the accused persons in the commission of the offence. In fact, the averments in the complaint lodged by PW.1 are not supported by the evidence of PW.7 (father of the victim), PW.15 (victim) and PW.13 (Teacher). Therefore, he sought to dismiss the appeal.
13. Learned Respondent No.3 remained absent inspite of giving sufficient opportunities.
V. POINT FOR DETERMINATION
14. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for our consideration in the present criminal appeal is:
"Whether the State/Prosecution has made out any ground to interfere with the impugned Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the trial Court acquitting the Accused Nos.1 to 3 for 13 the offences punishable under Sections 364A, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC, in exercise of the appellate powers under Sections 378(1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the facts and circumstance of the case?"
15. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material including the original records carefully.
VI. EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES AND THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON
16. In order to re-appreciate the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, it is relevant to consider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the documents relied upon.
PW.1 - Chidananda, who is the complainant and grand-father of the victim has reiterated the averments made in the complaint. He supported the prosecution case. 14
PW.2 - Jagadeesh is the witness to Ex.P3 - spot mahazar. He supported the prosecution case.
PW.3 - Nagesh, who is the witness to seizure mahazar
- Ex.P6, has identified MOs.1 and 2. He supported the prosecution case.
PW.4 - Dr. Nagendragowda, who is the witness to the mahazar - Ex.P11, has identified MO.5. He supported the prosecution case.
PW.5 - Prashanth is a resident of Chitradurga and he has got his house near the Venkataramanaswamy temple in Chitradurga. He has stated that on the date of the incident, a boy came to his house and introduced himself as son of Dr. Prashanth and requested him to intimate his appearance to his father and then, he handed over his mobile to that boy, who intimated his presence to his father and immediately, father of that boy came to his house and took that boy. He supported the prosecution case. 15
PW.6 - Rasika in his evidence has pleaded ignorance about Accused No.2. He stated that he never handed over mobile belonging to Chandrappa (PW.8) to Accused No.2.
PW.7 - Dr. Prashanth, who is the father of the victim has stated that his son (PW.15) was studying at Vidya Vikas school during the relevant point of time and he used to attend the tuition classes conducted by Deepa Teacher (PW.13). He turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.
PW.8 - Chandrappa has stated that his wife - Shilpa is the elder sister of PW.6. He turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.
PW.9 - T.C. Kantharaju is the Tahasildar who conducted the Test Identification parade in three rounds and he has stated that Piyush (PW.15) identified the accused persons in all the three rounds. He supported the prosecution case.
16
PW.10 - Chitrappa, who is the father of Accused No.2 stated that Honda Pleasure Two wheeler owned by him is in Chitradurga Town Police Station. He turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.
PW.11 - Shyam Sundar Prasad is the ASI who registered the case in Crime No.122/2014 as per Ex.P1. He supported the prosecution case.
PW.12 - Sunandamma is mother-in-law of PW.13 - Deepa and she stated that PW.13 was conducting tuition classes at home to eight students including to PWs.14 and
15. She has further stated that on the date of the incident, a person who came in Scooty vehicle informed that he is new driver of the car owned by father of Mr.Piyush and requested to send Mr.Piyush (Pw.15) and therefore, she has sent Mr.Piyush with that person. She further stated that she never saw Accused Nos.1 to 3 prior to the date of incident.
17
PW.13 - Deepa, who is teacher of PW.15 has stated that on the date of the incident, a person who himself introduced as new driver of the car owned by father of Mr. Piyush, called Mr.Piyush (PW.15) and then Mr. Piyush went alongwith that person. She further stated that at 7.45 p.m. through telephone, she informed the mother of Mr.Piyush that at 7.30 p.m., PW.15 left towards house. She pleaded her inability to identify Accused Nos.1 to 3 as to whether any of them came to her house to pick up Piyush (PW.15) She turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.
PW.14 - J.C. Nishanth is the classmate and friend of PW.15. He supported the prosecution case.
PW.15 - Piyush, who is the victim has stated that himself and Nishanth (PW.14) used to attend the tuition classes in the house of Deepa - Teacher (PW.13) from 5.30 p.m. to 7 p.m. He further stated that initially Accused No.1
- Shivakumar used to leave him near the house of Deepa 18 Teacher and after he left the job, his grand-father (PW.1) used to leave him near the house of Deepa Teacher. He could not identify the accused persons. He supported the prosecution case.
PW.16 - Sridhar Shastri is the Investigating Officer, who conducted investigation and filed the charge sheet. He supported the prosecution case.
VII. CONSIDERATION
17. It is the specific case of the prosecution that on 10.3.2014 at about 7.15 p.m. PW.15 was kidnapped by the accused persons near the gate of the house of PW.13 -
Smt. Deepa Teacher and he was shifted to Chikkagondanhalli village, from where they made a phone call to PW.7 demanding ransom of Rs.one crore for release of PW.15. Based on the complaint lodged by PW.1, the jurisdictional Police registered the case against the accused in Crime No.122/2014. Accused No.1 except admitting that 19 he was previous car driver of PW.7 (father of the victim), denied all other incriminating evidence adduced against him. Accused Nos.2 and 3 also denied the incriminating evidence adduced against them.
18. Based on the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge recorded a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 364A, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and accordingly acquitted the accused for the said offences.
19. On re-appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, it is clear that PW.1 - grand-father of the victim in his evidence has reiterated the averments made in the complaint, but PW.7 (father of the victim - Piyush) and PW.15 (victim - Piyush) in their evidence have not supported the averments made in the complaint and turned hostile.
20
20. The victim (PW.15) of the alleged incident has stated in his evidence that he does not remember two persons apart from Accused NO.1 - Shivakumar identified before Tahasildar during Test Identification parade. During the cross-examination, PW.15 admitted that during the Test Identification Parade before the Tahasildar, he pleaded his inability to identify the persons who took him from the house of Deepa Teacher (PW.13) for the reason that the said persons worn helmet and covered the face by a scarf at that time. PW.15 further admitted that in the jail premises as per the instructions given by the Police, he made signature on certain documents and it is not known to him the contents of the said documents.
21. It is not in dispute about the identification of the Accused No.1 - Shivakumar, who was the driver of the car owned by father of the victim. Regarding identification of Accused Nos.2 and 3, who alleged to have took PW.15 - Piyush from the house of Deepa Teacher (PW.13) in Honda 21 Pleasure Motorcycle bearing Regn. No.KA.16/W.6034, the oral evidence of PWs.1,7, 9 and 15 does not corroborate with one another and also does not corroborate with the contents of the Test Identification Parade reports.
22. It is also not in dispute that regarding identification of the owner/possessor of the mobile/SIM No.9008797243 from which demand made to PW.7 (father of PW.15 - Piyush) to pay Rs.one crore for the release of PW.15, the oral evidence of PW.6 - Rasika, PW.8 - Chandrappa, PW.16 - Investigating Officer does not corroborate with one another and also does not corroborate with the contents of the call lists as per Ex.P44 to 46. The Investigating Officer has not collected the documents about the ownership of the said mobile and not examined the author of the said call lists issued as per Ex.P44 to Ex.P46. Admittedly, the call lists marked at Ex.P44 to 46 do not bear the Endorsement and signature of the person who downloaded the same from the internet or e.mail. 22 Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge rightly not believed the alleged call details by the accused persons to PW.7.
23. Though a specific contention was raised by the prosecution that through Mobile No.9008797243 possessed by PW.6 - Raksha (relative of Accused No.2), Accused No.2 called the PW.7 (father of the victim - Piyush) and demanded payment of Rs.one crore for release of Piyuh, in the evidence of PW.6, nothing is stated about his possession of the Mobile No.9008797243 and handing over of that mobile to Accused No.2 on 10.3.2014 at 9.27 p.m.
24. As per the averments of the complaint and the oral evidence of Pws.1,7, 12, 13 and 15, a person who came by riding a Honda Pleasure motorcycle wearing helmet and jerkin took PW.15 from the house of Deepa Teacher (PW.13) and made him to sit as a pillion rider in the motorcycle and then another person, who was wearing scraf sat behind PW.15 in the motorcycle. But, the 23 prosecution has not explained as to how PW.15, aged about 11 years not identified those persons who took him from the house of PW.13 and made him to sit as a pillion rider in the motorcycle. Therefore, a doubt arises about identification of the persons who took PW.15 from the house of Deepa Teacher (PW.13). In the circumstances, there is a doubt with regard to involvement of the accused persons in the commission of the offence.
25. It is also not in dispute that regarding seizure of the mobiles - M.O.1(a) and 2(a); MO.3(a) - knife; and MO.4 - Honda Pleasure Motorcycle bearing NO.KA.16/W.6034 as per Mahazars - Ex.P6 and Ex.P7, oral evidence of PWs.3 and 16 corroborates with each other and also corroborates with the contents of the mahazars. However, regarding identification of those persons (Accused Nos.2 and 3) from whom the Investigating Officer has recovered mobiles, knife and Honda Pleasure vehicle, the oral evidence of PWs.3 and 16 does not corroborate with 24 each other. Therefore, it is not possible to connect Accused Nos.2 and 3 with the mobiles, knife and Honda Pleasure motorcycle and for commission of the offence.
26. As already stated supra, the victim of the alleged incident (PW.15 - Piyush) has not identified Accused Nos.2 and 3 before the Court and stated that before the Tahasildar during Test Identification Parade, he has pleaded inability to identify the persons who took him from the house of Deepa Teacher, who worn helmet and scarf and stated that in the Jail premises, he made signature on certain documents as per the instructions of the Police. Therefore, it is not possible to connect the accused Nos.1 to 3 with the disappearance of PW.15 (victim) from 7.30 p.m. to 10.30 p.m., on 10.3.2014.
27. It is also not in dispute that the prosecution has not produced any material before the Court with regard to conversation between Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 and 25 3 and further, the prosecution has not produced any materials before the Court for connecting the accused persons in the commission of the offence. The learned Sessions Judge considering both the oral and documentary evidence on record, rightly recorded a finding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 364A, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The prosecution has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
28. The scope of the appeal filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal is very limited and unless this Court while considering the material on record finds that the findings of the learned Sessions Judge are perverse, this Court cannot interfere with the judgment of acquittal. This Court would be justified in revering the judgment of acquittal only if there are substantial and compelling 26 reasons and when the judgment of the trial Court is found to be perverse judgment. Even if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, this Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. In the present case, the findings recorded, the reasons assigned and the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court are sound and proper.
29. Our view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arulvelu v. State reported in (2009) 10 SCC 206, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at paragraphs 33 and 40 as under:
33. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [(2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325] this Court reiterated the legal position as under: (SCC p. 432, para 42) "(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.27
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted
conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of 28 innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."
40. Unquestionably, the appellate court has power to review and reappreciate the entire evidence on record. The appellate court would be justified in reversing the judgment of acquittal only if there are substantial and compelling reasons and when the judgment of the trial court is found to be a perverse judgment. Interfering in a routine manner where other view is possible is contrary to the settled legal position crystallised by the aforementioned judgments of this Court. The accused is presumed to 29 be innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. This fundamental principle must be kept in view while dealing with the judgments of acquittal passed by the trial court.
30. On re-appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record and in the light of the principles enunciated in the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated supra, we do not find any ground to interfere with the well crafted judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
VIII. CONCLUSION
31. For the reasons stated above, the point raised in the present appeal is answered in the negative holding that the State/Prosecution has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the trial Court acquitting the Accused 30 Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 364A, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC, in exercise of the appellate powers of this Court under the provisions of Sections 378(1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
32. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the State is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed.
33. We place on record the assistance rendered by Sri Amith Deshpande, learned amicus curiae. In token thereof, we direct the High Court Legal Services Committee to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as honorarium to the learned amicus curiae.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Gss*