Jharkhand High Court
Maheshwar Hembrom & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 22 September, 2017
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh, Ananda Sen
1
CRIMINAL (JAIL) APPEAL (D.B.) NO. 410 OF 2007
--------
[arising out of Judgment of conviction dated 15th January, 2007 and Order of sentence dated 17th January, 2007 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Trial No.172 of 2005]
------
1. Maheshwar Hembrom @ Manishar Hembrom
2. Ishwar Hembrom .... Appellants versus The State of Jharkhand .... Respondent
-------
For the appellant : Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Ravi Prakash, A.P.P.
-----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
----
JUDGMENT
RESERVED ON 09.09.2017 PRONOUNCED ON 22.09.2017
Per Justice Ananda Sen This criminal appeal, instituted on the basis of
an application received from the accused persons (appellants), serving sentences, through the Superintendent of the Central Jail, Dumka, is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 15th January, 2007 and Order of sentence dated 17th January, 2007 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Trial No.172 of 2005, whereby these two accused-appellants have been found and held guilty for committing offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and both the convicts have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been ordered that both the sentences awarded to the convicts shall run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of P.W.2 Thakur Hembrom, who happens to be the cousin of the deceased, recorded by the A.S.I. Ishwar Dayal Singh on 08.04.2005 at about 08.30 hrs. at Taljhari 2 Police Station. He states that on 06.04.2005, these appellants were quarrelling with Lakhan Hembrom, who happens to be the father of these appellants. The quarrel had taken place at about 8 - 9 a.m. During the midst of quarrel, these two appellants tied the hands and legs of their father Lakhan Hembrom and started assaulting him with sticks and stones, as a result of which Lakhan Hembrom sustained injuries. Dhanmani Marandi and Sukarmuni Marandi tried to forbid these two appellants from assaulting their father, but, they were also threatened of dire consequences, as a result of which they did not interfere. Lakhan Hembrom was taken by these appellants in the house and they locked the door. On 07.04.2005 in the morning hours, the informant and Rameshwar Tudu inquired from these two appellants about the well being of their father, when they disclosed that they have murdered their father and concealed the dead body in Pandeshwari Hills. The informant then inquired as to why they have committed the offence, to which these appellants replied that their father, in a drunken state, had threatened these two appellants of dire consequences, so they have murdered their father and buried the dead body in the hills. These appellants also stated that because of fear, they did not disclose this fact to the informant.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, Jarmundi (Taljhari) Police Station Case No. 67 of 2005 for offences under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. The police, after completion of the investigation, submitted chargesheet against both these appellants under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court took cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Session. At the time of framing of charge, it was suspected that Ishwar Hembrom is a minor and thus, his case was separated, and was sent to Juvenile Court for inquiry. Thus, the charge was framed only against Manishwar Hembrom for 3 committing offence under Sections 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The said accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Later on a report was received from the Juvenile Court intimating that after proper inquiry, accused Ishwar Hembrom was found to be major. Accordingly, on receipt of the said report, Trial Court framed charge under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Ishwar Hembrom also, who also pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried.
5. To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution examined altogether 7 witnesses.
(i) P.W.1 Rameshwar Tudu, who happens to be the Village Pradhan, stated that he heard that Manishwar had assaulted his father Lakhan mercilessly and dragged him and locked him in the house. He stated that the wife of this witness, who saw the assault, was also threatened. On the next day, he along with Thakur (informant) went to the house of the appellants to inquire about well being of the deceased, whereupon these appellants disclosed before them that his father was kept in the hills. The informant went to the police station accompanied by this witness, where the statement of the informant was recorded. This witness stated that he has also put his signature on the fardbeyan, which was marked as Exhibit 1. He stated that police came to the village for investigation and recovered a piece of rope in their presence from the house of Lakhan. Seizure list was also prepared and this witness identified his signature on the seizure list, which was marked as Exhibit 2. In cross-examination, he stated that he is working as a labourer in construction of PCC road where he had gone for work. He heard about the incident at night when he returned from his work. He stated that there was litigation between the deceased and the informant. He stated that deceased had four sons, 4 one daughter and wife. He stated that the sons of the deceased were living in the same house. He stated that he did not discuss the incident with any person in the village. He stated that the deceased and the informant had one Semal Tree, but, the same was chopped down by the informant. He stated that he does not have any personal knowledge about the case.
(ii) P.W.2 is Thakur Hembrom, who is the informant of this case. He stated that there was altercation between the deceased and his sons at about 8 O'clock. He stated that on the next day he and the Pradhan went to the house of the appellants and inquired from Manishwar about the whereabouts of his father, upon which Manishwar disclosed that after killing him he has concealed the body. He admitted that he gave his fardbeyan and had put his signature on the same. The signature was marked as Exhibit 1/1. He identified the appellants. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he had gone out for work on that day. He admitted that he is illiterate and puts thumb impression.
He stated that he had given his statement in Santhali language. He stated that in the evening he came to know that Lakhan has died. He stated that for the first time, he had seen the dead body along with the police officials on the hills. No villagers were there in the hills. He stated that there were several houses within the vicinity, but, he did not meet any one. He admitted that the lands, belonging to this witness and the deceased, are recorded in the same records.
(iii)P.W.3 is Dr. V.K. Sinha, who conducted the postmortem of dead body of the deceased. He found the following injuries: -
1. Abrasion over right elbow 2" x 1 ½"
2. Lacerated wound over right leg 2" x ½" x ¼"
3. Lacerated wound over left leg 2" x ½" x ½"
5
4. Incised injuries over lower leg lateral side ½" x ½" x bone deep.
5. Echynosis over left arm lateral side 2 ½" x 2"
6. Diffused swelling over the right hand. On dissection fracture found on the root of the thumb.
He opined that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of the said injuries, which were sufficient to cause death in normal course of nature. He stated that injury No.4 is caused by sharp weapon. Postmortem report was exhibited through him, which was marked as Exhibit 3. In cross examination, he stated that laceration, bruise and swellings are not in itself sufficient to cause death, rather due to those injuries shock and hemorrhage had occurred, which caused death in this case.
(iv) P.W.4 is Ishwar Dayal Singh, who is the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police and was posted in Taljhari Police Station. He stated that he had recorded the statement of Thakur Hembrom at 08.30 hrs. He stated that he had recorded the fardbeyan as narrated by the informant. The informant had put his signature on the document and the witnesses also countersigned the same. Signature was marked as Exhibit 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan Jarmundi Police Station Case No.67 of 2005 under Sections 302/201 was registered against these appellants. The formal FIR was written by the Officer-in-Charge, Jarmundi Police Station Shri Arvind Kumar and the same was marked as Exhibit 5. He recorded the statement of witnesses during the investigation. The first place of occurrence is in front of the house of Nima Tudu where the deceased Lakhan Hembrom was assaulted. He gave the description of the place of occurrence. As per this witness, the second place of occurrence is the house of the deceased. He gave the description of the said house. He stated that inside the room, 6 stains of blood were found, but the same was not possible to be collected. He gave description of the house and narrated the boundary of the same. He stated that he recovered piece of rope from the room and seized the same. He admitted that he prepared the seizure list, which is in his signature. The seizure list was marked as Exhibit 6. This witness prepared the inquest report and took signature of witnesses on it. The said inquest report was marked as Exhibit 7. He thereafter sent the dead body for postmortem. In cross- examination, this witness admitted that he knows santhali language, but he cannot speak. He stated that he has not recorded the statement of Nima Tudu and Chhote Lal Marandi. He stated that he had never recorded the statement of any villagers of Sukri Village. He stated that he seized the rope. He stated that ropes are kept in the houses for use. He stated that he has not recorded the statement of the wife of the deceased. He stated that wife of deceased had fled away. He stated that the deceased had four sons whose statements were also not recorded. They were not available. He denied the suggestion that the investigation was faulty.
(v) P.W.5 is Dhanmuni Murmu, who happened to be the wife of P.W.1. She stated that the occurrence had taken place at about 8-9 hours in the morning when she was in house. Quarrel was going on between the father and sons. Lakhan Hembrom, Manishwar and Ishwar Hembrom were quarreling. Manishwar and Ishwar were assaulting Lakhan with sticks and tied his hands and legs by means of rope. She stated that the deceased was also assaulted by means of big stones. She went to intervene, but, she was also chased and was also threatened by a stick. Both the brothers then dragged the injured to their house and locked him and no one was allowed to intervene. This 7 witness stated that thereafter she does not know what had happened. On the next morning, when everyone inquired about the whereabouts of Lakhan, these appellants disclosed that his body has been buried in Pandeshwari Hills. This witness identified the appellants. In cross- examination, she stated that their village is quite big. The occurrence continued from 8/9.00 hrs. to 11.00 hrs. In the village, there were only women folks and male folks were not present. 6-7 women folks were there, but, they fled, out of fear. She stated that she is not aware of the fact as to when Lakhan died. She stated that on the same day she came to know that Lakhan died. In fact, after some time this information was gathered by her. She stated that two persons went to the police station and with the police they returned immediately. She stated that she has given her statement before the police. She stated that these appellants had stated that they buried the dead body. She further stated that the assault had taken place in the village road, which is used by all. She stated that the deceased had four sons and a daughter and the name of the wife of the deceased is Shanti Soren. She stated that the family of the deceased is joint and all reside together. She stated that she was alone in the house and she was not aware where her husband went. She stated that when her husband returned at night, she informed him about the occurrence. She stated that blood stains were there on the road and she had seen it, but, the accused had washed the same. She stated that the police had also seen the blood stains on the road where the assault had taken place. She stated that she is not aware of the fact as to whether there was dispute between Thakur Hembrom and Lakhan Hembrom.
(vi) Sukurmani Marandi is the P.W.6 in this case. She stated that on the date and time of occurrence, she was in her house. On hearing 8 hue and cry, she came to the road and saw the deceased, whose hands and legs were tied with rope and blood was oozing out from his head. She stated that Hiramani Marandi, Dhamuni and other persons were there at the place of occurrence. She stated that Manishwar and Ishwar were carrying sticks with them and this witness and others fled after seeing the stick. She stated that later on she came to know that Lakhan became unconscious as a result of the said assault and thereafter was taken inside the house. He stated that Lakhan was killed and thereafter at night he was buried in the hills. On the next day, the accused disclosed that the deceased was murdered and was buried. In cross-examination, she stated that on hearing screams, she went to the place of occurrence and had disclosed the occurrence to her husband when he returned at night. She stated that the police had recorded her statement. She stated that Ishwar was carrying stones and Manishwar was carrying sticks and this fact was narrated to the police by her. She stated that the accused had disclosed that the deceased was buried in the hills. She stated that the hills are at a distance place. She stated that she had seen stains of blood on the road where the assault had taken place. She denied the suggestion that she has not seen the occurrence.
(vii) P.W.7 is Hiramani Marandi, who stated that the occurrence had taken place at around 9.00 hours when she was in her house. On hearing hue and cry, she went to the place of occurrence. She came out of her house and saw that Lakhan Hembrom was being assaulted by Manishwar Hembrom and Ishwar Hembrom. Both the hands and legs of Lakhan Hembrom were tied and he was being assaulted by bamboo sticks and stones. The deceased was dragged in the house and was locked in the house. This witness went to interfere, but, she 9 was also threatened. She stated that Dhanmuni and Sukurmani were also present there. She stated that on the next day, when they went to inquire about Lakhan Hembrom and wanted to meet him, these appellants did not open the door and they were not allowed to meet Lakhan. She stated that Lakhan Hembrom was murdered and his body was concealed in the hills. She states that these appellants along with this witness and others went to the police station and in the police station these appellants have disclosed that after committing murder, body of the deceased was concealed in Pandeshwar Hills. She stated that body was recovered, but, she has not seen the body. She stated that these two appellants had committed murder of their father. She stated that Lakhan Hembrom had four sons and one daughter. Name of wife of Lakhan Hembrom is Shanti. She stated that all the sons of Lakhan Hembrom were residing together. She stated that there was no dispute between Lakhan Hembrom and Thakur Hembrom. She stated that she was in her house alone at the time of occurrence. She stated that she had given her statement to the police. She stated that she has not stated before the police that they had went to the house of appellants when the appellants refused to let them in. She stated that the police had raided the place of occurrence on the next day. She stated that she could not say the names of their neighbours. She stated that when they went to the police station along with the accused persons, the accused were not arrested. She stated that the police, first raided the village and thereafter this witness and others went to the police station. She stated that the incident was not discussed with any of the villagers. She denied the suggestion that she was giving false evidence.
6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused persons were 10 examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and their statement was recorded. In their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied their involvement and stated that they have falsely been implicated at the instance of the informant, who want to grab their lands.
7. In defence, Shanti Soren, mother of these two appellants and the wife of the deceased was examined as D.W.1. She stated that on the date of occurrence, her husband went to work as a labourer, but, did not return. On the next day, the police raided the village, where the children of the village stated that the dead body was lying in the forest. She stated that there was land dispute between the informant and her husband as a result of which, these two appellants have been falsely implicated by the informant. She stated that the land of these appellants and the informant were recorded in the same records. She stated that there was no dispute between her husband and her sons. She stated that all the family members were residing together and there was no dispute. She stated that her husband did not return. She went in the house of Thakur Hembrom, but he was not found. She states that on the next day, she had not gone to the police station and her sons had gone there. She stated that her sons had given a statement before the police and thumb impression was taken. She stated that when the body was recovered, no suspicion was raised by this witness. She denied the suggestion that on that day there was altercation between her and her husband as a result of which she left for her parents' house. She admitted that Thakur Hembron had lodged the case and she did not institute any case. She stated that the police came at the instance of Thakur Hembrom. She denied the seizure of ropes from the house. She stated that the police had taken her statement. She stated that she does not know as to what happened to the information, which she had given to the police about disappearance of her husband. She denied the fact that her husband used 11 to assault her. She denied that when the appellants tried to reason with their father, their father had also threatened them. She denied the allegations leveled against the appellants.
8. The Trial Court, after analyzing the evidence adduced, vide judgment dated 15th January, 2007 and Order of sentence dated 17th January, 2007 in Sessions Trial No.172 of 2005, found and held guilty these two accused- appellants for committing offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced both the convicts to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been ordered that both the sentences awarded to the convicts shall run concurrently.
9. Aggrieved by the said Judgment of conviction dated 15 th January 2007 and Order of sentence dated 17th January, 2007, the appellants have preferred this appeal before this Court.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased is the cousin brother of the informant and admittedly, there is a land dispute. It is submitted that only to grab the share of these appellants, they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further argued that there are no materials to prove that these appellants have committed the murder of their father. It has been submitted that the witnesses have deposed that there was injury in the head of the deceased, but, surprisingly, the Postmortem Report do not suggest about any such head injury. It is argued that from the facts of this case, it is apparent that there was no intention to kill the deceased and thus, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted in this case. It is 12 submitted that there is no evidence of recovery of the dead body from the hills, thus, the place from where the dead body was recovered is also doubtful. It is also submitted that there was no mens rea in the instant case to commit murder of their father by these appellants. Thus, the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is wholly bad.
12. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. submits that the evidence of prosecution witnesses are clear and cogent. He submits that there are eye witnesses, who have seen the assault and when there are eye witnesses, the motive takes back seat. In the absence of motive, when there is reliable eye witnesses, conviction can be sustained.
13. After analysing the evidence adduced by the prosecution and after going through the documents on record, we find that the informant Thakur Hembrom is a hear say witness. P.W.1 Rameshwar Tudu and the informant Thakur Hembrom have gathered information from their respective wives after returning from their work at night. This case is based on the evidence of P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.7, these three ladies are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. After careful scrutiny of the evidence of these witnesses, we find that these witnesses have seen the assault on the deceased. These witnesses have said that there was some quarrel going on between the father and the sons (deceased and the appellants) and the father was being assaulted by bamboo sticks and stones after being tied by rope. Thereafter, the father was dragged and was taken inside the room and the door was locked. This evidence is consistent and statement of each of these eye witnesses, i.e., P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.7 corroborates each other's. They also stated that they went to save the deceased from the assault, but, these appellants, by brandishing the bamboo sticks, terrorised these witnesses, so, they could not intervene. The medical evidence clearly suggests that there was assault on the person of the deceased. There was mark of injuries 13 on the right elbow, on both the legs, arms and on hands. Thus, the evidence of these witnesses are corroborated by the medical evidence. There is nothing in their statement to disbelieve them. Thus, from the evidence of these three witnesses, it is clear that the appellants have assaulted their father, the deceased, namely, Lakhan Hembrom.
14. Now the question is whether this case will come within the purview of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. These three witnesses, i.e., P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.7 have not stated that the appellants have murdered the deceased. Instead, they only stated that they had seen that the deceased was being assaulted by sticks and stones and he was injured and was taken to his house. It is the prosecution case that on the next day, these appellants have confessed before the P.W.1 and P.W.2 that they have committed murder of the deceased and have buried the dead body on the hills. This alleged extra judicial confessional statement of these appellants finds no corroboration in the entire case records. There are no eye witnesses/ direct witnesses of recovery of the dead body from the hills. No witness has stated as to whether the dead body was exhumed or not. In this context, best witness of recovery of the dead body is the investigating officer. The investigating officer has been examined as P.W.4. Surprisingly, there is not a single whisper in his evidence on the point of recovery of dead body. In the postmortem report, the description of the body has been mentioned, that it was swollen with peeling of skins, rigour mortis absent with foul smelling of body. The prosecution case was that the body was buried which was taken out, but, if that be so, there would have been dust and mud covered over the body, which is not found in this case. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the prosecution version that the body was recovered from the hills.
15. The second aspect of this case is that there is no evidence as to what happened with the deceased, who was in the injured condition, after he was 14 dragged inside the house. The evidence of prosecution witnesses clearly suggests that there are other two sons of the deceased and the entire family was living together, but there is nothing to show as to what happened after the deceased, in an injured condition was taken inside the house. As per the evidence of the investigating officer, the wife was not present. There is nothing in his evidence to suggest that the other sons of the deceased and their wives were not present. The other sons of the deceased have not been produced as witness by the prosecution and there is nothing on record to remotely throw light upon in fact as to what happened after the deceased was taken inside the house. Furthermore, we get that there was quarrel going on between the father and the sons and thereafter the assault had taken place. This suggests that before the deceased was assaulted by these appellants, there was quarrel and altercation. The prosecution has been able to prove only first part of the occurrence, i.e., quarrel between the father and the sons; and the assault by bamboo sticks and stones, resulting in injuries of the deceased and the fact that the deceased was taken inside the house in an injured condition. These facts have only been proved by the prosecution. If we peruse the postmortem report, we find that there are no injuries on the vital parts of the body.
16. In the case of Chenda @ Chanda Ram versus State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2013) 12 SCC 110, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 15, 16, 17 and 18, has broadly given an outline that Exception 4 of Section 300 can be applied, so as to attract offence punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. The Hon'ble Supreme Court takes note of the judgment in Pappu versus State of M.P. as reported in (2006) 7 SCC 391, wherein it has been held that exception can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation; (ii) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual 15 manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also takes note of paragraph 23 of Gurmukh Singh versus State of Haryana as reported in (2009) 15 SCC
635. In the said case of Gurmukh Singh, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering some factors which are required to be taken into consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused. It is necessary to quote paragraph 23 of the said judgment, which reads as under: -
"23. These are some factors which are required to be taken into consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused. These factors are only illustrative in character and not exhaustive. Each case has to be seen from its special perspective. The relevant factors are as under: -
(a) motive or previous enmity;
(b) whether the incident had taken place on the spur of the moment;
(c) the intention/knowledge of the accused while inflicting the blow or injury;
(d) whether the death ensued instantaneously or the victim died after several days;
(e) the gravity, dimension and nature of injury;
(f) the age and general health condition of the accused;
(g) whether the injury was caused without premeditation in a sudden fight;
(h) the nature and size of weapon used for inflicting the injury and the force with which the blow was inflicted;
(i) the criminal background and adverse history of theaccused;
(j) whether the injury inflicted was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death but the death was because of shock;
(k) number of other criminal cases pending against the accused;
(l) incident occurred within the family members or close relations;
(m) the conduct and behaviour of the accused after the incident. Whether the accused had taken the injured/the deceased to the hospital immediately to ensure that he/she gets proper medical treatment?
These are some of the factors which can be taken into consideration while granting an appropriate sentence to the accused.
17. On this background, we have to analyse factors as to whether the appellant had intention to cause death or whether he had only knowledge of 16 the injury likely to cause death and we have to analyse the manner in which the injuries caused.
18. In this case, we find from the evidence on record that there was no enmity between the parties as the parties were father and sons. The available evidence would also show that there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant and the incident occurred when a quarrel was going on between the deceased and the appellants. Further the Postmortem Report also suggests that there was no injury on the vital parts of the body. Further the evidence in cross examination of the doctor is very important in this case wherein he stated that swelling and bruises which were the injuries of the deceased are not itself sufficient to cause death, rather the death occurred due to hemorrhage and shock arising out of those injuries.
19. If we apply the outlines given in Gurmukh Singh's case (supra) in paragraph 23(a), (b), (g) & (j) to the facts of this case, we find that the case weighs in favour of these appellants as we find that there was no intention to commit murder nor the act was premeditated one, neither the injuries are on the vital parts of the body and moreover, the death is because of shock and hemorrhage. Thus, it can be held that this case falls within the Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. Since this case will fall under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, conviction of the appellants for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. This case, in our opinion, will fall within the purview of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside and the appellants are convicted for committing an offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence of the appellants is thus also modified and they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along with a 17 fine of Rs.1000/- each.
20. From the records, we find that the appellants are in custody for more than 12 years, thus, they are entitled to be released forthwith from custody, if not wanted in any other case.
21. With the aforesaid modification in the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence, this appeal is partly allowed.
22. Let the Lower Court Records be transmitted to the Court concerned forthwith along with a copy of this judgment.
I agree (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) (Ananda Sen, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the, 22nd September, 2017 Kumar/AFR