Allahabad High Court
Alim vs State on 22 December, 2014
Bench: Rakesh Tiwari, Vijay Lakshmi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved AFR Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1793 of 1993 Appellant :- Alim Respondent :- State Counsel for Appellant :- J.J. Munir Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A. Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.
(By Hon'ble Mrs.Vijay Lakshmi, J.) This criminal appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 30.9.1993 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in S.T.No. 15 of 1980, State Vs. Ramzani & Alim, under sections 302/34 & 307/34 of IPC, P.S. Hapur, District Ghaziabad whereby the appellant Alim has been found guilty of the offences under sections 302 and 307 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for his conviction under section 302 of IPC and 5 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for his conviction under section 307 IPC.
We have heard Sri J.J.Munir, learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA, Smt. Usha Kiran appearing on behalf of the State and have gone through the lower court's record.
The brief facts of the case as contained in the written report, Ext.Ka.1, submitted by one Farukh (P.W.1) to the police on 4.8.1985 in the early morning at 5.00 A.M. are that the occurrence had taken place in the intervening night of 3 /4.8.1985 at about 3.30 A.M. Bundu Teli had died about six months prior to the occurrence. He was married to two real sisters Aliman & Bano. From his first wife Aliman, a son Ramzani and a daughter Anno were born. From the second wife Bano one son Rafiq and two daughters Saidan and Rasidan were born. Bundu Teli, during his life time, had divided his property between his two wives. However. accused Ramzani, the son of first wife was not happy with the partition as he desired a bigger share in the property. About six years prior to the occurrence, accused Ramzani had made an attempt to kill his father by firing on him. Bundu Teli had sustained fire arm injuries on his head but fortunately he survived. Ramzani had also set the house on fire once but Bundu Teli did not lodge any FIR. The first informant Farukh, who is the husband of Saidan and son-in-law of Bundu Teli and his second wife Bano, further alleged that Ramzani had continued to extend threats to his father-in-law and his brother-in-law Rafiq but they never paid any heed towards those threats. In the intervening night of 3/4.8.1985 at about 3.30 a.m. when the informant Farukh, his wife, children, his mother-in-law Smt.Bano (second wife of Bundu Teli) and brother-in-law deceased Rafiq, were sleeping in the outer room due to continuous crying of his youngest daughter, who was ill, the informant and his wife had a disturbed sleep. The three accused persons namely Ramzani, Daya Nand and Alim came inside the room by climbing up the stairs made of bamboo standing against the wall in the courtyard. Ramzani had a country made pistol in his hand, Daya Nand was also armed with a country made pistol and Alim, who is real nephew of Ramzani, had a knife with him. The room was lit by electricity bulb. Soon after entering into the room accused Ramzani and Daya Nand asked the informant's wife to calm down the child and to feed her. Meanwhile all the family members except the deceased Rafiq had awakened. Daya Nand and Ramzani tied the hands and legs of the informant with a rope. On this, the wife of informant pleaded to Ramzani not to kill his husband. The mother-in-law of the informant also requested the assailants not to kill him saying,"Yeh to paraya hai, ise mat maro chahe mujhe goli mar do". Thereupon the accused persons untied the ropes of the informant and tied the hands and legs of his mother-in-law and Rafiq with the respective cots on which they were sleeping. After that Ramzani and Daya Nand fired on Rafiq with the country made pistol they were carrying with them and Alim made an attack on the head of informant's mother-in-law Bano by knife. On hearing the hue & cry and sound of gun fire, their neighbours Deen Mohammad and Zaki alongwith several other persons reached there. Whereupon the accused and other assailants fled away. The witnesses saw and recognized them while they were running away from the spot. The brother-in-law of the informant Rafiq died on the spot due to fire arm injuries and his mother-in-law was taken to the district hospital in injured condition for treatment.
A written report of the incident was made and criminal case under sections 302 & 307 IPC was registered at P.S. Garh Mukteshwar, district Ghaziabad against all the three accused persons and the matter was investigated. The statements of the witnesses were recorded by the investigating officer. The dead body of Rafiq, after inquest proceeding, was sent for post mortem. The investigating officer prepared the site plan and recovered a knife from the roof from where the assailants had made their escape good and certain pieces of rope etc. were also recovered from the room where the occurrence had taken place. On conclusion of the investigation, the investigating officer submitted charge sheet against the accused Alim & Ramzani. Since accused Daya Nand was found absconding, the charge sheet against him was submitted in 'Mafroori'.
The case being triable by the court of sessions, it was committed to the sessions court where charges under sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC were framed against both the accused persons. A separate charge under section 25 of Arms Act was also framed against accused Ramzani. Both the accused denied the charges and claimed their trial.
The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 8 witnesses, including 4 material witnesses and 4 formal witnesses. P.W.1 Farukh, who is the first informant and P.W.2 Smt. Saidan w/o Farukh are said to be eye witnesses of the occurrence. P.W.4 Smt. Bano, the second wife of Bundu Teli is the mother-in-law of the first informant as well as mother of deceased Rafiq. She is an injured eye witness and real 'Mausi' of accused Ramzani. P.W.6 is Rashid who has seen the accused persons fleeing away from the spot immediately after the occurrence on entering into the house. The prosecution has produced P.W.3, Shishu Pal Singh, the police official, who had assisted the investigating officer of the case during the investigation, P.W.5 Dr.I.P.Gupta who has conducted the post- mortem of the deceased, P.W.7 constable Vikram Singh, who had taken the dead body to the hospital for post mortem and P.W.8 Dr. Harish Chandra Saxena, who has examined the injuries of Smt.Bano as formal witnesses. No other witness was examined by the prosecution.
After conclusion of the prosecution evidence the statements of both the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which they denied the allegations and pleaded their false implication due to enmity arising out of property dispute. No defence witness was produced by the accused persons.
The trial against accused Ramzani stood abated on 30.4.1993 due to his death.
Learned trial court after appreciating, the evidence available on record, found the accused Alim guilty under sections 302 & 307 IPC and sentenced him accordingly, as has already been mentioned in earlier part of this judgment.
The legality and correctness of the judgment impugned has been assailed on the following grounds in the memo of appeal:-
(1)The findings recorded by the court below are against the facts on record and weight of evidence. (2)Upon a proper appraisal of the evidence conviction could not have been recorded against the appellant and the findings recorded by the court below are erroneous and illegal.
In addition to it Sri J.J.Munir, learned counsel for the appellant, has advanced oral submissions. He has at first argued that the description of the ante mortem injuries in post mortem report does not find corroboration with the oral evidence. Drawing our attention to the post-mortem report, Ext.Ka.13, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the description of the ante-mortem injuries shows that the doctor conducting the post mortem on the body of Rafiq, apart from multiple abrasions, has also found six incised wounds, whereas it is no where stated by the eye witnesses Smt. Bano nor it is mentioned in the FIR that any one inflicted injuries on Rafiq by knife. It is argued that the role of each accused is specifically mentioned in the FIR by Farukh, the said eye witness and according to him Alim had inflicted knife injuries only on Smt.Bano. The injuries found on the dead body of Rafiq do not find support from the statement of P.W.4, Smt. Bano, who clearly stated that accused persons tied her hands & legs and Ramzani and Daya Nand fired on Rafiq, who died instantaneously. Accused Alim inflicted injuries on her head by knife and thereafter all of them ran away from the spot. It is then contended that there is a clear description by Smt. Bano that only fire arm injuries were inflicted on the deceased that too by the accused Ramzani and Daya Nand. She has not stated any where that appellant-Alim had inflicted any injury on Rafiq with knife. The specific allegation against accused Alim is only that he inflicted injuries on the head of P.W.4 Smt. Bano by his knife. Therefore, the prosecution case becomes doubtful with regard to six incised wounds sustained by the deceased Rafiq on his chest.
As regards motive is concerned Sri Munir contended that the motive as alleged by the prosecution is very weak because in the FIR itself it has been mentioned that the partition had already taken place between both the families during the life time of Bundu Teli. Hence no property dispute had remained between the parties.
Learned counsel for the appellant has next submitted that the two witnesses Deen Mohmammad and Zaki named in the FIR have not been produced in Court by the prosecution and only one witness i.e. Rashid has been produced. This statement can not be relied on due to its being suffering from various discrepancies. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the statement of Rashid, PW-6 who has stated that the house of Zaki is adjacent to the house of Smt.Bano and the house of Deen Mohammad is situated after 2 or 3 houses from the house of Smt.Bano. Rashid has stated that between his house and the house of Smt.Bano there are 60 or 70 houses. He has further stated that he reached at the spot after 10 minutes of hearing the sound of fire arms. It is stated that under these circumstances it can not be assumed that Rashid could have seen the assailants while they were running away from the spot. Moreover, withholding of two independent witnesses named in the FIR by the prosecution, raises a serious doubt in the prosecution story.
The reliability of the prosecution witnesses is questioned by the learned counsel for the appellant pointing out various contradictions between the statements of the witnesses, for example P.W.4, Musammat Bano has stated that at the time when her husband Bundu divided the property, no one except she herself, Bundu and Rashid were present. To the contrary Rashid has stated that no partition of the property of Bundu ever took place in his presence. It lastly contended that from the evidence available on record, it appears that the deceased Rafiq had no children. Although he was married but as no Gauna was performed, his wife was living separately at her parental house. The deceased Rafiq was the only son of Musammat Bano and by his death the person going to be most benefited was the informant Farukh himself as he and his "Sadhu" were the next legal heirs of the property. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in these circumstances it appears that Farukh himself might have killed Rafiq in order to grab the entire property of her mother-in-law. Not only this, Farukh with an intention to grab the property of Ramzani also had falsely implicated him and thus the informant Farukh has tried to kill two birds with single stone. Alim the only surviving accused is the only son of Ramzani's sister. He has also been falsely implicated in this case by Farukh so that no other legal heir of the entire property of Bundu Teli may survive except the informant himself.
Per contra,learned AGA has contested the above submission by arguing that the entire occurrence has taken place inside the room in the presence of the mother and the real sister of the deceased Rafiq. Mother had also sustained grievous injuries on her head during the occurrence. The sister Saidan and her children were in the same room who have witnessed the entire episode. Even if, for the sake of argument it is assumed that Farukh himself might have had killed Rafiq in order to grab the entire property, it appears wholly an unnatural conduct on the part of deceased's real mother, Smt.Bano, P.W.4 and real sister Saidan to save Farukh from the clutches of legal proceedings by not making any complaint against him and not deposing anything against Farukh during investigation and during trial.
Learned AGA has vehemently argued that the mother and sister of deceased Rafiq have fully supported the prosecution case in their testimony. He also submits that keeping in view the fact that both of them are illiterate, rustic and pardanashin ladies, minor contradictions in their statements were bound to occur and the entire prosecution case can not be discarded on the basis of those minor contradictions.
In order to appreciate the aforesaid rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties we have to independently scrutinize the oral as well as the documentary evidence brought on record by the prosecution. It is worth mentioning that the defence has not adduced any evidence whether documentary or oral in this case.
P.W.1 is the informant Farukh, who is the brother-in-law of deceased Rafiq. Supporting the prosecution case he has submitted that it was midnight of 3 /4.8.1985. His three sons Gaffar, Ashraf and Sultan and daughter Imrana were sleeping with him and the youngest daughter Sabishta, who was suffering from fever at that time was sleeping with his wife Saidan in the same room. His mother-in-law Smt.Bano and brother-in-law Rafiq were also sleeping in the same room. Due to fever, Sabishta started crying and hearing the sound he, his wife and mother-in-law got awake. The accused persons Daya Ram, Ramzani and Alim with the help of bamboo stairs, kept in the courtyard alighted from the roof and entered into the room. This witness has thereafter, reiterated the story narrated in the FIR. which need not to be repeated again. The statement of P.W.1 shows that he has clearly stated that Ramzani and Daya Nand fired on Rafiq by country made pistol and Alim inflicted injuries on Rafiq and his mother-in-law Smt.Bano by knife which he was carrying.
Learned defence counsel has cross-examined P.W.1 at length and during his cross-examination no such fact has elicited to raise a doubt on the truthfulness of this witness.
P.W.2 Smt.Saidan has stated almost the same fact while deposing in Court. During her cross-examination she has stated that her father had partitioned his property about one and half years prior to his death, However, she has been unable to tell what exactly had come in the share of her mother. She has stated that Ramzani was in talking terms with her and he never expressed any feeling of anger towards her. She has also stated that the roofs of both the houses are adjacent. About the injuries sustained by deceased Rafiq she has categorically stated that "Mere bhai Rafiq ke jagah- jagah chakuon se bindh rakha tha, meri ma ki dahini kanpati par wa bain taraf sir mein chaku mare thhe".
P.W.4 Smt.Bano who is an injured witness has supported the prosecution case by stating that Ramzani was demanding the entire grove consisting 18 bighas of land, but her husband gave him only 12 bighas. Being annoyed with this partition, Ramzani fired on her husband regarding which her husband had lodged an FIR but her husband did not name Ramzani because Ramzani was his son. She has further stated that Daya Nand was a tenant of Ramzani. All the accused persons tied her hands and legs with the rope of cot. Ramzani and Daya Nand opened fire on Rafiq and Alim inflicted knife injury on her head. Thereafter all the assailants ran away from the spot. Smt. Bano has also faced lengthy cross-examination and has stated that at the time of occurrence the wife of Rafiq was living at her parental home because no "Gauna" had been performed till then. She has denied from the suggestion that she deliberately sent her daughter-in-law towards the paternal home and helped in the murder of her own son Rafiq.
The aforesaid suggestions given by the defence counsel to the witness Smt.Bano appears to be unnatural as there is no such evidence on record to the extent that deceased Rafiq had such unfriendly relation with her real mother and real sister that they both became instrumental in his murder by the accused persons.
A perusal of the description of ante mortem injuries in the post mortem report which is reproduced below, clearly shows that Rafiq has been killed very brutally:-
1.One incised wound of size 3 cm x 1 cm, Chest cavity deep on right side of chest about 5 cm above right nipple of smear.
2.One incised wound of size 3 cm X 1 cm muscle deep 6 cm medial to nipple of right chest.
3.One incised wound of size 2.5 cm x 1 cm muscle deep 6 cm medial to left nipple of chest.
4.One incised wound of size 3 cm x 1.5 cm. Abdominal cavity deep on left side of abdomen about 11 cm above umbilicus.
5.Incised wound of size 3 cm x o.5 cm. X skin deep on upper thigh of right leg.
6.Incised wound of size 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x skin deep in front of right knee joint.
7.Multiple square like appearance of abrasion in an around of 6 cm x 5 cm on back of left elbow joint about 15 to 20 hole of gun shot pellets, Pellets found on direction
8.Multiple abrasion about 20-30 in number square like appearing due to gun shot wound. Located in front of middle and lower limbs of left thigh.
The above mentioned ante-mortem injuries found on the body of Rafiq, clearly show that it could not have been the act of a single person. Admittedly, except Farukh, two ladies, deceased Rafiq and five little children, no other person was present in the room where the occurrence had taken place. The two wives of the deceased are real mother and real sister. Farukh alone can not inflict so many injuries on the deceased by knife and fire arm at the same time. So the possibility of informant Farukh himself being killer, is totally ruled out.
There is no dispute that deceased Rafiq has been killed inside the room as police found blood stained mattress, pieces of rope and dead body of deceased Rafiq from the room situated inside the house of Smt.Bano. The inquest report shows that the panch witnesses have found the hands and legs of the deceased tied with a rope. It was found lying on the cot by its right side. The police had opened the rope tied on his hands and legs before the Panch witnesses. On a close inspection it appears that the panch witnesses have seen three injuries on the chest, one on abdomen, one on the left thigh and on both the legs below the knee with pellet around the injuries found on thigh and legs.
After a perusal of the inquest report and the description of injuries in the post mortem report it appears that the deceased had sustained injuries by both the weapons i.e. fire arm and knife. This fact finds corroboration by the deposition of P.W.1 and P.W.2 i.e. the informant Farukh and Saidan both of whom have already stated that Alim inflicted knife injuries on the deceased. Only P.W.4 Smt. Bano has not stated any thing about inflicting of knife injuries on deceased by accused Alim. On considering the facts we find that this omission in the statement of P.W.4 Smt.Bano does not make any difference. Firstly, for the reason that she is an illiterate lady. Secondly, she herself had sustained grievous injuries on her head during the same course of events. Moreover, it is also to be kept in mind that witness Smt.Bano was also tied from the cot. Hence, the possibility can not be ruled out that she had deposed about the killing of her son by fire arms only because in the tied condition she could not have seen but have only heard the sound of fire and so she deposed in the Court accordingly.
The aforesaid facts find corroboration with the site plan available on record which depicts in detail the situation of all the cots kept in the room where the family members of Rafiq were sleeping at the time of occurrence. The cot where Smt.Bano was sleeping is situated diagonally opposite to the cot of Rafiq so she might not had the opportunity to see the manner in which her son was killed. The two other witnesses Farukh and Saidan, the sister of deceased Rafiq have categorically stated that Alim was armed with knife and he had inflicted several knife injuries on Rafiq.
FIR has been lodged promptly in this case. The occurrence has taken place at 3.30 A.M. in the intervening night of 3/ 4 .8.1985 and FIR had been lodged at 5.00 A.M. on 4.8.1985. The distance between place of occurrence and the police station is one km. Soon after the report was lodged the police had reached the spot which is evident from the inquest report, which shows that inquest proceedings had started at 7.30 A.M. on 4.8.1985 and had concluded at 9.30 A.M. on the same day. The post mortem was conducted at 3.30 P.M. on 4.8.1985 and the doctor had found rigour mortis on both upper and lower limbs. The post mortem report also shows that Rafiq was only 22 years of age at the time of his death. So it is difficult to imagine in the facts and circumstances of the case that real mother would be instrumental in killing of her such a young son. It may be mentioned that all the accused persons have stated about personal enmity with the complainant's family.
So far as the argument of learned counsel for the appellant relating to non-examination of independent witness is concerned, there is no doubt that all the witnesses produced by the prosecution in this case are closely related to the deceased, but only due to the fact that witnesses are close relatives their testimony can not be discarded. On a close scrutiny of the statements of the witnesses produced by the prosecution in this case we find their statements as a whole appear trustworthy, reliable and inspire confidence.
In the case of Brahma Swaroop & Others Vs. State of U.P. & Others 2011 (6) SCC 288 the Apex Court has reiterated the well settled legal position that the testimony of the related witnesses can not be discarded merely due to the reason that they are closely related to the deceased person because a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Moreover, Smt. Bano, who is an injured witness too, has corroborated the prosecution story by her deposition in Court.
The Apex Court in the aforesaid case of Brahma Swaroop (supra) has further observed that where the witness to the occurrence has himself being injured in the incident, testimony of such witness is generally considered to be very reliable as he is the witness who come with an in-built, guarantee of his presence at scene of crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone.
It has also been laid down by the Supreme Court in a number of cases that while appreciating evidence, minor discrepancies on trivial matters which do not affect the core of prosecution's case, may not prompt the Court to reject evidence in its entirety. In this regard decision rendered in case of Dharmendra Singh Vs. State of Gujrat 2002 (4) SCC 679 may also be referred to where a plea was raised regarding discrepancy between oral and medical evidence and the statement made in the FIR and that made before the Court with regard to the weapons used in the crime alleged. The Apex Court rejected this plea and upheld the conviction by holding that if the evidence as a whole has a ring of truth and inspire confidence then despite the contradictions conviction can be recorded.
In the case of Sone Lal & Others Vs. State of U.P., (1978) 4 SCC 302 the Apex Court has held that enmity between both the parties being clearly established by the reply of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., a very clear and strong motive on the part of the accused to wreak vengeance is proved. The prosecution in this case has successfully established the motive behind the crime i.e. personal enmity due to property dispute. The accused, in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated about the dispute between the parties.
So far as the identification of the assailants is concerned, from the facts, it is found established that all the assailants had prior acquaintance with the family of the deceased. Accused Ramzani and Alim were close relatives of the deceased and accused Daya Nand ( who had absconded ) was a tenant living in the same house. Due to illness of the youngest daughter Shabista the electricity bulb was kept lighted in the room so there was sufficient source of light at the spot to identify the assailants, who having prior acquaintance their being close relatives and tenant could have been easily identified even in the dark by their voice and body language etc. Hence no doubt remaining so far as the identification of the appellant is concerned.
It does not make any difference that the two witnesses named in the FIR Deen Mohammad and Zaki have not been produced by the prosecution because the facts available on record show that both of them are close neighbours of the family. From the facts of the case, it is evident that the accused were living in the same partitioned house. They also belong to the same family. Hence it was quite natural for the neighbours to be reluctant to give evidence against the accused/appellant.
The prosecution has led sufficient evidence in proof of the fact that accused Ramzani got annoyed with his father when he did not give him the entire 18 bighas of grove land and out of anger he fired at his father Bundu and set the house on fire. However, no FIR was lodged against Ramzani by Bundu because he was the son of elder wife. This fact that Ramzani was annoyed with the partition of property, has not been challenged any where by the defence. The defence has not given even any suggestion about the falsity of the aforesaid fact.
The statements of the witnesses regarding the weapons used in the occurrence find corroboration with the medical evidence as the post mortem report and the injury report of Smt.Bano both clearly show that only incised/punctured wounds and fire arm wounds on the body of Rafiq have been found by both the doctors.
The manner of occurrence challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant by arguing that the prosecution story shows that fire was made from a close range whereas no charring and tattooing was found around the fire arm wounds has no force for the reason that the doctor who had conducted the post mortem has admitted that he has not mentioned about blackening and charring around the gun shot injuries. A lacuna on the part of doctor will not benefit the accused/appellant.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, only on the ground of this lacuna committed by the doctor the entire prosecution story can not be discarded.
The brutal murder of deceased Rafiq has taken place inside the four walls of the house where the accused persons were also living. Although that house was divided by a partition wall but the roofs of both the houses were adjacent.. The personal enmity due to property dispute is admitted to the defence. The only suggestion given by the defence to the prosecution is that the informant Farukh himself had killed Rafiq and has falsely implicated Ramzani and Alim in order to grab the entire property of his father-in-law Bundu Teli. As the presence of Rafiq's mother and real sister has been found fully established by the evidence available on record, it can not be even imagined that in their presence, Farukh would have killed Rafiq. No mother in this world would shield the assailant of his son and the person who inflicted fatal blow by knife on her head, only with a view to falsely implicate any other person.
The prosecution case as a whole appears trustworthy and inspire confidence. The learned trial court has rightly believed the prosecution story and has convicted the appellant under section 302 IPC for the murder of Rafifq and under section 307 IPC for inflicting grievous injuries on the head of Smt.Bano, which is the most vital part of the body.
We, therefore, find no reason to interfere in the impugned judgment. The appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
The record shows that the appellant was granted bail vide order dated 17.12.1993 by this Court. However, due to his non-appearance on the date of hearing the bail granted to him was cancelled vide order dated 1.9.2014 and he was directed to be arrested and produced before this court. Against the order dated 1.9.2014 a recall application was moved by the appellant which was disposed of by this Court on 18.9.2014 and it was directed that if the appellant surrenders before the Magistrate concerned on or before 25.9.2014 and apply for bail he shall be released on bail on same terms as provided in the earlier order dated 17.12.1993 granting him bail. Although, the report of C.J.M.,Ghaziabad with regard to compliance of order dated 18.9.2014 is still awaited, however , as the appeal was heard and the judgment was reserved on 10.10.2014, it can not be kept pending after being reserved for an uncertain period.
As the appeal filed by the accused Alim has been dismissed today, the C.J.M., Ghaziabad is directed to ensure arrest of the appellant, if he is on bail and to send him to jail for serving out the remaining period of sentence awarded to him by the trial court after adjusting the period already undergone by him so far.
The amount of fine imposed by the trial court shall be deposited by the appellant if not already deposited so far, within one month from the date of this judgment.
In case of default, he shall have to undergo imprisonment as per direction of the learned trial court.
The office is directed to send a copy of this judgment and order to C.J.M., Ghaziabad for immediate compliance. C.J.M.,Ghaziabad is further directed to send report immediately after compliance.
Order Date:22.12.2014 IA