Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Pathabhai Vanabhai on 13 December, 2017
Author: Abhilasha Kumari
Bench: Abhilasha Kumari, B.N. Karia
R/CR.A/508/1994 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT
AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 508 of 1994
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE :
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
and
HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
==============================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law
as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or
any order made thereunder ?
==============================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT....Appellant(s)
Versus
PATHABHAI VANABHAI
KOLI....Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
==============================================================
Appearance :
Mr HARDIK SONI, ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s) No.
1
Mr MRUDUL M BAROT, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
No. 1
==============================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA
KUMARI
and
HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
13th December 2017
Page 1 of 25
HC-NIC Page 1 of 25 Created On Wed Dec 13 23:59:47 IST 2017
R/CR.A/508/1994 CAV JUDGMENT
CAV JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA)
By means of filing this Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ["CrPC" for brevity], the appellant-State of Gujarat has brought under challenge, the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28th February 1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh in Sessions Case No. 15 of 1993, whereby the respondent herein- Pathabhai Vanabhai Koli has been acquitted of the charge for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ["IPC" for brevity].
As per the case of prosecution, the facts are such that the respondent herein and the deceased Leelaben both husband - wife were residing at village Golaghar of Taluka - Junagadh and were doing labour work. Their native being village Vastadi of Taluka - Wadhvan. According to the case of the prosecution, Leelaben - the deceased wife of the respondent-accused was being harassed by her husband [accused-respondent]. This Page 2 of 25 HC-NIC Page 2 of 25 Created On Wed Dec 13 23:59:47 IST 2017 R/CR.A/508/1994 CAV JUDGMENT incident took place on 15th September 1992. Earlier, when Leelaben went to her parental home during the festivals of Satam - Atham, [Seventh & Eighth day of Shravan] at that time, she had talked to her mother - Ratanben and her maternal grand father - the complainant - Pathabhai and others about the harassment caused to her by the accused [respondent herein] and she also stated not to send her to in-law's house. But, the members of the maternal side have persuaded the spouse and sent Leelaben at Goladhar with the accused. According to the case of the prosecution, on the fateful day ie., 15th September 1992 at any time before 09:00 am., the accused took Leelaben in the orchard of witness - Vagad Bhikha, which is known as Nesdavali Vadi located in the outskirts of village - Golaghar, caused fatal injuries to Leelaben with a knife and threw Leelaben into a well near the orchard, and as a result thereof, she succumbed to the fatal injuries. As Pethabhai Jesingbhai
- the maternal grand father of the victim Leelaben Page 3 of 25 HC-NIC Page 3 of 25 Created On Wed Dec 13 23:59:47 IST 2017 R/CR.A/508/1994 CAV JUDGMENT came to know about this incident, he arrived at Junagadh and identified the dead body of Leelaben in the Hospital. Thereafter, he lodged a complaint in the Police Station against the accused for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. After the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offence u/s. 302 IPC; as above.
The charge was framed against the respondent- accused under Section 302 IPC vide Exhibit-1 and the statement of accused was recorded, in which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and as a result, the prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence.
Before the trial Court, prosecution recorded deposition of the complainant - Pathabhai Jesingbhai vide exhibit- 18 and the complaint, which he lodged before the police [Exh. 37]. The prosecution also recorded depositions of witnesses Ratanben Megha [PW : 2 - Exh. 19]; Devji Patha [PW- 3 : Exh. 20]; Thobhan Vana [PW-4 : Exh. 21]; Vagad Bhikhan [PW-5 : Exh. 22]; Page 4 of 25 HC-NIC Page 4 of 25 Created On Wed Dec 13 23:59:47 IST 2017 R/CR.A/508/1994 CAV JUDGMENT Shamji Devji [PW-6 L Exh. 23]; Dhiru Jaman [PW-7 : Exh. 24]; Ramji Natha [PW-8 : Exh. 25]; Gokul Jasmat [PW-9 :
Exh. 26] respectively. Deposition of PW-10 Dr. Diptiben Buch-who performed post mortem of the deceased- Leelaben came to be recorded vide Exhibit-29. The P.M report is produced at Exh.7 and the certificate regarding the cause of death is produced at Exh.6. The deposition of panch-Naran Visa of the panchnama at Exhibit-33 is produced vide Exhibit-32. The Inquest Panchnama is produced at Exhibit -30 and the deposition of Panch-Bhanu Natha of the panchnama of scene of incident [Exhibit-31] is produced vide Exhibit-
34. The deposition of the initial investigation done by Head Constable - Narsi Nanji and the deposition of Investigating Officer - Mr. Limbasiya are produced at Exhs- 35 & 36 respectively.
No further witnesses were examined by the prosecution thereafter and by a closer purshis at Exh- 38, the prosecution prayed for closer of evidence. Other documentary evidences includes panchnama of the Page 5 of 25 HC-NIC Page 5 of 25 Created On Wed Dec 13 23:59:47 IST 2017 R/CR.A/508/1994 CAV JUDGMENT clothes put on the dead body; Arrest panchnama of the accused; necessary Yadi of FSL and its analysis Reports and the photographs of the Dead body; Yadi of wireless message, declaration made by the witness-Vagad Bhikha in the police about seeing the dead body of the deceased in a well of the orchard [Exh. 8 to 17 respectively] along with a map of the scene of offence prepared by the Circle Inspector [Exh. 28].
After completion of the evidence, further statement of the accused was recorded by the trial Court under Section 313 CrPC, wherein he admitted of his marriage with Leelaben [since deceased] some 5 years prior to the incident. But, he denied the fact of his either harassing Leelaben or keeping her under house- arrest; whenever he used to go out of town. He also denied of muddamal weapon - the knife which was taken out and shown to him from the orchard by witness Vagad Bhikha in presence of the panchas, the police personnel and witness Vagadbhai. He admitted the fact that both the spouse and their small son were Page 6 of 25 HC-NIC Page 6 of 25 Created On Wed Dec 13 23:59:47 IST 2017 R/CR.A/508/1994 CAV JUDGMENT residing together in a house of one Shamji Devji at village - Goladhar. But, he denied the fact of ever meeting witness Dhiru Jaman [PW-7] or witness Ramji Natha [PW-8], when he was returning towards the village from Nesdavali Wadi which is located at the outskirts with his son in the morning ie., on the fateful day of incident.
The respondent did not depose on oath, nor examine any one in defence and claimed to be tried, since a false case was filed against him. And upon hearing the submissions made before it, the trial Court found that the prosecution though has been able to prove the homicidal death of deceased-Leelaben, however, failed to prove involvement of the accused, and therefore, acquitted and discharged the accused [ie., the respondent] of the charge. Hence, the present Appeal.
Learned APP Shri Hardik Soni for the appellant- State of Gujarat has assailed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal contending that the same is Page 7 of 25 HC-NIC Page 7 of 25 Created On Wed Dec 13 23:59:47 IST 2017 R/CR.A/508/1994 CAV JUDGMENT against the law and evidence available on the record, and hence bad in law. He further contended that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate cruelty adduced on the deceased-Leelaben by her husband [respondent herein] and ought to have appreciated the fact of deceased Leelaben having been called by the respondent from her maternal home and thereafter, the accused took her at the Wadi [Orchard] of Vagad Bhika, where she was done to death by several blows of knife. That, the learned trial Judge ought to have properly weighed the confessional statement of the accused given before his own brother. That, the learned trial Court ought to have considered the evidence led by the prosecution witness-Ratanben Devjibhai; owner of the Orchard Vagad Bhikha and Shamjibhai, who have fully supported the prosecution case of homicidal death of Leelaben at the hands of the her husband ie., the respondent herein.
Learned APP Shri Hardik Soni has taken us through the evidence of Dr. Diptiben Buch, who medically Page 8 of 25 HC-NIC Page 8 of 25 Created On Wed Dec 13 23:59:47 IST 2017 R/CR.A/508/1994 CAV JUDGMENT examined the deceased and narrated ante-mortem injuries sustained by her and opined about the cause of death of deceased-Leelaben. He contended that the Court below ought to have appreciated that there was cruelty on the part of the accused, as there were frequent quarrels between them and due to that the respondent-accused committed murder of his own wife.
Learned APP has relied upon testimonies of panch witnesses and version of prosecution witnesses-Dhiru Jamanbhai [PW-7] and Ramji Natha [PW-8], who last saw them together in the morning of the fateful day of the incident.
Learned APP Shri Soni for the appellant-State has relied upon decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Babu S/o. Raveendran vs. Babu, S/o. Bahuleyan & Anr., reported in [2003] 7 SCC 37 and in the case of Swamy Shraddananda alias Murali Manohar Mishra vs. State of Karnataka, reported in [2007] 12 SCC 288, to contend that it is not open to any Court to start with a presumption that extra judicial confession Page 9 of 25 HC-NIC Page 9 of 25 Created On Wed Dec 13 23:59:47 IST 2017 R/CR.A/508/1994 CAV JUDGMENT is a weak piece of evidence, which always depend upon the nature and the circumstances, the time when the confession was made and the credibility of the witness/es before whom such a confession was made, which in the instant case, has been made before the brother. It is, therefore, submitted that the Appeal filed by the State deserves to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal of the respondent.
As against the above, learned advocate Shri Mrudul M Barot appearing for the respondent vehemently defended the judgment and order of acquittal. He submitted that in an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, exercise of appellate powers under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ["CrPC" for brevity] by this Court is circumscribed by various decisions of the Apex Court, and the view taken by the trial Court for not believing case of the prosecution at the end of consideration of evidence on record, resulting into Page 10 of 25 HC-NIC Page 10 of 25 Created On Wed Dec 13 23:59:47 IST 2017 R/CR.A/508/1994 CAV JUDGMENT acquittal of the accused, is not to be disturbed even if the appellate court is of the different view than the one taken by the trial Court.
Counsel for the respondent-accused contended that the prosecution has failed to prove motive behind the crime. That, the marriage life of the deceased and the respondent herein was quite happy; barring minor disputes. He contended that the entire case depends on circumstantial evidence and it is the case of the prosecution that since the accused and deceased [husband and wife] had some disputes, the accused had conspired to do away with Leelaben. He further submitted that the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances to connect the accused with the crime. In support of this contention, counsel placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Keshav v. State of Maharashtra, reported in [2007] 13 SCC 284 to contend that the circumstance of last seen together becomes relevant only when the death is proved to have been taken place within a short Page 11 of 25 HC-NIC Page 11 of 25 Created On Wed Dec 13 23:59:47 IST 2017 R/CR.A/508/1994 CAV JUDGMENT time of the accused and the deceased being last seen. Shri Mrudul Barot, learned advocate for the respondent contended that no specific date and time has been given by any of the prosecution witnesses of their having seen together the victim Leelaben with her husband, and therefore, how the deceased went to the orchard of witness-Vagad Bhikhanbhai is a matter of doubt and suspicion.
Counsel further contended that extra judicial confession allegedly given by the accused before his brother has not been proved by the prosecution. Counsel also contended that discovery of knife at the behest of the accused [respondent herein] also loses significance, as the discovery has not been made in terms of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. That, the panchas of the panchnama for recovery of a knife, which was recovered from an open field have not duly supported the prosecution story. That, the blood on the knife recovered is doubtful. That, no panchanama of recovery of blood stained clothes of the accused was Page 12 of 25 HC-NIC Page 12 of 25 Created On Wed Dec 13 23:59:47 IST 2017 R/CR.A/508/1994 CAV JUDGMENT drawn in presence of the panchas. That, the prosecution even failed to prove that the accused had ever absconded, since there is no evidence otherwise. In support of these contentions, counsel for the respondent placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Sangili alias Sanganathan v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in [2014] 10 SCC 264 and that of this Court in the case of Govindbhai Dahyabhai Bhoi v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2013 [1] GLR 690 and urged this Court not to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Court below.
Having heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective sides and having gone through the record and proceedings in context of the rival submissions, at the outset, we may note that it is evident from the perusal of PM Note [Exh. 7] & Inquest Panchanam [Exh. 30] in conjunction with testimony of Dr. Diptiben Buch [Exh. 29] that the death of victim Leelaben was unnatural and homicidal, and the cause Page 13 of 25 HC-NIC Page 13 of 25 Created On Wed Dec 13 23:59:47 IST 2017 R/CR.A/508/1994 CAV JUDGMENT of death opined by the Doctor is due to ante mortem injuries sustained by the victim, which were six in number. Therefore, there is no doubt about the homicidal death of victim-Leelaben.
The prosecution witnesses in the case on hands are relatives ie., the complainant PW-1 Pathabhai is Leelaben's grandfather; PW-2 Ratnaben is Leelaben's mother; PW-3 : Devji Patha is brother of Rantaben [ie. maternal uncle of deceased]. Deceased Leelaben was daughter of Ratnaben. She was begotten out of her first wedlock and thereafter, when the said Ratnaben ie., the mother of deceased Leelaben got re-married, she was of one year of age and till victim-Leelaben married with the respondent herein, she was brought up by her grandfather [Nanaji]. Thus, there is no dispute in respect of these witnesses being from maternal side of the deceased Leelaben, nor is any dispute with respect to the marriage of the deceased having taken place 5 years prior to the incident.
On the aspect of motive behind the crime, the Page 14 of 25 HC-NIC Page 14 of 25 Created On Wed Dec 13 23:59:47 IST 2017 R/CR.A/508/1994 CAV JUDGMENT trial Court has rightly weighed testimonies of these prosecution witnesses in juxtaposition with testimonies of panch witnesses Ramji Devji [Exh. 23] of Golaghar village, who specifically refuses of there being any matrimonial disputes between the spouses. PW-9 :
Gokul Jasmat in his testimony at Exh. 26 endorses the version by adding that when the spouse was called at his residence for labour work, they peacefully accomplished their task and there was no dispute apparent between them. Thus, there are clear discrepancies in the evidence of PW-1 : Patha Jaisinh [Exh. 18], PW-2 : Ratnaben [Exh. 19] and PW-3 :
Devjibhai Patha [Exh. 20] on the one hand and that of version of PW-6 Shamji Devji [Exh. 23] and PW-9 Gokul Jasmatji [Exh. 26], where the couple worked together for the entire day, prior to two days of the incident. Thus, there is sufficient discussion in the impugned judgment on the aspect of absence of motive for the respondent to kill his wife-Leelaben. The said finding given by the trial Court does not call for interference. Page 15 of 25 HC-NIC Page 15 of 25 Created On Wed Dec 13 23:59:47 IST 2017 R/CR.A/508/1994 CAV JUDGMENT Thus, the entire case depends on circumstantial evidence, as there are no eye witnesses to the crime. In a case which rests on circumstantial evidence, the law postulates a two-fold requirement. First, every link in the chain of circumstances necessary to establish the guilt of the accused must be established by the prosecution and that too beyond reasonable doubt and second, all the circumstances must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused.
Evidence that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased assumes significance when the lapse of time between the point when the accused and the deceased were seen together, and when the deceased is found dead is so minimal as to exclude the possibility of a supervening event involving the death at the hands of another. In the backdrop of this basic principle, if we analyze the evidence of PW-7 Dhiru Jaman [Exh. 24]; PW-8 Ramji Natha [Exh. 25] and PW-9 Gokul Jamat [Exh. 26], though they have deposed of their having met the respondent with his son, while he Page 16 of 25 HC-NIC Page 16 of 25 Created On Wed Dec 13 23:59:47 IST 2017 R/CR.A/508/1994 CAV JUDGMENT was returning back to the village in the morning hours, however, the cause shown by each one of them being different. PW-7 Dhiru Jaman [Exh. 24] says that the cause described to him by the accused was in respect of ill-health of minor son, and whereas, PW-8 Ramji Natha [Exh. 25] states that the accused told him about scorpion bite. Likewise, evidence of PW-Gokul Jasmatbhai at Exh. 26 reveals that when he was going towards Junagadh from Golaghar village, he met the accused, who was coming alone towards the village- Golaghar. No specific day, date or time on which they individually met the respondent comes fore, and therefore, the trial Court has rightly declared their version to be riddled with unexplained contradictions, since no one has depicted about they having seen the accused with his wife going out of the village together and after sometime, having seen accused coming back alone towards the village, nor any one has deposed of their having seen any blood stains on the clothes of the accused, when they individually so met. Therefore, the Page 17 of 25 HC-NIC Page 17 of 25 Created On Wed Dec 13 23:59:47 IST 2017 R/CR.A/508/1994 CAV JUDGMENT last seen together theory has rightly not been believed by the trial Court.
Moreover, on the consequential evidence gathered in the form of recovery of a blue-colour slippers, an iron vessel, scythe, a sheet of cloth, yellow coloured slipper of a child, two bowls, indhoni and a tiffin with three boxes at the scene of occurrence near the Well is concerned, the learned trial Judge has rightly observed that there is no reason to draw an inference that the deceased was killed by her husband, as the deceased and the accused were not unknown to each other, but they were husband-wife in relation and both of them used to go together for labour work, remain out of the house throughout the day, and therefore, the trial Court found that the tiffin box and slippers found cannot be considered the only reason sufficient and beyond doubt to link the accused with the offence.
On the aspect of accused voluntarily taking out muddamal weapon "Knife" in presence of panchas, independent witnesses and police is concerned, the Page 18 of 25 HC-NIC Page 18 of 25 Created On Wed Dec 13 23:59:47 IST 2017 R/CR.A/508/1994 CAV JUDGMENT prosecution examined panch-Naran Visa [Exh. 32] and PW-5 : Vagad Bhikhanbhai [Exh. 22]. Analyzing their deposition one by one, panch-Naran Visa at Exh. 32 states in his examination-in-chief that Police called him at Gram Panchayat office to act as a panch on 28th September 1992 and obtained his signature. These police personnels were accompanied with the accused.
This witness further states of his having become panch in the discovery panchanama alongwith one Bhimabhai and states of searching the boundaries of the Orchard for a knife. He also states the fact of cutting of standing grass, around one hundred feet or more and denies in the cross examination about any conversation between him and the accused. He also does not state that the accused traced out the muddamal knife, when Vagadhbhai and others were cutting the grass.
Now, if we analyze testimony of PW-5 Vagad Bhikhanbhai [Exh. 22], this witness states that after 12 to 13 days of the incident of his seeing the dead body Page 19 of 25 HC-NIC Page 19 of 25 Created On Wed Dec 13 23:59:47 IST 2017 R/CR.A/508/1994 CAV JUDGMENT of a female in the well of his Orchard, some four to five police personnels, duly accompanied by Naran Visa and Bhima Naga [as panch] came to his Orchard alongwith the accused. They initiated search for a knife at the instance of the accused, however, after cutting the standing grass to some extent, the persons standing there, noticed the knife, which the Police seized in their presence. This witness in his cross states that the Head Constable took out the knife from the standing grass and admits of his conversation with the Police, and whereas, as per the version of panch-Naran Visa [Exh. 32], PW-5 Vagad Bhikhanbhai took out knife when he was cutting the grass. Therefore, none of the witnesses states that the accused took out the knife. Hence, there is a clear contradiction on this issue.
In the case of Mani v. State of Tamil Nadu, [2009] 17 SC 273, the Apex Court made the following pertinent observation on the aspect of discovery, which reads thus-
"26. The discovery is a weak kind of evidence Page 20 of 25 HC-NIC Page 20 of 25 Created On Wed Dec 13 23:59:47 IST 2017 R/CR.A/508/1994 CAV JUDGMENT and cannot be wholly relied upon and conviction in such a serious matter cannot be based upon the discovery. Once the discovery fails, there would be literally nothing which would support the prosecution case."
Now, let us have a re-look at the medical evidence on the issue as to whether injuries sustained by the victim-Leelaben can be caused with the muddamal article or not.
Medical Officer-Dr. Diptiben D Buch in her deposition at Exh. 29 opines that the injuries sustained by the deceased Leelaben were such that may be caused by a pointed and sharp weapon, having edges on both the sides. She, however, in para 5 thereof states that these external injuries may be possible by muddamal article number 18. However, in the cross examination, this witness refuses of such injuries with one edge weapon, since there were sharp margin in each of the injuries found on the person of the deceased. Therefore, the injuries caused by muddamal article-knife on the body of deceased becomes Page 21 of 25 HC-NIC Page 21 of 25 Created On Wed Dec 13 23:59:47 IST 2017 R/CR.A/508/1994 CAV JUDGMENT doubtful. Thus, when there is clear medical evidence creating reasonable doubt about the use of muddamal article in the commission of a crime, the benefit thereof has rightly been passed over to the accused [respondent herein].
In the case of Manthuri Laxmi Narsaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in [2011] 14 SCC 117, there is a reiteration of the same sentiment by the Apex Court, which is spelt out in the following manner :
"6. It is by now well settled that in a case relating to circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances has to be spelt out by the prosecution and if even one link in the chain is broken, the accused must get the benefit thereof."
In the case of Keshav v. State of Maharashtra [Supra], the Apex Court observed that, "..the circumstance of last seen together becomes relevant only when the death is proved to have taken place within a short time of the accused and the deceased being last seen. Matter might have been different if a Page 22 of 25 HC-NIC Page 22 of 25 Created On Wed Dec 13 23:59:47 IST 2017 R/CR.A/508/1994 CAV JUDGMENT murder of wife is alleged to have been committed by a husband within the four walls of a room which was occupied by them."
In the case of Mustkeem v. State of Rajasthan, reported in [2011] 11 SCC 724, the Apex Court has observed as under :
"24. In a most celebrated case of this Court, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, [1984] 4 SCC 116, some cardinal principles regarding the appreciation of circumstantial evidence have been postulated. Whenever the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the following features are required to be complied with. It would be beneficial to repeat the same salient feature once again which are as under :
[a] The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely "may be" fully established;
[b] The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
[c] The circumstances should be of a Page 23 of 25 HC-NIC Page 23 of 25 Created On Wed Dec 13 23:59:47 IST 2017 R/CR.A/508/1994 CAV JUDGMENT conclusive nature and tendency;
[d] They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and [e] There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
The decisions cited by learned APP in the case of Babu S/o. Raveendran vs. Babu, [Supra] and in the case of Swamy Shraddananda alias Murali Manohar Mishra vs. State of Karnataka [Supra], shall not be of any assistance to the prosecution, so long as facts of this case are concerned.
Thus, in entirety, considering the factual scenario of the case on hand, the legal evidence on record and in the background of legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases referred to supra, the inevitable conclusion drawn by the learned trial Judge does not require interference. Hence, the present Criminal Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Bail bond stands cancelled.
Page 24 of 25 HC-NIC Page 24 of 25 Created On Wed Dec 13 23:59:47 IST 2017 R/CR.A/508/1994 CAV JUDGMENT Registry to transmit R&P back to the trial Court.
(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.) (B.N. KARIA, J.) Prakash Page 25 of 25 HC-NIC Page 25 of 25 Created On Wed Dec 13 23:59:47 IST 2017