Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Som Shankar Roy vs The State Of West Bengal on 27 September, 2019
Author: Arijit Banerjee
Bench: Arijit Banerjee
1
In The High Court At Calcutta
Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
CRA 461 of 2009
CRAN 1157 of 2019
Som Shankar Roy
-Vs.-
The State of West Bengal
Before : The Hon'ble The Chief Justice Thottathil B.
Radhakrishnan
&
The Hon'ble Justice Arijit Banerjee
For the appellant : Mr. Milan Kumar Mukherjee, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Rahul Ganguly, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Saibal Bapuli, Ld. A. P.P.,
Mr. B. Bhattacharyya, Adv.
Heard On : 07.08.2019, 31.07.2019 & 17.07.2019
CAV on : 07.08.2019
Judgment On : 27.09.2019
Arijit Banerjee, J.:-
(1) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 28 April,
2009 and 29 April, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Bongaon, North 24-Parganas in Sessions Trial No. 1(11)08 arising
out of Sessions Case No. 3(11)08. The accused/appellant was charged
with commission of offence under Sections 376 and 302 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (IPC). The accused was convicted and was sentenced to
2
suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-,
in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month for
commission of offence under Section 376 IPC. He was further
sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in
default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month, for commission
of offence under Section 302 IPC.
(2) The prosecution case on the basis of the written complaint
lodged by the uncle of the victim girl on 22 June, 2008, essentially, is
that the victim namely, Jyotsna Mallick aged 17 years, resident of
village Janipur, District- North 24 Parganas went out of the house on 22
June 2008 at about 4 P.M. to collect flowers of 'potol' (pointed gourd)
from the potol field. When she did not return, PW1 (de facto
complainant) and two others namely, Basudeb Rakshit (PW7) and
Sarojit Mondal (PW21) went out in search of her and at around 7 P.M.,
they found her lying dead, strangulated with her 'orna', in the mestha
field of Murari Roy (PW4). Her churidar pant was lying by her side
while inner pant was lying on her belly. According to the prosecution,
the victim girl was raped and then strangulated to death by her
tormentor between 4 and 7 P.M. The prosecution case is that the
accused raped the victim girl and then killed her by strangulating her
3
with her 'orna'. Thirteen days after the incident the accused was
arrested by the police from Rajarhat.
(3) The prosecution has examined 24 witnesses to substantiate their
charge of rape and the murder of the victim. The entire case of the
prosecution hinges on circumstantial evidence. There is no eye-
witness. The defence has not examined any witness. The accused was
examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. At the commencement of the
trial the accused pleaded 'not guilty' and claimed to be tried. Let us
now advert to the deposition of the key witnesses and relevant
documents which the learned Trial Judge has recorded.
(4) PW1 is the de facto complainant of the case. He is the uncle of
the victim. According to him, on the date of the incident when the
victim did not return home, the mother of the victim PW 17 (Namita
Mullick) asked him to look for her. He along with two others namely
Basudeb Rakshit (PW 7) and Sarojit Mondal (PW 21) went out in search
of her. On reaching the P.O (Place of Occurrence) they flashed the
torch light and found some plants in disturbed and shattered condition.
They found the victim lying on the ground with her 'orna' tied around
her neck. Her churidar was found beside her and her inner pant was
lying on her belly. In course of the trial he appeared before the Court
4
and has identified the clothes, chappal and three buttons that were
seized by the police. He also stated that it was on his instruction that
one Rashid Gazi prepared the FIR. In his cross-examination he has
withstood his case.
(5) PW2 Sujit Rakshit is a co-villager. In his deposition he has
identified his signature that appears on the inquest report. In his cross-
examination he has denied the presence of Ramesh (one of the uncles
of the victim) but has affirmed that Asim (PW1) was present. PW3 is
also a co-villager and he has also identified his signature on the inquest
report. Similar is the case with PW4 (Murari Roy). It was on his field
that the victim was found dead. He has also identified his signature on
the inquest report.
(6) PW 5 Ramesh Mallick is another uncle of the victim. He has
stated that on 22.06.2008 at 5-5:30 PM he went to his field which is
adjacent to the P.O and there he saw the accused Som Shankar. On
seeing him the accused tried to conceal himself by sitting down. He
was coming out of the field of Murari Roy. On being questioned by him
the accused did not reply. In his cross-examination he has withstood
his ground.
5
(7) PW 7 Basudeb Rakshit has stated that on that fateful day when
he came back to his house Asim (PW1) asked him to help him to search
for the victim. He went near the field of Murari Roy and saw some
plants trampled in the eastern corner. He saw the victim lying on the
ground with her 'orna' tied to her neck. Her churidar was found beside
her and her inner pant was lying on her belly. He then raised a hue and
cry.
(8) PW 8 Haran Sardar is a co-villager. He has merely testified about
the past character of the accused. According to him two years ago a
girl named Fatima Gazi was 'returning home after tying her goats',
when the accused tried to rape her. It was he who rescued her.
(9) PW 9 Bina Mondal is a co-villager. She has stated that on
22.06.2008 at about 4 PM she saw the accused Som near the P.O. He
was roaming /loitering about. Thereafter, one Sunita Mondal informed
her that she had heard groaning sound coming from the P.O. After half
an hour she saw the accused Som coming out of the P.O and then he
washed his hands in a tap which was in the backside of her house. The
accused was in a dishevelled condition. Then she found Asim (PW1) and
two others searching with torch light. In her cross-examination she has
6
reiterated her stand about seeing accused Som twice. It was also her
case that it was Som and no one else whom she had seen.
(10) PW 10 Sunita Mondal is a co-villager. It was her stand that she
had heard groaning sound coming from the P.O and she informed Bina
Mondal. But she did not go there to see what was happening.
(11) PW 12 Fatema Gazi is a co-villager. It was her case that she too
saw Som the accused loitering around the P.O. But it appears from her
deposition that she has not stated the time. She has also stated that
two years ago the accused Som tried to rape her and she was saved by
PW 7 Haran. She has stated substantially the same thing in her cross-
examination.
(12) PW 14 Rafique Gazi is a friend of the accused. He had turned
hostile during the trial. However he has stated that on that fateful
evening/night the accused had come to see him at his house. He did
not come inside. And when he informed the accused that the body of
Jyotsna (victim) was discovered he started perspiring and expressed his
uneasiness. Later when he came back he found that the accused had
left his house.
7
(13) PW 15 Rina Talukdar was the Judicial Magistrate posted at
Bongaon Court. Ramesh (PW 5) was produced before her on 01.07.2008
and Bina Mondal and Fatema Gazi were produced on 25.07.2008 for
recording their statements u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. She has identified her
signature and proved the statements she had recorded.
(14) PW 16 Latika Mallick is the aunt of the victim. She has deposed
that after she reached the P.O it was she who put on clothes on the
victim. The following morning her husband (Ramesh PW5) informed her
that he had seen accused Som near the P.O. But we can't rely on this
part as the same is hearsay.
(15) PW 17 Namita Mondal is the mother of the victim. On 22.06.2008
when her daughter did not return home she asked her 'dewar'
(brother-in-law) to go and look for her daughter. Soon Basudeb (PW7)
came back to her house and informed her that the dead body of the
victim was found at the field. She rushed to the spot and saw the
victim lying in the condition that we have already noted above. PW 5
Ramesh informed her that he had heard groaning sound coming from
the P.O when he had gone to his field to spray pesticide. Later he had
seen Som near the P.O and when Som saw him he tried to hide himself.
8
She identified the seized materials viz clothes and slippers of the
victim. She deposed the same thing in her cross examination.
(16) PW 18 Amir Ali Dafadar is a co-villager. He identified his
signature that appears on the seizure list. It was his stand that the
police seized clothes of Som in his presence. And in his cross-
examination he has stated that he went to the house of Som of his own
accord. It was here that police had prepared the seizure list. One Sunit
Mondal was also present and he too had signed on the seizure list.
(17) PW 17 is Dr. Dipak Maitra who had conducted the autopsy on the
body of the victim on 23.06.2008 at 1-10 PM. On examination of the
body he had found the following:
1.1" x ½ Blackish ecchymoses present over the right side of neck at the same level of ligature mark of neck.
2. A scratch mark measuring¼ "x ¼ present over the right elbow.
3. Vulva labia mejora was blood stained and hymen was ruptured.
4. Semi-circular marks of ligature in front of neck measuring 4" x ½.
9According to him death of the deceased was caused due to respiratory failure which was due to asphyxia caused due to strangulation following rape, ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. (18) PW 23 Asit Rakshat is another co-villager. He has stated that police collected one yellow churidar pant, one 'ghea' colour orna, one Ajanta Chappal, three bluish buttons from the spot of crime in his presence. He had signed on the seizure list and had identified the same in Court. On cross-examination he reaffirmed his stand. (19) PW 24 Tapas Kumar Das is the Sub-Inspector of Police who was the I.O. of the case. He has identified the signature of ASI Bishnupada Sardar who had lodged the FIR. It was he who had conducted the inquest and prepared the sketch map. He had also seized some material evidence from the spot viz. churidar, orna, chappal, 3 buttons, and some broken mestha plants in presence of witnesses. He had also seized hair, blood, nail, vaginal swab from a constable and had sent it to Forensic Laboratory. He has identified his signature on the seizure list. It was he who had also seized one bluish colour half pant and one and half sleeve check shirt with bluish buttons with 2nd, 3rd and 4th button missing.
(20) Now, let us see how far the evidence adduced by the prosecution establishes the prosecution case. Let us first take the charge of 10 murder. As noted above, the entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. In cases where the evidence is circumstantial in nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis except the one proposed to be proved. There must be a chain of evidence so very complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such that within all human probability, the offending act must have been done by the accused (See: Hanumant Govind Nargundkar -vs- State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343).
(21) The law with regard to the conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence has been discussed in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harishchandra Ladaku Thange -vs- State of Maharashtra, (2007) 11 SCC 436 : AIR 2007 SC 2957. At paragraphs 8 to 12 of the judgement the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down as follows:-
"8. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of 11 the accused or the guilt of any other person. (See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1977 CriLJ 639, Eradu v. State of Hyderabad 1956 CriLJ 559, Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. 1985 CriLJ 1479, Balwinder Singh alias Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab, 1987 CriLJ 330 and Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. 1989 CriLJ 2124. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621 it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring home the offences beyond any reasonable doubt.
9. We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. 1996 CriLJ 3461, wherein it has been observed thus:
21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence.
10. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. AIR 1990 SC79 it was laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:
1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
11. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava [1992] 1 SCR 37 it was pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must 12 be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
12. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book `Wills' Circumstantial Evidence' (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence:
(1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum;
(2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt; and (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted.
13. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by this Court as far back as in 1952."
(22) It is, therefore, a settled principle of law that an accused can be punished if he is found guilty even in cases of circumstantial evidence provided, the prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt, a complete chain of events and circumstances which definitely points towards the involvement and guilt of the accused. The accused will not be entitled to acquittal merely because there is no eye-witness.[See: Sanatan Naskar-vs.- State of West Bengal, (2010) 8 SCC 249]. (23) In the present case the conviction of the accused hinges on three important piece of evidence. The first being the last seen theory. 13 (24) The legal proposition on this was summarized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satpal v. State of Haryana,Criminal Appeal No.1892 of 2017. The Court held that:
"Criminal jurisprudence and the plethora of judicial precedents leave little room for reconsideration of the basic principles for invocation of the last seen theory as a facet of circumstantial evidence. Succinctly stated, it may be a weak kind of evidence by itself to found conviction upon the same singularly. But when it is coupled with other circumstances such as the time when the deceased was last seen with the accused, and the recovery of the corpse being in very close proximity of time, the accused owes an explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act with regard to the circumstances under which death may have taken place. If the accused offers no explanation, or furnishes a wrong explanation, absconds, motive is established, and there is corroborative evidence available inter alia in the form of recovery or otherwise forming a chain of circumstances leading to the only inference for guilt of the accused, incompatible with any possible hypothesis of innocence, conviction can be based on the same. If there be any doubt or break in the link of chain of circumstances, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. Each case will therefore have to be examined on its own facts for invocation of the doctrine."
(25) In the instant case when the accused was examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure he was confronted with the following question no.34 that "She i.e. (PW 12) further stated in her evidence that at that time you were loitering near the mestha field. What have you to say? Answer: False." In fact the entire case of the accused/defence was based on bare denial. From the evidence of PW5, 14 9 and 12 it is clear that they had seen the accused near the P.O. and that too just before the crime. In fact when PW5 (Uncle of victim) saw him and the accused saw that he was being seen, the accused tried to hide himself by sitting. And when he was asked as to what was he doing the accused did not reply. The facts of the case and the evidence on record do not disclose nor is it the defence case that there was any animosity between the aforesaid prosecution witnesses and the accused that would prompt the witnesses to depose falsely only to implicate the accused. The learned Judge had no reason to disbelieve the said witnesses. The learned Judge had the advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses which an Appellate Court does not have. An Appellate Court should not interfere with appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Judge, unless there is glaring error in such appraisal of evidence. The presence of the accused at the place which was in close geographical proximity to the place of occurrence around the time of Commission of the crime is fairly established by the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses. However, this fact per se would not have convinced us in the absence of other incriminating evidence. (26) The I.O. in presence of witnesses had seized some clothes, slipper and three bluish shirt buttons. And later he had also seized the clothes of the accused from his home. The same was sent to the FSL. 15 The examining Dr. S. Mukeherjee, the Assistant Director Physic Division Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata has stated in his report no. 167 dated 19.01.2009 the following:
"Two buttons (one is collar button and another is spare button) were taken out from the shirt marked B as control for comparison with those contained in envelope marked 'D.' The stiching threads at the positions of the missing buttons (i.e) 1st, 2nd and 3rd of the button pleat of the shirt marked 'B' bore signs of cut.
However, the buttons contained in envelope marked 'D' were found to be similar to the above control buttons in respect of measurements of various dimensions, designs and the characters of word 'Cotton' etc."
(27) From the above it is clear that three buttons that the police recovered from the P.O matches with that of the shirt that was seized by the police from the house of the accused. This in our opinion is a damning recovery and it further adds to the chain of reasoning that the prosecution has sought to build. The case of the defence on this score is also based on mere denial.
(28) The learned Trial Judge has further sought to implicate the accused on the basis of the fact that soon after the incidence the accused fled away from his village. He has placed reliance on Dhanjay Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal 1994 Cr.LJ (SC) 35. Mere absconsion by itself should not be taken as a proof of guilt. Fear of 16 police often impels the poor to run away from investigation agencies. But in this case the factum of absconsion adds weight to the case of the prosecution. It is an additional link in the chain that points towards the guilt of the accused.
(29) Recovery of the three buttons from the place of occurrence where the victim's dead body was found and the forensic report certifying that those buttons belonged to the shirt which was seized from the house of the accused by the police conclusively establishes the presence of the accused at the place of occurrence. Going by Section 106 of the Evidence Act or even by general principles of law, it was upto the accused to provide an explanation in this regard. The accused chose not to say anything excepting, denying that he was at the place of occurrence on the date and the time of Commission of the crime. That the victim was murdered is indisputable in view of inter alia, the Post Mortem Report. The autopsy doctor (PW17) has clearly deposed that the death of the victim was caused due to respiratory failure which was due to asphyxia resulting from strangulation following rape (we will come to issue of rape immediately), ante mortem and homicidal in nature. The facts and circumstances discussed above, in our opinion, are such that provide a complete chain and which unequivocally point to the guilt of the accused and 17 excludes any hypothesis consistent with his innocence. We are in agreement with the conclusion of the learned Trial Judge regarding the commission of offence under Section 302 IPC by the accused. Although, there is no eye-witness in this case, the circumstances of the case speak eloquently and indubitably point towards the guilt of the accused in so far as the charge under Section 302 IPC is concerned. (30) Looking at the matter from another angle, let us take the following sequence of facts or events. The dead body of the victim is discovered at the place of occurrence. Around that time, the accused was seen roaming/loitering around the place of occurrence by Bina Mondal (PW9). When he saw that he was being noticed by Ramesh Mallick (PW5), he tried to hide himself by sitting down. When he was asked by PW5 as to what he was doing there, he did not reply. The very next day he absconded and was on the run till he was arrested 13 days later from Rajarhat. The police seized, inter alia, three shirt buttons from the place of occurrence. The police also seized a shirt from the residence of the accused which had three buttons missing. Forensic report confirmed that the three buttons recovered from the place of occurrence belonged to the shirt of the accused seized by the police. The presence of the accused at the place of occurrence is established beyond reasonable doubt. The accused did not offer any 18 explanation as to what he was doing at the place of occurrence. Do these facts complete a chain of circumstances that leads inevitably to the conclusion that it was the accused who had committed the murder? We think it does. The chain of events is complete. There is no missing link. We are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused/appellant is guilty of murdering the victim. Hence, the order convicting the appellant/accused for offence punishable under Section 302 is eligible to be sustained. We confirm it.
(31) The Court of Session has sentenced the appellant to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month for Commission of offence under Section 302 IPC. In view of the gravity of the offence and the nature in which it was committed and on an overall assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case in its totality, we see no reason to differ with the learned Trial Judge on that count. We are of the considered view that the punishment imposed by the learned Trial Judge is commensurate with the crime committed by the accused and is wholly justified.
(32) Coming to the charge under Section 376 IPC (rape), the medical evidence adduced by the autopsy doctor (PW17) which has been adverted to above, shows that vulva labia mejora of the victim was 19 blood stained and hymen was ruptured. Further, the dead body of the victim was discovered in disrobed condition. A scratch mark present over the right elbow of the victim is indicative of a struggle on her part obviously in self-defence. The question is whether it was the accused who committed rape on the victim or somebody else? Although, it is quite likely that the accused raped the victim and then to shut her mouth for ever strangulated her to death, we cannot base a conviction on conjectures or surmises. Suspicion, however strong, cannot be the basis for conviction.
(33) It would appear from the report of the Director-cum-Senior Examiner, Forensic Science Laboratory Dr. (Mrs) Sipra Roy dated 19/12/2008 Memo no.3317/1 that the expert has noted the following:
"The paper packet M contained one service cover sealed with the seal of Dr. J.R.Dhar, S.D. Hospital, Bongaon, 24 Parganas. It contained two cotton plugged test tubes which were marked by me as M1 and M2 respectively. The test tubes M1 was found to be apparently empty. The plugged cotton wool and the inner wall of the test tube bore very few greyish stains. It was said to contain semen of Som Shankar Roy. The plugged cotton wool and the inner wall of the test tube were examined. The test tube M2 contained three strands of hair bearing apparently no stains, said to be public hair of Som Shankar Roy. No semen (no spermatozoon) could be detected in the contents of the items marked A (Salwar/pant), E (Kamiz), F (Jangia), G (Tape frock), H (Half pant), I1 (public hair), I3 (nail), I4 (hair), I5 (vaginal swab), M1 (plugged cotton wool and inner wall of the test tube) and M2 (public hair)."20
(34) Two things emerge from the above. Firstly, no trace of sperm could be detected on the clothe of the victim; secondly, the test tube said to contain the sperm of the accused was found to be empty by the FSL. Such being the case, we are inclined to give benefit of doubt to the accused in so far as the charge of rape against him is concerned. In a case of this kind where forensic evidence does not support or corroborate circumstantial evidence, the accused deserves to be given the benefit of doubt. Although, the circumstantial evidence in this case indicates that very possibly it was the accused, who raped the victim before throttling her to death, in view of the FSL report we cannot be sure beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused who perpetrated the crime of rape on the victim. Hence, the appellant/accused is entitled to an order of acquittal as regards the charge of rape.
(35) Resultantly, we uphold the conviction of the appellant for committing the offence under Section 302 IPC and confirm the sentence imposed on him on that count and set aside his conviction for offence under Section 376 IPC and acquit him of the said charge and consequently the sentence imposed on that count. 21 (36) In the result, the appeal being no. CRA 461 of 2009 is allowed in part as follows:-
i) The conviction of the appellant accused for committing offence under Section 376 IPC and the sentence imposed on him on that count are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge of commission of offence under Section 376 of the IPC.
ii) The conviction of the appellant for committing offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is confirmed. The sentence imposed on the appellant by the Court of Session on that count is also confirmed. It is, however, directed that upon the accused serving out the period of 14 years, if an appropriate application is made for remission, the same shall be considered by the statutory authority in accordance with law and shall be disposed of as expeditiously as may be convenient.
(37) The lower Court records along with a copy of this judgement be sent down at once to the learned trial Court for necessary action. (38) Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities. 22 I agree.
(Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, CJ.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)