Allahabad High Court
Ashish Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 13 January, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 ALL 31
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Reserved on: 25.11.2020 Delivered on: 13.01.2021 Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 583 of 2013 Appellant :- Ashish Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- S.K. Sharma,Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan,Ramesh Chandra Agrahari Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
(Per Samit Gopal, J. for the Bench)
1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 10.01.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.4 Kanpur Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 823 of 2005 (State of U.P. Vs. Ashish Kumar) whereby the appellant Ashish Kumar has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC to life imprisonment, a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to two months rigorous imprisonment, under Section 364-A IPC to life imprisonment, a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to two months rigorous imprisonment and under Section 201 IPC to seven years rigorous imprisonment, a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to one month rigorous imprisonment. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
2. The trial court while passing the judgment impugned herein has directed that the period of incarceration of the accused will be set off against the sentence of imprisonment.
3. At the first instance, an application dated 17.03.2005 was moved by Hari Ram son of Narottam Ram before the Station House Officer, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar to the effect that his son Alok Kumar aged about 21 years went to give his exam at D.V.S. College on a cycle on 15.03.2005 at 05:30 a.m. but has not returned. His physical appearance was given in the said application and it was requested that appropriate action be taken. The said application about the disappearance of Alok Kumar was recorded in GD No. 54 dated 17.03.2005 transcribed at 19:30 hrs at the said Police Station. The same is marked as Exb: Ka- 1 to the records.
4. Thereafter, an application was given by Hari Ram at the Police Station Chakeri on 30.05.2005 informing that he has received calls on his mobile three times, on which, threat has been extended to him and on inquiry it transpires that one of the numbers from which call was received is of a P.C.O. and he stated that he has a suspicion that his son Alok Kumar may be murdered by the kidnappers and appropriate action be taken as soon as possible. The same was recorded in GD No. 41 dated 30.05.2005 transcribed at 17:10 hrs which is marked as Exb: Ka- 8 to the records.
5. Subsequently, on an oral information given by Hari Ram, a First Information Report was lodged which was registered as Case Crime No. 413 of 2005 under Sections 364, 504 IPC, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar on 30.05.2005. The case was subsequently converted from Section 364 IPC to Section 364-A IPC, and later on, after the recovery of the remains of a human body, the same was converted into a case under Section 364-A, 302, 201 IPC.
6. The first informant handed over a packet to the Investigating Officer on 31.05.2005 while stating that the said gift packet contains the t-shirt of his son Alok Kumar which he was wearing when he left the house. The same was taken by the Investigating Officer and a recovery memo dated 31.05.2005 was prepared which is marked as Exb: Ka-3 to the records.
7. At the same time on 31.05.2005, the first informant Hari Ram gave a letter to the Investigating Officer by which a ransom of Rs. 3 lakh was alleged to be demanded for releasing his son. The said letter was dated 18.05.2005 and was received in the office of Hari Ram which was sent by post. A recovery memo of the same was prepared on 31.05.2005 which is marked as Exb: Ka-4 to the records.
8. Further, on the same day, the first informant Hari Ram also gave a chit to the Investigating Officer which was pasted on the gift packet, in which, t-shirt was wrapped. The said chit was taken into custody by the Investigating Officer and a recovery memo to the same was prepared which is marked as Exb: Ka-5 to the records.
9. Subsequently, a skeleton was recovered on 01.06.2005 on the pointing out of the appellant. A recovery memo of the same was prepared on 01.06.2005 which is marked as Exb: Ka-6 to the records.
10. A tape recorder was also recovered which was manufactured by Panasonic and was in a running condition which had a cassette in it, in which, it is said that there was some recording in the voice of the deceased Alok Kumar. The said tape recorder is also said to be recovered on the pointing out of the appellant. The recovery memo to the same is Exb: Ka-16 to the records.
11. Further, a cycle is said to have been recovered by the Investigating Officer from the cycle stand of Station Govindpuri, Kanpur Nagar. The recovery memo of the same was prepared on 01.06.2005 which is marked as Exb: Ka-17 to the records.
12. The skeleton was subjected to the postmortem examination. The doctor conducted the postmortem examination. While stating about the condition of the same as stated has follows:-
5'5" long skeleton. H.C. 21". Skull hair - 3". Mostache, sole and genitalia absent. Whole of skin except scalp, muscle & brain absent. All bones and vertebrae are seperated from each other. All viscera absent. 16 teeth present in upper jaw. Lower jaw absent. Ribs, metacarpals, carpals and all bones are loose and covered with decomposed flesh and mud. PMS - can't be found out.
Further, the doctor observed in the skeleton while observing the head and the neck region as follows:-
All cervical vert. seperated. Skull base is cut with sharp object above level of Ist cervical vertebra. Scalp covered with skin with hair 3" long.
The cause of death could not be ascertained and except for the bones of both hands were preserved for examination.
The time since death has been opined by the doctor as about 2½ months.
The postmortem report is marked as Exb: Ka-18 to the records.
13. The bones as recovered were sent for X-ray examination. The X-ray examination was done on 10.01.2006. The doctor conducting the X-ray examination was of the opinion that the bones appear to be human skeleton. He further opined that no further opinion can be given. The said X-ray report is marked as Exb: Ka-21 to the records.
The genuineness of the said document was admitted by the learned counsel for the defence and as such the formal proof of the same was dispensed with.
14. An admitted handwriting of the appellant along with the recovered letters were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow for comparison and examination by the Investigating Officer. The examiner vide his letter dated 16.06.2005 opined that the handwriting of the person who had written the Specimen-1 to 18 does not tally with the disputed document marked as Q1 to Q4.
15. The investigation concluded and a Charge Sheet No. 341 of 2005 dated 19.07.2005 was submitted against the appellant under Sections 364-A, 302, 201 IPC. The same is marked as Exb: Ka-20 to the records.
16. The trial court vide its order dated 01.09.2006 framed charges against the appellant accused Ashish Kumar Savita under Sections 364A, 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
17. The accused appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. He has not led any defence evidence.
18. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced Hari Ram PW-1 who is the informant and father of Alok Kumar, the missing boy. Smt. Dharma Devi PW-2 is the wife of the first informant Hari Ram and the mother of Alok Kumar. Shahanshah Hussain PW-3 is the Constable Clerk who transcribed the general diary of the gumshudgi report on 17.03.2005. Rakesh Kumar Shukla PW-4 is the Head Constable who was given information about the kidnapping of Alok Kumar who had transcribed GD on 30.05.2005. Anjani Kumar Pandey PW-5 is the first Investigating Officer of the case who took up the investigation on 30.05.2005 which remained with him upto 01.06.2005. Doctor Ashok Kumar PW-6 is the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination of the skeleton. Shyam Singh Yadav PW-7 is the second Investigating Officer who took up the investigation from 02.06.2005, concluded it and filed charge sheet, and subsequently, again took up the same after receiving the report of the Forensic Lab regarding comparison and analysis of the handwriting in the documents and also after receiving the X-ray examination report of the bones and prepared supplementary case diary of the matter.
19. The trial court after considering the entire evidence on record came to the conclusion that there is sufficient evidence against the accused for kidnapping Alok Kumar and demanding ransom, murdering him and causing disappearance of the dead body and convicted the appellant and sentenced him as stated above.
20. We have heard Sri Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan, learned counsel for the appellant-Ashish Kumar and Sri Gaurav Pratap Singh, learned brief holder for the State of U.P. and perused the records.
21. Learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:-
i) The present case is a case of circumstantial evidence. The chain of circumstances are not completed at all which have missing links in between.
ii) The evidence relied by the trial court of ransom being demanded by the appellant is totally fallacious. The handwriting of the appellant was sent for comparison and while being compared with the handwriting on the letter demanding ransom, the same was not found matching with the admitted handwriting of the appellant.
iii) The recovery of the dead body allegedly shown on the pointing out of the appellant, is false. The first informant Hari Ram PW-1 has stated that the appellant was arrested much prior than as shown by the police and further the dead body was recovered thereafter.
iv) The witnesses of recovery of the dead body have not been produced before the trial court. This fact also creates a doubt in the manner of the alleged recovery.
v) In the case, there was a letter received by the first informant which stated that Alok Kumar has run away with a girl named Fatima as he had a love affair with her and she has taken Rs. 3 lakhs and jewellery from her house with her but the Investigating Officer in spite of the same, did not investigate the said aspect at all.
vi) The appellant has no motive to commit the aforesaid offence.
22. Per contra, learned brief holder for the State opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and argued that there has been a recovery of the dead body on the pointing out of the appellant after being dug from a room which was rented to him and as such the accused was under a burden to disclose as to how the dead body was buried in the room occupied by him which he has not. It is further argued that the recovery of the dead body is a clinching evidence against the appellant, for which, he has tendered no explanation. It is further argued that the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
23. Hari Ram PW-1 is the first information and the father of Alok Kumar, the missing boy. He in his examination-in-chief has stated that his son Alok Kumar aged about 21 years left on a cycle for D.V.S. College to give his examination on 15.03.2005 at 05:30 a.m. He did not return home after giving the examination. He transcribed a missing report and gave it to the S.H.O., Police Station Chakeri on 17.03.2005, in which, he mentioned the physical appearance of his son by stating that he was about 5'4" in height having fair complexion and was wearing an almond coloured t-shirt and a grey coloured pant. He was having a small mark of injury on his forehead. He identifies the said application and proves it which was marked as Exb: Ka-1 to the records. He states that later on, a letter dated 18.03.2005 was received at his work place, in which, ransom of Rs. 3 lakhs was demanded. He gave the said letter to the Investigating Officer which was proved by him and was marked as Exb: Ka-2 to the records. He states that, subsequently, on 21.03.2005 at about 10:34 hrs, a call of some unknown person came on mobile no. 9336235161 on which a ransom of Rs. 5 lakhs was demanded. He states that the said mobile on which the call was received was of his master Sri L.C. Sharma which was attended by his wife. He identifies the accused appellant who was present in court and states that he knows him and recognises him and he only called from the phone and demanded ransom and also sent letter for the same. He states that the kidnapper of his son Alok Kumar and due to non fulfilment of demanded of ransom, he has been murdered and his dead body was got disappeared. He states that on 17/18.03.2005, he then got pamphlets printed and pasted on 22.03.2005 and on 23.03.2005 news in the newspapers was also got published. On 12.05.2005, on mobile no. 9336814524 belonging to one Hemant a call from phone no. 05222457449 was received from Charbagh, Lucknow about which he immediately informed Police Station Chakeri. On 13.05.2005, on the phone of Rajesh, a call from mobile no. 9336235161 was received, on which, it was stated that money be arranged. The said call was received by him which was done from phone no. 05122509258 of Devki Palace Vandana P.C.O. He then went to the P.C.O. and inquired about it and was told that a boy aged about 20-21 years had called up who was wearing a cream coloured t-shirt, was of grey complexion and had covered his face. He states that on 25.05.2005, the accused Ashish Kumar sent the clothes of his son and demanded ransom through rickshaw puller. The said rickshaw puller was apprehended by him and handed over to Police Station Chakeri. He states that later on the dead body of his son Alok Kumar was recovered from near a canal in Govindpuri Nagar. The police informed him about the said recovery on which he reached there and identified the dead body as that of his son. The said identification was done on the basis of the clothes on the body. Later on, he states to have signed the recovery memo relating to the t-shirt sent in the gift packet and the chit pasted on the gift pack through which Rs. 3 lakhs was demanded as ransom. The said three have been marked as Exb: Ka-3, 4 and 5 to the records. He states that his son Alok Kumar was studying with the accused appellant Ashish Kumar and as such he knew the accused very well and identifies him. He states that the said accused has kidnapped his son for ransom and due to the non fulfilment of the amount of ransom murdered him and got the dead body disappeared.
In cross examination, he states that at the time of the incident, he was working in Seal Foods and Fertilizer, Dulichand Oil Mill Company, Mill Area Fazalganj, Kanpur Nagar which is a private company. He is the D.O. Incharge. No other person except for him was working on the said post. Others were field employees. At that time, he was getting a salary of Rs. 3,200/-. He has four persons in the family who are living with him which included his wife, two daughters and a son Alok Kumar who is the deceased. The house, in which, they were living was a rented house which was taken on a rent of Rs. 1,100/- per month. The elder daughter had passed B.A. Amongst the children, the eldest was a daughter, then son and then another daughter. The younger daughter was studying in B.Sc. 1st year and was about two years younger to Alok Kumar. His son was studying in B.A. 1st Year and was given examination of the same. He was studying with Hindi, Economics and one other subject which he does not remember. His son Alok Kumar and the accused appellant Ashish Kumar were studying together in the same class and in the same section. He states that he does not know about the subject which Ashish Kumar was studying. Alok Kumar and Ashish Kumar were friends and as such he knew him quite well. Ashish Kumar never came to his house. He may have come in his absence, for which, he does not know. Ashish Kumar is a resident of village Nonpur Police Station Bhogsipur, and at the time of the incident, he was living with his maternal uncle in Bheemsen and used to go to D.V.S. College for his studies from there. The distance between Bheemsen and D.V.S. College Govindpuri Nagar, Kanpur is about 10-12 kilometres. The said two places are connected by a train also. Govindpuri Station is at a distance of half kilometre from DVS College. At the time of occurrence, he used to live in Koyla Nagar which is situated at a distance of about 15 kilometres from D.V.S. College. He states that his son used to go by cycle daily. He states that he does not know as to how many friends Alok Kumar had because they never used to come to the house. Purushottam is a friend of Alok Kumar whose father is a police personnel. Purushottam did not tell the name of other friends of Alok Kumar. He states to have identified the dead body of his son from the clothes. His clothes were of grey colour. Clothes of grey colour are available in the market and many people wear it. His son was from the science side in High School. He does not know as to when his son did his High School. He did his Inter from the science side but he does not know as to when his son did Inter. He states with his son had passed Inter in 2nd Division. He did not take admission in B.Sc. as he was not interested in sending him for studies. Then later on, after two years, he took admission in B.A. To a suggestion that his son was not serious about studies, he denies. To a further suggestion that his son was naughty boy, he denies. He states that his son had a technical mind and used to concentrate in studies. Further, to a suggestion that his son had a love affair with a girl named Fatima, he denies. Further, to a suggestion that due to the love affair with Fatima, his son used to roam about, he denies. He states that his son had gone to the college for giving examination on cycle at 05:30 a.m. He states that he cannot tell as to whether Fatima had taken Rs. 3 lakhs and jewellery from her house and had met his son at a fixed place and went with him. He further states that he cannot tell as to how the cycle of his son was found at Govindpuri Station. To a suggestion that his son has eloped with Fatima and is still alive. To a further suggestion that his son Alok Kumar and Fatima had a love affair and have eloped along with jewellery, he denies.
He was further cross examined wherein he states that his son was aged about 21 years at the time of incident. He states that he had received a letter, in which, it was written that his son Alok Kumar has eloped with Fatima, the sister of the said person and she has taken Rs. 3 lakhs and jewellery with her. He states that the said fact was written in the said letter. He states that Purushottam may not be involved in the elopement of the girl because the same is not written in the said letter. He proves the said letter which is marked as Exb: Ka-2 to the records. He states that he does not know that Purushottam to save himself has disclosed the acquaintance of Ashish with Alok Kumar. The father of Purushottam is a police inspector. To a suggestion that as the father of Purushottam is in the police, Ashish Kumar is being implicated in the matter just to save Purushottam, he denies. Further, to a suggestion that his son Alok Kumar is alive and is with Fatima, he denies. He further denies the suggestion that his son is intentionally not giving his correct address. He states that in Exb: Ka-1, the name of Ashish Kumar is not mentioned which is correct and true. He further states that it is true that the letter which was received by him is in the records, but the envelope of the same is not on record. He states that he had given them to the Investigating Officer. He states that except for the recovery memo Exb: Ka-4 relating to the demand of Rs. 3 lakhs as ransom there is no other letter has referred to in Exb: Ka-2 to the records. He states that there was no separate letter demanding ransom. To a suggestion that Exb: Ka-1 has been prepared in a forged manner and has been filed directly in Court and was not given at the Police Station, he denies the same. He states that it is correct that there is no signature of name of Ashish Kumar written at the bottom in the said letter. It is not even in the letter. He states that he had informed the Police Station Chakeri about the phone call from an unknown person received by him but had not given any written report. He states that the unknown persons phone call was received by his landlord which was for him. The information about the phone call was informed to him by his landlord. The landlord had given the phone to his wife, on which, his wife had interacted with the said person. The said person did not tell his name while talking. He further states that it is true that he had given his statement in Court that he knew accused Ashish Kumar and identifies him and he had called on phone for ransom and had sent the letter. He states that he had not given any written complaint at the Police Station. He states that he does not know the date, on which, he had received the said letter. He had given the pamphlets which he had got printed for searching his son to the Investigating Officer, the same is not on record. Further, to a suggestion that he has cooked up a false story due to a love affair of his son and under pressure of police, to which, he denies. To a further suggestion that all the letters have been prepared in a forged manner, he denies. He states that his son was studying in D.V.S. College. He states that after the disappearance of his son, the police had arrested the accused Ashish Kumar and had taken him with them. It was about two months after the disappearance of his son and about 15 days prior to the recovery, he states that the police had interrogated him and then had released him. About 3-4 times call was received on the mobile. The first call was about 5-7 days and second was after about a month and the third was after 2-3 days of the second call. He states that all the phone calls were done by accused Ashish Kumar. He states that accused Ashish Kumar did not tell his name on the phone and as such he was not named in the report. To a suggestion that he is stating the story about the phone calls on being tutored, he denies. He states that after the recovery of the dead body which he states to be of his son, he had gone to the Police Station and the paper work was done in the Police Station. To a suggestion that under the pressure of the police and out of love affection of his son, he has given a false evidence, he denies. He further denies the suggestion that his son is alive and has gone with a girl named Fatima. Further, he denies the suggestion that his son has misappropriated the jewellery of Fatima and to save himself, he is not coming forward, he denies.
24. Smt. Dharma Devi PW-2 is the wife of Hari Ram PW-1 and the mother of Alok Kumar. In her examination-in-chief she states that she has three children, in which, two are daughters and one son. Her son was studying in B.A. 1st Year in D.V.S. College, Govindpuri Kanpur. The examination of her son started in the 2nd week of March. For giving his 4th paper, he went on his cycle on 15.03.2005 at 05:30 a.m. He was wearing a grey coloured pant and almond coloured t-shirt. The exam was scheduled from 07:00 a.m. to 10 a.m. He did not return till evening. Then, her husband went to the college and inquired about him and came back and told her that Alok Kumar did not attend the exam. Later on, her husband started searching for him but his whereabouts were not known. Her jeth lives in Ghaziabad. On information, he also came. He also searched for Alok Kumar at various places but whereabouts of Alok Kumar could not be known. Information in newspaper and pamphlets were also printed. In the pamphlets, the mobile number of V.D. Kureel, her neighbour was mentioned. Her husband had informed him that if he receives any phone call then he may be informed about it. On 21.03.2005 i.e. after about a week of the disappearance of her son, her landlord received a phone call. The landlord informed them about the same. The call was received at about 10:30 a.m. Her husband was not at home at that time but was on duty. The call was received in his absence which was answered by her. The person calling immediately told her that if she wants her son then she should make arrangement Rs. 5 lakhs. She started crying, on hearing the same, to which, the phone was disconnected. She gave information to her husband. Her husband gets Rs. 3,200/- as salary from the work. The family affairs are met with difficulty in that money. After about 1¾ month, no phone call or any news was received. They used to search Alok Kumar through their contacts. If persons used to be arrested then they used to go to the police for inquiry. The information about the first phone call which was received, was not given to anyone. Later on, various phone calls were received wherein Rs. 3 lakhs was demanded for releasing Alok Kumar. A letter was also received and at the office of her husband, t-shirt of Alok Kumar which he was wearing on 15.03.2005 while going out from the house, was sent and received in a gift pack. The said facts were told to her by her husband. The fact regarding demand of Rs. 5 lakhs was also told by her husband to her. She did not believe that her son was kidnapped. She could understand that her son was in the clutches for about two and half months. There was a situation about her son not being recovered. She states that whenever the kidnapper used to call, she used to say that the family is very much under grief and trouble and help may be extended. She later on, came to know that accused Ashish Kumar who is the friend of Alok had kidnapped him for ransom, and due to non fulfilment of the same, has murdered him. She states that the Investigating Officer had interrogated her and had recorded her statement.
In her cross examination, she states that her daughter Yogita is the eldest amongst the children. She states to have come to the court with her husband who is standing behind her. She states that she has come to the court many times. Her husband always comes with her. Her second child was her son. Her son had stopped his studies on his own. He had stopped it for one year only. He had started learning work of electronics. Her son had started his studies from science side, and later on, restarted from the arts side. The phone call for ransom was received after about a week of his disappearance. The person who had called did not tell his name. The second call was received after about two and a half months. The person again did not disclose his name. Ashish Kumar Savita had called for ransom and the said fact came to be known to her after about two and a half months which was told by her husband to her. She does not know that Purushottam is the friend of her son. Ashish Kumar Savita did not ever come to her house with her son. For the first time, he was brought by the police. Police had told her that the said person is Ashish Kumar Savita and since then she knows him. The name of Ashish Kumar Savita is written in the diary of Alok Kumar but she does not remember as to which all other names are written in it. The diary was given to the Investigating Officer. She does not know as to whether the diary is part of the record or not. To a suggestion that since the name of Ashish Kumar Savita was written in the diary and her husband has tutored her to take the names she is disclosing the said name, she denies. She states that the name and roll numbers of other friends were also written but she does not remember. She states that when police had brought Ashish Kumar Savita to her house then she had told the police that he is not the accused in the case of her son. She then says that he is the accused. She states that as it was not known hence his name was not mentioned in the report. She states that she does not know that her son was having a love affair with a girl named Fatima. To a suggestion that her son was known to Fatima and has eloped with her along with jewellery and money, she denies. To a further suggestion that her son is living with a girl named Fatima and is still alive, she denies. She states that it is incorrect to say that her son has eloped with a girl named Fatima along with jewellery and just in order to save him, she and her husband are not disclosing his correct location. She states that whenever she comes to court, the Government Advocate used to meet her.
25. Shahanshah Hussain PW-3 was posted as Constable moharrir at Police Station Chakeri, Kanpur Nagar on 17.03.2005. He states in his examination-in-chief that Hari Ram came to the Police Station and gave an application regarding disappearance of his son Alok Kumar aged about 21 years, on the basis of which, a report of disappearance was transcribed in GD No. 54 at 19:30 hrs on 17.03.2005 by him. He proves the same which is marked as Exb: Ka-7 to the records.
26. Rakesh Kumar Shukla PW-4 was posted as Constable moharrir at Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar on 30.05.2005. He states that previously, an information was given by Hari Ram on 17.03.2005 regarding the disappearance of his son Alok Kumar which was registered at the Police Station and a pamphlet was got printed and distributed by him, in which, he had given his and his neighbour's telephone numbers. He states that Hari Ram used to give information about the various phone calls received by them at the Police Station and he had then stated that looking to the said situation, he suspects that his son Alok Kumar may be murdered by the kidnapper and as such appropriate action be taken as early as possible. He states that the said information was transcribed in the general diary of the Police Station in GD No. 41 at 17:10 hrs on 30.05.2005 by him. The same was marked as Exb: Ka-8 to the records.
27. Anjani Kumar Pandey PW-5 is the 1st Investigating Officer of the matter. He took up the investigation on 30.05.2005 which remained with him till 01.06.2005. He states that after recovery of the dead body the inquest was conducted. The same is Exb: Ka-9 to the records. The dead body was sent for post-mortem and the required documents were prepared. The same were marked as Exb: Ka-10 to Ka-14 to the records which was prepared by him. He states that on 30.05.2005 he transcribed GD No. 41, GD No. 54 and recorded the statement of Constable Shahanshah Hussain and of Constable Rakesh Shukla. On 31.05.2005, he recorded the statement of Hari Ram and inquest. The letter for demand of ransom and also the chit which was pasted on the gift packet was sent to him. He prepared the recovery memos of the said papers, the gift pack and the t-shirt. He then inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan which was marked as Exb: Ka-15 to the records. On 01.06.2005, he states to have arrested accused Ashish Kumar Savita and on his pointing out recovered a human skeleton and recorded the statement of the accused and also recovered a tape recorder and prepared its recovery memo. He prepared the recovery memo of the dead body and of the cycle of the deceased. The same are marked as Exb: Ka-16 and 17 to the records. The investigation was then handed over to Ram Singh Yadav S.H.O. In his cross examination, he states that he had mentioned the condition of the dead body as recovered. The dead body was in a decomposed state and as such the physical appearance could not be known. The whole body consisted of bones only, and it was only on the bones of the head that hairs were present. To a suggestion that the said recovery memos have been falsely prepared just in order to falsely proceed with the matter, he denies. He states that the clothes of the deceased as recovered are not present in court. To a suggestion that he has taken the clothes from informant and has falsely shown the recovery, he denies. He states that Pusushottam was a friend of Ashish Kumar. The father of Purushottam is the Sub-Inspector of Police. He states that it is correct that Purushottam had disclosed that a student named Ashish Kumar is a friend of Alok Kumar. Ashish Kumar was a student of DVS College. He had got the list of students named Ashish Kumar during investigation. He states that accused Ashish Kumar had disclosed that he was a friend of deceased Alok Kumar. He states that he did not take Ashish Kumar to the house of the informant Hari Ram for being identified by them. He states that Hari Ram had given a letter to him, in which, it was written that Hari Ram your son Alok Kumar has enticed away my sister Fatima. Fatima has taken Rs. 3 lakhs and jewellery along with her. He states that he did not do any investigation regarding the relationship and love affair of Alok Kumar with Fatima. Alok Kumar and Purushottam were friends. He states that he does not know that Purushottam had some relationship with a girl named Fatima. He states that he did not do any investigation regarding Fatima. To a suggestion that the father of Purushottam is a Police Inspector and to save him Ashish Kumar who was a friend of Alok Kumar and was known to him was falsely introduced and implicated in the matter, he denies the same. To a further suggestion that Alok Kumar is still alive and is hiding himself with Fatima, he denies. He states that he did not take any action against Purushottam. To a suggestion that in a hurried manner to show that the case has been worked out he been has falsely implicated Ashish Kumar, he denies. To a further suggestion that in order to save Purushottam falsely implicated Ashish Kumar, he recorded the false statement of witnesses, he denies.
28. Dr. Ashok PW-6 conducting the post-mortem examination of the recovered skeleton. The findings of the said doctor have already been stated above.
In his cross examination, he states that the time since death of the deceased, can be sometimes between 2-3 months. He states that from the skeleton, the dead body cannot be identified. He states that he cannot tell as to how the lower jaw of the skeleton is missing. He further states that it is true that along with skeleton, nine police papers were sent, on which, the name of the deceased was written as Alok Kumar and he read the same and as such he had mentioned the name of the deceased in the post-mortem report as Alok Kumar.
29. Shyam Singh Yadav PW-7 is the second Investigating Officer of the matter who took up the investigation from 02.06.2005, concluded it filed the charge sheet and then again took up the investigation and appended certain documents in it through a supplementary case diary. He states that on 02.06.2005, he perused the investigation as done by the previous officers and recorded the statement of Jakir. On 03.06.2005, he copied and annexed the post-mortem report and recorded the statement of the first informant and his brother Himmat Ram. He then inspected the place from where the dead body was recovered and prepared the site plan of the same which was marked as Exb: Ka-19 to the records. He then recorded the statement of witness Ramesh and Chaudhary Badri Prasad. On 04.06.2005, he recorded the statement of two witnesses of recovery. On 05.06.2005, he further recorded the statement of witnesses of recovery. On 06.06.2005, he recorded the statement of witnesses of inquest. On 07.06.2005, he states to have recorded the statement of two witnesses of the recovery of cycle. On 08.06.2005, he recorded the statement of witness of recovery of dead body and cycle. On 10.06.2005, he annexed the inquest with the case diary. On 11.06.2005, he recorded the statement of two witnesses. On 12.06.2005, he recorded the statement of three witnesses. On 13.06.2005 he sent a report to the court concerned regarding the gift packet, t-shirt and chit for being sent for examination. On 16.06.2005, the packet for the comparison of handwriting was prepared. On 19.06.2005, he disclosed about the preparation of the docket for sending material for handwriting comparison. On 21.06.2005, the statement of three witnesses were recorded. On 25.06.2005, he made an attempt to send the bones for examination. On 28.06.2005 and 06.07.2005, the bones were being sent for X-ray. On 12.07.2005, he made an attempt to obtain the handwriting of accused Ashish Kumar for comparison and also to send the bones for analysis. On 13.07.2005, the bones were sent for analysis. On 19.07.2005, he filed a charge sheet against the appellant which was marked as Exb: Ka-20 to the records. Subsequently, from 04.08.2005 to 18.11.2005, the inquest on the examination of the bones, x-ray and report of the handwriting expert was appended with the case diary. The case was then transferred to the Station House Officer.
In his cross examination, he states that on 03.06.2005, he recorded the statement of the first informant. He states that the first informant did not disclose the name and states that he knew and identifies accused Ashish Kumar and the said Ashish Kumar had called up for ransom and had sent letter but in the investigation it has come out that Ashish Kumar had called on phone and had also sent letter for an attempt to obtain ransom. He further states that the informant did not give him the statement that this accused had kidnapped his son Alok Kumar for ransom and due to non fulfilment of the same, has murdered him and has got the dead body disappeared but had stated to him that Ashish Kumar who is the murderer of his son Alok Kumar, be given strict punishment which would pacify him. He states that the informant did not give him the statement that on 25.05.2005 through rickshaw puller accused Ashish Kumar had sent clothes of his son and had demanded ransom but states that he had given the statement that a gift packet was sent through a rickshaw puller. He states that the first informant Hari Ram did not give him any letter. It was given to the previous Investigating Officer before him. To a suggestion that he has not prepared the site plan of the recovery of the dead body on the pointing out of the first informant, he denies. He further denies the suggestion that the site plan of the recovery of the dead body has been prepared in a false manner. He further states that he did not fill the inquest. He did not recover the cycle on the pointing out of the accused. He states that papers were sent to the Forensic Science Lab for handwriting comparison. He states that in the report of the Forensic Lab Science Laboratory, it is mentioned that the person who has written document marked S1 to S18 has not written the disputed document marked as Q1 to Q4. He states that he did not conduct investigation regarding the elopement of a girl named Fatima. To a suggestion he further states that it is incorrect to state that he has not conducted the correct investigation and has not unearthed the case properly and Ashish Kumar who is a poor person, has been falsely implicated and nominated in the matter and a false charge sheet has been filed.
30. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that he has not committed the murder of Alok Kumar. Alok Kumar has run away with a girl named Fatima along with jewellery and as such he is hiding himself. He stated that Alok Kumar is still alive.
31. The trial court after considering the entire evidence on record and has convicted and sentenced the accused by the judgment impugned herein as stated above.
32. The present case is a case of circumstantial evidence. The rules to be followed in a case of circumstantial evidence are trite.
33. There is no eye witness of the incident and the entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence.
34. The case of Queen-Empress Vs. Hosh Nak : 1941 All LJ 416 is worth referring at this juncture which is a locus classicus on the issue of circumstantial evidence. This is a very old decision which was printed in the Allahabad Law Journal after sixty years of its decision on the recommendation of Rt. Hon'ble Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru. In the case of Hosh Nak (supra), it has been held that to prove an offence by the circumstantial evidence four things are essential. They are:
(1) : That the circumstance from which the conclusion is drawn be fully established.
(2) : That all the facts should be consistent with the hypothesis.
(3) : That the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
(4) : That the circumstances should, to a moral certainty, actually exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved.
35. Then in the case of Hanumant, son of Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh : AIR 1952 SC 343 it has been held in para 10 by the Apex Court as under:
"10. .........It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused......."
36. Thereafter, in the case of Khasbaba Maruti Sholke Vs. The State of Maharashtra : (1973) 2 SCC 449 it was held by the Apex Court as under:
"18. In order to base the conviction of an accused on circumstantial evidence the court must be certain that the circumstantial evidence is of such a character as is consistent only with the guilt of the accused. If, however, the circumstantial evidence admits of any other rational explanation, in such an event an element of doubt would creep in and the accused must necessarily have the benefit thereof. The circumstances relied upon should be of a conclusive character and should exclude every hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The circumstances must show that within all reasonable probability the impugned act must have been done by the accused. If two inferences are possible from the circumstantial evidence, one pointing to the guilt of the accused, and the other, also plausible, that the commission of the crime was the act of some one else, the circumstantial evidence would not warrant the conviction of the accused..........."
37. The circumstantial evidence must be so complete as to exclude every hypothesis other than that of guilt of the accused.
38. In the celebrated case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra : (1984) 4 SCC 116 the Apex Court has described five principles of circumstantial evidence as the pillars on circumstantial evidence. The five principles have been narrated in para 153 which is extracted herein :
"153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned ''must or should' and not ''may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ''may be proved' and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra : [(1973) 2 SCC 793; para 19, p. 807] where the following observations were made : "Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ''may be' and ''must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions."
(2) 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 and any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as to leave by reasonable grounds 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."
Further in paragraph 154 of the said judgment it was held as under:
"154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence".
39. The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the prosecution has to stand on its own legs and it should prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Doubt must be of a reasonable man and reasonableness of doubt must be commensurate with the nature of the offence to be investigated.
40. Before appreciating the evidence on record it is necessary to point out Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which reads as under:
"27: How much of information received from accused may be proved:
Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved."
41. It is clear from the reading of Section 27 of the Evidence Act that this Section is based on doctrine of confirmation by subsequent facts. That doctrine is that where, in consequence of a confession otherwise inadmissible, search is made and facts are discovered, it is a guarantee that the confession made was true. But only that portion of the information can be proved which relates distinctly or strictly to the facts discovered.
42. In the case of Ram Kishan Mithan Lal Sharma Vs. State of Bombay : AIR 1955 SC 104, it is held by the Apex Court that Section 27 of the Evidence Act is an exception to the rules enacted in Sections 25 and 26 of the Act which provide that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved against a person accused of an offence and that no confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. Where, however, any fact is discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence in the custody of a police officer, that part of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered can be proved whether it amounts to a confession or not.
43. In the case of Pulukari Kottaiah Vs. King Emperor : AIR 1947 PC 67 it has been held as follows : "the condition necessary to bring S. 27 into operation is that the discovery of a fact must be deposed to, and thereupon so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved".
44. The Section is based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true, and accordingly can be safely allowed to be given in evidence, but clearly the extent of the information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate.
45. In the case of Delhi Administration Vs. Balkrishan : AIR 1972 SC 3 the Apex Court has held that Section 27 of the Evidence Act is by way of a proviso to Sections 25 and 26 and a statement by way of confession made in police custody which distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible is evidence against the accused.
46. It cannot be lost sight of that Section 27 of the Evidence Act has frequently been misused by the police against an accused. Court should, therefore, be cautious and vigilant about the application of the above provision. The protection afforded by the provisions under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act is sought to be overcome by the police by taking resort to the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The validity of Section 27 of the Evidence Act has been upheld by the Apex Court.
47. Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstance appearing in the evidence against him.
The nature of questions put to the appellant, under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. also needs to be seen and referred. The questions put to the appellant were not complete or in accordance with law. The questions should have been more clear giving the correct fact that during the investigation the accused had promised to the Investigating Officer to get the dead body recovered on his pointing out.
48. Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as follows:
"313: Power to examine accused :
(1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court--
(a) may at any stage, without previously warning the accused, put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary;
(b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence, question him generally on the case:
Provided that in a summons-case, where the Court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination under clause (b).
(2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub-section (1).
(3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to them.
(4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed.
(5) The Court may take help of Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in preparing relevant questions which are to be put to the accused and the Court may permit filing of written statement by the accused as sufficient compliance of this section."
49. From the reading of the Section it is clear that it is duty of the Court to find out whether the circumstances put to the accused under Section 313 Cr. P. C. were intelligible to him and whether he could answer the same after understanding the same and whether the question has caused any prejudice to the accused.
50. It is a matter of law that the circumstances appearing in evidence against the accused have to be put to the accused for the purposes of enabling the accused to explain such circumstances. This is a mandatory duty of the Court. In the present case, the prosecution in the question No. 1 has put to the accused that the dead body was concealed by him to case disappearance of it in the kacchi kothari in Kacchi Basti near a nahar in mohalla Sanjay Nagar, Police Station Govind Nagar and later on in question No. 3 he has been asked that P.W. - 1 has stated that the dead body of his son was recovered near nahar in Govind Nagar which both were denied by the accused. Both the said circumstances are quite different in themselves and do cause prejudice to the accused as at one point the place of recovery of dead body is different from the other. We have examined the entire statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C.
51. In the case of Jai Dev and Hari Singh v. State of Punjab : AIR 1963 SC 612 it has been held by the Apex Court that the examination of the accused person under Section 342 Cr. P. C. (old) is intended to give him an opportunity to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. In exercising its powers under Section 342, the Court must take care to put all relevant circumstances appearing in the evidence to the accused person. It would not be enough to put a few general and broad questions to the accused, for by adopting such a course the accused may not get opportunity of explaining all the relevant circumstances. On the other hand, it would not be fair or right that the court should put to the accused person detailed questions which may amount to his cross examination. The ultimate test in determining whether or not the accused has been fairly examined under Section 342 would be to enquire whether, having regard to all the questions put to him, he did get an opportunity to say what he wanted to say in respect of prosecution case against him. If it appears that the examination of the accused person was defective and thereby a prejudice has been caused to him, that would no doubt be a serious infirmity. It is obvious that no general rule can be laid down in regard to the manner in which the accused person should be examined under Section 342 Cr.P.C. The true position appears to be that passion for brevity which may be content with asking a few omnibus general questions is as much inconsistent with the requirements of Section 342 as anxiety for thoroughness which may dictate an unduly detailed and large number of questions which may amount to the cross examination of the accused persons.
52. From the above decision it is clear that the question should only give the circumstances and not the details, which may otherwise amount to cross examination of the accused.
53. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao : AIR 1963 SC 1850 the Apex Court has held that the accused should not be put involved questions embracing a number of matters.
54. The recovery of the dead body on the pointing out of the appellant has been relied upon by the prosecution as one of the evidences against him. Te other being the letter demanding ransom and the various telephone calls.
55. No doubt, mere recovery in pursuance of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not a clinching proof for holding an accused guilty. However, there is no doubt that it is good piece of evidence which may be relied upon as a link in the chain of circumstances in the present case for holding the guilt.
56. It is a well settled principle of law that a conviction cannot be founded on circumstantial evidence alone unless it cannot be explained on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused.
57. It is well settled that in a case which rests on circumstantial evidence, law postulates two fold requirements:-
(i) Every link in the chain of the circumstances necessary to establish the guilt of the accused must be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
(ii) All the circumstances must be consistent pointing only towards the guilt of the accused.
58. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra) has enunciated the aforesaid principle as under:-
"The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the Accused; that 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 they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the Accused and inconsistent with his innocence".
59. It is well settled that in a case based on circumstantial evidence the Courts ought to have a conscientious approach and conviction ought to be recorded only in case in which all the links of the chain are complete and pointing to the guilt of the accused. Each link unless connected together form a chain may suggest suspicion but the same in itself cannot take place of proof and will not be sufficient to convict the accused.
60. In cases where the evidence is purely circumstantial in nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is sought to be drawn must be fully established beyond any reasonable doubt and such circumstances must be consistent and must form a complete chain unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and the chain of circumstances must be established by the prosecution. Referring to several earlier decisions the Apex Court in the case of Geejaganda Somaiah v. State of Karnataka : (2007) 9 SCC 315 in para 15 held as follows:-
"15. 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."
The same principle has been reiterated in a catena of later judgments.
61. In the present matter, the appellant is not named as an accused in the first information report. The name of the appellant appears on the basis of some information given by one Purushottam who has not been produced and examined as a witness. The recovery of the alleged skeleton is being strongly disputed by the defence as that of being of Alok Kumar the son of Hari Ram PW-1. Further, the prosecution relies heavily on the recovery of the alleged skeleton on the pointing out of the applicant which is stated to be buried in a room which is said to have been taken on rent by the appellant. There is no evidence whatsoever coming forth to substantiate that the recovery as alleged from the room was taken on rent by the accused appellant Ashish Kumar and was in his possession at the time of the incident as a tenant. No evidence to the said fact has been brought on record. Except for the said fact being mentioned in the recovery memo Exb: Ka-6 to the records which is dated 01.06.2005, there is no other evidence to show that the said room was rented to the accused appellant and was in his possession at the time of occurrence. Further, PW-1 Hari Ram in his examination-in-chief has very categorically stated that he discovered the dead body of his son Alok Kumar near a canal in Govindpuri and then informed the police about the same and had reached there and identified the said body on the basis of clothes worn by it. The said fact clearly runs contrary to the case of the prosecution that the dead body has been recovered on the pointing out of the appellant from a room where it was buried which was rented to him. A letter which was given by Hari Ram PW-1 to the police which shows to have been addressed to him and written by the brother of a girl named Fatima states that his son has eloped with Fatima who has taken Rs. 3 lakhs and jewellery from the house and has left the place. The said letter was handed over by Hari Ram PW-1 to the police but the police failed to investigate the said aspect of the matter. Specific questions were put to Anjani Kumar Pandey PW-5 and Shyam Singh Yadav PW-7 regarding the fact of any investigation being conducted in the matter of elopement of Fatima with Alok Kumar the son of Hari Ram PW-1 but they have categorically stated that they did not conduct any investigation as such. The letters and chit sent to Hari Ram PW-1 demanding ransom alleged to have been sent by the appellant, were sent along with the admitted handwriting of the appellant to the Forensic Lab for comparison of the handwriting. The opinion of the handwriting expert is very specific in terms of the fact that both of the same are not written by the same person. Even, the telephone calls which are said to be various in numbers and received by various persons are said to be only confined to the fact of disclosure of the amount of the alleged ransom but it has nowhere come as to who the person was who had called various times. Even, the said link fails to have any corroboration for implicating the appellant. PW-1 Hari Ram has in his cross examination stated that the appellant was previously arrested by the police after about two months of the disappearance of his son and then again after about 15 days prior to the recovery of the dead body. The said statement is also very categorical in its terms whereas the Investigating Officer states to have arrested the appellant on a different date.
62. The prosecution in the present case has failed to discharge its duty by fixing each and every link in the chain which would reach to an irresistible conclusion that the appellant is the accused in the matter.
63. Thus the conviction of the appellant by the trial court is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The trial court committed an error in recording the conviction and sentence of the appellant. Hence the impugned judgment and order dated 10.01.2013 passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside, which is accordingly set aside.
64. The present appeal is allowed.
65. The appellant Ashish Kumar Savita is in jail. He is directed to be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case.
66. Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the accused-appellant Ashish Kumar Savita is directed to furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No. 45 prescribed in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 of a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with two reliable sureties in the like amount before the court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Apex Court.
67. The lower court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action.
68. The party shall file computer generated copy of such judgment downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.
69. The computer generated copy of such judgment shall be self-attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
70. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the judgment from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 13.01.2021
M. ARIF
(Samit Gopal,J.) (Ramesh Sinha,J.)