Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jasbir Singh Alias Seera vs The State Of Punjab on 14 January, 2010
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Jora Singh
Crl.Appeal No.230-DB of 2001 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Appeal No.230-DB of 2001
DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 14, 2010
Jasbir Singh alias Seera
.....APPELLANT
Versus
The State of Punjab
....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH
---
Present: Mr. Vinod Ghai, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Ms. Gurveen H. Singh, Addl.A.G., Punjab,
for the respondent.
..
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.
Appellant Jasbir Singh alias Seera was tried by Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib on the charge under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of Mohinder Singh alias Bali son of Sher Singh of the same village. Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.4.2001, the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2500/-, and in default of payment of fine, he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. He was further convicted under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, and in default of payment of fine, he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences have Crl.Appeal No.230-DB of 2001 -2- been ordered to run concurrently.
In brief, the prosecution case is that on 1.7.1998, there was a marriage in the family of M/s Mittal Chemicals in Village Kumbh. Deceased Mohinder Singh alias Bali son of Sher Singh (PW8), PW5- Sadhu Singh, PW10-Ranjodh Singh and other residents of village Chattarpura went to attend the said marriage. When Mohinder Singh did not return back from the said marriage till the morning of 2.7.1998, his father Sher Singh (PW8) along with his brother Sadhu Singh (PW5), Ranjodh Singh (PW10), Mohan Singh and Chand Singh went to Police Station Gobindgarh and lodged DDR No.40 (Ex.D1) at 7.35 a.m. with regard to missing of Mohinder Singh alias Bali stating therein that his son had gone to attend the marriage of brother of M/s Mittal Chemicals in village Kumbh on 1.7.1998 at about 8.30 p.m., but he had not returned to home.
After lodging the above report, the family members and relatives, including the prosecution witnesses were searching the deceased. On 6.7.1998, the dead body of Mohinder Singh alias Bali was found in a Gutter in the area of village Khumbh in decomposed condition. After recovering the dead body, on the statement of Sadhu Singh (PW8), which was recorded by SI Gurchain Singh (PW13) at 5.30 p.m. on 6.7.1998, FIR (Ex.PG) was registered against the accused for commission of the offence under Sections 302/201 IPC.
In his statement, PW5-Sadhu Singh stated that on 1.7.1998, he along with Ranjodh Singh (PW10) and deceased Mohinder Singh alias Bali and a number of other persons of village Chatarpur had gone in tractor- trolley to attend the marriage of the brother of M/s Mittal Chemicals. The marriage party continued till midnight. All the persons of their village, who Crl.Appeal No.230-DB of 2001 -3- went to attend that marriage, came back on their tractor trolleys after the marriage, but his nephew Mohinder Singh alias Bali did not come back. He further stated that when he along with PW10-Ranjodh Singh were coming back to their village on the scooter, his nephew Mohinder Singh alias Bali was coming on foot ahead of them towards the village with accused Jasbir Singh. He told him to come soon in the village, but he did not reach the village at night. On the next day, in the morning, when they inquired from the accused about the deceased, he told that the deceased sat near a garden as he had quarreled with him. He further told them that he did not know as to where the deceased then went away. In the morning of 2.7.1998, his brother Sher Singh and other persons of the village lodged the report regarding missing of deceased Mohinder Singh alias Bali. This witness further stated that on 6.7.1998, his relative Netar Singh (PW9) came to his house and told that on the midnight of the day of the marriage he was going on the scooter from village Chatarpur to village Borang Zer after inquiring about the health of his father-in-law in Amarbir Hospital, Khanna. When he reached near the bank of Minor Canal of village Khumb, he saw in the light of his scooter that accused Jasbir Singh was carrying a dead body on his shoulder near a Gutter. He further told that if they search for Mohinder Singh alias Bali near the Gutter, they can find some clue about him. Thereupon, he along with PW-9 Netar Singh and PW10-Ranjodh Singh went to search for Mohinder Singh near the Minor Canal. When they were searching the water of Minor Canal of village Khumbh and opened the cover of the Gutter, they saw the dead body of Mohinder Singh alias Bali lying in the Gutter. Thereafter, he left Netar Singh at the spot and went along with Ranjodh Singh to Police Station for reporting the matter. SI Crl.Appeal No.230-DB of 2001 -4- Gurchain Singh recorded his statement in Police Station, Gobindgarh on 6.7.1998 at 5.30 PM. In his statement, Sadhu Singh also stated that they were sure that accused Jasbir Singh had thrown the dead body of deceased Mohinder Singh alias Bali in the Gutter after murdering him with a view to destroy the evidence. He has done so because they had a dispute with accused Jasbir Singh relating to wall of their house since 2/3 years. On the basis of the said statement FIR (Ex.PG) was registered against the accused.
After recording the aforesaid statement and lodging the FIR, SI Gurchain Singh along with other police officials went to the spot. The dead body of the deceased was taken out of the Gutter with the help of Safai Sewak PW6-Inderpal. The inquest report (Ex.PC) was prepared. The dead body of the deceased was identified by PW3-Avtar Singh, father-in-law of the deceased. Thereafter the dead body was sent to the hospital for post- mortem examination.
On 7.7.1998, PW1-Dr.O.P. Aggarwal, Associate Professor of Medical College, Patiala along with Dr. Harish Tuli conducted the post mortem of the dead body of Mohinder Singh alias Bali. During the post motem examination, two injuries were found on the body of the deceased, i.e., a well defined legature mark on the front of neck underneath hyoid bone was fractured. The larynx, the trachea and the muscles were injured, clotted blood was present in the injured area; and lacerated wound 6 cm x 1 cm on the right side of head, the underneath skull bone was fractured, clotted blood was present in the skull cavity under the fracture. In the opinion of the doctors, the cause of death was due to strangulation and ante mortem head injury, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of narture.
Crl.Appeal No.230-DB of 2001 -5-
During investigation, on 14.7.1998 the accused was produced before the police by PW7-Nirmal Singh. According to the prosecution version, on 7.7.1998 the accused made extra-judicial confession before the said witness to the effect that on 1.7.1998 when he along with deceased Mohinder Singh alias Bali was coming from the marriage in the family of M/s Mittal Chemicals of village Chatarpur, he decided to finish Mohinder Singh alias Bali because of old enmity with regard to the dispute of wall. When they were little behind the boundary of the village, he took a brick and hit the same on the head of the deceased. Thereafter he strangulated him with his hands. When he died at the spot, then he threw the dead body in the Gutter. It is submitted here that the said witness did not support the said prosecution version. He has only stated that he had produced the accused on 14.7.1998 to the police but he did not make any extra-judicial confession before him.
During the investigation, on the disclosure statement made by the accused, a purse of blue colour containing Rs.30/-, the photograph and the driving licence of the deceased was also got recovered from the accused vide recovery memo (Ex.PG) in the Pahi by digging the soil which goes from village Khumb to village Chattarpura.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses, including PW1-Dr.O.P.Aggarwal, who conducted post-mortem of the deceased, PW2-Kamlesh, Clerk of DTO Office, Fatehgarh Sahib, who proved the driving licence of the deceased, PW3-Avtar Singh, father-in-law of the deceased, who witnessed the recovery of the dead body of the deceased from the Gutter of village Khumbh, identified the dead body and signed the inquest report (Ex.PC). In cross-examination, this witness has Crl.Appeal No.230-DB of 2001 -6- stated that since 2.7.1998, he along with PW5-Sadhu Singh, PW10-Ranjodh Singh, Gurmukh Singh and PW8-Sher Singh searched the deceased. Till 6.7.1998 they could not find any cause of his disappearance. On 6.7.1998, Panchayat of village Khumbh informed them about the dead body of Mohinder Singh alias Bali lying in the Gutter. When he went to the spot, police had already reached there. Netar Singh, Sadhu Singh and Sher Singh, prosecution witnesses were also present there. Thereafter, the dead body was pulled out from the Gutter by the police and sent for post mortem examination.
PW4-Harjinder Singh, Patwari of village Khumbh, who prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence. PW5-Sadhu Singh, uncle of the deceased, on whose statement the FIR was registered. PW6-Inderpal, Safai Sewak, who took out the dead body from the Gutter. PW7-Nirmal Singh, who produced the accused to the police and before whom the alleged extra-judicial confession was made. This witness does not support the prosecution version with regard to the alleged extra judicial confession made by the accused before him. PW8-Sher Singh, father of the deceased, who got lodged DDR (Ex.D1) about his missing son on 7.7.1998. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he had received the message from Sarpanch of village Khumbh regarding the death of his son Mohinder Singh alias Bali and that his dead body was lying in the Gutter, through Chowkidar of the village. He has further stated till the recording of the report with the police, he did not know the name of the accused. PW9-Netar Singh, the witness who had seen last time the accused carrying a dead body in the intervening night of 1/2.7.1998 on his shoulder in the light of his scooter near culvert of village Khumb. This witness has also not supported Crl.Appeal No.230-DB of 2001 -7- the prosecution version. PW10-Ranjodh Singh, who had seen the deceased with the accused along with PW5-Sadhu Singh when they were returning back from the marriage to their village. PW11-ASI Balbir Singh, who had recovered one purse containing Rs.30/- vide recovery memo (Ex.PG). PW12-Dr.Ranjit Singh, who referred the case for post mortem to Professor and Head of the Department Forensic Science, Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. PW13-DSP Gurchain Singh, Investigating Officer, who recorded the FIR (Ex.PG) and arrested the accused on 14.7.1998.
In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused pleaded innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated on account of old enmity and party faction. However, no evidence was led by the accused in defence.
After hearing the counsel for the parties and on the basis of medical evidence and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, which were found to be trustworthy, the trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302/201 IPC and sentenced him, as referred to above. Against the said judgment, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant.
We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the instant case is based upon circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has miserably failed to lead sufficient circumstantial evidence which conclusively establishes the alleged guilt against the appellant. Learned counsel argued that the prosecution has heavily relied upon the last seen evidence, i.e., before and after commission of the crime. According to the prosecution, PW5-Sadhu Singh and PW10-Ranjodh Singh alleged to have seen the deceased in the Crl.Appeal No.230-DB of 2001 -8- company of accused when in the intervening night of 1/2.7.1998 they were coming back from the marriage of the brother of M/s Mittal Chemicals. Learned counsel argued that the statements of these two witnesses are contradictory with each other, and both the witnesses had gone to Police Station in the morning of 2.7.1998 for lodging the report regarding missing of Mohinder Singh alias Bali (deceased). But they did not said anything about the last seen occurrence to the police. Learned counsel further argued that these two witnesses are closely related to the deceased. PW5-Sadhu Singh is the real uncle and PW10-Ranjodh Singh is the real cousin of the deceased. Therefore, in view of the major contradictions in their statements and their relations with the deceased, their testimony is not trustworthy. Learned counsel also argued that PW9-Netar Singh, who was alleged to have seen the accused carrying the dead body of the deceased near the Gutter in the intervening night of 1/2.7.1998, has not supported the prosecution version. He has not stated that the person who had carried the dead body was the accused. Learned counsel argued that even otherwise the said witness is the husband of the `Bua' of the deceased and he has made contradictory statement with regard to going to Hazoor Sahib and returning from there on the evening of 6.7.1998, when he was also searching the deceased along with other family members, cannot be relied upon being trustworthy.
Learned counsel further argued that the alleged extra-judicial confession made by the accused has not been proved by the prosecution. He further stated that the alleged motive has also not been established in the present case. On the basis of the alleged recovery of a purse containing Rs.30/- and the photograph at the instance of the appellant, itself is not Crl.Appeal No.230-DB of 2001 -9- sufficient to convict the appellant for commission of the offence of murder. While referring to the decisions of Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana v. State of W.B., (1994) 2 SCC 220 and State of Rajasthan v. Rajaram, 2003 SCC (Cri) 1965, learned counsel argued that in this case the prosecution has failed to establish the circumstantial evidence of the conclusive nature, which is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. He further argued that the circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution is capable of being explained by many other hypothesis, therefore, it cannot be said that those evidence are so complete as not to lead any reasonable ground for the belief consistent with the innocence of the accused. Therefore, it is not safe to convict the appellant on the basis of such inconsistent, weak and incomplete evidence.
On the other hand, learned State counsel argued that on the basis of the reliable evidence and the unbroken chain of the circumstances, which is complete, the prosecution has fully proved the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused.
In the present case, from the evidence led by the prosecution, it has been proved that Mohinder Singh alias Bali had died due to strangulation and head injury which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. From the statement of PW1-Dr.O.P. Aggarwal, it has also been proved that the death of Mohinder Singh alias Bali had taken place before five to seven days of the post mortem examination. From the medical evidence, it has been proved that Mohinder Singh alias Bali (deceased) could have died in the midnight of 1/2.7.1998. Merely because no alcoholic smell was found in the abdomen of the deceased, it cannot be Crl.Appeal No.230-DB of 2001 -10- presumed or held that the deceased had not gone to the marriage party. He might not have taken the alcohol in the marriage party.
In this case, there is no direct evidence for commission of the alleged offence. The case of the prosecution against the appellant is based upon circumstantial evidence. Now the question for consideration is whether the circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution is sufficient to establish the alleged commission of murder of the deceased by the appellant. In order to connect the appellant with the alleged crime, the prosecution has heavily relied upon the last seen evidence and the extra judicial confession made by the accused about the commission of the offence before PW7-Nirmal Singh, in addition to the alleged motive and recovery of the purse belonging to the deceased at the instance of the appellant vide recovery memo (Ex.PG).
As per the prosecution case, the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant when they were alleged to have been returning back to their village after attending the marriage. PW5-Sadhu Singh and PW10-Ranjodh Singh alleged to have seen them. If the statements of these two witnesses are closely scrutinized and analyzed, it appears that their testimony with regard to the last seen does not inspire any confidence. It is pertinent to mention here that when the deceased Mohinder Singh alias Bali did not return to the village after attending the marriage, PW8-Sher Singh, father of the deceased along with PW5-Sadhu Singh, PW10-Ranjodh Singh, Mohan Singh and Chand Singh, residents of the village went to Police Station, Gobindgarh and recorded the DDR (Ex.D1) regarding missing of Mohinder Singh alias Bali. As per PW5-Sadhu Singh, he and Ranjodh Singh had seen the deceased with the accused while coming to the village. Crl.Appeal No.230-DB of 2001 -11- He has further stated that when the accused did not reach the village, he inquired from the accused about Mohinder Singh alias Bali, then he told him that he had quarreled with the deceased and thereafter he left him there and came to the village. The said witness further stated that after that they searched the deceased and then lodged the DDR (Ex.D1) with the police. If Sadhu Singh (PW5) and Ranjodh Singh (PW10) had seen the deceased with the appellant in the last night, this fact must had been told by them to the police. To cover up this lapse, Sadhu Singh in his statement before the Court had taken the stand that he had not gone to Police Station on 2.7.1998 for lodging the FIR and only Sher Singh (PW8) along with other persons had gone to lodge the FIR. He has also stated that he did not put his signatures on DDR (Ex.D1). But,on the other hand, PW8-Sher Singh and PW10-Ranjodh Singh have categorically stated that PW5-Sadhu Singh had accompanied them on 2.7.1998 to Police Station for lodging the DDR (Ex.D1). The said witness has also stated that PW5-Sadhu Singh and Mohan Singh had signed the DDR (Ex.D1) in his presence. PW10-Ranjodh Singh has also made similar statement as made by PW5-Sadhu Singh with regard to last seen, but this witness has also not explained why this fact was not told by them to the police when they went to lodge the missing report of Mohinder Singh alias Bali. In his statement, this witness has admitted that he had accompanied PW8-Sher Singh to Police Station for lodging the DDR. It has further come in evidence that both these witnesses along with other family members and relatives were searching the deceased Mohinder Singh alias Bali, and till the recovery of the dead body, none of them had told to the police that they had seen the deceased in the company of the accused in the intervening night of 1/2.7.1998 when they were coming back Crl.Appeal No.230-DB of 2001 -12- to the village after attending the marriage. In view of this major contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the statements of these two witnesses with regard to last seen of the deceased in the company of accused are not reliable.
The other circumstantial evidence against the appellant is the statement of PW9-Netar Singh, who alleged to have seen the accused carrying the dead body of the deceased near the Gutter in the intervening night of 1/2.7.1998. Admittedly, this witness is the husband of the father's sister of the deceased. Though this witness while appearing in the Court has not supported the prosecution version that on 2.7.1998 at about 1.30 a.m. he had seen the accused carrying a dead body on his shoulder in the area near culvert of village Khumb. He has stated that he did not know the person who was carrying a dead body. Even otherwise, his statement is not reliable. According to PW3-Avtar Singh, father-in-law of the deceased, PW9-Netar Singh was also accompanying them along with other family members and relatives in searching the deceased, but they could not search him till 6.7.1998. To cover up the said part of the statement and the fact that the fact of last seen was not brought to the police and other family members, the said witness has concocted the story that after seeing the appellant carrying the dead body, he had gone gone to Hazoor Sahib from where he returned in the evening of 6.7.1998 and thereafter the dead body of the deceased was recovered on 7.7.1998 at noon time. The testimony of this witness that one person was carrying the dead body of deceased Mohinder Singh alias Bali on his shoulder near culvert of village Khumb, is also unreliable. If he could have seen the dead body of his son-in-law being carried by a person, he would have definitely told the said fact to the police and other family Crl.Appeal No.230-DB of 2001 -13- members of the deceased. Therefore, in our opinion, last seen evidence produced by the prosecution does not inspire any confidence and the same cannot be relied upon for convicting the appellant for commission of the offence of murder.
The second important circumstantial evidence is the alleged extra judicial confession made by the accused before PW7-Nirmal Singh. Though Nirmal Singh is an independent witness, but he has not supported the prosecution version to the extent that the appellant, who was produced by him before the police on 14.7.1998 had made any extra judicial confession before him on 7.7.1998. This witness was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. In cross-examination, he has only admitted that he had produced the appellant before the police but he did not make any extra judicial confession before him. In Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab, 1999(4) RCR (Crl.) 51 (SC), it was held that the evidence of extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence and it is not safe to rely upon the same until and unless the said evidence is corroborated by other independent evidence. The prosecution has not explained why accused would confide in this witness. They were not known to each other, except two/three months prior to the production of the accused before the police by PW7-Nirmal Singh.
There are another major contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution which indicate that when the dead body of the deceased was found in the Gutter by a resident of village Khumbh, then the Panchayat of the said village informed the police and thereafter the police came on the spot and the information was sent to the members of the deceased family and subsequently the FIR was got lodged on the statement of PW5-Sadhu Crl.Appeal No.230-DB of 2001 -14- Singh. The said witness has stated that on 6.7.1998, his relative Netar Singh (PW9) came to his house and told him that on the intervening night of1/2.7.1998, when after inquiring about the health of his father-in-law in Amarbir Hospital, Khanna, he reached near the bank of Minor Canal of village Khumb, he saw in the light of his scooter that accused Jasbir Singh was carrying the dead body on his shoulder near a Gutter. He further told that if they search for Mohinder Singh alias Bali near the Gutter, they can find some clue about him. Thereupon, he along with PW-9 Netar Singh and PW10-Ranjodh Singh went to search the deceased near the Minor Canal and found the dead body of Mohinder Singh alias Bali lying in the Gutter. After leaving Netar Singh at the spot, he went along with Ranjodh Singh to Police Station for reporting the matter.
In the inquest report (Ex.PC), neither PW5-Sadhu Singh nor PW10-Ranjodh Singh were shown present. When the said report was prepared, only Avtar Singh was shown to be present. Avtar Singh (PW3) categorically stated that they were informed by the Panchayat of village Khumbh about the dead body and thereafter they went to the spot and took out the dead body. Though, as per the prosecution version, PW5-Sadhu Singh and PW10-Ranjodh Singh were also present at that time. But, they did not sign the inquest report or identified the dead body. In the inquest report (Ex.PC), the version given by Sadhu Singh has also not been recorded. PW8-Sher Singh, father of the deceased has also in his testimony stated that he had received the message from Sarpanch of village Khumb regarding the dead body of his son Mohinder Singh alias Bali lying in the Gutter. On the other hand, as per PW5-Sadhu Singh, he along with PW10- Crl.Appeal No.230-DB of 2001 -15- Ranjodh Singh and PW9-Netar Singh went to the spot and searched the deceased near the Gutter, whereas PW9-Netar Singh has stated that he had come from Hazoor Sahib in the evening of 6.7.1998 and thereafter the dead body of the deceased was recovered on 7.7.1998 at noon time. This witness does not support the prosecution version to the effect that he along with PW5-Sadhu Singh and PW10-Ranjodh Singh had gone to the the area of village Khumbh and found the dead body of Mohinder Singh alias Bali lying in the Gutter. All this contradictory evidence creates a doubt in the prosecution version. It appears that after the recovery of the dead body from the Gutter on the information of the Panchayat, and after reaching the police on the spot, the statement of PW5-Sadhu Singh was recorded, on the basis of which the FIR in question was registered in which he had stated that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant when they were alleged to have been returning back to their village after attending the marriage. In our opinion, if PW5-Sadhu Singh could have been aware about the factum of last seen, i.e. before and after commission of the crime, he would have certainly told this fact to the police because as per the evidence of the prosecution, Sadhu Singh, father of the deceased along with PW3- Avtar Singh, PW8-Sher Singh, PW10-Ranjodh Singh and Gurmukh Singh, were searching the deceased till 6.7.1998, but they did not find any clue about him.
As far as the alleged motive is concerned, the same does not appear to be so strong for commission of the offence by the appellant, which would have prompted the appellant to commit the murder of the deceased. In case of direct evidence about murder, motive loses its significance. But when the proof of murder case rests on circumstantial evidence, motive Crl.Appeal No.230-DB of 2001 -16- plays an important role. In the instant case, as per the prosecution version, there was a dispute between the deceased and the appellant about the wall of the house. The said dispute pertains to four years back of the occurrence. Except the statement of Sadhu Singh in this regard, no other evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove the said motive. Therefore, in our opinion, it cannot be inferred that for the said motive the appellant might have committed the murder of the deceased. Further, we are of the opinion that merely on the basis of the recovery of the purse of the deceased at the instance of the appellant, particularly when other circumstantial evidence has been held to be not reliable, the conviction of the appellant cannot be upheld. The prosecution has failed to establish the complete chain of circumstantial evidence which lead to the conclusion of committing the guilt by the appellant. It has been consistently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that where a case rests on the 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 the accused or the guilt of any other person. But, in the instant case, the prosecution has failed to establish such circumstantial evidence which lead to the conclusion of the offence by the appellant.
In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court are set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge, forthwith.
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
Crl.Appeal No.230-DB of 2001 -17-
January 14, 2010 ( JORA SINGH )
vkg JUDGE
Crl.Appeal No.230-DB of 2001 -18-
Crl.Appeal No.230-DB of 2001 -19-