Kerala High Court
Prasadh vs State Of Kerala on 11 June, 2021
Author: K.Haripal
Bench: K.Haripal
Crl.A.954/11 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1943
CRL.A NO. 954 OF 2011
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.05.2011 IN SC 236/2010 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC-I), THODUPUZHA
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
PRASADH @ KUTTAI,S/O.THANKAPPAN,
KOLLAPPALLIL HOUSE, VATTAKKANNI PARA, UDUMBANCHOLA,
IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.03.2021,
THE COURT ON 11.06.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.A.954/11 2
JUDGMENT
Appellant is the convict in S.C.No.236/2010 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Court, Thodupuzha. By the judgment dated 25.05.2011 he stands convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under Sections 452, 341, 323, and 308 IPC. Under Section 452 IPC he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and also fined Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. For the offence punishable under Section 341 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days and fined Rs.250/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one week; for offence under Section 323 IPC he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and also fined Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. Lastly, for the offence under Section 308 IPC he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 2½ years and also fined Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently. It is further stated that when the fine amounts are collected, Rs.2,500/- shall be paid as compensation to PW4, the wife of the injured. Aggrieved by the same, the convict has moved this Court under Section 374 of the Code of Crl.A.954/11 3 Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.
2. The Sessions Case had originated on a final report laid by the Sub Inspector of Police, Santhanpara police station in Idukki district which was registered on 9.01.2010 alleging offence punishable under Sections 452, 341, 294(b) and 323 IPC on the basis of the First Information Statement given by the son of the injured Bhaskaran. After investigation the charge sheet was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nedumkandam where the case was taken on file as CP 47/2010. By the time Section 308 IPC was also incorporated. Since it is a case triable exclusively by Court of Session, the Magistrate committed the case, after completing all the procedural formalities, to the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha from where it was made over to the trial court.
3. The precise allegation against the appellant/accused is that on 6.01.2010 at about 5 pm, after making preparations, he trespassed upon the residence, Kezhaplackal house of the injured bearing No.UMP XIII/88 of Udumbanchola in Chemmannur kara, caught hold of Bhaskaran the injured, who was about 73 years old, on his loins and thus wrongfully restrained him. He was dragged to the verandah of the house and was beaten on his left side of Crl.A.954/11 4 the neck and then was pushed down to the court yard from the verandah and thus caused him injuries. But for the timely intervention made by the witnesses the appellant would have stamped him and caused his culpable homicide. The crime was registered on the basis of the first information statement given by Manoj the son of the injured and, as stated earlier, on completion of investigation the charge sheet was laid before the court.
4. The said Bhaskaran died on 04.02.2010, at his residence, about one month after the incident. The police could not record the statement of the injured, as after the incident he became speechless.
5. On appearance before the trial court, after hearing counsel on both sides, when the charge was framed, read over and explained, the appellant pleaded not guilty. He was on bail. He was defended by a counsel of his choice. On the side of the prosecution, eight witnesses were examined and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked. On conclusion of the evidence, when examined under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all the incriminating materials stated against him. To the penultimate question he said that there was political animosity between himself and PW1 Manoj. He was the branch committee secretary of the CPM whereas the said Manoj was the area Crl.A.954/11 5 committee member. Out of political differences, himself and 14 others resigned from the CPM and joined the Congress party. From that day onwards PW1 was trying to fabricate false cases against him. After the present incident PW1 had caused him injuries with a chopper. In that incident he had suffered injuries and undergone treatment in Adimali hospital. Now a case is pending against PW1.
6. Having regard to the evidence made available before the court from the prosecution side, the learned Sessions Judge found that it is not a fit case for acquittal under Section 232 Cr.P.C. Thus the appellant was called upon to adduce evidence in his defence. However no oral evidence was adduced, but Ext.D1 was marked which is the copy of the charge sheet in C.C. No.358/2010 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nedumkandam, in which PW1 is the accused and the appellant is the injured. After hearing counsel on both sides, by the impugned judgment the trial court found the appellant not guilty of offence under Section 294(b) IPC, whereas on all other heads he was found guilty and convicted as aforestated. That conviction is called in question through this appeal.
7. The motive for the attack, according to the prosecution, is that Crl.A.954/11 6 about one month prior to the incident when Bhaskaran was standing at Vattakkannipara city, the appellant under a drunken bout tried to forcibly take money from his pocket, then Bhaskaran had pushed him, the appellant fell down and sustained injuries. According to the witnesses, at the intervention of higher-ups in the party, that matter was settled between them and there was no reason for the appellant again to attack Bhaskaran. Ext.D1 indicates that after the death of Bhaskaran on 04.02.2010, on 21.04.2010 at about 9.30 pm PW1 had attacked and injured the appellant for which Crime 131/2010 of Santhanpara police station was registered. After investigation, a charge sheet is laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nedumkandam alleging offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 232 and 324 IPC. Whatever it may be, that incident had happened much after the incident in question. That has no bearing whatsoever with the evidence in this case.
8. When heard, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is largely an emotional conviction rather than based on evidence tendered by the prosecution. According to him, even though it was alleged that the appellant had attacked and injured the said Bhaskaran on 06.01.2010 and was immediately taken to Nedumkandam hospital, and then referred to the Crl.A.954/11 7 Medical College Hospital, there is absolutely no supporting medical evidence. Ext.P2 medical certificate is not sufficient to reach a conviction as done by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Secondly, he pointed out that there is no independent witness supporting the conviction. PW4 the wife of the injured alone has supported the prosecution case. PW1 the first informant is not an eye witness to the occurrence, whatever he had stated are based on hearsay evidence and not admissible in evidence. The other household member the daughter-in-law of the injured, that is the wife of PW1, was not examined for reasons best known to them; PWs 5 and 6 could not give any support to the prosecution case. Even though they had allegedly stated to the police that they were eye witnesses to the occurrence and had reached the place of occurrence seeing the incident, they did not support the case and therefore it was not proper on the part of the trial court to convict the appellant based on the solitary interested version of PW4, the wife. Learned counsel also highlighted the delay in registering the crime. Even though the incident had happened on 06.01.2010, the crime was registered only on 09.01.2010 for which there is no explanation. Moreover the FIR had reached the court only on 10.1.2010 which also is not properly explained by the prosecution. On these Crl.A.954/11 8 considerations the learned counsel strongly pleaded for reversing the conviction and the sentences imposed on the appellant. He also pointed out that PW1 has axes to grind against the appellant. The Ext.D1 indicates that he was attacked and injured by PW1, though on a subsequent point of time. There was also political rivalry between them, that PW1 was waiting for an opportunity to wreak vengeance against him; the crime was the result of such a political animosity against him and thus it is motivated by his animosity.
9. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor strongly defended the judgment of the trial court and also the sentences imposed on the appellant. I have also summoned the records and went through the records in detail.
10. I shall briefly state the evidence tendered by the prosecution. PW1 Manoj is the son of the injured. He is running a shop about 100 metres away from the house. He had gone back to his house after being alerted by his wife. When he reached the house, the injured was remaining spell bound, without being able to narrate the incident. According to him, he along with others took the injured to Nedumkandam hospital from where he was referred to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. He gave the Ext.P1 first information statement while the injured was undergoing treatment in Medical College Crl.A.954/11 9 Hospital, Kottayam. His importance is that he had set the law in motion by giving the Ext.P1 first information statement. Even though he was given a much improved version before court, that need not be given any importance.
11. PW2 Dr.Cherian C. Ittycheria is the Professor of Medicine, Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, who issued the Ext.P2 treatment certificate in respect of the injured Bhaskaran. He proved the treatment certificate which indicates that the said Bhaskaran was admitted in the Medical College Hospital on 07.01.2010 and was discharged on 19.01.2010 and diagnosed as cerebro vascular accident on right side of hemiplegia, systemic hypertension, left side middle cerebral artery massive infarct. According to him, injury No.1 can be caused due to some risk factors like systemic hypertension. When asked as to whether it can be caused in an attack, he replied that stress field situation can produce injury No.1. According to him, stress can be caused in an attack. He further stated that injury No.2 is the after effect of injury No.1. The patient was conscious at the time of discharge, but he could not walk or do any activities. In other words, he was discharged in a vegetable condition without being able to stand himself or attend to his daily routines. It is very evident that he was unable to speak, after the incident. In Crl.A.954/11 10 other words, he was struck dumb. After that he never uttered a word. It is not disputed that, on 04.02.2010 he died at the residence. Even though PW2 had advised him to get reviewed after one month, before attending such a review he passed away.
12. PW3 K.Sunnichan is the Head Constable of Santhanpara police station who on 08.01.2010 had proceeded to Kottayam Medical College Hospital; since the injured was remaining unconscious, the Ext.P1 statement of PW1 was recorded and handed over to the Sub Inspector and thus the crime was registered.
13. PW4 Nalinakshi Amma is the wife of the injured. She supported the prosecution case. According to her, on 06.01.2010 at about 5 p.m., after attending to some agricultural operations in their property, while her husband was taking rest inside the room the appellant encroached the house and uttered abusive words against him, caught hold of his loin, then he was dragged to the verandah, beat him on his left side of the neck and then stamped him. He also pushed him down to the courtyard from the verandah. Then herself, the daughter-in-law, Surendran, Shibu and Mathai rushed to the spot and seeing them the appellant released her husband. According to her, the injured was Crl.A.954/11 11 immediately taken to Nedumkandam Hospital and then to the Medical College Hospital. After the incident her husband has not uttered a word. He was being fed via tubes. He was treated in the Medical College Hospital for about 10-20 days and died on the 29th day of the incident.
14. In cross-examination, she said that he was discharged from hospital not because he was relieved from the injuries, stating that his condition will not be improved. They also advised him to be taken to hospital for review after one month, but before that he passed away. She does not know whether her husband was having any ailment like hypertension or diabetes. He was not taking any medicine. The husband was very weak; at the time of the incident he was taking rest inside the house after doing agricultural operations. According to her the husband was dragged to the verandah from inside the room and pushed to the courtyard from the verandah; he fell on the courtyard, hitting his head on the ground. According to the witness, he had suffered injuries and his clothes were blood stained.
15. It is true that this witness has improved her version considerably before court. But she has given a statement to the effect that the appellant had trespassed into their residential house, caught hold of her husband at the room Crl.A.954/11 12 inside and dragged to the verandah, beaten him at the verandah and then pushed down to the courtyard. To this there is consistent evidence.
16. PW5 Shibu is one of the independent witnesses. But he denied having witnessed the occurrence. According to him, while hearing the cry of PW4 when he rushed to the house he saw Bhaskaran lying at the courtyard with his head on the lap of PW4. He did not see the accused attacking or injuring Bhaskaran. He was declared hostile to the prosecution and was cross- examined by the prosecutor.
17. PW6 Surendran is another occurrence witness. He is an attestor to the Ext.P5 scene mahazar also. He is a resident on the immediate southern side of the house of PWs 1 and 4. According to him, hearing a cry from the residence he rushed to the place and knew about the incident; he was told that there was some quarrel between Bhaskaran and the appellant. He also saw the appellant leaving the courtyard of the house towards the road. He has stated that after the incident the injured had not uttered a word.
18. PW7 is the then Sub Inspector of Santhanpara police station, who registered the crime, prepared the Ext.P5 scene mahazar, sent the report incorporating Section 308 IPC and also laid the charge sheet before court. Crl.A.954/11 13 PW8 is the Village Officer who prepared the Ext.P7 site plan.
19. The motive for the attack, according to the prosecution, is that about one month prior to the incident when Bhaskaran was standing at the Vattakkannipara city, the accused in a drunken bout had tried to forcibly take money from his pocket, Bhaskaran resisted and pushed him, then appellant had fallen down and sustained injuries. According to the witnesses, at the intervention of the leaders of the party, that dispute was settled between them and there was no reason for the appellant to attack the said Bhaskaran. Whatever it may be, the Ext.D1 indicates that after the death of Bhaskaran on 04.02.2010, on 21.4.2010 at about 9.10 p.m. PW1 had attacked and injured the appellant for which Crime 131/2010 of Santhanpara police station was registered. After investigation that charge sheet was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nedumkandam, alleging offence punishable under Section 294(b), 323 and 324 IPC. Whatever that be, the cause of action for Ext.D1 has arisen much after the incident in question. That has no relevance at all while analysing the evidence in this case.
20. Before considering the correctness of the finding under each count, I shall consider the argument of the learned counsel that it is an emotional Crl.A.954/11 14 conviction and that there is absolutely no basis in finding the appellant guilty under these heads. Of course, there is no wound certificate proved by the prosecution. Even though it is stated by the witnesses that immediately after the incident Bhaskaran was taken to the General Hospital, Nedumkandam on 06.01.2010 itself, no wound certificate was prepared, nor he was treated there, but was immediately referred to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. No wound certificate is seen prepared in the Medical College Hospital also. Except Ext.P2 treatment certificate, no material document is available to say that the said Bhaskaran was injured in the incident. Merely for the reason that no wound certificate was issued or obtained, having regard to the nature of the evidence tendered by the prosecution, it seems that the testimony of the witnesses and the supporting materials cannot be ignored by the court.
21. Secondly, the argument that there is no independent witness to support the prosecution case also cannot be accepted. The appellant and PWs 1 and 4 are relatives. Appellant is the son of the sister of the mother-in-law of PW1. In that way they are related. Therefore at the first place it cannot be believed that the witnesses have given false statement and created materials to fabricate evidence against him. The oral testimony of PW4 who is an eye Crl.A.954/11 15 witness cannot be eschewed. She is a natural witness. She is the wife of the injured. The place of occurrence is the residential house of the injured, PWs 1 and 4. Her presence in the house cannot be disputed. That has not been disputed also. Therefore being a natural witness her testimony cannot be thrown overboard. Though her statement before court contains elements of embellishments and exaggerations, still there is an underlying story that the appellant had trespassed upon their house and had attacked and injured Bhaskaran. At the time of the incident Bhaskaran was sitting inside the room on the south-western portion of their house. He was caught hold of by the appellant, then pulled to the verandah and then beaten at the verandah and pushed to the courtyard. That is evident from the testimony of PW4, PWs 5 and 6 have also supported the case though not to the full extent. Even though both of them had given statements to the investigating officer as though they were eye witnesses to the occurrence, before court they did not speak about the incident. PW6 stated that he had seen the appellant leaving the courtyard of PW4. Similarly, PW5 stated that he had gone to the place hearing the hue and cry of PW4 and others. Therefore the testimony of PWs 5 and 6 fall within the category of res gestae evidence, which is relevant and admissible Crl.A.954/11 16 under Section 6 of the Evidence Act.
22. The non-examination of the daughter-in-law of PW4 cannot be highlighted as a big issue by the defence. It is the prerogative of the prosecution to pick and choose their witnesses. Merely for the reason that the wife of PW1 was given up, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution. It appears that the defence has a case that at the time of examination of the witnesses PW1 and his wife were living apart. Whatever it may be, the non-examination of the said witness cannot be stated as a matter for taking adverse inference against the prosecution.
23. The delay in registering the crime also cannot be blown out of proportion. Of course, every delay in registering the crime cannot be stated as fatal to the prosecution. The most vital question is whether such delay has caused prejudice to the defence. Here the incident had happened on 06.01.2010 at 5 p.m. The injured was taken to Nedumkandam hospital and then to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. The place of occurrence is within Santhanpara police station. It is a remote high-range area. In all probability, the police must have been alerted from the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. They got information about the incident by the evening Crl.A.954/11 17 of 07.01.2010 and then on 08.01.2010 PW3 reached the Medical College Hospital; since the injured was unconscious, the statement of his son PW1 was recorded and after reaching back to the police station, the crime was registered on 09.01.2010. According to PW3, that evening the F.I.R. was sent to the court by post, which had reached the court on 10.01.2010. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, only natural delay has happened in the case. In my opinion, such an explanation, having regard to the location and geographical position of the area, is liable to be accepted. The defence also could not state any particular prejudice having been suffered by the reason that there was delay in registering the crime.
24. After going through the entire material on record and also the testimony of witnesses, it is quite clear that it was not an emotional conviction, as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had considered the oral testimony of witnesses elaborately. It is true that PW4 has bit exaggerated her version before court. But she being a rustic villager, a person who lives in a high-range habitat who does not seem to have much education, it is probable that when entered the box and gave evidence, she might have embellished her version. But the Court has the Crl.A.954/11 18 wisdom to differentiate between grain and chaff and realise what had actually happened at the place of occurrence. The fact that no wound certificate was obtained or that other independent witnesses did not fully support the prosecution case and also the delay in registering the crime in fact do not stand on the way of finding the true facts. The appellant is not a total stranger to the family of the injured. He is related to them. This fact is sufficient to rule out the suggestion that PWs 1 and 4 were giving false evidence against the appellant. Moreover, there is no supporting materials to say that there was political rivalry between the appellant and PW1, that PW1 was waiting for an opportunity to wreck vengeance, that attempts were made to fabricate false case against him etc. The conviction reached against the appellant is based on convincing materials tendered before court which could be accepted in spite of the fact that there were exaggerations, embellishments, etc.
25. Having said that the oral testimony of PW4 coupled with the res gestae evidence of PWs 5 and 6 and also the circumstances it is evident that the appellant had trespassed upon the residence of PW4 and unleashed an attack against the injured. Without any provocation he trespassed into the residential premises of the injured which clearly falls within the definition of Crl.A.954/11 19 trespass. The injured was badly roughed up by him. He was dragged to the verandah, was beaten there and then pushed to the courtyard and thus caused him hurt. Even though the wound certificate and other medical evidence as to what was the actual injuries sustained by him are not in evidence, it is certain that he was hurt and ultimately suffered paraplegia and ever since the incident he struck dumb. He has not opened his mouth after the incident and died on 04.02.2010 in such a condition. Even though it was contended that he was having hypertension, and also diabetes and those ailments must have been the reasons for the disability noted in Ext.P2, PW2 Medical Officer has stated that the injuries must have been the result of the attack made against him.
26. Having noticed that the appellant had trespassed upon the residence of PW4 and manhandled the injured, now the questions remaining are whether the offence punishable under Sections 452, 341, 323 and 308 IPC could be rightly found by the trial court. After considering the ingredients of the offences, it is certain that the appellant had wrongfully restrained the injured and pulled him from the room, taken to the verandah and manhandled him and then pushed to the courtyard. This will certainly attract offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 IPC and therefore the trial court is Crl.A.954/11 20 justified in arriving at a conclusion under those counts.
27. Turning to the offence under Section 452 IPC, I have no doubt that the trial court did not consider the ingredients of the offence properly. Section 452 IPC will be attracted only if house trespass was committed after making preparations for committing hurt, assault or wrongful restraint. Ingredients of the offence under Section 452 IPC can be stated thus:-
i. The accused committed house trespass;
ii. he did so entering into or remaining unlawfully in any building or tent or vessel;
iii. such building, tent or vessel was used as a human dwelling or place of worship or for custody or property and;
iv. the accused committed house trespass after making preparation for causing hurt to or for assaulting or for wrongfully restraining some persons or for putting some persons in the fear of hurt, assault or wrongful restraint. (emphasis supplied)
28. I have no doubt that the first three ingredients are attracted here.
But the evidence tendered by the prosecution does not even remotely suggest that the appellant had committed house trespass after making some Crl.A.954/11 21 preparations for committing the act of assault, etc. Since the criminality under the Section depends upon preparation, there must be clear evidence of it. It is not known as to what was the preparation made by him. Even the prosecution has no case that he had trespassed upon the house carrying any weapon of offence. They have no case that any weapon was used against the injured. Indeed, if there is the intention to commit an assault, the fact that the accused entered unarmed would be immaterial, all that the Section requires is that there should be preparation and not that it should be adequate. Section 452 IPC is a non-bailable offence which is graver in nature compared to the offences under Sections 448 and 451 IPC. In other words, the preparation which is one of the ingredients for attracting offence under Section 452 IPC must be brought out through solid evidence. If such a preparation is not made out, certainly, the offence under Section 452 IPC cannot be attracted. In my opinion, the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not go into such an important aspect and was not justified in convicting him under Section 452 IPC. Therefore that part of the conviction is liable to be interfered with. At the same time, I must state that in spite of the fact that the appellant is liable to be acquitted under Section 452 IPC, still offence under Section 451 IPC, which is a lighter offence, is Crl.A.954/11 22 attracted and is liable to be convicted under Section 451 IPC.
29. Turning to the offence under Section 308 IPC also, in my reading, there is no justification in convicting the appellant. Firstly, the offence under Section 308 IPC is an attempt to commit culpable homicide. Essentials of criminal attempt are:-
1. an existence of an intent on the part of the accused to commit a particular offence;
2. some steps taken towards it after completion of preparation;
3. the step must be apparently though not necessarily adapted to the purpose designed;
4. it must come dangerously near to success;
5. it must fall short of completion of the ultimate design.
30. Similarly, ingredients of an offence under Section 308 can be stated thus:-
1. the accused committed an act;
2. the said act was committed with the intention or knowledge to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder; and,
3. the act was committed in such circumstances that if the accused by that Crl.A.954/11 23 act had caused the death of the victim he would have been guilty of culpable homicide.
31. Here, no doubt, the appellant had trespassed upon the residential building of the injured and attacked and caused him bodily injuries. At the same time, there is absolutely no evidence to say that the appellant had in his mind intention or knowledge to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Though the injured had died within one month of the occurrence, there is no material to say that there is any nexus between the alleged incident and the cause of death. In the absence of materials and postmortem examination, it has to be assumed that it was a natural death. PW4 alone has stated that his intention was to do away with the injured. According to her, when the appellant had caught hold of the injured, she had beseeched that he should not be killed. If that might have been the spontaneous utterance made by an on-looker, whose perception or fear is not the guiding factor; that does not mean that the culprit had carried an intention to commit culpable homicide. There is no convincing evidence that he had knowledge that by the said act he would commit culpable homicide against the injured and in the absence of satisfactory and cogent evidence to prove offence under Section Crl.A.954/11 24 308 IPC the trial court was not justified in entering a conviction under the Section.
32. In other words, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted of the offence under Sections 452 and 308 IPC and is acquitted thereunder. At the same time, he is found guilty under Sections 451, 341 and 323 IPC.
33. Turning to the sentence, I feel that under Section 451 IPC he can be sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, (Rupees Ten thousand only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The sentence under Section 341 IPC can be maintained. Similarly, for the offence under Section 323 IPC, he can be sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and also can be fined Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently. When the fine under Section 451 IPC is realised, it will be paid as compensation to PW4.
Subject to the above modifications, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
K. HARIPAL
okb/14/5/21 JUDGE
//True copy// P.S. to Judge