Delhi District Court
State vs Bhagwat Singh on 12 August, 2025
Page 1 of 15
IN THE COURT OF ASHISH KUMAR MEENA
JMFC-01, SAKET COURT (SOUTH) NEW DELHI.
FIR NO.: 652/2015
U/S: 279/338 IPC
PS: FATEHPUR BERI
STATE
Vs.
BHAGWAT SINGH, S/o SH. JEET SINGH,
R/O H. NO.1012, G-BLOCK, PHASE-6,
AYA NAGAR, SHIV MANDIR, NEW DELHI.
........ ACCUSED
1. Sr. No. of the case : 2039296/2016
2. The date of offence : 08.09.2015
3. The name of the complainant : Sh. Chandra Matra
4. The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
5. The date of order : 12.08.2025
6. The final order : CONVICTED
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated, it is the allegation that Bhagwat Singh ("Accused") on 08.09.2015 at about 02:00 PM, at 5th Avenue, Bandh Road, Gadai Pur, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS- Fatehpur Beri on a public way, accused was found driving a Fortuner car bearing registration no. DL-3CAT-3276 ("offending vehicle") in a manner so rash or negligent so as to endanger the human life and personal safety of others. In consequence of his act, the accused hit a dustbin made up of iron causing grievous injury to co-passenger namely Chandra Matra. Thereby, the accused is being tried for the offence punishable u/s 279/338 IPC.
Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 652/2015 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Bhagwat Singh KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date:
2025.08.12 16:59:27 +0530 Page 2 of 15
2. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the IO. Consequently, accused was summoned after taking cognizance of offence. The accused was charged u/s 279/338 IPC and accordingly, the notice was framed against the accused to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate the allegations, prosecution examined total seven witnesses. PW-1 Sh. Loveneet Sahani has deposed that he was Manager in a Fab Interiors Company at Farm No. 5, Fifth Avenue, Bandh Road, Gadiphur Delhi. The farms belong to father of Sh. Jaskaran Singh. He was working in aforesaid company since last 15 years. On 08.09.2015, he had sent Chander Maitra and driver Bhagwat Singh for filling of the petrol in Fortuner car bearing no. 3276. Just after leaving the farm house the driver of the said car while driving the car in high speed in zig zag manner, rashly and negligently dashed the car in a big size MCD dustbin in front of farm no.3. In the accident Chander Maitra sustained injury in his eye and the same got fully damaged. The car also got damaged. He informed the police and the Chander Maitra was sent to the Fortis Hospital, Vasant Kunj where he was referred to AIIMS hospital in another car. Next day, he took his car to the PS by crane. He handed over the car to the police official which was seized vide Ex.PW1/A. He also handed over original RC, Insurance to the IO which was seized vide Ex.PW1/B. The IO had prepared the site plan at the instance of injured Chander Maitra in his presence vide Ex.PW1/C.
4. PW-2 Sh. Chander Maitra (Complainant/injured) has deposed that since 2006 he is working as office boy in aforesaid Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 652/2015 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Bhagwat Singh MEENA Date:
2025.08.12 16:59:33 +0530 Page 3 of 15 farm house and was residing there in servant quarter. On 08.09.2015 at around 02:00 pm, he alongwith driver Bhagat Singh was going for filling of the petrol in Fortuner car bearing no. 3276.
He alongwith driver Bhagwat Singh was sent for filling the petrol by the Manager namely Sh. Loveneet Sahai. He was sitting on the conductor seat of the car. Just after leaving the farm house, driver Bhagwat Singh started driving the car in high speed in zig zag manner, rashly and negligently. He even told him to drive the car carefully but he did not pay any attention towards his request. The driver while driving the car in aforesaid manner dashed the car in a big size MCD dustbin in front of farm no. 3. In the accident, he sustained injury in his right eye and head. His right eye got fully damaged. The car also got damaged. Office staff took him to Fortis Hospital Vasant Kunj. Thereafter he was taken to AIMS hospital as he sustained severe injury. Next day, Police came to the AIIMS Trauma Center where the police recorded his complaint vide Ex.PW2/A. He has shown the place of accident to the police.
5. PW-3 Sh. Jaskaran Singh has deposed that he has a company namely Fab Design. There are almost 18 workers in his company. Accused Bhagwat Singh was driver of his company who used to drive his car. He was the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration no. DL-2CAT-3276, make Fortuner. On 08.09.2015, accused Bhagwat Singh was driving his above-said vehicle. He got to know that one of his workers namely Chander Maitra was going alongwith his driver Bhagwat Singh in order to fill the fuel in the above-said car. His driver hit an iron dustbin and due to this his worker Chander Maitra got injured. He got notice u/s 133 MV Act by the IO and he assured the IO that he will produce the accused. He got his vehicle released on superdari from the Hon'ble Court.
Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 652/2015 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Bhagwat Singh KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date:
2025.08.12 16:59:38 +0530 Page 4 of 15 He gave reply of the notice of IO vide Ex.PW3/A.
6. PW-4 ASI Krishan Kumar has deposed that on 08.09.2015, he received DD No. 45 regarding MLC of an injured from Fortis Hospital, he alongwith Ct. Kapil Kumar went to Fortis Hospital and collected the MLC No. 3583/15 from there. He searched for injured and eye-witness, but no one was there. He got to know from the hospital that injured had already been taken to any unknown hospital. On next day 09.09.2015, he got to know that injured was got admitted in AIIMS Hospital. So, he went to AIIMS Hospital and met with injured namely Chander. He recorded his statement at AIIMS Hospital vide Ex.PW2/A. Thereafter, he came back to PS-Fatehpur Beri and got the FIR registered. After registration of FIR, he went to Farm No.5, Fifth Avenue, Bandh Road, Gadaipur and met with manager of the farm namely Loveneet Singh. He prepared site plan at the instance of Loveneet Singh vide Ex.PW1/C. He took the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL-2CAT-3276 into custody vide seizure Ex.PW1/A. He took documents pertaining to offending vehicle i.e. RC and Insurance certificate into custody vide Ex.PW1/B. He deposited the case property i.e. offending vehicle into malkhana. He placed documents on file. On next day, he got mechanical inspection conducted of the offending vehicle. He got verification of the document vide Ex.PW1/B. He gave notice u/s 133 MV Act to the registered owner of the offending vehicle vide Ex.PW4/A. The registered owner of the vehicle stated that Mr. Loveneet Sahni (who is manager of the farm) is looking in this matter and he will give reply. Thereafter, he gave notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. to Sh. Jaskaran regarding the clarification on some point vide Ex.PW4/B. He received reply of Sh. Jaskaran in reference of clarification sought Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date:
FIR No: 652/2015 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Bhagwat Singh 2025.08.12 16:59:42 +0530 Page 5 of 15 in the above-mentioned notice. He arrested the accused Bhagwat Singh, S/o Jit Singh vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/C. He conducted personal search of accused vide Ex.PW4/D. He got released the accused on police bail. Accused Bhagwat Singh produced his DL and he seized the same vide Ex.PW4/E. Thereafter, he collected MLC of the injured from Fortis Hospital and as per the opinion of doctor, nature of injury was grievous. Hence, section 338 IPC has been added. He got verified all the relevant documents from the concerned authority. He recorded statement of witnesses' u/s 161 Cr.P.C. The offending vehicle has already been released on superdari by the order of Hon'ble Court. He conducted investigation and prepared the charge-sheet and filed it before the Hon'ble Court.
7. PW-5 HC Subhash Chand has deposed that on 22.09.2015, he joined the investigation of this case. He alongwith IO went to Farm No.5, 5th Avenue, Radhey Mohan, Bandh Road, Gadaipur, New Delhi. At there, they met with accused Bhagwat Singh, R/o Phase-6, Aya Nagar and permanent R/o Almora, Uttarakhand. IO had arrested the accused in the present case vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/C. IO took personal search of accused vide personal search memo Ex.PW4/D. The accused has produced his surety and he was released on police bail. They came back to PS. IO had recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
8. PW-6 HC Kapil Kumar has deposed that in the intervening night of 8/9.09.2015, during night emergency duty alongwith HC Krishan. HC Krishan received DD no.45B and thereafter they reached at Fortis Hospital. At there, HC Krishan received MLC number 3583/15 of injured namely Chandar Singh. They got to Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 652/2015 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Bhagwat Singh KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2025.08.12
16:59:47
+0530
Page 6 of 15
know that above-mentioned injured has already been referred to any other hospital. HC Krishan searched for eye-witness in Fortis Hospital. However, no eye-witness was found there. Thereafter, IO set him free from Fortis Hospital and IO proceeded for AIIMS Hospital. He came back to PS. Later on, IO came to PS and recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
9. PW-7 Sh. Tasnim Uddin Siddiqui (Surveyor and Loss Assessors) has deposed that on 10.09.2015, on the request of HC Kishan Lal, PS-Fatehpur Beri. He has inspected one Tata Fortuner car bearing registration no. DL-2CAT-3276 which was in off road condition with fresh damages mentioned in his report vide Ex.PW7/A.
10. It is pertinent to mention that the accused has also admitted the genuineness of FIR, Certificate u/s 65B IEA supporting the FIR, GD No.45B, dt. 08.09.2015, Endorsement on rukka and MLC No.3583 without admitting the content of the same. Prosecution evidence was thereafter closed.
11. On completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded u/s 281 Cr.P.C r/w 313 Cr.P.C, wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused, to which accused stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and all the exhibits are false and manipulated. Further, the accused did not wish to lead defence evidence.
12. Final arguments heard. Case file perused.
13. Short point for determination before this court is as under:
- Digitally
signed by
ASHISH
ASHISH KUMAR
KUMAR MEENA
FIR No: 652/2015 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Bhagwat Singh MEENA Date:
2025.08.12
16:59:52
+0530
Page 7 of 15
''Whether on 08.09.2015 at about 02:00 PM, at 5th Avenue, Bandh Road, Gadaipur, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS-Fatehpur Beri on a public way, accused was found driving a Fortuner car bearing registration no. DL-3CAT-3276 ("offending vehicle") in a manner so rash or negligent so as to endanger the human life and personal safety of others. In consequence of his act, the accused hit a dustbin made up of iron causing grievous injury to co-passenger namely Chandra Matra. Thereby, the accused has committed the offence punishable u/s 279/338 IPC."
14. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the state that the ocular and the documentary evidence on record has proved the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. APP for the state submitted that there is sufficient material available on record to convict the accused and hence prayed for conviction of accused as per the evidence produced by the prosecution witnesses.
15. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused is innocent and falsely implicated in the present matter. Ld. Counsel submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent act of accused. It is submitted that there are several contradictions in the statement of complainant, thereby, making them not reliable witness. It is submitted that there is no evidence against the accused. It is submitted that the accused may be acquitted of all the charges.
16. In the present case accused is charged under Section Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 652/2015 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Bhagwat Singh MEENA Date:
2025.08.12 16:59:57 +0530 Page 8 of 15 279/337/338 IPC. Thus, the prosecution has to prove the following points to bring home the guilt of accused:
A. That the accused was driving the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL-3CAT-3276 at the time of accident i.e. identity of accused.
B. That the alleged accident is the result of rash and negligent driving of the accused at a public place.
C. Due to said rash or negligent act, accused hit a dustbin made up of iron causing grievous injury to co-passenger namely Chandra Matra.
17. Before appreciating the evidence on record, it is necessary for prosecution to prove the identity of accused being the driver of the vehicle. In Bal Kishan Vs. State Crl. Rev. P. No 08/2008 dated 06.06.2008, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that "In order to prove the case under Section 279/304-A IPC, the prosecution must prove the identity of the accused, that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, due to rash and negligent driving had caused the death of the deceased."
18. Section 279 of the IPC provides for the offence of rash driving or riding on a public way. It reads as under:
Section 279 IPC: "Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date:
FIR No: 652/2015 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Bhagwat Singh MEENA 2025.08.12 17:00:02 +0530 Page 9 of 15 one thousand rupees, or with both."
19. Section 338 IPC provide for the offences of causing hurt/grievous hurt by an act endangering life or personal safety of others. These provisions are the consequences of a rash or negligent act of driving on a public way punishable u/s 279 IPC.
Section 338 IPC: Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
20. On bare reading of the above provision, it becomes clear that there are primarily there are essential ingredients constituting offence of rash driving on a public way. Firstly, person must be driving or riding on a public way; Secondly, he must be driving in a rash or negligent manner; and thirdly, the act of accused is likely to endanger human life or cause hurt or injury to any person. In case of Mohammed Aynuddin Miyan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 2511, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed in detail as to what constitutes a rash or negligent act. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and with indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 652/2015 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Bhagwat Singh KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2025.08.12
17:00:09
+0530
Page 10 of 15
precaution guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution."
21. Further, in the case of Braham Dass vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 406, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "Obviously the foundation in accusations under Section 279 IPC is not negligence. Similarly in Section 304 A the stress is on causing death by negligence or rashness. Therefore, for bringing in application of either Section 279 or 304 A it must be established that there was an element of rashness or negligence. Even if the prosecution version is accepted in toto, there was no evidence led to show that any negligence was involved."
22. Thus, the key factor in determining rashness or negligence is absence of reasonable care and precaution or the failure to exercise reasonable care and caution. It is worth noting that the intent behind the rash or negligent act is irrelevant. Further, there should be direct link between the negligent act and the consequences thereof including hurt/grievous hurt/death (not amounting to culpable homicide). Thus, hurt/grievous hurt as the case may be must be caused by a rash or negligent act endangering human life or personal safety of others.
23. In present case, prosecution has submitted that the accused, on the day of incident, was driving offending vehicle with co- passenger Chandra Matra at high speed in a manner so rash and negligent that it endangered the human life and personal safety of co-passenger and other persons. Consequently, accused hit one dustbin made up of iron due to which co-passenger Chandra Matra sustained grievous injury. Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 652/2015 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Bhagwat Singh KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2025.08.12
17:00:14
+0530
Page 11 of 15
24. As discussed above, the prosecution was required to establish the identity of the accused i.e. the accused was driving the offending vehicle on the day of incident. It is to be noted that PW-1 Loveneet Sahani, PW-2/Injured Chandra Matra have established the identity of accused. It is further to be noted accused himself has not disputed the fact that the he was driving the offending vehicle on the day of incident. Thus, the prosecution has successfully established the identity of the accused.
25. In furtherance of above discussion, now a question arises before this Court as to whether a presumption of rashness or negligence can be drawn in the present case against the accused driver by invoking the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The verbatim meaning of the doctrine is "things speak for themselves" is mostly applicable in the civil cases. The presumption is drawn against the wrongdoer that taken due and proper care or he has done certain acts rashly. Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed the applicability of this doctrine in case titled as Ravi Kapur vs. State of Rajasthan (2012) 9 SCC 285 Supreme Court, wherein it was held that "In light of the above, now we have to examine if negligence in the case of an accident can be gathered from the attendant circumstances. We have already held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is equally applicable to the cases of accident and not merely to the civil jurisprudence. Thus, these principles can equally be extended to criminal cases provided the attendant circumstances and basic facts are proved. It may also be noticed that either the accident must be proved by proper and cogent evidence or it should be an admitted fact before this principle can be applied. This doctrine comes to aid at a subsequent stage where it is not clear as to how and due to whose negligence, the accident occurred. The factum of accident having been established, the Court with the aid of proper Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 652/2015 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Bhagwat Singh KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2025.08.12
17:00:19
+0530
Page 12 of 15
evidence may take assistance of the attendant circumstances and apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The mere fact of occurrence of an accident does not necessarily imply that it must be owed to someone's negligence. In cases where negligence is the primary cause, it may not always be that direct evidence to prove it exists. In such cases, the circumstantial evidence may be adduced to prove negligence. Circumstantial evidence consists of facts that necessarily point to negligence as a logical conclusion rather than providing an outright demonstration thereof. Elements of this doctrine may be stated as:
(i) The event would not have occurred but for someone's negligence?
(ii) The evidence on record rules out the possibility that actions of the victim or some third party could be the reason behind the event.
(iii)Accused was negligent and owed a duty of care towards the victim.
26. The prosecution is further required to prove that the alleged accident is the result of rash and negligent driving of the accused at a public place. In this regard, the injured PW-2 Chandra Matra has deposed that on 08.09.2015, as per the instruction of Loveneet Sahani, he alongwith accused was going to fill petrol in the offending vehicle. The injured was sitting on the conductor side. He noticed that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner. He cautioned the accused not to drive rashly but accused did not pay heed to his request. The accused dashed the offending vehicle into big size MCD Dustbin made of Iron, due to which his right eye got fully damaged. Thereafter, he was taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre, where his statement was recorder by the IO vide Ex. PW2/A. It is to be noted that PW-1 Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 652/2015 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Bhagwat Singh MEENA Date:
2025.08.12 17:00:25 +0530 Page 13 of 15 Loveneet Sahani has corroborated the version of prosecution and the injured. PW-1 stated that he the injured Chander Matra and his driver Bhagwat Singh (accused) for filling of petrol in offending vehicle. He saw the accused driving offending vehicle at high speed in zig zag manner. He also witnessed the accident. It is further to be noted that both witnesses were duly cross-examined by the accused, but no contradiction or variation or improvement has come on record. The statement of injured and eye-witness inspires the confidence of this Court.
27. Furthermore, IO PW-4 ASI Krishan (the then HC) has deposed that on receiving information vide DD No. 45 regarding the accident, he alongwith Ct. Kapil Kumar reached at the Fortis hospital. However, he was informed that the injured has been taken to some other hospital. Thus, on the next day, he visited AIIMS Trauma Centra and met the injured namely Sh. Chandra Matra. IO recorded the statement of the injured vide Ex. PW2/A and got the present FIR registered. Thereafter, he visited the place of incident and prepared the site plan at the instance eye-witness PW Loveneet Sahani vide Ex. PW1/C. He also seized the offending vehicle vide Ex. PW1/A. Similarly, he seized the documents of offending vehicle vide Ex. PW1/B. During investigation, on the basis of statement of complainant and eye-witness, IO arrested the accused and released on bail. IO also seized driving license of the accused vide Ex. PW4/E. The IO also got the offending vehicle examined. PW-4/IO has also placed photographs (Ex. P1 Colly) that depicts big size iron dustbin and damaged offending vehicle. The damaged caused to the offending has also been confirmed by mechanical inspector PW-7 Tasnim Uddin Siddique. PW-7 has deposed that he inspected the offending vehicle and prepared the report vide Ex.
Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 652/2015 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Bhagwat Singh KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2025.08.12
17:00:30
+0530
Page 14 of 15
PW7/A. As per the report, the offending vehicle has sustained damages in front and left side of the vehicle. Ex. PW7/A duly corroborates the photographs of the offending vehicle Vide Ex. P1 Colly. The statement of witnesses completes the chain of evidence leaving behind no lacuna or chances of contradiction.
28. Further, the evidence available on record itself suggests that the accused dashed offending vehicle into the big sized MCD Dustbin made of Iron. The said fact has been proved by the injured and eye-witness. There is no inconsistency or material contradiction found between the statement of these witnesses. In view of this Court, the IO has collected all the documentary evidence to support the claim of the injured. Thus, the prosecution has successfully proved that accident is the result of rash and negligent driving of the accused at a public place. Therefore, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is equally applicable in the present case. The prosecution successfully proves negligence or rashness act of the accused. The possibility of event occurring due to someone else negligence is also ruled out. It is needless to say that the accused did owe a duty of care towards the injured, however, he failed to do so. It is also proved that due to the said accident caused by the accused, injured Chander Matra has sustained grievous injuries.
29. Thus, this Court is of considered view that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of accused by direct as well as circumstantial evidence. Presumption of rash and negligent act on the part of accused can be raised by invoking the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. This presumption has remained unrebutted throughout the trial. Hence, in the backdrop of aforesaid Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 652/2015 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Bhagwat Singh MEENA Date:
2025.08.12 17:00:35 +0530 Page 15 of 15 discussion, facts and circumstances and material available on record, the prosecution has proved the charges u/s 279/338 IPC against the accused Bhagwat Singh beyond reasonable doubts.
30. Hence, the accused Sh. Bhagwat Singh, S/o Sh. Jeet Singh is convicted for offences u/s u/s 279/338 IPC.
31. Let the copy of judgment be given free of cost to the convict.
32. Let the convict be heard on point of sentence.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12.08.2025. IT IS CERTIFIED THAT THE PRESENT JUDGMENT RUNS INTO FIFTEEN PAGES AND EACH PAGE BEARS SIGNATURE OF THE UNDERSIGNED.
Digitally signedASHISH by ASHISH KUMAR MEENA KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2025.08.12 17:00:43 +0530 (ASHISH KUMAR MEENA) JMFC-01/SAKET COURT(SOUTH) NEW DELHI/12.08.2025 FIR No: 652/2015 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Bhagwat Singh