Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Mamta Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 August, 2019
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
Criminal Appeal Nos. 455/2014 & 595/2014
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
SINGLE BENCH
BEFORE JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 455/2014
Suresh Dhakad
Versus
State of M.P.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Pradeep Katare, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri R.K. Upadhyay, Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 595/2014
Smt. Mamta Bai
Versus
State of M.P. & Another
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None for the appellant.
Shri R.K. Upadhyay, Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State.
Shri Pradeep Katare, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
(21/08/2019) 2 Criminal Appeal Nos. 455/2014 & 595/2014 Per Vivek Agarwal, J.
These appeals have been filed respectively by the convicted accused and the prosecutrix being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.03.2014 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Sessions Case No. 246/2013, whereby learned Additional Session Judge has acquitted Kasumal Bai (accused No.2) from the charges under Sections 109 and 323 IPC but, convicted the appellant--Suresh Dhakad under Section 376 (1) of IPC with 10 years' R.I. and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. of 6 months. He has also been convicted under Section 323 IPC with 6 months R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, one month's additional R.I. The trial was conducted against two accused, namely, Suresh Dhakad (present appellant) and his wife Smt. Kasumal Bai. Thus, Criminal Appeal No. 455/2014 has been filed by the appellant-Suresh Dhakad seeking acquittal from the aforesaid charges and Criminal Appeal No. 595/2014 has been filed by the prosecutrix under Section 372 Cr.P.C. challenging the acquittal of accused No.2-Smt. Kasumal Bai.
[2] Brief facts leading to present appeal are that, as per prosecution story Proseuctrix PW-1 is a Asha Karyakarta at village Jamnai. On 29.05.2013, there was a call for mass strike of Asha worker at Guna, and therefore, she traveled to Guna along with accused No.2 Kasumal, a Asha Karyakarta at village Pareva and her 3 Criminal Appeal Nos. 455/2014 & 595/2014 husband Suresh Dhakad on their motor cycle. After such show of mass strike was over, they were returning to their respective villages between 7-8 pm on the motor cycle of convicted appellant, when at about 10 pm when such motor cycle reached dhodra puliya then Suresh had taken a bypass and had parked his motor cycle on a 'kachha rasta'. There convicted appellant had taken the prosecutrix to a nearby field where acquitted accused caught hold of her hands and then when prosecutrix shouted for help convicted accused had slapped her on her face and then committed rape on her. After such act was over, acquitted accused caught hold of her hand and brought her to the motor cycle and then she was dropped in village Pareva at her house with instructions, not to inform about such incident but only to tell she had fallen down from motor cycle. On the next day of incident i.e. 30.05.2013 at about 9:30, FIR was lodged at Police Station Jamner which is 5 km away. Copy of such FIR is Exhibit P-1 which was taken by Basant Naik (PW-8).
[3] Learned counsel for the convicted accused/appellant submits that this is a case of false accusation. There is overwriting in the FIR as to the date of incident. It is submitted that it is a glaring case of caste rivalry and convicted appellant and acquitted accused have been falsely implicated. It is unnatural that wife of a accused shall help her husband in violating the privacy of a lady. It is submitted that in fact it is a case where prosecutrix had competition with the wife of the convicted appellant as she is also a Asha 4 Criminal Appeal Nos. 455/2014 & 595/2014 Karyakarta and with a view to get her out of the picture, such case has been framed so that acquitted accused is relieved of her responsibility as Asha Karyakarta. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this court towards the MLC of prosecutrix and statements of doctor PW-1 who conducted such MLC on the prosecutrix, who noted her age to be 35 years and also a fact that she was brought by Ajay Sharma and had come along with her father. There were four bruises and six abrasions on her body which were all termed to be simple in nature caused by hard and blunt object within 14 hours of such MLC which was carried out at 10 am. Reading such MLC, it is pointed out that hymen of the prosecutrix was ruptured, vagina was transmitting one finger easily, cervix was transmitting little figure easily and samples were collected, sealed packed and handed over to the constable for chemical examination but doctor had not given any opinion about recent intercourse opining that victim seems to be habitual of sex. It is submitted that in the FSL report (Exhibit P-12), semen was found on article 'A' i.e. petticoat of the prosecutrix, 'C' slide of the prosecutrix and 'D' slide obtained from the convicted accused. No semen or sperms were found on Exhibit B i.e. pubic hair of the prosecutrix.
[4] It is submitted that merely on the basis of semen marks on the petticoat of the prosecutrix, conviction has been recorded whereas no confirmatory test has been applied as to whose semen was 5 Criminal Appeal Nos. 455/2014 & 595/2014 available on the petticoat of the prosecutrix. Thus, on the basis of shaky evidence, out of professional jealousy and caste rivalry convicted accused has been falsely implicated.
[5] Learned counsel for the appellant has read over evidence of PW-1 Prosecutrix to point out that she has admitted in her cross- examination that besides the acquitted accused, other Asha Karyarkat of neighboring village had also visited Guna to participate in such strike of Asha workers. She has also admitted that besides Asha Karyakarta, Nurses and Contract Managers were also present in such strike. She has also admitted that prior to alleged incident, she had travelled with the accused persons on their motor cycle on two-three occasions and she had good acquaintance with accused persons, and therefore, she had traveled to Guna on their motor cycle. Earlier she had visited Jamner and Raghogarh on their motor cycle. She also admitted that she is staying at Pareva in her maternal home where house of the accused is situated at some distance from the house of her father. She admitted that Kasumal is working as Asha Karyakarta prior to prosecutrix. She also admitted that Kasumal is Asha Karyakarta at village Pareva. It is also pointed out that prosecutrix admitted that Mangilal Dhakad, Shivcharan and Hariprasad are teachers and are also involved in local politics of the village. Mangilal is a teacher in the school in which Kasumal is working as a cook. She also admitted that Shivcharan and Hariprasad are brothers of 6 Criminal Appeal Nos. 455/2014 & 595/2014 Mangilal. She denied suggestion that Kasumal had lodged a report against Mangilal, Shivcharan and Hariprasad but admitted that the society which was preparing mid-day meals in the school was headed by Kasumal and prosecutrix is a member of such society. It is also admitted that after alleged incident Kasumal and Suresh had dropped her to the village on their motor cycle and also admitted that she had not narrated such incident to any of the members of the village. She admits that she had narrated this fact to the Police while lodging FIR Exhibit P-1, but a fact that she was threatened with life by such accused persons is not mentioned in the FIR, then she cannot give any reason for such omission. She admits that her clothes were not torned and she did not narrate this incident to anybody in the village as she was not knowing any person in the village, then said her own that she is posted in village Jamnai. She also admitted in Para 14 of her cross- examination that when Suresh Dhakad had pushed her, she had fallen down on her face, but had not sustained any injury on her face because of such push, and thereafter, she was dropped by the accused persons at her home. She had straight away gone to her home and had not met anybody on the way, then she said that she did not narrate this incident to anybody at home as everybody had gone to sleep. It is submitted that this is contrary to her statement in examination in chief, where she has mentioned that she could not report the matter because of lack of conveyance and has mentioned that since her family members had 7 Criminal Appeal Nos. 455/2014 & 595/2014 gone to sleep, she could not narrate any fact to anybody and had not reported the matter immediately.
[6] It is also submitted that witnesses of recovery are Ramesh Prasad Tiwari (PW-2), father of the prosecutrix, and Kamlesh son of Ramesh Tiwari i.e. brother of prosecutrix and no independent witness has been examined as a witness of recovery of certain pieces of jewelry from alleged place of incident. It is also pointed out that statement of prosecutrix that she could not narrate anything to her family members as everybody had gone to sleep is contrary to statements of her father Ramesh Prasad Tiwari (PW-2), who has mentioned that at about quarter to 11, when her daughter had arrived at home he had seen her face to be swollen and had also seen bleeding from nose and mouth. He had asked his daughter as to what happened, then she had narrated about the incident.
[7] It is submitted that Ramesh Prasad Tiwari (PW-2) has admitted that he had given permission to his daughter to travel to Guna along with accused persons. He also admitted that his daughter had travelled to Guna prior to the incident on two-three occasions along with the accused persons. It has also come on record that proscutrix is working at Jamnai whereas acquitted accused was working at village Pareva where exists maternal home of the prosecutrix. It is pointed out that this witness has admitted in Exhibit P-2, that mehrun color kangan with white color gems were seized from her on being presented by the prosecutrix. It is also submitted 8 Criminal Appeal Nos. 455/2014 & 595/2014 that Ramesh Prasad Tiwari (PW-2) has admitted that at about 9:30 he had a talk with the prosecutrix when she had informed that they have reached Pipalkhedi. This witness has admitted that distance between Pipalkhedi to village Pareva can be traveled in ½ hour's time on a motor cycle. This witness has admitted that despite getting information from his daughter about the incident, he had not informed anybody in the village in the night. This witness has improvised his statement that he was also threatened by the accused after he had reported the matter to the police.
[8] Santosh Dhakad (PW-4) has given a contrary statement in cross examination. He has submitted that when he had heard some voice from the house of prosecutrix, he visited house of the prosecutrix at about 11 in the night, when she had narrated the incident to him in the night. This is contrary to the statements of PW-1 and PW-2.
[9] Similarly, Shivcharan Dhakad (PW-6) has stated that when he had come to know about the incident on 29.05.2013, he had visited house of Ramesh Prasad Tiwari who had given him intimation on his phone asking him to visit his house. This too is contrary to the statement given by prosecutrix and her father i.e. PW-1 and PW-2. [10] Basant Naik (PW-8) who had taken the FIR has admitted that prosecutrix had not given any reason for delay in lodging the FIR and he too had not asked any reason for delay in lodging the FIR. This 9 Criminal Appeal Nos. 455/2014 & 595/2014 witness has admitted that he has not shown place from where earring, anklet (payal) and pieces of jewelry were collected in the spot map (Exhibit P-4), however, he has admitted that he had not shown these three things in the spot map because they were brought by the prosecutrix at the police station and were not seized from the place of the incident. This is a major lapse on the part of prosecution. It is apparent from Exhibit P-3 that such items have been shown to be seized from the place of the incident i.e. todra pavera kachi sarak puliya ke pass, therefore this seizure memo Exhibit P-3 is fake and contrary to the evidence of I.O. (PW-8) of the case. [11] Basant Naik (PW-8) has also admitted that place of incident is a nala which was uneven and if anybody is subjected to rape then injuries will be sustained in back and while recording FIR prosecutrix did not report any injury on her back. Even in the MLC Exhibit P-5, only one abrasion has been shown over the back which was not reported by the prosecutrix to the I.O. (PW-8).
[12] PW-11 Dr. Mukesh Sharma who had examined the accused did not find any injury mark on his private parts. PW-12 though noted 10 injuries on the body of the prosecutrix but termed them to be simple in nature. No injury was found on her private part and refused to give any opinion as to commission of rape as prosecutrix was habitual of intercourse. This witness has admitted that such injuries could have been sustained to a persons falling down 10 Criminal Appeal Nos. 455/2014 & 595/2014 from a motor cycle on path full of pebbles (kankar). She also admitted that there were no injuries on the private parts of the prosecutrix. [13] Learned trial Court has recorded a finding of conviction qua Suresh Dhakad on the ground that there was no enmity between the proseuctrix and the accused person and her statements are corroborated from the FIR (Exhibit P-1) in addition presence of sperm marks on petticoat and vaginal swab are sufficient to convict the accused person. Learned Court noted that in case of Vinod Kumar Yadav Vs. State of M.P., 2013 Part I ANJ Page 30, finding material contradictions in the evidence of prosecutrix and her husband and that being not corroborated with the medical evidence, acquittal of Vinod Kumar Yadav was recorded. In case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Babu Meena, 2013 MPWN Note 66, there was ambiguity in the timing of the incident as narrated by the prosecutrix and that was not corroborated by the medical evidence so also it was not supported by the so called eye witness, therefore, acquittal was confirmed. In case of Bharat Singh vs. State of M.P., 2006 Part-2 MPLJ 141, explanation given by the prosecutrix that she was sleeping inside the house with her three children keeping the door open was not accepted and acquittal was recorded. But in case of Ganga Singh vs State of M.P. 2013 Cr.L.J 3966, wherein it has been held that proseuctirx is not a co-accused and there is no need for correlation of her evidence and at all cost her evidence should be accepted. Human sperms were 11 Criminal Appeal Nos. 455/2014 & 595/2014 found on the private parts of the prosecutrix when Supreme Court had maintained the finding of conviction of the accused. Thus, it is evident that learned trial Court has noted a fact that there was an abrasion on the back of the prosecutrix and one bruise on the breast of the prosecutrix besides presence of human sperms on petticoat and vaginal swab and such evidence of the prosecution was supported by PW-2, 3, 4 & 6, therefore, in the light of law laid down in case of Ganga Singh (Supra) conviction of Suresh Dhakad has been recorded. However, acquittal of Kasumal has been recorded in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Priya Patel Vs. State of M.P., AIR 2006 SC 2639. Similarly reliance has been placed on the judgment of Arjun Singh vs. State of H.P., AIR 2009 SC 1568.
[14] Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment and submits that both the appeal need to be dismissed as learned trial Court appreciated the facts of the case in correct prospective, and therefore, that judgments do not call for any interference. [15] Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
[16] There are certain glaring omissions which have not been taken note of by the learned trial Court. Prosecutrix PW-1 in her Court statement has categorically mentioned in Para 14 that she had not met anybody on way to her house and had not narrated the incident to 12 Criminal Appeal Nos. 455/2014 & 595/2014 anybody at night as all had gone to sleep. Similarly, PW-2 her father Ramesh Prasad Tiwari has also admitted in para 7 of his cross examination that despite receiving intimation from his daughter at night he had not given such intimation to anybody from his village which is contrary to the evidence of PW-4 Santosh Dhakad who admitted that he had reached house of the prosecutrix which is at a distance of 5-6 houses. He has admitted that he had received intimation of such incident at about 11 pm, as he was at his home and had heard certain voice coming from house of prosecutrix and then he had asked prosecutrix about the incident in that very night when such incident was narrated to him in presence of Shivcharan, Amol Singh and parents of the prosecutrix. This witness also admitted in para 4 of cross-examination that 2-4 persons of the village had collected at the house of the prosecutrix. Similarly, PW-6 Shivcharan Dhakad has also admitted in para 5 of his cross-examination that at night itself Ramesh Prasad Tiwari (PW-2), had called him to his house by making a call on his mobile and when he had reached house of Ramesh, he had seen Santosh, Amol Singh and other persons of the village and then such incidence was narrated to them. This is a material omission in the testimony of the prosecutrix and Ramesh Prasad Tiwari (PW-2), father of the prosecutrix which has been ignored by the learned trial Court. Basant Naik (PW-8) I.O. of the case admitted that earrings, payal and pieces of kangan were produced by the prosecutrix at the police 13 Criminal Appeal Nos. 455/2014 & 595/2014 station and they were not seized from the place of the incident. Such admission by the I.O. in para 5 of the cross-examination belies the seizure memo Exhibit P-3. In fact in Exhibit P-3, it is clearly mentioned that seizure of such material was made from the place of the incident, where as contrary to this I.O. has mentioned that such items were produced by the prosecutrix at the police station. Thus, belying the story of the prosecution that while such rape was committed by the accused on prosecutrix she had lost such items at the place of the incident. This piece of corroborative evidence when eroded causes damage to the prosecution story.
[17] Another omission which has been overlooked by learned trial Court is that there is a consistent suggestion to the prosecutrix so also other prosecution witnesses that there was a rivalry with the accused No.2 inasmuch as she was heading the society supplying mid- day meal in the school where Mangilal, Shivcharan and Hariprasad are teachers and who happens to be relative of each other inasmuch as they wanted to dislodge accused No.2 Kasumal from the responsibility of presidentship of such society, and therefore, the trial Court's contention that 'there is no material to point out that there was any element of previous enmity between the prosecutrix and the accused', is factually incorrect. In fact, PW-1 has admitted that Kasumal is the president of the society and she is a member, though she has denied that Gram Sabha had passed a resolution to remove Kasumal and to lodge Mamta Dhakad as president of the society but this suggestion of 14 Criminal Appeal Nos. 455/2014 & 595/2014 the prosecution witnesses clearly suggests rivalry between the parties overlooked by the trail Court. The trail Court has also overlooked another aspect that clothes of the prosecutrix were not seized, because if story of the prosecutrix is to be believed then there would have been damage to the clothes worn by the prosecutrix at the time of the incident, namely, a yellow color saree and a blouse of red color. [18] Learned trial court has also not adverted to another important aspect, that is reported by PW-12, that such injury could have been sustained by prosecutrix on falling from a motor cycle. It has overlooked the fact that there were no injury mark on the private parts of the prosecutrix to substantiate the charge of rape. Mere presence of sperms marks on petticoat or vaginal slide are not sufficient to record finding of conviction. In fact FSL report (Ex.P-12) fails to report whether sperm was intact or its tail had separated and also number of such sperms and their motility rate which would have given sufficient idea as to time of intercourse.
[19] It is true as has been held in case of Sudhanshu Sekhar Sahu Vs. State of Orissa, 2003 SCC Criminal 1484 that a sole testimony of the victim of a sexual offence can be made basis for conviction provided it is safe, reliable and worthy of acceptance. It is also true that in case of Bhupendra Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, as reported in, AIR 2003 SC 4684, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that to insist on corroboration except in the rarest of the rare cases and discarding the evidence of a girl or a woman complaining 15 Criminal Appeal Nos. 455/2014 & 595/2014 rape or sexual molestation with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses, tested with doubt, disbelieved in suspicion cannot be appreciated and it amounts to adding insult to injury of a woman. The plea about of lack of corroboration has no substance. [20] It is also true that an unmerited acquittal has not good for the society if prosecution has succeeded in making out a convincing case for recording a finding as to the accused being guilty, the court should not lean in favour of acquittal by giving weight to irrelevant or insignificant circumstances or by resorting to technicalities or by assuming doubts and giving benefit thereof where none reasonably exists will encourage wolves in the society being in the prowl for easy pray more so when the victims of crime are helpless females or minor children, as has been held in State of Punjab vs. Ramdev Singh, AIR 2004 SC 1290.
[21] It is also well settled that absence of the injury on the person of the prosecutrix could not by itself be sufficient to discard the prosecution case. Injury on the body of the person of the victim is not a sign qua non to prove the charge of rape, as has been held in case of Dastgir Sab Vs. State of Karnataka, 2004 (3) SCC 106, but facts of that case were that rape was committed at a spot where dried up cotton plants were lying and accused made prosecutrix to lie on a land where there were cotton plants and thus it was natural that she would not sustain any visible injury, but in the present case since there is only 16 Criminal Appeal Nos. 455/2014 & 595/2014 one witness and defence has given a suggestion that she was also working as Asha Karyakarta, prosecutrix was working in a society supplying mid-day meal under the wife of the convicted accused and no injury marks were found on the body of the convicted accused and other accused was not examined medically to show that she sustained any injury when resistance was offered by the prosecutrix, then court is duty bound to examine all the circumstances leading to the offence starting from the motive of the accused.
[22] It has come on record that prosecutrix was knowing the accused and had moved on their motor cycle on previous occasions also with the consent of their relative. This fact has been admitted by Ramesh Prasad Tiwari (PW-2). It has also come on record that accused are staying in the same moholla in which exists maternal house of the prosecutrix. It has also come on record that PW-2 had a talk with the prosecutrix on her mobile at about 9:30 pm when she was just half an hour away form her residence yet no attempt was made by PW-2 to contact her when she had not reached her home by 10 pm. [23] Another aspect is that PW-1 and PW-2 have deposed that despite prosecutrix giving information about such incident, they had not contacted anybody from the village which is a material omission/contradiction vis a vis evidence of PW-4 and PW-6 who have not been declared hostile, therefore, when testimony of PW-4 and PW-6 is examined then delay in lodging the FIR is required to be explained by the prosecution though in other cases it may not be so 17 Criminal Appeal Nos. 455/2014 & 595/2014 fatal. There could have been a plan to frame the accused persons specially when there is suggestion that Shivcharan is brother of Mangilal and they are teachers in the school in which accused no.2 was heading a mid-day meal society and though denied suggestion that she had lodged a complaint against Mangilal and his brothers, therefore, if prosecution story could have been as plain and simple as has been accepted by the trial Court then there was no occasion for them to have suppressed presence of PW-4 and PW-6 in the night of the incident at their residence. Amol Singh has not been examined though his presence has been shown by both PW-4 and PW-6. Learned trial court has glossed over a fact that there was a motive of framing the accused persons inasmuch as PW-6 has admitted in para 7 of his cross-examination that Kasumal had given a report to the S.P. against them and SDOP had conducted enquiry on such report. This witness has though denied that on 14.06.2013 a proposal was made to remove Kasumal from the society and in her place nominate Mamta Dhakad wife of Rameshwar Dhakad as president of the society. Such report was made to the S.P. Guna prior to lodging of the FIR by the prosecution, a fact which has not been controverted by any of the prosecution witnesses and circumvented by the I.O. of the case which provide sufficient material to accept contention of the accused persons that they have been falsely implicated because of earlier rivalry of the parties. These suggestions and failure of the prosecution to produce 18 Criminal Appeal Nos. 455/2014 & 595/2014 the complaint made by Kasumal to S.P., Guna on which SDOP had conducted enquiry and given his enquiry report clearly substantiate the allegation that there was a rivalry between accused party and complainant party so also prosecution witnesses, though denied by PW-1, 2, 4 & 6, and that resulted in false accusation after making a plan, else reason for delay in FIR would have been given by the prosecutrix while lodging FIR. Basant Naik (PW-8) has accepted that no reason for delay was assigned by the prosecutrix. In light of these facts, statements of I.O. also becomes important that he had not seized broken bangle or anklet (payal) or earring from the spot, and therefore, had not shown them in the spot map because they were not seized from the spot but were produced by the proseuctrix at the police station. This circumstance cannot be overlooked merely because no woman would like to castigate anybody falsely at the cost of her own chastity and if such presumption is drawn then it will amount to treating such a woman, victim of a crime to be an accomplice in crime. Such lofty ideals and realistic social conditions are to be dovetailed looking to the local socio-cultural background of this particular geographical area which is otherwise known for false accusation.
[24] Kasumal Bai (DW-2) in her cross examination has submitted that she had lodged a complaint against Mangilal Dhakad, Shivcharan Dhakad and Hariprasad Dhakad for demand of money and she has produced a photocopy of such complaint against them that 19 Criminal Appeal Nos. 455/2014 & 595/2014 they are harassing her for quite sometime. This witness has also admitted that this incident is used as a ploy to get them i.e. she and her husband removed from their respective posts and there is no denial or rebuttal from the prosecution side to such facts. [25] In view of such facts, prosecution has not been able to complete the chain as they have not been able to substantiate seizure of missing jewelry from the place of the incident i.e. a vital missing link in the chain of circumstances and in view of such vital missing link, coupled with the fact that there are several omissions in the prosecution story so to point out towards singular guilt of the accused, this court is of the opinion that it is a clear case of false accusation to settle scores with the wife of the convicted accused for which accused has been made a pawn and trial court having overlooked so many inconsistencies in the prosecution story, this court extends benefit of doubt to the accused - Suresh Dhakad and directs that he be acquitted from the charges under section 376 (1) and 323 IPC as prosecution has failed to prove such charges beyond reasonable doubt and mere presence of a spot on petticoat of the prosecutrix is not sufficient to record finding of conviction.
[26] Thus, Criminal Appeal No.455/2014 is allowed, conviction and sentence of accused Suresh Dhakad under Section 376 (1) & 323 of IPC is set aside. Appellant-Suresh Dhakad is in jail. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. [27] Criminal Appeal No.595/2014 is dismissed for the failure 20 Criminal Appeal Nos. 455/2014 & 595/2014 of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. [28] Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.
(Vivek Agarwal) Judge Aman Aman Tiwari 2019.08.21 18:23:15 +05'30'