Apeal 132.17 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.132 OF 2017.
APPELLANT: Suraj Shrikrushna Sonowane,
C-4862, detained in Central Prison,
Amravati, aged about 22 years, R/o
Bhatmarg, Tq.Babhulgaon, Distt.Yavatmal.
: VERSUS :
RESPONDENT: The State of Maharashtra
through Police Station Officer,
P.S.Babhulgaon, Tq.Babhulgaon,
Distt.Yavatmal.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr.R.M.Daruwala, Advocate (appointed) for the appellant.
Mrs.S.V.Kolhe, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM
: P.N.DESHMUKH, J.
DATED: 22nd DECEMBER, 2017. ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal is filed against judgment and order dated 2 nd April, 2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Sessions Trial No.82 of 2015, vide which appellant came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304(I) of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for one ::: Uploaded on - 28/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2017 00:52:26 ::: Apeal 132.17 2 month. Appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Briefly, case of prosecution can be stated as under :-
On 22nd June, 2013, PW 1 Kalim Gulab Shah, brother of deceased Jarbin Gulab Shah, lodged report, Exh.42, contending that on that day at 10 a.m. deceased was going towards bus stop of village Dighi on the motorcycle of one Shrikrishna Marbate when appellant met and quarrel took place between them on transaction of sale of cotton, during the course of which deceased had given 2 - 3 slaps to appellant. It is further case of prosecution that deceased thereafter along with PW 5 Raju Ramuji Sidam while was proceeding on the motorcycle, appellant met and on intercepting them threw chilly powder on their person due to which Raju Sidam left the company of deceased, who after alighting from the motorcycle while was cleaning chilly powder from his face was given a kick blow by appellant due to which he fell down on the ground and was thereafter assaulted on his head by appellant by means of big stone causing his death.
::: Uploaded on - 28/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2017 00:52:26 ::: Apeal 132.17 3
3. PW 1 Kalim Shah, Complainant therefore lodged his report which was received by PW 10 ASI, Ananda Bhagat at 8 p.m. and on the basis of same report offence vide Crime No.95 of 2013 was registered, which was further investigated by one P.I., Bawiskar (not examined) and thereafter by PW 11 Sugat Nathrao Pundge, PSI who had recorded statement of witnesses on 7th October, 2013, 8th October, 2013, 10th October, 2013 and 24th October, 2013. Further investigation was carried out by PW 12 Chandrashekhar Panjabrao Kadu, API who during the course of investigation, apprehended appellant from Ahemadabad and after bringing at Babhulgaon Police Station, on 18 th April, 2014 effected his arrest under arrest panchanama Exh.17 and sent appellant to Medical Officer for collecting his blood sample which was seized under seizure panchanama, Exh.19. On 20th April, 2015, he recorded statements of PW 6 Kaushal Dhonduji Bawane, PW 9 Kamala Pandit Munjewar, PW 13 Mangesh Rajendra Chaudhari and on 6th May, 2015 recorded statements of PW 7 Pandit Balkrushna Munjewar and also got recorded statements of PW ::: Uploaded on - 28/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2017 00:52:26 ::: Apeal 132.17 4 Mangesh Chaudhari, PW 4 Naresh Udhaorao Raut and PW Kamala Munjewar under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on completion of investigation filed charge-sheet before the Court of Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Babhulgaon. In the course of time, case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.
4. Charge, Exh.3 was framed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code to which he denied and claimed to be tried. The defence of appellant is of total denial and false implication.
It is his case that at the time of incident, on some transaction he was to receive some amount from deceased and for that reason alone he is falsely implicated in this case. Appellant, however, has not examined any witness in support of his case.
5. To establish the Charge framed, prosecution in all examined fourteen witnesses and commenced its evidence on examining PW 1 Kalim Gulab Shah, brother of the deceased who lodged report, Exh.42, PW 2 Jagdish Sureshrao Wadafale, spot ::: Uploaded on - 28/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2017 00:52:26 ::: Apeal 132.17 5 panch who has established spot panchanama, Exh.48 and seizure panchanama of stone, Exh.49, PW 3 Ganesh Ganpat Bagade on the incident of earlier assault by appellant on deceased, PW 4 Naresh Uddaorao Raut, PW 5 Raju Ramuji Sidam on the case of prosecution of appellant throwing chilly powder on deceased prior to assault, PW 6 Kaushal Dhonduji Bawane, the grocery shop owner, PW 7 Pandit Balkrushna Munjewar and PW 9 Kamala Pandit Munjewar, PW 8 Yogesh Shrawan Ablankar, owner of pan shop, PW 10 ASI Ananda Chandrabhan Bhagat, PW 11 Sugat Nathrao Pundge, PSI, PW 12 Chandrashekhar Panjabrao Kadu all Investigating Officers, PW 13 Mangesh Rajendra Chaudhari another pan shop owner and concluded its evidence on examining PW 14 Dr.Trishul Onkarrao Padole who has proved Post mortem report, Exh.43.
6. The learned trial judge on considering evidence of above witnesses and proved documents on record, convicted appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304(I) of the Indian Penal Code and has acquitted him of the offence punishable under ::: Uploaded on - 28/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2017 00:52:26 ::: Apeal 132.17 6 Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, this appeal.
7. Heard Shri R.M.Daruwal, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.S.V.Kolhe, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
8. It is submitted on behalf of appellant that though prosecution has examined witnesses claiming to be eye witnesses to the incident, their evidence is not convincing at all as their evidence his full of improvements, contradictions and omissions and is therefore not worthy to be relied upon to base conviction. It is further pointed out as to statements of all these witnesses relied by prosecution are recorded after many days of the incident without any satisfactory explanation on that point and has thus, contended that when the evidence is disbelieved, there is no other alternative than to allow the appeal and has thus, prayed that the appeal be allowed.
In support of his submissions, learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon in the case of Harbeer Singh ..vs.. ::: Uploaded on - 28/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2017 00:52:26 ::: Apeal 132.17 7 Sheeshpal and ors. reported in AIR 2016 SC 4958.
9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the impugned judgment and has contended that the learned trial Judge has rightly evaluated the evidence on record and convicted the appellant. It is therefore contended that appeal be dismissed having no merit.
10. With the assistance of learned counsel of both sides, evidence on record is evaluated. From the evidence of PW 14 Dr.Trishul Padole, it has come on record that on 23 rd June, 2013 while he was working as Medical officer, he had performed post mortem on the dead body of deceased Jarbind Shah and had noted following external injuries.
1. Abrasion over left frontal region of size 2.5 x 1 cm. irregular and reddish.
2. Abrasion over left cheek of size 4 x 3 cm.
irregular and reddish.
3. Abrasion over left temporal region, of size 2 x 1 cm. irregular and reddish.
4. Lacerated wound over right high parietal ::: Uploaded on - 28/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2017 00:52:26 ::: Apeal 132.17 8 region vertically placed of size 3 x 0.5 cm. into bone deep. Lower end of wound is 10 cm.
above from tip of right mastoid.
5. Abrasion over nape of neck, of size 1 x 1 cm.
irregular and reddish.
6. Abrasion over right forearm, lower one third on lateral aspect of size 2 x 0.5 cm. irregular and reddish.
Following internal injury were noted which were stated to be ante mortem
1. Under-scalp contusion over right parietal region of size 7 x 4 cms. reddish and haemorrhage under both temporalis muscles.
2. Fracture of skull. Undisplaced liner fracture of anterior cranial fossa at left lesser wing of sphenoid of length 3 cm., horizontally placed, fracture margins were irregular and blood infiltrated.
3. Undisplaced linear fracture radiating from right temporal to occipital region of length 9 cm.
obliquely placed and corresponding to injury No.4 mentioned in column NO.17. Fracture ::: Uploaded on - 28/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2017 00:52:26 ::: Apeal 132.17 9 margins were irregular and blood infiltrated.
4. Brain - subdural haemorrhage was present over right cerebral lobe, thick layer, reddish in colour.
5. Subarchnoid haemorrhage over both cerebral lobe and cerebellum, thick film of blood reddish in colour. Rest of brain matter was pale and oedematous.
6. 100 ml. of blood was present in the stomach.
11. According to the Medical Officer, injuries sustained by deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and has opined that the death of deceased is an outcome of head injuries sustained by him and issued postmortem report Exh.83.
Further evidence of Medical Officer reveals that on 19th July, 2013 one big stone was referred to him with query vide letter, Exh.25 to opine whether the injuries sustained by deceased were possible by stone referred to him and in his reply Medical Officer has opined that the injuries sustained by deceased were possible by stone which was identified by him as Article 'A'. The Medical ::: Uploaded on - 28/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2017 00:52:26 ::: Apeal 132.17 10 Officer has specifically denied that the injuries sustained by deceased are not possible by stone and has further stated that the injuries are even possible by single blow of stone or multiple blows.
12. Having considered evidence as aforesaid, homicidal death of deceased Jarbin Gulab Shah has been established by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. However, it is to be further ascertained whether whether appellant has caused death of deceased by assaulting by stone as is the case of prosecution. To satisfy on this count, evidence of PW 1 Kalim Gulab Shah, brother of the deceased and complainant reveals that on 22nd June, 2013, he returned back to his house after 5 p.m. and thereafter went to village Dighi for reaching labours at their house in his vehicle where he was informed by some boys that they had witnessed quarrel between deceased and the appellant. Therefore, complainant went to the house of PW 7 Pandit who used to sell liquor and found quarrel was in progress between appellant and deceased and as such intervened the same and requested deceased to accompany him back to home to which he replied that he would ::: Uploaded on - 28/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2017 00:52:27 ::: Apeal 132.17 11 come later. He has further stated that at that time PW 3 Ganesh Atram and One Purushottam Marbate (not examined) were present with the deceased and he returned back home.
13. Considering above evidence of complainant, he does not appear to be witness to the incident of assault but according to his evidence he is witness of quarrel which he claims to have seen between deceased and appellant on the day of incident after 5 p.m. He has further deposed that after having tea in his house he visited pan shop where he met one Salim who received telephonic information that deceased was lying in dead condition at Chondi bus stop and therefore accompanied him to the spot and found his brother lying dead at the bus stop and further deposed that at that time PW 3 Ganesh was present and was weeping who informed complainant that appellant has killed deceased by assaulting with stone. In the meantime, police arrived on the spot and took dead body to the hospital and he claims to have returned back to his house along with Salim.
::: Uploaded on - 28/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2017 00:52:27 ::: Apeal 132.17 12
14. Complainant further deposed that after he reached home PW 3 Ganesh visited his house weeping and informed that earlier on that day deceased along with Purushottam Marbate and Gajanan Atram had gone to Amravati on motorcycle and returned back after 3.30 p.m. and all of them thereafter went to the house of liquor seller where quarrel took place between deceased and the appellant where deceased gave slaps to appellant due to which appellant extended threats to deceased to kill him on that day by evening. Complainant further deposited that PW 3 Ganesh also informed him that thereafter deceased went towards bus stop with one Gajanan Artam and that appellant at that time threw chilly powder on deceased due to which he fell down and went to the nearby hand pump to clean his face. The hand pump is stated to be at the distance of 10 to 15 ft. from the house of liquor seller and stated that according to the further information given by PW Ganesh after deceased returned from urination, appellant threw big stone on his head, causing his death and on getting knowledge as aforesaid, he went to Babhulgaon Police Station and lodged written report, Exh.42 on record scribed by his cousin Mansoor. ::: Uploaded on - 28/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2017 00:52:27 ::: Apeal 132.17 13
15. From this portion of evidence of complainant it is, therefore, found that all material information deposed by him with regard to death of deceased is received by him from PW 3 Ganesh. Admittedly, PW 1 Kalim, complainant thus, is not an witness to the incident of assault on deceased by appellant.
16. In that view of the matter, on perusal of evidence of PW 3 Ganesh Bagade it reveals that on the day of incident after 4.30 p.m. he along with deceased visited house of PW 7 Pandit, the liquor seller, for consuming liquor where appellant arrived and that though there was no quarrel between deceased and appellant, deceased gave 2 - 3 slaps to appellant and thus appellant extended fatal threats to deceased. He has further deposed that he had consumed more liquor therefore he went back to his home and while he was taking his meal, the complainant Kalim came to his house and claims to have informed him that somebody had killed Jarbin. In that view of the matter, it is specific evidence of PW 3 Ganesh that he had received information of assault on deceased by ::: Uploaded on - 28/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2017 00:52:27 ::: Apeal 132.17 14 someone from complainant Kalim and in total contrast of this evidence, it is deposed by PW 1 complainant that it is PW 3 Ganesh who had given him various details of events which took place on the day of incident after 5 p.m. till PW 3 Ganesh had witnessed appellant causing death of deceased by assaulting him by stone in his presence near bus stop at Chondi. Evidence of PW 3 Ganesh, therefore, dislodged the entire evidence of complainant as aforesaid.
17. On considering further evidence of complainant, he claims to have received information of assault on deceased also from PW 4 Naresh Raut when he deposed that Naresh had also witnessed the incident. In view of this specific evidence, on perusal of evidence of PW 4 Naresh it reveals that same is corroborated with the evidence of complainant when PW 4 Naresh has deposed that at the time of quarrel at Chondi bus stop appellant committed assault by stone on the head of deceased and ran away from the spot due to which he sustained bleeding injury to his head and succumbed to it. PW Naresh claims to have ::: Uploaded on - 28/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2017 00:52:27 ::: Apeal 132.17 15 witnessed the incident from the distance of 15 to 20 ft. while he was sitting in his vehicle, however, evidence of PW 4 Naresh appears to have material omissions when PW 11 PSI Pundge has admitted that said witness has not stated in his statement recorded by Police that he had witnessed quarrel between deceased and appellant on the day of incident. Though from his evidence it appears that the omission is only in respect to PW Naresh not witnessing quarrel between appellant and deceased, evidence of PW Naresh does not inspire confidence when he has deposed that he has witnessed appellant assaulting deceased by means of stone as it is his case that appellant in the course of same quarrel had committed assault by stone on the deceased. It is not the case that quarrel took place between deceased and appellant and after sometime appellant committed assault on deceased and both these incidents are one after another as can be seen from the evidence of PW Naresh.
In view of above fact if PW Naresh does not find to have witnessed the quarrel, it is difficult to rely upon his evidence to hold that he has witnessed assault by stone on deceased at the ::: Uploaded on - 28/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2017 00:52:27 ::: Apeal 132.17 16 hands of appellant. Similarly, he has even admitted that at the spot of incident at Chondi he had only witnessed quarrel going on in between appellant and deceased. Even otherwise his statement is recorded many days after the incident which took place on 22nd June, 2013 while his statement is recorded on 10th October, 2013 though according to the prosecution case he is an eye witness to the incident. No explanation is put forth for delay in recording statement of material witness. In the circumstances, there appears much substance when it is suggested to PW Naresh that he is deposing false and has not witnessed the incident of assault on deceased by appellant.
18. Coming back to the evidence of complainant as well as PW 3 Ganesh, as already mentioned aforesaid evidence of these two witnesses are contrary to each other on material facts. PW1's evidence also finds with full of material omissions even on the point of PW 4 Naresh witnessing incident as stated by him, as in his cross-examination he has admitted to have not stated in his statement recorded by police that PW Naresh Raut has seen the ::: Uploaded on - 28/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2017 00:52:27 ::: Apeal 132.17 17 incident and is unable to assign any reason why he has not stated so in his statement recorded police. He has further admitted to have not stated before police that on reaching to village Dighi some boys informed him that quarrel had taken place between deceased and appellant and therefore he went to house of PW 7 Pandit Munjewar. He has further admitted to have not stated before police that when deceased proceeded on motorcycle to Chondi, one Gajanan Atram was with him and that PW 3 Ganesh had informed him that he had witnessed the incident of assault on deceased. The evidence of PW 1 as aforesaid, therefore, requires to be kept out of consideration being not convincing at all, having full of omissions.
19. Similarly, on considering cross-examination of PW 3 Ganesh whose evidence even otherwise is not sufficient to be acted upon, being totally contrary to evidence of complainant, same also appears to be full of omissions when he has admitted to have not stated in his statement recorded by police that appellant had given fatal threats to deceased for which he is unable to state any reason. ::: Uploaded on - 28/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2017 00:52:27 ::: Apeal 132.17 18
20. Another witness whose evidence needs consideration is PW 5 Raju Sidam, who has deposed that on the day of incident on 22nd June, 2013 at 5.30 p.m. he met deceased with whom he accompanied on his motorcycle to visit pan shop, however, on the way since chilly powder had gone into his eyes, they stopped their vehicle and he went to obtain water from the house of one Dighade to wash his eyes and in the meantime deceased had left from that spot on motorcycle and thereafter he returned back to his home. Evidence of PW Raju thus only establishes somebody throwing chilly powder on deceased while he was proceeding with this witness on motorcycle and nothing more. His evidence even otherwise is not convincing to accept that chilly powder was thrown upon them as in his cross-examination he has admitted that substance which had gone into his eyes might be chilly powder he states it to be chilly powder by imagination. There is no investigation on this aspect.
21. With reference to above evidence, evidence of PW 6 ::: Uploaded on - 28/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2017 00:52:27 ::: Apeal 132.17 19 Khushal when perused though reveals that on the day of incident appellant had purchased chilly powder from his grocery shop, this material piece of evidence is an omission which goes to the root of the case when PW Khushal admits to have not stated in his statement recorded by police, that on the day of incident appellant had purchased chilly powder from his shop and is unable to assign any reason why it is not so stated by him in his statement. In view of his evidence as aforesaid having material improvements coupled with evidence of PW 5 Raju, there is absolutely no convincing evidence to establish that prior to assault appellant had extended fatal threats to deceased or that there was a quarrel between them or that appellant had thrown chilly powder upon deceased.
22. Prosecution thereafter has heavily relied on evidence of PW 7 Pandit Munjewar and his wife PW 9 Kamala Munjewar, both indulged in selling liquor from their house, on the point of quarrel between deceased and appellant prior to incident whose evidence is similar on the aspect of quarrel when it is deposed by them that on 22nd June, 2013 after 5.00 p.m. deceased had visited their house ::: Uploaded on - 28/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2017 00:52:27 ::: Apeal 132.17 20 along with PW 3 Ganesh and one Babu Marbate when appellant was present outside of their house and after some time quarrel took place between deceased and appellant wherein deceased gave one slap to appellant due to which he got annoyed and went to nearby shop of PW 6 Khushal for purchasing chilly powder and had attempted to throw the same upon deceased, however, due to intervention of PW 7 Pandit he could not do the same. He further deposed that thereafter at 7.30 he learnt about death of deceased near bus stop at Dighi. According to evidence of PW 7 Pandit, deceased had visited his house along with PW 3 Ganesh and one Babu Marbate. He has further deposed that after consuming liquor PW 3 Ganesh and Babu left his house and thereafter has deposed about quarrel and, appellant's attempt to throw chilly powder on deceased. However, contrary to above evidence, in his cross- examination PW 7 Pandit admits that at the time of throwing chilly powder PW 3 Ganesh as well as Babu Marbate were present. He further admits that at the time of recording his statement by police he had stated that deceased had given slaps to appellant and also that appellant after purchasing packet of chilly powder from the ::: Uploaded on - 28/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2017 00:52:27 ::: Apeal 132.17 21 shop of Khushal, opened it, however, he cannot assign any reason why same is not mentioned in his statement by police. Above omissions have been duly proved by PW 12 Chandrashekhar, API, who has recorded his statement when he has deposed that PW 7 had not stated in his statement as aforesaid.
23. Having considered and discussed evidence of witnesses as aforesaid, judicial note of fact is to be taken that when an incident is narrated by same person to different persons on different occasions, some differences in the mode of narrating the incident are bound to arise. However, such differences do not militate against the truthfulness of the narration unless the variations can be held to be so abnormal or unnatural as it would not occur if the witness would have really witnessed what he was narrating. From the evidence of PW 1 Kalim, complainant, PW 3 Ganesh, PW 4 Naresh Raut and PW 7 Pandit who claim to have witnessed either incident of quarrel which according to prosecution took place prior to assault or claim to have witnessed incident of assault, however, do not inspire confidence at all, as same are full ::: Uploaded on - 28/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2017 00:52:27 ::: Apeal 132.17 22 of contradictions and omissions which by no stretch of imagination can be said to be minor and as such, not material. It is settled that the minor discrepancies, omissions made by witnesses in their testimony and variations in earlier and later statements do not by itself make their testimony infirm, nor when the witnesses make improvements connected to irrelevant facts concerning relevant details, same cannot be labelled as omissions and contradictions but nature of evidence in the appeal in hand as discussed aforesaid is found to be a classic example of an attempt to falsely implicate accused, more particularly when none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution claiming to be the eyewitnesses to the incident are found to be reliable.
24. Similarly, another significant aspect in the appeal which requires consideration is of delay in recording statements of all the material witnesses though according to prosecution they are eyewitnesses to the incident as statement of PW 1 Kalim is recorded after four months of the incident while according to evidence of PW 12 Chandrashekhar, Investigating Officer, he has ::: Uploaded on - 28/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2017 00:52:27 ::: Apeal 132.17 23 recorded statements of PW 8 Yogesh Shrawan Ablankar, 9 Kamala Pandit Munjewar and 13 Mangesh Rajendra Chaudhari on 20 th April, 2015 and of PW 7 Pandit Balkrushna Munjewar on 6 th May, 2015 while the incident is of 22nd June, 2013 i.e. almost after two years from the date of incident for which no explanatory is on record.
25. In a case of Harbeer Singh..vs.. Sheeshpal and ors., cited supra, evidence of witnesses whose statements were recorded after 15 - 16 days from the date of incident was not relied upon observing that it would cast doubt upon the prosecution.
26. In the backdrop of above facts and particularly the omissions amounting to contradictions coupled with the delayed statements, recorded during the course of investigation, the case of prosecution is full of doubts, as it is a settled law that delay in recording statement of witnesses does not necessarily discredit their testimonies and Court may rely on such testimony if they are cogent and credible and the delay is explained to the satisfaction of ::: Uploaded on - 28/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2017 00:52:27 ::: Apeal 132.17 24 the Court. However, in the appeal in hand, the evidence of witnesses as discussed above is not at all creditworthy nor huge delay caused in recording statements of material witnesses is explained in any manner. Prosecution is thus, held to have failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The appeal is therefore liable to be allowed as per following order.
-ORDER-
The appeal is allowed.
The judgment and order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Sessions Case No.82 of 2015 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304(I) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for one month, is hereby quashed and set aside.
The appellant be released forthwith if not required in any other crime.
::: Uploaded on - 28/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2017 00:52:27 ::: Apeal 132.17 25
Fee payable to the learned Counsel appointed for the appellant is quantified to Rs.5000/- only.
JUDGE chute ::: Uploaded on - 28/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2017 00:52:27 ::: Apeal 132.17 26 ::: Uploaded on - 28/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2017 00:52:27 :::