Sheo Raj Singh vs State Of U.P.
2015 Latest Caselaw 956 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 45
 

 
Case :- CAPITAL CASE No. - 6301 of 2007
 

 
Appellant :- Sheo Raj Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- S.P. Tewari, Satish Trivedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Vikram Nath,J.

Hon'ble Pratyush Kumar,J.

The Court is shocked at the manner in which the Trial Judge has recorded conviction and awarded death sentence to the accused appellant Sheo Raj Singh.

This is one of the unfortunate cases where on account of serious fallacy at the hand of the Trial Judge that the accused appellant is languishing in jail for the last 16 years for allegedly committing murder of both his parents.

William Blackstone expressed the famous ratio on the basic principle of Criminal Jurisprudence - "All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer". Later on Benjamin Franklin commenting on the Blackstone's ratio expressed in his own language as "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer". The law further develops and Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all guarantees necessary for his defence". The basic principle that charge of an offence is to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts so as to record a finding of conviction is well settled.

Defending British soldiers charged with murder for their role in the Boston Massacre, John Adams also expanded upon the rationale behind Blackstone's Formulation when he stated :

It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished....when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, 'it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.' And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever.

In the present case we have noticed that right from the reading of the FIR prosecution story appears to be shaky and uncertain. The complainant alleged dispute regarding inheritance of property as the motive for the crime. We have, however, noticed that it was the complainant himself who was also to be benefited if the accused was eliminated or condemned. Committing crime of murder by one of his own parents, both mother and father, is no doubt one of the rarest of the rare crimes that would be committed but at the same time the Trial Judge ought to have been very careful and cautious in appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution. We have dealt with the evidence led and upon its scrutiny we have noticed that the prosecution at every stage continued to improve its case so as to some how or the other get a finding of conviction. It was for the trial court to have noticed and rejected the prosecution story by bare application of common sense and logic, in the manner in which it was led.

The Apex Court in the judgment of Paramjeet Singh alias Pamma vs. State of Uttarakhand [(2010) 10 Supreme Court Cases 439] in paragraphs 10 to 12 of the report refers to the basic principles to be applied for while accepting the evidence and specially in such cases where the offence alleged is of a serious and brutal nature. Paragraphs 10 to 12 of the report are reproduced below :

10.A criminal trial is not a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and fantasy. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of an interplay between different human emotions. In arriving at a conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case, in the final analysis, would have to depend upon its own facts. The court must bear in mind that "human nature is too willing, when faced with brutal crimes, to spin stories out of strong suspicions." Though an offence may be gruesome and revolt the human conscience, an accused can be convicted only on legal evidence and not on surmises and conjecture. The law does not permit the court to punish the accused on the basis of a moral conviction or suspicion alone. "The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence." In fact, it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof required, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. The fact that the offence was committed in a very cruel and revolting manner may in itself be a reason for scrutinizing the evidence more closely, lest the shocking nature of the crime induce an instinctive reaction against dispassionate judicial scrutiny of the facts and law. (Vide : Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 159; State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh Baljit Singh & Anr., AIR 1973 SC 2407; Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 765; Mousam Singha Roy & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, (2003) 12 SCC 377; and Aloke Nath Dutta & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, (2007) 12 SCC 230).

11.In Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637, this Court observed : (AIR p. 645. Para 12)

12....considered as a whole the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence [before an accused can be convicted]."

12.Thus, the law on the point may be summarised to the effect that in a criminal trial involving a serious offence of a brutal nature, the court should be wary of the fact that it is human instinct to react adversely to the commission of the offence and make an effort to see that such an instinctive reaction does not prejudice the accused in any way. In a case where the offence alleged to have been committed is a serious one, the prosecution must provide greater assurance to the court that its case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

We now proceed to deal with the merits of the case.

This is a capital case appeal, coupled with death sentence reference, against the judgment and orders dated 05/06.09.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Court No. 9), Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No. 681 of 1999 [State Vs. Sheo Raj Singh] convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to death.

The first informant Pravin Kumar gave a written report (Ex.Ka-1) written by Veer Singh (D.W. 1) on 23.02.1999 at 10.30 AM addressed to Station House Officer, Police Station Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad stating therein that he was resident of village Sahibabad, Police Station Linkroad, District Ghaziabad, his grandfather Samai Singh and grandmother Sukhbeeri used to live with him. His uncle Sheo Raj Singh was living separately. Some dispute was going on in between deceased Samai Singh and his son Sheo Raj Singh regarding compensation of land acquired. One or two days before the incident some altercation took place between them. On the date of incident i.e. 23.02.1999 his grand parents went to cut Oats in the field at Vasundhara after sometime the appellant also followed them with a spade (Fawda). Some quarrel took place in between the grand parents and the appellant Sheo Raj Singh, hearing their hue and cry at about 8.45 AM, the complainant along with Kusumpal (P.W. 2 and D.W. 2) reached there and saw his grand parents lying dead and his uncle was running towards the village carrying the spade with him. His uncle had murdered his grand parents. Request was made for taking legal action.

On this complaint a first information report (Ex Ka-2) was registered vide Case Crime No. 34 of 1999, under Section 302 I.P.C. at Police Station Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad. The Investigating Officer (P.W.8) reached on the place of occurrence and conducted the inquest proceedings (Ex Ka-4), inspected the spot, prepared the site plan (Ex Ka-17) and took samples of blood stained and ordinary earth (Ex Ka 18 & 19) and after examining the witnesses further completed other formalities and sent the dead bodies for postmortem.

On the same day postmortem of both the dead bodies were conducted (Ex Ka-7 & 8) by Dr. Jitendra Kumar. On 27.02.1999 the accused-appellant surrendered before the court concerned. After examining him the Investigating Officer recovered the weapon (Spade) [Fard-Ex Ka-20 & Material Ex-2] used in the commission of crime on the pointing out of the appellant on 10.03.1999 at 14.10 PM from the field among the date trees. After completing investigation charge-sheet was filed. The court of Magistrate took cognizance in the matter and thereafter copy of the case diary and enclosed documents was furnished and the case was committed to the Court of Session. On 01.09.1999 the appellant was charged for murders of Samai Singh and Sukhbeeri by inflicting injuries of Spade on them. The appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

On behalf of the prosecution eight witnesses were examined. Out of these, first informant Pravin Kumar P.W.1 and Kusumpal P.W. 2 are the witnesses of fact. Akhtar Abbas P.W.3 and Khan Chandra Singh are formal witnesses, Brijpal P.W.5 and Madan Lal P.W.6 are the witnesses of inquest proceedings, Dr. Jitendra Kumar P.W.7 is the doctor, who had conducted the postmortem of the deceased persons and Sub Inspector K.R. Arya, P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer.

In the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant has denied the allegation of murdering his parents that too on account of compensation. According to him in order to grab the property, his nephew had falsely implicated him. In defence two witnesses were examined, namely, Veer Singh, D.W.1 (the scribe of the complaint) and Kusampal D.W.2 (alleged eye witness named in the first information report).

After hearing the arguments, the leaned Additional Sessions Judge believed the prosecution version holding that first informant Pravin Kumar is the truthful witness. According to learned Sessions Judge defence evidence has not been found reliable. Motive has been proved. Occurrence also stands proved. Conduct of the appellant i.e. he remained absconding after death of his parents is also a corroborating circumstance to establish the guilt of the accused.

We have heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.P. Tewari, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Akhilesh Singh, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State and perused the record.

At the outset we may record that Veer Singh scribe of the written complaint (Ex Ka-1) has not been examined by the prosecution but has been produced as defence witness (D.W. 1). He was a relative of both the parties. He has stated that complaint was written not on the dictation of the informant Pravin Kumar (P.W. 1) but on the dictation of the police. Further the only other eye witness named in the first information report and produced by the prosecution was Kusumpal (P.W. 2). He turned hostile. Later he appeared as defence witness (D.W. 2). Thus the only ocular testimony of the incident available was that of the informant Pravin Kumar (P.W. 1). It is his testimony which is to be scrutinized threadbare.

Before separately dealing with the points raised by counsel for both the sides, we would like to reproduce the ante mortem injuries found by the doctor on the dead bodies of the deceased Samai Singh and Sukhbeeri.

Anti Mortem Injuries of deceased Samai Singh [Ex Ka-8]:

1- Incised wound 9.0 cm x 2.0 cm on left side face from left ear to left upper lip bone deep.

2- Incised wound 14.0 cm x 4.0 cm on front of chin extending from right angle of mandible to left angle of mandible bone deep.

3- Incised wound 7.0 cm x 2.0 cm on upper part of left side neck bone deep.

4- Incised wound 13.0 cm x 4.0 cm on right side upper part of neck from right ear pinna to occipital protuberance bone deep.

5- Incised wound 4.0 cm x 1.0 cm on left wrist joint bone deep.

Anti Mortem Injuries of deceased Sukhbeeri [Ex Ka-7]:

1- Incised wound 13.0 cm x 4.0 cm on left side of neck and lower part of face bone deep extending 2.00 cm lateral to mid chin from lower part of left ear pinna.

2- Incised wound 10.0 cm x 3.0 cm on left part of neck in middle extending from Adam's apple to just above lateral head of left clavicle bone, bone deep.

3- Incised wound 7.0 cm x 1.0 cm bone deep on left forehead 2.0 cm above left eyebrow, bone deep.

Dr. Jitendra Kumar P.W.7 opined before the court below that the death were caused by shock and hemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries. The time of death was estimated to be 23.02.1999 at 8.45 A.M.

The first question would be whether sole assailant could have caused the injuries in its plurality and its nature on two persons in the manner as described by P.W. 1 Pravin Kumar and as noted in the postmortem report (Ex Ka- 7 & 8) to have caused the death of the two victims. To us it appears quite improbable for one assailant to cause 8 injuries (5+3) on the upper part, 7 on the neck/face and 1 on the wrist as if both th victims stood still in their position and welcomed the repeated blows.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Trial Judge has misread the evidence and has illegally held that the motive was proved. He has drawn our attention to the first para of the cross examination of Pravin Kumar P.W.1, wherein he has stated that compensation for the land was first paid in 1989 when his father was alive, thereafter his father was murdered. The compensation amount was equally distributed among his grand father, father and the appellant. Second compensation was paid after murder of his grand parents. It was divided in two parts, one was paid to the appellant and the other was paid to him. According to learned counsel for the appellant incident had taken place after first payment of compensation which was amicably distributed among the father and his two sons. The second compensation was paid after the murder of Samai Singh and Sukhbeeri, therefore, at the time of incident there could not have been any dispute regarding payment of amount of compensation.

We have perused the full deposition of Pravin Kumar P.W.1 and the impugned judgment.

The relevant part referred by the learned counsel for the appellant has not been contradicted subsequently by Pravin Kumar P.W.1 or by any other witness but the learned Trial Judge has ignored this part of testimony, which successfully demolishes the motive of crime allegedly committed by the appellant; rather it gives an indication that if the appellant, the uncle of the informant was somehow condemned the entire balance compensation could be received by the informant, who could thus be said to have motive for false implication. There is another aspect of the matter. Elimination of the deceased and simultaneous implication of the accused-appellant would have benefited the informant. He would become the sole beneficiary of the balance amount of compensation, which was due to be paid. All these aspects have not been taken note of by the Trial Judge.

Learned Government Advocate in reply to this argument has merely submitted that in case of eye witness account the motive has no significance, therefore, even if the prosecution has failed to prove the motive, the charge stands proved against the appellant.

It is well settled that in case of eye witness account motive need not be proved by the prosecution but where the prosecution since inception alleges that disbursement of the compensation gave rise to the acrimonious relations between the appellant and the deceased, the prosecution is obligated to prove this fact and in case prosecution fails to do so, such failure cannot be ignored and for this reason evidence in reference to the incident has to be closely and minutely examined. Therefore, we are of the opinion in the present case argument put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant has substance and we propose to proceed further in the manner indicated above.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the evidence of Pravin Kumar P.W.1 is wholly unreliable and the FIR was not only dictated by the police but also it was ante timed.

Learned Government Advocate has drawn our attention towards the impugned judgment and submitted that the plea regarding ante timing of the first information report has been rejected by the learned Trial Judge for cogent reasons.

We find that the argument submitted on behalf of the appellant is well substantiated from the record for the reasons that the first informant Pravin Kumar has changed his statement on this point several times and at page-15 of the paper book he says that he stayed on the spot for five minutes, thereafter he left for the village. Further he says that after the incident on telephonic information police reached on the spot within fifteen minutes, thereafter, he went to lodge the first information report. On the next day of the cross-examination at page-17 of the paper book he says that police stayed at the spot for one hour and he remained present there, thereafter he states that he stayed only for five minutes then he went to lodge the first information report. According to him after he lodged the first information report again police came from the police station and took the dead bodies in their possession. According to him he reached on the spot and on his dictation Veer Singh scribed the report at the police station. As against this testimony we have perused the statement of Veer Singh D.W.1, who is the scribe of the written report. According to him, report was dictated by the Sub Inspector at the police station. Pravin Kumar (first informant) did not dictate the version of the first information report. It is relevant to notice that Veer Singh D.W.1 is the cousin of the appellant and the uncle of the first informant. Merely because he is defence witness, his evidence cannot be brushed-aside without evaluating its intrinsic value. Law on this point is elaborately discussed in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Babu Ram, 2000 Crl.L.J. 2457 (S.C.).

Further we find that the learned Trial Judge has merely ignored his evidence without taking into account that he is the scribe of the written report and the deceased were his close relations. If he is deposing in the court of law in favour of the appellant and against the prosecution then there must be some cogent and substantial reason for that.

Since the appellant is in jail from 27.02.1999, he is not in a position to influence the witnesses whereas the first informant was in a position to approach the witnesses. Mere suggestion of the prosecution that being cousin he is giving false evidence without any corroborating circumstance cannot be a good reason to discard his testimony. Therefore, we proceed to do what the Trial Judge should have done.

Keeping in view the cardinal principles of appreciation of evidence, we have examined the testimony of Veer Singh, D.W.1. He has explained his presence that he was available at the police station for scribing the report. He is well acquainted with the family circumstances of the deceased. He is honest enough to admit that he has appeared before the court below without receiving any summons. According to him he scribed the report due to fear of Sub Inspector and as such, we find no infirmity in his testimony. Therefore, we are inclined to treat him as credible witness and come to the conclusion that the first information report was written on the behest of police and not on the dictation of the first informant and it was ante timed. Finding contrary to this recorded by the Trial Judge is not acceptable to us and we find it unsustainable.

From here we would like to proceed to evaluate the truthfulness and value of the testimony of Pravin Kumar P.W.1. Since he is allegedly the sole eye witness of the incident, the other witness Kusumpal P.W.2 has turned hostile, onerous duty has been imposed by the law on this Court to re-appreciate and re-examine his evidence on the basis of which Trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant to death.

On behalf of the appellant several contradictions, discrepancies and incorrect statements in the deposition of the first informant Pravin Kumar P.W.1 have been pointed out.

Before going further we would like to refer the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2009 (1) Supreme 224 where the Supreme Court held that the courts below had failed to properly analyse and scrutinize the evidence of the sole eye witness. Further the Apex Court observed that it is no doubt true that conviction could be based on the solitary testimony of a sole eye witness but in order to be the basis of conviction his presence at the place of occurrence has to be natural and his testimony should be strong and reliable and free from any blemish.

In the case of Anil Phukan Vs. State of Assam [AIR 1993 Supreme Court 1462], the Apex Court in para-3 of the report summarized the manner and circumstances under which a solitary witness related to the deceased could form the basis of conviction. Para-3 of the report is reproduced below:

"3.This case primarily hinges on the testimony of a single eye-witness Ajoy P.W.3. Indeed, conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye-witness and there is no rule of law or evidence which says to the contrary provided the sole witness passes the test of reliability. So long as the single eye-witness is a wholly reliable witness the courts have no difficulty in basing conviction on his testimony alone. However, where the single eye-witness is not found to be a wholly reliable witness, in the sense that there are some circumstances which may show that he could have an interest in the prosecution, then the courts generally insist upon some independent corroboration of his testimony, in material particulars, before recording conviction. It is only when the courts find that the single eye-witness is a wholly unreliable witness that his testimony is discarded in toto and no amount of corroboration can cure that defect. It is in the light of these settled principles that we shall examine the testimony of P.W.3 Ajoy."

Further in the case of Ramji Suriya Vs. State of Maharashtra [1983 CrLJ 1103] the Apex Court has observed as follows:

"There is no doubt that even where there is only a sole eye witness of a crime, a conviction may be recorded against the accused concerned provided the court which hears such witness regards him as honest and truthful. But prudence requires that some corroboration should be sought from the other prosecution evidence in support of the testimony of a solitary witness particularly where such witness also happens to be closely related to the deceased and the accused are those against whom some motive or ill will is suggested."

The first question which is to be considered is whether the presence of Pravin Kumar, P.W.1 at the time of occurrence on the spot can be said to be natural. To ascertain this we have examined the deposition of the witness and find that the occurrence admittedly took place in the field where the grand parents of the witness had gone to cut the Oats. According to postmortem reports the age of deceased Samai Singh was estimated to be 70 years and deceased Sukhbeeri was estimated to be 65 years. During course of cross-examination of P.W.1, it has come out that his grand parents went to the field situated at the distance of one and half kilometers by bicycle. There is no mention of any recovery of the cycle by the Investigating Officer. In the first information report the witness has claimed that he reached at the place of occurrence after hearing the altercation and shouting resulting therefrom but in the statement on oath the witness has added that he had followed his grand parents. The reason for following them according to him was that his grand parents used to go to cut Oats and that these cut Oats were brought by him daily to the house. The version contained in the first information report and the statement on oath both are not believable.

In his examination on oath this witness has claimed to have witnessed the incident whereas according to first information report when he reached at the spot his grand parents were lying dead. This clearly creates suspicion about the truthfulness of the version of this witness. The first version contained in the first information report when considered in the light of the distance between the place of occurrence and the house of the first informant makes the presence of this witness at the place and time of incident highly improbable. If second version is to be believed even then his presence is wholly doubtful because according to him, his grand parents used to go to cut the oats and took one hour for that, thus, there was no occasion for him to follow them at a distance of 20-25 steps.

On the second point we would like to state that testimony of this witness has been completely demolished during the cross-examination. Repeatedly he made contradictory statements just one after another. He could not explain as to why he did not mention this fact in the first information report that he had seen the occurrence. The motive alleged by him stands disproved. The first information report lodged by him has been found to be ante timed. Why his uncles Veer Singh D.W.1 and Kusumpal D.W.2 have not supported the prosecution version. All these facts reflect upon his credibility. The testimony of P.W.1 is also inconsistent with the medical evidence. According to the learned counsel for the appellant during postmortem incised wounds have been found on the dead bodies of the deceased persons. According to K.R. Arya, P.W.8 the Investigating Officer, the recovered spade was an old one. Usually spade does not have sharp edge because it is used to dig the earth. Incised wounds of the aforementioned dimensions could not be inflicted in the manner and with the help of spade as alleged by this witness.

In view of above, we are of the opinion that the Trial Judge has ignored these important and vital facts which reduces, the value of the testimony of the first informant Pravin Kumar P.W.1, to nil. We do not think that this witness can be treated to be a credible witness and on his testimony the prosecution perhaps cannot claim to have proved the charge against the present appellant beyond all reasonable doubt.

The Trial Judge has also relied upon the fact of recovery of spade (Material Ex Ka-2) on the pointing out of the appellant. The prosecution did not submit the report of Forensic Science Laboratory showing that the used spade had blood stains. In absence of such a report the recovery of spade used in the commission of crime cannot be relied upon vide Karam Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1994 Crl.L.J. 3446 (Alld).

Moreover, the recovery has been made after more than two weeks of the occurrence. The recovery has been proved by the Investigating Officer, Sri K.R. Arya, P.W.8, who did not say a single word about the disclosure statement on the basis of which the alleged recovery is said to have been made in the present case. As per the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the factum of recovery is relevant to show the knowledge of the accused that he is knowing about the incriminating article where it has been hidden but provided the information volunteered by the accused leads to the recovery of incriminating article. Since the Recovery Officer has not chosen to prove the disclosure statement to disclose the actual words used by the accused leading to recovery of incriminating article, no help can be had from such recovery.

The learned Trial Judge has also taken into account the conduct of the present appellant after the incident under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act to show that he remained absconding after murder of his parents from his house. The incident had taken place on 23.02.1999. Admittedly the present appellant had surrendered before the court concerned on 27.02.1999 which reveals that on 26.02.1999 or earlier he must have moved application for surrender before the court concerned.

We do not think that after three days of the incident in such circumstance any inference of the guilt of the present appellant can legally be drawn. To prove guilt of the appellant and his post event conduct the prosecution was required to adduce proper admissible evidence showing that at the house of the accused the police raided several times and he could not be found there. Merely being absent at the time of inquest proceedings and non lodging of the first information report do not mean that the appellant was absconding from the police. Therefore, we are of the opinion that when we see the post event conduct of the present appellant we are of the opinion that Trial Judge has erroneously treated it to be indicative of the guilt and thereby committed gross illegality.

Thus against the present appellant we find no piece of credible evidence to show that he had committed murder of his parents as claimed by the prosecution. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the present appellant. The Trial Judge did not examine the evidence in proper perspective and merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures concluded that the charge of Section 302 I.P.C. was fully proved against the present appellant. The conviction and sentence of the present appellant are against the material evidence available on record, therefore, deserve to be set aside.

Resultantly the Capital Case Appeal is allowed and the death sentence reference is rejected. The impugned judgment and orders dated 05/06.09.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Court No. 9), Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No. 681 of 1999 [State Vs. Sheo Raj Singh] convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and awarding death sentence are set aside.

Let appellant, Sheo Raj Singh, be released forthwith subject to compliance of provisions contained in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, provided the present appellant is not wanted in any other criminal case.

 
Order Date :- 1.7.2015
 
Prajapati
 
				 [Pratyush Kumar,J]      [Vikram Nath,J]