Surendra Alias Sunda & Others vs State Of U.P.
2018 Latest Caselaw 2548 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

   	AFR
 
					Reserved on 14.08.2018
 
							 Delivered on 13.09.2018
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 370 of 1983
 

 
Appellant :- Surendra Alias Sunda & Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- G.C. Saxena,Haridwar Singh,Pankaj Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

(By Om Prakash VII, J.)

1. Present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by Surendra alias Sunda and Bhagat Singh against judgment and order dated 05.02.1983 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura in Session Trial No. 202 of 1982 whereby present appellant and one Bhagat Singh, died during pendency of appeal, have been convicted for the offence under Sections 148, 302 IPC read with Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced for two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C. and imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C.. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. At the outset, it is made clear that during pendency of this appeal appellant No.2 Bhagat Singh has expired and vide order dated 18.4.2012, appeal in respect of appellant No.2 Bhagat Singh has been abated. Hence, Court is proceeding to decide the appeal in respect of appellant Surendra @ Sunda.

3. Prosecution story, in nutshell, as unfolded in written report (Ext. ka1) dated 29.06.1982 by informant P.W. 1 Megh Singh is that a litigation between Ramji Lal and Narayan Singh regarding boundary of agricultural land (mendbandi) and also damaging of chak road was going on. Informant's brother Gopal was witness from the side of Ramji Lal in the said litigation and had also deposed against Narayan Singh etc.. Due to that reason Surendra alias Sunda son of Narayan Singh and his associates were having enmity with Gopal. In previous night, informant and his brother were sleeping at his hut in the field on their cots and a lantern was enlighting there. In the night at about 12 p.m. Surendra alias Sunda son of Narayan Singh and Bhagat Singh (since died) son of Ram Das along with their associates in total seven to eight persons armed with lathi, ballam and chaku (knife) came at the hut. They were identified by informant in lantern light. Surendra was armed with ballam and Bhagat Singh was armed with knife. Surendra, Bhagat Singh (since died) and two other persons caught hold Gopal and stated that "he is Gopal, kill him". Three to four persons overpowered the informant. Accused Surendra and Bhagat Singh (since died) started beating the deceased with knife and ballam. When informant and deceased made hue and cry, Mohan Singh son of Shankar Singh, Jaipal son of Edal Singh and other people, who were present in nearby huts, by flashing their torches reached there and saw the incident. It is also mentioned in written report that informant and other witnesses reached at the place of occurrence saw the accused persons in light of lantern and torches and also identified them. It is also mentioned that unknown accused can be identified/recognized when one to one. All the accused ran away towards northern side in forest causing several grievous injuries on head, mouth and chin of deceased. Informant and other persons took deceased on cot in village concerned at dispensary of Dr. Chandrakant but he died there. It is further mentioned in written report that leaving dead body of deceased at dispensary of Dr. Chandrakant informant came to police station concerned and made prayer for registering case.

4. On the basis of said written report (Ext. Ka-1), on 29.6.1982 at 6.30 A.M., chik F.I.R. (Ext. ka-7) at Crime No.43 of 1982 under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 I.P.C. was registered against accused-appellants and five to six unknown persons. G.D. entry was also made on the same day which is (Ext. Ka-8). Investigation started and police reached at the place of occurrence, took lantern in custody and handing over same to witnesses prepared recovery memo (Ext. Ka-2). Torches said to have been used by witnesses were also taken into custody and handing over same to witnesses, recovery memos Ext. Ka-3 and Ext Ka-4 were prepared. Blood stained and plain earth were also taken from the place of occurrence and keeping same in sealed boxes and preparing sample seal, recovery memo (Ext. Ka-9) was also prepared. Investigating Officer (hereinafter will be referred as I.O.) has also prepared inquest report Ext. Ka-5 on 29.6.1982 at 8 A.M. along with other police papers (Ext Ka 14 to 16). Keeping the dead body in sealed cover also prepared sample seal Ext Ka-17. Form No.33 is Ext Ka-8. Investigating Officer has also visited place of occurrence and prepared site plan (Ext. Ka-10). Dead body of deceased was carried by constable Jagdish Prasad and Vijendra Singh to mortuary. Autopsy on body of deceased was performed on 30.6.1982 at 10 A.M.

5. On general examination, deceased was aged about 35 years. Probable time of death was one and half day and he was average body built. Rigor mortis was present in lower limb blood was oozing from nose and ears.

6. On examination of body following ante mortem injuries were found:

"(i) Five punctured wound in an area of 10 c.m. X 8 c.m. x right side of forehead and scalp. Each measuring 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. x brain deep to 2 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. x brain deep. Underlying bone fractured. Injuries were obliquely placed with clean cut margin. Head of injuries were also clean.

(ii) Incised wound 1.5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. x skin deep below right eye. Transverse.

(iii) Abrasion 3 c.m. x 1.5 c.m. from side of lateral left eye.

(iv) Punctured wound 2 c.m. x 1 c.m x face cavity deep in between jaw bone below lower mandible. Bones were found cut under this injury.

(v) Abrased Contusion 3 c.m. x 5 c.m. outer side of right ankle.

(vi) Contused abrasion 7 c.m. x 3 c.m. in front side of chest 2 c.m. below the nipple."

In the internal examination, following injuries were also found:

"(i) Frontal parietal and temporal bone on right side of head were found fractured.

(ii) Several punctured wound were also found in the membrance of brain.

(iii) Several punctured wound in brain side".

7. In the opinion of doctor, cause of death of deceased was shock and hemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries. Post mortem report is (Ext Ka-6). Report of Forensic Science Laboratory tendered by the prosecution is Ext Ka-19 & 20. Material exhibit proved by prosecution is Ext Ka- 1 to ka- 5 (Lantern, Dhoti, Langote and earth bloodstained/sample taken from the place of occurrence). Certified copy of statement filed by prosecution is Ext Ka-12.

8. Investigating officer after completing entire formalities of investigation submitted charge sheet (Ext. Ka-11) against accused for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. Concerned Magistrate took cognizance on 7.1.1983 and case being exclusively triable by Sessions Court was committed to Court of Sessions.

9. Accused appeared and charges for offence under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. were framed against accused to which they denied and pleading not guilty claimed their trial.

10. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined eight witnesses, namely, P.W.-1 Megh Singh informant, P.W. 2 Mohan Singh (fact witness), P.W. 3 Jaipal Singh (fact witness), P.W. 4 Constable Jagdish Prasad, who carried dead body of deceased to mortuary for post mortem, P.W. 5 Sub-Inspector Krishna Kumar Singh, who prepared inquest report as well as other police papers, P.W. 6 Chandrakant, a practicing Doctor in village concerned and after incident deceased was taken to dispensary of this witnesses, P.W. 7 Dr. S.P. Gupta, who conducted post mortem and prepared post mortem report (Ext. Ka-6) and P.W.-8 Tezpal Singh, Investigating Officer.

11. On closure of prosecution evidence, statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which they claimed prosecution case to be false and showed ignorance about enmity stated by prosecution witnesses. Friendship between both accused was denied and showed ignorance about presence of P.W. 1 and deceased at the place of occurrence and has stated that they did not form an unlawful assembly nor were armed with ballam and chaku (knife) nor caused injury to deceased Gopal. Since they were not involved in present matter, statement of prosecution witnesses are false. Other facts stated by prosecution witnesses were also said to be false. It was specifically stated that facts mentioned in written report are also false. They showed unawareness about post mortem report and recovery memos. They also showed ignorance about material exhibits proved in the matter and stated that witnesses examined in the matter have deposed before Court due to village party bandi.

12. Accused in their defence have examined D.W. 1 K.C. Lekhpal and has also filed papers Ext Kha 1 to kha 13 i.e. certified copy of statement of Mohan, list of witnesses, statements under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C., certified copy of judgments, charge sheets, extracts of khataunies etc.

13. Having heard learned counsel for parties Trial Court vide impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced accused, as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.

14. We have heard Shri Pankaj Sharma, learned counsel for appellant and Shri Ratan Singh, learned AGA for State at length.

15. It was submitted by learned counsel for appellant that appellant is innocent and has not committed present offence. Prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Presence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 at the place of occurrence at the time of incident is improbable. If P.W. 1 was present at the place of occurrence, he would have received injuries in the said incident. It was further argued that deceased was done to death by some unknown persons at some other place. Accused-appellant and other persons were falsely implicated in this matter due to enmity. Referring to site plan it was further argued that investigation was not conducted properly. Details mentioned in site plan do not tally with the details given by witnesses in their statements made before court. F.I.R. was not in existence on the date and time mentioned in chik F.I.R. There is contradiction in statement of prosecution witnesses as to where written report was prepared. Recovery of torches and lantern have also not been proved. Scribe was not examined. Cot, on which deceased was sleeping, was also not taken into possession by police concerned. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are close relative of deceased. They have made false statement. There is inconsistency in prosecution evidence about number of accused said to be involved in the matter, whether blood was present on cot or not as also on soil at the place of occurrence. Medical evidence is against oral evidence. Source of light is also not established. Thus, referring to entire evidence, it was further argued that prosecution case is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Appellant is liable to be acquitted of charges levelled against him. The findings recorded by trial court are not based on correct appreciation of evidence. Impugned judgment and order suffers from infirmity, illegality and perversity warranting interference by this Court. In support of his case, learned counsel appearing for appellant also placed reliance on the following case laws:

(i) Ram Ashrit vs. State of Bihar, 1981 LawSuit (SC) 28.

(ii) Janki Prasad and others vs. State of U.P., 2016 (95) ACC 217.

16. Per contra, learned AGA argued that P.W. 1 and deceased both were sleeping at their hut in night of incident. There was sufficient light at the place of occurrence in form of lantern. On the ground that no injury was caused to P.W. 1, presence of this witness at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. Prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Medical evidence fully supports oral version. Contradictions and inconsistencies occurred in prosecution evidence are not fatal to prosecution case on material points. Omissions and laches on the part of Investigating Officer are also not fatal to ocular testimony. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order warranting interference by this Court.

17. We have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through entire record including case laws relied upon by learned counsel for appellant carefully.

18. In this matter, as is evident from record, incident is said to have taken place in the intervening night of 28/29.6.1982 at 12.30 hours. F.I.R. was lodged on 29.6.1982 itself at 6.30 A.M.. Distance between place of occurrence and police station concerned is 9 miles. Two persons Surendra alias Sunda and Bhagat Singh (since died) along with five to six persons were named in F.I.R.. Prosecution case is also that after incident, deceased was taken on a cot at dispensary of Dr. Chandrakant but as soon as treatment was started, he died. It is also prosecution case that Megh Singh reached at dispensary of Dr. Chandrakant and on dictation of informant P.W. 1. Chik F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-1) was prepared by him at about 2 A.M. in night itself. Since it was night hour, informant did not go to police station to lodge F.I.R. immediately, instead he went to police station in the morning. Referring to statement of P.W. 1, learned counsel appearing for appellant has argued that P.W. 1 himself has admitted that he had lodged F.I.R. against at police station concerned and written report was prepared at police station concerned. If this was the statement, F.I.R. lodged in the matter earlier to this F.I.R. has been changed and basic foundation of prosecution case due to this reason has demolished. If submission raised by learned counsel appearing for appellant is analyzed in light of facts and evidence available on record, it emerges that inquest report was prepared at dispensary of P.W. 6 Dr. Chandrakant in the morning after registering the case by police concerned. Dead body of deceased was handed over to constables to carry the same for post mortem. Although in written report Ext. Ka-1 it is mentioned that "लॉस को छोड़कर डॉक्टर चंद्रकांत के यहाँ रिपोर्ट करने को आये हैं" but this fact itself is not sufficient to disbelieve date and time of F.I.R. Defence has put specific question from P.W. 1 on this issue and he has clarified that since it was night hour, he could not proceed immediately to lodge F.I.R. Dead body was not carried to police station but leaving the same in the dispensary of Dr. Chandrakant he proceeded to lodge F.I.R. Therefore, due to this reason, this fact was mentioned in written report. Clarification given by P.W. 1 about mentioning of above facts in written report is natural and satisfactory. Existence of F.I.R. in the present matter on the date and time mentioned in it cannot be doubted. As far as statement made by P.W.1 about lodging of F.I.R. earlier to this F.I.R. is concerned, he is a rustic person and it might be possible that due to reason of misunderstanding of questions put in the cross examination he would have given such answer in that way. In fact no any other F.I.R. except to present one had been lodged by the informant. Incident is of night hour, few hours delay in lodging the F.I.R. would also not render it doubtful. Hence, on close scrutiny of entire evidence we are of the view that submission raised by learned counsel appearing for appellant on this issue is not acceptable. Findings recorded by Trial Court is in accordance with facts and evidence. It may also be mentioned here that in criminal cases F.I.R is lodged only to set the law into motion. If certain facts stated by prosecution witnesses during trial, which are not material, are missing in F.I.R., same cannot be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution case. It is also pertinent to mention here that F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia. It is not necessary to give every minute details of crime in it. Merely on the ground of delay in lodging of F.I.R. a criminal case, if supported by other evidence, cannot be disbelieved.

19. So far as motive and enmity is concerned, in the F.I.R. it has been mentioned that there was enmity between Ramji Lal and Narayan Singh. Though both parties as well as witnesses examined in matter are belonging to same pedigree, litigation was also going on between them, deceased was one of witnesses in a case pending between Ramji Lal and Narayan Singh. Prosecution case is also that deceased had made statement before Court against Narayan Singh. One of the accused, namely, Surendra alias Sunda is family member of Narayan Singh and due to that reason present offence was committed by accused appellant alongwith his associates. Motive in a criminal case where there are eye account witnesses does not play a vital role but where prosecution has come up with a clear motive, burden lies upon it to prove the same. In the present matter enmity between parties has been elicited not only in examination in chief of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 but in cross examination also defence has tried to establish this fact. Thus, motive in the present matter is fully established. It may also be mentioned that in the facts and circumstances of case motive may be a reason to commit present offence but at the same time it may be a reason for false implication. Hence, prosecution case has to be analyzed / scrutinized on other counts also.

20. As far as presence of witnesses P.W. 1 Megh Singh, P.W. 2 Mohan Singh and P.W. 3 Jaipal Singh on the spot at the time of occurrence is concerned, prosecution case is that deceased and P.W. 1 both were sleeping on their cots outside the hut. It was at about midnight and seven to eight persons armed with lathi, ballam and chaku (knife) including accused appellant Surendra alias Sunda with ballam and appellant Bhagat Singh (since died) with chaku (knife), came on the spot and caught hold the informant on his cot and remaining accused including present appellant overpowered the deceased. It is also prosecution case that accused appellant Surender alias Sunda caused injury upon deceased with weapon 'ballam' and accused Bhagat Singh (since died) caused injury upon deceased with 'knife' and other accused caught hold the deceased. When hue and cry was made by P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3, who were also sleeping few paces away in their huts, flashing torch light reached there and saw whole episode. Above facts find place in F.I.R. as well as in the statement of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 recorded before Court on oath. Place of occurrence is hut of deceased. Informant has stated that he used to sleep in night in his hut. Deceased and his elder brother also used to sleep in night in their huts alternatively. If statement of D.W. 1, examined on behalf of accused appellants, is taken into consideration to ascertain the fact of presence of deceased and P.W. 1 at the place of occurrence, it clearly emerges that D.W 1 has also stated that deceased and informant are family members and always met in their huts. P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 have also stated that on the date, time and place of occurrence deceased and P.W. 1 both were present in their hut where incident took place. There is no inconsistency or contradiction in the statement of prosecution witnesses on this point and same also finds support from statement of D.W. 1. Huts of P.W 2 and P.W. 3 were more or less 100 feet or 200 feet away from place of occurrence into Eastern and Western direction. It was midnight and place of occurrence was village area. Hue and cry raised from the place of occurrence could easily be heard from huts of P.W.2 and P.W. 3, where they were sleeping. Presence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 at their huts can not be doubted because villagers/farmers used to sleep in their huts in night to look after their cattle, crops etc.. This fact that huts of P.W. 2 and P.W.3 were situated in same vicinity also finds support with the statement of D.W. 1. As far as plea raised by learned counsel appearing for appellant that there were several other huts in same vicinity / locality within close range other than huts belonging to P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 but no one is said to have reached at the place of occurrence from those huts and this fact makes prosecution story as also place of occurrence narrated by prosecution witnesses doubtful. Plea raised by learned counsel appearing for appellant on this issue when minutely analyzed with the statements of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 as well as statement made by D.W. 1, it reveals that there were certain other huts belonging to other persons named in cross examination of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 as well as D.W.1 but if statements of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are taken into consideration in its entirety , none were present in their huts at that time except P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. If such was the position, presence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 at the place of occurrence after hearing hue and cry along with torches cannot be doubted. They are natural and probable witnesses. Their presence at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. It may be mentioned here that if such type of incident takes place and hue and cry is raised, close relatives reach at the place of occurrence immediately. Thus, being close relative of deceased presence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 at the place of occurrence can also not be doubted. Presence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 on the spot at the time of occurrence can also not be doubted on this ground that cots, on which P.W. 1 and deceased were sleeping, were not taken into custody by police concerned. It may be mentioned that laches on part of Investigating Officer if not caused prejudice to accused persons will not be a ground to disbelieve ocular testimony. It is also noteworthy that distance between cots, where deceased and P.W. 1 were sleeping, was only few paces i.e. 4 to 5 paces. Thus, P.W.1 could easily witness the incident. It has also come in the statement of prosecution witnesses that when P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 reached near place of occurrence flashing their torches they also saw accused persons committing present offence.

21. Now before analyzing role assigned to accused appellant, we are proceeding to deal with medical evidence in the present matter.

22. As per prosecution, appellant Surendra alias Sunda was assigned with weapon 'ballam' and Bhagat Singh (since died) was assigned with weapon 'knife'. Prosecution case is also that both accused have caused injuries to deceased. Other accused persons were only assigned with role of catching hold to deceased and overpowering the informant P.W. 1. No injury was received to P.W. 1. If manner in which P.W. 1 was overpowered by accused persons is taken into consideration, injury was also not caused by accused to P.W. 1, thus, this fact itself does not render oral evidence contrary to medical evidence. If injuries found on body of deceased in post mortem report and as stated by P.W. 7 Dr. S.P. Gupta are taken into consideration in consonance with manner of incident stated by P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3, most of injuries are on left side of head, forehead and jaw. One injury is on knee and one is on chest. Prosecution case is that accused appellant Surendra alias Sunda had caused injury upon deceased with weapon ballam and accused Bhagat Singh (since died) had caused injury with weapon knife. If depth, length and breadth of injuries said to have been caused by weapon ballam and knife found on the body of deceased are compared with the manner of causing injuries, findings recorded by trial court on this issue cannot be termed to be perverse. P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 have stated that persons causing injuries upon body of deceased were standing on head side of deceased and other persons, who had captured/overpowered deceased were standing on left and right side. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that injuries found on the body of deceased said to have been caused by weapons 'ballam' and 'knife' could come in the manner and style said to have been caused by accused persons. Injuries found on knee and chest of deceased could also come while deceased was overpowered by other accused using lathi. Thus in the present matter medical evidence fully supports prosecution case. There is no conflict between medical evidence and oral evidence. Deceased was immediately taken on another cot to dispensary of Dr. Chandrakant. This fact is also consistent and clear in statement of prosecution evidence. Thus, findings recorded by trial court on this issue are in accordance with law and evidence and do not require interference by this Court.

23. So far as role assigned to accused appellant Surendra alias Sunda is concerned, some injuries found on the body of deceased were caused by weapon 'ballam'. This fact finds support with the statement of P.W. 7 Dr. S.P. Gupta. Thus, involvement of present appellant in the present matter can not be doubted. Finding recorded by trial court in this regard is also in accordance with law.

24. So far as omissions or contradictions occurred in prosecution evidence on certain points are concerned, same are neither material nor fatal to prosecution evidence, hence, on this count as well as on the ground of laches on the part of Investigating Officer prosecution case cannot be disbelieved.

25. As far as law laid down in Ram Ashrit case (supra) is concerned, facts of present matter are entirely different with the facts of Ram Ashrit case. Although P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are closely related to deceased yet their presence at the place of occurrence is not doubtful. They are natural and probable witnesses and their statements are supported with medical evidence. Thus, P.W. 1, P.W.2 and P.W. 3 cannot be termed to be highly interested, inimical and partisan witnesses. Accused appellant cannot get any help with the law laid down in Ram Ashrit case.

26. As far as law laid down in Janki Prasad case (supra) is concerned, fact of said case is also entirely different with facts of present case. There was only one F.I.R. and no material infirmity was found in prosecution evidence. F.I.R. was also lodged promptly. Witnesses are natural and probable witnesses. Thus, no help can be extended to the appellant with the law laid down in Janki Prasad case (supra)

27. As regards offence under Section 148 I.P.C. is concerned, prosecution case from very beginning is that seven to eight accused participated in commission of present offence, out of them accused appellant and one Bhagat Singh (since died) were only identified by witnesses at the place of occurrence. Accused appellant was armed with ballam. He was member of an unlawful assembly formed by accused persons on the spot. Therefore, Trial Court has rightly held guilty to accused appellant for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C.. As far as offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. is concerned present offence was committed by accused appellant along with other accused persons in prosecution of common object of unlawful assembly. Therefore, observation recorded by Trial Court about guilt of accused appellant for offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. is also not interferable.

28. In the circumstances, on close scrutiny of entire evidence and discussion made herein above, we are of the view that prosecution was able to prove its case against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Accused-appellant along with his companions have committed present offence. Medical evidence fully supports prosecution case. Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced accused-appellant for the offence under Sections 148, 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C..

29. Considering the entire aspects of the matter and looking to circumstances, under which present offence has been committed, this Court is of the opinion that impugned judgment and order dated 5.2.1983 passed by Trial Court is well thought and well discussed and trial court has rightly held that prosecution has succeeded to prove guilt of accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt. As such, impugned judgment and order passed by trial court is liable to be upheld and appeal having no force is liable to be dismissed.

30. Accordingly present Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Conviction and sentence imposed upon accused appellant Surendra alias Sunda vide impugned judgment and order is affirmed. Accused-appellant, if not in custody in this matter, is directed to surrender before Court below immediately to serve out remaining sentence imposed by trial court vide impugned judgment and order. Personal bond is cancelled and sureties are discharged from liability.

31. Copy of this judgment alongwith lower court record be sent forthwith to Sessions Judge, Mathura for compliance and a compliance report be sent to this Court.

Order date : 13.09.2018

A.N. Mishra