Raju @ Rajiv Jail Appeeal vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 22410 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
 
(Lucknow)
 
**********
 
Judgment Reserved on 10.10.2022
 
Judgment Delivered on 22.12.2022
 
Reserved
 

 
Case :- JAIL APPEAL No. - 1282 of 2015
 

 
Appellant :- Raju @ Rajiv
 
Respondent :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi (Amicus Curiae)
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 
**********
 
Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.

(Per: Rajan Roy, J.)

1. Heard.

2. This is an appeal received from jail under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the appellant's conviction and sentencing under Section 302 IPC vide judgment dated 22.09.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Lakhimpur Kheri rendered in Sessions Trial No. 1046 of 2011 (State vs. Raju @ Rajiv Kumar) arising out of case Crime No. 1232 of 2011, Police Station Haiderabad, District Lakhimpur Kheri. The appellant has been sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 20,000/-. In the event of non-deposit of fine, he will have to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

3. The appellant was ordered to be enlarged on bail by the order of this Court dated 05.08.2022 as he was languishing in jail since 07.09.2011.

4. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that the deceased Sobaran Lal Gupta owned a double story house in Gandhi Nagar Mohalla, Police Station - Haiderabad, District Lakhimpur Kheri. About 10 months prior to the incident, he had let out ground floor of the house to one Rukmini. The deceased Sobaran Lal Gupta used to reside on the first floor. His wife had died couple of years ago. The deceased had the habit of drinking liquor. Taking advantage of his intoxicated state, the tenant Rukmini had got certain notarized documents executed regarding half of his house. Rukmini was not a woman of good character and she was in relationship with the appellant-Raju. After getting the said documents prepared, Rukmini started demanding half of the house from the deceased whereupon the deceased Sobaran Lal Gupta evicted her. Thereafter, Rukmini lived with appellant-Raju as his wife. The appellant-Raju threatened the deceased with dire consequences if half of the house was not given to her. Some litigation was said to be pending in Court, details of which have not been mentioned.

5. In view of this factual background, the prosecution alleged that on 31.08.2011 at about 8.20 PM the appellant confronted the deceased-Sobaran Lal Gupta at his shop (Khoka). He stated that as he had declined to give his house, therefore, he would not survive anymore. After death of Sobaran Lal Gupta, there would be no one to pursue the litigation pending in Court and, accordingly Sobaran Lal Gupta was shot by the appellant with an illegal 'Tamancha'. The bullet hit the chest of the deceased on the left side on account of which he fell down. As per the prosecution, informant-Dhaniram Gupta, his nephew (Puneet Gupta) i.e. the son of the deceased, and daughter Deepmala were present at the time of the incident and had seen the appellant shooting the deceased and running-away. The deceased was taken to the Community Health Center at Gola where he was declared brought dead.

6. As per the inquest report, information of the incident was received at 9.30 PM on 31.08.2011 through Mr. Ram Gopal, Chowkidar of the Community Health Center, Gola, District Lakhimpur Kheri. Inquest started at 22.15 PM on the same day and was completed by 23.30 PM. As per the inquest report, a firearm injury was detected on left side of the chest, but no other injury was seen on any other part. Inquest report has been exhibited as exhibit Ka5. Site plan pertaining to the scene of crime has been exhibited as exhibit Ka12. FIR is exhibit Ka2. Postmortem report is exhibit Ka4. Recovery memo pertaining to the broken barrel, etc. is exhibit Ka11. The First Information Report was lodged at Police Station Haiderabad, District Lakhimpur Kheri at 22.05 PM. Inquest was conducted by the police of Police Station Gola as the Community Health Center where the body was taken is situated at Gola, District Lakhimpur Kheri. A broken barrel of the Tamancha along with other items were recovered from the alleged scene of crime by the Investigating Officer and was sent for forensic examination. Blood stained soil and plain soil were collected from the scene and was allegedly sent for forensic examination, but, no such forensic report pertaining to the said soil has been exhibited, however, there is an exhibit Ka14 pertaining to the examination of broken barrel. Postmortem was conducted on 01.09.2011 at 3 PM. The probable time of death was mentioned in the postmortem report as about one day. The appellant was arrested on 07.09.2011. After investigation charge-sheet was filed against the appellant on 24.10.2011, cognizance of which was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 10.11.2011. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri committed the trial to the Sessions Court on 25.11.2011. Charge was framed by the Trial Court on 11.04.2011 under Section 302 IPC. The appellant denied the charges and demanded trial. He was put to trial.

7. The prosecution produced seven witnesses. PW-1 is son of the deceased and an alleged eye-witness. PW-2 is brother of the deceased also an alleged eye-witness. Deepmala the other alleged eye-witness was not produced by the prosecution before the Trial Court. PW-3 is the Constable-Moharrir at Police Station Haiderabad who had made requisite entries pertaining to the FIR in the records of the Police Station. He has stated that inquest was conducted by the police of Police Station Gola, District Lakhimpur Kheri as already mentioned hereinabove. PW-4 is the Autopsy Surgeon who conducted autopsy on the body of deceased. PW-5 is the then Sub Inspector posted at Police Station Gola who had got the inquest conducted and prepared the inquest report. PW-6 is witness to recovery of the broken barrel of Tamancha and blood stained soil, etc. PW-7 is the Investigating Officer i.e. the then Station House Officer, Police Station Haiderabad, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

8. Case of defence under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is of denial.

9. The Trial Court has accepted the prosecution story and based on the evidence adduced has convicted and sentenced the appellant as already discussed.

10. Learned Amicus, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi made the following submissions:

(i) Delay in lodging the FIR. FIR was not forwarded to Ilaqua Magistrate forthwith.

(ii) Medical evidence belies the ocular testimony. According to Autopsy Surgeon (PW4) in his cross-examination injury no. 1 is not possible if fired on the left side of chest from front and if fired straight from the front could not cause this injury. According to Autopsy Surgeon (PW4) in his cross-examination there is no blackening or charring in both the injuries. There are major and material contradictions in the testimony of PWs (PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6 and PW7).

(iii) No source of light is mentioned in the FIR in which the alleged eye-witnesses (PW1 and PW2) have witnessed the occurrence and identified the assailant.

(iv) No trail of blood was found by the Investigating Officer on the spot. Blood stained clothes of the deceased were not taken in custody by the police, no fard of the same was prepared nor it was sent for chemical examination.

(v) No finger prints of the accused/appellant were taken by the Investigating Officer on the recovered broken Naal of Tamancha from the spot.

(vi) The main author of this case viz Rukmini and her husband were not examined by the prosecution to unfold the truth.

(vii) The accused/appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case only on account of enmity.

(viii) PW1 is minor son of the deceased. Minor cannot be administered oath. Moreover, PW1 is a tutored witness. PW1 and PW2 are related and interested witnesses, hence their testimony requires close scrutiny. PW2 is not the actual eye-witness of the occurrence. Deepmala, the daughter of the deceased was not produced in the witness box which creates a doubt about her presence on the spot at the time of occurrence.

(ix) Blood stained and plain earth soil was sent for chemical analysis after about two months of the occurrence.

(x) The recovered broken Naal of Tamancha was sent to forensic science laboratory after about one month of the occurrence.

(xi) The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

(xii) In support of his contentions, learned Amicus relied on the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ishwar Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh1 and Lakshmi Singh and others vs. State of Bihar2.

11. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submitted that the eye-witnesses PW1 and PW2 had proved the commission of crime by the appellant and the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced him, therefore, no interference is called for.

12. As per the postmortem report following antemortem injuries were detected on the body of the deceased:

"(i) Firearm wound of entry 1.0 cm X 0.5 cm x chest cavity deep over right side back of chest 20 cm below root of neck margin inverted irregular echymosed.

(ii) Firearm wound of exit 2.0 cm x 2.0 cm x chest cavity deep on left side front of chest 3.0 cm away from left nipple at 9.0'clock position margins everted, irregular, echymosed. On dissection underlying both pleura, both lungs, pericardium, heart found lacerated and injury No. (1) communicating to injury No. (2) through & through. Two liters clotted and fluid blood present in chest cavity."

Cause of death was mentioned as shock and haemorrhage as a result of antemortem firearm injuries.

13. As per the postmortem report there is one firearm entry wound and another firearm exit wound. The entry wound is on the right side back of the chest and the exit wound is on left side front of the chest. On dissection underlying both pleura, both lungs, pericardium, heart found lacerated and injury No. (1) communicating to injury No. (2) through & through. Two liters clotted and fluid blood was present in chest cavity. From postmortem report, which has been proved by the Autopsy Surgeon (PW-4), it is established beyond doubt that the deceased was murdered. The question is whether the appellant murdered the deceased.

14. As the case is one of direct evidence, we may now consider the ocular testimony of eye-witnesses. PW-1 is son of the deceased. On the date of recording of his statement, he was stated to have been about 14 years of age. The testimony having been recorded in April, 2013 and the incident having occurred on 31.08.2011, he must have been about 12 and half years old at the time of the incident. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that the murder of his father took place about one year and eight months ago. The incident took place at 8.20 PM. His father was present at the parchoon shop in front of his house in the sahan. His father asked him to fetch water. When he returned with water, he saw that the appellant-Raju had put a Tamancha on the chest of his father. He was saying that he would have to kill him i.e. the deceased, to ensure his rights in respect of the house. He has stated about battery operated tube-light (CFL) being on, in the Khoka (shop). As soon as he reached near them, the appellant shot at the chest of his father. His father fell down. PW-1 raised an alarm. On hearing his shouts and the gun shot, his uncle Dhaniram Gupta (PW-2) and sister Deepmala, as also, neighbour Thakur Ram Naresh came. The appellant-Raju ran-away after shooting his father towards north. His father died on the spot. His body was taken on a jeep to Gola Government Hospital by his uncle and other villagers where the Doctor after examination pronounced him dead. He and his uncle went to Police Station Haiderabad for lodging the FIR. His uncle lodged the FIR. The police reached the Government Hospital at Gola in the night itself and inquest was got conducted. Body of his father was sealed. He then returned to his house.

15. PW-1 was cross-examined the same day. In cross-examination he has stated that Rukmini did not reside with his father but resided in tenanted house for about 7-8 months. Rukmini resided on the ground floor while he and his father resided on the first floor. His mother had died seven years ago. Rukmini was a tenant in the house. Rukmini earlier resided at the back in Gandhi Nagar. Her husband Moolchand used to live in Gandhi Nagar Mohalla with her. They had four children. Moolchand was alive. His father had evicted Rukmini from his house 7-8 months earlier. He had not seen Rukmini since then. His father used to drink liquor sometime that too in the house. He has further stated in cross-examination that when his father was shot he was facing north. His father was standing outside the Khoka. There was no customer at the shop at the time of the incident. The murderer was standing towards south of his father. His father had not spoken anything when the murderer had put his Tamancha on his chest and had threatened him. On being shot, his father had fallen on the ground. He has stated that the bullet had hit his father on the left side of the chest. He has further stated that his uncle Dhaniram Gupta's (PW2) house is situated about one and half kilometer away. His uncle used to come over to his house for 10-15 days along with his four year old daughter. On the date of the incident also he was at his house. His food had also been cooked at his house. His sister Deepmala was cooking. He has also stated that he had told his uncle about battery operated tube-light (CFL) being on in the Khoka. The Sub Inspector had recorded his statement in the night of the incident itself. He has spoken about body of the deceased being taken to the Hospital in a jeep by the Sub Inspector who was passing by. Thereafter he has also stated that the Sub Inspector had arrived at the scene of crime prior to the body being taken to the Hospital.

16. On an analysis of the testimony of the child witness, we find that at one place he has mentioned in cross-examination that when his father was shot, he (the deceased-father) was facing towards north and was standing outside the Khoka (shop). He has stated that the murderer was standing to the south of his father, but, at the same time he has stated that the bullet had hit the chest of his father on the left side. This is an incongruity, especially when, considered in the light of medical evidence in the form of postmortem report which has been proved by the PW-4. The postmortem report mentions the entry wound on the right back side of the chest and not the front side nor left front side of the chest. Moreover, it mentions the exit wound on left side front of the chest. As per the site plan, if the father of the PW-1 was facing towards north, then, he was standing in front or side of Khoka and facing towards the pakka road situated at a distance of about 15 steps from the cross(x) on the site plan exhibit Ka12 which is the scene of the crime. If the murderer was standing south of the deceased, then it could only mean south towards Khoka i.e. back of the deceased. If it is so, then the bullet could not have hit the front chest of the deceased on the left side as has been stated by the PW-1. PW-1 is a child witness and, therefore, the same has to be considered with circumspection and his version is required to be corroborated by other evidence so as to make it acceptable. We may in this regard refer to the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh & Ors3 (para 22, 23) which are as under:

"22. It is well-settled that the evidence of a child witness must find adequate corroboration, before it is relied upon as the rule of corroboration is of practical wisdom than of law. (See Prakash Vs. State of M.P., (1992) 4 SCC 225; Baby Kandayanathi Vs. State of Kerala, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 667; Raja Ram Yadav Vs. State of Bihar, (1996) 9 SCC 287; Dattu Ramrao Sakhare Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 5 SCC 341; State of U.P. Vs. Ashok Dixit & Anr., (2000) 3 SCC 70; Suryanarayana Vs. State Of Karnataka, (2001) 9 SCC 129).

23. However, it is not the law that if a witness is a child, his evidence shall be rejected, even if it is a found reliable. The law is that evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others tell him and thus a child witness is an easy prey to tutoring. [Vide Panchhi Vs. State of U.P., (1998) 7 SCC 177]."

17. In this context we may refer to the testimony of the Autopsy Surgeon (PW-4) who has reiterated the antemortem injuries mentioned in the postmortem report, according to which, the bullet entered the body of the deceased from the right back side of the chest 20 cm below the root of the neck and he has mentioned the exit wound as being on the left front side of the chest of the deceased. This medical evidence does not support the ocular testimony of the child witness (PW1) who has stated that the bullet hit the left side of his father's chest. Furthermore, in cross-examination, he (PW4) has stated that injury no. 1 would not be caused if the bullet is fired from the left front side of the chest. It can also not be caused if the bullet is fired from straight in front of the chest. He has also stated that there was no blackening or charring on the body of the deceased. PW1 has mentioned about the murderer having placed his Tamancha on the deceased's chest, but has not disclosed the distance from which he has fired. Nevertheless, the medical evidence does not corroborate the statement of PW1 that the bullet had hit the left front side of the chest of the deceased and is wholly inconsistent with the ocular evidence. Medical evidence renders the ocular evidence improbable and unreliable. We draw support in this regard from the enunciation of law on the issue in Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai vs State Of Gujarat4 (para 13) which is as under:

"13. Ordinarily, the value of medical evidence is only corroborative. It proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The use which the defence can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged and thereby discredit the eye witnesses. Unless, however the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries: taking place in the manner alleged by eye witnesses, the testimony of the eye witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence."

18. We may now examine the testimony of PW2 the other alleged eye-witness. We may in this context refer to the testimony of PW1 wherein he has stated that after being shot his father fell on the ground and he (PW1) raised an alarm. Hearing his shouts and the gun shot his uncle Dhaniram Gupta and Deepmala and a neighbour Thakur Ram Naresh came which is indicative of the fact that they were actually not present at the spot when the alleged firing took place. Moreover, we find a statement in the cross-examination of PW1 that he had told his uncle i.e. PW2 about the battery operated tube-light (CFL) being on in the Khoka. If the PW2 was present on the spot, then, there was no need for PW1 to inform him (PW2) about this fact as it would have been seen apparently by PW2 also in the night. In his testimony, PW2 has claimed that he was present at the scene of crime and had seen the incident along with his nephew (PW1) and niece (Deepmala). As already stated, Deepmala has not been examined. The testimony of nephew (PW1) is not corroborated by the medical evidence as already discussed hereinabove. Testimony of PW1 itself belies the presence of PW2 at the commission of crime. The possibility of PW2 being in the house situated at the back of the shop about twenty steps away but not on the spot cannot be ruled out.

19. As regards the incident, PW2 has stated that the Khoka/shop opened towards the north. The assailant was standing about four feet away from the shop while firing. The deceased-Sobaran Lal Gupta was standing near the Khoka towards the north. Sobaran Lal Gupta was facing north and the shop/khoka was towards the south of Sobaran Lal Gupta. He has categorically stated that there was no occasion for the accused to shoot while standing behind (south) of Sobaran Lal Gupta. He has stated that the assailant had shot straight from front of Sobaran Lal Gupta on his chest. On similar lines is the testimony of PW1. As already discussed earlier, medical evidence in the form of the postmortem report and the testimony of the Autopsy Surgeon does not corroborate the testimony of PW1 and for the same reason it does not corroborate the testimony of PW2, both of whom are alleged to be eye-witnesses. PW2 has clearly stated that Sobran Lal Gupta was shot from the front on the chest. The injuries detected on the body of the deceased show the entry wound on the right back side of the chest, therefore, the testimony of PW2 that Sobaran Lal Gupta was shot from the front on his chest is belied from the entry wound mentioned in the postmortem report as also the exit wound. The testimony of the Autopsy Surgeon (PW4) is also on the same lines that deceased was shot from behind and he has categorically stated that the injury no. 1 could not have occurred if the shot was fired from the front left side of the deceased on his chest nor if it was fired straight from the front. The medical evidence does not tally nor corroborate the ocular evidence of PW1 and PW2. Thus, it is not safe to conclude that they had seen the crime being committed. The gross contradiction in their testimony viz-a-viz the medical evidence is glaring and apparent thereby rendering their ocular testimony improbable and rules out the possibility of ocular testimony being true and creates a doubt about the prosecution story and the credibility of the alleged eye-witnesses PW1 and PW2 one of whom PW1 is a child witness.

20. Learned AGA on being confronted with the medical evidence and testimony of PW2 which appeared to be grossly contradictory and inconsistent with the statement of PW1 and PW2, he invited our attention to the inquest report wherein only one injury towards left front side of the chest is mentioned. No doubt the inquest report mentions only one injury towards left side of the front of the chest of the deceased, but, witnesses of inquest are not experts and the said report can not be given precedence over scientific medical examination in the form of postmortem report nor over the testimony of a medical expert i.e. the autopsy surgeon. In view of the medical evidence on record as to the nature of the injuries and the entry and exit wound and the testimony of PW4, it not possible for this Court to ignore the same. Inquest report cannot be given precedence in the matter of evidence over medical evidence in the form of postmortem report and the testimony of the Doctor (PW4) especially in the facts of this case where in postmortem report the injuries detected have been mentioned in detail and the same have been proved/corroborated by the ocular testimony of the Autopsy Surgeon. We may in this regard refer to the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court as to the evidentiary value of an inquest report in the case of Yogesh Singh (supra), paragraph 41 of which is as under:

"41. Further, the evidentiary value of the inquest report prepared under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. has also been long settled through a series of judicial pronouncements of this Court. It is well-established that inquest report is not a substantive piece of evidence and can only be looked into for testing the veracity of the witnesses of inquest. The object of preparing such report is merely to ascertain the apparent cause of death, namely, whether it is suicidal, homicidal, accidental or caused by animals or machinery etc. and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument, the injuries on the body appear to have been inflicted. [See Pedda Narayan Vs. State of A.P., (1975) 4 SCC 153; Khujji Vs. State of M.P., (1991) 3 SCC 627; Kuldip Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 1; George and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala and Anr., (2008) 4 SCC 605; Suresh Rai Vs. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 84; Amar Singh Vs. Balwinder Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 518; Radha Mohan Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2006) 2 SCC 450; Sambhu Das Vs. State of Assam, (2010) 10 SCC 374]."

21. On a perusal of the Trial Court judgment, we find that the aforesaid plea by the defense that the ocular evidence regarding shot having been fired from the front on the chest and bullet having hit the deceased on left side does not tally and is not corroborated with the medical evidence, has been cursorily rejected by it on the ground of possibility of the deceased having turned when the shot was being fired, however, we do not find any basis for this opinion expressed by the learned Trial Court. In the testimony of PW1 and PW2, none of them has stated that the deceased either ran or turned around when the shot was fired at him. Both of them have categorically mentioned that the shot was fired from the front and the bullet hit the left side of front chest of the deceased, therefore, the finding of the Trial Court in this regard is purely conjectural and based on surmises, it is, therefore, perverse.

22. Further, if PW1 and PW2 had seen the assailant/appellant firing on the deceased, then, the reasoning given by the Trial Court that merely by seeing the wound it cannot be said as to from what direction the shot was fired is absolutely perverse. Once the witnesses saw the assailant firing upon the deceased that too with the help of battery operated tube-light (CFL) then the reasoning given by the Trial Court cannot be accepted and is contrary to the evidence on record. In fact contrary to the statement of PW1 and PW2 the Trial Court has recorded a finding that the bullet was fired from the back and not from the front of the deceased which itself belies the testimony of PW1 and PW2 and makes the prosecution case incredible.

23. PW1 and PW2 claim to have seen the incident in the light of the battery operated tube-light (CFL) in the Khoka/shop. We do not find mention of this fact in the FIR. Even if this is ignored on the ground that the FIR need not contain all possible details, there is no recovery of any such battery operated tube-light (CFL) from the khoka nor there is any plausible explanation as to why this omission, therefore, this part of the story is also not found credible, especially in view of the discrepancies in the ocular and medical evidence discussed hereinabove.

24. The forensic report exhibit Ka14 is also not of much help as we have not found the eye-witnesses account to be credible and reliable. In any case, forensic report only mentions that the broken barrel recovered from the spot could have been broken at the time of firing and that the forensic examination reveals firing from the said barrel which by itself is of no consequence once the eye-witness account is not found credible.

25. Though motive is not relevant in a case of direct evidence, but, we find that the story set up with regard to the claim of Rukmini to half of house of the deceased-Sobaran Lal Gupta based on some notarized document does not appear to be credible. Details of the litigation between the parties have not been mentioned by any of the witnesses. In any case, once the testimony of the alleged eye-witnesses PW1 and PW2 is itself not credible as regards the incident for the reasons already discussed hereinabove, then, all other factors loose their significance. Testimony of the Investigating Officer (PW7) also looses significance in view of the above discussion which does not inspire confidence in the Court to rely upon the testimony of alleged eye-witnesses.

26. Rukmini as also her husband Moolchand were not produced as witnesses. Rukmini was not even made an accused, though, if at all, as it was she who was claiming half of the house, hence, it is she who had a motive.

27. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of murder of deceased Sobaran Lal Gupta against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The Trial Court has erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302 IPC.

28. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentencing of the appellant of Trial Court vide judgment dated 22.09.2015.

29. The appellant was ordered to be enlarged on bail by the order of this Court vide order dated 05.08.2022, however, the photocopies of the bail bonds, if any, have not been remitted to this Court, therefore, it is provided that if the appellant is still in jail, he shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other criminal case.

30. The appellant is directed to file a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned in compliance of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure within six weeks from the date of release.

31. Let the lower Court records along with a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Trial Court and the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned for taking necessary action. A copy of this judgment shall also be forwarded to the appellant through the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Trial Court concerned, as the case may be.

32. Learned Amicus, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi, shall be entitled to Rs. 25,000/- from the High Court as fee for his services.

[Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.]

Order Date :- 22.12.2022

Santosh/-