State Of U.P. vs Krishna Deo
2022 Latest Caselaw 12108 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

							      Reserved Judgement
 
Reserved On :12.04.2022
 
Delivered on : 06.09.2022 
 

 
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 2261 of 1985
 

 
Appellant :- State of U.P.
 
Respondent :- Krishna Deo
 
Counsel for Appellant :- A.G.A.
 
Counsel for Respondent :- V.S. Saxena,Anoop Kumar Pandey,Kashi Nath Shukla,R.N.Sharma,Rajrshi Gupta,Ram Kishore Pandey,V.K.Misra
 

 

 
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.

(Per: Narendra Kumar Johari, J.)

1. Present Government Appeal has been filed by the State of U.P. - appellant against judgment and order dated 24.05.1985, passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act), Banda in Sessions Trial No. 66 of 1984 (State Vs. Krishna Deo alias Natthu and others), under Sections 148, 307/149, 302/149 IPC, Police Station Mataundh, District Banda. By the impugned judgment and order, the trial court has acquitted accused-respondents for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 307 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC.

2. In short, the case of the prosecution is that informant Raja Ram was witness in the murder case of Satrughan. The trial of that case was conducted against Ram Bhajan. In another matter against Ram Bhajan, Gamka and others, his son Murli Manohar was set up as a witness on behalf of Nathhu Singh. One Lalu, resident of his village had contested the election of Gram Pradhan against Jhandu Singh, wherein the informant had supported and casted vote in favour of Jhandu Singh. Jhandu Singh had won the election of Gram Pradhan. Therefore, the accused persons, who were the residents of his village were having enmity with informant. The accused persons had formed a group also, who were indulged in illegal activities. Due to the aforesaid enmity, informant felt threat and sensing danger to his life and property, informant had already lodged an F.I.R. against accused persons in Police Station Mataundh. In connection with the aforesaid enmity, on 21.03.1983, accused Krishna Deo @ Lallu equipped with his licenced rifle, Ram Bhajan @ Natthu armed with double barrel gun, Bhagwandeen @ Gamka with a gun, Ram Pal with rifle, Sidhgopal with his licenced rifle and Kedar @ Chunnaka with a lathi came at the house of informant at 8.00 A.M. At that time son of informant Murli Manohar was standing in front of gate of his house (Baithka). Another son of informant Shiv Karan was inside the house. As accused reached near the house of informant, on exhortation of accused Krishna Deo @ Lallu, another accused Sidhgopal opened fire with their rifle, which hit Murli Manohar. After receiving firearm injury, injured Murli Manohar ran inside the house to save his life. Having had seen the occurrence, the informant and other persons closed the shutter of the house and raised alarm. Hearing their voice, Shiv Dhani, a resident of the village reached on the spot, then after that the accused persons kept on throwing challenge and opening fires returned back with open threat.

3. The son of informant had received firearm injury. Informant was trying to go to the police station with him to lodged the F.I.R. but they were under threat that accused persons would have been present on the way, that is why they could not come out of their house. On assuring final withdrawal of the accused persons, injured Murli Manohar was brought to the police station by bullock cart. The moment they crossed the river Ken at 11.00 A.M., all the aforesaid accused persons again reached and besieged them in the way and started firing with intention to kill them. Informant and his companion ran away leaving Murli Manohar in the bullock cart. Ultimately injured Murli Manohar also tried to run in the injured state of his body to save life. The accused persons chased him and opened fire many rounds at him and due to firearm injuries, Murli Manohar died on the spot instantly. Besides the informant, his son Shiv Karan, grand son Raj Kumar, Shiv Dhani and Vandra were also present on the spot where his son was killed by the accused persons. Upon hearing thundering of guns, many persons of the village, who were working in the neighboring fields assembled on the spot but they could not gather courage to come to their rescue. Leaving the dead body of Murli Manohar on the spot in the supervision of Raj Kumar, the informant went to the police station to lodge the report. The Tehrir with above facts was scribed by Raj Kumar.

4. On the basis of above contention, First Information Report of the occurrence was lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 IPC against the accused persons and Sub Inspector Ram Vilas Mishra was instructed to go on the spot for inspection along with other police persons. They reached on the spot at 3.45 P.M. The dead body of Murli Manohar was seen lying on the ground on the bank of river Ken. The police persons prepared the inquest memo and other papers relating to post mortem examination. The dead body was sent to mortuary, where his autopsy was conducted.

5. In furtherance of the F.I.R., the Investigating Officer started conducting the investigation, he collected blood stained and plain soil from the gate of residence of the informant and also recovered a cap of cartridge from the spot where deceased Murli Manohar was lying dead and prepared the Fard recoveries. After completion of the investigation, Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against accused persons in the court concerned.

6. The Magistrate concerned, took cognizance and committed the case to the court of sessions. Learned trial court framed charges under Sections 147, 307/149, 302/149 IPC against accused Kedar Prasad @ Chunka, charges under Sections 148, 307/149, 302/149 IPC against other accused persons Krishna Deo @ Lalu, Ram Bhajan @ Nathhu, Bhagwandeen @ Gamka and Rampal Dube and charge under Sections 148, 307, 302/149 against accused Sidhgopal. Accused persons abjured and denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and requested for trial.

7. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, witness Shiv Dhani as PW 1, Subhash Chandra as PW 2, Vandra as PW 3, S.I. Ram Bilas Mishra as PW 4, Raja Ram as PW 5 (complainant), HCP Munnu Lal as PW 6, Dr. A.K. Bhardwaj as PW 7, Constable Karam Ali as PW 8, Raj Kumar as PW 9, Dev Chandra Srivastava as PW 10 produced their evidence.

8. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons was recorded under Section 313 CrPC, in which the accused persons denied the allegation leveled against them and mentioned that they have been wrongly implicated under the false charges due to subsistence of long standing enmity. The defence produced witness Bindeswari Prasad as DW 1 and Karam Ali as DW 2.

9. Learned trial court, after considering the prosecution version and documentary as well as oral evidence on record, acquitted the accused persons from the charges leveled, which has been assailed by the State in the present appeal.

10. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the record.

11. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the enmity between accused persons and informant's family is proved. Accused persons committed heinous offence in day light. The blood stained soil as well as the cap of cartridge has been recovered from the place of occurrence. Although some of the prosecution witnesses turned hostile as they fell in collusion with the accused persons, yet the witnesses of fact PW 5 and PW 9 have narrated and proved the occurrence. There is no discrepancy in their evidence on substantial points. The prosecution version is also supported by documentary evidence including Post Mortem Report of deceased. Learned trial court wrongly assessed the evidence and acquitted the accused persons. The judgment of trial court is against the provisions of law and perverse, which is liable to be set aside. In any view of the case, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the accused persons be convicted for the offence committed.

12. Learned counsel for the accused-respondents in reply argued that the accused-respondents have wrongly been implicated in the case due to previous enmity. The son of the informant was killed by some unknown person and the informant has falsely implicated the respondents. Autopsy report itself is sufficient to controvert the prosecution version. The occurrence has not been seen by any eye witness. The substantial witnesses of fact have turned hostile. There is grave contradiction in the statement of rest of the prosecution witnesses of fact. The prosecution was miserably failed to prove the charges against the accused persons, therefore, learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondents from the charges. The instant appeal has no force of law and is liable to be dismissed.

13. Present appeal was filed against accused-respondent Krishna Dev @ Lalu, Ram Bhajan @ Natthu, Bhagwandeen @ Gamka, Sidhgopal, Rampal Dube, Kedar Prasad @ Chunka. During pendency of the appeal, Rampal Dube, Bhagwandeen @ Gamka have died. Consequently, the appeal stood abated against the aforesaid accused respondents.

14. It dipicts from the perusal of record that learned trial court has acquitted the accused persons on the ground that the prosecution story is not believable. In the first part of occurrence as alleged in the F.I.R. at the time when attack was launched on Murli Manohar, he was allegedly standing all alone in front of the gate, why and for what purpose Murli Manohar was standing on the gate for last 1 1/2 hours, could not be explained by the prosecution. It has not been proved as to who informed the informant that Sidh Gopal on exhortation of Krishnadeo @ Lalu opened fire on Murli Manohar. According to the statement of Investigating Officer, the fact had come into his knowledge during the investigation that respondent Sidhgopal, Bhagwandeen @ Gamka and Ram Pal Dubey had falsely been implicated in the case due to enmity. According to the post mortem report, injury received by Murli Manohar at the gate of his residence was serious in nature and due to the aforesaid injury it was not possible for him to run 250-300 steps after approximately 03 hours from the time of receiving injury at his abdomen, that too he was in the state of without medication. The presence of alleged eye witness PW 9 Raj Kumar at the place of occurrence was doubtful. Under what circumstances the informant and his sons and grand son were present at 8.00 A.M., in the house which was not their residential house, and where the first part of the incident took place. This fact has not been explained by the prosecution. The fact of multiple fires also not been proved. Except Murli Manohar, none of the persons from the prosecution side had received any injury. The medical evidence does not support the prosecution story. The statement of informant ( PW 5) is not corroborated by any other evidence and the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.

15. The first part of occurrence took place at 8.00 A.M. and second part of the occurrence at 11.00 A.M. on 21.03.1983 for which the First Information Report was lodged at 13.15 P.M. on the same day, i.e., on 21.03.1983. The distance of police station from the place of occurrence has been shown as 10 Kms. Taking in consideration the above fact, it can be concluded that the FIR has been lodged soon after the occurrence and without any undue delay.

16. The autopsy on the body of Murli Manohar was held at 1.05 P.M. on 22.03.1983. According to the Post Mortem Report deceased was a young man of 32 years and of average built body. He had died a day back, rigor mortis was present on the body and the process of decomposition had not set in. He found the following ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased :-

1. Gunshot wound of entry 1 Cm. X 1 Cm. on right side of back over scapular area, chest cavity deep 11 Cms. below right shoulder. Direction anteriorly, Margins were inverted with abraided collars. Blackening, tatttooing and charring around the wound in an area of 8 Cms. X 7 Cms. were found. On section scapula was found fractured.

2. Gunshot wound of exit 2 Cms. X 2 Cms. X chest cavity, 3 Cms. below supra-sternual knotch and 10 Cms. above left nipple at 10 O'clock position. Margins were inverted. On section 4th rib was fractured. It was communicating with injury No.1.

3. Gunshot wound of exit 3 Cms. X 2.5 Cms. over left side chest X Chest cavity, 1 Cm. towards left of injury No.2. It communicated with injury no.1.

4. Blackening, tattooing and charring over an area of 7.7 Cms. X 7 Cms. over right side back, 14 Cms. below right scapula and 9 Cms. below the vertebrae column. No wound was seen.

5. Gunshot wound of entry 1 Cm. X 1 Cm. in middle and lower part of centre of vertibral column, abdominal cavity deep, 10 Cms. above coeeyx, direction upwards and anteriorly, on section lumbo-sacrad joint was found fractured and dislocated.

6. Gunshot wound of entry 1 Cm. X 1 Cm. X abdominal cavity on right side of glutial region, 8 Cms. below illiac crest. Direction anterior and upwards. On section right illiac bone was fractured and perforated.

7. Gunshot wound of exit 3 in number over an area of 7 Cms. X 3 Cms. on abdomen in middle part, abdominal cavity deep, between 1.5 to 2 Cms. apart from each other. On section communicates to injury No.5 and 6. Intestines were perforated of various places. It was 4 Cms. below umblicus.

8. Gunshot 3 Cms. X 2 Cms. on right side of nose.

A layer of sand was found wrapped on the stomach and right thigh. There was laceration and also perforation in the right lung and pleura below injury No.1 chambers were empty. There was half digested food in the stomach. Intestine had perforated at places.

Death had been caused due to shock and hemorrhage resulting from ante mortem injuries which were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. The injuries could possibly be inflicted at about 11 A.M. on 21.03.1993.

17. In First Information Report as well as in the evidence of PW 5, it has been mentioned that accused Ram Bhajan @ Natthu and Bhagwandeen @ Gamka were having enmity with informant and with his son Murli Manohar as they were witnesses regarding some other case which was lodged against accused persons. Accused Krishna Dev @ Lalu was having enmity with informant due to rivalry in election of Village Panchayat. Accused Sidhgopal was also feeling enmity with informant as his father was missing and probably murdered 30 years back and he was creating doubt on informant to cause his murder. In their statement under Section 313 CrPC all the accused persons have mentioned that they had been implicated in the case due to enmity, therefore, the factum of enmity between informant and accused persons is proved.

18. As a witness of fact Shiv Dhani (PW 1), Vandra (PW 3), Raja Ram (PW 5) and Raj Kumar (PW 9) have deposed as prosecution witness. In the First Information Report, it has been shown that aforesaid witnesses were eye witnesses of occurrence. During the trial witness PW 1 who was the son of maternal uncle of informant Raja Ram and was allegedly present at the time of first part of occurrence, i.e. occurrence of firing at the Gate of informant's Baithka as well as at the time of second part of occurrence of firing at the bank of river Ken, had not supported the prosecution story in his statement and has been declared hostile. Witness PW 3 who was present at the time of second part of occurrence at the bank of river Ken has also not supported the prosecution version in his statement and turned hostile.

19. Witness PW 5 is father of deceased Murli Manohar, he is informant of the case also. He had stated in his statement that he owns 03 houses in the village; one is residential, another is Baithka and the third one is premises for his animals. The Baithka is situated approximately 50 paces away from his residential house and having gate of iron , which opens towards south. At the time of occurrence, he along with Raj Kumar and Shiv Karan were present in the courtyard of his Baithka and Murli Manohar was standing at the gate of Baithka. Admittedly, Baithka is not the residential house of informant's family, therefore, why all the male members of informant's family were present at the Baithka at 8.00 A.M. it had not been shown, particularly when the accommodation was not their residential accommodation. It has also been mentioned at page 6 of his statement that since last one and half hour from the time of occurrence, Murli Manohar was standing at the gate. Why and for what reason he was standing at the gate for such a long time, when other members of his family were sitting on cot at courtyard, it has also not been shown by prosecution. The witness PW 5 had further stated that when his son Murli Manohar received firearm injury, at that time his face was towards south and he received the firearm injury in the right side of his abdomen. The witness PW 5 had also stated that at the time of occurrence Natthu was having double barrel gun, Gamka was having single barrel gun, Ram Pal, Sidhgopal and Krishna Dev were having licenced rifle, Krishna Dev exhorted that enemy is standing, kill him. On his exhortation Sidhgopal opened fire on Murli Manohar. The witness further stated that after firing, the accused persons went towards south. The informant was present inside his courtyard of his house and it was not possible for him to visualize the aforesaid activities of accused persons, therefore, who narrated the above acts of accused to informant, it has not been shown by the prosecution witnesses. Witness PW 5 had further stated that he applied cotton cloth (Safi) as bandage on the wound of Murli Manohar, which was caused due to firearm injury. He had mentioned that after receiving the firearm injury Murli Manohar became unconscious but after some time, he regained the consciousness. He had not provided any medicine or treatment to his injured son at his Baithka.

20. Witness PW 5 had also stated at page 4 of his evidence that after 02 hours from the time of occurrence, he moved for police station with his injured son. The Post Mortem Report shows that injury No.1 is gun shot wound of entry on right side of back over scapular area but it has also been shown blackening, tatooing and charring around the wound, which indicates that this injury had been caused to Murli Manohar with close range. The injury received by Murli Manohar at the gate of his Baithka had not been shown caused from the close range. Injury No.5 as shown in the post mortem report is of gun shot wound of entry in middle and lower part of center of vertebral column but its direction was upward and anteriorly. Accordingly, the injury no. 6 is also the gun shot wound of entry, which was present in abdominal cavity on right side of glutial region, below illiac crest, its direction has also been shown anterior and upward. So taking into consideration the direction of entry wound in both the injuries (5 and 6), it can be presumed that both the injuries had not been caused in standing position of the victim as the direction of the wounds were towards upward. The injury No.4, shows the injury of blackening, tatooing and charring over an area of 7.7 C.M. X 7.0 C.M. and had been shown over right side back but no wound had been found. Apart from that, injury No.8 was the gun shot wound on right side of nose. The injuries No.2, 3 and 7 were all exit wound injuries. Witness PW 5 had stated in his evidence that Murli Manohar had received injury in his right side of abdomen, on which he had applied Safi (bandage of cotton cloth) over the wounds. Witness PW 4, Investigating Officer, who had inspected the dead body at the place of occurrence had stated that he had found blood stained Safi wrapped on the waist of deceased's body. This fact indicates that the injured had received the gun shot wound on his abdomen near the waist. Accordingly, it may be said that deceased either had received injury No.5 or injury No.6 at the time of occurrence, which took place at the Gate of his Baithka. Injury No.5 shows injury on center of vertibral column and due to the injury his lambo-sacrad joint got fractured and dislocated. Injury No.6, which has been found at the abdominal cavity on right side of glutial region had caused fracture and perforation of elliac bone. The injured had been brought to the police station after 3 hours of injury at his abdomen. According to the evidence of PW 7, Dr. A.K. Bhardwaj, who had conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Murli Manohar, due to injury No.5, the injured would have been paralised immediately and his death is also probable in a short span of time, whereas due to injury No.6, the injured would have not been in a position to move on foot, contrary to the same, during second part of incident, it had been shown by the prosecution that Murli Manohar ran approximately 200-250 steps towards north. Therefore, in the light of evidence of witness PW 7 and Post Mortem Report of deceased, the first part of occurrence is not proved.

21. Witness PW 5 had further stated that when informant along with injured Murli Manohar and other companion fellows reached at the bank of Ken river, all the accused persons came and opened fire on them. At page 8 of his evidence, this witness had stated that all the accused persons opened fire on them besiged the bullock cart but none of the person including informant had received any firearm injury even there was no evidence or sign of firearm on the body of bullock cart. Witness PW 5 had further stated at page 4 of his statement that as the accused persons opened fire, all the persons who were present with informant started running. Murli Manohar was lying in bullock cart in injured conditions, also jumped from bullock cart and ran up to 300 paces approximately, just to save his life. If Murli Manohar had received firearm injury (either injury No.5 or injury No.6 as shown in post mortem report) in the first part of occurrence, it was not possible for him to jump from the bullock cart and run for a distance of 300 paces. This witness had also mentioned at page 8 that Murli Manohar started running towards north, whereas spot map (Ext.Ka-21) shows that from the place where the accused persons reached, surrounded the bullock cart and started firing, near that place there was field of wheat with standing crop towards east side. It had also been mentioned in the statement of PW 5 at page 8 that in the nearby field the persons were engaged in cutting of crop. In such a scenario, why Murli Manohar had not run towards east and under what circumstances he had preferred to run towards north where there was sandy land with long distance open area. This is an unnatural behaviour of an injured person.

22. Witness PW 9 Raj Kumar had been shown as eye witness of both the occurrence of firing. This witness had stated in his evidence at page 1 (in examination-in-chief) that he was present at the residential house of informant, when he heard the sound fire from the Baithka he moved towards and entered into the Baithka when accused persons returned back from the place of occurrence. Contrary to the same witness PW 5 had stated that when Murli Manohar received firearm injury at the gate the witness PW 9 was present inside the Baithka (at cot in the courtyard). Witness PW 9 had stated in his statement that when he entered into the Baithka after hearing the sound of fire, Raja Ram told him that Sidhgopal had shot Murli Manohar. How Raja Ram got the knowledge about above act of Sidhgopal at that time none had told him that whose fire hit Murli Manohar. At page 4 witness PW 9 had further stated that when accused persons started firing at the bank of river Ken, they turned the bullock cart, but this fact has not been stated by PW 5 in his evidence, rather he had mentioned that as the accused persons started firing, he started running towards north. PW 9 has also stated at page 8 of his evidence that Ram Pal and Sidhgopal had opened fire on Murli Manohar from the distance of approximately 50 paces. This fact has not been stated by PW 5, neither it is corroborated by injuries as mentioned in the post mortem report of Murli Manohar. Contrary to the statement at page 8, witness PW 9 had further stated at page 9 of his statement that accused Sidhgopal and Ram Pal opened fire on Murli Manohar from a distance of 1 feet. There are contradictions in the statement of PW 9 and PW 5 on the substantial point. In the F.I.R. at the time of occurrence the presence of witness PW 9 had not been mentioned, whereas it is evident from the record that the F.I.R. had been lodged by PW 5, soon after the occurrence. Therefore, taking into consideration the evidence of PW 5 and 9, no definite conclusion can be drawn regarding the presence of witness PW 9, at the time of occurrence.

23. Perusal of statement of PW 9 as a whole, it can be inferred that this witness PW 9 was only the scribe of F.I.R. He was neither the eye witness of first occurrence which took place at the gate of informant's Baithka, nor of second part of occurrence which took place at the bank of river Ken, therefore, his testimony is not reliable.

24. In post mortem report as well as in the statement of PW 7, the fact has been mentioned that half digested food was present in the stomach of deceased. According to F.I.R., first occurrence had been shown to have taken place at 8.00 A.M. wherein the injured had received the firearm injury at his abdomen, therefore, it was not possible for him to take any food after getting injury. Semi digestion of food shows that food might had been taken by victim approximately 3-4 hours from the time of his death. The second part of occurrence had been shown to have taken place at 11.00 A.M. when Murli Manohar died on spot by fatal firearm injuries. So, when he had taken the food, has not been shown. At the time of occurrence he was present at the Gate of his Baithka since last one and half hours. He was not present at his residential house, therefore, neither it seem probable nor there is any evidence that he would have taken food at his Baithka prior to the first part of occurrence. Hence in absence of any evidence, the above evidence also creates cloud over the genuineness of the prosecution story.

25. Witness PW 10 was posted as Station Officer at Police Station Mataundh. He had investigated the occurrence. He had stated at page 9 of his evidence that during inquiry with village persons, the fact came into his knowledge that accused-respondents Kedar, Ram Bhajan and Krishna Dev were wrongly implicated in the case by the informant but this witness being inquiry officer, did not record the evidence of villagers who had stated the fact before him, nor he had collected any evidence for their innocence. The specific role of above persons has also not been shown.

26. Taking into consideration the above evidence, it can be inferred that PW 5 was partisan as well as interested witness of fact, who had narrated the occurrence and supported the prosecution story in his evidence but his evidence is not corroborated by any other admissible and reliable evidence. It has also been found that the statement of PW 5 is not able to get any substantial support by medical evidence also, therefore, the conclusion of the trial court that prosecution was failed to bring home the charges against accused persons is just, proper and in accordance with law. No illegality, irregularity or perversity is found in the judgment of learned trial court.

27. It is pertinent to mention here that the powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal are no less than in an appeal against conviction. But where on the basis of evidence on record two views are reasonably possible and no perversity is found, the appellate court cannot substitute its view in the place of that of the trial court. It is only when the approach of the trial court in acquitting an accused is found to be apparently erroneous in the consideration of evidence on record and in deducing conclusions therefrom then in that case the appellate court can interfere with the finding of acquittal. It is also golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases that if two views are possible on the basis of evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. It is also settled principle of law that paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice be avoided. The case of the prosecution must be judged as a whole. The approach of the court must be an integrated one and not truncated or isolated. Thus, the accused-respondents are not found guilty for the charges of offence leveled, as such the impugned judgment and order passed by learned trial court deserves to be upheld and government appeal having no force is liable to be dismissed.

28. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, as discussed above, we are of the considered view that the prosecution was not able to prove its case against accused-respondents beyond reasonable doubt. The view taken by learned trial court is a possible view. The judgment and order passed by learned trial court, according to law is just and proper and the same is well discussed. No illegality, infirmity or perversity is found. The accused-respondents are found not guilty for the offence with which they were charged and tried, as such, the impugned judgment and order passed by learned trial court is liable to be upheld. The government appeal having no force is liable to be dismissed.

29. Accordingly, present government appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 24.05.1985, passed by learned trial court is hereby affirmed.

30. Let the record be sent back to the trial court along with the copy of this judgment.

Order Date :- September 6, 2022

ML/-