Guptar Yadav And 3 Others. vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 2476 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Reserved  on: 16.01.2023
 
Delivered on:  24.01.2023
 
Court No. - 14
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 421 of 1999
 

 
Appellant :- Guptar Yadav And 3 Others.
 
Respondent :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- K.P.Singh,Hari Kant,Indrajeet Shukla,Rajendra Pratap Singh,Suresh Chandra Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt Advocate,Anil Kumar Tiwari
 

 
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

1. At the very outset, it is mentioned that during pendency of this appeal, appellants Ram Autar, Ram Prasad and Guptar Yadav had died, therefore, the appeal on their behalf was abated vide orders dated 6.7.2017 and 13.12.2022 respectively. The appeal has been heard only on behalf of the appellant Gaya Prasad.

2. Heard Mr. Suresh Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for appellants, Mr. Vinay Kumar Shahi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the trial court record.

3. This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellants challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 19.08.1999 passed by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad in Sessions Trial No. 60 of 1993, (State Vs. Guptar Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 336 of 1992 under Sections 304/34 and 323/34 IPC, Police Station Maharajganj, District Faizabad. By the said judgment, the appellants has been convicted and sentenced for offence under Section 304/34 IPC for five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were to undergo for three months additional imprisonment. For the offence under Section 323/34 IPC for six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,00/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were further undergo 45 days additional imprisonment.

4. Brief facts of this case emerges out as under:-

An FIR was lodged by complainant Shiv Kumar Yadav with the allegation that on 24.10.1992 at 6:00 p.m. the boys of his house was playing with crackers in front of his house. At that time, some hot talk took place with Ram Lal brother of complainant and accused appellant Ram Prasad, Gaya Prasad. Meanwhile, Guptar Yadav and Ram Autar armed with lathi hurled abuses to Ram Lal. At that very relevant time, wife of Ram Lal, namely Kamla Devi and mother of Ram Lal, namely, Rampati rushed towards the spot and intervened and refused to abuse. Thereafter immediately the accused appellants thrashed them with lathi and extended threats. On hearing the noise, Ram Singar, Chhangu and several other persons of locality reached the spot. Due to injuries, his mother Ram Pati got unconscious. On this basis, FIR of this case was lodged against the appellants as Case Crime No. 338 of 1992, under Sections 308, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Maharajganj, District Faizabad on 24.10.1992 at 19:10 hours. During treatment in the hospital her mother succumbed to the injuries on 25.10.1992 thereafter the case was converted under Section 304 IPC. The investigation of this case was entrusted to Investigating Officer S.I. Hari Ram Sharma. During course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recoded statement of injured persons, collected injury reports of Kamla Devi, sister in law (Bhabhi) of first informant and his mother Ram Pati and prepared site plan of the occurrence after recording the evidence of injured persons, first informant and independent eyewitnesses of the occurrence.

5. After completing all the formalities of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against all the appellants under Sections 308, 304, 323, 504 and 506 IPC on 1.1.1993. Thereafter the committal order was passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad on 05.02.1993 and case was committed to the court of Sessions and the case was transferred to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1 Faizabad for trial.

6. After hearing both the parties, the charges were framed against the appellants by the trial court on 2.7.1993 under Sections 302/34, and 323 IPC in which charges were read-over to the appellants in hindi to which they denied the allegations levelled against them and claimed to be tried.

7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses:-

(i) PW-1 Shiv Kumar is the complainant of the case and son of deceased Ram Pati.

(ii) PW-2 Kamla Devi is the injured witness.

(iii) PW-3 Dinesh Kumar, who is a formal witness.

(iv) PW-4 Ram Lal eyewitness of the occurrence, who fully supported the prosecution case.

(v) PW-5 Dr. Indra Dev Mull, Medical Officer, BRD Medical College, Gorakhpur. Uma Shankar is the independent eyewitness.

(iv) PW-6 S.I. Hari Ram Sharma is the Investigating Officer of the case.

(vii) PW-7 S.I. Bahadur Prasad, who prepared the inquest report.

(viii) PW-8 Constable Hari Ram Mishra.

To establish the case of prosecution as many as eight witnesses were examined.

8. PW-1 complainant Shiv Kumar son of Sukhi Ram in his examination-in-chief has stated that he was present on the spot. He had seen whole occurrence. Due to civil dispute between the parties. When some children of his house and children of village were playing with fire crackers in front of the house on account of Chhoti Diwali festival then the appellants intervened and ruckus between the party, then accused appellant Gaya Prasad and Ram Prasad scolded to the children for playing with fire crackers and hurled abuses with filthy language then Ram Lal intervened and immediately Ram Autar and Guptar also rushed towards and extended threats and hurled abuses to the children when mother of the complainant and his sister in law forbidden not to abuse, the accused appellants inflicted injuries with lathi to Kamla Devi and Ram Pati. On hearing the noise, immediately Ram Singar, Chhangu and several other villagers rushed towards the spot and seen the occurrence. Due to lathi injuries on her head, his mother Ram Pati got unconscious and his sister in law Kamla Devi also received injuries. The blood was oozing out from the injuries. The FIR was scribed by one Suresh and the same was proved by this witness as Ex. Ka-1.

9. PW-2 injured Kamla Devi clearly stated in her statement that the appellants inflicted lathi injuries to her mother in law as well as to her. Due to this injury she as well as mother in law became unconscious. During treatment her mother in law died in the next morning.

10. PW-3 Dinesh Kumar submitted medico-legal register before the court.

11. PW-4 Ram Lal is the eyewitness of the occurrence, who narrated the entire version and supported the prosecution case.

12. PW-5 Dr. Indra Dev Mull stated in his statement that on 25.10.1992 he was posted in District Hospital, Faizabad as Senior Medical Officer. He conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Ram Pati and prepared postmortem report. The deceased was 55 years old and following ante-mortem injuries were seen on the body of Ram Pati (deceased)

(i) Lacerated wound 5 c.m. x 1 c.m. x scalp cavity deep on left parietal region and bone was fractured on several part and clotted blood was present inside the brain.

(ii) Contusion 4 c.m. x 2.5 c.m. on right side forehead. The forehead bone was fractured and the brain membranes were torn and clotted blood was present.

PW-5 Dr. Indra Dev Mull opined that due to aforesaid ante-mortem injury the deceased was in comma. Ultimately the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. The postmortem report was proved by PW-5 as Ex. Ka-2.

13. PW-6 S.I. Hari Ram Sharma, Investigating Officer of the case, has stated that on the basis of written report Ex. Ka-1, investigation of this case entrusted. During course of investigation, he recorded statement of Shiv Kumar, Smt. Kamla Devi injured and inspected the place of occurrence. He also recorded the statement of Chhangu and Ram Singar and on the pointing out of Ram Singar, he prepared site plan, which is proved as Ex. Ka-3. After getting the postmortem report, the case was converted under Section 304 IPC. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet Ex. Ka-4.

14. PW-7 S.I. Bahadur Prasad has stated that he prepared inquest report of deceased Ram Pati at 9:20 a.m. and also prepared papers relating to postmortem. He proved relevant papers as Ex. Ka-5 and Ex. Ka-8.

15. PW-8 Constable Hari Ram Mishra deposed before the trial court that Manni Lal Sharma was the Head Moharir at that time. He is well conversant with the handwriting of the appellant. He further stated that chick no. 212/92 was written by Head Constable Manni Lal Sharma. Chick report and G.D. entry was made by Manni Lal Sharma. He proved chick report as Ex. Ka-9 and G.D. entry was Ex. Ka-10.

16. As CW-1 Dr. D.N. Tripathi was examined. He on the alleged date of incident was posted as Medical Officer in P.H.C. Mayaa Bazar. He prepared medical examination report of injured Ram Pati on 24.10.1992 and following injuries were found on her body:-

(i) Lacerated wound 5 c.m. x 1.5 c.m. x bone deep on left side of head, 6 c.m. above from left eyebrow. fresh bleeding was blowing from the wound. There was bleeding from the nose and mouth also. The general condition of the injured was very bad. She was unconscious. The pulse was not getting the speed. The blood pressure was also not able to measure. The injury was caused by some hard and blunt object. The patient was referred to District Hospital for better treatment. He also prepared the injury slip and proved the same as Ex. Ka-11 and reference report for District Hospital as Ex. Ka-12.

17. He also medically examined injured Kamla Devi on the same day at 8:40 p.m. and following injuries were found on her body:-

(I) Lacerated wound 4.5 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bond deep on left side of head 7 c.m. above from left ear. Fresh blood was oozing from the wound. Edge were irregular.

(ii) Abraded contusion 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. on left eyelid. There was also redness on left eye.

(iii) There was complain of pain in her whole body but there was no sign of injury.

(iv) There was also complain of vomiting.

18. The injury was simple in nature, caused by some hard and blunt object. The duration was fresh. The injury no. (I) was kept under observation. She was referred to District Hospital Faizabad for x-ray and for further management. The injury report was proved as Ex. Ka-13 but no x-ray report was collected by the Investigating Officer.

19. Thus the prosecution in order to prove its case relied upon the oral evidence of PW-1 to PW-8 and documentary evidence Ex. Ka-1 to Ka-13.

20. Subsequent to closure of prosecution evidence, statement of appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by trial court explaining entire evidence and other incriminating circumstance. In statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused appellant denied prosecution version. In his defence the accused appellants produced DW-1 Dr. Z.A. Rizvi, who examined accused appellant Gaya Prasad at P.H.C Pure Bazar, Faizabad and prepared injury report on 25.10.1992 at 6:25 p.m. and following injury was received on his body:-

(I) Contused swelling 2.5 c.m. x 2 c.m. present on the back side of the right shoulder 3 c.m. parallel to right shoulder joint. Red in colour.

(ii) Contused swelling 3 c.m. x 2.5 c.m. present on lower part of the right scapula 13 c.m. parallel to right side of the vertebral column. Red in colour.

21. The doctor opined that all the injuries are simple in nature and caused by some hard and blunt object. The duration is one day old.

22. Accused appellant Ram Prasad was also examined by Dr. Z.A. Rizvi and following injuries were reported by him:-

(i) Contused swelling 6 c.m. x 3 c.m. present on the lateral aspect of the upper arm, 2.5 c.m. above from left elbow joint. Red in colour.

(ii) Contused swelling 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. present on backside of the left side scapular region 11 cm parallel to left side of the vertebral column and 13 c.m. below from left shoulder joint. Red in colour.

(iii) Complain of pain present on right side of the hip, but no external mark of injury seen.

All the injuries are simple in nature and caused by some hard and blunt object. The duration was one day old.

23. DW-1 Dr. Z.A. Rizvi proved the injury report of appellant Gaya Prasad and Ram Prasad as Ex. Kha-1 and Kha-2 respectively.

24. Apart from this witness, no other witness was examined on behalf of the defence side.

25. After hearing both the parties and appreciating entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial court convicted the accused appellants as aforesaid.

26. Learned counsel for appellants has submitted that due to sudden quarrel, this incident occurred. Further submission is that in this incident, appellants Gaya Prasad and Ram Prasad also got injuries but their injuries were not appreciated by Investigating Officer and consequently FIR was not lodged by the concerned Police Station. It is further submitted that there was no motive or intention of the appellants to cause the death of deceased Ram Pati. Due to sudden quarrel this unfortunate incident occurred. During scuffle, deceased Ram Pati received lathi injuries. The general role of causing injuries is assigned against the appellants. No specific role has been assigned. As to who is the author of this injury but learned trial court failed to appreciate this fact. Further submitted that there are several contradictions in the statements of the witnesses also.

27. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that although the learned trial court convicted the appellant under Section 304/34 IPC five years rigorous imprisonment but he failed to indicate in his judgment whether the conviction under Section 304 Part (I) IPC or Part (II). But the entire incident occurred without premeditation in sudden fight in the heat of passion upon sudden quarrel, therefore, prima facie offence under Section 304 (II) IPC is made out, which is not punishable more than ten years and prays for prohibition.

28. Lastly learned counsel for appellant Gaya Prasad has submitted that during pendency of this appeal three appellants namely, Guptar Yadav, Ram Prasad and Ram Autar died. The pertains to the year 1992. Now thirty years have passed, the total period of incarceration of appellant was about four months and seven days. The appellant was convicted first time and there is no criminal history against the appellant. Further submission is that about 31 years have also passed and presently both the parties, the appellant side and complainant side are well rooted in society. He further submits that it is an old matter and no fruitful purpose would be served to send the appellant in jail. Further submission is that the appellant is ready to pay compensation to the victim side. The appellant has not been convicted previously for any offence, therefore, lenient view may be may be taken against the appellant.

29. Further learned counsel for appellants submitted that though there are sufficient reason to challenge the judgment on merits yet they are restricting the challenge to non-consideration of the applicability of provision contained in Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (in short "Probation Act") and Section 360 Cr.P.C. as the offence under Section 304 Part (II) is made out against the appellant.

30. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the appeal and has submitted that there is no material irregularity or illegality committed by the trial court. Further submission is that keeping in view the evidence available on record the accused- appellant has rightly been convicted by the trial court.

31. It would be appropriate to quote Section 360 Cr.P.C. reads as follows:-

Section 360 Cr.P.C. reads as follows:

"360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition :-

(1) When any person not under twenty one years of age is convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, or when any person under twenty-one years of age or any woman is convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and no previous conviction is proved against the offender, if it appears to the Court before which he is convicted, regard being had to the age, Character or antecedents of the offender, and to the circumstances in which the offence was committed, that it is expedient that the offender should be released on probation of good conduct, the Court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period (not exceeding three years) as the Court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour:

Provided that, where any first offender is convicted by a Magistrate of the second class not specially empowered by the High Court, and the Magistrate is of opinion that the powers conferred by this section should be exercised, he shall record his opinion to that effect, and submit the proceedings to a Magistrate of the first class, forwarding the accused to, or taking bail for his appearance before such Magistrate, who shall dispose of the case in the manner provided by sub-section (2).

(2) Where proceedings are submitted to a Magistrate of the first class as provided by sub-section (1), such Magistrate may thereupon pass such sentence or make such order as he might have passed or made if the case had originally been heard by him, and, if he thinks further inquiry or additional evidence on any point to be necessary, he may make such inquiry or take such evidence himself or direct such inquiry or evidence to be made or taken.

(3) In any case in which a person is convicted of theft, theft in a building, dishonest misappropriation, cheating or any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), punishable with not more than two years, imprisonment or any offence punishable with fine only and no previous conviction is proved against him, the Court before which he is so convicted may, if it thinks fit, having regard to the age, character, antecedents or physical or mental condition of the offender and to the trivial nature of the offence or any extenuating circumstances under which the offence was committed, instead of sentencing him to any punishment, release him after due admonition.

(4) An order under this section may be made by any Appellate Court or by the High Court or Court of Session when exercising its powers of revision.

(5) When an order has been made under this section in respect of any offender, the High Court or Court of Session may, on appeal when there is a right of appeal to such Court, or when exercising its powers of revision, set aside such order, and in lieu, thereof pass sentence on such offender according to law: Provided that the High Court or Court of Session shall not under this subsection inflict a greater punishment than might have been inflicted by the Court by which the offender was convicted.

(6) The provisions of Sections 121, 124 and 373 shall, so far as may be, apply in the case of sureties offered in pursuance of the provisions of this section.

(7) The Court before directing the release of an offender under sub-section (1), shall be satisfied that an offender or his surety (if any) has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place for which the Court acts or in which the offender is likely to live during the period named for the observance of the conditions.

(8) If the Court which convicted the offender, or a Court which could have dealt with the offender in respect of his original offence, is satisfied that the offender has failed to observe any of the conditions of his recognisance, it may issue a warrant for his apprehension.

(9) An offender, when apprehended on any such warrant shall be brought forthwith before the Court issuing warrant, and such Court may either remand him in custody until the case is heard or admit him to bail with a sufficient surety conditioned on his appearing for sentence and Court may, after hearing the case, pass sentence.

(10) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1951), the Children Act, 1960 (60 of 1960) or any other law for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders."

Section 361 Cr.P.C. reads as under:-

361. Special reasons to be recorded in certain cases. Where in any case the Court could have dealt with,-

(a) an accused person under section 360 or under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958 ), or

(b) a youthful offender under the Children Act, 1960 (60 of 1960 ), or any other law for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders, but has not done so, it shall record in its judgment the special reasons for not having done so.

Section 3, 4 and 5 of the Probation of First Offenders Act reads as under:-

Section 3- Power of court to release certain offenders after admonition.

When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under section 379 or section 380 or section 381 or section 404 or section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860) or any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years, or with fine, or with both, under the Indian Penal Code or any other law, and no previous conviction is proved against him and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence, and the character of the offender, it is expedient so to do, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him to any punishment or releasing him on probation of good conduct under section 4, release him after due admonition.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, previous conviction against a person shall include any previous order made against him under this section or section 4.

Section 4 Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.

(1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour:

Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond.

(2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case.

(3) When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the court may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the offender and of the public it is expedient so to do, in addition pass a supervision order directing that the offender shall remain under the supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not being less than one year, as may be specified therein, and may in such supervision order impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the offender.

(4) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall require the offender, before he is released, to enter into a bond, with or without sureties, to observe the conditions specified in such order and such additional conditions with respect to residence, abstention from intoxicants or any other matter as the court may, having regard to the particular circumstances, consider fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a commission of other offences by the offender.

(5) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall explain to the offender the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to each of the offenders, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer concerned.

Section 5-Power of court to require released offenders to pay compensation and costs.

(1) The court directing the release of an offender under section 3 or section 4, may, if it thinks fit, make at the same time a further order directing him to pay--

(a) such compensation as the court thinks reasonable for loss or injury caused to any person by the commission of the offence; and

(b) such costs of the proceedings as the court thinks reasonable.

(2) The amount ordered to be paid under sub-section(1) may be recovered as a fine in accordance with the provisions of sections 386 and 387 of the Code.

(3) A civil court trying any suit, arising out of the same matter for which the offender is prosecuted, shall take into account any amount paid or recovered as compensation under sub-section (1) in awarding damages.

32. It is rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the effect, relevance and applicability of Section 360 Cr.P.C. have not been considered by the trial court and appellant Gaya Prasad deserves probation under Section 304 Part (II) IPC also.

33. There are other legislative requirements that need to be kept in mind. The Probation of Offenders Act provides, in Section 5 thereof for payment of compensation to the victim of a crime (as does Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). Yet, additional changes were brought about in the Code of Criminal Procedure in 2006 providing for a victim compensation scheme and for additional rights to the victim of a crime, including the right to file an appeal against the grant of inadequate compensation. How often have the Courts used these provisions?

34. In Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0461/2013: (2013) 6 SCC 770 and Jitendra Singh v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/0679/2013 : (2013) 11 SCC 193 the Court held that consideration of grant of compensation to the victim of a crime is mandatory, in the following words taken from Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad:

"While the award or refusal of compensation in a particular case may be within the court's discretion, there exists a mandatory duty on the court to apply its mind to the question in every criminal case. Application of mind to the question is best disclosed by recording reasons for awarding/refusing compensation."

35. Coming to the sentence to be imposed on the appellant, since the incident occurred near about 31 years ago and during intervening period he had not indulged into any criminal activity nor he had any criminal background, so in view of the above, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case.

36. In the present appeal fine of Rs.1,500/- has been imposed by the trial court on the appellant. Section 357 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to award compensation to the victim(s) of the offence in respect of the loss/injury suffered. The object of the section is to meet the ends of justice in a better way. This section was enacted to reassure the victim that he is not forgotten in the criminal justice system. The amount of compensation to be awarded under Section 357 Cr.P.C. depends upon the nature of crime, extent of loss/damage suffered and the capacity of the accused to pay, which the Court has to conduct a summary inquiry as well as considering the submission of learned counsel for appellant as earlier, this Court is of the view that benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of First Offender Act, 1958 should be provided to the appellants. Thus the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction as directed by trial court is confirmed under Section 304/34 and 323/34 IPC and is directed to be released on probation under Section 4 of the U.P. Probation of First Offenders Act with stipulated condition that he will keep peace and good conduct for one year subject to furnishing personal bond and two sureties of like amount of Rs.40,000/- before the Court.

37. Considering the law propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court and as per provisions of Section 357 Cr.P.C., I am of the view that compensation should be awarded to the victim's family.

38. Therefore, fine of Rs.1,500/- is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-, which shall be deposited before the trial court and Rs. 5,000/- shall be paid to injured Kamla Devi and Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid to legal heirs of Ram Pati in equal share, if they are alive. If the appellant Gaya Prasad fails to pay aforesaid amount then, he shall undergo imprisonment and sentence as directed by they trial court. Fifteen days time is granted to appellant to deposit the fine as mentioned by this Court. The appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender.

39. Fifteen days is provided to the appellant to deposit fine amount from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

40. Thus, the appeal is dismissed on the point of conviction and partly allowed on the point of sentence.

41. Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial court concerned. The trial court record be sent back.

Order Date :- 24.01.2023

Virendra