Rajendra S/O Shrihari Sarwade vs The State Of Maharashtra
2022 Latest Caselaw 4281 Bom

                                                           apeal-91.15cria
                                           1



           IN     THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.91 OF 2015


 Rajendra S/o Shrihari Sarwade
 Age - 33 years, Occ : Labour,
 R/o Katgaon, Latur,
 Tq. & Dist. Latur
                                                  ...APPELLANT
              VERSUS

 The State of Maharashtra
                                                  ...RESPONDENT

                         ...
       Mr. S.D. Kaldate h/f Mr.V.D. Gunale,
       Advocate for Appellant.
       Mr. S.P. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for Respondent.
                         ...

                               CORAM:   SMT.SADHANA.S. JADHAV AND
                                        S.G. DIGE, JJ.

DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 16TH MARCH, 2022. DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT: 25TH APRIL, 2022.

(THROUGH V.C.)

JUDGMENT [PER S.G. DIGE, J.]:

. The appellant impugns a judgment and

order dated 29th December, 2014 passed in Sessions

apeal-91.15cria

Case No.85 of 2013, whereby he is convicted for

the offence punishable under sections 302 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "IPC"). The

appellant is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment

with fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to suffer

rigorous imprisonment for three months.

 .                Brief facts are as under :



 2.               The       appellant       and      deceased        Chhaya         (for

 short, "Chhaya")                was married 9 years prior to the

 incident.            They      were   residing         at     Mauje        Katgaon,

Dist. Latur. On 5th April, 2013, at around 5.00

p.m., the appellant had poured kerosene on the

person of Chhaya and set her ablaze. The appellant

was alleged to have committed the said offence as

he was suspecting her character. Chhaya in bid to

save her life plunged into gutter in front of her

house. On hearing Chhaya's shout, her mother-in-

law Smt. Sitabai (PW-4) and grandmother Smt.

Sunanda (DW-1) came to the spot and tried to

apeal-91.15cria

extinguish the fire, meanwhile villagers gathered

at the spot and arranged vehicle and brought

Chhaya to Civil Hospital, Latur. Chhaya was

admitted in Civil Hospital, Latur. During

treatment of Chhaya in Civil Hospital, she has

given two dying declarations. Chhaya succumbed to

the burn injuries on 12.04.2013. After her demise,

crime under section 302 of IPC came to be

registered against the appellant on the basis of

dying declaration of Chhaya. The appellant was

arrested on 19th April, 2013.

3. After completing the investigation, the

charge-sheet was filed against the appellant. The

case was committed to the Sessions Court. The case

was tried before learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Latur. The appellant abjured his guilt and

desired to face the trial. The prosecution in

support of its case examined twelve witnesses.

After completion of the prosecution evidence, the

statement of appellant under section 313 of the

apeal-91.15cria

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short

"Cr.P.C.") recorded. It is defence of the

appellant that the said incident was happened due

to inflammation of the stove and he was not

present in the house at the time of incident. The

defence has also examined one witness Smt. Sunanda

Mahadhu Sarode as (DW-1).

. Considering the evidence on record and

submissions made on behalf of both the parties,

the learned Trial Court by Judgment and order

convicted the appellant for the offence for which

he was tried. Against the said Judgment and Order,

this Appeal.

4. Heard learned Advocate for the appellant

and learned A.P.P. for respondent-State.

5. It is the contention of learned counsel

for the appellant Mr.S.D. Kaldate that the

prosecution case is based on the dying

declarations but these dying declarations are

apeal-91.15cria

suspicious. There is delay in lodging the First

Information Report after recording the dying

declarations. Doctor, who has put endorsement on

the dying declarations, was not present while

recording the dying declarations. He further

submits that it has come on record that the

deceased was not in a position to give dying

declarations. There is no corroborative evidence

in respect of dying declarations. At the time of

admission, Chhaya had given history of her burn

injuries and stated that it was accidental but

said history is suppressed by prosecution. The

learned trial Court has erred while considering

the evidence on record. Hence requested to allow

the appeal.

6. It is the contention of learned A.P.P.

Mr.S.P. Deshmukh that two written dying

declarations are consistent. These are recorded by

the Police Constable and the Executive Magistrate

who are independent witnesses. There is no reason

apeal-91.15cria

to them to depose against the appellant-accused.

Both dying declarations are endorsed by the doctor

that the deceased was in fit state of mind to give

the dying declarations. There was burn injury on

the leg of the appellant, which proves that the

appellant was present at the time of incident.

Considering the evidence on record, learned trial

Judge has convicted the appellant. Hence, the

judgment and order passed by the learned trial

Judge is legal and valid.

7. We have considered the submissions of

both the learned Advocates. Perused the Judgment

and Order passed by the learned Trial Court.

8. Admittedly, prosecution case mainly

hinges on two dying declarations, which are

recorded by the PW-7- Bhagwan Bhaguram Kendre and

PW-11-Saudagar Uttam Kamble. PW-10-Dr.Suboor

Shakil Ahmed is the doctor, who has endorsed on

these dying declarations. Firstly, we would see

apeal-91.15cria

evidence in respect of these dying declarations.

9. The first dying declaration is recorded by

PW-7 - Bhagwan Bhaguram Kendre-Police Constable.

He has deposed that on 5th April, 2013 from 8 am

till 8 am of next day, he was on duty at Police

Chowky at Civil Hospital, Latur. On that day, his

predecessor Shri Ranjhunjare handed over

Medicolegal Case (for short, "MLC") and letter of

opinion of Dr.Waghmare to him. This witness gave

letter to Dr.Shaikh - Medical Officer seeking

opinion as to whether the patient was in a

condition to give statement. It is at Exhibit-28.

Dr.Shaikh (PW-10) examined Chhaya and made

endorsement that Chhaya was in a position to give

statement. This witness explained Chhaya that he

was intending to record her statement. He had

recorded the statement in his own handwriting as

per say of Chhaya. He again requested doctor to

examine patient Chhaya and Dr.Shaikh certified

that the patient was in condition to give

apeal-91.15cria

statement. Accordingly, the doctor put his

endorsement at the foot of said statement. The

same is marked as Exhibit-29. At the time of

recording statement, this witness, Dr.Shaikh and

deceased Chhaya were present. Chhaya narrated

before this witness that accused Rajendra used to

suspect her character and oftenly used to beat

her. She told this witness that the accused used

to abuse her saying that she belongs to lower

parentage family. She told this witness that

accused (appellant) told her that accused intends

to set her on fire and he brought kerosene Can and

poured it on her person and set her on fire by

igniting match-stick. She told that at the time of

said incident, beside she herself and accused,

nobody was present there. She told that she came

outside the house and in order to save her life

plunged into the gutter. On hearing Chhaya's

shout, her mother-in-law Smt. Sitabai and

grandmother Smt. Sunanda came to the spot and

tried to extinguish the fire, meanwhile villagers

apeal-91.15cria

gathered at the spot and arranged vehicle and

brought Chhaya to Civil Hospital, Latur. This

witness further stated that he recorded the

statement of Chhaya as per her say. It was read

over to her and then obtained her right thumb

impression on it. It is at Exhibit-29.

10. This witness further stated that on the

same day, he immediately issued letter to the

Executive Magistrate/ Tahsildar, Latur requesting

to record statement of Chhaya as she was in a

condition to give statement. This witness sent

letter to Tahsildar through Police Constable

Mr.V.S. Gaikwad. It is at Exhibit-30. Thereafter,

this witness went to another ward for other work.

On 12th April, 2013, after death of Chhaya, doctor

issued another MLC, which is at Exhibit-31. This

witness sent the MLC to Gandhi Chowk Police

Station for recording Accidental Death.

Accordingly, Accidental death was recorded and for

preliminary inquiry it was handed over to this

apeal-91.15cria

witness. Thereafter, in the presence of one male

and one female panch, he prepared inquest

panchanama of Chhaya, which is at Exhibit-18. The

dead body of deceased Chhaya was sent for

postmortem along with letter. Said letter was

accompanied with documents i.e. inquest

panchanama, information form of dead body, which

is at Exhibit-32. This witness collected documents

and sent it with covering letter to Gandhi Chowk

Police Station, which is at Exhibit-33. This

witness was directed to make preliminary inquiry

on registering Accidental Death. Accidental Death

certificate is signed by Police Station Officer -

Shri Shaikh, it is at Exhibit-34.

11. The second dying declaration is recorded

by Naib Tahsildar. PW-11-Saudagar S/o Uttam Kamble

deposed that on 6th April, 2013, he was working as

Naib Tahsildar at Tahsil office, Latur. On that

day, he received letter at 9.30 p.m. requesting to

record the dying declaration of injured Chhaya

apeal-91.15cria

Rajendra Sarwade. It is at Exhibit-30.

Thereafter, he went to Burn Ward in Civil

hospital, Latur. He met Dr.Subur Shaikh (PW-10)

and asked to examine the patient and give the

opinion in respect of condition of the patient for

recording the dying declaration. Accordingly,

Dr. Shaikh examined injured Chhaya and opined that

the patient was in position to give statement.

Doctor put his signature by endorsing on the dying

declaration form given by this witness. This

witness introduced himself to injured Chhaya and

told her that he wanted to record her statement.

Accordingly, he put questions to the injured

Chhaya and she answered the same and it was

recorded accordingly. Chhaya stated before him

that on 5th April, 2013, at about 5.00 p.m., her

husband Rajendra Sarwade (appellant-accused)

started beating her saying that she was bad in

character, hence she was staying at her parental

house. She further told that the accused poured

kerosene from the plastic Can on her person saying

apeal-91.15cria

that he would set her on fire, then the accused

lighted the matchstick and threw it on her person.

In order to extinguish fire on her person, she

herself roll over into the drainage. She further

stated that accused Rajendra used to quarrel with

her ofently prior to the incident. At the time of

incident, she and accused were at their house.

When this witness asked her, who is responsible

for the incident, Chhaya stated that her husband

Rajendra (appellant) is responsible for the

incident. After recording the statement, it was

read over to Chhaya and then obtained her thumb

impression on the dying declaration. Thereafter,

this witness also put his signature on the dying

declaration and asked the Doctor to again examine

Chhaya and opine about her condition. Accordingly,

Dr. Shaikh (PW-10) examined Chhaya and put the

endorsement at the bottom of the dying declaration

that she was in a position to give the statement

and also put his signature below it. The said

dying declaration is at Exhibit 47. This witness

apeal-91.15cria

took the dying declaration to his office and

sealed it. On receiving letter from the Police,

this witness sent the sealed dying declaration to

the Police Station.

12. In cross examination, this witness

admitted that he did not issue any request letter

to Dr. Shaikh to examine the patient and give

opinion about condition of the patient. This

witness further admits that there is no

endorsement put by him on dying declaration

Exhibit-47 to the effect that it was read over to

Chhaya and she has admitted the contents of it.

13. The prosecution has examined Dr. Suboor

Shaikil Ahmed to prove that at the time of

recording dying declaration deceased Chhaya was in

fit state of mind. The said dying declarations

were recorded in presence of this witness.

14. PW-10-Dr. Suboor Shakil Ahmed deposed

apeal-91.15cria

that on 6th April, 2013, he was working as Medical

Officer in Burn Ward, Civil Hospital, Latur. On

that day, Police Constable Kendre from Gandhi

Chowk Police Station, Latur came to the burn ward

for recording the statement of patient Chhaya

Rajendra Sarwade at 8.55 p.m. On that day, he

examined Chhaya and gave the endorsement that she

was physically and mentally fit for recording the

statement. Accordingly, the Constable Kendre

recorded the statement of Chhaya in his presence

and he put his signature on the said statement. It

is at Exhibit-29. He stated that on 6 th April,

2013, the Naib Tahsildar, Latur came to Burn Ward

at about 9.55 p.m., for recording the dying

declaration of patient Chhaya. At 9.55 p.m., he

examined patient Chhaya and put the endorsement at

10 p.m. on dying declaration form stating that

Chhaya was physically and mentally fit for

recording statement. Thereafter, Naib Tahsildar

recorded the dying declaration of Chhaya in his

presence. Thereafter also he examined Chhaya and

apeal-91.15cria

found that she was physically and mentally fit

during recording of the statement. This witness

put his endorsement on the said dying declaration.

It is at Exhibit-47.

15. The relevant contents of the statement

made by this witness in cross-examination are as

under:-

"I treated Chhaya since 05.04.13 till 12.04.13. I had a talk with patient on 05.04.13 and her history was recorded at the time of admission. The patient has not stated about the homicidal burn injuries sustained by her. She has also not stated in history that her husband poured kerosene and set her on fire. It is true that without any request in writing from Police or the Tahasildar, we did not examine the patient regarding his/her capability to give statement. It is true that there is no letter on record issued by the Tahasildar. If the patient is not able to speak and is also not mentally sound, these can be the reasons for giving the opinion that the

apeal-91.15cria

patient is not fit for giving statement. Witness volunteers that there may be other reasons. It is true that before examining the patient, on 6th while recording the statement, the patient was examined by me and I gave the opinion in writing that the patient was not fit for recording statement. It is true that since 5th of April, 2013, till 12th of April, 2013, the relative of patient used to meet her. It is true that I cannot state the contents of the statement recorded Exhibit-29 and 47 as I did not listen the statement carefully."

16. It is contention of learned counsel for

appellant that history given by Chhaya at the time

of admission in respect of accidental burn injury

is absent. Dying declarations are not corroborated

by other circumstances.

17. It is settled principle of law that the

conviction can be based on the sole dying

apeal-91.15cria

declaration of the deceased if the dying

declaration found to be consistent, coherent and

made in a conscious state of mind. Keeping this

principle in mind, we would scrutinize the

evidence came on record point wise.

18. (1) History of Incident :-

Generally victim or the person, who

brought the victim to the hospital gives history

of incident about injuries caused to the victim.

The nature of injury can be classified into three

classes namely homicidal, suicidal and accidental.

In present case, it is prosecution's case that

burn injuries of Chhaya were homicidal. Appellant

poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze.

It has come in evidence of PW-10-Dr. Suboor, who

has treated Chhaya. On 05.04.2013, he had recorded

history of Chhaya regarding her burn injuries at

the time of admission. This witness in cross-

examination admitted that Chhaya has not stated

about homicidal burn injuries sustained by her.

apeal-91.15cria

She has not stated in history that her husband

(appellant) poured kerosene and set her on fire.

Prosecution has not produced document of history

given by Chhaya along with charge-sheet. The

evidence of this witness creates doubt about

prosecution's case about homicidal death of

Chhaya. This witness is independent witness. The

cases which are based upon evidence of dying

declarations, what history is narrated by deceased

to doctor is evidence of primary nature. The

history given by victim at the time of admission

in hospital can be used as corroborative evidence

where dying declarations are suspicious.

(2) Fit state of mind :-

At the time of recording dying

declaration fitness of that person i.e. state of

health and mind is very important, whether a

declarant is in fit state of mind is a question of

fact. The fact is to be proved by the person who

has given opinion of it. The opinion must be based

apeal-91.15cria

on a person having special skill or knowledge in

the medical science. In present case, PW-10 Dr.

Suboor made endorsement on both dying declarations

stating that Chhaya is fit for giving statement.

In cross-examination, this witness admitted that

before examining the patient on 06.04.2013 while

recording the statement the patient was examined

by him and he gave opinion in writing that patient

was not fit for recording the statement. The said

report is not produced by prosecution. PW-12 -

Investigating Officer Shri Vishnu Gapat in cross

examination admitted that letter Exhibit-33

(letter given to Gategaon Police Station) was

received by him. The annexure at Sr. No.10 of

Exhibit-33 is opinion about condition of patient

not in a position to give statement. The said

opinion letter is not on record. This witness

stated that he can not assign any reason as to why

the said report is not submitted with charge-

sheet. It has come on record that Chhaya gave two

consecutive dying declarations spanning to one

apeal-91.15cria

hour i.e. Exhibit-29 - dying declaration before

PW-7 Shri Kendre from 9 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. and

PW-11 Shri Kamble from 10.00 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.

PW-9- Dr.Dharmaraj Dudde, who has conducted

postmortem of Chhaya's dead body in cross

examination admitted that due to burn flames and

super heated airs, the bronchioles and trachea

were blacken due to carbon particles. He further

admitted that soothing particles were seen in

trachea. It is possible that vocal cord may damage

due to soothing, if vocal cord is damaged the

speaking capacity is impaired. The Chhaya was

having 66% burn injuries. If cross-examination of

PW-10 and PW-9, as well as not producing

certificate given by PW-10 that Chhaya was not fit

to give statement considered, it creates doubt

about prosecution story that for one hour deceased

Chhaya was giving dying declarations and she was

in fit state of mind at the time of giving dying

declarations.

apeal-91.15cria

(3) Consistency in dying declarations :-

When there are more dying declarations,

consistency is a very relevant factor. In

(Exhibit-47) second dying declaration, Chhaya has

stated that prior to setting her on fire accused

beated her whereas in first dying declaration

(Exhibit-29) Chhaya has not stated about beating

by accused prior to incident of setting her on

fire.

(4) Corroboration to the dying declaration :-

There is no doubt in accepting evidence

of dying declaration for conviction, if such dying

declaration is not suspicious or needs no

corroboration from other evidence. As prosecution

case is that Chhaya was burnt alive by appellant

as he was suspecting her character, it is

necessary to see corroborative evidence. Deceased

Chhaya in her dying declarations stated that

apeal-91.15cria

appellant would oftenly used to abuse and beat

her, suspecting her character. Prosecution has

examined, PW-3- Dhanaji Gaikwad (father of

Chhaya), PW-4 Sitabai Sarode(mother-in-law of

Chhaya), PW-5 - Smt. Vijayabai Gaikwad (mother of

Chhaya) to prove that Chhaya was abused and beaten

by appellant suspecting her character, but, these

witnesses did not support prosecution case. There

is no corroboration to dying declaration of Chhaya

that appellant used to suspect her character and

would abuse and beat her.

(5) Delay in lodging F.I.R. :-

Admittedly, the incident is happened on

05.04.2013 around 5.40 p.m. Two dying declarations

are recorded on 06.04.2013. When these dying

declarations are recorded on 06.04.2013 about

homicidal burn injuries, F.I.R. is registered on

13.04.2013 at 2 p.m. at Gategaon Police Station.

There is no explanation about 7 day's delay in

apeal-91.15cria

lodging F.I.R. The F.I.R. ought to have been

registered under section 307 of the I.P.C. after

recording of two dying declarations Exhibit-29 and

Exhibit-47. PW-12 Shri Vishnu Gapat Investigating

Officer in cross examination admitted that he did

not make enquiry in respect of receiving the dying

declarations after seven day's of recording it.

The Officer's who recorded dying declarations of

Chhaya did not intimate this witness about reason

for sending dying declarations late. The learned

trial Judge in judgment has observed that dying

declarations were recorded at Civil hospital,

Latur which falls under jurisdiction of Gandhi

Chowk Police Station whereas incident was happened

under the jurisdiction of Gategaon Police Station,

Taluka Latur, hence delay was caused and it is

justifiable. We are unable to understand the

reason given by the learned trial Court for delay

in lodging F.I.R. being different Police Stations,

as these Police Stations are in same taluka,

information could have been given to Gategoan

apeal-91.15cria

Police Station through mobile phone, E-mail or

other method. The persons who have recorded dying

declarations are not layman. They are aware about

seriousness of incident. P.W.-7 is Police

Constable whereas P.W-11 is Niab Tahsildar.

Considering the seriousness of the act, Police

ought to have registered offence immediately on

the same day or next day, but there is seven day's

delay and no explanation is given why these dying

declarations were kept by PW-7 and PW-10 with

themselves, when there were allegations of

homicidal burn injuries. It is significant to note

that after death of Chhaya, her death was recorded

as accidental death and investigation of it was

given to PW-7 Shri Kendre, who had recorded

Chhaya's first dying declaration. Then also PW-7

remain silent about homicidal burn injuries of

Chhaya, After death of Chhaya, MLC was given by

Kendre to Gandhi Chowk Police Station, at that

time he could have informed to Police Station that

he had recorded dying declaration of Chhaya, but

apeal-91.15cria

it was not done and accidental death was recorded,

it creates doubt about prosecution case. Though,

F.I.R. is registered on 13.04.2013, it was sent to

Magistrate on 17.04.2013, after gap of four days.

It should have been sent immediately to the

Magistrate as it was cognizable offence, but it

was not done. There is no explanation of said

delay is given by prosecution.

(6) Endorsement of reading over dying

declaration to victim :-

. Before recording dying declaration

Exhibit-47, PW-11 Shri Kamble has not given letter

to PW-10 Dr.Suboor to specify mental condition of

Chhaya for recording her dying declaration. P.W.-

11 states that he had read over the dying

declaration to Chhaya after recording it, but

Exhibit-47 shows that there is no endorsement put

by PW-11 that after recording the statement of

deceased Chhaya, it was read over to deceased and

apeal-91.15cria

she had admitted that, it is written as per say.

It proves that it was not read over to Chhaya.

(7) Presence of witnesses and sign or thumb

impression of victim :-

It is prosecution case that both dying

declarations are recorded in the presence of PW-10

Dr.Suboor, but in cross-examination this witness

admitted that, he cannot state the contents of

Exhibit-29 and Exhibit-47 as he did not listen the

statements carefully. From version of this

witness, it becomes doubtful that he was really

present at the time of recording dying

declarations Exhibit-29 and Exhibit-47. The thumb

impression on Exhibit-47 is having dark ink

impression. Whereas other dying declaration

Exhibit-29, which was recorded prior to half an

hour, thumb impression of Chhaya is not clearly

visible on it. PW-9 - Dr. Dharmaraj Dattarao

Dudde, who has done postmortem of deceased Chhaya,

in cross examination admitted that he has not

apeal-91.15cria

noticed any colour on the palm of Chhaya, the

question remains if deceased had given thumb

impression then colour of ink must have been

appeared on her thumb of right hand. It was not

noticed at the time of postmortem. After recording

dying declaration normally thumb impression is

taken but on perusal of the Exhibit-47, it appears

that thumb impression is adjusted while writing

last questions answer. It shows thumb impression

was taken first and then last question's answer is

written.

(8) Evidence of defence witness :-

PW-12 - Investing Officer, Shri Gapat has

deposed that he has recorded statement of one

Smt.Sunanda. She has stated before this witness

that she tried to extinguish fire on the person of

Chhaya. From this evidence, it is clear that

Smt.Sunanda Sarvade was present on day of

incident, when Chhaya had caught fire, therefore,

apeal-91.15cria

her evidence is of material nature. She has not

been examined by prosecution as witness but she

has examined by defence as defence witness.

Smt. Sunanda (DW-1) (Exh.64) deposed that deceased

Chhaya was her grand daughter. She was residing

near house of this witness. Chhaya died due to

inflammation of stove, at the time of incident,

this witness was sitting in front of her door, on

hearing shouts she went to the spot and tried to

extinguish fire on Chhaya. At that time, accused

was not available at the spot. He was at bus

stand, Chhaya told this witness that while

preparing tea on the stove her sarree caught fire.

Accused on returning home tried to extinguish fire

on Chhaya. This witness and others took Chhaya to

hospital. This witness stayed with Chhaya in

hospital for three days. This witness further

stated that only on first day of incident, Chhaya

was conscious thereafter she was unconscious.

Nothing elicited in cross examination of this

witness to shake her evidence. Testimony of this

apeal-91.15cria

witness is not considered by learned trial Court

as she is relative of appellant.

19. If we consider the evidence of defence

witness and history given by Chhaya at the time of

admission to PW-10, it proves that burn injuries

caused to Chhaya were accidental and not

homicidal. DW-1 was first person who met Chhaya

after incident and taken her to hospital, so there

is no reason to disbelieve her testimony.

20. Considering above reasons, we are of the

view that the prosecution failed to prove beyond

reasonable doubt that Chhaya's burn injuries were

homicidal and appellant set her on fire. There is

no corroboration to these dying declarations.

History given by Chhaya at the time of admission

to Civil Hospital is not produced with charge-

sheet. There is unexplained delay of lodging FIR.

Hence, we pass following order :

apeal-91.15cria

O R D E R

(I) Criminal Appeal is allowed.

            (II) The           judgment          and         order            of

            conviction           of    the     appellant          for       the

offence punishable under section 302 of

the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case

No.85 of 2013 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge-2, Latur is

hereby set aside.

(III) The appellant be released

forthwith, if not required in any other

offence.

(IV) Fine amount, if paid, be refunded.

[S.G. DIGE, J.] [SMT.SADHANA.S. JADHAV, J]

sga