Samad Sk. & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal
2023 Latest Caselaw 3057 Cal

                IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                            APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi
                 And
The Hon'ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta


                               C.R.A. 287 of 2015

                             Samad Sk. & Ors.
                                    -Vs-
                          The State of West Bengal


For the Appellants         :      Mr. Arnab Chatterjee, Adv.
                                  Ms. Dhanasree Biswas, Adv.
                                  Ms. Poulami Bose, Adv.

For the State              :      Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee .. ld. P.P.
                                  Mr. Parthapratim Das, Adv.
                                  Ms. Eshita Dutta, Adv.

Heard on                   :      28.04.2023 & 01.05.2023


Judgment on                :      01.05.2023


Joymalya Bagchi, J. :-

1.

Appeal is directed against judgment and order dated

17.03.2015 and 18.03.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions

Judge, 4th Court, Krishnagar, Nadia in Sessions Case No. 60(9) of 2012

arising out of Sessions Trial No. I(X) of 2012 convicting appellant nos.1

to 5 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the

Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life

and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for six months more and convicting appellant no.6 for

commission of offence punishable under Sections 302/120B of the

Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life

and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for six months more.

2. Prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is as follows:-

On 16.04.2004 Nilufa Biswas was married to Kamaluddin Sk.,

appellant no.6 herein. After the marriage, she was subjected to torture

and took refuge at her parental home. A village salishi was held. She was

sent back to her matrimonial home. Nilufa gave birth to a female child.

Thereafter, torture increased upon her. She again returned to her

parental home. Kamaluddin was employed in the Indian Army. As he

was neglecting his wife and child, Nilufa wrote a letter to the army

authorities claiming maintenance. As a result, a sum of Rs.3500/- per

month was deducted from Kamaluddin's salary. Six months prior to the

incident, Kamaluddin returned home and pursuant to a salishi brought

Nilufa to her matrimonial home. He demanded Nilufa refund the

maintenance paid to her. Nilufa refused and a quarrel ensued.

Subsequently, Kamaluddin left for his unit. On 03.05.2012 around 1:00

A.M. Samad Sk. (elder brother-in-law of Nilufa) and her mother-in-law

viz. Rachula Bewa @ Rosula Bibi set Nilufa on fire upon instruction of

Kamaluddin and other in-laws i.e. Manowara Bibi @ Manoara Khan

(sister-in-law), Felu Khan @ Rohim Buxo Khan (cousin brother-in-law)

and Asan Sk (uncle-in-law). Nilufa was initially admitted to the district

hospital and thereafter to NRS Medical College & Hospital. While she was

fighting for life, Sirajuddin Biswas (PW1) lodged written complaint at

Chapra police station resulting in Chapra Police Station Case No. 193 of

2012 dated 03.05.2012 under Sections 326/498A/307/34 of the Indian

Penal Code. From NRS Medical College & Hospital, Nilufa was shifted to

Command Hospital, Kolkata by Kamaluddin. There she breathed her last

on 14.05.2012. Section 302 IPC was added.

3. In conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against

Kamaluddin and the other in-laws.

4. Charges were framed against the in-laws viz. Samad Sk.

(cousin brother-in-law), Rachula Bewa @ Rosula Bibi (mother-in-law),

Manowara Bibi @ Manoara Khan (sister-in-law), Felu Khan @ Rohim

Buxo Khan (brother-in-law) and Asan Sk (uncle-in-law) under Sections

302/34 IPC and against Kamaluddin Sk. under Sections 302/120B IPC.

Appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In course of trial, prosecution examined 20 witnesses and

exhibited a number of documents. Defence of the appellants was one of

innocence and false implication.

6. In conclusion of trial, learned trial Judge by the impugned

judgment and order dated 17.03.2015 and 18.03.2015 convicted and

sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid.

7. During pendency of the appeal, Rachula Bewa @ Rosula Bibi,

appellant no.2 herein expired. Hence, the appeal abated so far as the

said appellant is concerned.

8. Mr. Arnab Chatterjee for the appellants submits prosecution

case suffers from gross contradictions and improbabilities. Dying

declarations recorded by PW14 at Shaktinagar Hospital (Ext.15) as well

as at NRS Medical College & Hospital (Ext.23) do not disclose the role of

appellant nos.3, 4 & 5 in the murder. Oral dying declaration made to

PWs.3 to 7 at the place of occurrence is suspicious. PW2 (uncle of the

deceased) was also present at the spot. He does not state about the oral

dying declaration at the spot. On the other hand, PWs.2 & 8 claimed

victim made an oral dying declaration while she was taken from Chapra

to Shaktinagar Hospital. Though PW2 is the scribe, there is no reference

to the oral dying declaration in the FIR. Contents of the oral dying

declarations are at variance to the declarations reduced in writing. In the

oral dying declarations, all the in-laws i.e. appellant nos.1 to 5 have been

implicated in the murder but in the written dying declaration recorded at

Shaktinagar Hospital (Ext.15) or at NRS Medical College and Hospital

(Ext.23) roles of appellant nos.3 to 5 are missing. Subsequent dying

declaration recorded by the Investigating officer at NRS Medical College

and Hospital (Ext.23) is doubtful. It is also relevant to note there is no

signature of medical personnel or the victim on the said declaration.

With regard to the role of appellant no.6 in the crime, it is submitted that

the oral evidence with regard to the manner and circumstances in which

phone call was made by appellant no.6 soon after the incident does not

inspire confidence. Hence, conviction and sentence are liable to be set

aside.

9. On the other hand, Mr. Parthapratim Das for the State submits

appellant nos.1 to 5 were present at the residence. On the fateful night

when the victim had gone to the toilet, appellant no.1 set her on fire

while appellant no.2 had held her by the tuft of hair. After she was set on

fire other in-laws i.e. appellant nos.3 to 5 prevented her from running

away. Appellant no.6 had motive to commit the crime. Prior to the

incident and thereafter he made phone calls to his cousin (appellant

no.4). He had enquired from appellant no.4 whether everything was

done. These circumstances have been proved beyond doubt and

establish the conspiracy. Dying declaration of the victim and other

clinching evidence clearly establishes the guilt of the appellants. Hence,

the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

10. PW1 (Sirajuddin Biswas) is the father of Nilufa. He deposed

incident occurred 8/8½ years after marriage. Nilufa was subjected to

mental and physical torture. She took refuge at his residence. Her

husband, Kamaluddin used to work in the Army. His daughter wrote

letter to Army authorities and a sum of Rs.3500/- was deducted from

Kamaluddin's salary as maintenance. Six months prior to the incident,

Kamaluddin returned to the village. A salishi was held. He took back his

wife to the matrimonial home. His daughter was asked to refund the

amount that she had received as maintenance. Her daughter refused to

do so and Kamaluddin threatened her with dire consequences. On the

fateful day, he received news that his daughter had been burnt. He went

to the matrimonial home of his daughter. Local people told him that

Samad Sk. had set his daughter on fire while Rosula Bibi had held her

by the tuft of her hair. Other in-laws viz. Manoara Khan, Felu Khan and

Asan Sk. had prevented her daughter from fleeing away. His daughter

was shifted to Chapra hospital and thereafter to Shaktinagar hospital

and then to NRS Medical College & Hospital. He lodged written complaint

at Chapra police station.

11. PW2 (Badaruddin Mondal) is the uncle of the deceased. He

corroborated his brother (PW1) with regard to torture. He deposed on

03.05.2012 he came to the matrimonial house of Nilufa. He saw her lying

in burnt condition. Nilufa stated she had been set on fire and asked him

to take her to a doctor. Initially, they took her to Chapra Hospital. From

Chapra Hospital they proceeded to Shaktinagar Hospital. In the vehicle

Nilufa stated that Samad Sk. had poured kerosene oil and set her ablaze.

Her mother-in-law i.e. Rosula Bibi had caught hold of a tuft of hair on

her head. Other in-laws viz. Manoara Khan, Felu Khan and Asan Sk.

prevented her from going out and caught hold of her. She was admitted

to Shaktinagar Hospital. Therefrom, she was shifted to NRS Medical

College & Hospital. After he returned home, he received information that

Kamaluddin had made a phone call and had asked whether everything

was over. He scribed the FIR.

12. PW 8 (Jainuddin Biswas) is the brother of the deceased. He

corroborated PWs 1 and 2. He also stated that his sister made an oral

dying declaration implicating appellant nos. 1 to 5 while she was being

taken from Chapra Hospital to Shaktinagar Hospital.

13. PWs. 3 to 7 (Asadul Haque Molla, Md. Sahajahan Ali Sk.,

Thandu Mondal, Asan Ali Sk. and Liyakat Ali Sk.) are the neighbours.

Hearing the cries of Nilufa, they came to the spot. They found Nilufa Bibi

in burnt condition. Nilufa told them Samad had set her on fire. Rosula

Bibi held her by the tuft of her hair. While Nilufa tried to flee away

Manowara, Felu and Asan Ali Sk. caught hold of her and prevented her

from fleeing away. They also claimed they had seen the appellants run

away.

14. PW 4 (Md. Sahajahan Ali Sk.) further deposed after Nilufa had

been taken to the hospital, he heard a mobile phone was ringing in the

house. On the instruction of PW 3 he picked up the phone. He heard

the voice of Kamaluddin Sk. from the other end who enquired whether

everything was over. When he told the caller why he is calling as he

knew everything he disconnected the phone.

15. PWs. 3 and 7 had corroborated PW 4 on this score.

16. Medical officers who were involved in the treatment of the

victim are PWs 12, 14, 15 and 17.

17. PW 12 (Dr. Apurba Kumar Roy) was posted at Chapra Rural

Hospital. He examined the victim and referred her to Shaktinagar

District Hospital. He proved the injury report marked as Exbt.-13.

18. PW 14 (Dr. Joydip Roy) treated her at Krishnagar District

Hospital i.e. Shaktinagar Hospital. He deposed the patient stated she

had been murdered by pouring kerosene oil by her brother-in-law,

Samad Sk. He recorded the statement in the presence of Suruk Jahan

Biswas and staff nurse of the patient viz. Aparna Chakraborty. Patient

put her LTI on the statement. He proved the bed head ticket marked as

Exbt.-15 wherein the statement of the patient was endorsed. Patient was

admitted at the hospital on 03.05.2012 at 3:15 AM at night and she was

referred to N.R.S. Medical College and Hospital at 7:30A.M.

19. PW 15 (Dr. Subodh Ranjan Saha) deposed Nilufa admitted at

N.R.S. Hospital in the Surgery Department. He was attached to the

hospital as Professor of Surgery. Patient was found conscious. He proved

the bed head ticket which was recorded by Dr. Daipayan Saha marked

as Exbt.-17 series.

20. PW 17 (Dr. Bhaskar Gayen) was attached to Command

Hospital, Calcutta. He deposed patient was brought by her husband

from Nilratan Hospital on 04.05.2012. Her husband stated how the

patient had sustained injuries. She had been set on fire by her relations

i.e. in-laws. History given by her husband was recorded in the Medico

Legal case report marked as Exbt.-19. Victim died in the hospital. He

proved death certificate of the victim (Exbt.-21).

21. PW 18 (Dr. Umaprasanna Ghosal) conducted postmortem over

the body of the victim. He opined the following injuries:-

"1. Infected (ulcerated) burn injuries over lateral aspects of both arms and forearms, both palms, whole of the back, right glutted region, back of right thigh and legs. The bases of the injuries were congested. The ulcerated burn injuries were covered with pas and slough. All the injuries showed evidences of vital reaction. No other injuries have been detected on through dissection and clinical examination by a hand lens.

Trachea : No soots detected below the bifurcation of trachea.

Stomach : It contained 3 ounce Oz of yellow substance, no untoward smell. Mucus membrane congested."

He opined death was due to burn injuries ante mortem in nature. He

proved post mortem report marked as Exbt.-22.

22. PW 16 (Apurba Lal Das) is the forensic officer. He was attached

to the State Forensic Laboratory. He deposed he found inflammable

petroleum product on the saree of the deceased. He proved his report

marked as Exbt.-18.

23. PW 19 (Goutam Modak, S.I.) recorded the dying declaration of

the victim at NRS Hospital in presence of Dr. Ghosh. Victim put her

signature on the statement. Dr. Ghosh also put his signature on the

statement. He proved the dying declaration marked as Exbt.-23.

24. PW 20 (Abdur Rahim, S.I.) is the investigating officer. He went

to the place of occurrence. He prepared rough sketch map with index. He

seized a plastic jar having smell of kerosene oil. He also seized brown

coloured kantha saree which was burnt. He examined the complainant

and other witnesses. He examined Nilufa Bibi and recorded her

statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in

presence of doctors and PW 8. Statements of the witnesses were also

recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He

collected mobile phone of Kamaluddin Sk. Number of the said phone is

7697617609. He obtained the call detail records of the said mobile phone

which was marked as Ext. 19. Mobile phone bearing number

9333082285 stood in the name of the subscriber i.e. Rahim Bux Khan.

From the call detail records he found phone calls had been made from

the mobile phone of Kamaluddin on 02.05.2012 at 7:57 hours and at

4:35 hours to that of Rahim Bux Khan. On 03.05.2012 again two calls

were made from the phone of Kamaluddin at 4:35 hours and 4:48 hours

respectively to the said phone. He filed charge-sheet.

25. The aforesaid evidence on record shows prosecution case is

based on multiple dying declarations. When a case is based on multiple

dying declarations contents whereof are not consistent, an onerous duty

is cast on the Court to examine the nature of inconsistencies and

truthfulness of the dying declarations are to be assessed in the light of

the surrounding circumstances and on the touchstone of broad

probabilities of human conduct. In Amol Singh vs. State of Madhya

Pradesh1 the Apex Court held as follows:-

"13. ... if there are more than one dying declaration they should be consistent. (See Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam v. State of A.P. [(1993) 2 SCC 684] However, if some inconsistencies are noticed between one dying declaration and the other, the court has to examine the nature of the inconsistencies, namely, whether they are material or not. While scrutinising the contents of various dying declarations, in such a situation, the court has to examine the same in the light of the various surrounding facts and circumstances."

26. First, let me examine the oral dying declarations. PWs 3 to 7 are

neighbours. They deposed hearing cries "bachao" "bachao" of Nilufa Bibi

they rushed to the house. Nilufa told them her elder brother-in-law

Samad had set her on fire while her mother-in-law Rosula Bibi held her

by the tuft of her hair. She also stated other in-laws i.e. Manowara Bibi,

Felu and Asan Ali Sk. obstructed her from fleeing away. Their version

with regard to the aforesaid oral dying declaration at the spot is not

supported by PW 2, Badaruddin Mondal. He is the uncle of the victim

girl. He had also rushed to the spot hearing cries from the matrimonial

home. PW 2 deposed Nilufa Bibi merely stated that she had been set on

fire and requested him to take her to the hospital. It is also relevant to

note that soon after the incident Sirajuddin Biwas (PW 1) had come to the

spot. He talked with the aforesaid neighbours who claimed to have

disclosed the oral dying declaration to him. Significantly in the FIR

lodged by Sirajuddin there is no whisper of the oral dying declaration

made at the spot. In the light of the dichotomy between the version of the

(2008) 5 SCC 468

neighbours (PWs. 3 to 7) vis-à-vis PW 2 regarding the oral dying

declaration at the spot and the absence of any reference of the said dying

declaration in the FIR, I am not inclined to rely on the oral dying

declaration as narrated by PWs 3 to 7.

27. Second oral dying declaration is said to have been made by

Nilufa when she was being transferred from Chapra Hospital to

Shaktinagar Hospital. PWs 2 and 8 claimed she made dying declaration

to them. Though PW 2 scribed the FIR, the vital fact is absent in the FIR.

This circumstance persuades me to hold the oral dying declaration

coming from the mouth of PWs 1 and 8 is an embellished afterthought to

rope in all the in-laws.

28. Moreover, immediately after reaching Shaktinagar Hospital,

history of injury was recorded in the bed head ticket by the treating

doctor (PW 14). In the said document (Ext.15) Nilufa Bibi refers to the

role of Samad alone. She does not attribute any role to the other in-laws.

It is pertinent to note this dying declaration bears the left thumb

impression of Nilufa Bibi and was recorded in the presence of one of her

relations. This is the first dying declaration which was reduced into

writing. The second dying declaration was recorded at NRS Medical

College and Hospital by PW 19, a police officer attached to Entally Police

Station. It was recorded in the presence of one Dr. S. Ghosh. In the said

declaration, Nilufa implicated her elder brother in law Samad Sk. and

mother-in-law. She stated both of them had set her on fire. But in this

dying declaration too she is silent with regard to the roles of other in-

laws i.e Manowara Bibi, Felu and Asan Ali in the crime. This dying

declaration also bears the signature of the maker. The third declaration

was recorded by the investigating officer, PW 20 during investigation. PW

20 stated he made a requisition to the Superintendent, NRS Hospital and

pursuant to his permission he recorded the statement of the victim

under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He claimed the

declaration was recorded in the presence of doctors. No signature of any

doctor is endorsed on the said statement marked as exbt.-28.

29. Finally, history of injury as disclosed by her husband

Kamaluddin (appellant no. 6 herein) was recorded at Command Hospital

by PW17 (Ext 21). Therein appellant no. 6 claimed his wife had been set

on fire by her in-laws.

30. With regard to the multiple written dying declarations, I am of

the view the manner and circumstance in which dying declarations were

recorded by PW14 at Shaktinagar Hospital and by PW19 at NRS hospital

inspires confidence for the following reasons. Firstly, PW14 was the

treating doctor. He is the best witness with regard to capacity of the

patient to make the dying statement. Moreover, the dying statement

(Ext.15) bore the left thumb impression of the victim as well as her

relation. Though the first dying statement (Ext 23) recorded at NRS

hospital was recorded by a police officer i.e. PW19 the same was done in

presence of a medical officer, Dr. S Ghosh. Signature of Dr. Ghosh

appears in the body of the said statement. Signature of the victim is also

endorsed therein. But the so-called dying statement recorded by

investigating Officer PW20 does not bear the signature of any of the

doctors whom he claims to be present at the time of recording statement.

Neither LTI nor signature of the victim is also endorsed on the said

statement (Ext 28). PW 8, brother of the victim, was present when the

statement was recorded by the investigating officer. Possibility of tutoring

the victim by the said witness and the investigating officer cannot be

ruled out. For these reasons, I am not inclined to rely on the statement

(Ext.28) recorded by the investigating officer (PW 20). In the other two

dying statements (i.e. Ext 15 and Ext 23) recorded by PW14 and PW19

respectively, Nilufa is completely silent with regard to role of Manowara

Bibi, Felu Khan and Asan Sk. in her murder. In both the dying

declarations she refers to the role of her elder brother-in-law Samad Sk.

and in one of them she refers to her mother in law Rasula Bibi. Rasula

Bibi has expired and the appeal has abated so far she is concerned.

Hence, I have not laboured with regard to her culpability in the case.

31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion the oral

dying declarations as narrated by the prosecution witnesses are an

embellishment and unreliable in nature. Similarly, one cannot rule out

the possibility of tutoring by the investigating officer and PW8 at the time

of recording victim's statement (Ext.28) implicating all the in-laws i.e.

appellant nos. 3, 4 and 5. It is common knowledge aggrieved relations of

a housewife tend to exaggerate and may even tutor her to implicate all

the in-laws. Dying declarations are inconsistent with regard to the role of

Manoara Khan, Felu Khan @ Rohim Buxo Khan and Asan Sk. in the

crime. But the declarations which implicate them, for reasons, recorded

hereinbelow, do not inspire confidence. Hence, I am inclined to acquit

appellant nos. 2, 3 and 4 herein.

32. Next comes the role of the husband Kamaluddin as a

conspirator in the murder. Admittedly, Kamaluddin was not present at

the place of occurrence. Prosecution contends Kamaluddin had motive to

commit the crime. Before and after the incident he had made telephone

calls to a co-accused Rohim Box Khan. The last call is said to have been

received by PW4 who claimed that Kamaluddin had enquired whether

everything was done. I have given anxious consideration to such

submission. Evidence on record shows relationship between the couple

was strained. Nilufa had withdrawn from the matrimonial home and was

staying at her parental house. Kamaluddin was employed in the Indian

Army and used to stay ordinarily at his place of posting. Evidence has

also come on record Nilufa wrote to the Army authorities and a sum of

Rs. 3500/- was deducted from Kamaluddin's salary as maintenance. Six

months prior to the incident Kamaluddin returned to his village and a

salish was held. Nilufa returned to the matrimonial home. Though

witnesses claimed that there was difference between Kamal and Nilufa

over refund of maintenance amount, this fact has not been narrated in

the FIR. Be that as it may, Kamal was not present when the incident

occurred. To prove the charge of conspiracy prosecution relied on two

phone calls made prior to the incident made by Kamal to his cousin

Rohim Khan on 2.5.2012 at 7.45 hrs and 16.34 hrs respectively.

Contents of the said calls are unknown. Sinister motive vis-à-vis the calls

appear to have been introduced through PWs 3, 4 and 7. PW4 claimed

after Nilufa had been shifted to hospital he saw a mobile phone ringing

at her matrimonial home. On instruction of PW3 he picked up the phone

and heard a voice which resembled Kamaluddin. Kamaluddin enquired

whether everything was done. When PW4 stated if he knew everything

why was he enquiring, Kamaluddin disconnected the phone. Version of

the aforesaid witnesses is sought to be corroborated by CDRs (Ext 29) of

the mobile phone of Kamaluddin. Relevant entries are set out

hereinbelow:-

Calling (LRN-A) Party   Called (LRN+B) Party     Call Date     Call Time
 Telephone Number        Telephone Number
      917697617609         919333082285         03/05/2012    4:35:27 AM

      917697617609         919333082285         03/05/2012    4:48:25 AM

33. The aforesaid entries show two phone calls were made from a

mobile phone bearing no. 7697617609 (belonging to Kamaluddin) to the

mobile phone bearing no. 9333082285 (belonging to Rohim Khan) on

3.5.2012 on 4.35 hrs and 4.48 hrs respectively. The first call was for a

duration of 708 seconds i.e. over ten minutes. Thereafter, within three

minutes, another call of duration more than one minute was made. None

of the witnesses spoke about two calls made from the mobile phone

number of Kamaluddin to that of Rahim Ali Box. The calls were made

contemporaneously, that is, within three minutes from the termination of

the first call and it is absurd that PWs 3, 4 and 7 would be aware of only

one and not two calls made from the mobile of Kamaluddin.

Furthermore, nature of conversation and the so-called abrupt

disconnection by Kamaluddin do not find resonance with the manner in

which the calls were made as per the CDRs. It appears PWs 3, 4 and 7

have not come out with the true state of affairs in this regard.

34. Hence, I am of the view it is inadvisable to rely on the oral

version of PWs 3, 4 and 7 with regard to the nature of conversation made

in the course of the aforesaid phone calls. Appellants are related to one

another and a couple of phone calls between them cannot by itself form

the foundation of conspiracy between Kamaluddin and the others to

commit the murder. Hence, I am inclined to extend the benefit of doubt

to Kamaluddin.

35. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, conviction and sentence

of appellant no. 1, i.e. Samad Sk are upheld.

36. Appellant nos. 3 to 6, namely, Manowara Bibi @ Manoara

Khan, Felu Khan @ Rohim Buxo Khan, Asan Sk and Kamaluddin Sk.

herein are acquitted of the charges recorded against them.

37. Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

38. Period of detention suffered by appellant no. 1 during

investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off from the substantive

sentence imposed upon them in terms of section 428 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

39. Appellant Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6, namely, Manowara Bibi @

Manoara Khan, Felu Khan @ Rohim Buxo Khan, Asan Sk and

Kamaluddin Sk shall be discharged from their bail bonds after six

months in terms of section 437 A Cr.P.C.

40. Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court records

be forthwith sent down to the trial Court at once.

41. Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, shall be

made available to the appellant upon completion of all formalities.

I agree.

(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)                            (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)