Chattisgarh High Court
Sohan Ram, Nohar Sai Lohara vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 July, 2022
Cr.A.Nos.123/2020, 195/2020, 291/2020 & 321/2020
Page 1 of 14
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No.123 of 2020
{Arising out of judgment dated 31-12-2019 in Sessions Trial No.101/2018 of
the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur}
Sohan Ram, Nohar Sai Lohara, aged about 26 years, R/o Village Sakholi,
Police Station Dhorpur, District Surguja (C.G.)
(In Jail)
---- Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Dhorpur, District Surguja (C.G.)
---- Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2020
Birsai, S/o Patwari, Aged about 46 years, R/o Village Khalpodi, P.S. Lundra,
District Sarguja (C.G.)
(In Jail)
---- Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Dhorpur, District Sarguja (C.G.)
---- Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.291 of 2020
1. Doman Ram, S/o Shri Dhur Sai, aged about 52 years, R/o Village
Sukhauli, Thana Dhaurpur, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.)
2. Devkumar, S/o Shri Doman Ram, aged about 22 years, R/o Village
Sukhauli, Thana Dhaurpur, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.)
3. Arvind Goud, S/o Shri Sukhnath Goud, aged about 30 years, R/o
Village Khalpodi, Thana Lundra, District Surguja (C.G.)
(In Jail)
---- Appellants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Dhaurpur, Surguja (C.G.)
---- Respondent
AND
Cr.A.Nos.123/2020, 195/2020, 291/2020 & 321/2020
Page 2 of 14
Criminal Appeal No.321 of 2020
Mahesh Ram God, S/o Shri Ramnath God, aged 28 years, R/o Village
Khalpodi, P/S Lundra, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) Civil & Revenue Distt. Sarguja
(C.G.)
(In Jail)
---- Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Dhaurpur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.)
---- Respondent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant in Cr.A.No.123/2020: -
Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate.
For Appellant in Cr.A.No.195/2020: -
Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate.
For Appellants in Cr.A.No.291/2020: -
Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha, Advocate.
For Appellant in Cr.A.No.321/2020: -
Mr. Ajay Mishra, Advocate.
For State / Respondent in all appeals: -
Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and
Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, JJ.
Judgment On Board
(01/07/2022)
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. Since all the four criminal appeals have arisen out of one and same
judgment dated 31-12-2019 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions
Judge, Ambikapur in Sessions Trial No.101/2018 and since common
question of fact and law is involved in all the four appeals, they have
been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by
this common judgment.
2. These four criminal appeals have been preferred by the accused /
appellants under Section 374(2) of the CrPC against the impugned
judgment convicting them for the offences punishable under Sections
302 read with Section 149 & 148 of the IPC and sentencing them to
Cr.A.Nos.123/2020, 195/2020, 291/2020 & 321/2020
undergo imprisonment for life with fine of ₹ 1,000/- each, in default, to
further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of ₹ 100/- each, in
default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month,
respectively.
3. Sole appellant in Cr.A.No.123/2020 namely, Sohan Ram, Nohar Sai
Lohar (A-2); sole appellant in Cr.A.No.195/2020 namely, Birsai (A-4);
three appellants in Cr.A.No.291/2020 namely, Doman Ram (A-1),
Devkumar (A-3) & Arvind Goud (A-5); and sole appellant in Cr.A.
No.321/2020 namely, Mahesh Ram God (A-6) have assailed their
conviction for offences under Sections 302 read with Section 149 &
148 of the IPC.
4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that deceased Roopnarayan and
wife of Doman Ram (A-1) namely, Munni Bai had illicit relationship
and on that account, Roopnarayan has taken away Munni Bai with
him without informing any one including her husband Doman Ram (A-
1) on which the accused persons were searching for both of them
(deceased Roopnarayan and Munni Bai) and ultimately, they were
found at Village Karoli which was informed by Devkumar (A-3), son of
Doman Ram (A-1) & Munni Bai over mobile phone whereupon all the
accused persons were coming towards Village Karoli, then near the
hand pump of Village Jamira; Doman Goud, Dev Kumar, Sohan
Lohar, Arvind Goud, Birsai and Mahesh Ram met them and all were
beating Roopnarayan by hands & fists and by a wooden stick and also
administered water to him. When Roopnarayan was not able to walk,
the accused persons brought him to Village Karoli, Bagichapara in the
motorcycle of co-accused Arvind and finally they brought him back to
Cr.A.Nos.123/2020, 195/2020, 291/2020 & 321/2020
his house where he succumbed to death.
5. Morgue intimation was recorded vide Ex.P-3 and first information
report was registered vide Ex.P-4. Inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-
5 and thereafter, dead body was sent for postmortem examination and
postmortem was conducted by Dr. D.P. Sandilya (PW-8) vide Ex.P-28.
Cause of death was syncope, rupture of spleen & lungs and death
was homicidal in nature. The jurisdictional police carried out the
investigation and charge-sheeted the appellants under Sections 302
read with Section 149 and 148 of the IPC. The appellants abjured the
guilt and entered into defence. Their defence was that they have not
committed the offence and they have been falsely implicated in the
offences in question.
6. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as
many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 41 documents Exs.P-1 to P-41.
The defence has examined none, but exhibited only one document
Ex.D-1 i.e. Crime Details Form.
7. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on
record, convicted and sentenced the appellants under Sections 302
read with Section 149 & 148 of the IPC in the manner mentioned in
the opening paragraph of this judgment against which these appeals
have been preferred.
8. Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for appellant Sohan
Ram (A-2) in Cr.A.No.123/2020, would submit that by recording
perverse finding such a conviction has been recorded for offence
under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC, whereas the
prosecution has failed to prove constitution of unlawful assembly and
common object in furtherance of the unlawful assembly and the
Cr.A.Nos.123/2020, 195/2020, 291/2020 & 321/2020
prosecution has further failed to prove that the accused / appellants
have assaulted the deceased in furtherance of their common object by
which the deceased died. Though recovery of lathi has been made
from Sohan Ram, the appellant herein, vide seizure memo Ex.P-11
pursuant to the disclosure statement of Sohan Ram (A-2) recorded
vide Ex.P-10, but no blood has been found on the lathi so seized and
nature of injury received by the deceased is only fracture of rib bones
and rupture of spleen & lungs which would show that the offence
would only fall under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. Even otherwise, it
would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC and as such,
conviction of the appellant be altered to one under Section 304 Part-II
of the IPC and he be sentenced to the period already undergone by
him, as he is in custody since 19-9-2018 by granting the appeal.
9. Mr. Sanjeev Verma, learned counsel appearing for appellant Birsai (A-
4) in Cr.A.No.195/2020, would submit that the appellant has only been
named in the FIR / offence(s) in question, but there is no overt act
attributed to him and he was not the member of unlawful assembly,
therefore, only the offence under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC, if any,
is made out against him if it is held that he is the member of unlawful
assembly and as such, his conviction and sentences as awarded by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge deserve to be set-aside.
10. Similar submission has been made by Mr. Ashutosh Singh
Kachhawaha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Cr.A.
No.291/2020 and by Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant in Cr.A.No.321/2020. Mr. Ajay Mishra would further
submit that no case is made out against appellant Mahesh Ram God
(A-6). Learned counsels would submit that their appeals be allowed
Cr.A.Nos.123/2020, 195/2020, 291/2020 & 321/2020
and the judgment recording conviction and awarding sentence for the
offence under Section 302 of the IPC be set-aside.
11. Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State /
respondent, would submit that there is motive for the appellants to
cause the death of the deceased, as the wife of Doman Ram (A-1)
had illicit relation with deceased Roopnarayan, therefore, the common
object of forming unlawful assembly in such an offence has been
made out against the appellants and as such, offence under Section
302 read with Section 149 of the IPC has clearly been made out
against them beyond reasonable doubt. He would further submit that
looking to the nature of injuries i.e. fracture of rib bones and rupture of
spleen & lungs, it cannot be held that offence against the appellants
be altered to one under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC, as such, the
appeals deserve to be dismissed in toto.
12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their
rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the
record with utmost circumspection.
13. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on
record and taking into consideration the statement of Dr. D.P.
Sandilya (PW-8) who conducted postmortem of the deceased and
also taking into consideration the nature of injuries and that cause of
death is syncope due to rupture of spleen & lungs and nature of death
to be homicidal, came to the conclusion that death of the deceased
was homicidal in nature which has even not been seriously disputed
by learned counsel for the parties, as such, we are of the opinion that
the trial Court is absolutely justified in holding that nature of death was
homicidal and we hereby affirm the said finding.
Cr.A.Nos.123/2020, 195/2020, 291/2020 & 321/2020
14. Now, the question is, whether the appellants have rightly been
convicted under Section 302 of the IPC with the aid of Section 149 of
the IPC?
15. Suresh Kumar (PW-2) - brother of deceased Roopnarayan,
Shivmohan (PW-3) and Radheyshyam (PW-5) are eyewitnesses to
the incident.
16. Suresh Kumar (PW-2) in his statement before the Court has clearly
stated that his brother Roopnarayan and Munni Bai both have left the
house, Roopnarayan had left his house along with one Munni Bai who
is her aunt and thereafter, they were found at Village Karoli, they were
caught by accused Devkumar (A-3) and Sohan Lohar (A-2). Suresh
Kumar (PW-2) has further stated that when he himself, Bhima &
Radhey reached Village Jamira near hand-pump, they found that
accused / appellants Sohan Lohar, Doman & Mahesh were assaulting
Roopnarayan and also administering water to him and Devkumar,
Arvind & Veersai were present there. In his statement before the
Court, he has also stated that he has not seen the appellants
assaulting Roopnarayan. Shivmohan (PW-3) has also made similar
statement before the court.
17. Radheyshyam (PW-5), though has been declared hostile, but in
paragraph 3, has clearly stated before the Court that the appellants
were assaulting the deceased by hands & fists and Sohan Lohar was
assaulting by lathi. He has also admitted that when Roopnarayan
asked for water, it was given by Shivmohan and thereafter,
Roopnarayan was taken by Shivmohan and Suresh to their house. In
cross-examination paragraph 5, he has refuted the suggestion that he
has not seen the assault made by the appellants to the deceased.
Cr.A.Nos.123/2020, 195/2020, 291/2020 & 321/2020
Though he has also been subjected to the some extent of cross-
examination, but he remained consistent and supported the case of
the prosecution. Though argument has been made that presence of
accused / appellant Mahesh Ram (A-6) has not been supported by
Suresh Kumar (PW-2), but it has duly been supported by
Radheyshyam (PW-5), though cross-examination has been made on
behalf of accused / appellant Mahesh Ram (A-6).
18. As such, there are more than five members in the alleged incident and
six accused persons have constituted unlawful assembly and object
was also unlawful as deceased Roopnarayan has taken away along
with him the wife of Doman Ram (A-1) and that was the reason why
the accused persons have constituted unlawful assembly with an
object to kill Roopnarayan, as they were beating the deceased by
hands & fists and lathi has also been seized vide Ex.P-11 from the
possession of Sohan Ram (A-2) pursuant to his disclosure statement
Ex.P-10. Therefore, involvement of the appellants in the offence in
question and formation of unlawful assembly with unlawful common
object is clearly established.
19. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the statement of Dr.
D.P. Sandilya (PW-8) which states as under: -
02& esjs }kjk mlh fnukad dks nksigj 03%00 cts 'ko foPNsnu izkjaHk
fd;k x;k] ftlesa ik;k x;k fd& e`rd ds 'kjhj fpr voLFkk esa ihB dh
lrg tehu ij fyVk;k x;k Fkk] ftlds nksuksa vka[k can Fks rFkk eqag can
FksA
ckg~; ijh{k.k
01- e`R;q iwoZ [kjksp cka;s Nksrh ij fufiy ds 02 ls-eh- mij Fkk]
ftldk vkdkj 02 ls-eh- x [email protected] ls-eh- FkkA
02- nksuksa LdSiyj jhtu ij e`R;q iwoZ cqzbt Fkk] tks uhys jax dh
FkhA
Cr.A.Nos.123/2020, 195/2020, 291/2020 & 321/2020
03- e`R;q iwoZ eYVhiy ,czstu cka;s Hkqtk ,oa cka;s vkeZ dh mijh
lrg ij FkhA
04- ,aVhekVZe czwbt ik;k x;k] nksuksa dkWQ ely] tks uhys jax dh
FkhA
05- e`R;q iwoZ ,d QVk gqvk ?kko] vkWDlhfiVy Hkkx esa ftldk
vkdkj 1 ls-eh- x [email protected] x [email protected] ls-eh- FkkA
06- 'kkjhfjd dn] dkBh lkekU; :i ls ekStwn FkkA
vkarfjd ijh{k.k%&
01- cka;s ilyh pkSFks ua- dh VwVk gqvk Fkk]
02- QqQql] isy FkhA
03- daB] Lokal uyh isy FkhA
04- nkfguk QsQM+k isy FkhA
05- nkfguk QsQM+k ysljs'ku FkhA
06- g`n; ds nksuksa psEcj esa dqN ek=k esa CyM Fkk rFkk CyM tek
gqvk Fkksjsfld dSfoVh esa FkkA
07- mnj&vkarksa dh f>Yyh rFkk eqag ,oa xzkluyh isy FkkA
08- isV esa dqN ek=k esa v/kipk Hkkstu rFkk isy FkkA
09- NksVh vkar esa ipk gqvk Hkkstu rFkk isy FkkA
10- cM+h vkar esa ey rFkk isy FkkA
11- ;d`r isy Fkk]
12- Iyhgk jsipj rFkk isfjVksfu;y dSfoVh esa tek gqvk [kwu
ekStwn FkkA
13- xqnkZ isy FkhA
14- eq=k'k; [kkyh FkkA
15- tuusfnz;k [kkyh FkhA
16- ekalisf'k;ka ,oa gM~Mh&cka;s Nkrh ds pkSFkk ilyh VwVk gqvk
FkkA
03& vfHker& esjs erkuqlkj eksM vkWQ MsFk] flad dfiax ¼g`n;
dh /kM+du can gks tkuk½ tks vf/kd jDr lzko ds dkj.k gqvkA e`R;q dk
dkj.k frYyh vkSj QsQM+k jsipj gksus ls gqvkA
izd`fr%& e`R;q dk dkj.k gksekslkbZMy uspj dh FkhA e`rd dh e`R;q
esjs ijh{k.k ds 36 ?kaVs ds vanj dh FkhA 'ko ijh{k.k izfrosnu iz-ih-28
gS] ftlds v ls v Hkkx ij esjs gLrk{kj gSA
04& fnukad 10-10-18 dks izkr% 11 cts iz/kku vkj{kd f'ko'kadj jke
dz-93 ds }kjk ckal dk MaMk yk;k x;k Fkk] ftldk ijh{k.k esjs }kjk
Cr.A.Nos.123/2020, 195/2020, 291/2020 & 321/2020
fd;k x;k] tks fuEukuqlkj gS%&
01- ckal ds MaMs dh dqy yackbZ 123 ls-eh-]
02- ckal ds MaMs ds ,d fgLls dh eksVkbZ 8 ls-eh- rFkk nwljs
fgLls dh eksVkbZ 5 ls-eh- dh FkhA
03- ckal ds MaMs esa dqy 05 xkaB gSaA
vfHker%& e`rd dh e`R;q mijksDr ykBh ls gks ldrh gSA mDr ckal
ds MaMs dks tkap mijkar lhycan dj iz/kku vkj{kd f'ko'kadj jke dz- 93
dks lkSaik x;kA D;wjh fjiksVZ iz-ih- 29 gS] ftlds v ls v Hkkx ij esjs
gLrk{kj gSaA
20. A careful perusal of the statement of Dr. D.P. Sandilya (PW-8) would
show that death of Roopnarayan occurred due to syncope on account
of excessive bleeding as spleen & lungs were also ruptured and death
was held to be homicidal in nature, though the injuries were abrasions
and bruises of occipital region and one lacerated wound. As such,
except injury No.5, all injuries are not on vital part of the body. Thus,
in view of ocular and medical evidence available on record, we are of
the considered opinion that the appellants have caused assault to
deceased Roopnarayan, by which he suffered injuries and died.
21. Now, the question would be, whether the appellants have rightly been
held guilty for offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the
IPC?
22. The Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun and another v. State of
Chhattisgarh1 has elaborately dealt with the issue and observed in
paragraphs 20 and 21 as under :-
"20. To invoke this Exception 4, the requirements that are
to be fulfilled have been laid down by this Court in Surinder
Kumar v. UT, Chandigarh2, it has been explained as under:
(SCC p. 220, para 7)
1 (2017) 3 SCC 247
2 (1989) 2 SCC 217
Cr.A.Nos.123/2020, 195/2020, 291/2020 & 321/2020
"7. To invoke this exception four requirements
must be satisfied, namely, (i) it was a sudden fight; (ii)
there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a
heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken
any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The
cause of the quarrel is not relevant nor is it relevant
who offered the provocation or started the assault. The
number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not
a decisive factor but what is important is that the
occurrence must have been sudden and
unpremeditated and the offender must have acted in a
fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have
taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner.
Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the
moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes
injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled
to the benefit of this exception provided he has not
acted cruelly."
21. Further in Arumugam v. State3, in support of the
proposition of law that under what circumstances Exception
4 to Section 300 IPC can be invoked if death is caused, it
has been explained as under: (SCC p. 596, para 9)
"9. .... '18. The help of Exception 4 can be
invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation; (b)
in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender's having
taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual
manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the
person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the
ingredients mentioned in it must be found. It is to be
noted that the "fight" occurring in Exception 4 to Section
300 IPC is not defined in the Penal Code, 1860. It
takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that
there must be no time for the passions to cool down
and in this case, the parties had worked themselves
into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the
beginning. A fight is a combat between two and more
persons whether with or without weapons. It is not
possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall
be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of
fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must
necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each
case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not
sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and
there was no premeditation. It must further be shown
3 (2008) 15 SCC 590
Cr.A.Nos.123/2020, 195/2020, 291/2020 & 321/2020
that the offender has not taken undue advantage or
acted in cruel or unusual manner. The expression
"undue advantage" as used in the provision means
"unfair advantage".'"
23. In Arjun (supra), the Supreme Court has held that when and if there is
intent and knowledge, the same would be a case of Section 304 Part-I
of the IPC and if it is only a case of knowledge and not the intention to
cause murder and bodily injury, then same would be a case of Section
304 Part-II of the IPC.
24. In the matter of Joseph v. State of Kerala4, wherein the accused
inflicted two lathi blows on the head of the deceased which proved
fatal, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that it cannot be said
that accused intended to cause such bodily injury which was sufficient
in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, as such, accused can
be attributed with knowledge that by inflicting such injury he was likely
to cause death and further held that the offence would fall under
Section 304 Part-II and not Section 302 of the IPC.
25. Reverting to the facts of the case in the light of the aforesaid principles
of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Arjun (supra) and Joseph
(supra), it would be quite vivid that wife of accused No.1 Doman Ram
(A-1) was taken by the deceased along with him, they were staying
together for last twenty days and the accused / appellants were
searching for them, but, in the mean time, Devkumar (A-3) got
information and thereafter, Devkumar (A-3) and Sohan Lohar (A-2)
caught them at Village Karauli, then Devkumar called his father
Doman Ram (A-1) and Arvind (A-5) and thereafter, the accused
persons were said to have assaulted the deceased, but at the same
time, they also administered water to the deceased on being asked by
4 1995 SCC (Cri) 165
Cr.A.Nos.123/2020, 195/2020, 291/2020 & 321/2020
him. As such, there was no premeditation on the part of the
appellants, but on sudden provocation when they found the deceased
and Munni Bai red-handed, they committed the offence on sudden
quarrel that took place between the appellants and the deceased and
they have also not caused injury on vital part of the body and they
have also not taken undue advantage of the situation though Sohan
Ram (A-2) was armed with lathi. As such, there was no intention on
the part of the accused / appellants of causing death of the deceased,
but they were certainly having knowledge that by the assault made by
six persons to Roopnarayan by hands & fists and lathi, it is likely to
cause death. The only reason behind the commission of offence is
wife of Doman Ram (A-1) - Munni Bai was missing for last twenty
days and the accused persons were searching for her and on being
caught by Devkumar (A-3) & Sohan Ram (A-2) when they were
proceeding for Village Karouli to bring back Munni Bai, the offence
took place. There was no premeditation on the part of the appellants,
except Sohan Ram (A-2) who was armed with lathi, no other accused
person was armed with any weapon. Therefore, conviction of the
appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC is
liable to converted to one under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC, as it
would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC.
26. In that view of the matter, conviction of the appellants for offence
under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC is altered to that
of Section 304 Part-II read with Section 149 of the IPC. However,
considering the fact that there was no premeditation on the part of the
appellants, there was a sudden fight when Munni Bai was recovered
by the appellants and the nature of injuries were such that the
Cr.A.Nos.123/2020, 195/2020, 291/2020 & 321/2020
accused could not be attributed with the special knowledge required
by Section 300 of the IPC, nor were the injuries sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death and relying upon the
decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Willie (William) Slaney
v. State of Madhya Pradesh 5, we hereby award five years rigorous
imprisonment to the appellants herein namely, Sohan Ram, Nohar Sai
Lohara (A-2); Birsai (A-4); Doman Ram (A-1); Devkumar (A-3); Arvind
Goud (A-5); and Mahesh Ram God (A-6) and also impose fine of ₹
5,000/- each, with default stipulation of undergoing rigorous
imprisonment for one year. Amount already deposited, if any, shall be
adjusted and fine amount shall be paid to the legal representatives /
legal heirs of deceased Roopnarayan as compensation within 30 days
from the date of deposit of the fine amount by the appellants.
Conviction and sentences imposed upon the appellants under Section
148 of the IPC remain unaltered.
27. The criminal appeals are allowed to the extent indicated herein-above.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge Judge
Soma
5 AIR 1956 SC 116
