Delhi High Court
Badol Farazi vs The State Represented By: ... on 6 May, 2016
Author: Mukta Gupta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: April 28, 2016
% Judgment Delivered on: May 06, 2016
+ CRL.A. 262/2016
BADOL FARAZI ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.Pankaj Sinha, Ms.Nupur
Grover and Ms.Shalini Rana,
Advocates.
versus
THE STATE REPRESENTED BY:
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Varun Goswami, APP for
the State with SI Ashish
Kumar, PS Amar Colony.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
1. Convicted for offences punishable under Sections 392/397/302 IPC
vide impugned judgment dated July 21, 2015 and sentenced for
imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC,
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years for offence punishable under
Section 397 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 05 years for
offence punishable under Section 392 IPC vide order dated August 22, 2015
Badol Farazi challenges the same inter alia on the ground that when the
alleged offences were committed, he was not in India and thus he could not
have committed the offences which fact was apparent from his passport
which was duly seized. We may note that vide impugned judgment Sanjay
Maiti has also been convicted for offence punishable under Section 411 IPC
for the reason gold chain of the deceased was recovered from his possession
and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
There being no appeal from Sanjay Maiti, we are only concerned with the
appeal of Badol Farazi.
2. Process of law was set into motion on receipt of DD No.4A at 9.05
AM on May 06, 2008 at PS Amar Colony through the PCR exhibited as
Ex.PW-17/A informing that a lady was staying alone at C-13, Dayanand
Colony and was not opening the door of the house. On receipt of Ex.PW-
17/A, Inspector Manoj Kumar, PW-27 along with Constable Sanjay PW-16
reached the spot and found the dead body of a female lying on the floor
which was identified to be that of Smt.Nirmal Madaan by her grandson
Manav @ Sunny Madaan, PW-5. Statement of Manav Ex.PW-5/A was
recorded by SI Ram Jeet Singh, PW-17 on which FIR was registered.
3. Manav stated that he was residing on the second floor of House No.C-
13, Dayanand Colony, Lajpat Nagar-IV; on the first floor his paternal aunt
Smt.Madhu Madaan was residing whereas his grandmother Smt.Nirmal
Madaan aged about 71 years was residing on the ground floor. On that day
i.e. May 06, 2008 when he was sleeping in his room, around 8.45 AM
Mukesh s/o Krishan Nandan Singh, who used to work with his grandmother,
came and stated that his grandmother had not opened the shop and thus
called him downstairs. Manav and Mukesh went and knocked the door of
his grandmother's floor however, nobody opened the door. They went to
the rear where they found the door of rear portion open thus they made a call
to the police. After the police reached, he jumped over the grill on the rear
portion. Manav found his grandmother lying near the bed in a pool of
blood. She had knife injuries on her hands and in her mouth broken portion
of the knife was stuck. One almirah was found open and belongings
ransacked. Manav also stated that his grandmother had kept a boy namely
Badal, aged around 20 years, slim body, wheatish complexion, 5.5 ft. in
height, as domestic servant, who used to work in STD booth as well and
used to sleep at the residence. Badal was missing from the house. Thus he
suspected Badal for having committed the murder of his grandmother and
robbing valuable articles. Besides the earth control, handle of knife lying at
the spot along with the jeans pant and a belt lying in the backyard of the
house purportedly belonging to Badal which had blood stains were seized.
4. Post-mortem was carried out on the body of the deceased
Smt.Nirmala Madaan by Dr.Sukhdeep Singh, PW-10 who found a kitchen
knife stuck in the mouth of the deceased and noted the following ante-
mortem injuries:
"1. Incised wound 1.5 cm in length, cutting the lateral
angle of the left upper lip.
2. Incised wound 2. cm in length, 1 cm invert to the
lateral angle of upper lip, placed vertically bearing a knife
blade into it upto a depth of 12 c.m, cutting the tongue into
a wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm, placed 2 cm to the back of tip and 1
cm away from middle line from the left side through the
tongue into submandiular fossa, staining of tissues is seen.
3. Incised wound 0.5 cm x 1 cm below the inner end of
eye-brow, incised wound is superficial.
4. Incised wound on the upper abdomen placed
horizontally 1.5 x 3 cm located 13.5 cm above the
umbilicus, the wound passes downward and backward into
the abdominal cavity, cutting superficial tissues peritoneum
and the medial and lower surface of liver. There is a cut
wound 0.8 x 0.5 cm. In the abdominal cavity, there is about
500 to 700 ml of clotted blood.
5. Incised wound on the left abdomen placed horizontally
4 cm away from the mid line and 4 cm below the injury No.4
of size 1.8 x 0.1 cm, wound passes backward into abdominal
cavity cutting superficial tissues, peritoneum passing
through the anterior and posterior wall of stomach. Cut in
anterior wall 2.5 x 0.5 cm and posterior wall being 1 x 5
c.m. Semi solid straw coloured food material seen coming
out of the stomach.
6. Incised wound left abdomen placed horizontally 9 cm
away from the mid line of size 1.5 x 0.3 cm.
7. Incised wound on left abdomen placed horizontally 13
cm away from the mid line of size 1.5 X 0.3 cm.
8. Incised wound on left lateral side of abdomen placed
horizontally 16 cm away from the mid line of size 1 x 0.8
cm.
9. Incised wound obliquely placed with inner and
directed downward 17 cm to the left of mid line and 6.5 cm
above from injury No.8 of size 1.5 x 0.3 cm.
10. Incised wound obliquely placed on left lateral side of
abdomen 21 cm away from the mid line of size 1.5 x 0.2 cm.
10. Incised wound located 2.5 cm above the umbilicus
placed horizontally 3.5 cm away from the mid line.
11. Incised wound placed horizontally in line with injury
No.11, 7.5 cm away from the mid line to the left. The wound
cut superficial tissues and passes backward into the
abdominal cavity.
12. Incised wound obliquely placed on left lateral side of
abdomen 14.5 cm away from the mid line of size 2. X 0.5
cm.
13. Incised wound placed obliquely over the posterior
medial aspect of left arm 11 cm above the elbow of size 2 x
0.5 cm.
14. Incised wound placed postero-laterally over left arm 8
cm above the elbow of size 5 x 1 cm x 6 cm deep laterally
and upwards.
15. Incised wound 7 x 2 cm, bone deep placed obliquely
over the back of left elbow.
16. Incised wound 1.5 x 0.4 cm obliquely placed over the
front of left forearm on its medial aspect, 13 cm below the
elbow.
17. Incised wound 4.5 x 0.5 cm x 5 cm deep placed 16 cm
below the elbow, directed upwards on medial aspect of the
left forearm.
18. Incised wound 2.5 cm x 0.3 cm placed obliquely over
the dorsum of right ring finger.
19. Incised wound 1.5 x 0.3 cm obliquely placed on the
medial end of left thigh, 12 cm above the knee.
20. Incised wound 3.5 cm x 0.6 cm placed obliquely on the
left thigh, 5.5 cm above the knee.
21. Incised wound 1.5 cm x 0.2 cm over the lateral aspect
of left thigh, 2 cm above the knee."
5. Dr.Sukhdeep Singh, PW-10 opined the cause of death to be due to
haemorrhagic shock as a result of multiple stab injuries. All injuries were
ante-mortem in nature and collectively sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course of nature. He also gave a subsequent opinion that the
injuries mentioned in the post-mortem report were possible by the knives
Ex.Nos.1 and Ex.No.3, that is, knife blade. Ex.No.2 the handle of the knife
was possibly part of Ex.No.3 the blade of the knife. Before the Court he
identified the knife Ex.No.1 and Ex.Nos.2 and 3 the handle and the blade of
the second knife respectively.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant has been
falsely implicated for the reason the appellant was not even in India on the
date of alleged incident i.e. May 06, 2008. The appellant visited India for
the first time in July, 2008 on the strength of passport issued on July 02,
2008. The test identification parade of the appellant was not got conducted
and thus dock identification for the first time in the Court is meaningless.
Even the witnesses have stated that the police brought Badol to their house
and that Manav had visited the police station to see the accused persons after
the arrest. The identity of the appellant to be the same person, that is, Badal
who served as servant to the deceased has not been established. The chain
of circumstances does not connect the appellant with the offence alleged.
The inquest report prepared immediately after the incident does not mention
that any gold chain of the deceased was missing rather silver ring and
artificial earning were recovered from the dead body. No credence can be
placed on the testimony of Bagappa PW-11 who alleged that the appellant
replaced him as a servant of the deceased, as Bagappa was demanding
increase in his salary which was not accepted by the deceased. The
testimony of Tenzin Thinley PW-13 is contradictory and unreliable. Further
Tenzin Thinley admits that the room was dark from inside and thus he could
not have seen the appellant with the deceased at the night of May 05, 2008.
The statement of Aman Anand, PW-15 is vague and cannot be relied upon.
Nobody has proved the handwriting on the servant verification form. The
servant verification form has not been proved to be in the handwriting of the
deceased and does not connect the appellant with the offence committed as
present is a case where nobody identifies Badol Farazi to be the same person
who was employed by the deceased and was known by the name Badal. The
signature of the appellant on the servant verification form was taken by the
police after he was arrested which fact is deposed by Manoj Kumar PW-27.
Further the specimen signatures were taken in the absence of a Magistrate
which is impermissible in law as held by Full Bench of this Court in the
decision reported as 191 (2012) DLT 225, Sapan Halder & Anr. vs. State.
Further no finger prints were lifted from the spot which could have
established the case against the appellant. There is no recovery of weapon
of offence at the time of arrest of the appellant. Thus the appellant be
acquitted.
7. Learned APP for the State contends that appellant has been named in
the FIR. He was seen by Tenzin Thinley PW-13 and Bagappa PW-11 who
have identified him and thus there was no need of a Test Identification
Parade. This was not a case of fleeting glimpse by the witnesses. The plea
of alibi that Badol entered India in July 2008 is required to be rejected and
this Court will take judicial notice of the fact that Indo-Bangladesh border is
a porous border permitting infiltration unabated. The passport was got made
by the appellant only as a defence and strangely though in the passport there
is an emigration check at Bangladesh check post, there is no corresponding
endorsement of immigration at the Indian customs while he crossed over the
border. The FIR notes that the house had been ransacked and thus only
when search was made it was found that gold chain of the deceased was
missing. The ring on the finger of the deceased being of silver and the ear
ring being artificial would have obviously not tempted the appellant to rob
the same. The servant verification form which noted the name of Badal was
recovered near the dead body which was sufficient proof that the deceased
had employed the appellant as a servant and she was in the process of
getting his verification done. The complainant had accompanied the Police
officers when pursuant to the disclosure, Badol got recovered the knife from
the park on July 16, 2008. There is no discrepancy in the testimony of the
witnesses in relation to the recovery of one of the weapons of offence i.e.
Ex.No.1.
8. Before proceeding with the arguments advanced, it would be relevant
to note the testimony of the three star witnesses of the prosecution i.e.
Manav @ sunny PW-5, Bagappa PW-11 and Tenzin Thinley PW-13.
9. Manav deposed in sync with his statement on the basis of which FIR
was registered. He also deposed that immediately after the registration of
FIR, along with a Constable he went to the Old Delhi Railway Station to
search for Badal however he could not find him there and so he returned
home. He deposed about the seizures made from the spot and Jeans pant of
light blue colour recovered from the backyard of the house which was
blood-stained. The servant verification form was recovered from near the
dead body however in relation to the knife seized by the Police from the
park near Garhi, he deposed that he was not present when the said knife was
recovered. He also identified the gold chain of his grand-mother recovered
from Sanjay Maiti which he had identified in a Test Identification Parade.
In his cross-examination, nothing could be elicited except that he deposed
that his grand-mother used to sleep late and keep the light of the room off
while sleeping.
10. Bagappa PW-11 deposed that on April 01, 2008 he started working as
a helper in the STD shop of Mrs. Nirmal Madaan at Lajpat Nagar. On April
27, 2008 he requested Mrs.Madaan to increase his salary which she refused
and thus he quit the job. Mrs.Madaan told him that she would talk to him
after an hour after attending a Satsang. In the meantime Badol came to the
STD shop for some employment. Bagappa told Badol that Mrs.Madaan
would come after one hour and when Mrs.Nirmal Madaan came back, he
told her about Badol. Mrs. Nirmal Madaan employed Badol as the servant.
Thereafter on the same day he left the job. Bagappa correctly identified
Badol in the Court as the person who had been employed by the deceased.
Initially Bagappa was not cross-examined however on an application filed
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by the appellant, Bagappa was recalled for cross-
examination. However, nothing material could be elicited in cross-
examination. He reiterated that he left the job because he was not paid
sufficiently and that Mataji had offered a salary of `1000/- per month which
was not sufficient for him. He reiterated that he had seen Badol in the STD
booth for the first time. On a Court question, Bagappa reiterated that Badal
Singh Sain appointed by Mrs.Nirmal Madaan was the same person standing
in the dock.
11. Tenzin Thinley PW-13 was running a restaurant in Majnu Ka Teela
and was a tenant at C-13, Dayanand Colony on the second floor. He
deposed that on the night of May 05, 2008 at about 11.00 PM he was
watching TV. Since water was overflowing in front of the window from the
overhead tank, he went downstairs and found the main entrance gate of the
house of Nirmal Dadi closed. So he called out the deceased to get the gate
opened. He peeped inside her room from the window and found Badol
along with one more person. Badol told him not to worry and he will
manage the overflowing of water. Feeling assured, he went upstairs in his
room. On the next morning i.e. May 06, 2008 when he got up at 9.00 AM
he found a large number of Police personnel inside the house and when he
went downstairs he came to know that Dadi Ma had been murdered. On
September 01, 2008 he was called by the Police to the Patiala House Court
for the purpose of identifying the accused, where he identified Badol. In
cross-examination he clarified that he did not notice the time when water
was overflowing however it was around 11.00 PM as he was watching TV in
his room and his elder brother was sleeping in the other room. He deposed
that Manav also used to reside on the same floor. He stated that he was not
aware of the exact time when the deceased used to sleep and also whether
she used to switch off the light when she slept. In cross-examination he
further stated that it was dark inside the room of the deceased when he spoke
to Badol about the water overflowing. A suggestion was given to him by
counsel for Sanjay Maiti that Sanjay Maiti was not the same person whom
he had seen on that night, in the room of the deceased to which he stated that
he had a doubt however no such suggestion was given on behalf of Badol.
12. During the course of investigation the Police moved an application for
TIP of Sanjay Maiti however he refused Test Identification Parade. In view
of the evidence of Tenzin PW-13 who expressed his doubt on the
identification of Sanjay, he was acquitted for offence punishable under
Section 302 IPC. As far as Badol is concerned the witnesses clarified that
Badal Singh Sain was the same person i.e. Badol Farazi who was present in
the Court. Badal was named in the FIR. Having been employed with the
deceased on April 27, 2008, both Manav and Tenzin had sufficient
opportunities to see him till May 05, 2008 as he was doing household chores
of the deceased at her house and office i.e. STD booth on the ground floor
of the house C-13, Dayanand Colony. Further Bagappa had a discussion
with Badol and the two waited for Mrs. Nirmal Maddan to return from
Satsang on April 27, 2008, whereafter Bagappa left the job. This was not a
case where the witnesses had a fleeting flimpse of Badal. Thus, no Test
Identification Parade was warranted when the witnesses knew the accused
very well and had named him in the FIR. The Division Bench of this Court
in the decision reported as 107 (2003) DLT 385 State Vs. Mohd.Afzal & Ors.
authored by one of us Pradeep Nandrajog, J. noting the various decisions of
the Supreme Court on the point of identification of the accused as per
Section 9 of the Evidence Act culled out the various principles and held:
"304. The facts which establish the identify of an accused
person are relevant facts as per Section 9 of the Evidence Act.
Substantive evidence of a witness is the statement made by him
in the Court. No doubt, there are judgments holding that
evidence of identification of an accused person at the trial for
the first time is inherently of a weak character and to carry the
strength of conviction, the evidence should show as to how and
under what circumstances the witness was identifying a
particular accused. However, the judgments have to be read
and understood in the peculiar facts of those cases. We may
note a few. In the judgment reported as 1970 (2) SCC
128, Budhsen v. State of U.P., it was held :--
"The purpose of a prior test identification, therefore,
seems to be to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of
that evidence. It is accordingly considered a safe rule of
prudence to generally look for corroboration of the
sworn testimony of witnesses in court as to the identity of
the accused who are strangers to them, in the form of
earlier identification proceeding. There may, however, be
exceptions to this general rule, when for example, the
Court is impressed by a particular witness, on whose
testimony it can safely rely, without such or other
corroboration."
(Emphasis ours).
305. In the judgment reported as 1992 (3) SCR 480, State of
Maharashtra v. Sukhdeo Singh, it was observed :
"Test identification parade, if held promptly and after
taking the necessary precautions to ensure its credibility,
would lend the required assurance which the Court
ordinarily seeks to act on it. In the absence of such test
identification parade, it would be extremely risky to place
implicit reliance on identification made for the first time
in Court after a long lapse of time and that too of persons
who had changed their appearance. We, therefore, think
that the learned Trial Judge was perfectly justified in
looking for corroboration."
306. The aforesaid observations show that law on Test
Identification Parade is not a cast iron straight jacket legal
proposition admitting of no exceptions. Requirement of Test
Identification Parade emanates from the rule of prudence to
generally look for corroboration as to the identity of the
accused who is a stranger to the witness. As held in the
judgment reported as 2003 (5) Scale 152, Malkhan
Singh v.State of M.P., this rule of prudence is subject to
exceptions, when for example, the Court is impressed by a
particular witness on whose testimony, it can safely rely. After
all, the identification parade belongs to the stage of
investigation and there are no provisions in the Code of
Criminal Procedure which make it mandatory for the
Investigating Agency to conduct a test identification parade,
nor is there any provision which confers right upon the accused
to claim one. We may note that a test identification parade does
not constitute a substantive evidence and they are governed by
Section 162 Cr.P.C.
307. In Malkhan Singh's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court cited with approval its earlier observations in an
unreported judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 92/56, Prakash Chand Sogani v. The State of
Rajasthan and it was held :
"It seems to us that it has been clearly laid down by this
Court, in Parkash Chand Sogani v. The State of
Rajasthan (supra), that the absence of test identification
in all cases is not fatal and if the accused person is well-
known by sight it would be waste of time to put him up
for identification. Of course if prosecution fails to hold
an identification on the plea that witnesses already knew
the accused well and it transpires in the course of the
trial that the Witnesses did not know the accused
previously, prosecution would run the risk of losing its
case."
308. It, therefore, flows that test identification parade is a rule
of prudence and prior identification of the accused by the
witnesses re-assures the Court that his evidence of
identification carries conviction. It would be required where
accused is not known to the witness. Distinction has
been drawn in law where a witness identifies an accused whom
he had sufficient time to see in contra-distinction to a fleeting
glimpse of the accused. Further, if the evidence of the witness
otherwise inspires confidence, absence of a prior test
identification parade, would be no ground to reject or
disbelieve the testimony of the witness, more particularly in the
case where the witness is a member of the public and no motive
is attributed to him for falsely implicating the accused person."
13. We now come to the verification form recovered from near the dead
body. We note the version of Manav PW-5 in the examination-in-chief in
this regard who deposed:
"Servant verification form filled in by accused Badal were also
seized by the Police from under the bed of my grandmother and
the same were shown to me by the Police and the same were
seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-5/D bearing my signatures at
point A."
14. From the statement as recorded above the only fact proved is that a
servant verification form was seized by the Police from under the bed of his
grand-mother vide seizure memo Ex.PW-5/D which seizure memo bore his
signature at point 'A'. However the lacuna left by the prosecution has been
filled in by the defence while cross-examining this witness and we note the
relevant portion of the cross-examination of Manav as under:
"The servant verification form of accused Badal was found next
day i.e. 07.05.2008 when the dead body had been found. I had
seen that servant verification form. I do not remember whether
the said form was signed or not. My grandmother used to tell
us that she was „Prabhakar‟ but I do not know from where she
did this. My grandmother could write Punjabi. She fully knew
Hindi and could also understand some English. I can identify
the Hindi handwriting of my grandmother. The servant
verification from of accused Badal is completely filled (except
signatures) in the handwriting of my grandmother. I cannot say
whether it is the same form which was seized or not. I also
cannot say whether it is the same form which was shown to me
on the next day as I had not read that form minutely."
15. Thus in cross-examination Manav identified the hand-writing of his
grand-mother on the servant verification form except the signature. Manav
in his cross-examination did not support with regard to the servant
verification form being the same form which was seized from near the dead
body by the Police vide seizure memo Ex.PW-5/D, though he identified the
same in his examination-in-chief. This portion of the testimony of Manav in
his examination-in-chief is corroborated by Inspector Manoj Kumar PW-27
and SI Ranjeet Singh PW-17, who have both identified their signatures on
the seizure memo Ex.PW-5/D.
16. As regards the plea that it being dark Tenzin could not have identified
appellant to be in the room of the deceased, we note that there are a number
of ways to identify a person especially those who live in the same house i.e.
height, features etc. Manav in his cross-examination has clarified that the
deceased used to sleep around 12O'clock. Moreover, when Tenzin saw
Badol with one more person in the room of the deceased, he did not notice
whether the deceased was asleep or awaken. As per the post-mortem report
which was conducted on May 07, 2008 at 2.45 PM, time since death was one
and a half day. Thus murder of the deceased was committed somewhere on
the mid-night of May 05-06, 2008. Thus, around the time of murder of the
deceased, Badol was found in her room by Tenzin.
17. One of the weapons of offence i.e. the knife Ex.No.1which has been
opined by the doctor to have possibly caused the injuries was recovered at
the instance of Badol and seized vide Ex.PW-5/H by Inspector S.P.Gupta
PW-19 and SI K.P.Sah PW-23. The knife was found to be blood stained.
The only cross-examination of the witnesses on this point is that no
fingerprints were lifted from the knife so recovered. Thus even if Manav
stated that he did not accompany at the time of recovery of the knife, from
the testimony of these two witnesses i.e. Insp.S.P.Gupta PW-19 and SI
K.P.Sah PW-23 coupled with the FSL report which shows that the knife had
blood stains of human origin and the opinion of the post-mortem doctor that
injuries were possible by the said weapon of offence, we hold the recovery
of the knife Ex.No.1 at the instance of Badol to be incriminating against
him.
18. The jeans pant recovered from the backyard of the house and seized
immediately after the dead body was found belonged to Badol as per Manav
and was found to contain blood stains of human blood with 'A' group which
tallied with that of the deceased.
19. This brings us to the most important defence of the appellant that the
appellant was not present in India at the time when the offence was
committed and he came to India only on July 08, 2008 after a Bangladesh
passport was issued to him on July 02, 2008 thus leading to an inference that
on May 5 & 6, 2008 he was not in India. We may note that though this
passport was recovered from the appellant pursuant to his personal search
conducted after the arrest and seized, however as far as genuineness of this
document is concerned, no defence witness was examined by the appellant.
Noting that an accused is not required to prove his defence beyond
reasonable doubt and even if he is able to probabilize his defence, he is
entitled to a benefit of doubt, we take judicial notice of the fact that Indo-
Bangladesh border is a porous border wherein it is easy for people to
immigrate or emigrate and in the present case though there is an emigration
endorsement of the Bangladesh check post there is no endorsement of the
Indian check-post thereby leading to an inference that after getting an
endorsement made at the Bangladesh check post, the appellant
surreptitiously entered India and this document was got created only to set
up a plea of alibi.
20. At the instance of Badol, Sanjay Maiti was arrested pursuant to whose
disclosure statement, gold chain of the deceased was recovered. The said
gold chain was duly identified by Manav in the Test Identification Parade
carried out by Shri Satish Kumar, learned Metropolitan Magistrate PW-25
who has not been cross-examined and thus the veracity of TIP proceedings
conducted by him has gone unchallenged.
21. On the basis of aforesaid discussion it can be safely held that the
prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the
appellant. Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction and order on
sentence are upheld. Appeal is dismissed.
22. Copy of this order be sent to Superintendent Central Jail Tihar for
updation of the Jail record.
23. TCR be returned.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
MAY 06, 2016
'vn/ga'
