Ram Krishna Laskar vs The State Of Assam
2022 Latest Caselaw 941 Gua

                                                                 Page No.# 1/18

GAHC010203252018




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                               Case No. : CRL.A(J)/84/2018

            RAM KRISHNA LASKAR
            VILL. BORKULLA, P.S. NAGAON, NAGAON, ASSAM.


            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM
            REP. BY PP, ASSAM.


Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. U CHOUDHURY, AMICUS CURIAE

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM




             Linked Case : CRL.A(J)/105/2018

            PRANJAL LASKAR
            VILL. BORKULLA
            P.S. NAGAON
            ASSAM.


             VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM
            REP. BY PP
            ASSAM.


             ------------

Advocate for : MS R D MAZUMDAR Page No.# 2/18

AMICUS CURIAE Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI

JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)

Date of hearing : 17.03.2022.

Date of judgment :        17.03.2022.


(Suman Shyam, J)

Heard Mr. U. Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant in

Crl. Appeal (J) No.84/2018 and Ms. R. D. Mazumdar, learned Amicus Curiae

appearing for the appellant in Crl. Appeal (J) No.105/2018. We have also heard Ms.

B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State.

2. Both these jail appeals are directed against the common judgment dated

06.07.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaon in Sessions Case

No.26/2017 convicting both the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal

Code for committing the murder of Monoranjan Deka and sentencing them to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.5000/- each with

default stipulation. Crl. Appeal (J) No.84/2018 has been preferred by appellant Ram

Krishna Laskar (A-1) whereas Crl. Appeal (J) No.105/2018 has been preferred by co-

accused/appellant Pranjal Laskar (A-2).

3. The facts of the case, in brief, is that on 10.08.2016 the father of the victim viz., Page No.# 3/18

Sri Ratneswar Deka had lodged an ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge of Nagaon

Sadar Police Station Nagaon alleging that on 09.08.2016 while his son Monoranjan

Deka (Babu) was watching T.V. in his own house, the accused persons, who live

adjacent to his house, had called his son at around 9.00 p.m. At around 12 at night,

the A-1 had informed his son-in-law, who stays in the nearby house, that his son Babu

was lying unconscious in the backside of the house of the 2 nd party. Immediately,

they had arrived at the place of occurrence and found his son lying in a pool of

blood with grievous injuries on his head and near the right ear. They immediately took

him to B. P. Civil Hospital, Nagaon where the doctors declared him dead. The

informant had also stated that he suspected that the 2 nd party had hacked his son to

death with sharp weapon in a pre-planned manner by calling him away from the

house with a conspiracy. In the ejahar dated 10.08.2016, the name of the two

appellants have been mentioned as 2nd party/accused.

4. On the basis of the ejahar dated 10.08.2016, Nagaon Sadar P.S. Case

No.2033/2016 was registered under Section 302/34 IPC. The matter was then taken

up for investigation. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.)

had submitted charge-sheet against the two appellants as well as another accused

person viz., Liladhar Deka. The learned Sessions Judge had accordingly framed

charge against all the three accused persons under Section 302/34 IPC. Since the

accused persons had pleaded innocence, the matter went up for trial. At the

conclusion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has held that the

prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charge brought against both the Page No.# 4/18

appellants under Section 302/34 IPC. However, accused Liladhar Deka was

acquitted on benefit of doubt by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the

charge brought against him.

5. Assailing the impugned judgment the learned Amicus Curiae for both the

appellants have argued that this is a case of no evidence against in as much as the

prosecution has also failed to establish the charge brought against the appellants by

adducing cogent evidence on record. Notwithstanding the same, the appellants

have been convicted merely on the basis of "last seen together" theory which

cannot be the sole basis of conviction under Section 302 of the IPC. By relying upon

the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Kanhaiya Lal vs.

State of Rajasthan reported in (2014)4 SCC 715 as well as the subsequent decision of

the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Shyamal Das vs. State of

Assam reported in 2017 STPL 11901 Gauhati Ms. Mazumdar has argued that "last seen

together" circumstance is a week piece of evidence and that the prosecution has

failed to establish any other circumstances for holding the appellants/accused

persons guilty of committing murder of the deceased. The mere fact that the victim

was found in an injured condition in the backyard of the appellants cannot be a

ground to convict them for committing the murder of the deceased under Section

302 of the IPC.

6. Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam, has taken us to the

materials on record and has fairly submitted that the prosecution case is largely

based on the "last seen together" circumstance where the time gap is reasonably Page No.# 5/18

low. Save and except the above, there is no other evidence to implicate the

appellants.

7. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for

both the sides and have also carefully examined the evidence available on record.

8. In this case, there is no direct evidence and the prosecution case is entirely

based on circumstantial evidence. The PW-1, Sri Ratneswar Deka is the father of the

victim and the informant in this case. He has deposed before the Court that on the

night of the incident his son Monoranjan Deka was watching TV with his wife Tarala

and himself at around 9.00 p.m. in their house when accused Pranjal Laskar (A-2)

came to their house and called his son to his house. He had asked his son not to go

out at night but his son, accompanied by Pranjal Laskar, went out from the house. At

around 12 O'clock in the midnight his son-in-law Prafulla Deka woke him up from

sleep and informed that accused Ramkrishna Laskar had informed him that his son

Monoranjan was lying unconscious in the back side of the kitchen of Pranjal Laskar.

On receipt of the said information, he, along with his daughter-in-law Tarala and his

son-in-law Prafulla immediately went to the house of Pranjal Laskar and saw that his

son Monoranjan was lying there in a pool of blood with injury on his head and neck.

This witness has further deposed that accused Pranjal Laskar and Ramkirshna Laskar

were in their house at that time. Then they raised alarm and his son-in-law Prafulla

Deka had informed the police over telephone about the occurrence and had also

called 108 ambulance for shifting his injured son to the hospital. After the arrival of 108

ambulance he took his son to the Nagaon B.P. Civil Hospital. The doctors had Page No.# 6/18

examined Monoranjan but declared him brought dead. After conducting post-

mortem examination on the dead body the same was handed over to them for

performing his last rites. On the next day, he had lodged the ejahar at the Nagaon

Sadar Police Station. The ejahar was written by one scribe under his instruction. PW-1

has also proved the ejahar Ext-1 by identifying his signature therein as Ext-1(1). During

his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he had heard that on the next day

of the occurrence Kabita and Liladhar Deka had been apprehended by the public

and were handed over to the police. He had also heard that Liladhar Deka had

stabbed his son with a dao but he had lodged the ejahar before hearing the same

from the public. PW-1 has also deposed that the homestead land of Liladhar Deka

and Pranjal Laskar were situated adjacent to each other. Kabita is the wife of

accused Ramkrishna Laskar. He had also heard from the public that Kabita had told

that Liladhar Deka had killed his son and went to Jika Chang and informed the same

to Kabita over phone. Police did not record his statement nor did he state about the

said fact before the police since he was not asked about the same. This witness has

also denied that he had made a false statement to the effect that his son-in-law

Prafulla Deka had come to his house at around 12 O'clock in the midnight and

informed that Monoranjan was lying dead with his throat cut on the backside of the

kitchen of Pranjal Laskar which he came to know from Pranjal Laskar. During his cross-

examination by accused Liladhar Deka, PW-1 has confirmed that he had not named

Liladhar Deka as one of the accused in the ejahar.

9. PW-2, Prabin Chandra Deka is the brother of the informant and an inquest

witness. This witness had confirmed that the occurrence took place on the Page No.# 7/18

intervening night of 9th and 10th August, 2016 at around 12 O'clock. At that time, he

was sleeping in his house. Prafulla Deka, the son-in-law of his elder brother (informant),

informed him over phone that Monoranjan was lying dead near the back door of the

kitchen of accused Ramkrishna Laskar and Pranjal Laskar. Since it was night time and

there is a jungle in between his house and the place of occurrence, he was afraid to

go there. However, on the next morning, at around 6.30 a.m. he went to the place of

occurrence and saw coagulation of blood and water on the ground. He did not see

any family member of accused Pranjal Laskar and Ramkrishna Laskar at that time.

Thereafter, he straightway went to Bebejia Police Outpost and asked the I.O. whether

the apprehended accused Pranjal Laskar and Ramkrishna Laskar had confessed

anything about the crime. At that the answer came in the affirmative saying that they

had confessed commission of the crime. During his cross-examination by accused

Ramkrishna Laskar and Pranjal Laskar, this witness has stated that on 10.08.2016 police

had arrested Kabita and Liladhar Deka and the public had made a video recording

when they were apprehended. In the video recording Kabita Laskar had disclosed

that Liladhar Deka had killed Monoranjan and it was informed to her by him (Liladhar)

over telephone. In his cross-examination by Liladhar Deka, this witness has further

stated that he had collected the video recording from the public but did not know

who had made the recording.

10. Sri Mukul Deka is the brother of the deceased, who was examined as PW-3. He

is a businessman by profession. PW-3 has deposed that the occurrence took place on

09.08.2016 around midnight. On the relevant night he was not at home but was at Page No.# 8/18

Kampur where his wife resides. At around 12 O'clock in the night his younger sister

"Sorusowali" informed him over telephone that brother Monoranjan was lying dead

with wound on his body behind the kitchen of Pranjal Laskar. This witness has deposed

that his younger sister is married to Prafulla Deka and they reside in a house which is

situated nearby to the house of his father. This witness has also stated that he had

heard from his family members about the incident. However, since he was not

present at the place of occurrence and did not see anything, the evidence of this

witness, in our opinion, would not have much relevance in the facts of this case.

During his cross-examination by accused Ramkrishna and Pranjal this witness has

denied that in his previous statement he had stated before the I.O. that there was

illicit relationship between Kabita Laskar and Liladhar Deka for which his brother was

murdered.

11. Dr. Ajit Goswami was on duty as the E.M.O. in the Nagaon B. P. Civil Hospital on

10.08.2016 when the dead body of Monoranjan Deka was brought for post-mortem

examination. The doctor had proved the post-mortem report Ext-2. According to the

post-mortem report, the following injury was found in the dead body :-

"A deep penetrating cut injury on the right side of the neck below the

mandible. Cut mark was 4" in depth and 5" wide and injury cut the external

carotid vessels."

The doctor has opined that the death of the deceased was caused due to shock

and haemorrhage as a result of cut injury sustained. During his cross-examination by

accused Ramkrishna and Pranjal, PW-4 has stated that the death took place six hours Page No.# 9/18

before the post-mortem examination was conducted and the injury was by sharp

weapon.

12. PW-5, Sri Latu Bora is the son-in-law of PW-2 i.e. the brother of the complainant

(PW-1). He has stated that on the night of the incident he was in the house of his

father-in-law who is the younger brother of the informant. The house of his father-in-

law is adjacent to the house of the informant. At the relevant time he was sleeping in

the house and woke up on hearing a hue and cry coming from the backside of the

house of Pranjal Laskar and Ramkrishna Laskar. He went there and saw Monoranjan

was lying unconscious with cut wound on the right side of his neck. He saw blood in

the place of occurrence. In his cross-examination, this witness had admitted that he

did not see as to who had killed Monoranjan. He has further stated that he was in

talking terms with accused Pranjal Laskar and Ramkrishna Laskar.

13. PW-6, Sri Sarat Saikia was the Officer-in-charge of Bebejia Police Petrol Post

coming under Nagaon Sadar Police Station at the relevant point of time. He is the I.O.

in this case. PW-6 has stated that on the night of the incident, at around 12 O'clock,

he got telephonic information from Prafulla Deka of Borkula that one person had

been murdered. On receipt of the information he had reduced the same into writing

by making Bebejia P.P. GDE No.165 dated 10.08.2016 and thereafter, went to the

place of occurrence being accompanied by his staff. Upon arrival at the place of

occurrence he found victim Monoranjan was lying in a pool of blood on the back

side of the kitchen of accused Pranjal Laskar with head injury. Then he called 108

ambulance to take the victim to the hospital. At that time, Prafulla Deka showed the Page No.# 10/18

place of occurrence. Monoranjan was then sent to the hospital in the ambulance.

PW-6 has further stated that all the family members of Ramkrishna Laskar remained

inside the house by locking the door from inside. He, along with his staff, had

gheraoed the house of Ramkrishna Laskar and asked him to open the door for quite

some time. After knocking the door on several occasions, Kabita Laskar (wife of

Ramkrishna Laskar) opened the door. Then he saw Ramkrishna Laskar and Pranjal

Laskar were inside the house. He then took them into custody for interrogation at the

Police Station. Thereafter, he had informed the details of the occurrence to the

Officer-in-Charge of Nagaon Sadar Police Station. The I.O. has further stated that he

did not make any attempt to seize any weapon of offence from the place of

occurrence or from the house of the accused Pranjal Laskar and Ramkrishna Laskar.

Upon completion of usual formalities and on conclusion of investigation he had

submitted charge-sheet Ext-6. During his cross-examination by and on behalf of

accused Ramkrishna and Pranjal, the PW-6 has stated as follows :-

"PW-2 Prabin Ch. Deka in his previous statement before me did not state that Prafulla Deka had informed me over telephone on the relevant night at around 12 O'clock that Monuranjan Deka was lying dead on the backside of the kitchen of accused Pranjal Laskar and Ram Krishna Laskar.

PW-2 also did not state in his previous statement that I disclosed him that accused Ram Krishna Laskar and Pranjal Laskar had confessed the commission of the crime."

14. During his cross-examination by accused Liladhar Deka, PW-6 has deposed

that accused Liladhar Deka and Kabita Laskar were arrested on the next day of the

occurrence, after they had been apprehended by the public but he did not submit Page No.# 11/18

charge-sheet against Kabita Laskar as he did not find any material against her.

15. The wife of the deceased Smti. Tarala Deka was examined as CW-1. In her

deposition the CW-1 has stated that the occurrence took place on 09.08.2016 during

the night time when she herself, her husband and her father-in-law were watching TV

around 9.00 p.m. At that time, Pranjal Laskar came to their house and called her

husband Monoranjan by saying that there was a small discussion. Pranjal took away

her husband by saying that he would come back soon. Although she had asked her

husband not to accompany Pranjal but told him that he should go on the next day,

her husband did not listed and went with Pranjal. Thereafter, she went to bed with her

four years old son. At around 12 O'clock in the midnight her father-in-law woke her up

by saying that her husband has been cut by somebody and he was lying on the

backside of the house of Pranjal Laskar. Prafulla Deka, who is the son-in-law of the

informant, was the first person to visit their house and informed the occurrence to her

father-in-law. She and her father-in-law came out of the house for going to the place

of occurrence but she could not go and fell down on the road. Her father-in-law

went to the place of occurrence along with Prafulla Deka. She became unconscious

and somebody brought her back home. At about 7.00 a.m. in the morning, she got

the information that her husband died at the Nagaon B.P. Civil Hospital.

16. Prafulla Deka i.e. the son-in-law of the informant was examined as CW-2. This

witness has stated that the occurrence took place on the night of 09.08.2016. At that

time, he was sleeping in his house. At around 12 O'clock in the midnight accused

Ramkrishna Laskar (A-1) was knocking at his door. As he asked who that was, Page No.# 12/18

Ramkrishna Laskar replied that he should get up. He then switched the lights on and

came out of the house and asked as to what had happened. At that, he

(Ramkrishna) stated that something had fallen on the backside of their house and he

was afraid of the same. He insisted that the CW-2 should go to his house. At that time,

the witness had replied that he should not be afraid and go to sleep but since

Ramkrishna insisted that he should accompany him to the house, he went there and

on arriving at the gate of the house of the accused, he saw Pranjal Laskar was

holding one baby in his hand and his wife was holding the other baby and they were

coming towards the path. When he asked as to what had happened, they replied

that they were afraid of something that had fallen on the backside of their house. He

then took all of them to their house. Then Pranjal Laskar and his wife entered the

house and did not come out. Ramkrishna led him towards the kitchen. When he

reached the kitchen of Ramkrishna, his wife Kabita told him that Babu (Monoranjan)

was lying on the backside of their kitchen. Then he asked them to bring a torchlight

and opened the door of the kitchen which was not locked. On opening the door and

under the beam of torchlight he saw Monoranjan was lying in a pool of blood at a

distance of about two cubits from the kitchen of Pranjal. Having seen the above he

ran to the house of his father-in-law and informed the matter. Then his father-in-law

came to the place of occurrence. They raised alarm and nearby people gathered.

Accused Ramkrishna and Pranjal started sleeping inside their house. He tried to

contact 108 ambulance to save the life of Monoranjan. After about an hour the

ambulance came. The people gathered there were saying that it is a police case

and police should be informed. Then he immediately informed the Bebejia Police Page No.# 13/18

about the occurrence and police came there. When Monoranjan was being taken

inside the ambulance, at that moment police arrived at the spot.

17. After recording of prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined

under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and their statement recorded wherein, they had denied all

the incriminating circumstances put to them. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial

court had passed the impugned judgment dated 06.07.2018 convicting the

appellants herein while acquitting the co-accused Liladhar Deka by giving him the

benefit of doubt.

18. From the bulk of evidence brought on record, it is established that the

deceased had died a homicidal death due to cut injuries suffered by him. The said

fact stands fully established from the post-mortem report Ext-2 and the evidence of

PW-4. It is also firmly established from the evidence on record that the incident took

place on the intervening night of 09.08.2016 and 10.08.2016 in between 9.00 p.m. to

12.00 a.m. At around 9.00 p.m. in the evening, the deceased was watching TV at his

house along with his father and wife and at that time, A-2 came to their house and

asked the deceased to accompany him for some discussion. Thereafter, the

deceased was found in an unconscious state with cut injuries in his body just behind

the kitchen of A-2. The question that would arise for consideration for this Court is as to

whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charge brought against

the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.

19. Law is firmly settled that in a case based on circumstantial evidence it will be

incumbent upon the prosecution to establish each link in the chain of circumstances Page No.# 14/18

so as to prove beyond doubt that it was none other than the accused persons(s) who

had committed the crime. The evidence available on record must point towards only

one direction i.e. towards the guilt of the accused persons by eliminating all other

possibilities.

20. As noted above, the learned Sessions Judge has relied heavily on the last seen

together circumstance so as to convict the appellants. However, law is well settled

that circumstances of last seen together is a weak evidence. In the case of Leela

Ram vs. State of Haryana reported in (1999) 9 SCC 525 the Hon'ble Supreme Court

has held that the circumstance of "last seen together" is a weak kind of evidence.

21. In Ashok vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2015) 4 SCC 939 the Apex Court

has held that in a case of "last seen together" the prosecution would be relieved

from proving the exact happenings of the incident as it is the accused who would

have special knowledge of the incident. However, the burden of proving the charge

by adducing sufficient evidence pointing towards the guilt of the accused would

always be on the prosecution. It has further been held that "last seen together" itself is

not a conclusive proof but along with other circumstances surrounding the incident,

the same may lead to presumption of guilt, more so if the accused person fails to

offer reasonable explanation discharging the burden under Section 106 of the

Evidence Act.

22. What follows from the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that

it would be wholly unsafe to base the conviction of the accused only on the

circumstance of "last seen together" and the prosecution must adduce cogent Page No.# 15/18

evidence to establish the other links in the chain of circumstances so as to prove the

guilt of the accused. It is only when such burden is discharged by the prosecution

that the failure on the part of the accused to offer reasonable explanation based on

the circumstances of "last seen together" would amount to an additional link in the

chain of circumstances which would go against the accused.

23. It is to be noted herein that in this case it was accused Ramkrishna Laskar who

had come and informed the CW-2 about the incident and insisted that he should

come to their house then and there. When the CW-2 went to the house of the

accused he found that both the accused persons together with their family members

were present inside the house and they were frightened about something which has

fallen in their backyard.

24. The I.O. has not collected any weapon and therefore, the question of

connecting the accused persons with the incident with the help of forensic evidence

does not arise in this case.

25. It has also come out from the testimony of PW-1 that the house of the accused

person and that of Liladhar Deka are situated adjacent to one another and there is

evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses which goes to show that there was

an illicit relationship between Liladhar Deka and wife of Ramkirshna Laskar viz.,

Kabita. It was on such account that the public of that locality had apprehended

both Liladhar Deka and Kabita and handed them over to the police. Eventually, the

name of Liladhar Deka was included in the charge-sheet. Therefore, the needle of

suspicion in this case points towards Liladhar Deka. However, as noted above, the Page No.# 16/18

learned trial court has acquitted Liladhar Deka by giving him the benefit of doubt

while convicting the two appellants on the same set of evidence brought on record.

26. In Kanhaiya Lal (supra) relied upon by Ms. Mazumdar, the Supreme Court has

observed that the circumstance of "last seen together" does not by itself and

necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who had committed the

crime. There must be something more establishing the connectivity between the

accused and the crime. Mere non-explanation on the part of the appellant itself

cannot lead to proof of guilt.

27. By following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kanhaiya Lal

(supra) this Court has held in Shyamal Das (supra) that non-explanation of

circumstances by the accused who was last seen together with the deceased by

itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against him.

28. In the present case, it is no doubt correct that accused Pranjal Laskar was last

seen together with the deceased about three hours before the incident. However,

that by itself cannot be the sole basis for convicting the accused for committing the

murder of the deceased. This is more so since it is established from the evidence on

record that the place where the deceased was found lying in an injured condition

was accessible to others.

29. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in

(1984) 4 SCC 116 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the principles which

would be applicable in a case where the prosecution relies on circumstantial

evidence. The relevant parameters as enunciated by the Apex Court, are as follows :-

Page No.# 17/18

"1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established;

2. The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;

3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;

4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and

5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."

30. Applying the principles laid down in the case of Sharad Birdhichand

Sarda(supra) in the present case we are of the unhesitant opinion that the

prosecution has failed to prove the charge brought against the accused persons

beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, the learned trial court, having acquitted

accused Liladhar Deka, who was the prime suspect in this case, by giving him the

benefit of doubt, the same evidence ought not to have been relied upon so as to

convict the two appellants herein. Moreover, there is neither any finding recorded by

the learned trial court nor any evidence brought on record to even remotely indicate

the motive behind the crime or the presence of any common intent i.e. meeting of

mind between the two appellants so as to commit the criminal act of murdering the

deceased so as to convict them with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC.

31. For the reasons stated herein above, the conviction of the appellants Ram

Krishna Laskar and Pranjal Laskar by the impugned judgment dated 06.07.2018 is held Page No.# 18/18

to be unsustainable in law. The same is accordingly set aside. Both the

appellants viz., Ram Krishna Laskar and Pranjal Laskar stand acquitted.

We are informed that the appellants are presently in jail. As such, we direct that

the appellants, Ram Krishna Laskar and Pranjal Laskar be forthwith released from the

jail if their custodial detention is not required in connection with any other case.

The appeals stand allowed.

Before parting with the record, we extend our appreciation to the services

rendered by Ms. R. D. Mazumdar and Mr. U. Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae

appearing in these appeals and recommend that the Registry may make

arrangement for payment of necessary remuneration to the learned Amicus Curiae

as per the existing norms.

Send back the LCR.

                                       JUDGE                        JUDGE

T U Choudhury




Comparing Assistant