Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 4.11.2024 vs Kamal Bahadur on 8 November, 2024
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
2024:HHC:10909
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Appeal No. 194 of 2014
Reserved on: 4.11.2024
Date of Decision: 08.11.2024
State of H.P. ...Appellant.
Versus
Kamal Bahadur ...Respondent.
Coram
Hon'ble Mr Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Appellant/State : Mr. S.D. Vasudeva, Deputy
Advocate General.
For the Respondent : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior
Advocate, with Ms. Shalini
Thakur, Advocate.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The present appeal is directed against the judgment
20.12.2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I,
Shimla, Camp at Rohru, vide which the appellant (accused before
the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of
offences punishable under Sections 452 and 302 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). (Parties shall hereinafter
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2024:HHC:10909
be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the
learned Trial Court for convenience).
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present
appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused
for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302,
452 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC. It was asserted that
Suraj Bahadur visited the Police Station on 7.5.2012 and informed
that the dead body of Man Bahadur was lying on Pokhta road
near Sharog. SI Ramesh Thakur (PW15) and other police officials
went to the spot to verify the correctness of the information. The
informant Suraj Bahadur made a statement that he was working
as a labourer with Roop Singh (PW9) for about one year. His
family members resided with him. Man Bahadur, Dil Bahadur,
Bobby, and Chini Bahadur visited the informant's house on
6.5.2012 at about 4.00 PM. All of them consumed liquor. Yash Pal,
Raj Pal and Prashant visited the informant's house at 8.30 pm
where they quarrelled with Man Bahadur and gave beatings to
him and the informant. All of them threatened Man Bahadur to
pay ₹1,000/- or they would kill him. The incident occurred
because Man Bahadur had taken liquor from them on loan. They
left thereafter. Chini Bahadur and Dil Bahadur also left the
2024:HHC:10909
informant's house during the night. Bobby and Man Bahadur
slept in one room and the informant and his wife Pushpa slept in
another room. Two persons visited the informant's house at
about 11-12 PM and attacked Man Bahadur. The informant could
not identify them due to darkness and because he (the
informant) was heavily intoxicated. The informant found in the
morning that Man Bahadur was murdered and his naked body
was thrown on the roadside. Statement (Ex.PW15/B) was reduced
into writing and was sent to the Police Station, where FIR
(Ex.PW14/E) was registered. SI Ramesh Thakur (PW15)
conducted the investigation. He seized the dead body vide memo
(Ex.PW9/A) in the presence of Roop Singh and Suraj Bahadur. He
prepared inquest reports (Ex.PW9/C and Ex.PW9/D). He took
photographs of the dead body (Ex.PW15/A1 to Ex.PW15/A11). SI
Ramesh Thakur (PW15) prepared the site plan (Ex.PW15/C). He
seized the clothes of the deceased vide memo (Ex.PW1/A). Suraj
Bahadur identified the clothes as belonging to the deceased. SI
Ramesh Thakur prepared the spot map (Ex.PW15/D). He found a
pair of slippers which were seized vide memo (Ex.PW9/B). He
handed over the case property to MHC Amrit Singh (PW14), who
made an entry in the register of Malkhana (Ex.PW14/A) and
2024:HHC:10909
deposited the case property in Malkhana. Dr. Dalip Sharma
(PW10) conducted a postmortem examination of the deceased.
He found multiple injuries on the dead body which were
sufficient to cause death and could have been caused by fist and
kick blows. He issued the report (Ex.PW10/B). He handed over the
viscera and the blood sample on the FTA card to the police
official accompanying the dead body. These were deposited with
HC Amrit Singh (PW14), who deposited them in Malkhana and
made an entry at Serial No. 466 (Ex.PW14/B). The police arrested
the accused on 8.5.2012. ASI Ramesh Thakur scraped the dirt
from the feet of the accused and put it inside the box. The box
was sealed in a parcel. The dirt from the sleepers was also
scraped and seized vide memo (Ex.PW4/A). Accused Kamal
Bahadur made a disclosure statement (Ex.PW4/C) stating that he
could get his clothes recovered. He got his pants and shirt
recovered from his house which were seized vide memo
(Ex.PW15/N). These were put in a parcel and the parcel was
sealed with seal 'M'. The seal impression (Ex.PW15/O) was taken
on a separate piece of cloth. SI Ramesh Thakur prepared the site
plan (Ex.PW15/P) and took a photograph (Ex.PW15/Q). Hardyal
Singh, Patwari, visited the spot and prepared tatima (Ex.PW5/A)
2024:HHC:10909
and Jamabandi (Ex.PW5/B). The case property was deposited
with HC Amrit Singh, who made an entry in the register of
Malkhana at Serial No. 467 (Ex.PW14/C) and deposited the case
property in Malkhana. He handed over the case property to
Constable Kapil Dev (PW11) on 15.5.2012 with a direction to carry
them to FSL Junga vide RC No. 43/12 (Ex.PW14/D). Constable
Kapil Dev (PW11) deposited all the articles in FSL, Junga and
handed over the receipt to HC Amrit Singh on his return. Dr
Pawan Jhalta (PW8) medically examined the accused and found
multiple abrasions on both legs. He issued MLC (Ex.PW8/B). The
abrasions could have been caused by striking against the rough
surface. The results of the analysis (Ex. PX, Ex. PY and Ex. PZ)
were issued in which it was shown that ethyl alcohol was
detected in the viscera, human blood of group 'O' was detected
on the pants of the accused but it was insufficient for serological
examination, DNA profile obtained from the jacket and shirt of
the deceased matched with the DNA profile obtained from the
FTA card of deceased Man Bahadur and DNA could not be
extracted from the pants of accused Kamal Bahadur. The
statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version and
after the completion of the investigation, the challan was
2024:HHC:10909
prepared and presented before the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Court No.1, Rohru, who committed it to the learned
Sessions Judge, Shimla for trial.
3. Learned Sessions Judge, Shimla assigned the case file
to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, Camp at Rohru
(learned Trial Court).
4. Learned Trial Court charged accused Kamal Bahadur
with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302
and 452 read with Section 34 of IPC. Learned Trial Court further
held that beating the deceased during the daytime was a different
transaction that could not be connected to the murder of the
deceased committed in the night. Hence, the charge sheet was
ordered to be presented against other accused before learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class-1, Rohru.
5. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses to prove its
case. The prosecution failed to complete the evidence despite
repeated adjournments, hence the evidence was closed by the
order of the Court on 13.11.2013. Arjun Gurang (PW1) stated about
the recovery of the dead body. He also witnessed the seizure of
the clothes of deceased Man Bahadur. Chander Bahadur (PW2)
proved the incident which took place during the day time. Des Raj
2024:HHC:10909
(PW3) is the witness to recovery but he did not support the
prosecution case. Constable Brij Lal (PW4) is the official witness
to the recovery and the disclosure statement made by the
accused. Hardyal Singh (PW5) prepared the tatima and issued
copy of Jamabandi. Dr. Ravinder (PW6) obtained the blood
sample of the accused on FTA card for DNA analysis. Inspector
Amar Chand (PW7) prepared the challan and the supplementary
challan. Dr. Pawan Jhalta (PW8) conducted the medical
examination of the accused. Roop Singh (PW9) is the owner of
the house where the informant was residing. He also witnessed
various recoveries but did not support the prosecution case. Dr.
Dalip Sharma (PW10) conducted the postmortem examination of
the deceased. Kapil Dev (PW11) and HC Rattan Dass (PW13)
carried the case property to FSL, Junga. Constable Anil Kumar
(PW12) brought the case property and the result of analysis from
FSL, Junga. HC Amrit Singh (PW14) was working as MHC with
whom the case property was deposited. SI Ramesh Thakur
(PW15) conducted the investigation.
6. The accused in his statement recorded under Section
313 of Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case in its entirety. He stated
that he was innocent and that he was falsely implicated.
2024:HHC:10909
7. Learned Trial Court held that as per the prosecution
case, Pushpa and Bobby had identified the accused and Dinesh as
the persons who had dragged the dead body of Man Bahadur
during the night, however, they were not examined and an
adverse inference had to be drawn against the prosecution. There
was no other evidence to connect the accused with the
commission of crime. The clothes stated to have been recovered
at the instance of the accused contained blood but this blood
could not be connected to the deceased. There was no other
evidence showing that the accused had committed the crime.
Hence, the accused was acquitted of the commission of offences
punishable under Sections 452 and 302 read with Section 34 of
IPC.
8. Being aggrieved from the judgment passed by the
learned Trial Court, the State has filed the present appeal
asserting that the learned Trial Court appreciated the evidence in
a slipshod and perfunctory manner. The reasoning of the learned
Trial Court was unreasonable and unsustainable. The testimonies
of official witnesses were discarded without any reason. The
charge sheet specifically mentions that Man Bahadur had given
beatings to Kamal Bahadur and the accused killed Man Bahadur
2024:HHC:10909
to avenge the beatings. The recovery of the shirt and pants made
at the instance of the accused was duly proved and learned Trial
Court erred in discarding it. The statement of the Medical Officer
proved the homicide. The injuries on the person of the accused
were also proved. Pushpa, Bobby, and Suraj Bahadur have left
India and they could not be produced despite the best efforts of
the prosecution. The prosecution version could not have been
discarded due to their non-examination. Hence, it was prayed
that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by
the learned Trial Court be set aside.
9. We have heard Mr. S.D. Vasudeva, learned Deputy
Advocate General, for the appellant/State and Mr. N.K. Thakur,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Shalini Thakur, learned
counsel for the respondent/accused.
10. Mr. S.D. Vasudeva, learned Deputy Advocate General,
for the appellant/State submitted that the learned Trial Court
erred in acquitting the accused. The prosecution had succeeded
in proving the recovery. The accused had sustained injuries and
blood was found on his clothes for which he had not provided any
explanation. Medical evidence proved the homicide. Learned
Trial Court ignored all these aspects. Hence, he prayed that the
2024:HHC:10909
present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the
learned Trial Court be set aside.
11. Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent/accused submitted that the learned Trial Court had
properly appreciated the evidence. Reports of FSL clearly showed
that the blood stains found on the pants of the accused were not
connected to the deceased. The accused had also sustained
injuries and the Medical Officer admitted that the injuries could
be caused while working as a labourer in the field. Learned Trial
Court had taken a reasonable view and this Court should not
interfere with the same. Hence, he prayed that the present appeal
be dismissed.
12. We have given considerable thought to the
submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records
carefully.
13. The present appeal has been filed against a judgment
of acquittal. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 3 SCC 544: 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 130 that while deciding an appeal against acquittal, the High
Court should see whether the evidence was properly appreciated
on record or not; second whether the finding of the Court is
2024:HHC:10909
illegal or affected by the error of law or fact and thirdly; whether
the view taken by the Trial Court was a possible view, which
could have been taken based on the material on record. The Court
will not lightly interfere with the judgment of acquittal. It was
observed:
"25. We may first discuss the position of law regarding the
scope of intervention in a criminal appeal. For, that is the
foundation of this challenge. It is the cardinal principle of
criminal jurisprudence that there is a presumption of
innocence in favour of the accused unless proven guilty.
The presumption continues at all stages of the trial and
finally culminates into a fact when the case ends in
acquittal. The presumption of innocence gets concretised
when the case ends in acquittal. It is so because once the
trial court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, finds
that the accused was not guilty, the presumption gets
strengthened and a higher threshold is expected to rebut
the same in appeal.
26. No doubt, an order of acquittal is open to appeal and
there is no quarrel about that. It is also beyond doubt that
in the exercise of appellate powers, there is no inhibition
on the High Court to reappreciate or re-visit the evidence
on record. However, the power of the High Court to
reappreciate the evidence is a qualified power, especially
when the order under challenge is of acquittal. The first
and foremost question to be asked is whether the trial
court thoroughly appreciated the evidence on record and
gave due consideration to all material pieces of evidence.
The second point for consideration is whether the finding
of the trial court is illegal or affected by an error of law or
fact. If not, the third consideration is whether the view
taken by the trial court is a fairly possible view. A decision
of acquittal is not meant to be reversed on a mere
difference of opinion. What is required is an illegality or
perversity.
2024:HHC:10909
27. It may be noted that the possibility of two views in a
criminal case is not an extraordinary phenomenon. The
"two-views theory" has been judicially recognised by the
courts and it comes into play when the appreciation of
evidence results in two equally plausible views. However,
the controversy is to be resolved in favour of the accused.
For, the very existence of an equally plausible view in
favour of the innocence of the accused is in itself a
reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution. Moreover,
it reinforces the presumption of innocence. Therefore,
when two views are possible, following the one in favour
of the innocence of the accused is the safest course of
action. Furthermore, it is also settled that if the view of the
trial court, in a case of acquittal, is a plausible view, it is
not open for the High Court to convict the accused by
reappreciating the evidence. If such a course is
permissible, it would make it practically impossible to
settle the rights and liabilities in the eye of the law.
28. In Selvaraj v. State of Karnataka [Selvaraj v. State of
Karnataka, (2015) 10 SCC 230: (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 19]: (SCC
pp. 236-37, para 13)
"13. Considering the reasons given by the trial court and
on an appraisal of the evidence, in our considered view,
the view taken by the trial court was a possible one.
Thus, the High Court should not have interfered with
the judgment of acquittal. This Court in Jagan M.
Seshadri v. State of T.N. [Jagan M. Seshadri v. State of T.N.,
(2002) 9 SCC 639: 2003 SCC (L&S) 1494] has laid down
that as the appreciation of evidence made by the trial
court while recording the acquittal is a reasonable view,
it is not permissible to interfere in appeal. The duty of
the High Court while reversing the acquittal has been
dealt with by this Court, thus : (SCC p. 643, para 9)
'9. ... We are constrained to observe that the
High Court was dealing with an appeal against
acquittal. It was required to deal with various
grounds on which acquittal had been based
and to dispel those grounds. It has not done
so. Salutary principles while dealing with
2024:HHC:10909
appeal against acquittal have been overlooked
by the High Court. If the appreciation of
evidence by the trial court did not suffer from
any flaw, as indeed none has been pointed out
in the impugned judgment, the order of
acquittal could not have been set aside. The
view taken by the learned trial court was a
reasonable view and even if by any stretch of
imagination, it could be said that another view
was possible, that was not a ground sound
enough to set aside an order of acquittal.'"
29. In Sanjeev v. State of H.P. [Sanjeev v. State of H.P., (2022)
6 SCC 294: (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 522], the Hon'ble Supreme
Court analysed the relevant decisions and summarised the
approach of the appellate court while deciding an appeal
from the order of acquittal. It observed thus: (SCC p. 297,
para 7)
"7. It is well settled that:
7.1. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal,
the reasons which had weighed with the trial court
in acquitting the accused must be dealt with, in case
the appellate court is of the view that the acquittal
rendered by the trial court deserves to be upturned
(see Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka [Vijay
Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 5 SCC 436 :
(2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 586] and Anwar Ali v. State of
H.P. [Anwar Ali v. State of H.P., (2020) 10 SCC 166 :
(2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 395] ).
7.2. With an order of acquittal by the trial court, the
normal presumption of innocence in a criminal
matter gets reinforced (see Atley v. State of
U.P. [Atley v. State of U.P., 1955 SCC OnLine SC 51: AIR
1955 SC 807]).
7.3. If two views are possible from the evidence
on record, the appellate court must be extremely
slow in interfering with the appeal against
acquittal (see Sambasivan v. State of
2024:HHC:10909
Kerala [Sambasivan v. State of Kerala, (1998) 5
SCC 412: 1998 SCC (Cri) 1320])."
14. The prosecution case is based upon the circumstantial
evidence. The law relating to circumstantial evidence was
explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raja Naykar v. State of
Chhattisgarh, (2024) 3 SCC 481: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 67 as under:
"16. Undoubtedly, the prosecution case rests on
circumstantial evidence. The law with regard to conviction
on the basis of circumstantial evidence has very well been
crystalised in the judgment of this Court in Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116:
1984 SCC (Cri) 487: 1984 INSC 121], wherein this Court held
thus : (SCC pp. 184-85, paras 152-54)
"152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by the
High Court we would like to cite a few decisions on the
nature, character and essential proof required in a
criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence
alone. The most fundamental and basic decision of this
Court is Hanumant v. State of M.P. [Hanumant v. State of
M.P., (1952) 2 SCC 71: AIR 1952 SC 343: 1952 SCR 1091]
This case has been uniformly followed and applied by
this Court in a large number of later decisions up-to-
date, for instance, the cases of Tufail v. State of
U.P. [Tufail v. State of U.P., (1969) 3 SCC 198: 1970 SCC
(Cri) 55] and Ram Gopal v. State of Maharashtra [Ram
Gopal v. State of Maharashtra, (1972) 4 SCC 625]. It may
be useful to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down
in Hanumant case [Hanumant v. State of M.P., (1952) 2
SCC 71: AIR 1952 SC 343: 1952 SCR 1091]: (Hanumant
case [Hanumant v. State of M.P., (1952) 2 SCC 71: AIR 1952
SC 343: 1952 SCR 1091], SCC pp. 76-77, para 12)
'12. It is well to remember that in cases where the
evidence is circumstantial, the circumstances from
which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should
2024:HHC:10909
in the first instance be fully established, and all the
facts so established should be consistent only with
the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the
circumstances should be conclusive and tendency
and they should be such as to exclude every
hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In
other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far
complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused and it must be such as to show that within
all human probability, the act must have been done
by the accused.'
153. A close analysis of this decision would show that
the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case
against an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It
may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
circumstances concerned "must or should" and not
"maybe" established. There is not only a
grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be
proved" and "must be or should be proved" as was
held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State
of Maharashtra [Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of
Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793: 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033]
where the observations were made : (SCC p. 807,
para 19)
'19. ... Certainly, it is a primary principle that
the accused must be and not merely may be
guilty before a court can convict and the
mental distance between "maybe" and "must
be" is long and divides vague conjectures from
sure conclusions.'
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that
is to say, they should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,
2024:HHC:10909
(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.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so,
constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case
based on circumstantial evidence." (emphasis in
original)
17. It can thus clearly be seen that it is necessary for the
prosecution that the circumstances from which the
conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established. The Court holds that it is a primary principle
that the accused "must be" and not merely "may be"
proved guilty before a court can convict the accused. It has
been held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal
distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or
should be proved". It has been held that the facts so
established should be consistent only with the guilt of the
accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on
any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. It
has further been held that the circumstances should be
such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except
the one to be proved. It has been held that 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
probabilities, the act must have been done by the accused.
18. It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it
may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable
doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of
suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is
2024:HHC:10909
presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt."
15. The present appeal has to be decided as per the
parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
16. The prosecution is relying upon the recovery of the
clothes of the accused pursuant to the statement made by him
under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and the injuries
sustained by the accused. Dr. Pawan Jhalta (PW8) admitted that
injuries could be caused while working as a labourer which
provides a valid explanation and cannot be discarded without any
reason.
17. The reports of the analysis (Ex. PZ) mention that
blood was detected on the pants of accused Kamal Bahadur but it
was insufficient for serological examination. The report (Ex. PX)
shows that amplifiable DNA could not be extracted from the
pants of the accused despite repeated attempts. Therefore, these
reports do not connect the accused with the commission of the
crime. They only show the presence of the blood on the pant of
the accused. Keeping in view the fact that the prosecution has
come with the specific case that the accused had also sustained
injuries on his legs, the presence of the blood on the pant of the
accused was natural and the prosecution cannot derive any
2024:HHC:10909
advantage from the detection of the blood in the chemical
analysis.
18. There is no other witness. Pushpa and Bobby had
identified accused Kamal Bahadur and Dinesh as per the
prosecution; however, they were not examined before the Court
and learned Trial Court had rightly drawn an adverse inference
against the prosecution for withholding them.
19. Chander Bahadur (PW2) deposed about the incident
which took place during the day and the evening. As per him,
Yash Pal, Raj Pal and Prashant visited the informant's house and
gave beatings to the deceased. He has not mentioned anything
about the presence of the accused. Hence his testimony does not
connect the accused with the commission of the crime.
20. Investigating Officer SI Ramesh Thakur (PW15) stated
in his cross-examination that there was no direct evidence
regarding the involvement of the accused.
21. SI Ramesh Thakur (PW15) had also taken scrapping
from the feet of the accused and the slippers of the deceased,
however, these were not sent to the forensic laboratory to
determine whether the scrappings were identical or different.
2024:HHC:10909
Therefore, this piece of evidence also does not connect the
accused with the commission of the crime.
22. There is no other witness to the incident and the
learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view which could be
taken based on the evidence led before the learned Trial Court.
This Court will not interfere with the view of the learned Trial
Court when such a view was reasonable and could have been
taken based on the material placed before the learned Trial Court.
23. No other point was urged.
24. In view of the above, there is no reason to interfere
with the judgment of the learned Trial Court. Consequently, the
present appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
25. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code
of Criminal Procedure (Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023) the appellant is directed to furnish bail bonds in
the sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned Trial Court within four weeks, which
shall be effective for six months with stipulation that in the event
of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment, or on
grant of the leave, the appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall
appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
2024:HHC:10909
26. A copy of this judgment along with the record of the
learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith. Pending applications,
if any, also stand disposed of.
(Vivek Singh Thakur)
Judge
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
8th November, 2024
(Chander)
