The State Of Karnataka, vs Lokappa S/O Gurappa Pujari
2021 Latest Caselaw 2479 Kant

                                            Crl.A.100092/2017

                                 1



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                DHARWAD BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

                           PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS

                                 AND

        THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100092/2017

BETWEEN:

The State Of Karnataka,
By Ilakal Police Station,
Represented by
Addl. State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench.
                                               ...Appellant
(By Sri. V. M. Banakar, Addl. SPP)

AND:

1.     Lokappa S/o. Gurappa Pujari
       Age: 71 years, Occ: Priest,
       R/o: Balakundi Tanda, Tq. Hungund,
       Dist. Bagalkot.

2.     Neelappa S/o Lokappa Pujari
       Age: 28 years, Occ: Labour,
       R/o: Balakundi Tanda.
                                                     Crl.A.100092/2017

                               2




3.    Vitthal S/o Pandappa Pawar
      Age: 30 years, Occ: Labour,
      R/o: Hulageri Tanda,
      Kushtagi Taluk.

4.    Sheela W/o Vitthal Pawar
      Age: 27 years, Occ: Household Work,
      R/o: Hulageri Tanda,
      Kushtagi Taluk.

5.    Seeta W/o Anand Pawar
      Age: 26 years, Occ: Household Work,
      R/o: lmaranal, Yalaburga Taluk,
      Now residing at Balakundi Tanda.
                                                    ...Respondents

(By Sri. S. L. Matti, Amicus Curiae for R1 to R5)
                                  ---

      This criminal appeal is filed under Section 378(1) & (3) of
Cr.P.C., seeking to grant special leave to appeal and to set aside
the judgment and order of acquittal dated 05.04.2016 passed by
the   II   Addl.   District   and   Sessions   Judge,   Bagalkot   in
S.C.No.76/2012 whereby the respondents/accused were acquitted
of the offences punishable under Sections 143,147,302,504 and
506 R/W 149 of IPC and to convict the respondents/accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 302, 504 and 506
R/w 149 of IPC.


      This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment on
23.06.2021, coming on for pronouncement of judgment this day,
J.M.Khazi J., delivered the following:
                                                     Crl.A.100092/2017

                               3



                             JUDGMENT

The State has filed this appeal under Section 371(2) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment and order

dated 05.04.2016 in S.C.76/2012 on the file of the II Addl. District

and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot. Vide the impugned order, the

learned Sessions Judge has acquitted all the accused persons i.e.,

accused No.1 to 5 of all the charges.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to

their rank before the trial Court.

3. Accused No.1 is the father-in-law, accused No.2 is the

brother-in-law, accused No.3 is the co-brother and accused Nos.4

and 5 are the sisters-in-law of the deceased Vasu Chavan. The

allegations against the accused persons are that, on 03.02.2012 at

about 7.15 pm, when deceased went to the house of accused No.1

and requested him to send his wife with him, accused persons

quarreled with him saying that they will not send her with the

accused and abused him in filthy language and poured kerosene on

him and set fire as a result of which accused sustained severe burn

injuries and while undergoing treatment, on 23.02.2012 at 6.30 Crl.A.100092/2017

am he died on account of the burn injuries suffered and thereby

accused persons have committed the offences punishable under

Sections 143, 147, 302, 504, 506 r/w. section 149 of IPC.

4. Immediately after the incident, the deceased Vasu

Gangappa Chavan was shifted to Government Hospital Ilkal and on

the information received from the hospital, the Investigating

Officer has visited the hospital and recorded his statement in the

presence of the duty doctor. Based on his statement, case is

registered against the accused persons. Since the doctors at the

Government Hospital Ilkal advised the injured to be taken to

Kerudi hospital, Bagalkot, he was shifted to the said hospital.

While he was undergoing treatment at Kerudi hospital, at the

request of the Investigating Officer, Taluka Executive Magistrate

has recorded the statement of the deceased Vasu Chavan. This is

the second dying declaration, first being the statement of the

deceased given before the Investigating Officer. Both dying

declarations are recorded in the present of the medical officer, who

has certified that the deceased who was under treatment was in a

fit condition to give his statement.

Crl.A.100092/2017

5. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer has

recorded the statements of witnesses including the sisters of the

deceased as well as the wife of the deceased, who according to the

prosecution is an eyewitness. However, the sisters and other

neighboring witnesses are not eyewitnesses. The neighbors have

come to the scene of occurrence, hearing the cries, whereas the

sisters have come to the hospital and seen the deceased while

undergoing treatment.

6. The Investigating Officer has drawn the spot mahazer

and seized kerosene-can and other incriminating articles from the

scene of occurrence. After the deceased succumbed to the burn

injuries, he has drawn the inquest, inasmuch as the dead body was

subjected to post mortem examination. He has arrested accused

No.1 to 3 and after completing investigation, charge sheet is filed

against accused No.1 to 5 as detailed above.

7. When the charges were framed against accused

persons, while recording their plea, they have pleaded not guilty

and claimed to be tried.

Crl.A.100092/2017

8. In support of the prosecution case, in all 26 witnesses

are examined as PWs. 1 to 26, Exs.P1 to P48 and MOS. 1 and 2 are

marked on behalf of the prosecution.

9. Accused persons have got marked portion of the

statements of PWs. 8 and 10 as Exs. D1 and D2.

10. During the course of the statement under Section 313

Cr.P.C the accused persons have denied the incriminating materials

against them. At the time of his statement under section 313

Cr.P.C. accused No.1 has produced the Xerox copy of the M.O.B file

pertaining to deceased Vaasu Chavan and it is taken on record.

The accused persons have not chosen to lead any evidence on their

behalf.

11. After hearing the arguments, the learned Sessions

Judge was pleased to acquit the accused persons of all the charges

holding that the prosecution has failed to establish the allegations

against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.

12. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of

acquittal, the State has filed this appeal.

Crl.A.100092/2017

13. We have heard the arguments of the learned Addl.

State Public Prosecutor for the appellant and the learned counsel

representing the accused persons and perused the record.

14. During the course of the argument, learned Addl. State

Public Prosecutor submitted that the impugned judgment and order

of acquittal passed by the trial court is contrary to law, fact and

evidence on record and as such it is not sustainable in the eye of

law and liable to be set aside.

15. He submitted that, immediately after the incident, PWs.

7, 8 and 10 who are the sisters of the deceased and PW11 - an

independent witness, have visited the hospital and through the

injured they came to know about the incident and involvement of

the accused persons in pouring kerosene and setting on fire to him.

16. The learned Addl. SPP submitted that, after receiving

the information from the hospital, immediately PW24 - PSI of Ilkal

Police Station visited the hospital and in the presence of the doctor,

who was treating the deceased, has recorded the statement as per

Ex.P23 and registered the case. He further argues that, similarly,

after the deceased was shifted to Kerudi hospital Bagalkot, at the

request of the Investigating Officer, PW21 - the Taluka Executive Crl.A.100092/2017

Magistrate visited the hospital and in the presence of the duty

doctor, has recorded the dying declaration of the deceased as per

Ex.P29 and both Exs. P23 and P29 being the dying declaration of

the deceased are admissible in evidence and based on these two

documents alone, the accused persons are liable for conviction and

the trial Court has erroneously refused the rely upon these

documents.

17. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted

that, the trial Court has acquitted the accused persons on the

ground that there are contradictions and omissions in the evidence

of PW24, ExS.P23 and 29. The said reasoning is against the

evidence on record and the same is perverse and not sustainable in

the eye of law. On the basis of the evidence placed on record, it is

a fit case to convict the accused persons. The trial Court has not

assigned any proper and acceptable reasons for discarding the

evidence of the material witnesses and prays to allow the appeal.

18. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the

accused persons submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove

the motive for accused persons to take the extreme step of causing

the death of deceased by pouring kerosene or setting him on fire.

Crl.A.100092/2017

On the other hand, learned counsel submitted that, it was the

deceased himself who poured kerosene and set himself on fire

when accused No.1 refused to give him money, which he had with

him, after selling the property and hence the deceased has falsely

implicated the accused persons and supporting the impugned

judgment and order, he has sought for dismissal of the appeal.

19. The undisputed facts are that, accused No.1 is the

father-in-law, accused No.2 is the brother-in-law, accused No.3 is

the co-brother and accused Nos.4 and 5 are the sisters-in-law of

the deceased Vasu Chavan. PW9 - Prema Chavan is the wife of the

deceased. It is also not in dispute that the marriage of the

deceased Vasu Chavan with Prema Chavan took place about four

years prior to the date of incident. Initially they stayed at Ilkal and

after about one year, deceased and his wife Prema Chavan went to

Bengaluru and were stating there. The deceased was working as

driver.

20. It has come in the evidence of witnesses that, about 20

days prior to the date of incident, the wife of deceased i.e., Prema

Chavan had come to Ilkal i.e., to her parents house as there was

some festival and on the date of incident, the deceased came to Crl.A.100092/2017

take back his wife. While the prosecution has set up a case that,

when the deceased went to the house of accused No.1 and

requested him to send his wife with him, the accused persons

refused and said that his wife will not be sent with him and when

the deceased insisted upon and sat there saying that he will not

move unless and until his wife accompanies him and being

enraged, accused persons poured kerosene and set him on fire.

21. On the other hand, the defence, through the evidence

of the wife of the deceased, i.e., PW9 - Prema Chavan has set up a

defence that the deceased was addicted to bad habits, such as,

drinking, gambling and incurred debts and he was also involved in

serious criminal cases and only on account of those criminal cases,

he went to Bengaluru and that in Bengaluru also he continued with

his bad habits and criminal activities. The defence has further

contended that, at the relevant point of time, accused No.1 had

sold some of his immovable properties and was in possession of

cash of `8,00,000/- and the deceased was insisting upon accused

No.1 to give him some money so that he would repay the loan and

satisfy his creditors and when accused No.1 did not agree, the

accused threatening that he is going to implicate all of them in

false case, deceased himself poured kerosene over his person and Crl.A.100092/2017

set himself on fire and in the dying declaration he has made false

allegations against accused persons.

22. In the light of two dying declarations recorded in the

presence of medical officers, now it is to be seen whether the

prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond

reasonable doubt and at the same time whether he has proved that

the accused persons had a strong motive to eliminate the

deceased. On the other hand, in the light of the specific defence

taken by the accused persons, it is to be examined whether the

deceased had a strong motive to falsely implicate the accused

persons.

23. The fact that the deceased sustained injuries due to

pouring of kerosene and setting on fire, in the house of accused

No.1, is not in dispute. While the prosecution claim that, it is the

accused Nos. 1 to 3, who poured kerosene on the deceased and set

him on fire and accused Nos. 4 and 5 were shouting that he should

die, according to the defence, it is the deceased himself, who

poured kerosene and set himself on fire. Therefore, the evidence

of the prosecution with regard to the spot mahazer, seizure of the

kerosene-can from the scene of occurrence, the FSL report with Crl.A.100092/2017

regard to the contents of the can, the sketch of the scene of

occurrence, the inquest, the post-mortem report regarding the

cause of death, are all established, in spite of the fact that the

defence has cross-examined at length, the witnesses on these

aspects. Therefore, we directly come to the motive aspect of the

prosecution case.

24. To prove the motive, the prosecution has relied upon

the evidence of PW7 - Taravva Rathod, PW8 - Hema Rathod and

PW10 - Ratnabai Rathod. They are the sisters of the deceased.

Admittedly, when the incident took place, they were not present at

the scene of occurrence. However, their evidence prove the fact

that, when the deceased came from Bengaluru, he stayed in the

house of PW7 - Taravva Rathod, while PW8 - Hema Rathod had

claimed that he stayed in her house. It appears the houses of

these witnesses are nearby and as a brother he might have visiting

them and in that way they have stated that he stayed in their

house. On the other hand, PW11 - Ratnabai Rathod is also the

sister of the deceased, but she was staying at Bengaluru and after

coming to know about the incident, she visited him. In their

evidence, all the three sisters of the deceased have stated that

they came to know about the incident through the deceased.

Crl.A.100092/2017

Admittedly, they were not eyewitnesses to the incident. While PW7

Tara Rathod has stated that, on the date of incident, for the first

time the deceased went to the house of accused No.1 to bring his

wife and on the same day, the incident took place, on the other

hand, PW8 - Hema Rathod has stated that, on Wednesday at 4.00

pm, the deceased went to the house of accused No.1 and that day

he came back saying that the accused persons were not ready to

send his wife and again on the next day he went to the house of

accused No.1 and on that day also he came back saying that they

are refusing to send his wife. She has further stated that, again on

the date of incident i.e., on Friday also the deceased went to the

house of accused No.1 saying that he is having some work in

Bengaluru and therefore he wanted to take his wife with him and

on that day at 7.30 pm, through telephone, he came to know that

accused Nos. 1 to 5 have set the deceased on fire and that the

injured i.e., her brother has been admitted to the hospital and

along with PW7 - Taravva Rathod, she went to the hospital and

saw them.

25. Now coming to two dying declarations at Exs. P23 and

29. Ex.P23 is recorded by the Investigating Officer, whereas

Ex.P29 is recorded by the Taluka Executive Magistrate. Before Crl.A.100092/2017

recording the statement of the deceased, both of these witnesses

have taken the opinion of the Medical Officer, who was treating the

deceased, regarding his condition to give statement. During the

course of his statement before these two witnesses, the deceased

has categorically stated that, accused Nos. 1 to 3 have poured

kerosene and set him on fire, when he insisted that he will not

leave the house unless and until they sent his wife with him and

has also stated that accused Nos.4 and 5 were shouting and

saying, "he should die, he should die".

26. It is pertinent to note that, during the course of both of

these statements, the deceased has specifically stated that, along

with accused Nos. 1 to 5, two more persons were there, who are

involved in commission of the offence and responsible for pouring

kerosene on him and setting him on fire. During investigation, the

Investigating Officer, in spite of conducting the detailed

investigation, is not able to ascertain who are the two other

persons. It is pertinent to note that, though the incident took

place on 03.02.2012, the deceased survived till 23.02.2012 i.e., for

a total period of 20 days and the evidence placed on record makes

it evident that, throughout he was able to speak and communicate

with others. In spite of it he is unable to name the other two Crl.A.100092/2017

persons, who are responsible for pouring kerosene and setting him

on fire. Admittedly, the deceased has not made any allegations

against his wife. Who are the other two persons, who involved in

the crime has remained a mystery and in the absence of clarifying

the said aspect, it creates a doubt as to the motive of the deceased

involving two other persons without naming them.

27. It has come in the evidence of PW5 Kamala Chavan,

PW7 - Taravva Rathod, PW8 - Hema Rathod, PW10 Ratnabai

Rathod and PW11 - Bhadrappa Lamani that the relationship

between the deceased and his wife Prema Chavan was very cordial.

All these witnesses in unequivocal terms have deposed that,

absolutely there was no problem between the deceased and his

wife and their relationship was very cordial. In fact during the

course of their evidence, PW9 - Prema Chavan, wife of the

deceased has specifically deposed that, when the deceased i.e., her

husband came to take her back to Bengaluru with him, she readily

agreed, but the deceased did not take her and on the other hand

as he was demanding money from accused No.1, he refused to

leave the house without taking the money. When the relationship

between the deceased and his wife was very cordial and there was

absolutely no impediment for her to accompany him to Bengaluru, Crl.A.100092/2017

what was reason for the deceased not taking her and leaving the

house of accused No.1 is not forthcoming.

28. They were married since four years and all this period,

the wife of the deceased i.e., Prema Chavan was living with him.

Such being the case, absolutely there was no necessity for the

deceased to take permission of either accused No.1 or other

accused to take his wife with him. This creates doubt as to the

veracity of the say of the deceased that the accused persons

refused to send his wife with him and when he protested, they

reacted by pouring kerosene on his person and setting him on fire.

The deceased is not coming up with a strong reason for the

accused persons allegedly pouring kerosene and setting him on

fire. Even though PW24 - Bahuddin Guddekar - PSI, who

conducted initial investigation and recorded the statement of the

deceased at the earliest point of time as per Ex.P23, nowhere has

questioned the deceased as to the reason why the accused persons

allegedly refused to send the wife of deceased with him. Though

he has recorded the statements of some of the witnesses, he has

not elicited the reasons for the accused persons allegedly refusing

to send the wife of the deceased with him. During the course of

the dying declaration recorded by the Taluka Executive Magistrate Crl.A.100092/2017

at Ex.P29, PW21 Nagaraj, the Taluka Executive Magistrate has also

not elicited the reason as to why the accused persons refused to

send the wife of the deceased with him. PW26 - U Sharanappa,

who conducted the further investigation and filed charge sheet, has

also not made any attempts to ascertain the reasons for the

accused persons allegedly not allowing the deceased to take his

wife with him and on the refusal of the deceased to budge, they

allegedly took the extreme step of pouring kerosene on him and

setting him on fire.

29. In the absence of giving a cogent and convincing

reasons or the motive on the part of the accused persons in

refusing to send the wife of deceased with him, the contents of the

dying declaration with regard to the intention of the accused

persons in taking the extreme step of pouring kerosene on the

deceased and setting him on fire, it does not stand to reason and

such flimsy reason for the accused persons taking extreme steps

cannot be accepted.

30. Moreover, the conduct of accused No.1 as well as the

wife of the deceased in taking him to the hospital, initially to the

Government Hospital, Ilkal and thereafter to Kerudi Hospital, Crl.A.100092/2017

Bagalkote, is contrary to the allegations that accused No.1 was

involved in such a heinous crime of trying to eliminate the

deceased by pouring kerosene and setting him on fire along with

the remaining accused persons. Even though during the course of

her examination-in-chief, PW.7 Taravva Rathod, sister of the

deceased, claimed that she and her sisters shifted the deceased to

the Ilkal hospital, during her cross-examination, she has stated

that, when she went to the hospital, already PW.9 Prema Chavan,

wife of the deceased and accused No.1 Lokappa Pujari, the father-

in-law of the deceased, were present outside the hospital and they

were the one who shifted the deceased to the Ilkal hospital. Even

PW.8 Hema Rathod, the other sister of the deceased, has also

stated that it was accused No.1 who shifted the deceased to the

hospital. Though PW.10 Ratnabai Rathod has stated that it is the

sisters of the deceased who shifted him to the hospital, it is an

admitted fact that, at the time of incident, she was at Bengaluru

and on coming to know about the incident, she came to Ilkal and

she had no first hand information as to who shifted the deceased to

the hospital.

31. Now coming to the defence taken by the accused

persons that the deceased himself poured kerosene on his person Crl.A.100092/2017

and set on fire to threaten accused persons, especially accused

No.1 as he refused to give him money. To establish the allegations

of false implication, the accused relied upon the evidence of PW9 -

Prema Chavan, who is no other than the wife of the deceased.

During the course of her evidence, she has specifically stated that,

when the deceased came to take her back to Bengaluru and even

though she was readily agreed to go with him, the deceased told

that, since he has incurred heavy debts, she should get some

money from her father and when both of them went and requested

accused No.1 to advance some money to the deceased, accused

No.1 flatly refused and therefore, deceased gave a threat that he is

going to commit suicide. She has specifically stated that, at

around 7.30 pm, while she and the deceased were sitting outside

the house, deceased went inside saying that he is going to drink

water and after some time he started shouting and when she saw

from the window, she found her husband engulfed in fire and when

she opened the door, he came out and fell in the front yard and

she poured water and in 108 Ambulance she shifted him to the

hospital. She also stated that, accused No.1 came to the hospital

and enquired about the deceased.

Crl.A.100092/2017

32. PW.9 Prema Chavan i.e., the wife of the deceased is

treated as hostile for the prosecution and during course of her

cross-examination she denied that accused persons poured

kerosene on her husband and set him on fire. Having regard to the

fact that this witness is the daughter of accused No.1 and sister of

accused No.2 and other accused are also her close relatives, it is

doubtful whether she has given statement before the Investigating

Officer implicating accused persons. On the other hand, during the

course of her cross-examination on behalf of the accused persons,

she has admitted the suggestions that the deceased was addicted

to bad habits and he used to gamble and had incurred heavy debts

and also he was involved in criminal cases and as such, police have

opened a M.O.B file against her husband. In fact her evidence is

supported by PW5 Kamala Chavan, who is stated to be the

neighbor of the accused persons. During the course of her

examination-in-chief she has stated that she came to know that it

was the deceased who himself set on fire by pouring kerosene and

during her cross-examination by the prosecution, she has denied

the suggestion that the accused persons refused to send the wife

of the deceased with him and when he insisted upon, they poured

kerosene and set him on fire. During the course of her cross-

Crl.A.100092/2017

examination by the defence, she has admitted that the deceased

was addicted to vices and had incurred heavy debts and he was

also involved in criminal cases and for this reason he had gone to

Bengaluru and after repeating the same things in Bengaluru, he

once again came back to Ilkal etc. Except suggesting that, since

the accused persons are also the residents of the same tanda, she

is giving false evidence to support them, the prosecution has not

placed any material on record as to the reason why this witness

has deposed regarding the deceased being addicted to vices and

had incurred debts and he was also having criminal cases

registered against him.

33. At this stage, it is relevant to note the evidence of

PW11 - Bhadrappa Lamani, who is the senior uncle of the

deceased. He has also deposed that the relationship between the

deceased and his wife was very cordial. He has deposed that,

before going to the house of accused persons to bring his wife,

deceased requested him i.e., Bhadrappa Lamani to accompany him

and when he expressed his inability, the deceased alone went to

the house of accused persons and stayed for three days, and later

he came to know that accused persons have burnt him. It is

pertinent to note that, during his cross-examination by the Crl.A.100092/2017

defence, suggestions were made that the deceased was addicted to

vices, namely he was gambling and he was drunkard and he had

incurred heavy debts and there were criminal cases pending

against him and police were searching for him, this witness has not

denied the said suggestion and on the other hand, expressed

ignorance. As the senior uncle of the deceased, he must be in the

knowledge of these facts.

34. The contention of the defence that there were several

cases pending against the deceased and M.O.B file was opened

against him is supported by the evidence of PW26 - U Sharanappa,

who has conducted later part of the investigation and filed the

charge sheet. During his cross-examination, he has admitted that

there were number of criminal cases pending against the deceased

and M.O.B card i.e., modus operandi card was opened. Of course

he has denied that, because of the pendency of criminal cases

deceased committed suicide. As noted earlier, during the course of

his 313 statement, accused No.1 has produced photocopy of M.O.B

file pertaining to deceased, according to which he was involved in a

kidnapping case and robbery case. This piece of evidence that the

deceased was involved in criminal cases and he had incurred debts,

supports the defence that, at the relevant point of time, accused Crl.A.100092/2017

No.1 had sold some land and was in possession of `8,00,000/- and

deceased wanted him to help by giving him substantial sum of

money for repaying the debts which he had incurred and when

accused No.1 did not budge to his request, he took the extreme

step of pouring kerosene on himself and setting on fire and has

falsely implicated the accused persons.

35. Though the prosecution has established the fact that

the dying declaration of the deceased was recorded first by the

Investigating Officer and subsequently by the Taluka Executive

Magistrate, the prosecution has failed to establish the motive for

the accused persons to take the extreme step of eliminating the

deceased who was the husband of the daughter of accused No.1.

On the other hand, the material placed on record by the defence

through cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses as well as

the photocopy of M.O.B record pertaining to the deceased supports

the defence that, having in dire need of money to wriggle out of

the situation, in all probabilities the deceased has tried to threaten

the accused persons by attempting to commit suicide and falsely

implicated the accused persons. However, on the analysis of the

oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the

prosecution, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has Crl.A.100092/2017

failed to establish the strong motive for the accused persons to

take the extreme step of eliminating the deceased, who was no

other than the son-in-law of accused No.1 and close relative of

remaining accused persons. On the other hand, the defence has

established that the deceased had strong motive to falsely

implicate the accused persons.

36. From the above discussion, we find that this is not a fit

case to interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court

and acquitting the accused persons. In the result, the appeal filed

by the state fails and accordingly, it is dismissed.

We place on record the valuable assistance rendered by the

learned amicus curie. We direct the High Court Legal Services

Committee to pay `15,000/- as remuneration to the learned

amicus curie for the able assistance.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE gab