Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamta Prasad vs State Of M.P. on 7 March, 2022
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
1 CRA Nos.1294, 1411 & 1449 of 2008
High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur
Bench at Indore
D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Subodh Abhyankar
Hon'ble Shri Satyendra Kumar Singh, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No.1294/2008
Rajesh s/o Chhotelal
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh
Criminal Appeal No.1411/2008
Kusum @ Urmila d/o Sarvan w/o Ramesh
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh
Criminal Appeal No.1449/2008
Kamta Prasad s/o Darbari Lal
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh
*****
Shri Jagdish Chand Dangi, learned counsel for appellant Rajesh s/o Chhotelal in
Criminal Appeal No.1294/2008.
Shri Vijay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for appellant Kusum @ Urmila d/o
Sarvan w/o Ramesh in Criminal Appeal No.1411/2008.
Shri Manoj Munshi, learned counsel for appellant Kamta Prasad s/o Darbari Lal
in Criminal Appeal No.1449/2008.
Shri Gopal Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State of Madhya
Pradesh.
*****
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on this 7th day of March, 2022)
Per Subodh Abhyankar, J.
This judgment shall also govern the disposal of Criminal
Appeal No.1411/2008 and Criminal Appeal No.1449/2008, as all these
appeals have arisen out of a common judgment dated 17th September, 2008.
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 17.09.2008 passed by the learned 6th Additional
Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ujjain, District Ujjain (MP) in Sessions
Trial No.308/2006, whereby while convicting the appellants, the learned
judge of the trial court has sentenced them as mentioned herein below: -
Accused Conviction Sentence Fine Sentence in
Amount default of
payment of fine
Rajesh s/o 302 r/w 120-B of IPC Life
Chhotelal Imprisonment
420 r/w 120-B of IPC 5 years RI Rs.1,000/- 3 months RI
467 r/w 471 r/w 120-B 7 years RI Rs.1,000/- 3 months RI
of IPC
468 r/w 120-B of IPC 5 years RI Rs.1,000/- 3 months RI
201 r/w 120-B of IPC 5 years RI Rs.1,000/- 3 months RI
Kusum @ 302 r/w 120-B of IPC Life
Urmila d/o Imprisonment
Sarvan w/o
Ramesh
420 r/w 120-B of IPC 5 years RI Rs.1,000/- 3 months RI
467 r/w 471 r/w 120-B 7 years RI Rs.1,000/- 3 months RI
of IPC
468 r/w 120-B of IPC 5 years RI Rs.1,000/- 3 months RI
201 r/w 120-B of IPC 5 years RI Rs.1,000/- 3 months RI
Kamta 302 r/w 120-B of IPC Life
Prasad s/o Imprisonment
Darbari Lal
420 r/w 120-B of IPC 5 years RI Rs.1,000/- 3 months RI
467 r/w 471 r/w 120-B 7 years RI Rs.1,000/- 3 months RI
of IPC
468 r/w 120-B of IPC 5 years RI Rs.1,000/- 3 months RI
201 r/w 120-B of IPC 5 years RI Rs.1,000/- 3 months RI
the appellants have assailed the impugned judgment by filing these three
criminal appeals under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.
2. In brief, the facts giving rise to the present appeals are that on
09.01.2004, Kishore, A-Rajesh and Ashok ran over their vehicle on an
unidentified person with an intention to kill him and after the death of the
said person, it was shown that he was Manoj Chouhan (husband of Kusum
@ Urmila, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1411/2008); and prior to that
they had also obtained life insurance policy in the name of Manoj Chouhan,
on the basis of which, after the death of the aforesaid unidentified person,
who was depicted as "Manoj Chouhan", the amount of insurance claim was
obtained and was distributed amongst the accused persons. Accused persons
Ajesh s/o. Ramesh, Kishore s/o. Harishchandra Gyari, Shardabai @Kalabai
w/o. Ramesh Gagode and Ashok s/o. Gopal are still absconding.
3. It is alleged that on 09.01.2004, accused Kamta Prasad s/o
Darbarilal (appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1449/2008) brought one Manoj
to the hospital saying that he (Manoj) was hit by an unidentified vehicle;
and thus, on 05.03.2004, after the inquiry into the said death under Section
174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, First Information Report
(FIR) was lodged under Section 304-A of IPC against one Ajesh s/o
Ramesh; and thereafter, the said accused Ajesh eloped and during the
course of investigation, accused Kamta Prasad @ Manoj Gupta was
arrested and the charge sheet was filed under Section 302/120B read with
Section 201 of IPC against the accused persons, converting it from Section
304-A of IPC to an offence of conspiracy to commit murder of the said
unidentified person.
4. It is alleged that appellant Kamta Prasad was a Driver with one
Nilesh Jain and his (Nilesh Jain's) vehicle was under the supervision of
Appellant Rajesh Rathore. A-Rajesh Rathore, Kishore Bhat and Ashok
were Insurance Agents. When A-Kamta Prasad got a house on rent for
Rajesh Rathore, he also came to know about Kishore, Ashok as well and as
A-Kamta Prasad who was in need of money, all of them conspired together
and kept Kamta Prasad in a rented premises, as husband of A-Kusum Bai,
impersonating himself as "Manoj Chouhan" where he resided with
Kusumbai and her mother. After residing there for a period of three
months, they came in contact with one Mukesh Chouhan, who was taken by
accused persons Kishore, Rajesh and Ashok to Ujjain; and while coming
back from Ujjain, they got him drunk and thereafter, on a place already
fixed earlier in time, Mukesh was taken and as he was already in a state of
inebriation, he lied down on the road and thereafter, he was run over by the
accused persons, namely Kishore, A-Rajesh and Ashok by a car; and A-
Kamta Prasad, as already decided, lodged the police complaint, that he was
going with his friend Manoj Chouhan, and when he sat on the roadside to
answer nature's call, an unidentified vehicle ran over Manoj Chouhan, who
died on the spot. Subsequently, A-Kusum Bai, Kishore, A-Rajesh and
Ashok identified the body of the deceased to be of Manoj Chouhan and
after the post-mortem, they took the body to Indore. However, somewhere,
before reaching Indore, accused A-Kamta Prasad Gupta alighted from the
vehicle and he went to his village because the other accused persons wanted
to declare Manoj Chouhan as dead and since A-Kamta Prasad was posing
himself as Manoj Chouhan, his presence at Indore could have jeopardize
their plan. It is alleged that A-Kamta Prasad was also paid Rs.70,000/- for
playing his part in the conspiracy.
5. It is further alleged that after the case was registered under
Section 304-A of IPC, A-Kusum Chouhan, claiming herself to be the wife
of Manoj Chouhan, filed a claim case in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Mhow District Indore and also got a claim of Rs.2,07,000/- which was
deposited in her name and in the name of her daughter; and subsequently
Fixed Deposit of her daughter for a sum of Rs.75,000/- (rupees seventy five
thousand) was encashed and Rs.75,000/- were transferred to Kusum Bai's
Saving Account out of which, a Fixed Deposit was made for an amount of
Rs.25,000/-. Subsequently, as Kishore, A-Rajesh and Ashok also obtained
LIC Insurance Policy in the name of "Manoj Chouhan" for a sum of
Rs.5,50,000/-, which was prepared through Agent Ranawat and as the
photograph of insured was not affixed and Kamta Prasad Gupta was
presented as "Manoj Chouhan" and two installments / premiums of the said
policy were also paid, after obtaining the death certificate of the deceased in
the name of Manoj Chouhan, the Insurance Company was also informed
and the insurance of Rs.5,50,000/- was obtained. Out of which, Rs.50,000/-
were given to Kusum Bai, Rs.40,000/- were given to Ashok, and
Rs.1,50,000/- given to Rajesh, Manoj and Kamta Prasad Gupta each; and
the advocate who had appeared for them was also paid his fees. Thus, the
case of the prosecution is that in conspiracy with each other, Kamta Prasad
Gupta had disguised himself as Manoj Chouhan, the husband of Kusum and
documents of the said unknown fake Manoj Chouhan were prepared on the
basis of another mark sheet of Manoj Chouhan-Pw/4 who was residing
opposite to the house of Kamta Prasad Gupta, whose 8 th mark sheet was
given to Kamta Prasad Gupta for the purpose of preparing Driving License
and the same document was used to obtain fake Insurance Policy in the
name of Manoj Chouhan and subsequently, some unknown person was sent
along with Kamta Prasad Gupta to Ujjain, Mahakal Temple and while
returning back, the said unidentified person was murdered and thereafter the
amount as aforesaid was obtained.
6. After the charge sheet was filed, the case was committed to the
trial court and the learned Judge, after recording of the evidence, has
convicted the present appellants and four other accused persons are still
absconding. Being aggrieved of the impugned judgment and conviction,
these appeals have been preferred.
Criminal Appeal No.1294/2008
7. So far as appellant Rajesh s/o Chhotelal in Criminal Appeal
No.1294/2008 is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants have
submitted that the case of the prosecution is liable to be rejected only on the
ground that the identity of the deceased Manoj Chouhan has not been
established by the prosecution, if it was the case of the prosecution, that the
deceased was not Manoj Chouhan.
8. It is submitted that it is purely a case of circumstantial evidence
and most important link i.e. the identity of the deceased who is depicted by
the accused persons as Manoj Chouhan has not been established; and thus,
the chain of circumstances is not complete and in its absence, the entire case
of the prosecution falls to the ground.
9. Counsel has referred to the deposition of Subedar Singh (PW-
2) to submit that he has clearly admitted that the body of the deceased
Manoj Chouhan was given to Kusumbai and for which panchnama was also
prepared. He has admitted that in the application for examination of dead
body, names of Rajesh and Kishore are mentioned, however, it is not signed
by them. He has admitted that all the accused persons were brought to the
Police Station, where he had seen them; and thereafter, he had seen them in
the Jail. Thus, it is submitted that since this witness has already seen the
accused persons at Police Station, their subsequently identification by him
in Jail loses its importance.
10. The attention of this Court was also drawn to the deposition of
Manoj s/o Kailash Chouhan (PW-4) whose name is allegedly used by the
accused persons to obtain the insurance policy, which has led to the alleged
murder of an unknown person. Manoj (PW-4), who is declared as hostile,
has stated that he has given his 8th mark sheet to some broker for
preparation of license and he does not know the name of his broker and he
has also refused to identify the accused persons in the Court. He has denied
that he knows accused Kishore.
11. Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the
deposition of Investigating Officer, R.S. Raghuvanshi (PW-12), who has
also not named the present appellant Rajesh in his entire deposition.
12. Attention of this Court has also been drawn to the statement of
Dr. Rajendra Bansal (PW-18) who has stated that the deceased had died due
to excessive bleeding on account of rupture of liver, and there was no smell
of alcohol coming from his body, despite the fact that as per the case of the
prosecution, the deceased was heavily made to drink by the accused
persons.
13. The attention of this Court was also drawn to the statement of
Sub Inspector of Police, S.K. Sharma (PW-35), who, in para 14 of his
deposition has admitted that the entire prosecution case is based on the fact
that the deceased Manoj Chouhan was not the husband of Kusumbai and
that he has collected the evidence that the deceased was not Manoj Chouhan
and has also admitted that the identity of the person, the deceased Manoj
Chauhan is not known; and he has also not collected any evidence on record
during the course of investigation to verify the identity of the deceased.
14. The attention of this Court was also drawn to the statement of
Narayan (PW-19), the owner of the rented premises, who, though declared
hostile, has admitted that Kishore and A-Rajesh had brought A-Kusumbai
as tenant for his premises and he had given the house on rent to Kusumbai,
her husband who were residing with their children. Counsel has submitted
that this witness, Narayan (PW-19) was examined in the court on
02.03.2008, on which date, Kamta Prasad was also present in the Court, but
this witness has not identified Kamta Prasad as the husband of accused
Kusumbai; and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the deceased
who had died, was not Manoj Chouhan.
15. It is further submitted that Gajendra Singh Ranawat (PW-10)
the Insurance Agent has also stated that he knows "Manoj Chouhan" who
was a Driver and he also knows his wife. He has admitted that Kusum
came to him after about 5-6 months after the policy was made and informed
that Manoj Chouhan has died in an accident. Hence, he had prepared all the
relevant documents for processing of the claim. This witness has also stated
that Kusum was introduced to him by accused Kishore Chhawadi. In para 5
of his cross-examination, he has also stated that Manoj Chouhan introduced
him to his wife A-Kusum. Counsel has submitted that this witness did not
identify Kamta Prasad as "Manoj Chouhan" in the court when his
deposition was recorded on 17.04.2007.
16. Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to para 28 of
the impugned judgment wherein the Court has observed that the deceased
was identified by A-Kamta Prasad and A-Rajesh Rathore in front of the
doctor vide Ex.P/10. It is also submitted that the Court has also noted that
although A-Rajesh, A-Kamta Prasad and Ashok identified the deceased as
Manoj Chouhan, Investigating Officer R.S. Raghuvanshi (PW-12), but PW-
12 has not been cross examined by the defence for the reasons best known
to the prosecution itself. In the aforesaid para, a reference to order sheet
dated 28.07.2008 has also been made.Counsel has submitted that since this
witness was not available for the cross examination, his examination in
chief cannot be read in evidence; and his entire evidence is liable to be
discarded.
17. Thus, it is submitted that the prosecution has not been able to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant who is lodged in
jail since last more than 14 years, deserves to be acquitted.
Criminal Appeal No.1411/2008 (Kusum @ Urmila).
18. In Criminal Appeal No.1411/2008 filed by appellant Kusum @
Urmila, Shri Vijay Kumar Dube, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant has again reiterated that the prosecution was duty bound to
establish the identity of the deceased to prove that he (the deceased) was not
Manoj Chouhan and was falsely projected by the appellants at the time of
his death as Manoj Chouhan.
19. Counsel has submitted that the prosecution had an opportunity
to identify the deceased, but their concentration was only to prove that the
deceased was projected as Manoj Chouhan only to obtain the insurance
amount.
20. The attention of this Court has also been drawn to the
deposition of Pramendra Nandkishore (PW-8) (para 4), Gajendra Singh
Ranawat (PW-10) (para 4 and 5), Jitu @ Jitendra (PW-11) (para 5),
Rajendra Kumar (PW-6) (para 1) and S.K. Sharma (PW-35) (paras 13 and
14).
21. It is submitted that the deceased was the husband of appellant
Kusumbai and his name was mentioned as Manoj Chouhan, which the
appellant is not denying. It is further submitted that the appellant is a rustic
woman and to expect from her that she would produce the proof of
identification of her husband, would be shifting the burden of proof of
murder on the appellant, who has no means to find out the identity of her
husband.
22. It is further submitted that none of the witnesses who have
been examined has deposed that appellant Kusum was residing with Kamta
Prasad as his wife and who was introduced to them as Manoj Chouhan.
Criminal Appeal No.1449/2008
23. In Criminal Appeal No.1449/2008, which has been preferred
by Kamta Prasad, Shri Manoj Munshi, learned amicus curiae appointed by
this Court has also submitted that the identity of the deceased was sine qua
non to prove the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and
merely on the basis of claimed insurance which was obtained in the name of
Manoj Chouhan by producing the documents of some other Manoj
Chouhan, it cannot be said that the deceased was not Manoj Chouhan.
24. Learned counsel has also submitted that the original Manoj
Chouhan (PW-4) has not supported the case of the prosecution and although
his mother Shardabai (PW-3) is also examined in the Court, she has stated
in her examination in chief that she had given copy of mark sheet of his son
Manoj Chouhan to accused Kishore who had got his license prepared, but in
para 3 of her cross examination, she has also stated that she never ever met
Kishore. She has also stated that she does not know if her son had given
any documents for the purpose of preparing a license.
25. The attention of this Court was also drawn to the statement of
Gajendra Singh Ranawat (PW-10) who has also identified Kusum Chouhan
as wife of Manoj Chouhan. However, he has not identified the present
appellant A-Kamta Prasad as Manoj Chouhan despite A-Kamta Prasad was
present in the Court.
26. It is submitted that had it been a case that Kamta Prasad had
initially obtained the LIC Policy by impersonating himself as Manoj
Chouhan, then there was no reason for the LIC Agent not to identify Kamta
Prasad as Manoj Chouhan, who was present in the Court, when he had also
identified A-Kusum Chouhan and has stated that he was introduced to
Kusum by her husband Manoj Chouhan. Thus, it is submitted that the
theory of the prosecution that present appellant Kamta Prasad was residing
with Kusum as Manoj Chouhan is liable to be rejected.
27. Thus, it is submitted that the prosecution has not been able to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant is entitled to be
given the benefit of doubt.
28. Counsel for the respondent State has opposed the prayer.
29. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
30. The record reveals that FIR in the present case, in respect of
the incident which took place on 09.01.2004, was lodged on 10.01.2004
under Section 304-A of IPC at Crime No.26/2004 alleging the death of
deceased Manoj Chouhan. It is mentioned in the FIR that Manoj Chouhan
was taken to the Hospital by his friend Kamta Prasad Gupta s/o Darbarilal
Gupta, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1449/2008 which is also
apparent from Naksha Panchayatnama Ex.P10, whereas in the postmortem
application Ex.P/11, the name of appellant Rajesh Rathore is mentioned
giving indication that both these appellants were involved in the case right
from the beginning. Subsequently, after the investigation, when it
transpired that insurance claim has been received by the wife of the
deceased Manoj Chouhan, on the basis of fake identity of "Manoj
Chouhan", the charge sheet was filed for commission of offence under
Sections 120-B, 304, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 201 of IPC alleging that prior
to 09.01.2004, the accused persons Kishore, Rajesh, Ashok, Kusumbai,
Ajesh, Kamta Prasad Gupta and Shardabai conspired together to obtain a
forged insurance policy and thereafter committed the murder of some
unknown person representing him as Manoj Chouhan, with a view to
obtained the insurance claim. Admittedly, the person, who has died, was
some unknown person whose identity, the prosecution has not established.
31. It is alleged that prior to the incident, which took place on
09.01.2004, appellant A-Kamta Prasad Gupta started residing with A-
Kusumbai as her husband and thereafter insurance policy was also obtained
in the name of Manoj Chouhan on the basis of a mark sheet obtained by
accused Kishore from the real "Manoj Chouhan" on the pretext of making a
driving license and thus, on the basis of the aforesaid mark sheet of Manoj
Chouhan, the insurance was obtained from the Life Insurance Corporation
of India.
32. It is found that although the case of the prosecution is that
appellant Kamta Prasad Gupta resided with co-accused appellant Kusumbai
as her husband for around 3 - 4 months, however, not a single witness has
been examined by the prosecution to demonstrate that appellant Kamta
Prasad Gupta was actually residing with Kusumbai, as her husband.
33. It is also found that Manoj Chouhan (PW-4) whose mark sheet
was used to obtain the insurance policy has not supported the case of the
prosecution; and has turned hostile. He has denied having known accused
Kishore Chhawadi. However, mother of Manoj Chounan (PW-4),
Shardabai (PW-3) has affirmed that her son had given his mark sheet to
Kishore for preparation of driving license.
34. Gajendra Singh Ranawat (PW-10) who is the Agent of LIC,
was examined on 17.04.2007, has stated, that he knows Manoj Chouhan,
Kusumbai, Kishore and Rajesh Rathore. It is further stated by him that he
had made the insurance policy of Manoj Chouhan at that time Kishore had
also come with Manoj Chouhan and he knows Manoj Chouhan and his wife
also. It is further stated by him that after around 5 - 6 months ago Manoj
Chouhan's wife had come to him stating that Manoj Chouhan has died in an
accident and after obtaining his death certificate, FIR etc., he had submitted
claim Form in the Insurance Company; and thereafter, after official inquiry,
the claim was given to Kusumbai. He has further stated that Kusumbai
Chouhan was introduced to him by Kishore. In his cross examination,
however, he has admitted that Manoj Chouhan had introduced him to
Kusumbai as his wife.
35. This court find it rather intriguing that on 17.04.2007, when
this witness PW-10 was examined, appellant Kamta Prasad Gupta was also
present in the Court, which has also been verified by this court from the
order sheet dated 17.04.2007 of the trial Court, and if the case of the
prosecution was that Kamta Prasad Gupta had obtained policy in the name
of Manoj Chouhan and had represented himself as Manoj Chouhan while
residing with his wife A-Kusumbai for a couple of months and also
obtained insurance policy in the name of Manoj Chauhan, then there was no
reason for this witness Gajendra Singh Ranawat (PW-10) not to identify
Kamta Prasad Gupta, who was present in the Court, as Manoj Chouhan.
36. A perusal of deposition of Investigating Officer S.K. Sharma
(PW-35) reveals that in para 14 of his cross examination, he has admitted
that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the fact that deceased
Manoj Chouhan, the deceased was not the husband of Kusumbai. He has
also admitted that during the entire investigation, he has not collected any
evidence to determine the identity of the deceased but he has stated that he
has collected the evidence to show that the deceased was not Manoj
Chouhan. It is also found that PW-13 Anju Tapase was the one witness who
had seen A-Kusumbai together with her husband prior to his death but this
witness has also not supported the case of the prosecution.
37. It is also found by the trial Court that as per Pw/15 Hemand
Tiwari, advocate, he had filed claim case on behalf of Kusum and her
daughter at Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mhow District Indore in
which an award of Rs.2,07,000/- was passed which was deposited in her
name and in the name of her daughter; Trial court has also found that on
03.09.2004, an account was opened in the name of Kusum Chouhan and
Fixed Deposit (FD) of Rs.75,000/- (rupees seventy five thousand) was
deposited in her account and Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) FD
was made in the name of her daughter Tanu Chouhan. A-Kusumbai had
also obtained a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs) from LIC and
certain amount was also withdrawn from her account. Looking to the fact
that the insurance policy was indeed obtained on the basis of a document of
some other person, viz., PW/4 Manoj Chouhan, the conviction of the
appellants u/s.420, 467, 468/120B of IPC cannot be faulted with as the
presence of appellant Rajesh and A-Kamtaprasad is already established
right from the date of the death of the deceased and the amount of claim has
been received in the account of A-Kusumbai.
38. It is alleged that a fake insurance policy was obtained in the
name of Manoj Chouhan and then to claim the insurance amount, a random
person was murdered projecting him as Manoj Chauhan. It is also found
that the Indica car from which the aforesaid murder was staged has also
been seized vide Ex.P/23 but there is no forensic examination of the same to
trace any mark of accident or blood stains.
39. This Court finds that the prosecution has not been able to prove
its case of murder beyond reasonable doubt and to connect all the missing
links in the case except preparation of false policy and its disbursement as,
admittedly, the identity of the deceased who is claimed to be an unknown
person has not been established.
40. In the considered opinion of this Court, the correlation arrived
at by the learned Judge of the trial Court does not form a chain of events
leading to the only hypothesis of the guilt of the appellants / accused to the
exclusion of all the other possibilities as the evidence suffers from many
loopholes and shortcomings. In the considered opinion of this court, if the
prosecution was not able to establish the identity of the deceased, then, it
ought to have established that the A-Kamtaprasad was living with A-
Kusumbail as her husband in the name of Manoj Chouhan prior to the
death of the deceased who is cremated as Manoj Chouhan.
41. Above all, this court is rather surprised to see that not a single
prosecution witness has been examined to prove the prosecution's story of
conspiracy by the accused persons as narrated above, and how the entire
case has come to light has also not been disclosed in the prosecution
evidence.
42. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in the considered opinion of this
Court, the impugned conviction so far as it relates to s.302/120B of IPC is
concerned, it cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is hereby set
aside, however, their conviction u/s.420, 467, 468/120B is maintained. Since the
appellants are lodged in jail since last around 15 years and 10 months, they have
already suffered more than the sentences which have been awarded to them
u/s.420, 467, 468/120B of IPC, they are directed to be released forthwith from the
jail, if not required in any other case.
43. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.1294/2008, Criminal Appeal
No.1411/2008 and Criminal Appeal No.1449/2008 stand partly allowed.
(Subodh Abhyankar) (Satyendra Kumar Singh)
Judge Judge
Pithawe RC
RAMESH CHANDRA PITHWE
2022.03.11 15:57:18 +05'30'
