Patna High Court
Balwant Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 23 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
DEATH REFERENCE No.4 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2018 Thana- BARHARA District- Bhojpur
======================================================
The State of Bihar
... ... Petitioner
Versus
Balwant Singh Son of Bitan Singh @ Biteshwar Singh Resident of Village -
Purana Bind Gawa, P.S.- Barhara, District- Bhojpur
... ... Respondent
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1181 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2018 Thana- BARHARA District- Bhojpur
======================================================
1. Anant Pandey, aged about 23 yewars (Male) Son of Tamatar Pandey
Resident of Village- Semra, P.S.- Barhara, District- Bhojpur.
2. Chhotu Singh @ Chhotu Mahto, aged about 30 years (Male) Son of Dwarika
Mahto @ Dwarika Singh Resident of Village- Semra, P.S.- Barhara, District-
Bhojpur.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1184 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2018 Thana- BARHARA District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Balwant Singh (M), aged about 32 years S/o Bitan Singh @ Biteshwar Singh
Resident of Village- Old Bindgawan, P.S.- Barahara, District- Bhojpur.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
(In DEATH REFERENCE No. 4 of 2019)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Xxxxxxx
For the Respondent : Mr. Amish Kumar, Amicus Curiae
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1181 of 2019)
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1184 of 2019)
For the Appellant : Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP
======================================================
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH)
Date : 23-07-2021
The appellants in these appeals have challenged the
judgment of conviction dated 28.08.2019 and the order of sentence
dated 06.09.2019 passed by the learned 1st Additional District &
Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, POCSO Act, Bhojpur at Ara in
POCSO Case No. 2 of 2018 arising out of Barahara P.S. Case No.
43 of 2018. By the aforesaid judgment, the appellants have been
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 366-A/34,
376-D/34, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and
Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act
(for short 'POCSO Act'). Consequently, by the aforesaid order, the
appellants have been sentenced to death for the offence punishable
under Section 302/34 of the IPC, Rigorous Imprisonment for ten
years with a fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence punishable under
Section 366-A of the IPC and in default of payment of fine to
undergo further imprisonment for six months. The appellants have
further been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life
and a fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section
376-D/34 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
further imprisonment for one year. So far as the offence punishable
under Section 4 of the POCSO Act is concerned, the Trial Court
has not passed any separate sentence. It has directed that all the
sentences shall run concurrently.
2. After passing the impugned judgment and order, the
Trial Court made a reference under Section 366 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C') for confirmation of death
sentence awarded to the appellants Balwant Singh and Anant
Pandey, which has been registered as Death Reference No.4 of
2019.
3. The appeals preferred by the appellants and the
reference made by the Trial Court have been heard together and
are being disposed of by a common order.
4. The sessions trial in which the impugned judgment
and order were passed relates to the First Information Report (for
short 'FIR') that had been registered at 8:30 AM on 05.02.2018 in
Barahara Police Station under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C in respect
of an incident that had occurred at village Semra, P.S.- Barahara,
District- Bhojpur situated at a distance of 8 kilometer east from the
Police Station at 8:00 PM on 31.01.2018.
5. The FIR giving rise to the sessions trial was
registered on the basis of the written report of one Sheo Raj Rai
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
(P.W.4) submitted to the Officer-in-Charge of Barahara Police
Station on 05.02.2018 at 8:30 AM. In his written report, the
informant has stated that on 31.01.2018, at about 8:00 PM, his
minor daughter, aged about 16 years, had gone to ease herself
towards south of his house. Soon after, she went out of her house,
she raised alarm and cried for help as three boys were trying to
forcibly abduct her. Hearing his daughter's cry, he along with his
nephew went there and saw that Chhotu Kumar Singh son of
Rajendra Singh, Balwant Singh son of Bitan Singh, both residents
of village- Old Bindgawan and one unknown boy dragged his
daughter, forced her to sit on bike and tried to kidnap her. He
further stated that the accused Chhotu Kumar Singh was riding the
bike and the accused Balwant Singh was the pillion rider. They
had sandwiched his daughter in the middle on the bike. The
unknown boy rode on another bike. However, he himself and his
nephew caught hold of the bike being rode by the kidnappers from
behind as a result of which the rider and the pillion riders fell
down. He himself also sustained injuries on his hand and legs.
Taking advantage of the situation, Chhotu Kumar Singh and
Balwant Singh along with his daughter rode on the bike being
driven by the unknown miscreants and sped away. Thereafter, he
went to the house of the accused Chhotu Kumar Singh and
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
Balwant Singh and apprised their family members that they had
kidnapped his daughter, but they said that they do not know
anything about kidnapping of his daughter.
6. In his written report, the informant further stated that
he is handing over the bike bearing registration no. BR03M 1710
left by the accused Chhotu Kumar Singh and Balwant Singh at the
place of occurrence. He stated that since the prestige of the family
was involved, he did not inform the police earlier, but when all his
efforts to trace the victim failed, he is lodging the report with the
police.
7. On receipt of the aforesaid written report from the
informant, the Officer-in-Charge of Barahara Police Station
registered Barahara P.S. Case No.43 of 2018 dated 05.02.2018
under Section 366-A/34 of the IPC against Chhotu Kumar Singh,
Balwant Singh and their respective family members and handed
over the investigation to one Umesh Kumar Das, Assistant Sub-
Inspector of Police.
8. Later on, at the request of the investigating officer,
vide order dated 07.04.2018, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bhagalpur permitted addition of Sections 376-D, 302, 376-A of the
IPC and 4 of the POCSO Act to the FIR.
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
9. On completion of investigation, the investigating
officer submitted charge-sheet no.25/18 dated 03.05.2018 under
Sections 376-D, 366-A, 302, 376-A/34 of the IPC and 4 of the
POCSO Act against the accused Balwant Singh and kept the
investigation pending against the other accused persons.
Subsequently, vide charge-sheet no.100/18 dated 20.09.2018, the
investigating officer submitted supplementary charge-sheet against
accused Chhotu Mahto and Anant Pandey for the offences under
which the FIR was registered and kept the investigation pending
against the other accused persons.
10. On perusal of the record, I find that since the FIR was
registered under Section 4 of the POCSO Act apart from the
offences under the Indian Penal Code, the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ara sent the record to the court of 1st Additional
Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, which was designated as
Special Court under Section 28 of the POCSO Act, vide order
dated 10.04.2018 stating therein that his court has no jurisdiction
in the matter. I further find from the record that vide order dated
16.11.2018, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special
Judge, POCSO Act took cognizance of the offences punishable
under Sections 376-D, 366-A, 302, 376-A/34 of the IPC and 4 of
the POCSO Act.
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
11. Subsequently, on 08.05.2019, the Trial Court
explained the charges to the accused Balwant Singh, Chhotu Singh
@ Chhotu Mahto and Anant Pandey under Sections 366-A/34,
376-D, 302 of the IPC and 4 of the POCSO Act to which they
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
12. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined
eight witnesses, namely, Deo Sharan Rai (P.W.1), Kamlesh Rai
(P.W.2), Vijendra Rai (P.W.3), Sheo Raj Rai (P.W.4), Dr. Madhu
Bala Sinha (P.W.5), Dr. Absar Ahmad (P.W.6), Umesh Kumar Das
(P.W.7) and Akhilesh Kumar (P.W.8).
13. Deo Sharan Rai (P.W.1) stated in his deposition that
on the alleged date of occurrence, upon hearing the noise, he went
towards southern side of the embankment where he saw Sheo Raj
Rai and Kamlesh Rai fallen on the ground and trying to recover
themselves by holding the bike. He corroborated the allegations
made by the informant Sheo Raj Rai in the FIR. He stated that he
is neighbor of the informant. The height of the embankment is
10-15 ft from the ground level. He further stated that before he
could reach the villagers had already assembled there and they
were carrying Sheo Raj Rai (P.W.4) and also holding Kamlesh Rai
(P.W.2). He has further stated that he had told the police that he
himself saw the accused persons abducting the victim.
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
14. In cross-examination, he admitted that neither the
murder had taken place in his presence nor the victim was raped
before him. He further stated that he has information that the
informant had filed a case against two persons, namely, Balwant
Singh and Chhotu Kumar Singh. He stated that the bike was in
possession of the Chowkidar from the date of occurrence.
15. Kamlesh Rai (P.W.2) stated in his evidence that the
deceased was his cousin sister. He stated that he was present along
with P.W.4 at the time of occurrence. He also corroborated the
allegations made in the FIR in his examination-in-chief. He stated
that on hue and cry raised by them, the villagers, namely, Sudama
Rai, Tribeni Rai, Khalifa Rai, Vinod Rai, Deo Sharan Rai and
Manoj Rai assembled at the place of occurrence. He stated that a
search was made for the victim since the time of occurrence itself.
He further stated that on 5/6.02.2018 the dead body of the victim
was recovered.
16. In cross-examination, he has stated that he along with
others had gone to the police station, which is at a distance of 5
kilometer from his house, in the morning between 09 and10 AM.
He further stated that he himself and his uncle narrated the entire
incident to the Daroga, who reduced the same in writing on which
his uncle Sheo Raj Rai put his signature. He further stated that
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
since the time of occurrence the search for the victim had begun.
He denied the defence suggestion that the accused persons were
falsely implicated in the instant case. He further stated that within
4-5 days of the occurrence, information was given to the police
orally and a request was to trace the victim. He stated that he does
not know as to whether the oral statement was recorded by the
police or not. In further cross-examination, he stated that regarding
the occurrence of offence, the police had been informed on
01.02.2018, but no proof can be given in this regard. He further
stated that on the basis of information given on 01.02.2018, no FIR
was lodged.
17. Vijendra Rai (P.W.3) stated in his deposition that the
deceased was related as sister to him. Upon hearing the noise, he
also went to the embankment where he saw P.W.2 and P.W.4 in an
injured condition. On query, the informant narrated him the entire
story. He stated that he along with others took the informant Sheo
Raj Rai and his nephew Kamlesh Rai to their house and got them
treated.
18. In cross-examination, he stated that the embankment
is at a distance of 100-150 yards south-west from his house. He
has further stated that he does not exactly remember that when he
reached near the embankment and whether he was alone or others
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
had also arrived there. He stated that when he reached at the
embankment, the informant and his nephew Kamlesh Rai were
found badly injured and they were taken to compounder Sanjeet
Kumar, who had treated them.
19. Sheo Raj Rai (P.W.4) is the informant of the case.
He tried to give a different version. He stated that after hearing hue
and cry of his daughter when he reached near the embankment
along with his nephew Kamlesh Rai, he saw that on the first bike
Balwant Singh, Chhotu Singh, one unknown person and the victim
were sitting and on the second bike Anant Pandey, Ajay Rai and
Chhotu Mahto were sitting. He stated that when he tried to stop the
first bike, he was pushed aside. He further stated that when his
nephew caught hold of another bike, he was also pushed aside and
the accused persons ran away from the place of occurrence after
leaving the second bike. He further stated that his co-villagers
carried him to a doctor and got him treated. He further stated that
he started searching for his daughter after two hours of her
abduction. He further stated that the next day he along with others
went to the police station and narrated the story to the Daroga, but
the Daroga advised them to search the victim and if she would not
be recovered, he would institute the FIR. He further stated that he
tried to trace his daughter for four days and when he failed in his
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
efforts, he submitted a written report on 05.02.2018 to the police
pursuant to which the FIR was registered. He identified his
signature on the written report, which was marked as Exhibit-1. He
stated that on 06.02.2018 at 02:00 A.M. the police apprehended the
accused Balwant Singh and on his disclosure the body of the
victim was recovered from the mustard field of Jugal Mahto by the
police. According to him, the police had found blood stains near
the private parts of his daughter. He identified the accused Chhotu
Kumar Singh and Anant Pandey in the dock.
20. In cross-examination, he stated that Balwant Singh,
Chhotu Kumar Singh and one unknown were riding the bike,
which he tried to stop. The second bike which was left at the place
of occurrence was with the other miscreants. He further stated that
when he caught hold of the accused persons, they pushed him
aside and sped away riding the bike. He got injuries on his legs,
hand, neck and mouth. His clothes were also torn. In further cross-
examination, he admitted that he did not show any wound or the
injuries sustained by him to the Daroga when he visited the police
station a day after the occurrence had taken place. He also
admitted that initially he had given oral statement to the police
and, subsequently, he had submitted the written report. He further
stated that he had drafted the written statement at his house and a
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
day after the written report was submitted by him to the police, the
body of his daughter was recovered at 02:00 AM. He stated that he
had no enmity with Balwant Singh from before. He denied the
defence suggestion that his daughter used to frequently visit
various shops in the village. He also denied the defence suggestion
that his daughter was acquainted with the accused Balwant Singh
since before and, because of enmity, the accused Balwant Singh
has been falsely implicated. In further cross-examination, he stated
that the seized bike was deposited at the police station after four
days of the occurrence. He further stated that he kept the bike for
four days at his own residence. He further stated that he cannot say
which doctor had treated him and his nephew. He admitted that the
witnesses of the case are his relatives. He denied the defence
suggestion that his co-villagers Anant Pandey and Chhotu have
been falsely implicated in this case after due deliberation because
of previous enmity.
21. Dr. Madhu Bala Sinha (P.W.5) was posted as
Medical Officer in Sadar Hospital, Ara on 06.02.2018. She stated
in her deposition that on 06.02.2018 at 7:15 AM a medical team
headed by the Civil Surgeon was constituted for conducting post-
mortem examination on the body of the deceased daughter of the
informant. She stated that she took vaginal swab and sent it for
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
pathological examination. She stated that the post-mortem report
was prepared in her presence and she had put her signature over it.
She identified her signature on the post-mortem report, which was
marked as Exhibit-2.
22. In cross-examination, she stated that the vaginal swab
taken by her was sent for pathological examination to Sadar
Hospital, Ara. She admitted that the post-mortem report does not
mention anything about the vaginal examination of the deceased.
23. Dr. Absar Ahmad (P.W.6) was posted as Medical
Officer in Sadar Hospital, Ara on 06.02.2018. He also stated that
on 06.02.2018 at 07:15 AM a medical team under the leadership of
Civil Surgeon was constituted for conducting post-mortem
examination of the deceased. He stated that the post-mortem report
was prepared by him. According to him, the medical board
consisted of three doctors, namely, Dr. T. A. Ansari, Dr. K. S.
Chaubey and Dr. Madhubala Sinha. He identified his signature on
the post-mortem report, which was marked as Exhibit-3.
According to him, the cause of death of the victim was fracture of
neck bone leading to asphyxia.
24. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had not
stated in the post-mortem report that the fracture of neck bone was
ante-mortem. He further admitted that he was not sure about the
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
cause of death of the deceased. Therefore, he took the viscera from
the body of the deceased and sent it for chemical analysis in order
to find out any foul play like poisoning etc.
25. Umesh Kumar Das (P.W.7) is the first investigating
officer of the case. He stated that after the FIR was registered and
the investigation was handed over to him, he incorporated the
seizure list in the case diary and recorded the subsequent statement
of the informant. He stated that in his subsequent statement, the
informant stated that he has apprehension that (1) Balwant Singh,
(2) Chhote Kumar Singh, son of Rajendra Singh, (3) Chhotu Singh
son of Barmeshwar Singh, (4) Anant Kumar Pandey, (5) Om Rai,
(6) Ajay Rai, Chhotu Mahto son of Dwarika Mahto and one
unknown accused might have ravished his minor daughter and
strangulated her to death and concealed the body at some unknown
place. He further stated that he recorded the statement of Kamlesh
Rai, Deo Sharan Rai and Vijendra Rai during investigation and
inspected the place of occurrence. Thereafter, he raided the house
of the accused Balwant Singh and Chhotu Kumar Singh son of
Rajendra Singh and the accused Chhotu Singh, son of Barmeshwar
Singh. He arrested Balwant Singh on 05.02.2018 and, on the same
day at 09:50 PM, he recorded his defence statement in police
custody after taking him out of the Hajat. He disclosed that on
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
31.01.2018 he along with his accomplices Anant Kumar Pandey,
Ajay Rai and Chhotu Mahto forcibly abducted the victim in the
night of 31.01.2018 from Semra embankment and brought her at
Semra Marriage Hall and they all raped her and thereafter
strangulated her to death and threw her body in the mustard field
of Jugal Mahto.
26. P.W.7 stated that in order to verify the aforesaid
disclosure made by the accused Balwant Singh, he went together
with him to the mustard field of Jugal Mahto and recovered the
dead body of the victim, which was identified by the local
chowkidar and dafadar. Thereafter, the body was sent to Ara Sadar
Hospital for post-mortem examination. He stated that after the
post-mortem examination, the body was handed over to the
informant. He further stated that he recorded the confessional
statement of accused Balwant Singh on a separate sheet of paper
and incorporated the same in para 58 of the case diary. He stated
that he received the supervision report of the Superintendent of
Police pursuant to which he filed a written application before the
court for adding Section 376-D, 302, 376-A of the IPC and 4 of the
POCSO Act to the FIR. He stated that he handed over the charge
of investigation to the Officer-in-Charge Kamlesh Paswan on
06.04.2018.
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
27. In cross-examination, he admitted that prior to the
institution of the FIR he had no knowledge about the occurrence.
He further stated that he does not know as to who is the author of
the written report. He admitted that in the written report Chhotu
Mahto and Anant Kumar Pandey are not named as accused. The
written report contains the name of the accused Balwant Singh, his
family members and Chotu Singh. He admitted that the bike was
deposited in the police station at 8:00 AM on 05.02.2018 in
presence of Barun Chaudhary and chowkidar whose statements
were not recorded during investigation. He stated that during
investigation he did not record the statement of any independent
witness in the Semra village or Semra Bazar. He admitted that he
had recorded the statement of the informant and his relatives only.
He admitted that he had neither seen any mark of injury on the
body of the informant Sheo Raj Rai and P.W.2 Kamlesh Rai nor
did they show him any injury. He stated that Deo Sharan Rai
(P.W.1) had stated before him that he had not seen the occurrence
himself. He had stated that he had heard about the occurrence from
Sheo Raj Rai. He further admitted that Kamlesh Rai (P.W.2) had
not stated before him that Sudama Rai, Tribeni Rai, Khalifa Rai,
Vinod Rai and Manoj Rai had assembled at the place of
occurrence. He stated that he had simply stated that after the
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
occurrence, only Deo Sharan Rai came at the place of occurrence.
He admitted that he recorded the confessional statement of
Balwant Singh on 18.02.2018 at 3:00 PM at the police station
when he was taken on police remand from the court.
28. Akhilesh Kumar (P.W.8) is the second investigating
officer of the case. He stated that on 28.04.2018 he was posted at
Barahara Police Station as Sub-Inspector of Police. He took over
the investigation of the case on 28.04.2018. He submitted
supplementary charge-sheet before the court. He identified his
signature and writing on the supplementary charge-sheet, which
was marked as Exhibit-4.
29. In cross-examination, he denied the defence
suggestion that without verifying the truthfulness of the allegation
he had submitted the supplementary charge-sheet. He also denied
the defence suggestion that the investigation of the case was faulty.
30. After closure of the prosecution case, in order to
enable the accused persons to explain the circumstances appearing
against them, the Trial Court recorded their respective statements
under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C in which they pleaded their
innocence. The defence did not lead any oral or documentary
evidence during trial.
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
31. After hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of
the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the Trial Court
held the appellants guilty of the offences noted hereinabove vide
impugned judgment dated 28.08.2019.
32. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence, Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, learned senior
advocate appearing for the appellant Balwant Singh in Cr.Appeal
(DB) No. 1184 of 2019 submitted that the prosecution has failed to
establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. He contended that the
FIR was instituted after an inordinate and unexplained delay of six
days. He contended that the authenticity of the FIR itself is
doubtful. According to him, admittedly, the FIR based on the
written report of the informant is a subsequent version as the
informant himself has stated that he had gone to the police station
along with his nephew on 01.02.2018 and narrated the entire
incident to the police. He contended that the witnesses examined
on behalf of the prosecution have contradicted each other during
trial. He argued that from the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses it would be evident that neither the manner of
occurrence nor the place of occurrence has been proved. He urged
that from the evidence it would be evident that the prosecution was
interested in suppressing the facts more than revealing it before the
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
court. According to him, neither the injury reports of the informant
Sheo Raj Rai and Kamlesh Rai (P.W.2) were brought on record nor
the doctor who treated them was examined during trial. He further
contended that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the
charges under Sections 366-A and 376-D of the IPC.
33. Mr. Singh, learned senior advocate submitted that the
prosecution case was closed after examination of P.W.8 on
02.07.2019, the statements of the accused persons under Section
313 of the Cr.P.C were recorded on 05.07.2019 and, thereafter, the
Public Prosecutor filed an application on 05.08.2019 for admitting
the confessional statement of the accused Balwant Singh recorded
by the A.S.I. Umesh Kumar Das on 18.02.2018 at Barahara Police
Station into evidence. Though the prayer made on behalf of the
prosecution was opposed by the defence, the Trial Court took the
confessional statement into evidence with objection and marked
the same as Exhibit-5.
34. Mr. Singh, learned senior advocate submitted that the
confession made by an accused before the police officer cannot be
proved in view of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. He
submitted that Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act also lays
down that if an accused makes confession while he is in custody of
police, it shall not be proved against him unless it is made in
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
presence of a Magistrate. He further contended that since
confessional statement recorded on 18.02.2018 did not lead to
discovery of any fact, the same could not have been taken into
evidence by the Trial Court even under Section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act and that too after the evidence on behalf of the
prosecution and the defence was closed. He contended that the
Trial Court has grossly erred in placing reliance on an inadmissible
confessional statement of the accused Balwant Singh.
35. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned advocate appearing for
the appellant Anant Kumar Pandey and Chhotu Kumar Singh in
Cr.Appeal (DB) No. 1181 of 2019 while adopting the submissions
made by Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, learned senior advocate
appearing for the appellant Balwant Singh in Cr.Appeal (DB) No.
1184 of 2019 submitted that the Trial Court grossly erred in
appreciating the evidence led during trial.
36. He submitted that out of eight witnesses examined
during trial, four are official witnesses and the rest four are
interested and related witnesses. He submitted that as per the
prosecution case though the body of the victim was recovered on
06.02.2018 at 02:00 AM on the disclosure of Balwant Singh,
neither the inquest report nor any document containing signature
of Balwant Singh has been proved during trial, which raises
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
serious doubt on the statement of the investigating officer. He
contended that no witness was examined to corroborate the
statement of the investigating officer regarding recovery of the
dead body from the mustard field. He further contended that
except P.W.2 and P.W.4, other two witnesses are hearsay witnesses
and there are major contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses
with regard to the number of accused persons and the bikes being
possessed by them. According to him, the story propounded by the
prosecution is highly improbable, unbelievable and contrary to the
normal act of a prudent person.
37. We have also heard Mr. Amish Kumar, learned
advocate, who accepted our request to assist the Bench as amicus
curiae in Death Reference No.4 of 2019. He took great pains to
make detailed submissions elucidating the relevant provisions of
the Indian Evidence Act. He submitted that from the chain of
events it is apparent that the dead body of the deceased was not
recovered pursuant to the confession made by the accused Balwant
Singh before the police. He submitted that the investigating officer
filed a petition for taking the accused Balwant Singh on police
remand on 17.02.2018, which was allowed pursuant to which the
confessional statement of the accused Balwant Singh was recorded
on 18.02.2018 at 3:00 PM at Barahara Police Station. The said
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
confessional statement has been taken on record and marked as
Exhibit- 5 by the Trial Court with objection. He contended that the
body of the deceased was recovered at 2.00 AM on 06.02.2018.
Thus, since the recovery of the body of the deceased was prior in
time, the confessional statement made by the accused Balwant
Singh was not admissible even under Section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act. He also contended that since Exhibit-5 was marked
on 07.08.2019 after the prosecution case was closed and the
statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section
313 of the Cr.P.C, the veracity of Exhibit-5 was never tested. He
contended that the evidence of P.W.2 Kamlesh Rai and P.W.4 Sheo
Raj Rai are full of contradictions and does not inspire confidence.
He further contended that the other two witnesses (P.W.1 Deo
Sharan Rai and P.W.3 Vijendra Rai) are tutored witnesses, who are
telling lie and the same can be made out from the contradictions in
the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4.
38. On the other hand, Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State
submitted that from the evidence on record, it would be evident
that on 31.01.2018 at 8:00 PM the accused Balwant Singh, Chhotu
Kumar Singh and an unknown person kidnapped the minor
daughter of the informant when she went out near embankment of
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
her village to ease. He contended that Deo Sharan Rai (P.W.1) and
Vijendra Rai (P.W.3) have fully corroborated the prosecution case
as narrated by the informant. According to him, Kamlesh Rai
(P.W.2) and Sheo Raj Rai (P.W.4) have also withstood the test of
cross examination. He further contended that the confessional
statement of the accused Balwant Singh was first made on
06.02.2018 after he was arrested pursuant to which the body of the
deceased was recovered. He urged that Section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act provides that if any fact is discovered in
consequence of any information received from a person accused of
an offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such
information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates
distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved against
him. He contended that in the present case since the body of the
deceased was recovered by the police at the instance and
identification of accused Balwant Singh and he had taken name of
his accomplices, Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act would
directly come into play. He submitted that the Trial Court has
properly appreciated the facts and law involved in the case and has
rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellants.
39. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival
submissions and have carefully perused the evidence on record.
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
40. The admitted case of the prosecution is that the minor
daughter of the informant was kidnapped on 31.01.2018 at 8:00
PM for which the FIR was lodged on 05.02.2018 at 8:30 AM. The
moot point is that both Kamlesh Rai (P.W.2) and Sheo Raj Rai
(P.W.4) have claimed to be eye-witnesses of the alleged
kidnapping on 31.01.2018, but they did not bother to inform the
police for over five days. They went to the Police Station for the
first time on 05.02.2018, which is supported by the evidence of the
first investigating officer Umesh Kumar Das (P.W.7).
41. The FIR is an important document even though it is
not a substantive piece of evidence. A prompt FIR prevents
possibility of coloured version being put by the informant.
42. In Thulia Kali Vs. State of T.N., since reported in
AIR 1973 SC 501, the Supreme Court had observed that the FIR in
a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of
evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence
adduced at the trial. The Court further observed that the delay in
lodging the FIR often results in embellishment which is a creature
of afterthought. On account of delay, the FIR not only gets bereft
of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the
introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or
concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is,
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the FIR should
be satisfactorily explained.
43. It is true that there is no hard and fast rule that the
delay in lodging the FIR would automatically render the
prosecution case doubtful. However, the delay has the effect of
putting the court on its guard to search if any explanation has been
offered for the delay, and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or
not.
44. In State of Punjab Vs. Ramdev Singh, since reported
in (2004) 1 SCC 421, the Supreme Court held: "Delay in lodging
the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the
prosecution case and discarding the same solely on the ground of
delay in lodging the first information report. Delay has the effect
of putting the court on its guard to search if any explanation has
been offered for the delay, and if offered, whether it is satisfactory
or not. If the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay
and there is possibility of embellishment in the prosecution version
on account of such delay, the same would be fatal to the
prosecution. However, if the delay is explained to the satisfaction
of the court, the same cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving
and discarding the entire prosecution version...."
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
45. Thus, the fact that the FIR has been lodged belatedly
has to be considered in the light of other facts and circumstances
of the case. It is to be seen whether the delay in lodging the FIR
has been sufficiently explained or not. In this regard, first of all, it
would appear from the written report submitted by the informant
pursuant to which the FIR was instituted that since the prestige of
his family was involved, he first took measures to trace the victim
himself. When he failed in his effort, he approached the police.
During trial, the informant Sheo Raj Rai changed his version and
stated in his evidence that though he approached the police a day
after the occurrence on 02.02.2018 and gave his oral statement, the
Daroga advised him to conduct his own search. He assured that if
he would not be able to trace the victim, the FIR would be
registered. He stated that he conducted his own search for four
days and when he failed in his effort, he approached the police and
submitted his written report. The said statement of P.W.4 is not in
alignment with the deposition of Umesh Kumar Das (P.W.7), who
was entrusted with the investigation of the case. The informant has
also not produced any document in support of his contention that
he had approached the police a day after the occurrence had taken
place. The witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
also not corroborated this part of the story narrated by the
informant during trial.
46. In view of the inherent contradictions in the evidence
of the informant and the investigating officer, I am of the opinion
that the delay caused in institution of the FIR has not been
properly explained.
47. However, mere delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal
to the case of the prosecution. The fact that the report has been
lodged belatedly is a relevant fact, which has to be kept in mind
while appreciating the evidence.
48. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that P.W.2,
the nephew of the informant and P.W.4, the father of the deceased
respectively went to the Police Station to lodge FIR on
05.02.2018.
49. Now, as per evidence of P.W.2, the report was not
written by his uncle P.W.4. According to him the police had
written the same in his presence. On the other hand, the informant
Sheo Raj Rai (P.W.4) has stated in his evidence that he along with
P.W.2 went to the Police Station on 05.02.2018 and handed over
the written report to the police.
50. Apparently, P.W.2 and P.W.4 are contradicting each
other on the point as to whether the police had recorded the
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
fardbeyan of the informant or a pre-prepared written report was
handed over to the police.
51. Further, in the FIR, the informant has named Balwant
Singh, Chhotu Kumar Singh and one unknown person only, who
are said to have kidnapped the deceased. He has stated in the FIR
that on the first bike Balwant Singh, Chhotu Kumar Singh and the
deceased were sitting and one unknown person was sitting on the
second bike. But, during trial, the informant has changed his
version regarding the manner of occurrence. He has stated that on
the first bike Balwant Singh, Chhotu Kumar Singh, one unknown
person and the deceased were sitting and, on the second bike,
Anant Pandey, Ajay Rai, Om Rai and Chhotu Mahto were sitting.
52. Similarly, P.W.2, who was present at the time of
lodging of FIR, has also changed his version while deposing
before the court.
53. As per the confessional statement of the appellant
Balwant Singh, which has been marked as Exhibit-5 with
objection, the occurrence of kidnapping and rape of the victim
followed by her murder had taken place in the marriage hall of
Semra. After going through the entire evidence of the two
investigating officers, it would be crystal clear that neither the first
investigating officer (P.W.7) nor the second investigating officer
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
(P.W.8) thought it proper to inspect the said marriage hall. There
has been no investigation on this point.
54. It has been argued on behalf of the prosecution that
the dead body of the victim girl was recovered by the police at the
instance and identification of the appellant Balwant Singh, who
also took the name of his accomplices in the crime. In this regard,
the evidence of first investigating officer Umesh Kumar Das
(P.W.7) is important. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that
the accused Balwant Singh was arrested at 9.50 PM on 05.02.2018
after institution of the FIR and his defence statement was recorded
by him for which he was taken out of Hazat in which he disclosed
that he had abducted the deceased on 31.01.2018 in the night with
his accomplices Anant Kumar Pandey, Om Rai, Ajai Rai and
Chhotu Mahto from Semra embankment and kept her at Semra
Marriage Hall where they gang-raped her and, thereafter,
strangulated her to death and threw her body in the mustard field
of Jugal Mahto. In cross-examination, he admitted that he did not
record the confessional statement of the accused Balwant Singh in
the night of 05.02.2018 after his arrest. He further admitted that he
recorded the confessional statement of accused Balwant Singh on
18.02.2018 at 3:00 PM in the police station after he was taken on
police remand.
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
55. There is no explanation as to why the confessional
statement made by Balwant Singh was not recorded in the night of
05.02.2018 or prior to the recovery of the body of the deceased.
There is also no explanation as to why the confessional statement
of the accused Balwant Singh was recorded on 18.02.2018 in the
police station if the police had the confessional statement available
with them from before.
56. It is manifest from the evidence that the recovery of
the dead body took place on 05.02.2018 and the confessional
statement of the accused Balwant Singh was reduced in writing on
18.02.2018.
57. Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act read
as under:
"25. Confession to police-officer not to be
proved. -- No confession made to a police-
officer, shall be proved as against a person
accused of any offence."
"26. Confession by accused while in custody of
police not to be proved against him. -- No
confession made by any person whilst he is in the
custody of a police-officer, unless it be made in
the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be
proved as against such person."
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
58. As per the aforesaid provision when an accused
makes a confession to a police officer or an accused makes
confession while he is in custody, such a confession cannot be
proved in evidence against him unless it is made in the immediate
presence of a Magistrate. This is with a purpose to do away with
the torture of the accused and use of force against him by the
police.
59. In Bullu Das Vs. State of Bihar, since reported in
(1998) 8 SCC 130, while dealing with the confessional statements
made by the accused persons before a police officer, the Supreme
Court held as under:
"7. The confessional statement, Ex. 5, stated to
have been made by the appellant was before the
police officer in charge of the Godda Town
Police Station where the offence was registered
in respect of the murder of Kusum Devi. The FIR
was registered at the police station on 8-8-1995
at about 12.30 p.m. On 9-8-1995, it was after the
appellant was arrested and brought before
Rakesh Kumar that he recorded the confessional
statement of the appellant. Surprisingly, no
objection was taken by the defence for admitting
it in evidence. The trial court also did not
consider whether such a confessional statement
is admissible in evidence or not. The High Court
has also not considered this aspect. The
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
confessional statement was clearly inadmissible
as it was made by an accused before a police
officer after the investigation had started."
60. Notwithstanding the aforesaid provisions of the
Indian Evidence Act coupled with the ratio laid down by the
Supreme Court in Bullu Das (Supra) and the objections raised by
the defence during trial, the Trial Court erroneously relied upon
the confession made by the accused Balwant Singh for arriving at
a conclusion of guilt against the appellants.
61. Apart from the immediate presence of a Magistrate
prescribed under Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, Section
27 provides another situation when confession made to the police
would be admissible in evidence.
62. According to Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,
when a statement made by the accused leads to discovery of a fact
in relation to the offence then it may be proved.
63. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under:
"27- How much of information received from
accused may be proved-provided that, when any
fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence
of information received from a person accused of
any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so
much of such information, whether it amounts to
a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the
fact thereby discovered, may be proved".
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
64. In Pulukuri Kottaya Vs. Emperor, since reported in
AIR 1947 PC 67, the Privy Council explained the ambit and scope
of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act as under:
"It is fallacious to treat the 'fact discovered'
within the section as equivalent to the object
produced; the fact discovered embraces the place
from which the object is produced and the
knowledge of the accused as to this, and the
information given must relate distinctly to this
fact. Information as to past user, or the past
history, of the object produced is not related to
its discovery in the setting in which it is
discovered. Information supplied by a person in
custody that 'I will produce a knife concealed in
the roof of my house' does not lead to the
discovery of a knife; knives were discovered
many years ago. It leads to the discovery of the
fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the
informant to his knowledge, and if the knife is
proved to have been used in the commission of
the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant.
But if to the statement the words be added 'with
which I stabbed A' these words are inadmissible
since they do not relate to the discovery of the
knife in the house of the informant."
65. In Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan, since reported
in (2004) 10 SCC 657, the Supreme Court observed as under:
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
"14. The expression "provided that"
together with the phrase "whether it amounts to
a confession or not" shows that the section is in
the nature of an exception to the preceding
provisions particularly Sections 25 and 26. It is
not necessary in this case to consider if this
section qualifies, to any extent, Section 24, also.
It will be seen that the first condition necessary
for bringing this section into operation is the
discovery of a fact, albeit a relevant fact, in
consequence of the information received from a
person accused of an offence. The second is that
the discovery of such fact must be deposed to.
The third is that at the time of the receipt of the
information the accused must be in police
custody. The last but the most important
condition is that only "so much of the
information" as relates distinctly to the fact
thereby discovered is admissible. The rest of the
information has to be excluded. The word
"distinctly" means "directly", "indubitably",
"strictly", "unmistakably". The word has been
advisedly used to limit and define the scope of
the provable information. The phrase
"distinctly" relates "to the fact thereby
discovered" and is the linchpin of the provision.
This phrase refers to that part of the information
supplied by the accused which is the direct and
immediate cause of the discovery. The reason
behind this partial lifting of the ban against
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
confessions and statements made to the police, is
that if a fact is actually discovered in
consequence of information given by the
accused, it affords some guarantee of truth of
that part, and that part only, of the information
which was the clear, immediate and proximate
cause of the discovery. No such guarantee or
assurance attaches to the rest of the statement
which may be indirectly or remotely related to
the fact discovered."
66. In Geejaganda Somaiah v. State of Karnataka, since
reported in (2007) 9 SCC 315, the Supreme Court observed as
under:
"22. As the section is alleged to be frequently
misused by the police, the courts are required to
be vigilant about its application. The court must
ensure the credibility of evidence by police
because this provision is vulnerable to abuse. It
does not, however, mean that any statement made
in terms of the aforesaid section should be seen
with suspicion and it cannot be discarded only on
the ground that it was made to a police officer
during investigation. The court has to be
cautious that no effort is made by the prosecution
to make out a statement of the accused with a
simple case of recovery as a case of discovery of
fact in order to attract the provisions of Section
27 of the Evidence Act."
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
67. In the instant case, since no fact was actually
discovered in consequence of the information given by the
accused Balwant Singh while he was in police custody after being
taken on police remand from the court, partial lifting of ban
against the confession and the statement made to the police as
provided under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was not at
all available.
68. Coming back to the evidence of Kamlesh Rai (P.W.2)
and Sheo Raj Rai (P.W.4), I find that they have stated that they
sustained injury while trying to stop the bike of the miscreants,
neither any injury report has been filed by them nor the
compounder nor the doctor, who examined them was made a
prosecution witness.
69. So far as Deosharan Rai (P.W.1) is concerned, he has
stated in his evidence that he himself saw Balwant Singh and
Chhotu Kumar Singh taking away the victim. He stated that he
had given his statement before the police in this regard, but the
investigating officer Umesh Kumar Das (P.W.7) has categorically
stated in his deposition that P.W.1 had stated before him that he
learnt about the occurrence from Sheo Raj Rai (P.W.4) and he did
not see the incident of kidnapping himself.
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
70. Similarly, Vijendra Rai (P.W.3) has tried to be a
witness to the occurrence, but P.W.7 has admitted in cross-
examination that he had stated before him that he had gone at the
embankment after hearing commotion.
71. As seen above, the Trial Court has convicted the
appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 366-A, 376-
D and 302 of the IPC. On scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.2 and
P.W.4, I find that they have deposed that they heard that the victim
girl was screaming for help meaning thereby she was not induced
as per the prosecution case. Therefore, charge under Section 366-
A of the IPC does not stand.
72. In so far as the charge under Section 376-D is
concerned, the case of the prosecution is that the appellants gang
raped the deceased. Admittedly, there is no witness to the offence
of gang rape. Dr. Madhu Bala Sinha (P.W.5) and Dr. Absar Ahmad
(P.W.6), who were members of the medical team conducting the
post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased have not
stated anything in their evidence to corroborate the fact that prior
to death the victim was subjected to rape.
73. Dr. Madhu Bala Sinha (P.W.5) has stated in her
evidence that she had taken vaginal swab and sent it for
pathological examination. The report of the vaginal swab, which
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
was necessary to ascertain as to whether the deceased was
subjected to rape or not has not been brought on record. In
absence of any witness to the incident of rape and in the absence
of any corroborative medical evidence, by no stretch of
imagination it can be said that the prosecution has been able to
prove the charge under Section 376-D of the IPC beyond shadow
of reasonable doubt.
74. In so far as Section 302 of the IPC is concerned, as
per the evidence of the first investigating officer, Umesh Kumar
Das (P.W.7), the inquest report was prepared before sending the
body of the deceased for autopsy. The same has not been brought
on record. As per the evidence of P.W.7, the appellant Balwant
Singh was arrested from his house on 05.02.2018 and, on the same
day at 9:50 PM, his defence statement was taken on the basis of
which the body of the deceased was recovered from the mustard
field of Jugal Mahto. The said statement of the appellant Balwant
Singh was not recorded by the police. It was due to this reason
that eleven days after the autopsy on the body of the deceased on
17.02.2018, an application for police remand of the appellant
Balwant Singh was filed in the court and, after taking him on
police remand, his confessional statement (Exhibit-5) was
recorded on 18.02.2018.
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
75. If the appellant Balwant Singh had given his
statement, which led to recovery of the body of the deceased, that
statement should not have been suppressed by the prosecution.
Furthermore, there would have been no need to record the
statement of the appellant again on 18.02.2018. The inquest report
also ought to have been brought on record. Since the investigating
officer stated that the body was identified by the local Chowkidar
and Dafadar, they ought to have been examined to corroborate the
fact that the appellant Balwant Singh was accompanying the
police at the time of recovery of the body of the deceased.
76. The withholdment of the inquest report, non-
examination of the Chowkidar and Dafadar and the withholdment
of the alleged confessional statement of the appellant Balwant
Singh apparently shows that after recovery of the dead body of the
victim, the police recorded the confession of the appellant
Balwant Singh on 18.02.2018. Hence, it is not a case of
confession leading to recovery and possibly that is the reason that
the police never bothered to inspect the marriage hall at Semra,
which was the place where the occurrence of murder and gang
rape allegedly took place.
77. In view of the inordinate and unexplained delay in
lodging the FIR, the casual manner in which the investigation was
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
carried out, the investigating officer did not inspect the place of
occurrence where the victim was allegedly gang raped and killed,
the inadmissibility of confessional statement of the appellant
Balwant Singh, the glaring inconsistencies in the evidence of
witnesses examined during trial and the contradictions taken from
the investigating officer, I am of the opinion that the prosecution
has not been able to prove the charge under Section 302 of the IPC
against the appellants beyond shadow of reasonable doubt.
78. Thus, on consideration of the entire evidence, I find
that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt against the appellants.
79. For the aforesaid reasons, these appeals are allowed.
The impugned judgment of conviction dated 28.08.2019 and the
consequent order of sentence dated 06.09.2019 passed by the
learned 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special
Judge, POCSO Act, Bhojpur at Ara in POCSO Case No. 2 of 2018
arising out of Barahara P.S. Case No. 43 of 2018 are set side.
80. The appellants, namely, Balwant Singh and Anant
Pandey are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They
shall be released from the jail forthwith unless they are required in
any other case.
Patna High Court D. REF. No. 4 of 2019 dt.23-07-2021
81. Since, I have allowed the appeals and set aside the
impugned judgment of conviction and the consequent order of
sentence passed by the Trial Court, the reference made by the Trial
Court for confirmation of death sentence vide Death Reference
No. 4 of 2019 is, hereby, rejected.
82. Before parting with the death reference and these
appeals, I would record my appreciation for the able assistance
rendered by the learned amicus curiae.
83. The Patna High Court, Legal Services Committee is,
hereby, directed to pay Rs. 7500/- to Mr. Amish Kumar, learned
amicus curiae in Death Reference Case No. 4 of 2019 as a
consolidated fee or the services rendered by him.
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)
Arvind Srivastava,J.: I agree.
( Arvind Srivastava, J)
Pradeep/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 25.06.2021
Uploading Date 24.07.2021
Transmission Date 24.07.2021
