1 2025:CGHC:22808-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 399 of 2021 Damru Ram Mourya S/o Late Shri Samu Ram Mourya, aged about 25 years Caste Muriya, Occupation Agriculture and Driving R/o Village Kumhali, Chihlaguda Para Police Station Badanji, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate Bastar, District Bastar at Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent ________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Ms. Savita Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 10 .0 6 .202 5 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.01.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bastar, District – Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 55/2019, by which the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26/07/2019 at around 5.00 pm, the daughter of the complainant Jadunath, deceased Janmati, went to take water with her sister Tame alias Tameswari from the boring situated in village Kumhali Chihalaguda. At the same time, the accused Damru Ram Maurya of the village came near the boring and started stopping Janmati. Then as soon as Janmati filled water in the pot and started walking on the road, the accused Damru came holding an iron axe (tangiya) in his hand and attacked Janmati's head and neck with the sharp part of the tangiya, due to which Janmati and Tame started screaming and Janmati fell unconscious, on which the complainant Jadunath rushed there and the accused Damru was running away with tangiya. After some time, Janmati died. After the incident, the complainant Jadunath informed the police station Badanji about the incident, on which a merg intimation No. 14/2019 was registered vide Ex.P/21 in the police station Badanji on 26/07/2019 by Head Constable Jagat Singh Thakur and on the basis of that, on 26/07/2019, FIR Exhibit P-20 was registered and Crime No. 34/2019 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered, which was registered by Inspector Bhanupratap Sao at Badanji Police Station. During the investigation, Inspector Bhanupratap Sao after summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P-7, prepared the inquest over the dead body of deceased Janmati 3 vide Ex.P.-7 and thereafter body of the deceased Janmati for post-mortem along with application form Ex.P.-17 was sent to Community Health Center, Lohandiguda through Constable No. 874 Ramesh Kawade, wherein Dr. N.S. Nag examined the body of the deceased Janmati on 27/07/2019 and found following injuries :- (i) Incised wound on the neck of 2 x ½ x ½ inch in size with blood-stained. (ii) Multiple incised wounds on the occipital region of skull of 2½ x ½ x 1 inch, 2 x ½ x 1 inch and 2½ x ½ x ½ inch in size with blood-stained. (iii) Incised wound on back of the body of 2 x ½ x 1 inch in size with blood-stained and all the injuries were antemortem in nature and caused by sharp object. 3. Dr. N.S. Nag (PW-11), after conducting the postmortem of the deceased Janmati had given the opinion that cause of death of the deceased was internal / external hemorrhagic shock due to head injuries and it was homicidal in nature and occurred between 12 to 24 hours before the postmortem. His postmortem report is Ex.P-18. Dead body of the deceased was handed over to her father Jadunath vide Ex.P-3. 4. During the course of investigation, Inspector Bhanupratap Sao 4 recorded the memorandum statement of the accused Ex.P.-11 in front of two witnesses on 27/07/2019 and seized an iron tangia, a wooden bent and prepared seizure memo Ex.P.-12. He arrested the accused in front of witnesses and prepared arrest memo Ex.P.-22 and informed to the accused's brother Dinesh Maurya vide Ex.P.-23. Police statements of Kumari Tameshri Kashyap alias Tame, Chamaru Ram, Suduram Baghel, Smt. Sukamani, Jadulal Maurya were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and on 5/6/2019, application Exhibit P-26 was given before Chief Judicial Magistrate Jagdalpur for recording the statement of Kumari Tameshri alias Tame under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On 04/08/2019, Tahrir Ex.P-24 was sent to Tehsildar Lohandiguda for providing Patwari map of the place of incident, on which Patwari Sameesh Kumar Nagesh prepared Nazri map Ex.P-4 and Panchnama Ex.P-5 in front of witnesses and gave report Ex.P-14 to Tehsildar. 5. 5. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet against the accused was presented before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagdalpur, on which the case was submitted under Section 209 of CrPC and sent to the Sessions Court for trial, wherein charges under Section 302 of the IPC was framed against the accused. The accused abjured the allegations made against him. In his trial under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, the accused, while expressing his innocence and being falsely implicated, has not made any witness stand in defense. 6. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as 5 many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 30 documents in support of its case. The defence has neither examined any witnesses nor has exhibited any document. 7. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record and considering that it is the appellant who has committed the murder deceased Janmati, convicted and sentenced him as aforementioned, against which the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred. 8. Ms. Savita Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the facts and evidence available on record while passing the impugned order. She further argued that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that there are material contradiction and omission in the evidence of the eye-witness Tameshwari examined as PW-2, which cannot be relied upon and the same cannot be made basis for conviction of the appellant. She also submitted that though the learned trial Court held in para 14 of the impugned judgment that the conviction is based on statement of eye-witness, memorandum statement of accused Damru Ram Mourya and seizure evidence, whereas in para 24 of the judgment, the seizure witness, namely, Sudhuram (PW-4) has not supported the case of prosecution regarding the memorandum and seizure proceeding from the accused, therefore, the conviction based on memorandum and seizure from the accused / appellant is baseless and conflicting from such evidence. She 6 next submitted that as per the record the seizure of tangia has been made on 27.07.2019 and the same has sent to the Doctor on 19.08.2019, but the prosecution has failed to produce any document showing that during the said period whether the tangia has been kept in s sealed condition or not, as such, the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is suspicious in nature and same is not safe for placing reliance that too for conviction of the appellant for commission of heinous offence of murder, therefore, the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State, supports the impugned judgment and contended that the appellant / accused has caused fatal injuries to the deceased on her vital part with sharp edged part of the axe with an intention to kill her, due to which she sustained grievous injuries and succumbed at the spot and the said incident was witnessed by the eye-witness Tameshwari (PW-2), who is present along with the deceased on the spot at the time of incident. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts by way of evidence. He further submits that looking to the seriousness of crime, the appellant is not at all entitled for any sympathy by this Court, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the original records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 7 11. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have to examine the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 12. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased Janmati was homicidal in nature ? 13. The trial Court, relying upon the statement of Dr. N.S. Nag (PW- 11), who has conducted postmortem over the body of deceased Janmati and given his report vide Ex.P-18, wherein he has given the opinion that cause of death of the deceased was internal / external hemorrhagic shock due to head injuries and it was homicidal in nature and occurred between 12 to 24 hours before the postmortem. The said finding recorded by the trial Court is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record. Even otherwise, it has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. We hereby affirm the said finding. 14. Now, the question for consideration would be whether the death of the deceased Janmati occurred as a result of the injury caused by the accused by hitting her head and neck with an iron rod? 15. The prosecution case is based on eyewitness evidence, memorandum of accused Damru Ram Maurya and seizure evidence. In this regard, the prosecution has recorded the statement of eyewitness Ku. Tameshwari as PW-2, who has 8 clearly stated in her evidence that she knows the accused Damru Ram Maurya, who lives in her village and she knew the deceased Janmati, who was her sister and her sister was murdered by Damru Ram Maurya and Jadunath Maurya is her elder father. She stated that she and her sister Janmati went to a boring situated a little distance from the house to fill water at 5-5.30 pm on the evening of the incident date 26/07/2019. The accused was standing there at a distance and on seeing those people, the accused standing nearby went to his house and came back with an axe (tangia) and when they were going towards home after filling water, then near the tamarind tree, the accused Damru Ram Maurya came towards them and hit her sister Janmati on the neck, head and shoulder with the tangia due to which her sister Janmati fell there, then she ran towards the house. Her elder father first came out of the house and came to the place of incident, after that her mother Jamni Kashyap and father Chamru Ram came to the place of incident and at the same time his sister Janmati died at the place of incident. Other people of the village also came to the place of incident and as she was very scared after seeing the incident, she went home. Later her elder father and those people went to the police to write a report regarding the incident where the police of Badanji police station registered a rural intimation Ex.P-1 on being informed about the incident, part of which is signed by her. She further stated that accused Damru Ram attacked Janmati four to five times with a tangia due to 9 which she got injured and died on the spot. This witness also stated that she has seen the entire incident. 16. This eyewitness Ku. Tameshwari (PW-2) has rejected the suggestions given by the defence in cross-examination that she was not present at the scene of the incident at the time of the incident and that she did not see the accused Damru hitting Janmati and that the police did not take her statement regarding the incident and that she ran away home in fear after seeing the tangia, which this witness has said to be false, but she herself has stated that when the accused hit her sister Janmati with the tangia, she thought that he would hit her too later and ran towards the house. The suggestions of the defence that Damru had chased those people with a stone and that she is not telling the correct thing about the incident in the Court and that the Patwari did not come to the village and prepare the map, panchnama of the scene of the incident in front of her, which the witness has said to be false. Thus, this witness has firmly stated in her evidence that she saw the incident taking place and she has clearly told the entire story of the incident during the evidence. She has also stated the above in her statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C. and Section 164 of Cr.P.C., which was not cross examined, hence they are not contradicted and their meaning confirms her said judicial statement, which proves beyond doubt that this witness had seen the incident happen. 17. In this regard, the prosecution has also recorded the statement of 10 another witness of the incident Jadunath as PW-1. He has also stated that he knows accused Damru Ram Maurya and deceased Janmati and that Janmati has died and has stated that deceased Janmati was his daughter, who has been murdered by accused Damru Ram. He stated that on the evening of the incident, his daughter, deceased Janmati, had gone to fetch water from the boring. The boring is at a little distance from his house, at that time he was in the house from where the boring is visible. Another girl from the village, Tameshwari, had also gone to fetch water with his daughter. He stated that after some time, Tameshwari screamed, then he came out of the house and saw that Damru was hitting his daughter with a tangia, then he ran towards the boring, on seeing him, Damru ran away from there and hid somewhere. He stated that when he reached the boring site his daughter was injured, there were marks of tangia wounds on her neck and shoulder and blood was oozing out and his daughter was unable to talk to him and only said that she would not survive and that there were five marks of the tangia attack on the daughter's body. He stated that when the accused Damru hit her daughter with the tangia, Tameshwari was present at the scene of the incident and when he reached the scene of the incident, other people of the village Sampat, Laxman, Lakhu, Kamal etc. also came running. At that time Kotwar Kapoorchand also came to the scene of the incident. They had gone to the police station to lodge a report. 11 18. The suggestion of the defence to this witness Jadunath (PW-1) that he was not present at the spot at the time of the incident and he did not see the incident with his own eyes and he did not see the accused hitting his daughter with a tangia, Tameshwari had told him about the incident that the accused Damru had hit his daughter with a stone, which this witness has said to be wrong and has himself stated that on hearing Tameshwari's screaming, he came out of the house and saw Damru hitting his daughter Janmati with a tangia. Thus this witness Jadunath (PW-1) has firmly stated in his evidence that his daughter deceased Janmati had gone to fetch water from the boring, the boring is at a little distance from his house and at that time he was in the house from where the boring is visible and along with his daughter another girl of the village Tameshwari had also gone to fetch water and after a while Tameshwari screamed then he came out of the house and saw that Damru was hitting his daughter with a tangia then he ran towards the boring and on seeing him Damru ran away from there and hid somewhere. In this way this witness has also firmly stated about the incident. Thus the statement of this witness corroborates the statement of Ku Tameshwari (PW-2). 19. Similarly, the witness of the incident, Chamru Ram (PW-3) also stated during the examination in chief that he knows the accused Damru Rsm Maurya, who is a resident of his village and also knows the deceased Janmati, who was the daughter of his elder brother who had died and the accused Damru Ram Maurya had 12 murdered Janmati. On the date of the incident at 5 p.m., his daughter Tameswari and Janmati went to a boring situated some distance away from the house to fill water, where the accused Damru Ram Maurya hit Janmati with a tangia and ran away from there. At the time of the incident, he was in his house and on hearing a shout from the boring place, he left the house and ran towards the place of incident. On reaching the place of incident, he saw that Janmati had died and at that time, his elder brother Jadunath, Tameswari were present at the place of incident and at that time other people of the village, Sudu, Kamal, Sukhmati etc. had come to the place of incident and later, to lodge a report regarding the incident, they went to Badanji police station, where, after lodging the report, the police came to the village for investigation proceedings. This witness has stated that when he reached the place of occurrence, he saw that there were five injury marks on Janmati's neck, head and shoulder, caused by hitting with a tangia. 20. This witness Chamru Ram (PW-3) on being suggested by the defence that he had not seen the incident with his own eyes and that he was in the house during the incident and that he had not seen the deceased being beaten by the accused and that the accused had beaten the deceased with a stone, this witness has said to be wrong and he himself has stated that the accused hit the deceased with a tangia. He has said that the suggestion that the police did not take his statement was wrong. But the 13 suggestion of the defence that Lakhu and Kapoorchand of the village were not present at the scene of the incident at the time of the incident was accepted as correct, but his own statement is that both of them came to the scene of the incident with other people after the incident. The suggestion of the defence that the Patwari did not come to the village and prepare the scene map and Panchnama of the scene of the incident in relation to the incident was said to be wrong by this witness and he himself has stated that the Patwari had come to the village and had done the paperwork, then he had signed it. Thus the above statement of this witness Chamru Ram (PW-3) in the main examination remained unbroken in cross-examination during the evidence and he has clearly stated that the accused Damru Ram Maurya hit the deceased Janmati with a tangia and ran away from there. Thus, the incident has been confirmed by this witness also. 21. Another witness of the incident, Smt. Sukamani (PW5) also stated that she knows the accused Damru Ram Maurya who is a resident of her village and the deceased was her daughter who was killed by Damru Ram by hitting her with a tangia. On the date of the incident, she had gone to Lohandiguda market and when she was returning in a pick up vehicle after shopping in the evening and when she was getting down from the vehicle near the village, she met the village Kotwar Kapoorchand and he told her that her daughter Janmati has been murdered by Damru Ram. Kapoorchand also told her that on the date of the incident, her 14 daughter and Tameshwari had gone to fetch water and were returning after fetching water, at that time Damru had attacked her daughter with a tangia due to which her daughter died on the spot. This witness has stated that after hearing the news, she immediately went to the spot and there was a crowd there and the police did not let her go near her daughter's body. Later, she saw her daughter's body, which had injury marks on its head, neck, waist, shoulder and the police had recorded her statement. During cross-examination, the defence's suggestion that the documents she had signed were written after she had signed them, was stated by this witness to be false. Her above statement proves that she reached the crime scene some time after the incident and at that time she came to know that the accused had killed the deceased. Thus, it is clear from the statement of this witness that this witness reached the crime scene some time after the incident and at that time the body of her daughter was lying on the spot and the Kotwar, who is a prominent person of the village, and other people had informed her that the incident was committed by the accused. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of this witness despite her being an interested witness. Thus, the statement of this witness also confirms the statement of Ku. Tameshwari (PW-2), an eyewitness to the case. 22. Similarly, another witness of the incident Kamal Gajbhiye (PW-10) also stated that the accused is a resident of his village and the deceased Kumari Janmati was also a resident of his village and 15 accused Damru has murdered her. Last year in June-July on the date of the incident he had gone to the market of Lohandiguda and in the evening at around 5-6.00 pm he returned from the market to village Kumhali Chihalaguda, then the Kotwar had told him about the incident that Janmati had gone to the boring to fill water which was near Damru's house and at that time Janmati's sister was also with her and when they were returning after filling water, Damru had attacked Janmati from behind with a tangia, due to which Janmati died. This witness stated that after the incident the police came to the spot and after investigation proceedings had done the paperwork and the investigation panchnama Ex.P.-6 and map panchnama Ex.P.-7 are signed by him. Thus, it is clear from the statement of this witness that on the date of the incident, he too was informed by the village Kotwar, who is the head of the village, has given information that the accused killed the deceased by hitting her with a tangia, which confirms the statement of the eyewitness of the incident. Similarly, Suduram (PW-4) has also stated that the accused killed the deceased. 23. In criminal cases, the credibility of witnesses, particularly those who are close relatives of the deceased, is often scrutinized. However, being a relative does not automatically render a witness "interested" or biased. The term "interested" refers to witnesses who have a personal stake in the outcome, such as a desire for revenge or to falsely implicate the accused due to enmity or 16 personal gain. A "related" witness, on the other hand, is someone who may be naturally present at the scene of the crime, and their testimony should not be dismissed simply because of their relationship to the deceased. Courts must assess the reliability, consistency, and coherence of their statements rather than labelling them as untrustworthy. 24. The distinction between "interested" and "related" witnesses has been clarified in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1954 SCR 1453, where the Supreme Court emphasized that a close relative is usually the last person to falsely implicate an innocent person. Therefore, in evaluating the evidence of a related witness, the court should focus on the consistency and credibility of their testimony. This approach ensures that the evidence is not discarded merely due to familial ties, but is instead assessed based on its inherent reliability and consistency with other evidence in the case. 25. Thus, it is clear that the evidence of a “related witness” cannot be discarded only on the ground of relationship. On the contrary, why a “related witness” would spare the real culprit in order to falsely implicate some innocent person? There is a difference between “related witness” and “interested witness”. “Interested witness” is a witness who is vitally interested in conviction of a person due to previous enmity. The “Interested witness” has been defined by the Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Rojali Ali v. State of Assam, reported in (2019) 19 SCC 567 as under : 17 “13. As regards the contention that all the eyewitnesses are close relatives of the deceased, it is by now well- settled that a related witness cannot be said to be an “interested” witness merely by virtue of being a relative of the victim. This Court has elucidated the difference between “interested” and “related” witnesses in a plethora of cases, stating that a witness may be called interested only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation, which in the context of a criminal case would mean that the witness has a direct or indirect interest in seeing the accused punished due to prior enmity or other reasons, and thus has a motive to falsely implicate the accused (for instance, see State of Rajasthan v. Kalki; Amit v. State of U.P.; and Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy). Recently, this difference was reiterated in Ganapathi v. State of T.N., in the following terms, by referring to the three-Judge Bench decision in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki: (Ganapathi case, SCC p. 555, para 14) “14. “Related” is not equivalent to “interested”. A witness may be called “interested” only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eyewitness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be “interested”.” 14. In criminal cases, it is often the case that the offence is witnessed by a close relative of the victim, whose presence on the scene of the offence would be natural. The evidence of such a witness cannot automatically be discarded by labelling the witness as interested. Indeed, one of the earliest statements with respect to interested 18 witnesses in criminal cases was made by this Court in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, wherein this Court observed: (AIR p. 366, para 26) “26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person.” 15. In case of a related witness, the Court may not treat his or her testimony as inherently tainted, and needs to ensure only that the evidence is inherently reliable, probable, cogent and consistent. We may refer to the observations of this Court in Jayabalan v. State (UT of Pondicherry): (SCC p. 213, para 23) “23. We are of the considered view that in cases where the court is called upon to deal with the evidence of the interested witnesses, the approach of the court, while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses must not be pedantic. The court must be cautious in appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the interested witnesses but the court must not be suspicious of such evidence. The primary endeavour of the court must be to look for consistency. The evidence of a witness cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from the mouth of a person who is closely related to the victim.” 26. Though the eyewitness Ku. Tameshwari (PW-2), Jadunath (PW-1), Chamru Ram (PW-3) and Smt. Sukmani (PW-5), who 19 have been examined in the present case were closely related to the deceased, but their testimonies are consistent with respect to the accused being the assailant who inflicted wounds on the deceased. As is revealed from the sequence of events that transpired, one of the family members was subjected to an assault. It was thus quite natural for other family members to rush on the spot to intervene. The presence of the family members on the spot and thus being eyewitness has been well established. In such circumstances, merely because the eyewitness is family member, their testimonies cannot be discarded solely on that ground. 27. Bhanupratap Sahu (PW-12), who was posted as Inspector at Police Station Lohandiguda at the time of the incident, has stated in his evidence that on 27.07.2019 he had taken the statement memorandum of the accused as Ex.P-11 and the tangia used in the murder of the deceased as per the statement of the accused was seized from the bank of Indravati river one kilometer away from village Kumhali when the accused produced it as per seizure memo Ex.P-12. Thus, his signature is on all parts of Ex.P-11 and also on all parts of Ex.P-12. Though, the witness of both the above proceedings, PW-4 Suduram, has not supported the statement of this witness, who has been declared hostile by the prosecution, but PW-10 Kamal Gajbhiye has given the statement confirming the above statement made by Bhanupratap Sao (PW-12), he has firmly and clearly stated that he has carried out 20 the proceedings of Ex.P-11 and Ex.P-12 in front of him. Hence, merely because witness Suduram (PW-4) has not confirmed the said proceedings, his statement regarding the said proceedings carried out by Bhanupratap Sao (PW-12) cannot be disbelieved. 28. Considering the statements of the eyewitness Ku. Tameshwari (PW-2), Jadunath (PW-1), Chamru Ram (PW-3), Smt. Sukmani (PW-5), Kamal Gajbhiye (PW-10) and Bhanupratap Sao (PW-12), memorandum of accused Damru Ram Maurya and seizure evidence, further considering the material available on record and also considering the finding recorded by the trial Court, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court. 29. For the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 30. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail since 27.07.2019, he shall serve out the sentence as ordered by learned trial Court. 31. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. 32. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is 21 undergoing his jail term, to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra