1 2025:CGHC:6029-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 665 of 2019 Karanrati @ Kadi S/o Govind Rati Aged About 28 Years R/o Akash Nagar, Rajiv Gandhi Ward No.33, Gupta Kirana Store, Police Station Bodhghat, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh ...Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Keshkal, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms.Savita Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ 3/2/2025 1. This criminal appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.02.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon in Sessions Case No.148/2014, whereby the appellant has been convicted BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.02.06 10:26:55 +0530 2 for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on 4.7.2014 at about 7-8 A.M. Sanjay Baghel (PW-1) went for a walk in village Batrali main road N.H.30, then he found a dead body on the gravel on the side of main road. Looking to the scene of the incident, it seemed as if the dead body had been dragged from the road and thrown on the side. A mobile was also lying near the dead body. Sanjay Baghel (PW-1) contacted on the mobile and came to know the dead body was of Ravi Sona, resident of Jagdalpur. On this Sanjay Baghel (PW-1) informed the Police Station Keshkal, then Sanjay Baghel was called in Police Station Keshkal. Sanjay Baghel lodged a death report of an unknown person in the Police Station Keshkal. Further case of the prosecution is that Head Constable Omprakash Nareti (PW-13) went to the scene of crime, inspected the dead body, prepared the body panchnama in the presence of witnesses. Dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem to the Primary Health Center, Dhanora where Dr.Anand Kapse conducted postmortem over the body of the deceased vide Ex.P-27 and found following injuries:- i. Head injury due to fracture of skull over parietal and occipital and brain come out and but no any other bone 3 injury indicate that skull fracture in manipulated crushed injury and postmortem injury. ii. Abrasion on left deltoid (shoulder) and left side chest wall area due to dragging of body. Postmortem injuries. The doctor has opined that cause of death is asphyxia due to strangulation on the basis of bleeding from nose, mouth open. Fracture on skull and head which was caused due to pressing by heavy object. Nature of death is homicidal. Merg intimation was registered vide Ex.P-1. Inquest over the body of the deceased was prepared vide Ex.P-3. One mobile lying on the spot, bloodstained and plain soil were recovered from the spot vide Ex.P-4. Spot map was prepared by the Head Constable Omprakash Nareti (PW-13) vide Ex.P-5. The statement of Sirmotin was recorded vide Ex.P-6. T-shirt and pant were seized vide Ex.P-7. Memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded vide Ex.P-8 and on the basis of his memorandum statement, one jute rope was seized vide Ex.P-9. Truck with other documents were seized vide Ex.P-10. Also seized bloodstained jeans and full shirt worn by the appellant at the time of incident vide Ex.P-12. Blood was extracted from the accused by scratching the truck. Driving license of the accused produced by truck owner Shitla Prasad Gupta was seized vide Ex.P-14 and thereafter FIR (Ex.P-15) was registered vide Ex.P- 15 for offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC against 4 the appellant. The appellant was arrested on 12.07.2014 vide arrest memo (Ex.P-16). Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report (Ex.P-24), blood was found on Article A (soil), Article C (full shirt seized from the deceased), Article D (pant seized from the deceased), Article F (full pant seized from the appellant), Article G (full shirt seized from the appellant) and Articles H & I (bloodstained extracted from truck) and as per FSL report (Ex.P-29), human blood was found on full shirt (Article C) seized from the deceased and full pant (Article F) seized from the appellant. 3. After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences in which he abjured the guilt and entered into defence stating inter-alia that he has not committed any offence and he has falsely been implicated in crime in question. 4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 34 documents Exs.P-1 to P-34. The defence did not examine any witness nor did it lead any documentary evidence. 5. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 20.02.2019, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned, against which, this criminal appeal has been preferred. 6. Ms.Savita Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that in Ex.P-1 which 5 was prepared on 4.7.2014 and in Ex.P-2, Ex.P-3 the name of the deceased was mentioned and even in Ex.P-13 the name of the deceased was reflected, so prima facie it has to be established by the prosecution how the prosecution know about the identity of the deceased and there is no evidence adduced in this regard by the prosecution. Learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the memorandum and seizure witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. So, the warrant of conviction of the appellant is bad in law. She further submits that learned trial Court failed to appreciate that there was specific defence taken by the appellant that when he was going in the truck, the person travelling in a truck looted the mobile and Rs.1000/- and he ran away, despite of that the adverse inference was taken against the appellant. Learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the blood sample was sent to FSL for examining the same, in which in Articles C & F human blood was found, but the identity of the blood group was not known, so until or unless it has been established that the blood which was found on shirt and pant of the appellant is of the group of the deceased, the conviction of the appellant on the basis of presumption is bad in law and same is liable to be set aside. She also submits that witness of Ex.P-12 Mahendra (PW-4) and Bisesar (PW-5) have not supported that seizure of bloodstained abrasion from silencer and clothes of the appellant. From the clothes of the appellant in FSL report (Ex.P-29), blood was 6 found, but seizure witnesses have not supported that seizure. As per Shital Prasad (PW-7), the appellant was arrested on the same day, i.e. 4.7.2014 at Mana Police Station but the Investigating Officer B.R.Mandavi stated that on 12.07.2014 at about 3.20 the appellant was arrested near Keshkal bus stand. She contended that learned trial Court itself held in paras 13, 14 and 18 of the impugned judgment that how the name of the deceased mentioned in merg (Ex.P-1), it was lodged about 2 P.M., before the merg (Ex.P-2), summons of 175 of CrPC, Ex.P- 3 enquiry report (Ex.P-30) and application of postmortem report. In all documents the name of Ravi Sona came, how the name of the deceased came in all documents. Only jute rope has been seized from the appellant, but the doctor stated that he examined nariyal rope and not jute rope. Seizure witness Bisesar (PW-5) has stated that jute rope was seized, but B.R.Mandavi admitted that he seized rope which was not jute rope, As such, the chain of all circumstance is not completed and the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed. She relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matters of Harishchandra Ladake Thange v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 11 SCC 436, Nagaraj v. State represented by Inspector of Police, Salem Town, Tamil Nadu, 2015 2 SCC (Crl.) 724 and the judgment of this Court in the matter of Sanjay Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh) (CRA No.976/2014). 7 7. On the other hand, Mr.Vivek Mishra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State submits that the conviction of the appellant / accused is based on evidence of last seen together and circumstantial evidence. The prosecution during investigation recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses in which they have categorically deposed in their statements regarding conduct and commission of offence by the accused / appellant, which is concurrent evidence against the accused / appellant and thus, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused / appellant. Therefore, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. He further submits that learned trial Court has come to the conclusion regarding involvement of the accused / appellant in the crime in question under the concluding paras of the judgment in which the the learned trial Court has observed all incriminating circumstances against the accused / appellant, which connect him with the instant crime and chain of circumstances are fully linked and completed with each other. Thus, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the judgment of the trial Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court and as such, criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8 9. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased Ravi Sona was homicidal in nature ? 10. The trial Court relying upon the statements of Dr.Anand Kapse (PW-10), who has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Ravi Sona vide Ex.P-27, has clearly come to the conclusion that death of deceased Ravi Sona was homicidal in nature. 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 appellants. We hereby affirm the said finding. 11. It is the case of no direct evidence, rather conviction is based on circumstantial evidence. 12. We may also make a reference to a decision of the Supreme Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P., (1996) 10 SCC 193, wherein it has been observed thus: “In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence....”. 9 13. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 79, it was laid down by the Supreme Court that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests: “(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.” 14. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl.LJ 1104), it was pointed out by the Supreme Court that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the 10 facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. 15. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book “Wills’ Circumstantial Evidence” (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence: (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted”. 16. Five golden principles which constitute Panchseel of proof of case based on circumstantial evidence have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 which state as under :- “(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The 11 circumstances concerned “must” or “should” and not “may be” established; (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 17. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Others vs. State of Gujarat Etc., AIR 2020 SC 180 observed that in a case of circumstantial evidence, law postulates two-fold requirements. Firstly, that every link in the chain of circumstances necessary to establish the guilt of the accused must be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and secondly, all the circumstances must be consistent pointing out only towards the guilt of the accused. We need not burden this judgment by referring to other judgments as the above principles have been consistently followed and approved by this Court time and again. 12 18. The Supreme Court in the matter of Suresh and Another v State of Haryana, (2018) 18 SCC 654 has observed that cases of circumstantial evidence, the courts are called upon to make inferences from the available evidence, which may lead to the accused's guilt. The court at paras 41 and 42 has observed thus : “41. The aforesaid tests are aptly referred as Panchsheel of proof in Circumstantial Cases (refer to Prakash v. State of Rajasthan). The expectation is that the prosecution case should reflect careful portrayal of the factual circumstances and inferences thereof and their compatibility with a singular hypothesis wherein all the intermediate facts and the case itself are proved beyond reasonable doubt. 42. Circumstantial evidence are those facts, which the court may infer further. There is a stark contrast between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. In cases of circumstantial evidence, the courts are called upon to make inferences from the available evidence, which may lead to the accused's guilt. In majority of cases, the inference of guilt is usually drawn by establishing the case from its initiation to the point of commission wherein each factual link is ultimately based on evidence of a fact or an inference thereof. Therefore, the courts have to identify the facts in the first place so as to fit the case within the parameters of “chain link theory” and then see whether the case is made out beyond reasonable doubt. In India we have for a long time followed the “chain link theory” since Hanumant case, which of course needs to be followed herein also.” 13 19. In the present case, the prosecution has proved the following circumstantial evidence against the appellant:- (i) The accused in his memorandum statement (Ex.P-8) has stated that on 3.7.2014 he was coming from Jagdalpur to Raipur with helper Ravi Sona, he drank liquor and had food at Singhanpur Dhaba and after eating a dispute occurred while going to Raipur near village Betrali with helper regarding the abovementioned things, after beating him he tied rope around his neck and killed by crushing him with the wheel of the truck. After the murder, he ran away to Raipur after dragging the body from the main road and dumping it near cycle stores and mud pile. (ii) Dr.Anand Kapse (PW-10) who conducted postmortem has opined that cause of death is asphyxia due to strangulation on basis of bleeding from nose, mouth. Fracture on skull and head which was caused due to pressing by heavy object and nature of death is homicidal. (iii) On the basis of memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P-8), at his instance jute rope was seized on his production vide Ex.P-9. 14 (iv) In FSL report (Ex.P-29), human blood was found on full shirt (Article C) seized from the deceased and full pant (Article F) seized from the appellant. 20. The next question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court has rightly held that the appellant is author of the crime by relying upon the following circumstances:- (i) Homicidal death was proved by the prosecution as per postmortem report (Ex.P-27) of Dr.Anand Kapse(PW-10) who conducted autopsy. (ii) As per the case of the prosecution, the fact of death of deceased Ravi Sona was within the knowledge of the appellant, however, there was no any explanation given by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC. Thus, burden of proof was on the appellant to explain such circumstance, which he failed to explain. 21. It can thus clearly be seen that it is necessary for the prosecution that the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The Court holds that it is a primary principle that the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ proved guilty before a court can convict the accused. It has been held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’. It has been held that the facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of 15 the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. It has further been held that the circumstances should be such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. It has been held that there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused. 22. It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 23. In the present case, the trial Court has found proved the theory of last seen together. It is trite law that a conviction cannot be recorded against the accused merely on the ground that the accused was last seen with the deceased. In other words, a conviction cannot be based on the only circumstance of last seen together. The conduct of the accused and the fact of last seen together plus other circumstances have to be looked into. Normally, last seen theory comes into play when the time gap, between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead, is so small that the possibility of any person other than the 16 accused being the perpetrator of the crime becomes impossible. It will be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. However, if the prosecution, on the basis of reliable evidence, establishes that the missing person was seen in the company of the accused and was never seen thereafter, it is obligatory on the part of the accused to explain the circumstances in which the missing person and the accused parted company. [See Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 5 SCC 509]. 24. The prosecution has examined Inder Sona (PW-2) and Jamuna Sona (PW-6) as witnesses of last seen. Inder Sona (PW-2) (father of the deceased) has stated that the appellant is a truck driver. Ravi was a helper in the appellant’s truck. The appellant used to drive a truck of Shitla Gupta from Bastar Jagdalpur, it was about one and a half years ago, it was around 3 P.M., he was at his home. Ravi was also at home when the appellant came and took Ravi with him in his truck for work. The next day at about 3 P.M. Shitla Gupta came to their house and told them that there was a fight between the driver and the helper. The driver and his son Ravi both are in Keshkal Police Station, come with him, he will get them released. The same day he came to Keshkal Police Station with Shitla Gupta. Then the 17 police asked him to identify the dead body. He identified the dead body kept in Keshkal Hospital as his son Ravi Sona. 25. Smt.Jamuna Sona (PW-6) (mother of the deceased) has stated in para 1 of her evidence that on 3.7.2014 the appellant came to their house and told Ravi that he has taken Shitla Prasad Gupta‘s truck, come with him for conductorship and he will give him Rs.2500/- per month. Ravi and they agreed to this. Then the next day the appellant took Ravi with him. The next day Shitla Gupta came to their house and told that driver Karanrati and helper Ravi had a fight at the Dhaba. Both the driver and her son Ravi are in Keshkal Police Station, come with them, he will get them released. On the same day, she and her husband Inder came to Keshkal Police Station with Shitla Gupta, there the police asked them to identify the dead body. Then both she and her husband Inder went to Keshkal hospital with the police and there they identified the dead body. 26. In the light of these guiding principles, we will have to examine the present case. 27. On a perusal of the judgment of the Trial Judge, it would reveal that the main circumstance on which the Trial Judge found the appellant guilty of the crime is the recovery of various articles at his instance. The Trial Judge has further found that on the basis of memorandum statement of the appellant, jute rope has been seized vide Ex.P-9 in his instance. 18 28. The motive attributed to the appellant by the prosecution is that he was coming from Jagdalpur to Raipur with helper Ravi Sona, he drank liquor and had food at Singhanpur Dhaba and after eating a dispute occurred while going to Raipur near village Betrali with helper regarding the abovementioned things, after beating him he tied rope around his neck and killed by crushing him under the wheels of the truck. After the murder, the appellant ran away to Raipur after dragging the body from the main road and dumping it near cycle stores and mud pile. 29. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which states 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.” 30. ObjeSection 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is applicable only if the confessional statement relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered. 31. The Supreme Court in the matter of Perumal Raja alias Perumal v. State, Rep. By Inspector of Police, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 12 has defined the ‘custody’. It held that the expression “custody” under Section 27 of the Evidence Act does not mean formal custody. It includes any kind of restriction, restraint or even surveillance by the police. Even if 19 the accused was not formally arrested at the time of giving information, the accused ought to be deemed, for all practical purposes, in the custody of the police. 32. The Supreme Court in the matter of Boby v State of Kerala, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 50 held that the basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered as a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. The information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature but if it results in discovery of a fact, it becomes a reliable information. Section 27 puts a bar to use the confessional statement, but the fact that discovery and information which proved to reliable would be a circumstantial evidence. 33. After considering all the above prove facts and circumstances, the prosecution has proved the following circumstantial facts beyond doubt:- I. On 3.7.2014 at 3 P.M. the appellant took deceased Ravi Sona to work in his truck. That is, the deceased was last seen with the appellant. II. On the second day, dated 4.7.2014 in the morning, body of Ravi was found near mud pile near the house of Smt.Sirmotin (PW-3) on Batrali Keshkal 20 road, near which the mobile phone of the appellant was lying. III. According to the doctor’s report, the nature of Ravi Sona’ death was homicidal. It is also clear from the doctor’s report that after Ravi Sona’s death by strangulation/suffocation, his head and skull bones were broken by pressing them with a heavy object (truck). IV. Truck No. CG 17 H 3945 was recovered from the possession of the appellant after the incident, blood was found on its tank, silencer, rear wheel and human blood was found on the clothes of the appellant and the clothes of the deceased after the incident. V. The appellant fled after the incident, but was caught by the police. VI. No defence story of the appellant is established. There is no satisfactory explanation from the appellant as to how Ravi Sona died. 34. Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid circumstantial evidence, this Court finds only one fact proved that the appellant committed culpable homicide on the death of Ravi Sona by hitting him and crushing him under the truck. 35. As far as the question of the appellant causing the murder of Ravi Sona is concerned, there is no direct motive for committing the crime, but the appellant caused the death of Ravi Sona by suffocating/strangulating him and then crushed his head under the wheels of the truck, this fact proves that the appellant had the intention to cause death of Ravi Sona and the bodily injury 21 caused by him was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Therefore, the Court also finds it proved that the appellant has caused murder of Ravi Sona. 36. Applying the aforesaid well settled principles of law and taking into the facts in totality and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered view the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Learned trial Court has observed all incriminating circumstances against the appellant, which connect him with the instant crime and chain of circumstances are fully linked and completed with each other. Thus, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the judgment of the trial Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is just and proper warranting no interference of this Court. As such, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants i.e. Harishchandra Ladake Thange (supra), Nagaraj (supra) and Sanjay Rathore (supra) are distinguishable to the facts of the present case. 37. In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 38. It is stated at the Bar that the the appellant is in jail, he shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court. 22 39. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. 40. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is 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/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu