1 2025:CGHC:44216-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 139 of 2023 Baldau Kaushik S/o Late Kanhu Kaushik, aged about 49 years R/o Village Lasatola, Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner versus 1 - Dharmu @ Badku S/o Dwarika Kaushik aged about 28 years R/o Village Lasatola, Police Chowki Bazar Charbhatha, Police Station Kawardha District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 2 - Dharam @ Chotku S/o Dwarika Kaushik, aged about 28 Years R/o Village Lasatola, Police Chowki Bazar Charbhatha, Police Station Kawardha District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 3 - Dinesh S/o Dwarika Kuashik, aged about 40 years R/o Village Lasatola, Police Chowki Bazar Charbhatha, Police Station Kawardha District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 4 - State of Chhatisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Chowki, Bazar Charbatha, Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh --- Respondent CRA No. 887 of 2023 Hemant @ Nanu S/o Dwrika Kaushik, aged about 26 years R/o Village Lasatola O.P. Charbhatha, P.S. Kavardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Kavardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For appellants in ACQA No.139/2023 and for Objector in CRA No. 887/2023 : Mr. Devesh Chandra Verma along with Mr. Ankit Singh, Advocate For Appellant in CRA No. 887/2023 : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 01 . 09 .202 5 1. Since both the Criminal Appeal filed on behalf of the accused/appellant as well as Acquittal Appeal filed on behalf of the Complainant/Objector arise out of same judgment, they are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Acquittal Appeal No. 139 of 2023 has been filed on behalf of the Complainant/Objector, challenging the legality, validity and propriety of judgment dated 31.03.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirdham Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No.24/2021, whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent Nos.1 to 3, namely, Dharmu @ Badku, Dharam @ Chotku and Dinesh from the charges under Sections 302/34, 506 Part-II and 294 of the Indian Penal Code ( for short ‘the IPC’). 3. Criminal Appeal No. 887/2023 has been filed by the accused/appellant – Hemant @ Nanu, challenging the legality, validity and propriety of very same judgment dated 31.03.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirdham Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No.24/2021, whereby the learned trial Court while acquitting the accused/appellant - Hemant @ 3 Nanu for the offence punishable under Section 294 & 506 Part – II of IPC, convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him for life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 04 months. 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 09.01.2021, between 8:00 to 9:00 p.m., a village meeting regarding contributions for crop guarding was convened near Atal Chowk, in front of the house of Ramlochan at village Lasatola, where villagers had gathered. In that meeting, one Anil Kaushik was also present. During the meeting, at around 9:00–9:30 p.m., Anil Kaushik, son of Bhaglal Kaushik, came running in a frightened state and informed Bhaglal Kaushik that Hemant alias Nanu Kaushik was assaulting Lukeshwar Kaushik with an iron rod with the intention to kill him, and that Lukeshwar Kaushik was lying fallen on the road near Atal Chowk, bleeding profusely from his head. On receiving this information, Bhaglal Kaushik rushed towards Lukeshwar Kaushik, at which time Badri Kaushik, Uttam Pandey, Rajkumar Dhurve and Baldau Kaushik also arrived. Bhaglal Kaushik then saw Dinesh carrying a hammer, Dharamu Kaushik with a tabbal (axe), Dharam Kaushik with a tangia (axe), and Hemant Kaushik with a rod, going towards their houses. At that moment, Baldau Kaushik questioned them as to why they had killed his son, upon which Dinesh, Dharam, Dharamu, and Hemant hurled obscene abuses and threatened to kill him. It is further alleged that Baldau Kaushik and Dwarika Kaushik are real 4 brothers and there was a dispute between them regarding partition of land. Due to this enmity, the accused persons, with the intention to kill Lukeshwar Kaushik, launched a fatal assault upon him, causing grievous injuries. He was taken to hospital for treatment where he succumbed to the injuries. The incident was witnessed and heard by Sharda Kaushik, Anil Kaushik, Rajkumar Dhurve, Ramnath Kaushik, and other villagers. Based on the report of the complainant, Police Station Kawardha registered First Information Report No. 33/2021 under Sections 294, 506, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon the death of Lukeshwar, Section 302/34 was added. 5. After completion of investigation, the offence was found proved against the accused persons, and charge-sheet was filed under Sections 294, 506, 307/34, and 302 IPC before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kawardha, where it was registered as Criminal Case No. 657/2021. Consequent to the committal order dated 22.03.2021, the case was received on transfer before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirdham through the Sessions Judge, Kabirdham. 6. Upon framing of charges against the accused persons under Sections 302/34, 294, and 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, the accused persons denied the charges and sought trial. Accused Dharamu alias Badku, Dharam alias Chhotku, and Dinesh Kaushik did not adduce any defence evidence. However, Hemant alias Nanu expressed his intention to adduce defence 5 evidence and examined Bisen Kaushik (DW-1) and Kumari Bai (DW-2), who is the mother of the accused persons, in his defence. 7. In order to prove the above charges against the accused, a total of 31 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and 44 (Exs.P-1 to P-44) documents have been exhibited, contrary to which, on behalf of the defence, two defence witnesses have been examined and 07 documents have been marked as Exs.D- 01 to D-07. In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. They further stated that Baldau had assaulted their mother with a tangia with the intention to kill her, for which treatment and a report was lodged at Police Outpost Charbhatha and that they had not assaulted Lukeshwar at all. 8. The learned trial Court after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused / appellant – Hemant @ Nanu as aforementioned other accused, namely, Dharmu @ Badku, Dharam @ Chotku and Dinesh have been acquitted, against which, aforementioned Criminal Appeal and Acquittal Appeal have been filed by the respective parties. 9. Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the accused / appellant – Hemant @ Nanu vehemently argued that the alleged incident is said to have taken place at 8-9 p.m. on 09.01.2021 in 6 an open agricultural field. In the FIR, four persons were named, however, three of them have been acquitted by the learned trial Court. It is stated that though Dwarka Kaushik (PW-11) claims to be an independent eye witness of the occurrence, but he has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph 6 of his statement and states that there were 50-60 persons present and at that time, there was a commotion that Lukeshwar has been killed, at that time, the said witness saw that Lukeshwar was lying on the ground as such, he has not seen the crime being committed by the appellant. When there were so many people and no body tried to save the deceased, is quite unbelievable. The seizure witnesses have also turned hostile. Hence, the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question is not proved. 10. Mr. Khetrapal further submitted that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant Hemant @ Nanu for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He also submitted that if the case of the prosecution is accepted on the face of it, then also the appellant is said to have caused injuries to deceased on the spur of the moment and heat of passion, as the father of deceased Baldau had assaulted his mother with a tangia with the intention to kill her, due to which there was some hot talk took place between the appellant and the deceased, on account of which, on the spur of moment and heat of passion, the appellant picked up the iron rod and hit the 7 deceased over his head, due to which the deceased died. There was no motive or intention on the part of the appellant to cause death of the deceased and only on account of sudden hot talk and quarrel, under heat of passion and in anger, the appellant caused injuries to the deceased, which caused her death. Therefore, the case of the present appellant falls within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC and the act of the appellant is culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and therefore, it is a fit case where the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC can be converted/altered to an offence under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Devesh Chandra Verma, learned counsel, appearing for the Objector as well as the appellant in Acquittal Appeal No. 139 of 2023, opposed the aforesaid submission and submitted that the learned trail Court has erred by acquitting the respondents in Acquittal Appeal No. 139 of 2023 from the offence charged by discarding the evidence of prosecution witnesses without there being any strong reason to discard their evidences. He further submitted that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that all the four accused who are real brothers i.e. Dinesh carrying a hammer, Dharamu Kaushik with a tabbal (axe), Dharam Kaushik with a tangia (axe), and Hemant Kaushik with a rod came at the place of occurrence with common intention to kill the deceased and on provocation by the co-accused Dinesh, 8 Dharamu and Dharam, the accused Hemant Kaushik @ Nanu had hit the head of the deceased Lukeshwar with an iron rod, which he had brought with him, due to which Lukeshwar fell on the ground and even after failing, Lukeshwar was hit with the rod two-three times, on account of which his head was injured and a piece of flesh of the head was scattered and blood was coming out, thus the said incident was done in furtherance of common intention of all the accused and the learned trial Court has committed grave illegality by acquitting the accused Dinesh, Dharamu and Dharam by giving benefit of doubt. He placed reliance on judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ramappa Halappa Pujar & Others Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 2635; Maranadu & Another Vs. State by Inspector of Police, T.N., reported in 2008 AIR SCW 6210; Balu @ Bal Subramaniam & Another Vs. State (U.T. of Pondicherry), reported in 2015 AIR SCW 6245. He further placed reliance on the judgment by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Kejuram Sahu & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (CRA No. 1026 of 2024 decided on 18.03.2025). 12. Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that though the scope of interference with the order of acquittal is very limited but on the other hand the appellate Court is vested with wide powers of re-appreciation of the evidence in the matter. It is settled position of law that, if reappraisal of the 9 evidence goes to show that the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is unjust and perverse then the appellate Court is empowered to set aside the same and reverse the order of acquittal and convict the accused appropriately. He further submitted that PW-11 Dwarika Kausik is an independent eye witness of the incident, who has seen the accused Hemant @ Nanu assaulting the deceased over his head by an iron rod and the said iron rod has been recovered at the instance of the appellant which contains bloodstains over it. Further, there are three grievous injuries on the body of the deceased, therefore, it is not a case where the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 of the IPC can be altered/converted under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC. 13. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 14. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased Lukeshwar Kaushik was homicidal in nature ? 15. Dr. Utkarsh Tripathi (PW-24), who has conducted postmortem over the dead body of deceased Lukeshwar Yadav vide Ex.P-25, has stated that during postmortem he has found following 03 injuries :- 10 (i) There was a torn injury on the head 04 cms above the right ear which was in a crooked position running from front to back to a depth of 06x01 cms bone. (ii) There was a torn injury 02 cm above injury no. 01 measuring 16x03 cm deep into the brain from which a part of the brain was protruding out. (iii) There was a torn injury 02 cm above injury no. 02, measuring 12 x 03 cm, extending to a depth of the entire brain, from which a part of the brain was protruding out? 16. Dr. Utkarsh Tripathi (PW-24) has also alleged that brain membrane was ruptured, there was blood present on all its three layers, there was contusion in right temporal and occipital part of brain and in cerebellum, all the injuries sustained by the deceased were antemortem which were caused by some hard and blunt object, cause of death of the deceased was due to head injuries and complications arising therefrom, death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 17. The learned trial Court relying the statement of Dr. Utkarsh Tripathi (PW-24), who has conducted postmortem over the dead body of deceased Lukeshwar Yadav vide Ex.P-25 has come to the conclusion that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. The said finding recorded by the trial Court is a finding of 11 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 accused/ appellant Hemant @ Nanu. We hereby affirm the said finding. 18. Now, the next question for consideration would be whether the murder of Lukeshwar was committed by accused in furtherance of common intention ? 19. In this case the independent witness Dwarika Kaushik (PW-11) is an important witness, his judicial statement is that the deceased Lukeshwar, who was son of Baldau Kaushik (PW-1), was standing near the meeting place and at that time accused Hemant alias Nanu came with an iron rod and hit Lukeshwar on the head with the rod due to which Lukeshwar fell on the ground and even after falling he hit Lukeshwar 2-3 times with the rod, then he saw Lukeshwar fallen, he had got an injury on his head, a piece of flesh from his head fell off and blood was oozing out, at that time the villagers ran away out of fear and he also went home out of fear. Witness Dwarika Kaushik (PW-11) has admitted in cross-examination that Lukeshvar was standing at a distance of 3-4 metres from him and there was no light and it was dark. However, the evidence of the said witness has not been contradicted in cross-examination. Hence, the evidence of witness Dwarika Kaushik (PW-11) remains uncontested. 20. On behalf of the prosecution, it is stated that the statements of accused Dharmu alias Badku Kaushik, Dharam alias Chhotku 12 Kaushik and Hemant alias Nanu Kaushik were recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act as Exs. P-14, 15, 16. The seizure of goods made on the basis of the said statements is Exs. P18, 19 and Ex. P-20 whose witnesses are Anil Kaushik (PW-12) and Badri Kaushik (PW-13), who are sons of Bhaglal Kaushik (PW-6). 21. Anil Kaushik (PW-12) and Badri Kaushik (PW-13) have denied that any interrogation of accused Dharmu Kaushik, Dharam Kaushik and Hemant alias Nanu Kaushik was done in their presence and have also denied that the accused had hidden Tabbal, Tangiya and iron rod in the garden and room of their house and when they were brought out and produced, the said weapons were seized from them, both the witnesses have not proved the memorandum and the seizure. 22. If we peruse the memorandum statement of Exs.P-14, 15 and 16, it is mentioned that Hemant Kaushik hit with an iron rod, but there is no mention of Dharam Kaushik, Dharmu Kaushik and Dinesh Kaushik hitting with a hammer, a tangia and a tabbal. Although the statement made before the police is not relevant, even if that statement is read in its entirety, it is evident that the beating was not done with a hammer, a tabbal and a ghan. In such a situation, even if the seizure of the aforesaid articles is proved, it would not support any prosecution story because the aforesaid weapons were not used in the beating as per the prosecution story. 23. As per the prosecution story, when there was no assault by Ghaan, then the seizure of Ghaan on the basis of his disclosure 13 statement does not lend credence to any of the prosecution stories. As far as the question of blood on Dinesh Kaushik's clothes is concerned, the FSL report (Ex.P-40) submitted by the prosecution is incomplete and there is no analysis mentioned in it that any bloodstains were found on the full pant seized from Dinesh Kaushik. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond doubt that as per Ex.P-09 and Ex.P-10, Ghaan and clothes were discovered on the basis of Dinesh Kaushik's statement. 24. Dr. Utkarsh Tripathi (PW 24) has not made any mention in his post-mortem report Ex.P-25 to the effect that the deceased Lukeshwar had been injured on the head by a sharp object and the case of the prosecution is also not that Dharam by Tangiya and Dharmu by Tabbal had hit Lukeshwar, rather the case of the prosecution is that they were standing there holding the said weapon. 25. It is proved from the statement of Dr. Utkarsh Tripathi (PW-24) that no injury was caused on the body of deceased Lukeshwar by a sharp weapon and according to the prosecution there were four accused, but according to Dr. Utkarsh Tripathi there were three injuries on the head of the deceased, if all the four accused had attacked once each then certainly there would have been four injuries on the body of the deceased, but there were only three injuries on the body of the deceased and that too were not injuries caused by a sharp weapon and in the context of the 14 statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the disclosure of any fact has not been proved beyond doubt and from the evidence of independent witnesses also the prosecution has not proved beyond doubt that accused Dharam beat the deceased Lukeshwar with a tangia and accused Dharmu beat the deceased with a tabbal, hence the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Dharam and Dharmu with the help of Tangiya and Tabbal respectively in furtherance of common intention along with other accused caused the murder of Lukeshwar by beating him with the intention of causing the death of the person. 26. Dr. Utkarsh Tripathi (PW-24) has alleged that three blows were given on the head of the deceased with a hard and blunt object, but in the investigation of evidence, the prosecution has not proved beyond doubt that the accused Dinesh Kaushik hit him with a hammer and the disclosure of any fact on the basis of the allegation under Section 27 of the Evidence Act has not been proved beyond doubt, because in the allegation under Section 27 of the Evidence Act itself, the hitting with a hammer has not been mentioned and the prosecution has also not proved beyond doubt that any human blood was found on the said hammer and the clothes of accused Dinesh Kaushik. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond doubt that the accused Dinesh Kaushik hit the other person with a hammer in furtherance of 15 common intention with the accused, they murdered the deceased Lukeshwar by assaulting him with the intention of killing him. 27. Now the Court has to consider whether accused Hemant alias Nanu Kaushik caused the murder of deceased Lukeshwar Kaushik by beating him with an iron rod ? 28. The evidence of independent witness Dwarika Kaushik (PW-11) remained unrebutted and witness Dwarika Kaushik (PW-11) has clearly stated that accused Hemant alias Nanu Kaushik had hit Lukeshwar on the head with a rod 2-3 times and Dr. Utkarsh Tripathi (PW-24) also found three injuries on the head of deceased Lukeshwar with a hard and blunt weapon, hence the statements of Dwarika Kaushik (PW11) are corroborated by the statements of Dr. Utkarsh Tripathi (PW 24). 29. In view of the statement of accused Hemant alias Nanu Kaushik under Section 27 Evidence Act, both the memorandum and seizure witnesses have become hostile and have not supported the prosecution story, hence, prosecution has failed to prove beyond doubt the disclosure of any fact in the context of the statement of accused Hemant alias Nanu Kaushik, but the principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabeer Singh and other's 2016 (4) CCSC 1876 (SC) that where direct evidence is available, punishment can be given even if the seizure is not proved. 16 30. Very recently, in the matter of Baljinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 2024 INSC 738, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of eye-witness account, has observed as under :- “12. .....The sworn testimonies provided by injured witnesses generally carry significant evidentiary weight. Such testimonies cannot be dismissed as unreliable unless there are pellucid and substantial discrepancies or contradictions that undermine their credibility. If there is any exaggeration in the deposition that is immaterial exaggeration to should the case, such be disregarded; however, it does not warrant the rejection of the entire evidence. Therefore, the suspicion raised by the Appellants regarding the genesis of the case is rendered unfounded. 13. The abovementioned conclusion stands fortified with reference to paragraph 26 of the decision of this Court in Balu Sudam Khalde and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0328/2023: 2023:INSC: 314. The relevant passage is reproduced as under: “26. When the evidence of an injured eye- witness is to be appreciated, the under- noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind: (a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition. (b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured 17 witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused. (c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. (d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions. (e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, contradiction, then exaggeration such or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence. (f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded. (emphasis supplied)” 31. The defence has examined two defence witnesses, namely Bisen Kaushik (DW-1) and Kumari Bai (DW-2). From the statement of Bisen Kaushik (DW-1), it also appears that the place of incident was in front of Ramlochan’s house. This witness has further attempted to state that Lukeshwar Kaushik was not present at the meeting, but he does not know where he was. However, the prosecution witnesses have clearly deposed that Lukeshwar was standing near the meeting place and it was there that he was 18 assaulted. Hence, this witness does not appear to be a reliable witness. 32. So far as defence witness Kumari Bai (DW-2) is concerned, she is the mother of the accused persons, and her deposition is that Baldau Kaushik (PW-1) came to her house and assaulted her with a stick, due to which she sustained injuries and her head got torn. When she cried for help, her four sons rushed to her, took her to the hospital, and that her sons did not go to the meeting place. However, regarding the alleged incident with Kumari Bai (DW-2) by Baldau Kaushik (PW-1), according to the First Information Report (Ex.D-04), the said incident occurred on 09.01.2021 at about 10:30 p.m., whereas the incident with Lukeshwar Kaushik had already taken place the same day between 9:00–9:30 p.m. in the night. Thus, the incident with Kumari Bai (DW-2) happened after the incident with Lukeshwar. In such circumstances, even if the accused persons were at home at that time, it cannot be concluded that they did not go to the meeting. On the contrary, from the evidence on record, it appears probable that the incident with Kumari Bai (DW-2) may have been a consequence of the incident with Lukeshwar Kaushik. Therefore, the testimony of Kumari Bai (DW-2) that the accused persons were present at home during the assault on Lukeshwar does not appear to be trustworthy. 33. It also appears from the evidence on record that there had been a pre-existing land dispute between the family of accused Hemant 19 alias Nanu Kaushik and the family of the deceased Lukeshwar Kaushik, and even prior to the incident there had been altercations between the two families. Thus, the motive for committing the offence also existed. 34. From the evidence available on record, it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Hemant alias Nanu assaulted the deceased Lukeshwar Kaushik on his head with a deadly weapon (rod), inflicting three blows, as a result of which several bones of the skull were fractured and the brain matter came out. Further, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Dharamu Kaushik, Dharam Kaushik, and Dinesh Kaushik, in furtherance of common intention, jointly assaulted and murdered Lukeshwar Kaushik. 35. Accordingly, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentence the accused/appellant Hemant alias Nanu in CRA No. 887/2023 under Section 302 of IPC and acquitted the accused respondents, namely, Dharmu @ Badku, Dharam @ Chotku and Dinesh from the charges under Sections 302/34, 506 Part-II and 294 of the IPC, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court. 36. For the foregoing reasons, both the Criminal Appeal No. 887/2023 filed by the accused/appellant – Hemant @ Nanu as well as the Acquittal Appeal No. 139 of 2023 filed on behalf of the Complainant/Objector, being devoid of merits are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. 20 37. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant – Hemant @ Nanu is in jail since 10.01.2021, he shall serve out the sentence as ordered by learned trial Court. 38. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. 39. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant - Hemant @ Nanu 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/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra