1 2025:CGHC:3873-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 747 of 2021 Vijendra @ Ajay Singh Gond S/o Dev Singh Aged About 32 Years Resident Of Village Dubchhola, Police Station Khadgawan, District Korea Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Khadgawan, District Korea Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board (22.01.2025) Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 1. Heard Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent. 2. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant/accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.01.23 14:33:52 +0530 2 directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.04.2021, passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.) in Sessions Case No.120 of 2020, by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under : Conviction Sentence Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) : Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 04 months. Under Section 201 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 05 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 04 months. (Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.) 3. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that, on 01.09.2017 at about 8.30 AM, at village Dubchhola Badkapara within the ambit of Police Station Khadagwan, District Korea (C.G.), the appellant-accused has assaulted his wife by means of axe and severing her head from the body, due to which, she died on the spot as well as intentionally destroyed the evidence. 4. Further case of the prosecution is that the accused kept the deceased Rambai as his wife at village Dubchola for two years. He had 3 gone to his in-laws' village Bakira about 10 days before the incident on 01.09.2017 with his wife, deceased Rambai, when the deceased Rambai told her father Indrapal Singh (PW-1) that the accused used to beat her. She stated her father that on 28.08.2017 the accused left with the deceased Rambai to go to the neighbourhood and did not return to his in-laws' house. On 31.08.2017 at 10.00 about AM, accused came to his house with his wife deceased Rambai. On 01.09.2017 at about 8.00 AM, accused was assaulted his wife deceased with his hands and fists. When Smt. Janaki Bai (PW-4) tried to rescue her, accused also assaulted her with the help of stick, then, she ran away and went some distance away from the house and watching the incidnet secretly. On 01.09.2017 Indrapal Singh (PW-1) left the house to look for her and at about 8.00 AM, deceased Rambai called her father and at about 9.00 AM, he reached to his daughter's house and asked the in-laws’ of the deceased about his daughter and son-in-law and they told him that he was in his room and also told that both of them were fighting in the morning. At about 12.00 Noon, Smt. Janki Bai (PW-4) went to plant saplings, then Indrapal Singh along with Dev Singh (PW-12) went to his room at the back of the house, then he went towards her daughter's room where nobody was present and the door was closed. Thereafter, both of them went towards the drain to search for her but they could not find her anywhere and they again came back to the house of deceased Rambai. Then, they removed the paddy straw lying outside the house where dead body of Rambai was lying and the head was cut from the 4 neck as well as blood was spread on the ground. After murdering his wife, the accused fled from the spot. On the information given by the complainant Indrapal Singh (PW-1) at Police Station Khadgawan that his son-in-law i.e. accused has killed his daughter Rambai with a sharp edged weapon and fled from the spot, merg intimation bearing Merg No.55 of 2017 was registered vide Ex.P/1, on the basis of which, First Information Report was registered against the accused at Khadgawan Police Station in connection with Crime No.145 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. The spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/5. Notice (Ex.P/3) was given to the Panch witnesses to appear for the death investigation. A Naksha Panchayatnama (Ex.P/10) was prepared. Memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded vide Ex.P/6, based upon which, one axe and lower of the appellant were seized vide Ex.P/7. Blood stained soil and plain soil were seized from the site of incident vide Ex.P/8. Clothes of the deceased was seized vide Ex.P/13. The dead body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination vide Ex.P/18 and in the postmortem report (Ex.P/16), Dr. Saket Sahu (PW-14) opined that the case of death seems to be shock due to spinal cord disection at the neck and nature of death is homicidal. Thereafter, appellant-accused was arrested vide Ex.P/14. After examining the axe, a letter (Ex.P/21) was written to give the query report and the query report (Ex.P/17) of the said axe was obtained from the doctor. A memo regarding providing the spot map was written to the Tehsildar Khadgawan vide Ex.P/20 and the Patwari 5 prepared and provided the spot map vide Ex.P/11. The seized articles were sent to the office of Joint Director Regional Forensic Science Laboratory Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G.) for chemical analysis and according to FSL report (Ex.P/24), blood was found on the seized articles, but the group was inconclusive. 5. After completion of the investigation, the appellant was charge- sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC before the concerned jurisdictional Court and thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions from where the case was transferred to the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.) for hearing and trial in accordance with law, in which the appellant abjured his guilt, took a plea of false implication and entered for trial. 6. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents. In defence, neither any witness has been examined nor any document has been exhibited. Statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which, he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. 7. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court, by impugned judgment dated 09.04.2021, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, has convicted and 6 sentenced the appellant-accused as mentioned herein-above, against which, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment. 8. Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the death of deceased Rambai is said to be homicidal in nature, but there was no motive or intention on the part of the appellant-accused and only on account of sudden quarrel and under heat of passion on suspicion of character, the appellant-accused is said to have assaulted his wife, pursuant to which, she sustained grievous injury over her person and died and thereby committed the offence. It is contended that in case of circumstantial evidence, every link should be interconnected and there should be solid evidence in this regard so that only conclusion can be drawn that appellant is found to be guilty. Lastly, it was argued that even if total case of the prosecution is accepted, the case of the present appellant-accused falls within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC and the act of the appellant-accused is culpable homicide not amounting to murder and, therefore, it is a fit case where the conviction of the appellant-accused can be converted/altered to an offence under Section 304 Part-I of IPC and, further, since the appellant-accused is in jail since 02.09.2017 (for about 08 years and 04 months), taking into consideration the period he has already undergone, the appellant-accused be released from jail forthwith. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be partly allowed. 7 9. Per contra, Mr. Malay Jain, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant-accused for offence under Section 302 of IPC. Exception 04 to Section 300 of IPC is not attracted in this case and it is not a case where conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 302 of IPC requires to be converted/altered to Section 304 Part-I/304 Part-II of IPC, thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and gone through records with utmost circumspection. 11. The first and foremost question is as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature ? 12. The learned trial Court has recorded in affirmative by taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence available on record and particularly, considering postmortem report (Ex.P/16) which is duly proved by the evidence of Dr. Saket Sahu (PW-14) and the statements of Ram Sundar Singh (PW-3), Smt. Janki Bai (PW-4) and Dev Singh (PW-12). Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court is absolutely justified in holding that the death of the deceased Rambai is homicidal in nature, as the same is correct finding of fact based on evidence and same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Accordingly, we hereby affirmed the said finding. 8 13. Now in order to prove guilt of appellant, we shall examine the case on the basis of evidence set-forth before the trial Court. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra1 has laid down the following five golden principles which constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence:- “153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra where the following observations were made: 1 (1984) 4 SCC 116 9 Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. (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.” 14. As regards the next question as to whether the appellant is author of the crime and has caused death of his wife, Rambai, the trial Court has relied upon the evidence of Ram Sundar Singh (PW-3), Smt. Janki 10 Bai (PW-4) and Dev Singh (PW-12) who have stated in their evidence that there was an affair of the deceased with unknown person and due to which, appellant under heat of passion, assaulted his wife by means of axe and on account of which, she sustained grievous injury and died on the spot. The learned trial Court has also recorded in affirmative by relying upon the testimony of Dr. Saket Sahu (PW-14), who conducted postmortem had opined that the cause of death is shock due to spinal cord dissection at the neck. The Doctor ultimately opined through his report the nature of death to be homicidal. Thus, on the basis of testimony of Dr. Saket Sahu (PW-14), it is clear that it is the appellant herein who on the fateful date and time has caused grievous injuries to the deceased, due to which she died. As such, the learned trial Court has rightly held that it is the appellant/accused who has caused injuries over the body of the deceased and caused her death. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding. 15. The aforesaid finding brings us to the next question for consideration, whether the case of the appellant is covered within Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC vis-a-vis culpable homicide not amounting to murder and his conviction can be converted to Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of the IPC, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant ? 16. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana2 has observed as under:- 2 (2002) 3 SCC 327 11 “21. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that in the absence of the existence of common object Sukhbir Singh is proved to have committed the offence of culpable homicide without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and did not act in a cruel or unusual manner and his case is covered by Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC which is punishable under Section 304 (Part I) IPC. The finding of the courts below holding the aforesaid appellant guilty of offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC is set aside and he is held guilty for the commission of offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 (Part I) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.” 17. The Supreme Court in the matter of Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana3 has laid down certain factors which are to be taken into 3 (2009) 15 SCC 635 12 consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused with reference to Section 302 or Section 304 Part II of the IPC, which state as under :- “23. These are some factors which are required to be taken into consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused. These factors are only illustrative in character and not exhaustive. Each case has to be seen fro its special perspective. The relevant factors are as under : (a) Motive or previous enmity; (b) Whether the incident had taken place on the spur of the moment; (c) The intention/knowledge of the accused while inflicting the blow or injury; (d) Whether the death ensued instantaneously or the victim died after several days; (e) The gravity, dimension and nature of injury; (f) The age and general health condition of the accused; (g) Whether the injury was caused without 13 premeditation in a sudden fight; (h) The nature and size of weapon used for inflicting the injury and the force with which the blow was inflicted; (i) The criminal background and adverse history of the accused; (j) Whether the injury inflicted was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death but the death was because of shock; (k) Number of other criminal cases pending against the accused; (l) Incident occurred within the family members or close relations; (m) The conduct and behaviour of the accused after the incident. Whether the accused had taken the injured/the deceased to the hospital immediately to ensure that he/she gets proper medical treatment ? These are some of the factors which can be taken into consideration while granting an appropriate sentence to the accused. 14 24. The list of circumstances enumerated above is only illustrative and not exhaustive. In our considered view, proper and appropriate sentence to the accused is the bounded obligation and duty of the court. The endeavour of the court must be to ensure that the accused receives appropriate sentence, in other words, sentence should be according to the gravity of the offence. These are some of the relevant factors which are required to be kept in view while convicting and sentencing the accused.” 18. Likewise, in the matter of State v. Sanjeev Nanda4, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that once knowledge that it is likely to cause death is established but without any intention to cause death, then jail sentence may be for a term which may extend to 10 years or with fine or with both. It has further been held that to make out an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, the prosecution has to prove the death of the person in question and such death was caused by the act of the accused and that he knew that such act of his is likely to cause death. 19. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh5 has elaborately dealt with the issue and observed in 4 (2012) 8 SCC 450 5 (2017) 3 SCC 247 15 paragraphs 20 and 21, which reads as under :- “20. To invoke this Exception 4, the requirements that are to be fulfilled have been laid down by this Court in Surinder Kumar v. UT, Chandigarh [(1989) 2 SCC 217 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 348], it has been explained as under : (SCC p. 220, para 7) “7. To invoke this exception four requirements must be satisfied, namely, (I) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The cause of the quarrel is not relevant nor its I relevant who offered the provocation or started the assault. The number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important is that the occurrence must have been sudden and unpremeditated and the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. 16 Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of this exception provided he has not acted cruelly.” 21. Further in Arumugam v. State [(2008) 15 SCC 590 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1130], in support of the proposition of law that under what circumstances Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC can be invoked if death is caused, it has been explained as under : (SCC p. 596, para 9) “9. …. '18. The help of exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation; (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. It is to be noted that the “fight” occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not defined in the 17 Penal Code, 1860. It takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool down and in this case, the parties had worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between two or more persons whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner. The expression “undue advantage” as used in the provisions means “unfair advantage”. 20. In the matter of Arjun (supra), the Supreme Court has held that if there is intent and knowledge, the same would be case of Section 304 18 Part-I of the IPC and if it is only a case of knowledge and not the intention to cause murder and bodily injury, then same would be a case of Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. 21. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Rambir v. State (NCT of Delhi)6 has laid down four ingredients which should be tested to bring a case within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, which reads as under: “16. A plain reading of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC shows that the following four ingredients are required: (i) There must be a sudden fight; (ii) There was no premeditation; (iii) The act was committed in a heat of passion; and (iv) The offender had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.” 22. Indrapal Singh (PW-1), who is father of the deceased, has stated in his deposition that at the time of the incident, his daughter Rambai was staying with the accused at village Dubchola. About 10 days before the incident, his daughter Rambai and the accused came to my house and after staying there for about 5-6 days, they left house stating that 6 (2019) 6 SCC 122 19 they were going to a neighbour's house and did not return. He was searching for them and on the day of incident, her daughter called him about 8:00 AM, and he reached to the house of his daughter after about half an hour. There he met with in-laws’ of his daughter and they asked them to call his daughter and son-in-law and after looking here, it seems that they are not at home. After that, he went to his daughter's room and saw that blood was splattered on the door of the room. When he looked around in the courtyard, he saw the dead body of his daughter Rambai lying under the paddy straw and her head was cut off. 23. Ram Sundar Singh (PW-3), who is brother of the deceased, has stated in his deposition that on the second day of the incident, the police arrested the accused and questioned him about the incident and then, accused told the police that Rambai had an illicit relationship with another man, due to which, he cut her neck with an axe and he had hidden the axe used in the incident in the floor of the room. 24. Smt. Janki Bai (PW-4), who is mother of the appellant has stated in her evidence that at the time of the incident, at about 11.00 AM, Rambai's father Indrapal Singh (PW-1) came to her house and was sitting there. He asked about the well being of his son and daughter-in- law, then she told that they must be at their home and he then went to the accused's house to see his daughter and son-in-law. On the next day, Indrapal Singh told him that appellant had killed his daughter Rambai by cutting her head off from the body and her body was covered with paddy straw. She further deposed that on the date of 20 incident, appellant was arguing and fighting with Rambai and the accused was also threatening her, to which, she ran away from the house. 25. Dev Singh (PW-12), who is father of the appellant has stated in his evidence that the incident took place about two years ago and on the day of incident, he was sleeping in the house, when the father of deceased Rambai came at 9.00 AM and asked about whereabouts of Vijendra and Rambai, then he told him that they must have gone towards the drain, after that they went towards the drain to look for Vijendra and Rambai, but Vijendra and Rambai were not found there, thereafter, they returned to the home. He further deposed that Indrapal Singh told him that there was something under the straw, then he removed the straw kept in the courtyard of accused with a stick and saw that the dead body of Rambai was lying there, whose neck was cut. 26. Conviction of the appellant-accused is mainly based on the evidence of Dr. Saket Sahu (PW-14), who has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased, vide Ex.P/16 and he found following injuries on the dead body of the deceased:- “On external examination of the body, he found that the head of the deceased was severed with the body of the deceased. The head was lying on the left side of the body, both her hands were straight and fists were open and both legs of the 21 deceased were straight and both eyes of the deceased were closed, mouth was half open. Pupils were dilated when the eyes of the deceased were opened. Clothes of the deceased were soaked in blood and dry grass was stuck to her hair. Head was cut from cervical vertebra (C-2). The cut part of the neck was sharp and horizontal. One cut wound on the front side of neck below thyroid cartilage measuring 8x4x3 cm. One cut wound on the left side of neck near shoulder measuring 6x3x4 cm. The deceased had stiffness in the whole body. The condition of the body and its anatomy were normal. On internal examination, he found that spinal cord was cut from cervical vertebra (C-2). Membranes, ribs and coccyx were light coloured. Lung was light coloured, larynx and windpipe were empty light coloured. Trachea was cut. Right and left lungs were light coloured. Right and left side of heart was empty. Abdominal membranes were light coloured, intestinal membrane was present, mouth was empty, and pharynx was cut horizontally and was light coloured. Stomach was empty and light coloured, small intestine was light 22 coloured and digested food was present. Large intestine was light coloured and contained digested waste material. Liver, spleen, kidney were light coloured, internal and external genitalia were normal. Opinion - According to him, the cause of death of the deceased is shock which was caused by the cutting of spinal cord (neck). All the injuries on the body of the deceased were before death. The nature of death was homicidal and the period of death was within 24 to 36 hours.” 27. According to Dr. Saket Sahu (PW-14), the cause of death of deceased is shock due to spinal cord dissection at the neck and the nature of death to be homicidal. It has been also opined by the concerned Doctor i.e. Dr. Saket Sahu (PW-14) that the injury caused to the deceased has been by the sharp edged weapon and the same may be caused by the axe. 28. Reverting to the facts of the present case, in light of principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above- stated judgments, it is quite vivid that the father-in-law of the appellant has lodged a First Information Report alleging that, on the date of incident, some quarrel took place between the appellant and the deceased on the suspicion of character of the wife of the appellant, then out of anger and on sudden quarrel, the appellant assaulted the 23 deceased with an axe on her head, by which her head was separated from the body and died on the same day of the incident on account of shock due to spinal cord dissection at the neck. It further appears from the fact on record that upon his memorandum, incriminating article i.e. axe has been recovered from his instance, which was sent for chemical examination but according to the FSL report (Ex.P/24), though the blood was found but the blood group is found to be inconclusive. It is apparent that though there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause death of deceased as the appellant did not had any intention to cause death of deceased, but by causing such injury, he must had the knowledge that such injuries inflicted by him would likely to cause death of his wife, as such, his case would fall within the purview of Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC, as the act of the appellant herein completely satisfies the four necessary ingredients of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC i.e. (i) there must be a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was committed in a heat of passion and (iv) the appellant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 29. 29. Considering the above-stated facts, also considering the evidence of witnesses and taking into consideration that at present appellant- Vijendra @ Ajay Singh Gond is aged about 32 years and he is in jail since 02.09.2017 (for about 08 years and 04 months), the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC can be altered/converted to Section 304 Part-I of the IPC. 24 30. Accordingly, conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC is set aside, however, he is convicted under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. The conviction and sentenced awarded by the trial Court under Section 201 of the IPC, is hereby affirmed. 31. The appellant is stated to be in jail since 02.09.2017 being the date of arrest. He is directed to serve out the sentence as modified above. 32. The criminal appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 33. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record of the case to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance and also send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence 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, if so advised, with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu