1 2025:CGHC:32879-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 850 of 2021 Sajan Gond S/o Hemsingh Gond, aged about 26 years, resident of Village - Bodrabandha, Police Station - Chhura, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station Chhura, District Gariyaband, Chhattigarh. ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Harishankar Patel, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 1 5 .0 7 .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 28.01.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, District – Gariyaband (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 26 of 2018, by which the appellant has been ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 31.12.2017 the informant Tarachand Netam gave information to Inspector Vishnupratap Singh of Police Station Chura to the effect that on 31.12.2017 at about 03:00 pm near the house of Sajan Gond of the village, there was a crowd of villagers, he also went there to know what happened, then Hemsingh's son Sajan Gond told his family and other villagers present there, Nohar Singh, Khelan Prasad, Rom Singh, Jagat Gond etc. that today he had gone to the forest to cut wood with his wife Bhumika at around 10:00 in the morning. During that time, due to a dispute with his wife Bhumika, he got angry and killed his wife by strangulating her with his hands and an axe. The dead body is lying in the forest. Then he and the said villagers and Sarpanch Hiradhar Nagesh, Sajan's father Hemsingh Netam etc. went and saw, Sajan's wife Bhumika Gond was lying dead in a prone position under the Senha bush. On the said information of the informant, after registering Merg on zero bearing No. 0/18 vide Ex.P.-11, Dehati Nalasi Ex.P.-12 was registered. 3. During investigation, information regarding untimely and accidental death of the deceased was registered vide Ex.P.-24. Blood soaked soil in a plastic box and plain soil in another plastic 3 box were seized from the place of incident in front of witnesses and seizure memo Ex.P.-07 was prepared. Complaint Ex.P-23 was sent to Tehsildar Chura regarding presence for the body panchanama proceedings and after giving notice to the witnesses present for the body panchanama proceedings, map panchayatnama Ex.P-06 was prepared. For conducting post mortem of the dead body, postmortem application was filled and the dead body was sent to CHC Chura for postmortem and postmortem report Ex.P-03 was received. After inquest, police station Chura registered an FIR against the accused under section 302 IPC vide Ex.P-25. The scene map of the incident was prepared in front of witnesses vide Ex.P-13). Statements of the informant and witnesses were recorded as per their statements. Memorandum statement (Ex.P-04) of the accused was recorded in front of witnesses as per his statements. On the basis of memorandum statement, when the accused was produced, a small tangia and red colour full sleeve shirt were seized in front of witnesses and seizure memo (Ex.P-08) and (Ex.P-09) were prepared respectively. On finding evidence of crime against the accused, he was arrested as per arrest memo (Ex.P-10) and information regarding his arrest was given to his family members vide Ex.P-20. 4. During investigation, on being presented by constable Laxminarayan Bhoi, viscera of the deceased in two sealed boxes and salt solution in one sealed box were seized in front of 4 witnesses and seizure memo Ex.P-26 was prepared. In the case, the seized property, small tangia and red muddy coloured full shirt of the accused were sent to CHC Chhura for query through written complaint Ex.P-04'A' and Ex.P-05‘A’ and query report was received. Regarding seeking Patwari map of the place of incident from the concerned Patwari, written complaint was sent to Forest Range Officer, Chhura and Nazri map (Ex.P-16) prepared by the Patwari was received. After sending complaint through Superintendent of Police, Gariyaband, the seized properties were sent to State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur for examination, receipt of which is attached in the case Ex.P-27 and FSL report received from State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur is attached in the case Ex.P.-28. 5. After complete investigation, the accused was found to have committed the crime on 28.03.2018 and when charge-sheet was presented against the appellant under Section 302 IPC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (CG) Criminal Case No. 241/2018 was registered against him, thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Gariyaband and ultimately the case was received by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband on 13.04.2018, wherein Sessions Case No. 26/2018 was registered. 6. When the charges under Section 302 of IPC were read out and explained to the accused, he denied the charges and his plea was recorded. On behalf of the prosecution, Smt. Baisakhin Bai 5 (PW-01), Ogendra Kumar Netam (PW-02), Dr. Bharat Bhushan (PW-03), Dr. Seema Alone (PW-04), Rain Singh Gond (PW-05), Tarachand Netam (PW-06), Hiradhar Nagesh (PW-07), Krishna Kumar Dhruv (PW-08), Jagat Netam (PW-09), Khelan Singh Nagesh (PW-10), Nohar Singh Netam (PW-11), Hem Singh Netam (PW-12), Rom Singh God (PW-13), Chandrashekhar (PW- 14), Vishnu Pratap Singh (PW-15) and Laxminarayan Bhoi (PW- 16) were examined. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he has stated that his wife fell down due to dizziness, that he did not kill his wife and that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated. The accused did not produce any evidence in his defence. 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 of his wife deceased Bhumika, convicted and sentenced him as aforementioned, against which the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred. 8. Mr. Harishankar Patel, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the facts and evidence available on record while passing the impugned order. He further submits that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the deceased fell down due to dizziness and the appellant had not killed his wife and that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated. He further submits that the trial Court 6 failed to consider the fact that there is no direct and circumstantial motive was found to commit murder of the deceased- Bhumika against the appellant. He also submits that there is no eye- witness of the incident and only on the basis of last seen theory, the appellant has been convicted. He contended that the alleged axe which has been stated to be seized from the accused and the axe which has been sent for query are different. Moreover, no blood was found in the alleged axe as per FSL report. 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. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State, supports the impugned judgment and contended that as per case of the prosecution the appellant/accused himself has made extra-judicial confession before his family members and other villages that he had gone to the forest to cut wood with his wife Bhumika (deceased) at around 10:00 in the morning. During that time, due to a dispute with his wife Bhumika, he got angry and killed his wife by strangulating her with his hands and an axe. The dead body is lying in the forest. Moreover, PW-1 Baisakhin Bai is the last seen witness of the incident, who had seen lastly the accused quarelling with the deceased in the forest and the burden of proof lies upon the appellant, however, the appellant has failed to adduce any 7 evidence and also establish his innocence before the trial Court, whereas the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts by way of oral as well as document 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. 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 Bhumika was homicidal in nature ? 13. Dr. Bharat Bhushan (PW-3), who has conducted postmortem over the body of deceased Bhumika, vide Ex.P-3 and found a lacerated wound measuring 3 x 3 cm was embedded in the left side of the head; the skull bone was broken inside, which was bleeding continuously; there was a contusion of 1 x 1 cm on the right side of the neck and a contusion of 1 x 1 cm on the left side; the head was covered with black hair; both eyes were open; the mouth was half open; saliva was coming out from the left side of the mouth; there was a lacerated wound of 1 x 1 cm on the elbow 8 joint of the right hand; there was no injury in the lower parts; there was no injury on the chest; there was stiffness in both the hands and both the legs, there was stiffness in the whole body, the whole body had turned pale and opined that cause of death was excessive hemorrhage due to internal and external head injury and it was homicidal in nature. 14. The trial Court, relying upon the statement of Dr. Bharat Bhushan (PW-3), who has conducted postmortem over the body of deceased Bhumika and Postmorterm report Ex.P-3, recorded the finding that the death of deceased 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 appellant. We hereby affirm the said finding. 15. The next question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court has rightly held that the appellant is author of the crime. 16. It is the case of no direct evidence, rather conviction is based on circumstantial evidence. 17. 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 9 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....”. 18. 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.” 19. 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 10 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 facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. 20. 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”. 21. 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.” 22. 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 12 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.” 23. 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. 24. In the present case, regarding the incident, the Investigating Officer of the case, Vishnu Pratap Singh (PW-15) has made a 13 judicial statement that on the report of Tarachand, the rural death of the deceased Smt. Bhumika Gond was conducted by going to the incident site Bodrabandha and the intimation was prepared in front of witnesses. This witness has also stated that on the same date, FIR Ex.P-25 was registered against accused Sajan Gond under Crime No. 198/2017 Section 302 IPC. 25. From the perusal of FIR Ex.P.-25, it is seen that in relation to the incident dated 31.12.2017, on the same date at 07:00 pm, an FIR has been registered against the accused Sajan under Section 302 IPC in Police Station Chura. From the perusal of FIR Ex.P.-25 it is seen that the informant Tarachand gave information to the effect that on the incident dated 31.12.2017 at about 03:00 pm, a large crowd of people had gathered near the house of the accused Sajan Gond, on which when he went there to know what happened, he came to know that Sajan Gond had gone to Futaha Jungle Tikri to cut wood along with his wife Bhumika, where he had a quarrel with his wife and killed his wife by strangulating her with his hand and axe. Later, the accused, along with the village Sarpanch and other people, went to the place of incident in the forest, where the wife of the accused was lying dead, as mentioned in the FIR. 26. Thus, from the perusal of the FIR and rural case Ex.P-11, it is shown that on the date of the incident, the accused went to the forest with the deceased and when there was a dispute between them, after committing murder of the deceased, the accused 14 came to the village and told the same thing, on visiting the spot with the people of the village, the deceased was found dead. In this regard, the informant of the case, witness Tarachand (PW-06) stated in his judicial statement that he was the Kotwar of village Bodrabandha and at the time of the incident, the village Sarpanch Hiradhar told him that Sajan had killed his wife. The witness further stated that he and the people of the village and the brother and father of the accused and the accused himself had gone to the Futhabandha forest, where the accused covered the body of his wife with a sari, from there, after giving information to the police station Chura, the police arrived. 27. Witness Tarachand (PW-06) has also stated that on his information, a rural case was registered by the police against the accused. On the suggestion given by the defence in cross- examination, in paragraph 4 of the cross-examination, the witness has denied that he had not registered a rural case and a rural complaint. It is also not shown that in cross-examination by the defence, any substantial challenge was raised on the fact that the accused covered the body of his wife with a sari and called the Chura police station from there, due to which, after examining the evidence of the informant witness Tarachand (PW-06), the Investigating Officer, it is proved that on the basis of information of Tarachand, a rural case and a rural complaint were registered against the accused for the crime of causing the murder of his wife and on that basis, an FIR was registered. 15 28. It has been stated by the Investigating Officer of the case Vishnu Pratap Singh (PW-15) that on 01.01.2018, memorandum of accused Sajan Gond was recorded and on the basis of memorandum, seizure of axe with handle and red colour full sleeve shirt were seized in front of witnesses and seizure memo (Ex.P-08) and (Ex.P-09) were prepared. Rain Singh (PW-05), a witness of the above memorandum proceedings of the Investigating Officer, has stated that on getting information about the incident, he, Sarpanch, Kotwar, other people of the village, brother and father of the accused went to the spot where the dead body of the deceased Bhumika was lying and Kotwar Tarachand present there informed the Chura police station about the incident. This witness told that the police interrogated the accused in his presence and during the interrogation, the accused admitted that he quarreled with his wife and strangled his wife with the wooden part of the tangia, due to which she died and that tangia was kept in the house. In paragraph 3 of the main examination, this witness has also stated that the accused had taken out an iron tangiya from his bedroom, which was confiscated by the police. Although, on the suggestion of the defence, in paragraph 7 of the cross-examination, this witness has accepted that the tangiya was not recovered by the police from the house of the accused in his presence, but he has stated on his own that it was recovered on the second day of the incident. A perusal of the case shows that the incident took place on 31.12.2017 and on the second day of 16 the incident, i.e., 01.01.2018, this witness has stated on his own that the recovery of the tangiya from the accused was done. This shows that the perusal of the evidence of the police on the basis of the memorandum, substantially supports the evidence of the seizure of the tangiya used in the incident from the accused. 29. Regarding the incident, the witness of the case presented by the prosecution, Baisakhin (PW-01) who is the sister of the accused, has stated that her brother Sajan lived separately with his wife Bhumika and child Nikhil in village Bodrabandha. On the incident date 31.12.2017 at 10:00 am, her brother Sajan came and said that he and his wife are going to collect wood from the forest, take care of the child. Then both of them went to the forest. It has been further stated by this witness that on the same day at about 02:00- 02:30 pm, her brother Sajan came from the forest and said that he had killed his wife, on which she and her brother Yogendra went to the forest, where they saw that her sister-in-law was lying dead. After that, it was told at home. The villagers had gone to a meeting in another village. Her brother Yogendra went to another village to inform them. When the villagers returned from there, the accused told them that he had killed his wife, report it to the police station. On the suggestion given by the defense in paragraph 6 of the cross-examination, although this witness has accepted that she did not see the accused and his wife Bhumika going towards the forest together, but the defense has not challenged the statement given by the accused in the cross-examination that on 17 the date of the incident, he and his wife, i.e. the deceased, had gone to the forest to collect wood. The defense has also not challenged the statement given by the accused in front of the villagers that he had killed his wife. 30. Thus, from the examination of the evidence of witness Baisakhin (PW-01), it is not reflected that there is any material contradiction in the statement of the accused that on the date of incident he had gone to the forest with his wife i.e. the deceased and that the accused had killed his wife and also in front of the people of the village that he had killed his wife. 31. Regarding the incident, another prosecution witness Rainsingh (PW-05) has also stated that on the date of the incident, the accused and his wife Bhumika had gone to the forest at 10:00 am to bring wood. That day at 11:00 am he went to a social meeting in village Parasada, where the accused's brother came to call him and told him that his brother Sajan had killed his wife, on which he asked him how did he come to know, he told that the accused Sajan had told him about the incident, on which it has also been stated that later this witness and other people of the village went to the place of incident and there it has been stated that the police interrogated the accused and the accused told that he had strangled his wife with the wooden part of the tangia. On being suggested by the defence in cross-examination, the witness Rainsingh (PW-05) though accepted that he had not seen the accused and his wife Bhumika going to the jungle together, but 18 denied that Ogendra had only told that the incident had happened and did not tell anything else and also denied that the deceased Bhumika died after falling on a stone, hence, from the perusal of the evidence of this witness, it does not appear that there is any material contradiction of the statement given by the accused during interrogation that he had killed his wife or the statement given by the brother of the accused that the accused had killed his wife. 32. The fact that the accused's brother Ogendra came to the meeting and told that the accused Sajan had killed his wife is also reflected from the examination of the evidence of prosecution witnesses Hiradhar (PW-07), Khelan Singh (PW-10), Hem Singh (PW-12), Rom Singh (PW-13), which also substantially corroborates the statement of witness Rainsingh (PW-05) that Ogendra came to the social meeting in village Parasada to tell the villagers about the incident and that the accused told that his wife had been killed. 33. 33. Regarding the incident, witness Hemsingh (PW-12) who is the father of the accused has also stated that on the date of incident, the accused and the deceased Bhumika had gone to the jungle to collect wood and in the afternoon his son, i.e. the accused Sajan came home and told that his daughter-in-law was sleeping in the jungle and at 3-4 o'clock, he has stated that Ogendra and the people of the village had gone to the jungle with Sajan and on returning back they told him that Sajan had killed his wife 19 Bhumika. Although on the suggestion given by the defence in cross-examination, this witness has accepted in paragraph 5 of cross-examination that Sajan did not come to him and tell him that Bhumika was murdered, but the statement of this witness that his daughter-in-law i.e. deceased Bhumika and his son i.e. accused Sajan going to the jungle to get wood has not been challenged in cross-examination. 34. Thus, from the examination of the evidence of prosecution witnesses Baisakhin (PW-01) and Hemsingh (PW-12), the evidence of the deceased going to the forest together with the accused is clearly shown, which also reflects that the deceased and the accused were seen together for the last time and later on the same date, the evidence of the deceased being found dead at the scene of the incident is also shown, which shows the fact of the accused committing the murder of the deceased Bhumika by the accused on the principle of "last seen". It is trite law "if there is sufficient and reliable evidence regarding the last time the deceased was seen with the accused and the accused is unable to give an explanation in this regard, then the principle of last seen is considered to be established." From the examination of evidence, it is proved that the accused and the deceased were lastly going together to the forest, where as in relation to the death of deceased, no explanation has been given by the accused, especially when the medical witness has clearly stated that the nature of death of the deceased was homicidal. 20 35. It is also noteworthy that the evidence of witnesses of the case Baisakhin (PW-1) and Rainsingh (PW-5) also shows that the accused himself had stated that he had killed his wife. Thus, from the perusal of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is clearly reflected that the accused has made a non-judicial confession regarding the incident. In this regard, it is trite law that “If the evidence about extra judicial confession comes from the mouth of witness/witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused; the words spoken to by the witness are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing is omitted by the witness which may militate against it, then after subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, if it passes the test, the extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of conviction. 36. 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. 37. Applying the aforesaid well settled principles of law and taking into consideration the facts in totality and considering the facts and 21 circumstances of the case, in our considered view the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is just and proper warranting no interference of this Court. 38. In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 39. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail, he shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court. 40. 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. 41. 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/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra