1 2025:CGHC:40754-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1094 of 2022 Binduram Korwa S/o Late Jagat Ram Korwa, Aged About 35 Years R/o Sitkalo (Kharranagar) Outpost Kedma, Police Station Udaypur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Udaypur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pritam Kumar Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 13.08.2025 1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.05.2022, passed by the MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.08.14 10:33:49 +0530 2 learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 57/2019, whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 30 days. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the complainant Mannuram Korwa, appeared at the police post Kedma police station Udaipur and lodged an oral report that on 07.04.2019, he was sleeping in his house after eating dinner, when at around 10.30 pm, his brother Bindu Ram came and said that he has beaten his mother with a stick, go and give water to mother, then he went and shook his mother and saw that his mother Mangali Bai was unconscious, then he went to his house and slept. The next day, on 08.04.2019, when he was returning from Kedma market, he met his sister Manmati near his house, who told him that his mother had died, then he went there and saw that his mother had died. 3. On the report of the complainant Mannuram (PW-3), the police post Kedma, police station Udaipur, Ambikapur, District Surguja registered a case under FIR No. 0/2019 and on the basis of that FIR No. 16/2019 was registered in the police station Udaipur. After the FIR was registered by the police post Kedma, a map panchayatnama (Ex.P-8) was prepared about the deceased 3 Mangali Bai by visiting the place of incident and her body was sent for postmortem on the same date i.e. on 09.04.2019. On 09.04.2019 itself, a map of the crime scene (Ex.P-10) was prepared. While seizing the blood-soaked soil and plain soil of the deceased from the crime scene, property seizure memo (Ex.P-3) was prepared. On the postmortem report stating that the death of the deceased Mangali Bai was of homicidal nature, Crime No. 0/2019, Section 302 IPC, was registered against the accused Bindu Ram Korwa at Police Station Kedma on 10.04.2019 and was registered in zero and on the basis of this FIR, FIR was registered at Police Station Udaipur under Crime No. 36/2017 under Section 302 IPC. During investigation, while interrogating accused Binduram Korwa, his memorandum statement (Ex.P-1) was recorded and on his indication, the wooden stick used in the incident was seized from him and property seizure sheet (Ex.P-2) was prepared. Site map (Ex.P-10) was prepared from the Patwari of the incident site. Statements of complainant Mannuram and other witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested through arrest sheet (Ex.P-21). The properties seized in the case were sent for chemical testing. Thereafter, a charge-sheet was prepared against the accused under Sections 302, 201 IPC and presented before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur District-Surguja C.G. 4. The accused was charged under Section 302 of IPC and the charge was read out to him and he denied having committed the 4 offence and sought trial. 5. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he said that he was innocent and that he was falsely implicated. No witness was examined on behalf of the accused in his defence. 6. On behalf of the prosecution, statements of witnesses Dashmat Ram Korwa (PW-1), Bihanu Ram (PW-2), Mannu Ram (PW-3), Manmati (PW-4), constable Jagjivan Beck (PW-5), Patwari Rajesh Kumar Banjare (PW-6), Dr. B.M. Kamre (PW-7), constable Indrapratap Singh (PW-8), constable Man Singh Paikra (PW-9), sub-inspector Devesh Kumar Sahu (PW-10), investigating officer Rajesh Chand (PW-11), head constable Dudheshwar Say (PW- 12) have been recorded. 7. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 30.05.2022, convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him as aforementioned, against which, this criminal appeal has been filed. 8. Mr. Pritam Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC, as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that if the case of the prosecution is accepted as it is, then also the appellant is said to have caused injuries to the deceased in spur of moment. There 5 was no motive or intention on the part of the appellant to cause death of the deceased and only on account of sudden quarrel, under heat of passion and in anger, the appellant caused injuries to the deceased, which caused his death. Therefore, the case of the present appellant falls within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of 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 offence under Section 302 of the IPC can be converted/altered to an offence under Section 304 (Part-I or Part-II) of the IPC. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed in full or in part. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsels for the respondent/State supports the impugned judgment and submits that the appellant has caused murder of deceased by deadly attacking her with stick due to which, she succumbed to her injuries, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and 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 or Part-II IPC and as such, the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 11. The first question for consideration would be whether the 6 deceased died under unnatural circumstances ? 12. In this regard, the Investigating Officer Rajesh Chand (PW-11) has stated that on 09.04.2019, while taking action regarding the body of the deceased Mangali Bai at the scene of the incident, he had given notice of Section 175 of the Cr.P.C. to the witnesses (Ex.P- 7) and had prepared the map panchayatnama (Ex.P-8) in front of the same witnesses and had sent the postmortem application (Ex.P-15) for the postmortem of the deceased body. The statement made by the above mentioned person has also been confirmed by the statement made by Doctor B.M. Kamre (PW-07). Constable Indrapratap Singh (PW-8) has also confirmed the statement of the investigator and said that on being given the duty certificate (Ex.P-18) for getting the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased Mangali Bai done, he had gone to the Primary Health Center Kedma with the postmortem application and got the postmortem of the dead body of that deceased done. 13. Doctor B.M. Kamre (PW-07) has stated that the postmortem of the deceased Mangali Bai Korwa was started on 09.04.2019 at 01:30 PM and has stated in detail that on external examination of the deceased's body, it was found that - both her eyes were closed and pupils were still, mouth was closed and blood had clotted from her nose, there was a contusion in the left chest, the size of which was 8 x 3 cm and a torn wound in the left arm was 4 x 2 cm, and there was stiffness in her body after death. 7 Dr. B.M. Kamre (PW-7) has stated about the conditions found on internal examination of the dead body of deceased Mangali Bai that, her skull, vertebrae, sacrum, brain, spinal cord, diaphragm, ribs and soft tissues were normal. Her lungs, larynx and windpipe were congested. Right lung was ruptured and left lung was normal, perineum, periclasm were normal, right chamber of heart had blood and left chamber of heart was empty. Large vessels were normal, diaphragm was normal, intestinal membrane mouth, oesophagus and pharynx were congested. Stomach contained food matter and water, small intestine contained digested food, large intestine contained faecal matter, liver, spleen and kidney were congested. Urine bladder was empty, internal and external genitals were normal. This witness has also clarified that the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th rib of the deceased were found broken on left side. Dr. B.M. Kamre (PW-7) while giving his opinion about the death of deceased Mangali Bai has stated that the death of the deceased was due to serious injury in her chest and internal bleeding, shock and coma, which was of a fatal nature. In this regard, he had given the postmortem report (Ex.P-16). 14. In cross-examination, the judicial statement of other witnesses available in the case, Dashmat Ram Korwa (PW-1), Bihanu Ram (PW-2), Mannu Ram (PW-3) has shown that the deceased Mangali Bai was lying injured at the scene of the incident, from 8 there she was not taken for treatment, due to which she died. In such a situation, it is reflected in the confession made by Dr. B.M. Kamre (PW-7) that if the deceased Mangali Bai had been provided with proper medical facilities when she was injured, then the broken ribs on her left side might not have caused her death. 15. Upon a meticulous examination of the evidence adduced by the above mentioned witnesses, it is apparent that the medical evidence tendered by Dr. B.M. Kamre (PW-7) reveals that the injuries sustained by the deceased were not, in and of themselves, fatal. Furthermore, the possibility that the deceased's demise was precipitated by the exacerbation of the injuries due to lack of timely medical intervention cannot be ruled out. 16. Now, the question for consideration would be whether the accused-appellant herein is the perpetrator of the crime in question. 17. In this regard, if we look at the statement of Dashmat Ram Korwa (PW-1), then according to this witness, on the date of the incident, when he was in his house, the children and women of his village came to him and told him that Bindu had killed her mother, then to get information about this, he went to the house of accused Bindu. When he went to Korwa's sister Manmati (PW-4), she also told him that the accused had killed his mother Mangali. When he went to see the deceased Mangali, he saw that her body was lying near the Koilar tree near the house of accused Bindu Korwa. 9 18. Although, Manmati (PW-4) has not supported the statement of Dashmat Ram Korwa (PW-1) and has stated that Mangali Bai died of fever. When Manmati (PW-4) was asked leading questions by the prosecution, she stated that her brother Mannu Ram Korwa (PW-3) had told her that at 10.00 o'clock in the night when he was sleeping, accused Bindu Ram Korwa came and told him that he has killed his mother Mangali Bai with a wooden stick and come and give water to his mother. 19. Sub-Inspector Rajesh Chand (PW-11), has deposed that he was posted as Sub-Inspector at Police Outpost Kedma at the time of the incident. On receiving the unnumbered death intimation number 0/19 along with diary, registered at Police Outpost Kedma on 09.04.2019, he went to the place of incident on the same date and prepared the site map (Ex.P-10) as told by Mannu Ram (PW- 3) and on the same date, while giving the summons (Ex.P-7) of Section 175 Cr.P.C. to the witnesses for conducting the Panchnama proceedings of the dead body of the deceased Mangali Bai, he prepared the map (Panchayatnama) (Ex.P-8) about the dead body of the deceased in front of the same witnesses. These statements have been corroborated by the irrefutable statements of Dashmat Ram Korwa (PW-1) and Mannuram (PW-3). Thereafter on 09.04.2019 itself, he had seized the blood-soaked soil of the deceased Mangali Bai and the plain soil from the spot in front of witnesses and prepared property seizure sheet (Ex.P-3). 10 20. According to the statement of investigating officer Rajesh Chand (PW-11), on 11.04.2019, he had interrogated accused Bindu Ram Korwa in custody in village Kharranagar Sitakalo in front of witnesses Mannu Ram (PW-3) and Dashmat Ram (PW-1) and recorded his memorandum statement (Ex.P-1) and as per his statement and on the pointing out of this accused, the wooden stick used by him in the incident, which he had hidden in the garden next to his house, was seized in front of the witnesses and property seizure sheet (Ex.P-2) was prepared by him in this regard. 21. 21. According to the statement of investigating officer Rajesh Chand (PW-11), on 18.04.2019 he had sent a report (Ex.P-25) to the Medical Officer of PHC Kedma to examine the wooden stick seized from the accused and give a report, which has also been confirmed by the statements of Dr. B.M. Kamre (PW-7). According to the property seizure memo (Ex.P-2), can the stick seized from the accused cause such an injury by hitting a person as was found on the body of deceased Mangali Bai? In this regard, Dr. B.M. Kamre (PW-7) has stated that he examined the stick on 18.04.2019 itself and then he found that the length of the stick was 24.2 inches and the thickness of the lower end of the stick was 4 inches. According to him, injuries like the one Mangali Bai sustained could have been caused by hitting her with that stick. 22. As per the statement of Dr. B.M. Kamre (PW-7), in the lower end 11 of the stick presented for query had a blood like stains. When the dead body of deceased Mangali Bai was brought for postmortem, green petticoat, blue and white blouse, red and pink colored saree were present in her body, out of which the red and pink saree was sealed and given to constable A-806 Indrapratap Singh (PW-8) for FSL, which was supported by constable Indrapratap Singh (PW-8) and he has stated that after the postmortem of the deceased, the doctor had sealed the saree of the deceased and handed it over to him, which he took and presented at the police station, which the investigating officer Rajesh Chand (PW-11) seized from him and prepared the property seizure sheet (Ex.P-4). 23. As per the statement of Rajesh Chand (PW-11), on 30.04.2019, the blood stained soil, plain soil, stick, sari worn by the deceased, seized in the case were sent to the Assistant Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Ambikapur, through the office of Superintendent of Police, along with draft (Ex.P-26) for chemical testing, for which an acknowledgment (Ex.P-26A) was received from there and the test report received after chemical test is Exhibit P-27 and its acknowledgment receipt is Exhibit P-27A. 24. As per report Exhibit P-27 of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G.), after testing Article A (Soil at the place of incident), C (Sari of the deceased) and Article D (stick), human blood was found. Thus, it has been proved that the blood-soaked soil and the blood stains on the stick belonged to 12 the deceased Mangali Bai. This makes it clear that Mangali Bai was killed with the same stick by the accused Bindu Ram Korwa, due to which his 4th to 7th ribs on the left side of his chest were broken, which was the reason for his death. 25. Mannuram (PW-3) has stated that on the date of the incident, he was sleeping at his home when his second mother Mangali Bai's son Bindu Ram came and said that he has beaten his mother with a stick, and asked him to go and give her water to drink. Then he went there and shook his mother, deceased Mangali Bai, and saw that she was breathing and was unconscious. She did not wake up at that time, then he came back home and slept. Bihanu Ram (PW-2) has stated that his brother Mannu Ram told that last night Bindu Ram came to him and said that he had beaten mother Mangali with a stick, at that time Mannu Ram asked him to go and give water to his mother. As per the statement of this witness Bihanu Ram, Mannu Ram had told him this in the morning. When Mannu Ram went and saw, mother was unconscious, she was breathing a little, Mannu Ram tried to shake her, but she did not wake up, so he came back home. 26. The witnesses' statements collectively establish the following key points: • Bindu Ram's confession to Mannu Ram (PW-3) and his subsequent admission during police interrogation. • The discovery of Mangali Bai's body near the Koilar tree. 13 • The seizure of the stick used in the crime, which was linked to Bindu Ram through forensic evidence. • The cause of death, as determined by Dr. B.M. Kamre (PW-7), which supports the prosecution's account of the events. 27. 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 ? 28. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana1 has observed as under:- “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 1 (2002) 3 SCC 327 14 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.” 29. The Supreme Court in the matter of Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana2 has laid down certain factors which are to be taken into 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; 2 (2009) 15 SCC 635 15 (g) Whether the injury was caused without 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. 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.” 30. Likewise, in the matter of State v. Sanjeev Nanda3, their 3 (2012) 8 SCC 450 16 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. 31. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh4 has elaborately dealt with the issue and observed in 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 4 (2017) 3 SCC 247 17 advantage or acted in a cruel manner. 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 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”. 18 32. 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 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. 33. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Rambir v. State (NCT of Delhi)5 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.” 34. The distinction between intention and knowledge in the context of Section 299 and Section 300 IPC is crucial in determining the culpability of the appellant. Intention denotes a conscious desire to bring about a particular result, whereas knowledge implies awareness that a particular consequence is likely to ensue. In the present case, while the appellant's actions were undoubtedly culpable, the circumstances suggest that he did not intend to cause the death of his mother. However, it is evident that he knew 5 (2019) 6 SCC 122 19 that his actions were likely to cause harm. 35. Reverting to the facts of the present case and in light of principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above-stated judgments (supra) and the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to Mannu Ram (PW-3) and Bihanu Ram (PW-2) assumes significance in this context. A nuanced analysis of the confession reveals that while the appellant did indeed assault the deceased with a stick, the tone and tenor of the confession do not bespeak any premeditation or intention to cause death. The appellant's confession, as deposed to by Mannu Ram (PW-3) and Bihanu Ram (PW-2), suggests that he was overcome with anger and frustration, which led him to commit the offense. However, the absence of any motive or premeditation to cause death is evident from the circumstances, 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 satisfied 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. 36. Given the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant's actions would be better classified under Section 304 Part II IPC, which deals with culpable homicide 20 not amounting to murder. The appellant's culpability, in this case, is evident from the fact that he assaulted his mother with a stick, causing grievous injuries that ultimately led to her death. However, the absence of intention to cause death and the circumstances surrounding the incident warrant a reduction in the sentence. 37. Accordingly, conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC is set aside. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail since 11.04.2019 and has completed more than 6 years of jail sentence. As such, he is convicted under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment already undergone by him. 38. The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 39. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith if no longer required in any other criminal case. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Now Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with two reliable sureties in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant 21 judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 40. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet