1 2025:CGHC:43836-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1221 of 2021 Santosh Yadav @ Madan Yadav S/o Late Puran Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Putsu, Police Station Pasta, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State f Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Pasta, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 2 9 .08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sakib Ahmed, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’) is directed against the ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.08.29 17:13:41 +0530 2 impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.08.2021 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.R-77/2017, by which the appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 month. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, was that on 27.08.2017, deceased Anand Yadav was proceeding on a motorcycle along with his uncle Dhanukdhari Yadav (PW-1) towards Village Pipraul. At that relevant time, accused Santosh Yadav @ Madan Yadav, who was passing through the maize field via a footpath, suddenly attacked Anand Yadav with an axe on his neck, causing grievous and fatal injuries. The complainant, with the help of family members, immediately shifted the injured to the District Hospital, Balrampur, where the attending doctor declared him dead. On the basis of the information received at the hospital, the complainant’s report was registered as Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P-1) and Dehati Merg Intimation (Ex. P-2), and thereafter the police set the investigation into motion. 4. During investigation, summons under Section 175 CrPC was given to the witnesses vide Ex. P-3 and the police recorded the 3 statements of eye-witnesses under Section 161 CrPC. The witnesses categorically stated that at the time of assault, the wife of accused Santosh Yadav, namely Rita Yadav, and co-accused Pramukh Yadav were present at the spot and were instigating Santosh Yadav. Their statements were further recorded before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Rajpur, under Section 164 CrPC, wherein they reiterated the role of instigation by Rita Yadav and Pramukh Yadav. On the strength of the evidence collected and legal opinion, the accused along with other co-accused Pramukh Yadav and Rita Devi were also arrested for their alleged involvement in the offence. 5. The investigation further revealed that postmortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Umesh Vishwas (PW-10) and according to the postmortem report (Ex. P-5), the cause of death of deceased seems to be hemorrhage leading to cardiopulmonary arrest and the death was homicidal in nature. The inquest report (Ex. P-4) was prepared. Sub-Inspector Dhirendra Banjare (PW- 11) prepared the spot map (Ex. P-6) and Panchnama (Ex. P-7). Memorandum statement of the accused Santosh Yadav was recorded vide Ex. P-8 and from the possession of accused Santosh Yadav, a blood-stained T-shirt (Ex. P-9) and the axe used in the assault (Ex. P-16) were seized in the presence of independent witnesses. Blood-stained soil and plain soil were also seized from the spot (Ex. P-11). At the request of police, the Patwari prepared a detailed map (Ex. P-13). A sealed packet 4 handed over by the doctor after postmortem was also seized vide Ex. P-24. The seized articles were duly forwarded for chemical examination through the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur, and the forensic report was received as Ex. P-31, according to which, blood stains were found on the axe. 6. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balrampur. Since the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Balrampur at Ramanujganj, and thereafter transferred for trial to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj. 7. On 20.08.2018, the then Presiding Officer Shri Rishi Kumar Barman, learned Additional Sessions Judge, framed charges against accused Santosh Yadav, Rita Yadav and Pramukh Yadav under Sections 302/34, 120-B and 294 IPC, read over and explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be falsely implicated. In their examination under Section 313 CrPC, the accused persons denied the prosecution allegations, asserted their innocence, and expressed their intention to adduce defence evidence. 8. To establish the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses, i.e. PW-1 to PW-13, namely PW-1 Dhanukdhari Yadav, PW-2 Samdhani Yadav, PW-3 Basanti Gupta, PW-4 Ishwar 5 Yadav, PW-5 Ramji Sahab, PW-6 Arvind Yadav, PW-7 Rambilas Yadav, PW-8 Rajni Yadav, PW-9 Basroop Yadav, PW-10 Dr. Umesh Vishwas, PW-11 Sub-Inspector Dhirendra Banjare, PW-12 Constable Brijmohan Singh and PW-13 Smt. Saloti. and exhibited 31 documents i.e. Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-31, whereas in defence, the appellant-accused has not examined any witness, but exhibited four documents i.e. Ex. D-1 to Ex. D-2. 9. The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 of the CrPC with regard to the circumstances appearing in evidence against him. He denied all the incriminating material, stated that he was innocent and falsely implicated due to previous enmity. 10. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 05.08.2021, acquitted the co-accused namely, Pramukh Yadav and Smt. Rita Yadav and convicted the appellant- Santosh Yadav alias Madan Yadav for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced as mentioned in the second paragraph of this judgment, against which, this criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein. 11. Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is unsustainable in law as well as on facts. It is contended that the prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, as there is no direct or independent eye-witness to the occurrence. 6 The chain of circumstances brought on record is not complete, nor does it point unerringly towards the guilt of the appellant. It is urged that P.W.1, Dhanukdhar Yadav, projected as an eye- witness, is in fact not present at the spot at the relevant time. As per his own version, he is following the motorcycle of the deceased on foot and therefore could not have actually witnessed the assault. His testimony is riddled with material contradictions and omissions, both vis-à-vis his statement under Section 161 CrPC. and his deposition before the trial Court. Being a close relative of the deceased, he is an interested witness, and in the absence of corroboration, his testimony cannot be the sole basis for conviction. It is further argued that the testimony of PW-2 Ramdhani Yadav clearly indicates that PW-1 Dhanukdhari Yadav is not present at the place of occurrence and in fact reaches there only after the death of the deceased. The evidence of other witnesses also lacks consistency and suffers from contradictions and omissions of serious nature, thereby rendering the entire prosecution version doubtful. 12. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged motive projected by the prosecution, namely the dispute regarding allotment of a fair price shop, is wholly unreliable. The evidence on record shows that the fair price shop is allotted on 17.08.2017 to “Kalyani Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh” and therefore, there is no subsisting dispute between the appellant and the deceased. The alleged motive is thus concocted by the relatives of the deceased 7 in order to falsely implicate the appellant. It is also pointed out that the conduct of the appellant at no stage indicates any involvement in the crime. The police, under pressure from villagers and the local MLA, register a named FIR and proceed with the investigation in a biased and mala fide manner. This fact itself, noted in paragraph 22 of the impugned judgment, demonstrates that the FIR is lodged under extraneous influence rather than on the basis of actual occurrence. Learned counsel contends that although all three accused persons are charged on similar footing, the co-accused Rita Yadav and Pramukh Yadav are acquitted by the Trial Court by granting benefit of doubt, while the appellant alone is convicted under Section 302 IPC on the same set of evidence. Such differential treatment is impermissible in law. Once doubt is found in the prosecution version, the benefit thereof ought to be extended equally to the appellant as well. It is further contended that the trial Court itself, in paragraph 42 of the impugned judgment, records that the statement of PW-1 suffers from material contradictions and omissions and is not reliable. Yet, while acquitting the co-accused, the trial Court erroneously relied on the same tainted testimony to convict the appellant. It has been submitted that there is no direct or indirect evidence to connect the appellant with the alleged offence. The entire prosecution story is full of improbabilities and inconsistencies, and the evidence adduced is neither trustworthy nor clinching. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the appellant 8 beyond reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is unsafe, contrary to law, and against the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. As such, the appellant, like the acquitted co-accused, is also entitled to the benefit of doubt and deserves to be acquitted of all charges. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Sakib Ahmed, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State submits that the appellant has committed a heinous offence by assaulting the deceased–Anand Yadav with a deadly weapon, namely, a ‘Tangi’, on the vital part of his body i.e., the back side of the neck, which resulted in grievous injuries leading to his instantaneous death. It is submitted that the prosecution case finds full corroboration from the testimony of the eye-witness, Dhanukdhari Yadav (PW-01), who has categorically stated that he had seen the appellant inflicting the fatal blow upon the deceased. Learned State counsel would further submit that apart from the ocular version of the eyewitness, the case of the prosecution also stands fortified by the recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the appellant. He points out that in pursuance of the memorandum statement of the appellant recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (Ex. P-8), a blood-stained ‘Tangi’ was seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P-10). The seized weapon was thereafter sent for forensic examination, and as per the FSL report (Ex. P-31), the presence of human blood has been confirmed on the said weapon, thereby directly linking the appellant with the crime. It is further argued that the 9 trial Court has carefully evaluated both the ocular and documentary evidence and has rightly recorded a finding of conviction against the appellant. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the case is based merely on circumstantial evidence is wholly misconceived, as the testimony of the eyewitness Dhanukdhari Yadav (PW-1) is clear, cogent and trustworthy, and the same has been duly corroborated by the scientific evidence in the form of FSL report. Learned State counsel would also contend that the recovery of the blood-stained weapon from the possession of the appellant, the medical evidence showing that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, and the consistent statement of the eyewitness leave no manner of doubt that the appellant is the author of the crime. Therefore, there is sufficient material available on record to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, it is submitted that the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and calls for no interference. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 14. 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. 15. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have to examine the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 10 16. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased to be homicidal in nature ? 17. The trial Court, relying upon the statement of Dr. Umesh Vishwas (PW-10), who has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased person, vide Ex. P-14, has clearly come to the conclusion that deceased died by hemorrhage leading to cardiopulmonary arrest and the nature of his death was "homicidal". 18. Having considered the rival submissions and upon meticulous evaluation of the evidence brought on record, this Court finds itself in full agreement with the conclusion reached by the learned trial Court that the death of deceased Anand Yadav was homicidal in nature as from the deposition of PW-10 Dr. Umesh Vishwas, who conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased, it stands established beyond doubt that the deceased had sustained a grievous incised wound on the vital part of the body, namely, the neck, measuring about 9 cm in length and up to 7 cm in depth, cutting through the blood vessels. The doctor has opined that the death was on account of excessive hemorrhage resulting from the aforesaid injury. He has further clarified in categorical terms that such an injury could neither be self-inflicted nor accidental, and the suggestion that it could have been caused by a fall on a sharp stone was specifically denied. His opinion is further fortified by the postmortem report (Ex. P-14) and his 11 subsequent clarification (Ex. P-15), both of which unequivocally record that the cause of death was homicidal. 19. The medical evidence is consistent with the ocular version and corroborates the prosecution case in material particulars. Significantly, the defence has not been able to bring on record any evidence, direct or circumstantial, to suggest that the injuries were caused in any manner other than homicidal assault. In absence of such contrary evidence, the testimony of the Medical Officer, which remains unimpeached, deserves to be accepted in its entirety. 20. Upon independent scrutiny of the entire evidence, this Court finds no infirmity or perversity in the finding so recorded by the trial Court. On the contrary, the reasoning appears to be sound and based on unimpeachable medical testimony. Accordingly, the conclusion of the trial Court that the death of deceased Anand Yadav was homicidal in nature is hereby affirmed. 21. The next question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court has rightly held that the appellant is author of the crime ? 22. As regards complicity of the appellant in crime in question, conviction of the appellant is substantially based on evidence of eyewitness, namely, Dhanukdhari Yadav (PW-1), who is his uncle. 23. PW-1 Dhanukdhari Yadav, who is not only the eyewitness but also the informant of the incident, has given a clear and 12 categorical account that while he was accompanying the deceased Anand Yadav on the motorcycle, the appellant Santosh Yadav, who was lying in wait in his maize field, suddenly emerged and struck a blow with a tangiya on the neck of the deceased from behind. The testimony of this witness inspires confidence as his presence at the scene is wholly natural, he being in the company of the deceased at the time of occurrence. His deposition is consistent, free from material contradictions, and withstands cross-examination insofar as the role of the appellant is concerned. 24. The testimony of Dhankudhari Yadav (PW-1) does not stand in isolation. It finds corroboration from the evidence of PW-2 Ramdhani Yadav (father of the deceased), PW-6 Arvind Yadav (brother of the deceased), and PW-13 Smt. Saloti (mother of the deceased), who reached the spot immediately after the incident and witnessed the deceased lying in a pool of blood with a grievous incised wound on the neck. These witnesses have further deposed that they saw the appellant Santosh Yadav fleeing from the spot with the weapon in his hand. Their testimonies lend strong assurance to the version narrated by Dhanukhari Yadav (PW-1) and leave no room for doubt regarding the presence and involvement of the appellant in the commission of the crime. 25. Not only this, on the memorandum statement of appellant Santosh 13 Yadav, an axe was recovered on his pointing out, which was sent for FSL and as per FSL report (Ex.P/31), blood was found on the said axe seized from appellant Santosh Yadav. 26. On a careful scrutiny of the record, it is evident that the prosecution case, qua the role of the appellant Santosh Yadav, primarily rests on the ocular account of PW-1 Dhanukdhari Yadav, who was the informant and an eyewitness who was accompanying the deceased at the time of occurrence. His presence is natural and explained: he was travelling with the deceased, alighted momentarily due to a pit on the path, and from a short distance witnessed the appellant emerge from his maize field and deliver a tangi blow on the back of the deceased’s neck. The witness had prior familiarity with the appellant, eliminating any possibility of mistaken identity at about 5:30 p.m. in broad daylight. The testimony of PW-1 is clear, consistent and cogent on the material particulars the author of the assault (Santosh), the weapon (tangi), the seat and manner of injury (a single, forceful blow on the neck), the place of occurrence (the appellant’s maize field), and the immediate aftermath (the deceased collapsing and bleeding profusely). 27. Cross-examination does not disclose any contradiction that goes to the root of his version; suggestions of tutoring or fabrication were squarely denied and remain unsubstantiated. Any embellishments or omissions highlighted by the defence pertain to the alleged presence or role of co-accused and do not impeach 14 the core narrative fixing authorship of the fatal act on the appellant. 28. In law, conviction can be safely founded on the testimony of a single eyewitness if the Court finds him to be wholly reliable; corroboration is a matter of prudence, not a rule of law. Tested on these touchstones, PW-1 Dhanukdhari Yadav qualifies as a sterling witness: he is a natural witness with a plausible vantage point; his version is internally consistent and externally compatible with the surrounding circumstances. The prompt lodging of the Dehati Nalshi and the immediate conduct of taking the injured towards medical aid comport with his narrative and exclude the hypothesis of deliberated false implication. 29. Crucially, the medical evidence of PW-10 Dr. Umesh Vishwas, recording a deep incised wound on the neck severing vessels and opining death due to hemorrhage is wholly in consonance with PW-1’s ocular account and the use of a sharp-edged weapon like a tangi. Such medical congruence constitutes strong assurance to the eyewitness version and rules out accidental or self-inflicted harm. The established background of land/pathway discord between the deceased and the appellant, coupled with the situs of the crime in the appellant’s field, supplies a rational motive, though, strictly speaking, motive is not indispensable where there is direct, trustworthy ocular evidence. 30. Thus, in the series of proving the involvement of the accused in 15 the incident on behalf of the prosecution, the memorandum statement and seizure of the accused have been made the main basis along with the judicial statements of the eyewitnesses, which has been proved by the statement of the independent witnesses of the seizure and memorandum and no discrepancies have come to light in the cross-examination of said witness and on that basis, truth of the said proceedings cannot be doubted. 31. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Balu Sudam Khalde and another v. The State of Maharashtra, (2023) 13 SCC 365, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the issue with regard to the eye-witness account has observed as follows :- “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 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 16 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, then such contradiction, exaggeration 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. 27. In assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit 17 the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence. Although in cases where the plea of the accused is a mere denial, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where the accused raise a definite plea or put forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into account while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence.” 32. 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 to the case, such exaggeration should 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 18 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 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, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from 19 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)” 33. On a careful consideration of the evidence on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has successfully established beyond reasonable doubt that the case of the appellant rests squarely on the clear, cogent and trustworthy ocular testimony of PW-1 Dhanukdhari Yadav, who is a natural witness to the occurrence. His presence at the spot is natural and his account is consistent and unshaken in material particulars. His testimony is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of PW-10 Dr. Umesh Vishwas, whose postmortem report demonstrates that the fatal injury on the neck of the deceased could only have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon like the tangi (axe) alleged to have been used by the appellant. The evidence of Ramdhani Yadav (PW-2), Arvind Yadav (PW-6) and Smt. Salouti (PW-13), who reached the spot immediately after the incident and saw the deceased lying in a pool of blood and the appellant fleeing therefrom, further lends assurance to the prosecution case. 34. The established motive arising out of the land dispute between the appellant and the deceased adds another link towards the 20 appellant’s culpability. Thus, this Court finds that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant Santosh Yadav who inflicted the fatal blow on the neck of deceased Anand Yadav with a tangi (axe), which directly resulted in his homicidal death. 35. From the above discussion, it is clear that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The ocular testimony of the prosecution witness Dhanukdhari Yadav (PW-1) stood corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. Umesh Vishwas (PW-10), who had clearly opined that the death of Anand Yadav was homicidal in nature, caused by hemorrhage leading to cardiopulmonary arrest. The seizure of the weapon of offence, i.e. tangi (axe), at the instance of the appellant and the FSL report confirming the presence of human blood thereon, further lent assurance to the prosecution version. The defence has not been able to probabilise any alternate hypothesis so as to create reasonable doubt in the prosecution story. 36. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The eyewitness, PW-1 Dhanukdhari Yadav, has given a clear, consistent and trustworthy account of the assault made by the appellant on the deceased, which stood unshaken in cross-examination. His testimony finds corroboration from PW-2 Ramdhani Yadav, PW-6 Arvind Yadav and PW-13 Smt. Salouti, 21 who immediately reached the spot and witnessed the aftermath, as well as from medical opinion of Dr. Umesh Vishwas (PW-10), who categorically held that the death of Anand Yadav was homicidal in nature and was caused by a sharp-edged weapon like tangi (axe). The defence has failed to bring on record any material to discredit these witnesses or to probabilise a different version of the incident. Thus, this Court finds no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant, and the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court calls for no interference. 37. Accordingly, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. The appeal preferred by the accused is dismissed, and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.08.2021 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj in Sessions Trial No.R-77/2017 is hereby affirmed. 38. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail. He shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the trial Court. 39. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing the jail term, to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment 22 passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu