1 2025:CGHC:56785-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.858 of 2017 The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 28.08.2025 21.11.2025 -- 22.11.2025 1 - Ram Singh Padda S/o Lakhnu Padda, Aged About 21 Years 2 - Mangal S/o Sukhram @ Sukhru Mandavi Aged About 19 Years Both R/o Village Farasgaon Kasai, Police Station Urendabeda, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh Appellant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Office, Police Station Arjuni, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. K. K. Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. AG Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Judgment Per Rajani Dubey J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.04.2017 passed by Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 the learned Additional Session Judge, Dhamtari in ST No.29/2016, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Mayur Chhajed lodged report stating therein that he is running Maa Bhuwal Rice Mill at Arjuni, Dhamtari, in which, Garib Ram was engaged as Chowkidar. On 24.02.2016, he went to his Mill at about 9.30 A.M. and he was not found Chowkidar Garibram and after sometime, the dead body of Garib Ram was found in the Room situated above the Office, thereafter a case was registered against the unknown persons and after investigation, the appellants were arrested. After investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate concerned. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and material available on record, learned trial court convicted the accused/appellants, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The memorandum and seizure witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile. There is no direct evidence or indirect evidence against the appellants and 3 only on the basis of conjectures and surmises the appellants have been convicted by the learned Trial Court. The chain of circumstantial evidence is also not complete, but the learned Trial Court has not considered the above said aspect of the matter. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and others vs CDR. Ravindra V. Desai, reported in (2018) 16 SCC 273. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC against the appellants and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 7. The first question we have to consider is that whether the death of deceased Garib Ram was homicidal in nature or not? 8. PW-1 Keshav Sahu stated that deceased Garib Ram was his father and he was working as watchman in Rice Mill, Demar. On 4 24.02.2016 mill owner told him that his father has been killed, then he went to spot and saw that his father was lying dead. He further stated that his father used to keep pocket diary and in his diary, names of Man Singh, Veer Singh, Raghunath Singh and Mangal were written. The diary was seized by the police vide seizure memo (Ex-P/1) and he admitted his signatures on A to A part of the same. 9. PW-15 Mayur Chhajed stated that he is owner of Maa Bhuwal Rice Mill. On 24.02.2016 at about 9:30 – 10 am in the morning when he reached the mill, then he did not see the deceased Garib Ram. He also tried to call him but his phone was unreachable. After sometime the other workers came to mill and when they had gone to keep their tiffin on the other floor of the mill, then they saw the dead body of the deceased and rushed to him and told that the deceased has been murdered by unknown person. Thereafter he lodged dehati nalisi (Ex-P/24) and admitted his signatures on A to A part of the same. He also lodged merg intimation vide Ex-P/23 and admitted his signatures on A to A part of the same. 10. The Inspector C. Tirkey (PW-21) stated that as per information of informant, he lodged dehati nalisi (Ex-P/14) and also lodged merg intimation (Ex-P/23) and issued notice to punch witnesses for inquest vide Ex-P/8. He prepared inequest memo (Ex-P/9) and gave application for postmortem vide Ex-P/12-A and admitted his signatures on all documents. 5 11. Dr. M. A. Nasheem (PW-10) conducted postmortem of deceased on 24.02.2016 and discussed the injuries sustained by the deceased as under:- " बाह्य परीक्षण- मृ तक एक औसत कद- कठी क परुष था, जिसक शरीरी मृ अकड़न क प्रक्रि"या प$री हो& चुक था। बाहोरी चु&टें क्रिनम्ननसरी था- 01- एक फटें हुआ ख्मृ जिसक आकरी 6 समृ. गुण 02 समृ. था, & क्रिक बा0या कन क क्रिपछले भागु स कन क क्रिपन्ना तक फ5 ले हुआ था, चु&टें क गुहोरीई होक्रि7या8 तक था। 02- एक फटें हुआ ख्मृ जिसक आकरी 2 समृ. गुण 01 समृ. था, & क्रिक बा0या मृ0स्ट्रायाड होड<‌ड परी पया गुया था इसक गुहोरीई भा होड<‌ड तक था। 03- एक फटें हुआ ख्मृ & क्रिक खो&पड़ क बा0या तरीफ सबा आक्सक्या$टेंले क्षत्र मृ था। चु&टें क आकरी 01 समृ. गुण 01 समृ था, याहो भा होड<‌ड तक गुहोरी था। 04- बा0या कन क क्रिपन्ना बाचु&- बाचु स प$री तरीहो कटें हुआ था व कन क छद खोले हुआ था, जिसस रीक्त स्त्रव हो& रीहो था। 05- एक फटें हुआ ख्मृ जिसक आकरी 02 समृ. गुण आधा समृ. था & क्रिक खो&पड़ क टेंप&रीले क्षत्र क उपरी पया गुया। याहो भा हो7 तक गुहोरी था। 06- एक फटें हुआ ख्मृ जिसक आकरी 4 समृ. गुण 01 समृ. था, & क्रिक चु&टें क.05 क उपरी था। 07- द& छ&टें- छ&टें फटें हुए ख्मृ जिसक आकरी 01 समृ. गुण आधा समृ. था, खो&पड़ क बा0या परीइटेंले क्षत्र क चुमृड़ मृ पया गुया। 08- एक फटें हुआ ख्मृ जिसक आकरी 5 समृ. गुण 01 समृ. था, खो&पड़ दक्रिहोन परीइटेंले क्षत्र क चुमृड़ मृ पया गुया था। ख्मृ वर्टिटेंFकले था। 09- एक फटें हुआ ख्मृ जिसक आकरी 3 समृ. गुण 1 समृ. था खो&पड़ क दक्रिहोन टेंप&रीले क्षत्र क चुमृड़ मृ पया गुया था। 02. मृ तक क द&न8 नक क क्षिक्षद्रों8 स खो$न क रिरीसव हुआ था। उपरी&क्त सभा चु&टें मृ त्या प$वK क था। आ0तरिरीक 0चु बा0या खो&पड़ क टेंप&रीले, परीइटेंले व आक्सिक्सपटेंले तन8 हो7या टेंटेंM हुया था। बाया0 बाड़ क हो7 टेंटेंM हुया था। बा0या छत क द& स प0चु पसलिलेया0 टेंटेंM हुया पया गुया था। खो&पड़ क अ0दरी खो&पड़ क प&स्टिस्टेंरिरीयारी व मिमृक्रिडले फ&स क जिQक्सिRलेया8 मृ व ब्रेन मृ बाहुत ज्याद रीक्त स्त्रव पया गुया।" He opined that the mode of death is hemorrhagic shock due to injuries sustained on temporal, parietal and occipital region of head and excessive bleeding from skull and gave his report (Ex- P/12). He also examined the steel road and sent the same for chemical examination. He opined that the injuries may come by 6 this road and gave his report vide Ex-P/13. Nothing came out in his cross-examination to negate the same therefore the prosecution has proved this fact beyond reasonable doubt that death of deceased is homicidal in nature, as such the learned Trial Court has rightly found that the death of deceased is homicidal in nature. 12. Now we have to consider that whether the accused/appellants are author of this crime or not? 13. PW-1 Keshav Sahu, son of deceased, stated that his father Garib Ram used to keep pocket diary and in his diary, names of Man Singh, Veer Singh, Raghunath Singh and Mangal were written. The diary was seized by the police vide seizure memo (Ex-P/1). In his cross-examination, he admitted that he has not seen the incident and he also admitted this suggestion of defence that he has not seen his father writing the said four names in the diary. 14. PW-2 Shankar Nath stated that the police recorded memorandum of Ram Singh. Ram Singh disclosed in his memorandum (Ex-P/2) that he has hidden the iron road under the sand from which he had assaulted the deceased. The police also recorded memorandum of the accused Mangal vide Ex-P/4, in which the accused Mangal disclosed that he has hidden the rod under the sand from which he assaulted the deceased. He also admitted his signatures on seizure of mobile (Ex-P/3). In cross-examination, he admitted that police had caught Mangal 7 and Ram Singh and police had told that Ram Singh and Mangal have committed murder and they have to catch them. In para 11, he stated that mobile was brought from the house of deceased. He admitted this suggestion that iron road from Ram Singh was not seized in front of him. 15. PW-3 Budhram Salam stated that police recorded memorandum of Ram Singh as per Ex-P/2 and also recorded memorandum of Mangal vide Ex-P/4. The police seized mobile from Mangal as per Ex-P/3. In the cross-examination, he admitted this suggestion of defence that the police came and stated that they have to go the house of Ram Singh and Mangal as they have committed murder of deceased Garib Ram. He admitted this suggestion of defence that he signed on memorandum (Ex-P/2 & Ex-P/4) at Police Station Edka. He also admitted this suggestion of defence that no rod was seized from the appellants in front of him. 16. Chintaram Sahu (Ex-P/4) admitted his signatures on seizure memo (Ex-P/5) but he denied any seizure proceedings before him. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him then he admitted this suggestion that the police seized two attendance registers from Lalit Chhajed. 17. Bhagwat Sinha (PW-5) and Dhananjay Das (PW-6) stated that iron rod was seized from Ram Singh in front of them vide Ex-P/6 and admitted his signatures on A to A part of the same. In the cross-examination, they admitted this suggestion of defence that 8 police had told them that the rod which has to be seized has been kept under sand beneath stairs. They also admitted this suggestion that they have signed in Ex-P/6 & P/7 in Crime Branch Office. 18. The Inspector Ramesh Sahu (PW-13) stated that during investigation, he saw CCTV footage of mill, in which two persons along with the deceased were seen, thereafter he enquired from the workers of the mill, then they told that those two persons are the accused Ram Singh and Mangal, thereafter the accused were got identified by Heeralal and Mohan. He recorded memorandum of Ram Singh (Ex-P/2) and memorandum of Mangal (Ex-P/4) before witnesses Shankar Nath and Budhram and seized iron road as per seizure memo (Ex-P/3 & Ex-P/7) and also prepared CCTV footage, which is Article 1 & Article 2. As per deposition of this witness, CCTV footage was shown on computer before the Court, in which the appellants and the deceased were seen climbing stairs. In the cross-examination, he admitted that the date of incident is of 24.02.2016 and he recorded memorandum of accused on 05.05.2016. He also admitted that Shankar and Budhram are constables in police department and he recorded memorandum of Ram Singh before Shankar and Budhram and he also admitted that in front of Shankar and Budhram, rod was not seized from the accused Ram Singh. He also admitted that summons under Section 160 of CrPC were not given to witnesses Shankar and Budhram. This 9 witness admitted in paras 6 & 7 as under:- “06. याहो कहोन सहो हो5 क्रिक इस प्रकरीण मृ मृरी द्वारी 0चु 05.05.2016 क& क गुई। याहो कहोन सहो हो5 क्रिक लिसड़ क मृ0गु मृले मृलिलेक स मृरी द्वारी नहोV क गुई था। थान प्रभारी द्वारी क्रिकया गु था। मृWन लिसड़ घटेंन क दिदन दखो था। लिसड दखोन क उRलेखो मृWन क श डयारी मृ क्रिकया था। चु$0क्रिक उक्त क्रिवषया गु&पनया था। मृW आ याहो नहोV बात सकत क्रिक उक्त बात क उRलेखो मृWन चुरीलिसटें मृ क्रिकया था या नहोV। उक्त घटेंन 24.02.2016 क हो5। याहो कहोन सहो हो5 क्रिक आरी&पगुण8 क मृमृ&रीडमृ कथान 05.05.2016 क& सक्ष श0करीनथा एव0 बाधारीमृ सलेमृ क समृक्ष लिलेया गुया हो5। याहो कहोन सहो हो5 क्रिक श0करी औरी बाधारीमृ सहोयाक आरीक्ष एव0 पलिलेस क्रिवभागु क हो होW। याहो कहोन सहो हो5 क्रिक रीमृसिंसFगु क मृमृ&रीडमृ कथान श0करीनथा एव0 बाधारीमृ क समृक्ष लिलेया गुया हो5 परीन्त याहो बात भा सहोV हो5 क्रिक श0करीनथा व बाधारीमृ क समृक्ष रीमृसिंसFगु स होलिथायारी क बारीमृदगु नहोV क गुया हो5। याहो कहोन सहो हो5 क्रिक रीमृसिंसFगु स री\ड क प्त प्र.प. 06 क अनसरी शमृ क& समृया 05:00 बा क गुई हो5। 07. याहो कहोन सहो हो5 क्रिक धारी 160 फ. क समृ0स मृWन प्त क द्वारी भागुवत लिसन्हो एव0 धान0या मृक्रिनकपरी क& 05.05.2016 क& समृया 04:45 बा दिदया हो5। याहो कहोन सहो हो5 क्रिक मृWन प्त गुवहो8 भागुवत व धान0या क& रीमृसिंसFगु स प्त क कयाKवहो क प$वK धारी 160 .फ. क समृ0स प्र. प 07 क मृध्यामृ स याहो नकरी दM था क्रिक रीमृसिंसFगु न याहो कथान क्रिकया हो5 क्रिक जिस ले&हो क री\ड स उसन गुरिरीबारीमृ क& मृरी हो5, उस री\ड क& रीईसमृले क नचु रीत मृ लिछपकरी रीखो हो5, जिसक प्त क न हो5। याहो कहोन सहो हो5। क्रिक मृमृ&रीडमृ क गुवहो श0करीनथा व बाधारीमृ सलेमृ क& कयाKवहो मृ शमिमृले हो&न क लिलेए धारी 160 .फ. क क&ई भा समृ0स नहोV दिदया था। याहो कहोन सहो हो5 क्रिक प्रकरीण मृ रीमृसिंसFगु क मृमृ&रीडमृ क गुवहो दूसरी व्यक्सिक्त हो5 औरी रीमृसिंसFगु स जिस री\ड क प्त क गुई, वहो गुवहो अन्या व्यक्सिक्त हो5। रीमृसिंसFगु क मृमृ&रीडमृ क गुवहो रीमृसिंसFगु क प्त क कयाKवहो मृ क्या8 शमिमृले नहोV हो& पया उसक स्पमिbकरीण मृWन डयारी मृ लिलेखो हो5। अक्षिभाया&गु पत्र मृ नहोV हो5।" He also admitted in para 9 that the date of incident is 24.02.2016, whereas rod was recovered on 05.05.2016 from campus of rice mill and he also admitted that rod was not seized from locked room and it was kept under the stairs. 19. It is clear from the memorandum of accused Ram Singh (Ex-P/2) that witnesses of this memorandum are constable Shankar Nath and constable Budhram and they admitted their signatures on A to A part and B to B part of the same and as per this memo Ram Singh disclosed about rod which he kept under the stairs and as per seizure memo (Ex-P/6), rod was recovered from rice mill on 10 05.05.2016 but witnesses of this seizure memo (Ex-P/6) are Bhagwat Sinha (PW-5) and Dhananjay Das (PW-6). 20. The Investigating Officer Ramesh Sahu (PW-13) clearly admitted in para 7 that why witnesses of memorandum were not included in the seizure has not been explained. As per FSL report, human blood was found in Article gym rod but it is clear from statement of witnesses PW-2 Shankar Nath and PW-3 Budhram that both are police constables and are witnesses of memorandum but seizure was not made before these witnesses. As per seizure memo (Ex-P/6), rod was recovered before another witnesses Bhagwat Sinha (PW-5) and Dhananjay Das (PW-6). It is clear from notice (Ex-P/7) that IO issued notice to both these witnesses. The said notice was given to these witnesses at 16:45 pm, whereas seizure memo (Ex-P/6) was prepared on 05.05.2016 at 17 pm and both independent witnesses (PW-5 & PW-6) stated that the police told them that rod has to be seized. Thus the prosecution has failed to prove this fact beyond reasonable doubt that this iron rod was seized as per memorandum of appellant Ram Singh, however the learned Trial Court relied upon CCTV footage. 21. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as per Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, the CCTV footage are not admissible in evidence against the appellants. 22. Learned State counsel relying upon on the judgment rendered by 11 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of CDR. Ravindra (supra) submitted that the evidence of CCTV are admissible, as such the objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is not sustainable. 23. The Investigating Officer obtained CCTV footage from mill and prepared Pan Drive and CD. The witness Chandresh Namdev (PW-12) stated that he is working as CCTV camera fitter and he prepared 3 CDs from CCTV camera footage of Maa Bhuwal Rice mill. In the cross-examination, he admitted this suggestion of defence that he has not made the CCTV footage on police saying, whereas he has made the same on Lalit Chhajed’s saying and handed over the same to him. On the next day Lalit called him in rice mill where he signed. He also admitted that he took money for making CD and did not give any receipt of the same. 24. The Investigating Officer Ramesh Sahu (PW-13) admitted in para 8 of cross-examination that in CCTV footage, the appellants were not seen committing murder of deceased. They were seen while ascending and descending stairs along with the deceased. 25. The learned Trial Court also noted that the accused persons and appellants were seen, but it is not clear from deposition of Lalit Chhajed (PW-16), owner of mill, who stated that he had seen the CCTV footage, wherein the accused persons were seen along with deceased while ascending and descending the stairs and the accused persons were identified by his workers and they also 12 told him that the accused/appellants have already worked for one week in his mill. In para 7 of his cross-examination, he admitted that on 22nd or 23rd February, 2016 he has not seen the accused persons near his rice mill. The CD was made by the policemen after 2-3 days of the incident. He also admitted that he does not remember as to on what date the policemen took the accused to his rice mill for identification. 26. Mohan Ram Sahu (PW-17) and Heeralal Sahu (PW-18) stated that they identified accused in CCTV footage and after that they identified accused in TIP parade as per Ex-P/34 & P/35. In the cross-examination, both admitted that they are not the eye witnesses of the incident and on 22nd and 23rd February, they have not seen the accused persons near mill. 27. The Executive Magistrate Divya Potai (PW-22) conducted TIP parade and stated that before witnesses she conducted TIP of accused Mangal Singh and Ram Singh and she admitted her signatures on the documents Ex-P/27, P/32, P/34 & P/38. In the cross-examination, she admitted this suggestion of defence that the persons who were to be identified were not called by her and the policemen took them. She also admitted that in the application which was received from the Police Station Arjuni, there was no mention of CCTV footage. 28. Close scrutiny of all the witnesses clearly shows that the prosecution has only filed the documents Article 1 and Article 2 13 which are CCTV footage, in which the accused persons were seen along with the deceased but the prosecution has failed to prove this fact that the said CCTV footages are of which date. The police also seized one mobile and as per prosecution this mobile belongs to the deceased, but seizure witnesses admitted this suggestion of defence that they signed on seizure memo at police station and it is admitted by the Investigating Officer that both memorandum witnesses are police constables and they are not the witnesses of seizure memo. Thus the prosecution has utterly failed to prove this fact that mobile and iron rod were recovered as per memorandum of both the appellants. 29. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Raja Khan v. State of C.G. reported in (2025) 3 SCC 314 held in para 31 as under:- 31. The question as to whether evidence relating to recovery is sufficient to fasten guilt on the accused was considered by this Court in Bodhraj v. State of J&K, wherein it has been held as under: (SCC pp. 58-59, para 18) "18.... Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "the Evidence Act") is by way of proviso to Sections 25 to 26 and a statement even by way of confession made in police custody which distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible in evidence against the accused. This position was succinctly dealt with by this Court in State (UT of Delhi) v. Bal Krishan and Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra². The words "so much of such information" as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, are very Important and the whole force of the section concentrates on them. Clearly the extent of the Information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate. The ban as Imposed by the preceding sections was presumably inspired by the fear of the legislature that a person under police 14 Influence might be induced to confess by the exercise of undue pressure. If all that is required to lift the ban be the Inclusion In the confession of Information relating to an object subsequently produced, it seems reasonable to suppose that the persuasive powers of the police will prove equal to the occasion, and that in practice the ban will lose its effect. The object of the provision i.e. Section 27 was to provide for the admission of evidence which but for the existence of the section could not in consequence of the preceding sections, be admitted in evidence. It would appear that under Section 27 as it stands in order to render the evidence leading to discovery of any fact admissible, the information must come from any accused in custody of the police. The requirement of police custody is productive of extremely anomalous results and may lead to the exclusion of much valuable evidence in cases where a person, who is subsequently taken into custody and becomes an accused, after committing a crime meets a police officer or voluntarily goes to him or to the police station and states the circumstances of the crime which lead to the discovery of the dead body, weapon or any other material fact, In consequence of the Information thus received from him. This Information which is otherwise admissible becomes inadmissible under Section 27 If the information did not come from a person in the custody of a police officer or did come from a person not in the custody of a police officer. The statement which is admissible under Section 27 Is the one which is the information leading to discovery. Thus, what is admissible being the information, the same has to be proved and not the opinion formed on it by the police officer. In other words, the exact information given by the accused while in custody which led to recovery of the articles has to be proved. It is, therefore, necessary for the benefit of both the accused and the prosecution that Information given should be recorded and proved and if not so recorded, the exact information must be adduced through evidence. The basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered as a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. The Information might be confessional or non- inculpatory in nature but if it results in discovery of a fact, it becomes a reliable Information. It is now well 15 settled that recovery of an object is not discovery of fact envisaged in the section. The decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayya v. King-Emperor is the most- quoted authority of supporting the interpretation that the "fact discovered" envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect. [See State of Maharashtra v. Damu².] No doubt, the information permitte(emphasis supplied)” 30. In light of above, it is clear that in the present case, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove this fact that iron rod was recovered at the instance of accused Ram Singh and has also failed to prove this fact that seized mobile phone belongs to deceased. It is also clear that in this case there is no last seen witness, but the learned Trial Court did not appreciate the above said aspects of the matter and has wrongly convicted the appellants, as such the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable. 31. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. 32. The appellants are reported to be on bail. 33. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellants are directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each before the court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an 16 undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 34. 34. The Trial Court’s record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Sd/- Rajani Dubey Amitendra Kishore Prasad Judge Judge Nirala