1 2025:CGHC:9515-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 294 of 2021 1 - Ram Shingh Thakur S/o Hemlal Thakur, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Armarikala Police Station Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Smt. Ranjana Jaiswal, Advocate. For State : Shri Malay Jain, Panel lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 25-02-2025 1. Present is a criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.PC. filed against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 01-02-2021 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balod in S.T. No.87/2018 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 450 of the IPC R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs.1,00/-, in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for 30 days, U/s 397 of IPC R.I. for 7 years Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 U/s 302 of the IPC R.I. for life and fine of Rs.1,00/-, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 30 days. 2. The brief facts of the case are that deceased Baniharin Bai was residing alone at village Amarikala and on the date of incident, i.e., 14- 08-2018 in evening she came back from her work and had gone to bed after having her dinner. On the next morning of 15-08-2018 her dead body was found in front of her house having injuries on her body. Merg intimation was given by one Naradram Nirmalkar PW-1 which has been reduced in writing in Ex.-P/1. Dehati Nalisi (first FIR) was recorded on the spot. Inquest of the dead body of the deceased was prepared in presence of the witnesses and the dead body was sent for its postmortem to Government Hospital Gurur where Doctor G.R. Rawate PW-7 conducted postmortem of the dead body of the deceased and found following injuries in it:- (1) cut injury present in skull on right parietal bone, (2) multiple stab wound present in skull, (i) right parietal region of head two stab wound each size is about 10 cm. X 0.5 cm., (ii) stab wound present in lumber region, 5 x 2 x 2 cm, (iii) left lateral of orbital region 7 x 1.5 x 0.2 cm., (iv) below right eye stab wound present size 4 x 1 x 0.2 cm. (v) bruise present in the neck 3 All wound have severe bleeding. The doctor has opined cause of death due to loose clot with lead to fatal hemorrhage, by forceful attack by weapon or object (external hemorrhage is slight but may marked internal hemorrhage to internal organs) resulting cardio respiratory arrest. Nature of death is homicidal in nature. Time passed about 10-15 hours prior to autopsy and his postmortem report is Ex.-P/4. The numbered merg intimation Ex.-P/15 was registered at police station Gurur and the FIR Ex.-P/16 was registered for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC against unknown person. Spot map Ex.-P/5 was prepared by the police. Blood stained soil, plain soil, one stone having blood like stained, broken pieces of bangles, one broken pearl garland, one wooden stool and broken part of wooden stool stuck in the hair of the deceased have been seized from the spot vide seizure memo Ex.- P/9. The wooden stool, stone were sent for its query report to the doctor who conducted the postmortem and the doctor has given his answer of the query through query report Ex.-P/12A and opined that injury could have been caused by the objects examined. The death is due to internal and external hemorrhage. For confirmation of presence of blood the articles were sent to FSL for its chemical examination. The appellant was arrested on 16-08-2018 and his memorandum statement Ex.-P/6 was recorded and based on his memorandum statement one golden locket and his inner having blood like stains has been seized vide seizure memo Ex.-P/7. The said inner was also sent for its query report to the doctor who gave his report Ex.-P/13A and sent it for its chemical examination to the FSL. The blood stained soil and plain soil, stone, 4 broken wooden stool, part of broken stool and inner (T-shirt) seized from the appellant were sent for its chemical examination to State FSL, Raipur, from where report Ex.-P/20 was received and after its chemical examination blood was found on blood stained soil article B, stone seized from the spot article C, broken piece of stool article D, broken stool article E and inner (T-shirt) seized form the appellant, whereas human blood was found on all those articles except blood stained soil article B and blood of article B was disintegrated. Statement of witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation charge sheet was filed before the learned C.J.M. Balod for the offence under Section 302, 397 and 450 of the IPC. The case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge from where the same has been transferred to the learned trial Court for its trial. 3. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellant for the offence under Section 450, 392 read with 397 and 302 of the IPC. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove the charge against the appellant the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses. Statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. of the appellant has also been recorded in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. 5. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the 5 appellant as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses which cannot be made basis to convict the appellant in offence in question. There is no eye-witness and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, i.e., the memorandum statement of the appellant and seizure of golden locket from him. There is no identification of the golden locket seized from the appellant. Further, though human blood has been found on the inner (T- shirt) of the appellant, but in absence of any blood group matched with the blood of the deceased, the same cannot be connected with the offence in question. She would also submit that dead body of the deceased has been found in the open place. There is no motive proved by the prosecution against the appellant and therefore, in absence of any cogent and clinching evidence he cannot be convicted and the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. All the chain of circumstances has been completed as the motive, memorandum statement of the appellant, seizures made from the appellant have duly connects him with the offence in question. He has also not offered any explanation as to how the human blood has 6 been found on his inner (T-shirt). The overall evidence produced by the prosecution pointing towards guilt of the appellant that he committed murder of the deceased and looted her golden locket, therefore, there are overwhelming evidence against the appellant in the case and his conviction is absolutely justified and the same need no interference. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. So far as death of the deceased is concerned, the learned trial Court has considered the evidence of the doctor G.R. Rawate PW-7 who conducted the postmortem of dead body of the deceased which has not been specifically challenged by the appellant also. Doctor G.R. Rawate PW-7 has stated in his evidence that on 15-08-2018 the dead body of the deceased Baniharin Bai was brought before him for its postmortem. While conducting the postmortem he found aforesaid injuries over the body and gave his opinion that death of the deceased due to loose clot with lead to fatal hemorrhage. By forceful attack in weapons or object (external hemorrhage slight but may marked internal hemorrhage to internal organs) resulting cardiorespiratory arrest and the nature of death is homicidal. In cross-examination of PW-7, he denied suggestion given by the defence that if any person fell from the height he/she can receive the same injury as it has been found on the body of the deceased. Though he admitted that in his postmortem report he has not disclosed as to which injuries could have been inflicted by sharp edged weapon and which injuries could have been 7 inflicted by blunt weapon. Nothing could be elicited form evidence of this witness to show that his evidence can be disbelieved and he proved the postmortem report and injuries found on the body of the deceased. The evidence of the doctor, PW-7 is supported by the evidence of PW-1 Naradram Nirmalkar, PW-3 Dineshwar Nirmalkar and PW-6 Dropati Vishwakarma who are witnesses of the inquest and saw the injuries on the body of the deceased, all of them have stated that they saw the dead body of the deceased which was lying in front of house of the deceased having injuries on her head. Considering the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has come into conclusion that death of the deceased is homicidal in nature which has been proved by the prosecution. This Court is also in agreement with the finding recorded by the learned trial Court and we affirms said finding. 10. So far as involvement of the appellant in offence in question are concerned, the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, i.e., memorandum statement and seizure memo. 11. There is no eyewitness in the present case. The case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ravindra Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2022 (7) SCC 581 has held in para 10 as under:- 10. The conviction of A2 is based only upon circumstantial evidence. Hence, in order to sustain a conviction, it is imperative that the chain of circumstances is complete, cogent and coherent. This court has consistently held in a long line of cases [See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1977 SC 1063); Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1956 SC 316); Earabhadrappa @ Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1983 SC 446); State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 1224); 8 Balwinder Singh @ Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350); Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. (AIR 1989 SC 1890)] that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. 10.1. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 621), it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances, the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negate the innocence of the accused and bring the offence home beyond any reasonable doubt. 10.2. We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193, wherein it has been observed that: “21. 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 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....”. 12. In the matter of para Surendra Kumar and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2021 (20) SCC 430, the Hon’ble supreme Court has held in 11 and 12 as under:- “11. As the case against the appellants is entirely based on circumstantial evidence, it is necessary to determine whether the available evidence lead only to the conclusion of guilt and exclude all contrary hypothesis. The enunciation on the law of circumstantial evidence stood the test of time since Hanumant 9 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh1 where Mahajan J., has written as under:- “10…………It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused……………” 12. The nature, character and essential proof required in criminal cases was discussed in detail by Fazal Ali J in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra2 and the proposition of law culled out on circumstantial evidence was approved in many subsequent judgments and was recently reiterated by Krishna Murari J., writing the opinion for a three Judges Bench in Shailendra 1 AIR 1952 SC 343 2 (1984) 4 SCC 116 Rajdev Pasvan & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. 3 where it was succinctly laid down as under:- “17. It is well settled by now that in a case based on circumstantial evidence the courts ought to have a conscientious approach and conviction ought to be recorded only in case all the links of the chain are complete pointing to the guilt of the accused. Each link unless connected together to form a chain may suggest suspicion but the same in itself cannot take place of proof and will not be sufficient to convict the accused.” 10 13. In the matter of Digambar Vaishnav and Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2019 (4) SCC 522, the Hon’ble supreme Court has held :- “14.One of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence is undeniably that the burden of proof squarely rests on the prosecution and that the general burden never shifts. There can be no conviction on the basis of surmises and conjectures or suspicion howsoever grave it may be. Strong suspicion, strong coincidences and grave doubt cannot take the place of legal proof. The onus of the prosecution cannot be discharged by referring to very strong suspicion and existence of highly suspicious factors to inculpate the accused nor falsity of defence could take the place of proof which the prosecution has to establish in order to succeed, though a false plea by the defence at best, be considered as an additional circumstance, if other circumstances unfailingly point to the guilt. 15. This Court in Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa, (1991) 3 SCC 27, has held that even if the offence is a shocking one, the gravity of offence cannot by itself overweigh as far as legal proof is concerned. In cases depending highly upon the circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that the conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The court has to be watchful and ensure that the conjecture and suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of evidence should be established clearly and that the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. 16. In order to sustain the conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the following three conditions must be satisfied: i.) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; 11 ii.) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; and iii.) 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 it should also be incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. 17. In Varkey Joseph v. State of Kerala, 1993 Suppl (3) SCC 745, this Court has held that suspicion is not the substitute for proof. There is a long distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' and the prosecution has to travel all the way to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 18. In Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406, this Court, while examining the distinction between 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' and 'suspicion' has held as under: "13. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large differ- ence between something that “may be” proved, and something that “will be proved”. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is quite large, and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between “may be” true and “must be” true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence pro- duced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between “may be” true and “must be” true, the court must maintain the vital distance between mere conjectures and sure con- clusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dis- passionate judicial scrutiny, based upon a com- plete and comprehensive appreciation of all fea- tures of the case, as well as the quality and 12 credi- bility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided, and if the facts and circumstances of a case so de- mand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely prob- able doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense". 14. The Supreme Court in case of Madhu Vs. State of Kerala, 2012 (2) SCC 399 has held in paragraph 5 as under: “5. The care and caution with which circumstantial evidence has to be evaluated stands recognized by judicial precedent. Only circumstantial evidence of a very high order can satisfy the test of proof in a criminal prosecution. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete unbroken chain of events leading to the determination that the inference being drawn from the evidence is the only inescapable conclusion. In the absence of convincing circumstantial evidence, an accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt.” 15. In the matter of Nagendra Sah Vs. State of Bihar, 2021 (10) SCC 725 in paragraphs 17 and 18 replying upon the golden principles enumerated in case Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1984 (4) SCC 116, the Supreme Court has held as under: “17. As the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence, we may make a useful reference to a leading decision of this Court on the subject. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra2, in paragraph 153, this Court has laid down five golden principles (Panchsheel) which govern a case based only on circumstantial evidence. Paragraph 153 reads thus : - “153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: 13 (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned ‘must or should’ and not ‘may be’ established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra where the following observations were made: 19…..Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” (emphasis added). 18. Paragraphs 158 to 160 of the said decision are also relevant which read thus : “158. It may be necessary here to notice a very forceful argument submitted by the Additional Solicitor-General relying on a decision of this Court in Deonandan Mishra v. State of Bihar, to supplement his argument that if the defence case is false it would constitute an additional link so as to fortify the prosecution case. With due respect to the learned Additional Solicitor-General we are unable to agree with the interpretation given by him of the aforesaid case, the relevant portion of which may be extracted thus: 14 9…….But in a case like this where the various links as started above have been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances point to the appellant as the probable assailant, with reasonable definiteness and in proximity to the deceased as regards time and situation, . . . such absence of explanation or false explanation would itself be an additional link which completes the chain." 159. It will be seen that this Court while taking into account the absence of explanation or a false explanation did hold that it will amount to be an additional link to complete the chain but these observations must be read in the light of what this Court said earlier, viz., before a false explanation can be used as additional link, the following essential conditions must be satisfied : (1) various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved, (2) the said circumstance points to the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness, and (3) the circumstance is in proximity to the time and situation. 160. If these conditions are fulfilled only then a court can use a false explanation or a false defence as an additional link to lend an assurance to the court and not otherwise. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, this does not appear to be such a case. This aspect of the matter was examined in Shankarlal case where this Court observed thus: 30……..Besides, falsity of defence cannot take the place of proof of facts which the prosecution has to establish in order to succeed. A false plea can at best be considered as an additional circumstance, if other circumstances point unfailingly to the guilt of the accused." (emphasis added)” 16. PW-1 Naradram Nirmalkar has stated in his evidence that on 15- 08-2018 he was informed by the villager that his sister is lying dead in front of her house. When he visited the place of incident he saw her dead body having injury on her head. He lodged the merg intimation Ex.-P/1 and dehati nalisi Ex.-P/2. 17. PW-2 Khileshwari Nirmalkar who is daughter of the deceased has stated in her evidence that on 16-08-2018 the police has arrested the 15 appellant and he made memorandum statement in her presence and disclosed the manner in which he committed her murder. The witness of memorandum statement of the appellant, PW-5 Shankar Bage has also proved that the appellant has given the memorandum statement Ex.-P/6 in his presence and described the manner in which he committed her murder. 18. PW-3 Dineshwar Nirmalkar has stated in his evidence that the deceased was his mother-in-law. When he received information about the incident he came on the spot and saw the dead body having injury on her head. On the next day when the appellant brought before them by the police he admitted his guilt before the persons of the family as well as vicinity and gave his memorandum statement Ex.-P/6. He also disclosed that the deceased was regularly abusing him and on the date of incident he had gone to her house to agree her not to abuse him, at that time a quarrel took place between them and he taken her golden locket with him. On the basis of his memorandum statement one golden locket has been seized from the appellant and he denied the memorandum statement and seizure memos. In cross-examination he duly proved and remained firm in the memorandum statement and seizure of the golden locket from the appellant. 19. PW-4 Gyan Prakash Nirmalkar is another witness to memorandum and seizure. Though in his chief examination he stated that the police has not enquired from the appellant and memorandum statement has not been prepared in his presence, but his signature is 16 there in the said document Ex.-P/6 and he proved the seizure of golden locket and his clothe vide seizure memo Ex.-P/7. When leading question was asked from this witness, he proved that the appellant has given his memorandum statement in his presence. In cross-examination he too has remained firm that the appellant has given the memorandum statement Ex.-P/6 and based on his memorandum statement golden locket and inner (T-shirt)) have been seized from his possession. Nothing specific could be elicited by the defence from this two witnesses of memorandum and seizure who duly proved both these documents and recovery of golden locket and inner (T-shirt) of the appellant. 20. PW-1 Naradram Nirmalkar has stated in his evidence that when he saw the dead body of his sister, the golden locket which she wore on her neck was not there. He met with the deceased regularly with interval of a week or 15 days. When he stated that at the time when her dead body was found the golden locket which she regularly wore on her neck was missing, but he was not cross-examined on that point by the defence that the locket seized from the appellant was not belonged to the deceased. Further, the broken pearl necklace has been seized from the spot vide seizure memo Ex.-P/9. Further from the evidence of PW-2 Khileshwari Nirmalkar in whose presence the appellant gave his memorandum statement who also proved that the appellant disclosed that he committed theft of golden locket of the deceased. She too has not been cross-examined on that point by the defence. The seizure of golden locket from the appellant has been proved by the witnesses and 17 thus, the learned trial Court has found it proved that the golden locket which was borne by the deceased at the time of incident, was found in possession of the appellant and recovered from him. He could not offer any explanation in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. with respect to possession of said golden locket. When the T- shirt of the appellant sent for its query report to PW-7 doctor G.R. Rawate, who gave the query report Ex.-P/13A and sent the T-shirt for its chemical examination to confirm presence of blood. The seized articles were sent for its FSL examination to State FSL, Raipur from where report Ex.-P/20 was received and according to the FSL report, human blood has been found on the inner (T-shirt) of the appellant and stone and broken wooden stool and its part. Presence of human blood on the inner (T-shirt) of the appellant has not been explained in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. 21. Non-explanation or false explanation in statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. can be considered as an additional link to complete the chain of circumstances and in the present case also the appellant has not been able to explain the seizure of golden locket as well as human blood found on his inner (T-shirt). 22. In the matter of Shivaji Chintappa Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021 (5) SCC 626, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that false explanation or non-explanation in 313 Cr.P.C. statement can only be used as an additional circumstance when the prosecution has proved the chain of circumstances leading to no other conclusion than 18 the guilt of the accused. However, it cannot be used as a link to complete the chain of circumstance. 23. Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that on the date of incident when the appellant entered into the house of the deceased some quarrel took place with her and he assaulted the deceased by wooden stool and stone and after looted her golden locket fled away from the spot. From the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court after its due appreciation of the evidence has held the appellant guilty for commission of offence of house trespass in order to commit murder of the deceased, robbery of golden locket of the deceased and also committed murder of the deceased in which we are also in agreement with the finding recorded by the learned trial Court and we do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court against the appellant. 24. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 25. The appellant is stated to be in jail. He shall serve out the remaining part of the sentence as has been awarded to him by the learned trial Court. 26. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentences 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 19 assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 27. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of this judgment. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil