1 2026:CGHC:24277-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1740 of 2024 Dashrath Vishwakarma S/o Chand Ram Vishwakarma Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Sonsari, P.S. Pachpedi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Pachpedi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. V. R. Tiwari, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Adv. General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17 .06.2026 1. Heard Mr. Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent. BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.06.23 11:25:29 +0530 2 2. Though the matter is listed today for hearing on I.A. No. 01 of 2024, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, however, considering that the appellant has been in custody since 25.10.2019, and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. 3. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused under Section 415(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.08.2024 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”) in Sessions Trial No.37 of 2020, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction under Section Sentence Section 302 of the IPC (Twice) :Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.3000/- (twice), to default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 06 months (twice). Section 201 of the IPC :Rigorous imprisonment for 07 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, to default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 03 months. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 4. The brief facts of the case are that, on 25.10.2019, upon receiving 3 information that the appellant, Dashrath Vishwakarma, had thrown his two children into a well situated at Village Sonsari, the Station House Officer (SHO) of Police Station Pachpedi, Gambhir Das Sonwani (PW-10), proceeded to the spot. Consequently, the dead bodies of both children were recovered from the said well. 5. At the spot, based on the report submitted by the informant, Chandram Vishwakarma (PW-1), the SHO registered Dehati Marg Intimation (Exhibit P-1) regarding the death of deceased Sumit Vishwakarma aged about 10 years, Dehati Marg Intimation (Exhibit P-2) regarding the death of deceased Kumari Asha Vishwakarma aged about 8 years, and Dehati Nalshi (Exhibit P-24), thereby initiating the marg inquiry. Naksha Panchayatnama were subsequently made vide Exhibits P-7 and P-8. The bodies were thereafter forwarded for post-mortem examination to the Community Health Centre, Masturi. The autopsies were conducted by Dr. P. K. Ghosh (PW-8), who proved the post-mortem reports (Exhibits P-18 and P-19). As per the medical opinion, the cause of death for Sumit Vishwakarma was cardio-respiratory failure resulting from asphyxia due to strangulation and the cause of death for Kumari Asha Vishwakarma was opined to be cardio-respiratory failure due to asphyxia resulting from drowning. Pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant (Exhibit P-25), a piece of towel rope was seized vide Exhibit P-9. Statements of the witnesses were also recorded during the course of the marg inquiry. Upon returning to the police station, Numbered Marg Intimation 4 (Exhibit P-22) concerning the death of deceased Sumit Vishwakarma, and Numbered Marg Intimation (Exhibit P-23) concerning the death of deceased Kumari Asha Vishwakarma, were formally registered. 6. The prosecution case further is that during the Marg Inquiry, it was revealed that the appellant was of a quarrelsome nature. Owing to his physical assaults, his wife had deserted him four months prior to the incident, taking two of their children to her maternal home, while the deceased children, Sumit Vishwakarma and Kumari Asha Vishwakarma, remained in the custody of the accused/appellant. At approximately 9:00 PM on 24.10.2019, the accused began quarrelling and creating a disturbance inside the house taking the name of his wife. Later, at around 2:00 AM, the appellant, stating that he would kill both his children, Sumit Vishwakarma and Kumari Asha Vishwakarma, took them inside his room and bolted the door from inside. As the accused refused to open the door, his father, Chandram (PW-1), accompanied by his elder daughter, Pancho Bai (PW-13), left the house to inform the Kotwar. Meanwhile, Chandram’s wife, Punni Bai (PW-2), and his younger daughter, Saraswati, remained at the house attempting to open the door. Shortly thereafter, Punni Bai and Saraswati Bai came behind them and informed that the appellant had opened the door and the children were lying unconscious on the floor. 7. When the appellant’s father Chandram (PW-1) returned home, the appellant was standing at the entrance of the courtyard. On being 5 asked about the whereabouts of the children, the appellant confessed that he had killed both of them and thrown their bodies into the well. Subsequently, Kotwar Geeta and uncle Vishambhar, informed the villagers and reported the incident to the police. The water from the well was pumped out, and the bodies of the children were retrieved using an iron hook. Upon establishing a prima facie case that the appellant had committed murder of his children and concealed the bodies in the well, First Information Report (FIR) was registered against him vide Exhibit P-34 & 35. 8. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Court of JMFC who committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. 9. The trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Sections 302 (two times) & 201 of the IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the appellant, who denied the same, pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. 10. During trial, the appellant was examined under Section 351 of the BNSS (which is the corresponding provision of the earlier Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.). Under this provision, he denied all the allegations and stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case. 11. In order to bring home the charges against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 38 documents. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on 6 behalf of the defence. 12. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court, by judgment dated 14.08.2024, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 (two times) and 201 of the IPC and sentenced him accordingly, as mentioned in paragraph 03 of this judgment. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 13. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the prosecution case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence and there is no direct eyewitness to the alleged incident. It was contended that the prosecution has failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances connecting the appellant with the commission of the offence. He contended that the extra-judicial confession which is alleged to have been made by the appellant before his family members is a very weak piece of evidence unless it is corroborated by other circumstantial evidence and it cannot be made basis of conviction. Learned Senior Advocate also contended that the prosecution has failed to prove any strong motive for commission of the offence and that the entire case rests upon suspicion, conjectures and surmises, which cannot take the piece of legal proof. It was, therefore, argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant is entitled to acquittal. 7 14. Per contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the conviction of the appellant is based upon cogent, reliable and duly proved circumstantial evidence. He further submitted that the medical evidence clearly establishes that the death was homicidal in nature and the postmortem findings, coupled with the recovery proceedings, memorandum statements, seizure of articles, the statements of the appellant’s father, mother and sister and the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before his family members and the village Sarpanch, form a complete chain of circumstances pointing only towards the guilt of the appellant. It was further contended that the prosecution witnesses have consistently supported the case of the prosecution and there are no material contradictions affecting the core of the prosecution story. According to the learned State counsel, the trial Court has meticulously appreciated the entire evidence on record and has rightly held the appellant guilty of the offences charged. Therefore, no interference with the impugned judgment is warranted and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and carefully perused the entire record. 16. The first question for consideration is whether the trial Court was justified in holding that the death of deceased Sumit Vishwakarma and Kumari Asha Vishwakarma was homicidal in nature. 8 17. In this regard, the trial Court placed reliance upon the testimony of Dr. P. K. Ghosh (PW-8), who conducted the post-mortem examinations of both deceased persons vide Exhibit P-18 and Exhibit P-19. Dr. P. K. Ghosh (PW-8) deposed that during the external examination of the deceased Sumit Vishwakarma, he observed a transverse rope mark (contusion mark) on the neck. As per his medical opinion, the cause of death was cardio-respiratory failure resulting from asphyxia caused by strangulation. During the external examination of the deceased Kumari Asha Vishwakarma, PW-8 observed a mild contusion mark on the neck, noting the absence of any other ante-mortem injury marks on her body. The cause of death of Asha Vishwakarma was opined to be cardio- respiratory failure due to asphyxia as a consequence of drowning. Even otherwise, the homicidal nature of the deaths has not been seriously assailed or disputed on behalf of the appellant. The Trial Court has recorded an affirmative finding that the death was homicidal in nature, baseline-relying upon the post-mortem reports (Exhibits P-18 and P-19) duly proved by Dr. P. K. Ghosh (PW-8). This finding of fact, being squarely based on the evidence available on record, is neither perverse nor contrary to the material on record. Consequently, we see no reason to interfere with and hereby affirm the said finding. 18. The present case is admittedly based on circumstantial evidence, as there is no direct eyewitness account of the incident. 19. We may also make a reference to a decision of the Supreme Court 9 in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P., reported in (1996) 10 SCC 193, wherein it has been observed thus: “In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved 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....”. 20. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors., reported in AIR 1990 SC 79, it was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests: “(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not 10 only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.” 21. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl.LJ 1104), it was pointed out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. 22. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book “Wills’ Circumstantial Evidence” (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence: (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted”. 23. Five golden principles which constitute Panchseel of proof of case 11 based on circumstantial evidence have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 which state as under :- “(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned “must” or “should” and not “may be” established; (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Suresh and Another v State of Haryana, (2018) 18 SCC 654 has observed that cases of circumstantial evidence, the courts are called upon to make inferences from the available evidence, which may lead to the accused's guilt. The court at paras 41 and 42 has observed thus: “41. The aforesaid tests are aptly referred as Panchsheel of proof in Circumstantial Cases (refer to Prakash v. State of Rajasthan). The expectation is 12 that the prosecution case should reflect careful portrayal of the factual circumstances and inferences thereof and their compatibility with a singular hypothesis wherein all the intermediate facts and the case itself are proved beyond reasonable doubt. 42. Circumstantial evidence are those facts, which the court may infer further. There is a stark contrast between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. In cases of circumstantial evidence, the courts are called upon to make inferences from the available evidence, which may lead to the accused's guilt. In majority of cases, the inference of guilt is usually drawn by establishing the case from its initiation to the point of commission wherein each factual link is ultimately based on evidence of a fact or an inference thereof. Therefore, the courts have to identify the facts in the first place so as to fit the case within the parameters of “chain link theory” and then see whether the case is made out beyond reasonable doubt. In India we have for a long time followed the “chain link theory” since Hanumant case, which of course needs to be followed herein also.” 25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Others vs. State of Gujarat Etc., reported in AIR 2020 SC 180 observed that in a case of circumstantial evidence, law postulates two-fold requirements. Firstly, that every link in the chain of circumstances necessary to establish the guilt of the accused must be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and secondly, all the circumstances must be 13 consistent pointing out only towards the guilt of the accused. We need not burden this judgment by referring to other judgments as the above principles have been consistently followed and approved by this Court time and again. 26. The present case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence as there is no direct eyewitness account of the incident. The prosecution has sought to establish a complete chain of circumstances which, according to it, leads only to the conclusion of guilt of the appellant. 27. The next question for consideration is whether the learned trial Court was justified in holding the appellant guilty on the basis of the following circumstances to be proved: I. On the intervening night of 24.10.2019 and 25.10.2019, the appellant was in an agitated state and was creating a disturbance inside his house, which is the place of occurrence, while invoking the name of his wife, Kaushilya Vishwakarma. II. On the same intervening night, the deceased children, Sumit and Asha, had attended the Navadha Ramayan festival held in the village and returned home at approximately 11:00 PM. III. On the same intervening night, the appellant locked Sumit and Asha inside a room stating that they were his children. 14 IV. Upon the appellant locking the children inside the room, his father, mother, and sister immediately left the house to inform the village Kotwar. V. Upon being informed by Chandram and Pancho Bai, the Gram Kotwar, Geeta Das, arrived at the place of occurrence. Subsequent to the appellant opening the door, when questioned regarding the whereabouts of the children, the appellant stated that he had thrown them into the well. VI. Upon receiving information that the children had been thrown into the well, the Village Sarpanch, Khilawan, reached the spot. At the place of occurrence, the appellant voluntarily made an extra-judicial confession before Chandram (PW-1), Punni Bai (PW-2), Khilawan (PW-3), and Pancho Bai (PW-13), admitting that he had murdered both children and thrown their bodies into the well. VII. Following the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant, witness Khilawan (PW-3) informed Police Station Masturi via the Emergency Response Support System (Dial 112), whereupon the police personnel from Police Station Masturi immediately proceeded to the spot. VIII. Following the extra-judicial confession, the dead bodies of the deceased children, Sumit and Asha, were retrieved from the well using a grappling hook. IX. The Investigating Officer, Gambhir Das Sonwani (PW- 10), conducted inquest proceedings and prepared inquest panchnamas regarding the deaths of the deceased children, on the basis of the unnumbered Marg Intimations (Exhibits P-1 and P-2) and the Dehati Nalishi (Exhibit P-24). 15 X. Medical Officer Dr. P. K. Ghosh (PW-8), on the basis of the post-mortem applications (Exhibits P-16 and P-17), opined in his post-mortem reports (Exhibits P-18 and P-19) that the cause of death of the deceased Sumit was strangulation, and the cause of death of the deceased Asha was asphyxia due to drowning. He further opined that the ligature mark on the neck of Sumit and the contusion injury on Asha were ante-mortem in nature. XI. The deceased children, Sumit and Asha, were last seen alive in the company of the appellant on the intervening night of 24.10.2019 and 25.10.2019, immediately prior to the recovery of their dead bodies from the well. XII. During the course of the investigation, it was established by the medical query report (Exhibit P-20A) that the ligature mark observed on the neck of the deceased Sumit was caused by the towel rope seized from the appellant vide Seizure Memo (Exhibit P-9). 28. It can thus clearly be seen that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, it is necessary that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn must be fully established. The Court holds that it is a settled principle that the accused “must be” and not merely “may be” guilty before a conviction can be recorded. There is a clear distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved”. The facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and not explainable on any other hypothesis. The circumstances must be such as to exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be 16 proved. There must be a complete chain of evidence so as not to leave any reasonable doubt consistent with the innocence of the accused, and it must show that in all human probability the offence was committed by the accused. 29. It is equally well settled that suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and conviction cannot be based on conjectures or surmises. 30. In the light of these well-settled principles, the present case is required to be examined on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution. 31. The appellant’s father, Chandram Vishwakarma (PW-1), stated in his examination-in-chief before the Court that he does not no how the appellant killed Sumit and Asha. However, he deposed that the appellant entered the room along with both children, and when the appellant did not open the door upon being requested to do so, he went to call the village Sarpanch. Upon his return to the house accompanied by the Sarpanch and the Kotwar, the appellant was found standing in the verandah. PW-1 further deposed that when he questioned the appellant regarding the whereabouts of the children, the appellant confessed that he had killed them and thrown their bodies into the well. At the time of the incident, his daughters, Pancho and Saraswati, and his wife, Punni Bai, were 17 present in the house. Subsequently, the village Sarpanch reported the incident to Police Station Pachpedi. 32. Although the appellant’s mother, Punni Bai (PW-2), who was admittedly present in the house at the relevant time, was declared hostile by the prosecution, she has admitted that the appellant had bolted the door from inside and refused to open it despite repeated requests. She deposed that when the appellant did not open the door, her husband, Chandram (PW-1), and her daughter, Pancho Bai, left for the village to intimate the Sarpanch and the Kotwar. She further stated that the appellant opened the door after approximately half an hour, whereupon both children were found lying on the floor, still breathing. Upon witnessing the children in that state, she, along with her daughter, Saraswati, rushed to summon her husband. She has further supported the prosecution case to the extent that upon the arrival of her husband, the Sarpanch, the Kotwar, and other villagers, the appellant made an extra-judicial confession before them stating that he had killed the children and thrown their bodies into the well. Subsequently, the Sarpanch telephoned the police, who arrived at the scene. The water from the well was pumped out, and the bodies of the deceased children were retrieved using an iron hook. 33. Similarly, the appellant’s sister, Pancho Bai (PW-13), was also declared hostile by the prosecution. However, she has categorically admitted that on the night of the incident, the appellant took both of his children into the room and locked the door from inside. 18 34. Khilawan Patel (PW-3), the village Sarpanch, deposed that upon being informed, he proceeded to the appellant's house accompanied by the Kotwar. At that time, the appellant was inside his room. The witness stated that he questioned the appellant in the presence of his family members regarding the whereabouts of the children, whereupon the appellant confessed that he had murdered both children and thrown their bodies into the well situated in the courtyard of his house. PW-3 then informed the police. Upon arrival of the police personnel, the water was pumped out of the well, and the dead bodies of the children were retrieved by lowering an iron hook. 35. It is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that an extra- judicial confession is generally considered a weak piece of evidence. Ordinarily, it requires independent corroboration from other strong circumstantial evidence and cannot safely form the sole basis of a conviction. However, in the matrix of the present case, the voluntariness and truthfulness of the confession are firmly established. Apart from the immediate family members of the appellant, Khilawan Patel (PW-3), the independent village Sarpanch, has categorically deposed that the appellant confessed before them to having murdered both his children and throwing their bodies into the well situated within his courtyard. This multi- witness corroboration by both closely related and independent witnesses lends absolute credibility to the extra-judicial confession. 36. From the evidence, it is clear that on the intervening night of 19 24.10.2019 and 25.10.2019, the appellant took both children into his exclusive custody inside his room, right in the presence of his parents and sister. The prosecution has successfully established the foundational facts forming a complete chain of circumstances: the appellant took both children inside his room and bolted the door from inside, they were not found alive therein, and their dead bodies were subsequently recovered from the well directly based upon the disclosure and extra-judicial confession made by the appellant. This incriminatory chain of circumstantial evidence and the specific facts within his personal knowledge could not be refuted, explained, or rebutted by the appellant in his defence. 37. From the cumulative appreciation of the entire evidence on record, it is evident that the chain of circumstances is complete, cogent and consistent, and it unerringly points towards the guilt of the appellant. Each circumstance has been independently established by reliable evidence and collectively they form a complete chain which excludes every reasonable hypothesis except that of the guilt of the appellant. The discovery of the dead body pursuant to the disclosure statement of the appellant is a circumstance of significant probative value, which cannot be ignored in a case resting on circumstantial evidence. 38. The medical evidence on record clearly establishes that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. The postmortem report, duly proved by the medical witness, rules out any possibility of accidental or natural death. 20 39. It is well settled that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is required to establish a complete chain of circumstances which must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused and inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence. In the present case, all such circumstances stand duly proved beyond reasonable doubt. The defence has failed to offer any satisfactory explanation for the incriminating circumstances appearing against the appellant, particularly how they died. 40. The learned trial Court has meticulously appreciated the entire evidence in its proper perspective and has recorded well-reasoned findings based on correct appreciation of facts and law. The conclusions drawn by the trial Court are fully supported by the material on record and do not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 41. This Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and leaves no room for any other inference except the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the offence. 42. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court is just, proper and based on sound appreciation of evidence and settled principles of law. The 21 same does not warrant any interference. 43. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed. 44. In view of the final disposal of the appeal, I.A. No. 01 of 2024, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of. 45. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail, he shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the trial Court. 46. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. 47. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail term, to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan/khatai