f3* ""•*\.,-;...- ~v., y. •^i^ -^sS) / €^^t: -^- <ew WNO-^H Y - CF'0000057745 ^ ^^ "\^ ^-^ s •" B • .-L /r.\'.,.._',._ ^i\ ,U]«^!on Ks.pcli (Lnmmau ' L /^. ^^ ^^-^ ^n. 7^^/^^~~ab/<fi/ t^i o/7^// ^f^'^ ^^'^ ^l'H)- t^W ^ ^^^^^^^ Age—. . :^ —~ —^ Steaten^d. ' O \ c" "© a ^Jf~^-^99^.^ wwi^^^i^).^ -—^--^^^^^---;^-,:^-,.U-^ ^- ^_^J^^-—by'^^wTc'{'aT -3^f^^^^^<^i^Wt^^SofT<y)S^^- r 1 " ~f 'y^7__^/^ ^ CTrsm'^^y .^•5 j^-^7^^ ^to ;.ths prls^aer that if' he states <^r wislaes to be repre'gesated by legat Xpp-sliate Coisft wil| irot -proc^d &e bage fbr se^ea days santess prartte3wr;appears<-Ifthe Aegal practatioiser <d@es siot appear witfam seyeisi i E&@t heard at ail . iftlxe pris^iier Mates Aal he does aot ^yisla to be repre- . l^d- pra€£i£ wr(lie cowt may procwd at oace with tfae case and will not | 6@ gw^ a faeariag to aiiy tegal practitioaer wJio shoiild appear „ th® <U- 3- !994. 2 ' ro^fe.rf^lcliccpycecei'TOi l©- ^ •199^ 4 wtietiieE ths prisoaer WEs&es to bs represeated or aot - Yes f -Nb-< y v^ 46-,/ c^ j^>- ^F^/T^^L. 3^ ^^^ Sfif^^ 7-^ I^^S^ ^bi<^7^<^'H7W 'bW^r^i.^ fi <D ^s IS3^ ard to-.the ^^mj^^ ^ '3^'ff^ri '^WT^- ^%^7- 777^ ^^'^^mj]^r 1^^^ for faiwoar W trammi&sioa to &^ Meao rf N®_ m C. J. M.'s offioe^ to aocomp^iay. of tfae Appeli^tc co^rt 7" ^ %?3:t!T^ ?'m?f Dated_ DMe @F receipt ia AppeliateCourt^ Sl^ss^ wes.^isuasa"^ ^M ^" :>^4. oi 7Vr*la) •r ^^iAn^ """"•'3SVac5vi r fi '^' ; e-e -TOerk P»r»'v?' XI-HC-22 p -^^ -^[rzn^fq. '^ftaTj^, fN^iwy W^T'^1 f^N''sn^i ^N^^f^ ^Tjt^T ^^lT^: ^lltcT &IVISION BENCH: -, HON'BLE MR. L.C. BHADOO AW HQN'BLE MR. V.K. SHRIVASTAVJ <^PTta4ty! 'HW^f ^ 'fe^ ^N^R '^^I^TH3T?^r ^. JJ. 6-12-2005 Shri Abhay Tiwari, counsej fo^ the cypelJoints. As there is no r€presenta|'ion on behalf of accused Mohon, therefore, Shri Abhay Tiwari, Adv|ocate, is appointed amicus curiae to drgue the appeal on his behalf. Shri Ashish Shukla, Additior|a1 Public Prosecutor with Shri Akhil Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State^ Orol. CriminaJ Appeal No.1009/94 durin9 the triai, therefore, thes^ common judgment. frespondent. filed by Ratan Esai, Criminal Appeal No.1011/94 filed by Mohan and Cjriminal Appeal No.1010/94 fited by Lqkhnu @ Lekhu arisin9 out of ^ommon .judgment of conviction and ^ntence passed by the Additio^al Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, District: Raipur dated 31st March l|994 in S.T. Nos. 272/90 and 273/90 in connection with the murders of 90 at about 2 p.m. in the v Sabulal and Budhari Satnami on 15-5- ie Dhekuna committ'ed by the accused/appelloints along with oth^r accused nameiy Itwari, who died appeajs are bein9 decided by this [Tft^.^fij^ r XI-HC-22 3TI^^T'^T I^IW^lt^T ^-RNT^iin -t- ^^ ^TR^PT.-^JTOT?. ^Riray ^IW^TWW^ '^ 200 'STlt^ T<CTS£R'Hf^ _-s- sent^nced Learned Additional Sess|< accused/appellants guilty for th^ 302 read with Section 34 of the Babulal and Budhari Satnami, to undergo imprisonment for life. The prosecution case, in bri^1 Chouhan lodged the FJ.ft. Ex.-P/] respectively at the Police Station came to know at Vishrampur Bus S|t< quarreled with Babubl Masih and have murdered Babulal and BudharS he saw 1+tat the bodies of the tubewell. Kunti Bai and Radha incident. On this, the Station took up the investigation. During dead body^of Babulal (Ex.-P/l) Budhari (Ex.-P/2) were prepared. were taken into pos^^ssionunder where the body of Babulai was incident (Ex.-P/4-A) was prepoirejd Budhari were ^nt for postmorte|n ^FF?ferat?f °RTR^f"?ft^ T^T^K ^T l^^R v^TI^? ions Judge after holding the ^ommission of offence under Section [?.C. for commitl'ing the murders of each of the accused/appellants •i^f, is that on 15-5-90 PW-2 Teks^h <& P/8 at 7.30 p.m. ond 7.45 p.m. Simg^ to the effect 1+iat today he Sltdnd that Ratan E^si and others have Sudhari and others. Ratan and others Satnami., After reaching the village s|sters of Mohan were lying near the B|si have received the injuries in th? Officer registered the case cxnd ^the investigQtion, Panchanama of the Panchanama of the dead body of T1ie blood stained soil and plain soil ^x.-P/S from the place of the incident 1. The site plan of the place of the I. The dead bodies of Babubl and examination to the Primary Health [Tft^ ^fe^ . Hcju^ aihd $x. foi!ind XI-HC-22 w^r^r K^NT3?!^I ^j^^' ^Tf^T ^'^r'^TraMzl, ^ftwT?. 1^iTC?y ^RWCT"^"^?^ -M ^I^T '^II^T ^rfN -2- 'wsfer^r '?TR^ ^ fe^ TN^R ^3iFOT^!^l Centre, Simga where PW-11 D|t. &.V.N. Sharma conducted the postmQrtem and prepared the postr^ortem repprt Ex.-P/lO. He gave the opinjon re9ardin9 the injuries Ex^P/11. The postmortem of the dead body of Budhdri was conducted by FfW-ll Dr. &<V. N. Sharma. After the postmortem, Dr. Sharma prepared ^he report Ex.-P/12. The weapons of offence i.e. La1+ii and knife we^e taken into pos^ssion. After completion of the investigation, two -rtie Court of Additional Chief Judi Additional Chief Judiciai Magistrafe committ'ed both the cases to the Sesgions Judge, Raipur from wherp Jearned ^ddjtional Sessions Judge received both the cases (S.T. No4272/90 <& 273/90)on transfer for trial. The pro^cution in order accused/appellants examined 23 statements of accused/appellants appearing against them and state<| separate charge sheets were filed ?n cial Magistrate, Baioda Bazar. The to prove the charge against l4ie witnesses. During thje trial, as mentioned in the earlier part of 1+ii^ judgment, accused Itwari died. The |namely, RatGin, Lakhnu @ Lekhu and Mohan were recorded by the iearr^ed Additional ^ssions Judge under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which |t+iey denied the prosecution evidence that they are innocent, they have been falsely implicated in the crim^ on account of animosity and faction in the villdge. Learned Additiona Sessions Judge after hearing the [Trt^^fe^ T XI-HC-22 'sTT^r'^T f^y1 ^T^I ^^Nr'^ftn c.. .-^^. •^^ -^fqi^pr, ^twT^, N^rwy 31?^T'q^^ WH^T^W^ "fe^i?* Dhe Abh+y PW^4 arguments of ^dditional Public persons convicted and sentenced as mentioned in the earlier part of ^r We have heard Shri accused/appellants and Shri Ashist'l with Shri Akhil Mishra, Panel Lawy^r The fact of death of BabulaJI nature has not been disputejd accused/appellants. Apart from j eyewitnesses PW-3 Punit ftam, PW-7 Sumarit Bai. PW-9 SukhJataJ jnjured witness, PW-21 Prem Masi^ the evidence of PW-11 Dr. Dl postmortsm on the dead bodies stated that there were 2 injuriesj skuil were fractured and also thei found fractured, the cause ofj haemorrhage, the snjuries were caused by hqrd and blunt object He has further stated that Budhari, out of that injury Nos.4, Pr^secutor dnd th4re ^Rfepft?f TTR^f 'H fe^ ^i^f^K ^ -^R 31T^F and counset for the accused accused/appellants in the manner f ^hisjudgment. Tiwari, learned counsel for the Shukla, Additional Public Prosecutor ^r for the State/respondent. and Budhari Satnami as homicidal in by ieGrned counsel for the that/ as per the evidence of Thanwarin Bai, PW-6 Jeevan Masih, 1 PW-10 Devsingh, PW-15 Bhuneshwar. and PW-23 Chen Das and also as per I^V.N. Sharma, who conducted the >f Babubl and Budhari Satnami has jon thebody of Babubl, bones of the radius, alma bone of right hand was death was shQck as a resu!t of iante-mortem in nature which were the death was homicidal in nature, were 7 injuries on the body of and 6 were stab wound- There was a [^^f^t XI-HC-22 31I^T^I ^^'siii^ ^^w^rr^'d T •s^ •^Fff^FT. ^?m?. IN^ray ^STRCfl^HI^ '"^ 200 STI^I^^T^^f^r s- of death was ^hock as a result of h| chNid^l^ ^TR^ ^ 'fe^t ^fxgT< ^aTRR^T^T fracture of lower jaw and hyoid fc^one. The injuries Nos< 1 and 2 were caused by the hard ond blunt obj^ct. The injuries Nos. 3 to 7 were cau^d by sharp edged weapon lik^ knife. All the injuries were ante- mortem in nature o^d wer^ sufficidnt to cause the death and the cause liiemorrhage* The postmorterh reports are Ex.-P/lO and P/12. Theref^re, in view of the evidence of eyewitnesses and the evidence ^f PW-lt &r. D.V.N. Sharma, who conducted the postmortem on the <|ead bodies of the deceased persons, it is established that the naturej of death of the deceased namely Babuial and Budhari Satnami was homicidal^ As far as the involvement ofi the murders of Babulal and Budharl Masih hois stated that he saw that! the accused/appellants in committing Satnamsjs concerned, PW-6 Jeevan accused Ratan was assaulting Babulal with & Lathi. At the same time A^ohan and two ol+ierswere attacking Budhari. Budhari was attacked 4" one side of the Society Bhawan whereas, Babulal was attacked in iront of the Society Bhawan. Babulal 1. <xnd Budhari Satnami were crying ^ that in 1+ie mid day she saw thatl down and he died on the spot. PV^ ave save'. PW-9 Sukhlata has stated Ratan was assaulting Babubl wi1+i a Lathi and at the same time, her hJLisband Jeevan Masih came. He also witnessed the attack on Babulal, wjho was attacked near 1+ie Society go -18 Dinesh Kumar Verma has stdted [^^fe^ XI-HC-22 T ^"^r "??raRT7T, ^fl^T?. 'f^rray W<R^n^iW^ a^ 200 •3?I^T^I f^Ti^'sn^T ^TOT^rft^ •3^T'^H^T TrftiT -^- ^!^?<1^1'i ^IH<viY "? feTSt ll^^R ^3if^R3??^T •V that he was working in the Seva 5ah|2kari Samjti, Bishrampur at Dhekuna. When he came out of the society, with a Lathi and Ratan murdered !he saw that Ratan afi-acked Babulal ^abulal on 1+ie spot. Thereafter, he left the scene. PW-21 Prem Masih ^as stated that on the fateful day he. went along with Babuhl and Budharf Satnami to Simga from where they returned to village Dhekuna. Rata|i came with a Lathi near the village tank <xnd started attacking Babuia oozing out of the injuries. Gns^eing this, Budhari star-ted running towards 1+ie village Dhekuna. PW-2 above evidence and stated th<|it Babulal; Budhari Satnami and Bhuneshwar were running and accu^ed Ratan was chasing them carrying Danda in his hand. Ratan started atj-acking Babufal with a Lathi. He tried to intervene but Ratan did not stop) Bhuneshwar, who is the injured w persons were indu^ed in selJing ill| selling of the liquor. On 15-5-90 a-f accused Itwari/Mohan/Lakhnu andJ they left for Simga for bdging the GS a resultof which blood started Chen Das has also corroborated th© and Babulal died on the spot. PW-15 itness/ has stated that the accused cit liquor. His father Budhari, uncle Babulal and the villagers asked thejse accused persons not to s^ll liquor but they did not accede the reque^t of villagers cnd continued wi1+i the about 10 am his father Budhari and uncie Babulal went to the Poli<% S^ation Simga to lodge the report that Ra+an were ^lling the tiquor. When report at tiie Police StatSon, accused [^^f^ XI-HC-22 3^1 ^T 1^ri?Ta'r?i^T ^RW^f^cT T -3-^ •-^qpqT^^, i^WT^, 'N^RTy 3fl^r ^^ NPWIT ^W^ '^ 200 'fN^sT" 5?T^T ^^T^R ^rit^T -^- Babulal and start-ed as^xutting him to run away from the place, by the down, the accused persons sta Thereafter, they assaulted him ^ which Babulal and Budhari Salnamil ^Tqf^fiFf 'RTR^f °91^^rT^T^R ^TZq^fq^lt^ AAohan, Lakhnu, Ratan and Itwari c^me to his house and threatened him with dire consequences saying th4t Babulal cnd Budhari have gone to lod9e the report, they wiH see ttjiat Ifiey are finished. At that time, Lakhnu was carryin9 a knife and |>1+ier accused persons were carrying Lathi. When at about 2 p.m. he weijtt to the hou^ of Dawood E^i in the village Dhekuna, his father Budh^n o^d uncle Babulal were returning from Simga, accused persons AAohc|n, Lakhnu, Ratan and I-hwari encircled with a Lath i. When h is father tried time he reached near the Society go- fted chasing sdying catch Budhari. came and he took out the knife ith d Lathi and knife as a result of • died on the spot. PW-3 Punit Ram has also corroborated the above evide^ce. He has stated that he was at his residence. He aaw that Budhari wa|s coming from south side and in front of hjs house Itwari stopped Budhat1! and attacked him with a Lathi on his shoulderas a result of which Bucfiari fell down. At thattime, Lakhnu jfrom the pont and started att-acking Budhari wjth a knife. He assaul-^d on his neck, back and face. PW-4 Thanwarin Bai has also corroboral^d the above evidence, Therefore, in view of the above evidence of th^; eyewitnesses, it is established that Ratan assaulted Babulal with a LJa1+ii whereas, other accused persons [Tif^ ^R^^ XI-HC-22 3T?^?T°^T I^WW^I ^^N^fN •^Ec§'^Tp?1^[, 'g^WT^.I^iT^ ^I^I^T ^^Tl%' "W^ 209 "^^r" '3?it¥r^ii^r ^fer i ^T^rf^l^ft^- ^I^^i "9 fe^ lf^$lT ^'STf^R^n^T namely Lakhnu, Mohan apd Itwar| asaaulted Budhari with a knife and lathi. In the cross-examination of these eyewilnesses, the defence has not been able to elicit any fac^ or circumstance, which makes the evidence of these witness&s unre|iabte and untrustworrfiy. Most of the witnesses are vitlagers and therej evidence agdnst the accused per witnes^. Lathi and knife were ali accu^d persons. Therefore, \w^\yemer\t of -Hie accu^^d/appellants in committin9 the murders of Bjxbulal and Budhari Satnami stands established and we do not find an of -tiie trial Court to that effect. Shri Abhay Tiwari, learne| argued that as per the evidence offence dgainst the accused doe^ are conGerned, against them also In order to oippreciate the for the accused/cypellants, we hfl^ is no reason for them to give .false bons. PW-15 Bhuneshwar is an injured bo recovered at the instance of the ^ ground to interfere with the finding J counsel for the accused/appeJtants of eyewitnes^s Katon assciulted only Babulal, that too with a Lathi an^ he caused 2 injuries, therefore, the not travel beyond under ^ction 304- H of the I.P.C. As far as other ^iccused persons i.e. Mohan and Lakhnu offence under Section 304-11 of the I.P.C. is made out andoffeitce unjder Section 302 read with Section 34 of the 1JP.C. was not made out. arguments advanced by tearned counsei ve perused the evidence. It is evident [Tit^^fe^ XI-HC-22 T f$^' -3%r '^iraR:FT, ^WT®,t^?RTy 'RT^r^ri ^w^' 208 •i^sy' 3^1 ^T f^^^n^t ^^ W^ ^II^T'^<T[^K ^H ^^ ^N?<ri41r1"WM^T^t Tf^gT? i? ^3T?^H ^Ti^r from the eyidence of PW-15 Bhudii Bhurjieshwar that the accused persons, particularly, accused ftatan, who is t|ie brother-in-Iaw of accused Mohan, Lakhnu and Itwari came to village Dhekuna and started living there, Thereafter, Ratan and other accu^ed persons were inyolved in sellin9 ilSicit liquor which was objected by deceased Babulal, Budhari Satnami and other villagers also. When l+ie^B per<sons did not stop, on objection by the deceased persons and the deceased persons along with Shiv Simga to bdge the report. When vilbgers, on the fateful day the IPrasad went to the Police Station the accused persons came to know about this fact, they went to the hoji]^ of Bhuneshwar/son of deceased Budhari; threatened him with dire ^on^equences ond said that Babuhl and Budhari Satnami had gone to loc|ge the report, they will finish them. At that time, accused Lakhnu was persons were carrying Lathi. PW-8 S ^arrying a knife ond other accused l|i!v Prasad, who was the Sarpanch of the vjllage at artie relevant time ha^ stated that deceased Babulal and Budhari Satnami made a complaint t< liquor by the accused persons and the Panchayat regarding sellirt9 of meeting of the Panchayat was also convened in that respect but the qccused persons did not accept the Panchayat's advice. 10 dcEys therefl^fter, Babulal and Budhari Salnami made a complaint re9arding the abu^s hurled by the accu^d persons on which he a!ong with Kotwar and l+ie^e persons went to lodge the report [Tfl^'?fe^ XI-HC-22 T •s-^ ^TEn^f. ^ftwis. k^ray ^rp^T'^'qra?' 3Ti^T-cF? f^Ni'^Ti^T ^RT^^f^ 3T?^I i^II^R Tdtc? -It,- ^(<I-li<n4t^> TrR^7f ^ f^st ^T^R ^^f^m^i^T \ "• at the Police Station, ThereafterJ of Babulal and Budhari Satnami. were regularly making the cor regarding selling of liquor by them persons. In the first instance, Bobulal and Budhari Satnami the accused/appeilants attacked Budhari Satnami. M far as the question regar<| persons in committing the murderjs concerned, the Hon'bte Apex Courf State of U.P. reported in 2004 A} !he came to know about the murders Dfcc^ased Babulal and Budhari Satnami >mp|laint against the accu^d persons which was not liked by the accused fhey 1+ireatened Bhuneshwar, wheri retur^ied from the Police Station, Simga, committ'ed murders of Babulal and cirid ling common intention of the accused rof Babulal and Budhari Satnami is in the mdtt-er of ©irijaShankar V. :R SCW 810 heldthat: fealzlre "The distinctive element of pxxrticipatio4 person for an offence cour^ of criminal persons arises under ^ done in furtherance persons who join in can only be inferre^ appearin9 from the prof proved circumstances. charge of common establish by circumstantial, that th|^ intehtjon evider|iG&, of the Section is the in action. The liabtlit/ of one :ommit1"ed by another in the perpetrated by several 34 if such criminal act is common intention of 1+ie the crime. Intention from the circumstQnces ^ed facts of the case and the pEn prder to bring home the i, the pro^cution has to whether direct or ere was plan or meeting of afct cor^mttt'jng [Tfl^"^fe^ F XI-HC-22 •3?r^T'^i f^lN'^T^? ^RWH^ ^s? '^7pT5^t^f. ^^OT^, '^rm^ 'aff^r ^R^? ^rH^n '^w^. "^ 200 <>;TT^T '^rrw ^ft^ -\\- offe^ce for which they ^NF<n'4i'i 'w^ff^ fe^ ^f^f^K ^^f^TH 311^1 mind of ail the accus^d persons to commit the are charged wlth the aid of 5.34, be it pre-arronge<|i or on the spur of moment; butit mustnecessarify |>e before the commission of •rtie crime, The true corfceot of ^ction 34 is that if two or more persons in'l'entionally do an act jointly, the position in law is j|jst the same as if each of them has done it indjividually by himself* The existence of a comrr^on intention amongst the participants in a crime |s the essential element for Gpplication of this Sect|on, It is not necessary that the acts of the sev^ral persohs charged with commission of an offeno^ jointly must be the same or identioally simiter< Th^ acts moy be different in character/but must hafe been actuated by one and the same common intenlt-ion in order to attract the provision, " Therefore, in the light of {he above judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, if we examine 1+ie fac^s and circumstances of the pre^nt case m which the offence was comni evident from the evidence of PW-l^ and PW-8 that the accusedpersons were indulged in ^lling the liquor villagers. A Panchayat was also cor^ itted by the accused/appellants. it is n the villoige which wois not liked by the villdgers. The same was objec^ed by the deceased persons oind 'Hie ivened but even thereafter when the accused/appelbnts did not stop ffom selling the liquor/ the deceased persons aiong witii Sarpanch and Ko|t-war,went to the Polic^ Station Simga to lodge the report. When the acc^d persons came tb know about this ['Tfl^^fe^ + XI-HC-22 ^iT^r^T l^iw^nt^T '^"RW^rft7! ^^ ^S^T?R, ^xi1;a3T?, '^nry; 'HR^fl^'^i^ '^. 200 ^n^r ^^Tr§j?Trfirr _u dea|Jly fact, they went prepared with house of Budhari, at that time PVI present in 1+ie house to whom the consequences and ^aid that thc Satnami, who went to lodge the re{ when they returned, the accused^ was declared by them few hours The evidence of the eyewitr earlier part of this jud9ment sh< accused persons took participatior with a Lathi, at the same time, ott Itwari attacked Budhari with a attacked with 1+ie knife and Budh his body. If we look into the postmc skull of Babulal was smashed as p| Bone of the skull of Babubi was places, bone was not available in ^ cranial cavity and the brain mattel fractured, therefore, the att-ac^ pbnned, that too with a common •^^^r'5TR^f^ fe^ Tf^R ^? a?iP<ww^T weapons like La1+ii ancl knife to the ^•15 Bhuneshwar, injured witness, was accused persons threatsned with dire |y will murder Babulal and Budhari le(tort at the Police Station, By tiie noon ^appetlants executed their plan which b^fore, iesses which has been discus^d in the Iws thaf the manner in which all the in the crime, ftatan atl-acked Babubl ter accused persons namely Mohan and Lathi, thereafter Lakhnu @ Lekhu ijari received as many as 7 injuries on |rtem report of Babubl/virtually the fer the evidence of PW-11 br* Sharma. •^ractured from various places* At few fie skull, Some bones pierced into 1+ie was missingwhere the skull bone was by the accused/appellants was pre- intention to commit the murders of [Tft^ ^R^^ i. ^ XI-HC-22 T f^ -^^ ^Trai^i^r. ^w%. 'fN^TT^y IITO^T^^S^ a<^ 200 3T^T^T f^iW^t^ '^:?NT^~CT '3T?^I '^IT^R ^tU -13- ^Fprf^Ffr? WR^f ^ f^st Tfa^K . i7'3^*?^iR¥r Barve Babulal and Budhari ^xtnami for Bhuneshwar before the commission ^ |which they threatened to PW-15 ^f the crime. Therefore, in view of the above ample evidence/ we are n<j?t obliged to accept the arguments advanced by learned counsel for 1+iej accused/appellants that there was no intention to commitl+ie murder. The mdnner in which both -tjhe deceased were done to death mercjlessly and looking to the naturje of injuries it is established that there was common in-tention of tht accused persons to commit the murders of Bdbulal and Budhari Satrjami- Therefore, we do not find any substance in the said appeals on any therefore, liable to be dismis^d Gnd| Accused/appeJfants Ratan an^ ground. The aforesaid appeals are, they are hereby dismissed^ Lakhnu are on bail. They are directed to surrender before the |'rial Court to serve the remaining sentence. It has been submitted in w Prosecutor -Hiat accused Mohan has ^iting by learned Additional Public |been releGlsed on permanent parole. It is for the learned triat Court to c|scertain the factuai positiom andJ^ act in accordance with law. Sd/- V.K. Shrivatava Sd/- | Judge L.C. Bhadoo Judge ^^ [1^^fe^