ss' 35?Y?s'en SeRrti, fCirSTOsd) I_N_ffiE HIGH GC.URT O P HADHX& PJM3E SH.aT ^BALPUR. CrJ.minal Appeal No, ./-_•*>£ 1994, .-/•(: S APPELL&BtTS ^; 1. Dharara ^o Suflar Bhatra'aged afcout 40 years -i'e° - 0 -8/0 Vill.Besranal ... ^.-.}- v •yc;- >.sh».Sft^t.l;..^c./.."£?i~' .il.............-.^l:.ie fr . B/o Vill'.Bgsrapal,. ~ 2. Hanb6<3h<'^/o Sudar Bhatra aged 35 years S/o 'falar. 3. ®da'S/o&u(3ar Bbatra, aged 30 years T/o 'falur. < 4. aiibo "S/o Sadar Bhatra 'aged 25 year& S/o ISlur. All of P.S.Jagdalpnr, Distt.Bastar, Verstis - HON-APPLIQ^m ; Stat.e of Nadhya Pradesh » Srlsi.irial APpeal B/s 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. -^7 •.zJ2-9"~lc( ••^ 3II^T'?iT K.-iM sn^s ^Hich -y^fl 1 s|!ii ^r^. ^?^ ^^'^WvPf, »-S\W , fadl'My 11HCTI St'ltll'* 200 311^1 ^RITW(rf?(T &ivision Bench;- Hon'ble Shri L.C. Bhadoo and Hon'ble -Shri Dhirendra Mishra. JS 19-1-2006 orifer Shfi Abhay Tiwari, counsei f<| Shri U.N.S. &eo, Additionat $ovT. Adyocste for the StaTs/ "espj Orcsl judament dictsted on PER L.C. BHA&OO, J; - By fiimg Cr.A. No.594/94 nemely Dharam, Monbodh, Sada and ths judgnient of conviction and passed by the l Additional Sessio^s and 130/87 whereby learned 1 A< each ef tha aecused/appeiiants g|u Sukmsn (Sukhnc+h) and Ramnath, for tife. As borti the appeais are therefore, they are baing disposed T1"e prosecutlon case, in appeais 'is that PW-2 Sukhanand io^gi in ths police s+ation Bnd+ar on 27)- :<^r the appeiiants. Pjublie Pr'osecutor' with Shr-i Alok Bakshi. >fsndsnT. . oday^t about 10.30 a.m. he was / accussd &hcrom, Soda and Shsebo Os. 4>N[d4l'1 ^l^ldf ^ 'f^st <^l^.l< i; sifitTO sn^l Ws. an^ Cr.A. No.595/94 accused/ appeilonts Shesbo have questioned the legality of of sentencs datsd 3rd March 1994 Judge, Jagdalpui* 'm S.T. Nos. 131/87 Iditionai Sessions Judge after hoiding (iluiity for commission of murders of se^n+enced thsm to undsrgo impr-isonment bri4f lo^ged arising out of the same judgment, >f by this common judgment. :, necessary for the disposcl of These ged the repor+s Ex.-P/6 and Ex.-P/6-A -1-87 at 1.50 p.m. to the effect tiiat sitting at his i'esidence, at thot time, carrying biood stained axe in thei" <tame ['nt^ ^fe^ a-HC-22 :SSB-&g; : JgtSsi!-. '^•WSdS,. sn^i^ii R-ii.'* 3n^i ?b^ <rllifl ^sf^WvPf, 'S^NTHS, fawi'yy IIICT] wtra» hands. Monbotih eame with bow ani said thot on account of dispute !R Taraar'ind tree quarrel took place jn cxc till hjs deo+h. Accused E)hc<ron)| from Sulo 6oi. Ali the four psrson^ chowky, Bastar. He informed Jabsr| cht^^^ Tfm^f ^ 1:t1I^t <f^ ^R ^; sipgii sn^T S arrow in his hand. Sada and Sheebo lconnectton with piucking of fruits of which they ottacked RamnathWith the d+tacked Sukman (Sui<hna-rii)with +hs axe and rnurdered him. Manbodh sald thothe has snotched bow and orrow soid that they ai*e going to the police 5ingh Patei and Lskhan Pujari and went aiong with them To the ptace of ^ccurrence where Tomarind tpee was stonding, where he saw Sukman and ftamnath uiere lyirig dead. There were iryuries on their neck and head. B!cji?d was oiszing out of the iryuries. The crime was witnesseci by Sulo Bai| Son 6ai and Chtieeii. fteceivin9 this information, crime was registere^ by A.S.I. Jsgdish Ncrayars (pW-8). After registering the case, based|on the memorandum (Ex.-P/l) axe in qusstion was taken into possessio^ under E>c.-P/2 from accusec! Sada, another cxe was tgken into posse^Sion from the possession of accused Sheebo under £x.-P/3, under Ex.-ff/4 some eiothe of accused Soda was taken !nto possession, the wecyofj of offence i.e. axe was taken into possession from accused Dharam urjder Ex.-P/34,arri bow and arrow were taken into possession from accuse^i Manbodh under Ex.-P/5. Panchanama Ex.-P/27 of the body of Ramnath ^os prepared and Panchonomo Ex.-P/32 of the 'body of Sukmon was prepa('ed. The dead bodies of Sukman and Remnath were ssnt for postniortsn'jexaniination to ths Moharani Hospita!, Jagd^ur wrfiere &r. V.K. Lagu (PW-( of Romnath ond prepored po3tmor't| 3) conducted po^tmortem on the body ^m report Ex.-P/8. He slso eonducted [•q^ifig^ F?- tT XI-HC-22 'S^I -<1]<11M<1, 8>fll<+*IS, isll'll'My sn^r.^iT IS-li'ti 3TI^T ^lHich V^ :?l^i': ^"gs ^a.iissa s :;-::s- Was Nitfc'irgfiiirai •^ 200 sii^r ^^nwsrfOT -J postmori'em on the body of Suknioi P/13. The sits plcn Ex.-P/37 was pi| articles were sent to the F.S.L.,.$a^ar Ex.-P/39 were recened, After- comptetion of the mvej against the accused/appeiiants alon< each murde" in ths Court of Judi< committed the cases to the Sessionj 1 Addi+ionat Sesaions Judge recei' As both the murders w.ere comffii Additionci Sessions Judge order'ed The prosecution in order y:cused persons examined 8 witne|sses persons were recorded under Se^l denied the Brosecution evidence ad •they have besn impiicated in the anjmosity. Accused Dharam stste^ somequarrei betwsen Ramnath, Su| police station and lodged the repdf iand is ef his fothsr and they are 1984 the Court dscided in their ft tree. Hs abng with other persor); fruits?f Tamarind tree. Romnath slub and ottacked hi<n. Siniilar is ('l <^i'4ltl4il 'RW^ff ^ 'f^Sl' <R»1'(^1< ^?3if;tmaii^r anci prepared postmortem repor-t Ex.- 'sparsd by K.P. Agrawal, Patwsri. The from where reports Ex.-P/38 and ^tigation, two charge shests wer-e fiied with Sukmati, Sumati and Tuicram for- ic! Mcgistr-ate, Jagdalpur a'ho in turn Judge, Jogdaipur from where learned fed both the easea on transfer for triol. •1-ed at one time, therefore, iesrned For joint. triai of both the eases. !-o estabiish the charge tgainst the i. Tne statemenfs of the accuseti I'ion 313 of the Cr.P.C. in inhich thev ^pearing ogainst them ond stated that ;rime on account of land dispu+e and thst he was on ths tree. "niers wos ;man and the labourerg. He went to the •t. Accused Manbodh stated that the R possession of the icnd. In the year wour, In thot land, thers is Tatnor-ind and 20 !obourers were plucking the ind Sukman (Sukhnoth) came with axe, he defence of other accused persons. [Tft^^fe^ XI-HC-22 ^si •^Wvl<i, ^W\<»,hwvy, t<INCTI gi*<l<<) •M 200 (cl'httST' sn^r^ii h-u'b ss^v s^^ yf?fl chH^'41'1 ^i^(nl''^ fsl<i1 <Rn«R. ^? Sirfigtt 3)1^1 cdunsel The accused persons.aiso pr'ociuee^i (tSW-1). Lesr-ned Additions! Ssssioijis Additional Pubiic Prosecutor and senteneed +he accused/appellan+d a3| hoiffever, acquitted other aecused na(nely We have heard Shri accused/appeilsnts and Shri U.N.5. Shri Alok Bakshi, $ovt. AdvocoTe The homieida! deathaof Sukmian As far <ss question of conimit'i Abh^y fori the wais I.P.C. by the accused/appellants is eounsei for the i2ceused/appe!!ants rabich Tamarind tree was standing as the aecused persons won the possession. On the fateful doy- whenj iabourers were piueking the fruits o-j| Rsmnath came with axesnd ciub aroli exercising the right of private deceased persons, as such their- is bad in iow. On the other hond, Shri U.M. !»'+h Shr' A!ok BQkshi, ©ovt.Advoccri(e deferlce one defsnes wi+ness namaty fiaisai Judge after hsoring arguments of for the accused convicted and mentioned in para-1 of this judgment, afnely Sukmisti, Sumatt and Tuiaram. Tiwar-i, iearned eounssi for the freo, Additiona! Pubiic Prosecutor with State/respondent. and Ramnath ore not in didpute. |ing offence under Section 302 of the ^oncerned, Shri Abhcy Tiwari, jearned ^rgued that the !and sn question upon in possession of the accused persons caae and thereafter they were in the accused/oppeiiants aiong w'rth 20 Tamarind tree, decesssd Sukman ond attacked Manbodh, therefore, whiis i. the accused persons attacked the under Section 302 of the I.P.C. contl'iction .5, biso, Additional Public Prosecutor supported tl^e judgment of the tria! Court. /' --1 ^ ^ "s- [Tr^ ^fo^ 7C.-HC-22 'ysi ^raRTO, ^atwis, w"iwy •<%. 3na?i'qii ira'sil^i ^4W~^^ ss: isasa' ~K-^' t?y5t*y 3(1^1 e^TWBf^f VSvTVR 'q7q?ff '9 fs'Zt' •^ SfpTOSll^! Tliersfore, limited que^tion remains to fce desitled t>y +htg Court in these cppeals ;s that as to wh^ther, on the faets and in the circumstances of the ease, the accused perscjns are entitied to the benefit of exercising the ri9ht of priva+e defenc^ to person and property. In order to 1 ' . .' opprsciote argument advaticed by tearned counsel for the aceused/appeiiants we have pe^used the prosecution evidenca ond i'seofd 9S aiso the judgment of the tri^ii Court. PW-S Chendiram was eyewstness to the incident. He has stated •ihat he took Tamor'ind tree m question on lecws a+ the codt of Rs.450/-. | On the fa+eful doy aeeiwsd Sado, &haram and Sheebo isere on the tree.| Accused Manfaodh wse stcndmg under the tres. Accused Sukhmati cnd St^fflati wers co'lecting ths fr-uits of Tamar-ms! trse on which Rorenath astes^ them not to pluck the f'-uits, on whsch aceused &haram and Manbodh tisk'ed Ramnath 'who are you to stop them'. &htironi sttackacf Sukhnath witfi the axe on his neck. Thereafter Manbodh attocked 5ui<raan (Sukhnoth) w|ith the axe. Manbodh eisseuited Sukhnath on his back with the axa and •(|isreafter' Cihar-am again ossaui+ed Sukmar! {Sukhnath) with tha axe. Seei^ig father being attacked Ramnsth who was grozing cows came running on jwhich AAonbodh attacked Ramnath 3 times with theaxa onhis iea, s»sai"ea(jltof whieh Ramncrth feiidown. Thereafter, Oharam assaultsd Ramneth with The sxe on his back. Accused Sisdo aRd ^ieebo also at+ocked Ramna+h| with tha oxe on +ha back and ehest. The accused psrson£,were scsying '^-oday they fsited down giant (demon)' snd they dronfe'the biood of Ramntath with the heip of ieaves. Sukman and ftsmnath died onthespot. Thc4»ifeof&hcrcm said that'kh'l these cersons [•qt^if^ •/^;, 's-'' 3-HC-22 SII^I'EBI K,-f sf^l ^^i y^a ^;?5^ iSsiiBs" B3E?' ~Sv( •<{WM<i, »fl1<4'i6, ("lC'il+iy whether you ars liavin9 mus+ache because they wsre contesting the accused Sada, Shaebo, &haram and axe In their hands. PW-6 Ku. Suio @ Suiochi witnsssed the crima as psr hep s' fiatefui day i.e. 27-1-87 at abou quarreliing with her fsther near dis+ance of 20-25 steps frons thei grondfather Sukhman (5ukhftath) w Aecused Manbodh, &horam, Sada ai cttactea with the axe to her gs\ attacked her grandfather with thi / ' - ' " . . sftef her fothei". Monbodh attacke^ When the fother fel! down on the axe on the i®9,hcnd and back of oTtackad on The hsad and neck. &h| neck, biood was oozing out of t| qrandfather' and father died. PW-2 Sukhanond (Kotwar') ht sitting in hig house. The cccused p( Sada snd -Shesbo said that they ho( tne ax^. Monbodh stnterf that he ~-—L! dnd they aiso said that Ramnoth hc4 cbl^Ic'l4lT1 'RR^ff ^ 'fe^ •(.f^l-W.K ^? 3if=g*T sn^r \»P not'. Sumati saici that it is good lcase with her father and thereafter lAanbodh went towards the hili carrying jna, daughter of Ramnath had aiso Mdsnes. Shs has statsd that on the 9 a.m. the aecysed persons were Tctnarind tree which was stsnding at the residsnce. Her father Ramnath and i^re standing beiow the Tamorind tree. ^d Sheabo wers car'r'yin9 axe. bharant iandfathsr, thei'eafter Manbodh a!so axe. Tne accused persons also ran with the axe on the ieg of her father. ^arth, aecused 5odu .attoeked with the her fo+her and her grandfather' wss tram attacked her grandfather on the ic injury, as a result of which her i4s stcted that on the foteful day' he was irsons ccme to him. Accused Dhcram, fe murdered Sukmanand Ramrtath witth titis snatched the ar'row from Suiochana died. [^ ^fo^ [-HC-22 ~5^ •^ww^, »fll<H'i<»,fairii'yy an^l^l f^iwsn^T ^H yf^f *^V.Si9r 311^1 ^raTWtTfttt -'T- <BI<<[CT<I1l *ilHCTl' 4 'fS^t (Fat+riK ^srf^pTsn^i From the svidence esvciioble |on recora, it hss come on r-scord tha+ some dispute rsgarding iand in que3|tion where Tonsarind tree was standir^ was going on between the complain^nt party and the accused party, but as far aa the question of exercising the ri9bt of private defenee +o the person and property is concerned, ^xseption 2 of Section 300 of the I.P.C. snviscsgss that. Culpabla homicide is not muraer' if ths offender-, in the .exet-eise in 9ood faith of the ri^ht of privgte defsnce of person or property, exceeds the power given the peraon against whow he is ex| to him by iaw and couses the death of srcidinq aueh riqht of defence without premeditistion, and without any i|itention of doing more harm thisn ss nseessar'y for the purposs of such defencs. First of ali qusstion comss as to whether ths'accused persons i-^cve been abie to show thaat the Sand i" /question upon which Tamarind t'l'ee wos existing wss 'm their -settled possession. There is nothing on re^ord which shoms that the land and tree In question wihs.re. quarrei took picKfe and the cccused persons went to piuck fruits of ths Toi'narind tree wer^ in settied possession of the accusad persons. PW-5 Chendiram hsas cats^oncaHy statsd that the tree in qusstion was given to him on iectfe ot the|cost of Rs.4SO/-. Neither any revenue reeord hss been pr-odueed by th^ sceuaed pei'sons te show that the !and cnd tree were m their poss8ssiori|nor Haika Patwarl has been axaamiried to show thot the iand was 'm their pc|ssession. PW-6 Ku. Suio @ Suiochanc on cross-examinstion by the counse| for accused persons has eiearty stated that tjiie caie is going on betweer asre m oossession of the Isnd an| -*»- them cnd the accused persons but they d tres. It is mcorr'eet tc say that the [T^^rt XI-HC-22 ~FS! •<iNIC!'i1,'0Til«'!e,ftcll'My sn^r'qii i^-ii'* sni^r sh^i+'HfttT 'tsc' --sa an^t'?^iiw(rf?(T -«- accuseci persons are cultiva+ing +1 have fiied an appea! and the a{ possessiori and the accused perso^s the investi9a+in9 officer PW-8 exsfflined on this aspect to show tt of iand and tr'ee, The accused peraon^ ha.ve that 7 years before he went to vil Ramnath. Ramnath told him +ha+| piijcR'rsg fruits of Tcmarind tre^ there. But this te the or'al i r'ecord hcs been produced by in ssttied jsossession whereas; compiainants were in possession. bsen cross-examined on this asp^ that the oeeussd persons were if this witness isof no avail to thel wlTness has sTated appears To he Apart frsm that, there ^s nothing on r^cord a!so to show t| ,/ havingAny wieapon with them anip cbt^ld<4lT1 HIH^f '^.t^^l •i.fsi^R ^3TfigiT aii^i t^e lond. Sunder won •t'he ease but they Ipeai is pending whereas, they ar-e in are disturbing theif possession. Even P'ogdish Naroyan hccs not been cross- 1<at the taeeused perssns we m possession ixainined Ran Sai (t>W-l) who has stated icge Bescrapsi to meet his moternai uneie he has to go to the iond of Suncier for at that tiroe, 7 persons were sitting !, as hos been mentioned above that no persons-to shovs that they were the proseeution evidence is that the The invsgtigatin9 officer has olso not !ct by the defence counsei to estabiish possession. ther-afore. the ewdence of scsused persons. T^erefore, whst this ft&r thought. evidertce the laceused nothing on record to show thut the aceused psrsons recsived any irijury in the incidsnt in question. Thsre is '-^- at deceased Ramnath and SuRmcm were they caused any injury to t-he accused ['T^'^fe^ ^st •tiiqK.iq, 3Ti1.a<is, («!<vil'y'i< an^rqil R-iidl Sfl^T ^Hich 'uf?a •wi SS!j>: STI^TI ?RITWaf?tT -9- persons. The prosecution evidenee piucking fruits from tree, Sukman fruits on which the accused star't< Chenclii'om >n para-9 of the erosa- incorrecf Tosay thot Romnath, incorract to sa^. that Kamnath ass^ ineer-rect to scsy that Ramnath ass< hond, the accused persons were hi wi+h the heip of aa<es they att< infiisted irjuries fflereilessiy on th^ whieh Ramndth srsd Sukman eiied sf>\ so fur'ous even they drunk the blocjd pf leaves of the tree. Thereaff Sukhanand and niade extr-a Judi^ Ramncth ond Suknicn by ottackij confessio?! made by thsse accused^ prompt and trua. In view of the evidence of wsre r-ecovered immeciiately ffi' th^ parsons produced weapons sf offej (PW-3). Romncth r-scaivsd as many cut a"d deceased Sukman rsceivedl head. j . —----^_ 'M^IM^I'I HH^Tf ^ f^t '^-^!< ^aif^TTsn^r |s that whsn the ascused persong wers ^ssked them os to why they ore p!uckln9 (d attacking him.In this r-egQr-d, PW-5 ^xominotion hess eieoriy atiated that it 13 jukman iand he were havinq iD<e. I'i' is liuitsd Manbodh with the axs. It is aiso tulted Msanbodh with ciub. On the other ^ing deadiy weq»on i.e. axes with them, jcked Ramnath and Sukman and they ^ vitoi part of the body <23 o resuit of sntaneousiy. The aecusad persons a'srs of the deceased persons with the hetp ter, they 'rtiemselveg went to Kotwop :ial confession thst they hffi/e kiiied ^g with the axe. The extra judieiui persons bsfore i<otwor sa'as voiuntsiry, irosecution. axes, weapons of offence, poiice station Stself tt'hen the sccused ice. As per the evidenee of Dr. VX Lagu as.13 injuries. His right iung was found -ive injuries whid^ wers on the neck and '*0. [Tfr^ ^3^ [-HC-22 ^5T'3ff<TRPT, (»Til<4'is, hcii'yy 31I^i'qiT f^riBi'an^T *tli«b•gf^T sffi' fS;S'1 IR order to avaii the bensfi LP.C. the rsqht of pr";vate defencs right must be exer'cised without ,j of causing more hwm than is This exception wouid not come thsmseives wers eygrsssor. As wa judgraent that in the first instan settled possession of the land arx The eross-examinia+ion that it ia guestion was won by Sunder i.e. tt pending agsinst that soss. PW-5 guestton wsss qwer. to him on leose ,the eomploinant party. Moreover, accuasci persona in the poliee shoi^ this report connot be used as g[ psrsons, but counsei for accuse^ purpose of rais!n9 ri9ht of private| m order to ascer'tciin'.as to wheth^ to the accused persons. It haa be^ be-tween the compiairiant pa-ty an^ iand and tres. I+ hss further beerl ths fruits af Tamar'nd tree, the| their h^ihds ond Suiochana csme »(i not to pluck the fr'uits foi'm t^i chni<n4ii -ETm?ff ^ fsrst <f^)'(<rR' '^siPgirsn^r if of Excep+ion 2 of Saction 300 of the i^ to bs sxsr-eised in 9ood fasth and such •^emeditation, and Mfithout any intention nee<jssary for the purpoae of seif-defence. •i)o the aid of the accyssd whepe they says discussed in th®sar'iier pas't of this :e the accused persons are not 'sn the tree cs has been soid by Syiocharw in true +ha+ +he ease regording iand in |e opposite pcrty, but the appeai is stiil IChendiram has stated thst ths trse in For one year st the cost of P.S.45Q/- by |the report Ex.-P/21 WQS lodged by the (ky Bastar- at 12.45 p.m- It is true that [piece of evidence aguinst the accused persons himsslf referreti it for the jefsnce,thersfors, it csn be looked into |r right of private defence was availabte mentioned 'm the r'epcrt that the eass The accussd party is going on regarding mentionsd thct when they were piucking lecsssed psrsoris carae csrrying axs in ith bow and arrow ond they a^ked them tree snd s+arted abusmg. ftamnath [Tfr^ ^fe^ XI-HC-22 'Svf ^w\^, wvAww, V^wvy. 3)1^1 ^I R-li.-* 311^1 W^^ -yf?n iB,^;'s!fc i&s'a |SS-;*tE^yqj<S sn^i ^dTW:'af?n •'n- mentioned labove assauited Msnbodh witb ths siub a» tree. It has been admitted thct •i'h theaxe. Butashasbeen Scuflhath wtth the elub, no injury aecused persons theroselves hov< attacked Rcmnath and Sukman witt numerous mjuries on the bodies of brought on record to show that th< or they assouited wi+h that weapo( manner in which •i'he accused persi] attacking with the axes, no cas< defsnce wos mads out, thsrefor ^xception 2 of Section 300 of tr^i sir'eunistances and evidence avaiiayi in this judgRient, it cannot be held ri9ht of privaTe dsfeRce in good f( agyessor. rrvm the reannsr in w^ weapons on the vita! parts of the t|< armless, it ia establidhed that the with the interitlon to eause their eounsel for the accussd/dppeiiatj' private defenee to psrson arri pr(jj nbtt'iin^ in the evidenee that, inan^ possession of the pr'operty and Gbl^^T4lT1 tTTE^rf'^ f^f <f^R?I"< ^? 3lf=g*T 3D^I ^i theraafter +hey eoiT.s down f"om the ^y assauited Raranath and Sukman with regarding assaulting AAanbodh by report hos bsen fiied triiefeas, the admitted in this report thiat they the axs. The accused psrsons caused 1'he deceosed pe"sons. Nothing hos been compiainant were carr^ing any weappn +o the aecuaed party. Therefors, +be |>ns niur-dered Romnoth and Sukraan bv for- axercising th®pigh-i of privcte •e, their case is not eoversd under e I.P.C.. In view of the above factsA !e on rscord «i»hichsr-e raferred eariier !'hot the occused persons exerdsed the li+h beccuse the accused psrsor'.s Bfsre ich they inf!icted injuries ">ith decdly »dieSof Sukman anci ftomnath who iwere secuaed persons attacked the (ieseasad leath. Therefore, ai'gurner!* of tearned ts. rsgarding axercisina ths right of ierty is deyo'd of any fflerit. There is way, the accused per^ong are in ^ettled thS steceased persons assaulted the [^^fig^ XI-HC-22 A '?ST ••<<i<iiivi«l,snl'a'is, RldKiy. <5:': i£wK^ sn^r^iT R-ii'* 3iii?[ ^i^fct) ^ff^fl Isarve Ira^ *11*<CTI Viweb "g^ 20ft (<«)<»" an^l^aiw^?! -^ ascused persons, whila axsrcising ti".s right of private defence, they flttacted the deceosed persons^ In the r-esult, the appeals be|ng devoid of any merit, ar'e liable to be dismissed and they are hereby dlswj Sd/- L.C. Bhaduo Judge chl<4i^*i1T1 HIH^if "^ feTSt <f^^R i? srfigii ant^r Dhirendra Mishra ie [^^R^