•Swf ^|<<|<7'><|, g'Tfl+f'l^, fs|<?il<Hy 3(I^?T ^R?; (IjcjIiajtiS^ 3!R¥[?T1?;iP ^^ ^n^? 0i^ic»i '*i^iff'fl-t iiHi-if if.fe^ <n>i<si< CRIMIKAJt APPteAL Mo. 1144/2001 Appellaat Raml^l s/o Kirtaa Lohar, aged about 23 P.S, Ghatghoda, r/o Deeudayal jy, ThunarapUT, Raigadh yearaj Colori Resooadent Stat^ Policje Raig^rh Criatinal ABpeal uader Slectton 374 (21 ofthe Code of Crlffijn^l ftocedure D.B: Hoa'bleShri L. C. BhAdoo. fls Hon'Me Shri SuaU Kuriiar Siadha. JJ Appearaace: Sait. Sarita Shanxla Shri Satteh Guptat ORAL JUD<tMEHT (21.9.20(|)7) The foUowing judg^ncnt was deUvered by Ii.C.Bhadoo, J. Thls appeal is directed aud order of sentence dated "i Sessions Judge, Ra^arh, in the learaed Sessions Judge along-with co-accused Mayas offence u/s 302 rcad wifh se Vs. of Chliattisgarh, through fhe Station, KotwaU, Ra^arh, Distt (C.G) i, couiisel for tfae appellaat Dy.Govt. Advocate for thc state '71& 4gainst ttie judgment of conviction November, 2001 passed by the S^ssions Trial no.77/2001 whereby after holdiag the accused appeUant (ati guilty for the commlssion of 4tion 34 I.P.C., sentenced each of 'Swf rill^lciq, ^•M'!<o, Rlrtiy^ W^v\\ *MI«b .c?:.'A:...\\^..h. ^ TI^? (1i?^°l?») ^n^T.'wfyiw WTStI^I iFRRT tliBB!*"" TOiiwafTOsn^r the accused to luideigo iinprisor Rs. 200/-, in default of paymen for two nionths. .prisox^inent jfor (2) The case of the prosecuti< the First infoi-mation Report Ex. Raigarh to the effect that she is Kasi Raru ia Deendayal coloi worldng as a labourer. neighborhood. On 07.12.20(X)| sittfng ia (tie court-yard of the the voice of Sirmati. she went was unconscious and hfa SQU S< of Ghasi Ram. Saiulal and Mayamati & Ramlal left thc ho|i on which, she saw Mayawa^ Mayawati, she replied that hei) condition, if he is dyiag let Sn-mati brought bacli: Mayawat^ teke Ghasi Ram. to the hospita^ to Hospital but at about 6.45 sineU pf the liquor as also the| the place. Ramlal is residiag 4 last 2-3 inonths. Ghasi Rainl Rainlal. At tiaies, Ramlal afte^ Ghasirani aad askcd him to reti GIiasi ?i;s^ ?t^r ^5i"ii<?irfi, ^raferah TiFRff if feIA'dSre^R ^? aifgiT an^r life and to pay a fine of |t offlne, to further undeigo R.I. Otl Siibnati hijn j>n is that Neerabal (P.W. 1) gavc .P.2 in fhe police statioa KotwaU, residing aloag-wittt her husbaad jy, Thimrapur, Raigarh, she is Ram. is residing ia her at about 10.00 a.in., she was |house of Maakuwar, on hearmg thc spot, saw that Gbaai Ram ^nitelwas wecping near the bo^ly itmati iafonn.ed her fhat acoused i|use aloiig-witli thcir betoagiags, near fhe drain. Shc called husband is tyiag iu a drunlcen die. On wluch, she alor^with and Raailal aad asked theia to thereafter fhey toolc Ghasi Ram. >.ni. in the evening he died. The msecticide was emaaatii^ fcow. it the house of Ghasi Raxa siace took some inoaey oa loan. fix>in consiimiag Uquor used to abusc :uralus xaoney. Rainlal 1s havtog ' 59—8/2007 —30,000. T5? '*ii'!<i"'i^, ®Ti1y'is,Ridiyy Ov-ft- \\ 44 •qiWIT ^,q|<^ •--•••---•-•••••"-•<•••••••••••••••• ••-••^ 2001 aiiw TTO (ipf^g^ET) SD^I.W R'li'ti WIT3TR5T WTW illicit a-elationship with thc wi^e of Gh^ Ram. She enquired fioia the son of Ghasi Rstm. on and his inother had iiuxed soxri (ni1tfl<n<ili lTT41<rlf'Ff [^^\ <rs|^i< ^sifaHsn^CT which he disclosed fliat Ranrial ^thing with fhc Uquor which was consunied by Ghasiram. Rampal gave liquor in a glass to has father and he Iiiniself took soi^ie liquor ia stainless ateel bowl. The deceased gave beating to ^iis wife in. vill^e of Raaalal ie., Teeboudi oa accoiiat ofiBicit refationship belween Mayawati and Ramlal. Mayawati. and Raml41 adininistered poison fo Glasi Ram mixed with liquor. Afiter r^ceiving the report Ex.P.1, based on wtu.ch F.I.R. Ex.P-2 was regtstered. The investigating Offioer left for the sccne of occurrenccland he seized one stainfcss steel glass, one stamless steel bow^ one enapty quarter botfle, one siaaU Ahimmuin box contauuiufe Mailthicu^ Site Ptem Ex.P.4 waa prepared by hua. Site PIaa |Ex.P.5 was prepared by Halka Patwari. The viscera of fhe doteased were seized under Bx.P.6. After giving notice to the Pan<| was sent for post inortem exaca^ ;has (Ex.P.7) the iuquest Ex.P.8 was prepared ori the body of GIjasi Rani. The body of Ghasi Rani aation to K.G. Hospital, RaigaA, under Ex.P.9, where Dr.P.K. C]rupta, Asst Sui^eoii, conducted postmortem and prepared po^tmortein report (Ex.P.10). He opined fhat tfae cause of ^ in.secticide. The seized artii .eath w^s poisoxung by soiue sles were sent for clieinical examination to Forensic Sci|snce Laboratory, Sagar under Ex.P.12, fi-om where fhe F.S.4 report was seat on 21.2.2001. After coinpletion ofthe investyatioa, fhe chai^e sheet waa filed in fhe court of Chief Judkaal I|4agisteate, Ra^arh, who in tum yiy^ ^h" ?TSF - 8/2007 —30,000. 7S51 "q|<||<r><), iSn{ly']S, (s|<?»!+<y,< C^-P. U4 ^IMyll **<!*' ^ W^ 200) an^ Tisi% (Tpf^sRff) sn^r.^ii R-il* '(P'lISIR^T *41<=h iSSt ^i-4l<Ti-4)Ti 'ETTH^ff ^f t^t <Fn<$i< ^T3TRlH3iI^T comnutted thc casc to the Ses^ions Judge, Raj^arh, wherc fhe trial was conducted. The pros^eution in order to estabMsh the charges agaiast accused perso^is exaaained 10 witncsses. The stateinent of fhe accused pejrsons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., in wtuch each of th)s accused denied the miaterial appearing agaiast fhena in fhe ]|>rosecution evidence, fhey stated fhat fhey are ianocent aad thetr have been falscly iniplicated in the crime. (3) The leamed Sessfons Ju<|lgc, ater heariag the aiyunents of fhe respective counsel fi^r the partics, convkrtied and sentenced fhe appeUant alon^ aforeineutioned. (4) We have heard Snat appeUant and Shri. Satish Gupt^, -with co-accuscd Mayawati, as Sjanta Shanna, counsel for the Dy.Govt. Advocat fta- the State. (5) Thc case of fhe prosecufion is fhat Ghasi Ram died oa account of admmtetratiDn of Ipoison. la fhe case ot Shamdi Btrdhtchcaruil Seirdt^ Aj»pea<^Bt -»s- Sttnte of MahtirBshfra reported ta AOt 1984 S.C. 1^22, the Apex Court held that ia case of murder by poisoiung, t^ie Court na.ust carefuBy scan. tih.e evidence and detennine the fovf iinportant circumstances which alone can justify a conviction: (^ there is a <j adininister tear motive for an aecused to to fhe deceased; ?iRt^r^N'H —FS/59— 8/2007 —30,000. ^s^ ^TW^f, 'ST^WW, [^iAWy. C^-t\ \\4^ TffW g^flq;-- •.•.....................;................... ^p ^ an^n^^ (4ci4»i<yf) l^^i.'- sii^r.'wIs^ WFSIK^T WV eni<ilci4l^ 'RR^rf tf'^^ Tf^l^R ^sifgiTsn^T fhat the decc^cd died ofpmsoB. sad to have been admlnislered; fhat the ac^nised had the poison ia his possession fhat he had ^n opportunily to adiniaister fhe poteon to thc deceased. (6) As far as fhe inotive is 4»iicemed, P.W.3 Mankun®rhas stated that one day shc saw fh^t both the accused pcrsons were sleepiag in a bed, therefore, sh^ returaed. P.W. 1 Neea-abai, after declaring her hostile on cross ^xajaiaation by A.G.P., has stated thataccused Rainlal had adva^iced some money to Ghasl Ram, he was deinaadiug his laoney). One day he caaae ia drunken condition abusiag Ghasi Raifi and said that his inoney be retumed to hiaa, ofherwise, h|s wfll adiiiiaister the pofaon aficr consumit^ thc saine, l(e wffl die. But in para 8 this witaess has denied that she w|as knowtog that accused persons Were ia iUicit relationship. In para 12, this witness has further stated fhat she did not dfa<tlose to the PoUce thc fact tfaat accused said he will bring th^ poison aad give it to Ghasi Raia and he will die after consiuaitig the same. Therefore, this is an improvenient ia her court evi^ence which canaot be retied. This witaess in fhe cross exanunatlon has steted that tfll Ghasl Ram was taken to hospital, he ^as conscious but none of the witaesses has stated fhat Qhasirain disclosed to theia thstt ?[TE^)if^N accused Ranilal has admiuy liqtinr qflr aay wituess has ^ tered poison to hnn xaixed wifh tated that when Ghasi Ram was -FS/S9—8/2007 —30,000: ^. 3a-HC—78 itIi^T W K-U* 7TS1T ^[^ St)*llch g^ SfS 6 3^cT ^W^, yxfl'H'IS, Pf<v>l'(-iy . c^-^\\^^ wwrr *Ki<b""---"--""""""""""""""""""wi. 200) an^?r TI°RR (1F^?w) TCiiWHfersn^i consdous, why enquiiy wa^ happeaed to him. (7) Even though ia her fhat one day she saw th^ position but there is no e^jj disclosed ttus fact to fhe de)( some quarrel between the the accused persons have Except fhe circuaistance, that the accused Rajnlal ^ainst the deceased Ghasi) Ram. aad that is why, tl)|i Therefore, even thc proseci ffae moti.ve ofthe accused tol conducted He (8) In this casc, as far as| of adiniaistration of poison has stated that he deceased on 08.12.2000. lungs, wind pipe aad meml was faB of hlood, aU fhc congested. Briujal colour Sx>m. which fhe smeU was Accordiag to him, the consuinption of iasecticMe offbe Pcmchmuna'body Ex.l +l^<rl-tfl'1 'WT?ff ^T,^^ ^•(^R: ^? .sifm sii^t not xnade fiom him as to what has elvldence P.W.3 Maukuwar has stated accused persons in coinpromising idence to the cffect that in fact she jceased, on account of this there was ajx;uscd aud deceased and tfaat is why ^dmiiustered poison to the deceased. tiliere is no aaaterial on record to show ai^d Mayawati were haviag aay grudge Ram or fhey were angiy witfa Ghasi ;y waated to elmunate Ghasiram. Woa. Taas not been ablc to establish comaut the inurder of Ghasiraxa. the deafh ofGh^i Ram on account is concemed, P.W.7 Dr.P.K. Gupta the postmortem on the body of has further stated that both the (rane of heart were congested, heart uitestme inembraaes, lever were piqiiid was present in the stomach jaiaaating. Visceras were pTeserved. of deafh was on account of ^ad his report is Ex.P. 10. A perusal '.8 also shows that fiipth guxeiljsnth catise XI..HC—78 3TT^?I W K.-H* ^V 3TT^]' shi-liet> msasa 3^T "41<ll<?iAI, gxfl'M'Ko, fs|<7>l<^^< MIH^I *MI+ .C^.:.?'.:..M.'A.^. •^ 200) W^?r 'vsv ('yisys^y 'ronwdfw sn^T Qxva. blood was conaing out deceased aad the Pandias Ghasiram was on accouat ol Neera Bai has also stated Crhasi Rain, she saw that fh< was coming finrn the inoutiji aged about 10 years, who is] that his father and Ramlal the above evidence it is was on account of case the F.S.L. report is th^ into evidence. No question in their statement u/s 313] fhcrefore, it cannot be prejudice has been caused non-puttiag of questions contents offhe report. fUat when estabMshed consumfltion ttas ustd (9) As far as the questioi the accused person is coi namely Sanilal (P.W.2), SOB| has been examined by the| accused Rainlal aaixed soxa^ and tfae saaie was gwen to| perusal of fhe evidence of Ss evidence of this wltaess, fh|i chl*lt(Til"ll TffR^Tf ^f^'f^^ <^l^.l< ^sifinan^i ffae nostrils and mouth of fhe rere of the opinion fhat fhe deatti of 'consumption ofpoison. Even P.W. 1 she reached to the house of foul smeU was emanating and fi»th of deceased. P.W.2 Saiulal, a boy son offhe dcceased, has a3so stated xinsiuned the Uquor fherefore, fix>m that ttie death of Ghasi Ram of poison. Even thoi^h ia this are, but that has not bcea tendcred beea put to the accused pasons Cr.P.C., in respect of F.S.L. repcat, against the accused as senous the accuscd persons on account of ;o fhe accused pcrsons regaidiug of admmistration of fhe pofeon by tcemed, ia fhis c^se, one witness of deceased aged about 10 years, prosccution to establish that the poteonous substan.cc iu flie Uqnor Ghasi Rain for corisum.ption. On ^iulal (P.W.2), inerefy oa the basis of i|e prosecution has not beea. sWe to 3Q-HC—78 3-eq' ^i<t|l<rt<4, ®Tfl*i'is,Rlcil'y^ MiMdl *NI* ...........&v»A.:..U.4.^...............Vt. 200 \ sn^r TisR; (ipf^sT) 311^1 W h-U^ ~a&TT '3RK?T stiHlst) ^TOR ^lfea 3II^F <bl-illd41'l 'Effi^ '^^f^l' •<^l^l< '^sifOTsii^r pols<|«nous beceluse Ilis establish beyond reasonal^] persons mixed some thereafter the same was g^v Raaalal. P.W.2Satulal hasl reside ia thclr house imcle. On the fateful day, fare in vfllage Teeboudi. f^ the said viU^c fare. His f^ fhcy were together fhen his] the Draina, on which his fs mofher repMed fhat she wil^ along-wifh hls father aa<^ Ramlal also accoinpanied and Samosa. The accused steel glass. He inixed sonae Iiis father. Ramlal sent hiin] returaed he saw his father •w] accused Ramlal and his fherefore, Neerabai aad oth< cross exaxaination, fhis was purchased, he vras with| to their house, Samosawas) playiag and about after one hls fafher was slcepiag. It fhat his fafher was sleeping, he has stated that it is iuc< doubt that in fact fhe accused substance in fhe Uquor and ren to fhe dcceased Ghasi Rain by stated that accused Rainlal used to he is fhe son of his matenxal mofher along-with Ramlal went to along-wifh his father siso weat to |ither enquired fi»infhcin as to how mofher replied that stte went to see ^.ther gave beating to her, then bia comxnit suicide. Next day, when he mother were returaing, accused ^heni. Wa father .purchased Bquor |Ramlal put fhe Uquor m a stainless ^aedicine in the Uquor aad gave it to for w^hiag the clofhes. When he \aa sleeping but he was writhmg and inother were teavu^ the house, ;rs brought them back. But in the 1aas stated fhat when the liquor his fafher, fhereafter fhey retumed given to him. Thcreafter he started ]tiour he retumed, when he retumed |is correct to say that whea he saw ]he wenttowash thc clothes. Again ^rrect to say that wben the accused witricss 30-HC—78 Blt^I W R-fl'* TraTT 3TT?E?T sh^let) sis^ii'' I? 3^T "t|l<41<71)<4, KiTfl'M'IS, Rlciltiy •qrac'ir ^i^re; .C..A.;.A;...\^."A. 'ff^ 200\ an^?r '«Rra (4<i(-i,«<<{iT^ ^aiWHftg aii^r +l'qtd-ift'1 'tffR^ff '^^^I3t' <p*|^t< ^aiRnsii^r aad his faftier were coa.i residence. It is correct to ssh were consiuniag liquor ia s^c examiaation, fhis witucss he went for playing and he was difficult for this witnels poisonous substance in fhe| show that the accused Uquor. Therefore, the abov( relied upon that ia fact he ia fhe Uquor. lias niiked uming liquor, he was not at the that his father and accused Ramlal te the house. Therefore, in the cross stated fhat after taking Samosa, letumed afler one hour. Ifit is so, it is to see the accuscd iiusdng some liquor. There M no ofher cvidcnce to the poisonous substence ia the evidenee of tbis witaess cannot be saw fhe accused while iiiixu^ pofaon itm exc^pt (10) As far the question possession is concemed, estabUsh fhat (he accuscd as fhe accused had opporti^ deceased is canceraed, boy aged about 10 years, th); the accused had evidence of Sanilal has inspire confidence of the poison by aocused Rainlal t(( opportuiju.ly beeb (11) The other circitmstan^ counsel for fhe State fhat Ram was sleepir^ aad wri^ house alongwifh their beloiiyn (hat fhe accused had poteon in tss titerc is no evidence on record to lad poison ia his possession. So far ^mty to administer the poison to the ^pt the evidence of Sanilal (P.W.2), a sre is no othcr evidence to sham fhat to adauitteter poison and the discussed earUer, which does not [Court regarding adnmustiattoa of fhe deeeased Ghs^i Ram. |;e which has been argued by lcmiied ^ifter consiuning liquor, when Ghasi ifihiag, the aiccused persons left fhe i^ings and they were brought back ly ^^aaffaiL; ^iinS »d- Xl-HC—78 311^1 w K.-u'ti 'tTSTT STT^T sti<1 {)>-..,. 10 3^T ^||*||<7i>^, ^xfl^'KS, R<7>l<Hy 41M<^1 *MI* .^^».;..A.;..i.\.'St.y. "^ 200^ sn^r Tiag; (ipf^sff) ^giw ^ifeg sn^r <prai^i41*i 'WRif '^.^st <f^ff$R ^aiRmsii^i ;, t^.1 fhe vfll^crs, therefore, t^ie conduct of the accused pcrsons iadicates fheir mvol»einent| instance, P.W.l Neera B^i in cxamuiation-ia-chief itself hsus Stated that the accused Mayawati fhat chfldren ar^ ia fhe crimc ia question. la thc first persons were standing aiong with buadle of clothes near th]e drain, she went there and asked weepit^ on which Mayawati repUed fhat her husband had co|nsumed liquoraad hc is tymg aflter consumitig Uquor, she ref|ised to retum back, oa whidi, ahe alongwith Mankuwar, Sin|a.ati, Fool Kunwar brought Mayawati & Ramlal, fhereater fhey tipok Ghasi Ram to fhe hospital. This sole conduct of fhe a^cused persons is not a strong circumstance to infer admintetered fhe poison. caanot take placc of fhe pi that the accused persons had Thls suspicion however strong fhat )f and for fhis, we are fortified m our view by fhe judgment of |ttie Apex Court in e matter »/ S&uitnder Slngh -vs- Stetb\ of Punfab, AER 1992 S.C. 669 ia which it has been held tha^ the eutire edificc of the prosecution is rested only on circum^taatial pieces of cvidence. Thosc cu-cumstaaces are fhat (i) appeBant to Uquidate ftie d fhere was a strong inotiwc for thc ece^sed; (ii) both the appcfflaat and the deceased were seen toge|ther before aad after the occuErence; aad (iii) the suspicious con4uct of the appeBant before and after the occunence led to an. U^ation of his guilt. After discussing these points fhe Court h^ld that tbere is stroag suspicion ^ainst the appeBaut but a^pointed out by fhe Cotirt m.fcSiMar SIngh -ns-State »fSUtw4SR 1972 S.C. 1899, althou^ti tfaere Xi-HC—78 an^r ^i R(-<i+ '?TSTT 3TI^?T ^>HI(ft jglEfBE-- i^^i,-. i¥*[i^|c^!-| 11 3^T ^|^|<riA|, (STfl+f'KS, R|c>l<^y C>L-^' Ml^dl *^1<* Wt. 200 3ni?n(5R; (Tpfg^a) ^giwafro •BI^I can reasonabty arrive at <*i'4i<-i<i1-i tipraf '^.fe'st 'rfSn^R ^affiiHsn^l xaay be grave suspicion ^gatast au accused pcisoa, still fhe prosecutiou is bound to ejsteblish facts fipoxu which the Court a conclusion that fhe ofiFcnce was comuiitted by the accused.| Therefore for the foregoiag icasoas, me are ofthe considered op|mioa that fhe proseoution has utterty failed ia estabUshing fhe crfme ^ainst thc accused persons fhat they are the persons who and as a result of whicU adnunistered poMon to fhe deceased \, Gbasi Raxa died. Tfacrefore, the convfction rfthe accused a^peBaat eannot be sustained. (12) Before us, only fhe a^peal of accused Ramlal te there and even on enqiiuy fi'oni the accused Mayawati and as Registiy, the AddL Registrar (Judl) reported that as pcr tlie rec|ord, no appeal has bccn preferred by pcr the dis(nissk>n, fhe prosecution has utterly failed to establisjh ttie crime agaiast both the accused peisons Ramlal and Mayaw^tL Evcn thcre is no mta ofevidenc^ agaiast Ma^awati fhat ia aijiy inanner she was an accoaaplice to admiiusterpoisontothede|ceased. Even P.W.2 Saitilal has not with Raaalal in adiniutetFatioa of fhe poison. Therefore, oa t4e samc footmg accused Mayawati is also entitled for benefit of atoulttal which. the accused RaBalal is eutitled in ttus appeal. In] this regard, we are fortifcd in our view by fhc judginent of the [Apex Court in the matter of We^raptt scimlicyyti IffMu anS otHfirs -BS- fittcrte ofA.P. und o er^ f20(M? 10 SCC 1S2 ft»ara| 23) va. which the Apex Coiirt hcld that for some reasons th^ accused who ha»e not paeferred S-HC—78 12 SV^V W K-i W 3IR?f sbW* 3'csr'^Tpn^Rr, aTTly'Ko, Ri^i'yy 'mwn' *NI* .C5V.A.-...\\'A^. •Wl, 2001 ail^r TISTO (ilcit-i«<<^i) 'Rarw: ^ifer sii^r appeals before the Court, in entitted to fhe beneflt of Lordships ordered fhc persons also, ia fhe said case) flic iaterest ofjustice, they are also |fhe said judgiaent Heace Their of suiularty placed accused acqi|uttal ofMohteBer esrtexlded (13) In the matter ofPws^ab amS. others (200^ Court farfher held that eveiji appeal aad the co-accused w^ but fhe case of ttie accused Tt same footing then. fhe benefit| the appeHaat has to be becausc on an evaluatioa of convfcdon of aay accused is] accused Mayawati has not of evidence agaiast her foi therefore, she is also appeat ffled by Rainlal u/s 302 read with section sentence imposed upon hiin detention since 10.12.2000. forfhwith, if not required ia is also acqiutted of the I.P.C. The convictioa aad set aside. She is said to bel £0bd entitkld succe<ris *wi<-t<il-< Ml*lcff ^f.fezt <Rn<$i< ^Tstifinsii^t SIngh cmd cuwther -vs- State la SCC 311 (Paru l^ the Apex if any accused has uot fited fhe 10 have filed fhe appeal is acquitted Ao has not fited fhe appeal on the |of fhe acquittal which is granted to to fhose accuscd persons ateo ^vidence led by the piosecatiDa, no possibte. TheTefore, evcn thoi^i aay appeal, but fhere fa no iota. her involvement in fhe crime, for acquittal. Accoidingty, the He is acqultted of the charge 34 of I.P.C. The convk'tion and ^se set aside. He is stated to be in Therefore, he be set at Uberty dfsy other case. Accused Mayawati u/s 302 read with section 34 iinposed upon hcr are also io. detention fiTom fhe same date. cha^e seilitence :>a-HC—7S sn^r w ft-iish ^T^TT SfTT^T so+iiq) ISVf— Rao 13 's^f '*i[wft^, ^wtv, ^<^wy. MINdl sbMtcb OL-- A-\1^^ "Wt. 200 an^yr 'wra (4<i(-l«i<ti) ^^iiwdfei sn^i cb1<iI<n<i1Ti +iw<l?f tf^f^st ^f^f^K ^affilTsn^l She should also be set at I(berty, if aot required ia aay othcr case. Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha \ Judge ^ il ils^fiiN