AFR

Reserved on : 21.10.2021

Delivered on : 22.11.2021

Court No. - 49

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4399 of 2015

Appellant :- Ramji Yadav

Respondent :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Kumar Singh, Ajay Kumar Pandey, Faizan

Siddiqui, Fatma Khatoon, Rajesh Kumar, Rajrshi Gupta, Rajul Bhargava,

Rama Shanker

Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.

Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J.

(Per Samit Gopal, J.)

1.This criminal appeal has been preferred by Ramji Yadav S/o Sri

Chhannu Yadav, resident of Village Pahari, Police Station Maruadih, District

Varanasi against the judgment and order dated 17.09.2015 passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Varanasi in Sessions Trial No. 390

of 2011 (State of U.P. Vs. Ramji Yadav) whereby the accused-appellant has

been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC') to life imprisonment, a fine of Rs.

40,000/- and in default of payment of fine to one year rigorous

imprisonment. It is ordered that Rs. 20,000/- as realised from fine will be

paid to Nihori Yadav the father of the deceased Sanjay Yadav as

compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.'). The trial court has ordered that

benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. be extended to the accused.

2.The entire trial court records of the present case went missing from the

trial court itself. It had been reconstructed under the order dated 01.12.2014

of the District Judge, Varanasi.

3.The prosecution case as per the First Information Report lodged by

Nihori Yadav PW-1 is that on 15.01.2011 at 06:15 pm Ramji Yadav was

2

coming from village Kadipur. Sanjay Yadav, his son was standing at the

door. Ramji Yadav on seeing his son started hurling abuses. His son then

asked him as to why he is abusing on which there were some hot talks

between them. Mohan Yadav and Sohan Yadav @ Patali Yadav the

brothers of Ramji Yadav then exhorted on which Ramji Yadav who was

carrying a 12 bore gun fired from it on his son with an intention to kill

him. Persons of village took his son to the hospital. The first informant, his

brother and persons of the village have seen the occurrence. Ramji Yadav

was apprehended there only. He was also taken to the hospital.

4.An application dated 15.01.2011 was given by Nihori Yadav for

lodging of a First Information Report which is marked as Exb.: Ka-1 to the

records. Roop Chandra is the scribe of the same.

5.A First Information Report was then registered on 15.01.2011 at

19:30 hrs (7:30 pm) as Case Crime No. 20 of 2011 under Section 307 IPC

at Police Station Maruadih, District Varanasi of which Nihori Yadav is the

informant. The same is Exb.: Ka-3 to the records. The distance between

the place of occurrence and the Police Station is 4-1/2 kilometres.

6.Sanjay Yadav S/o Nihori Yadav aged about 35 years died on

15.01.2011 at 08:35 pm in Heritage Hospital, Lanka, Varanasi. His

postmortem examination was conducted on 16.01.2011 at about 3:30 pm

by Dr. Santosh Kumar Gupta PW-4 which is marked as Exb.: Ka-6 to the

records. The doctor found the following injuries on his body:-

(i) Firearm entrance wound 2.5 cm diameter x cavity deep on left side

chest, 3 cm below cavity border of left clavicle 6 cm outer to midline, 133

cm above left above diaphragm and 7 cm above left nipple.

(ii) Surgical drainage with stitches (2 cm size) 10 cm below left axilla.

Cause of death is opined as shock and haemorrhage as a result of

firearm injury left chest which was cause of rupture of left lung.

3

7.After the death of Sanjay Yadav, the case was converted under

Section 302 IPC. The investigation concluded and a charge sheet No. 55 of

2011 dated 30.03.2011 under Section 302 IPC was submitted against the

accused-appellant, the same is marked as Exb.: Ka-16 to the records.

8.The trial court vide order dated 17.08.2011 framed charge against

the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC. The accused-appellant

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9.A SBBL 12 bore gun bearing Gun No. 17283 - 96 of the Bhargava

Arms Company with an empty cartridge embedded in its chamber and 4

(four) cartridges in its cover were recovered on 16.01.2011. Sobhash

Yadav and Rajendra Yadav PW-2 are the witnesses to the same. A recovery

memo regarding the said recovery was prepared which is marked as Exb.:

Ka-2 to the records.

10.Certain articles were sent to the ballistic expert for examination. A

report dated 22.12.2011 has been sent, the same is on record. The gun

which was recovered was sent, was marked as 1/2001. Two cartridges

were fired as test cartridges in the laboratory which were marked as TC-1

and TC-2. The cartridge recovered from the barrel of the gun was marked

as EC-1. As per the opinion of the ballistic expert, the marks of EC-1 were

identical to that of TC-1 and TC-2 and they matched with them.

11.The prosecution in order to prove its case examined Nihori Yadav

PW-1 who is the first informant and also father of the deceased. Rajendra

Yadav PW-2 is the brother of the deceased and son of Nihori Yadav PW-1.

These two witnesses are produced and examined as the eye witnesses of

the incident.

12.As formal witnesses, Umesh Rai PW-3 was the Head Constable of

Police Station Maruadih, Varanasi who transcribed the First Information

Report and prepared its Chik. Dr. Santosh Kumar Gupta PW-4 conducted

the postmortem examination of the deceased Sanjay Yadav. Arun Kumar

4

Yadav, Sub-Inspector PW-5 conducted the inquest on the body of the

deceased which is Exb.: Ka-7 to the records. Sageer Ahmad PW-6 is the

Investigating Officer of the matter who took up the investigation and

concluded it by filing charge sheet against the accused-appellant Ramji

Yadav.

13.The accused-appellant denied the occurrence and claimed false

implication due to enmity with the first informant due to some land dispute

and claimed to be tried. No defence was led by him.

14.The trial court after considering the entire evidence on record came

to the conclusion that the evidence of witnesses and the entire records go

to show that the accused Ramji Yadav has committed the said offence

which has been proved against him beyond reasonable doubts and the

prosecution has been successful in proving the case against him and thus

convicted him under the aforesaid section.

15.We have heard Sri Rajrshi Gupta & Sri Rama Shankar Yadav,

learned counsels for the accused-appellant and Sri Attreya Dutta Mishra,

learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and have

perused the entire reconstructed records and the judgment and order of

conviction.

16.Learned counsels for the accused-appellant have made the following

submissions before us:-

(i)There has been a delay in sending of the First Information Report to

the Magistrate. The Chik First Information Report states that the same is

being sent by dak. There is no recital of the date and time of its dispatch.

The same is in violation of Section 157 of the Cr.P.C. The First

Information Report is thus an anti-time document.

(ii)In the First Information Report, there is a specific allegation of

Mohan Yadav and Sohan Yadav @ Patali Yadav, the brothers of the

accused-appellant Ramji Yadav to have exhorted him after which he fired

5

but the first informant and Rajendra Yadav later on exonerated them and as

such in the investigation they were exonerated. After investigation no

charge sheet was submitted against them. This would go to show that the

prosecution case is not truthful. There has been an attempt to increase the

number of accused persons and thus the implication of the accused-

appellant also becomes doubtful. The genesis of the occurrence is also

doubtful.

(iii)The accused-appellant had no motive at all to commit the said

offence. The prosecution has not come out with any motive at all for the

accused-appellant to indulge in the said incident.

(iv)The arrest of the accused-appellant is in dispute. In the First

Information Report, it is stated that he was apprehended by the villagers

and he was also taken to the hospital. There is no document whatsoever on

record to show that the accused-appellant was taken to the hospital as

narrated in the First Information Report and by the first informant. Sageer

Ahmad PW-6 who is the Investigating Officer of the case states that he

arrested the accused-appellant from the hospital and then he took him for

the recovery of the weapon. The link of the accused-appellant being

apprehended and being taken and admitted in the hospital and then being

arrested from there is missing.

(v)The two eye witnesses being Nihori Yadav PW-1 and Rajendra

Yadav PW-2 are the father and brother respectively of the deceased Sanjay

Yadav. They are family members of the deceased and as such are interested

witnesses. There is no independent witness to support the prosecution case.

It would be very unsafe to rely upon the testimony of the alleged eye

witnesses as they are the family members of the deceased and are

interested witnesses.

(vi)It is lastly argued that even if presuming all the evidences to be true

and correct, the matter would not travel beyond Section 304 Part-I of the

IPC. The case is a case of a single shot without any repetition of firing as is

6

evident from the prosecution evidence and the postmortem report. There

was no motive for the accused-appellant to commit the said offence. The

incident started with an altercation in which a single shot was fired. The

accused-appellant has been in jail since 16.01.2011 and as such has

suffered imprisonment for about 10 years and 10 months which would be

an appropriate sentence for him under Section 304 Part-I IPC.

17.Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State on the other

hand opposed the submissions of learned counsels for the accused-

appellant by arguing that the present case is a case of direct evidence. The

incident took place on 15.01.2011 at 06:15 pm and the First Information

Report was lodged on 15.01.2011 itself at 19:30 hrs which was after about

one hour and fifteen minutes of the incident. The distance between the

place of occurrence and Police Station is four and a half kilometres. The

First Information Report has been lodged promptly. Sanjay Yadav, the

deceased in an injured condition was taken to the hospital and as such the

First Information Report was lodged under Section 307 IPC but after

getting information about his death, the case was converted under Section

302 IPC. PW-1 Nihori Yadav and PW-2 Rajendra Yadav are the eye

witnesses of the incident and were natural witnesses present.

18.It is further argued that the SBBL gun used in the incident was

recovered on the pointing out of the accused-appellant which had an empty

cartridge in its chamber. The same was sent to ballistic expert for

examination. The report of the ballistic expert clinches the case as he

opined that the said empty was fired from the said weapon after testing it

and comparing it from the test cartridges. Thus the use of the said weapon

gets corroborated from the ballistic report.

19.It is argued that in so far as the argument of the First Information

Report being anti-time is concerned, there is no foundation laid by the

accused in the cross-examination of the witnesses for the same. Only

drawing a presumption about it by the fact that the date and time of

7

sending the First Information Report is not mentioned therein would not in

any manner be conclusive of the fact that there was a delay in sending of

the same to the Magistrate. It is argued that the testimony of the two eye

witnesses are correct and intact and they are natural and truthful witnesses.

There is ample evidence on record to prove that the accused-appellant is

the person who shot the deceased. The appeal lacks merit which is liable to

be dismissed.

20.PW-1 Nihori Yadav is the first informant of the case and the brother

of the deceased. He states that the incident is of 15.01.2011 at about 06:15

pm. He was present in his house. Accused Ramji Yadav started abusing

Amit and Sanjay. His son was shot by him. He was carrying a gun, the shot

hit his left chest. Ramji Yadav shot him while he was standing at the door

of his house. His son was taken to the hospital by his family members. He

later on came to know that his son died while going to the hospital. Ramji

Yadav tried to run away after firing. He was apprehended by the villagers.

Police came and took him away. He lodged the First Information Report.

He also went with Ramji to the Police Station. He proves the application

given by him for lodging of the First Information Report.

21.In his cross examination, he states that he had given an affidavit

dated 14.02.2011 to the D.I.G., Varanasi. He states that in the said affidavit

in para 3, he has stated that Mohan Yadav and Sohan Yadav have been

falsely implicated in the present case. To a suggestion that he has enmity

with many people he refuses. He further refuses the suggestion that

unknown person shot his son and he did not witness the incident. He

refuses that he has falsely implicated the accused.

22.PW-2 Rajendra Yadav is the other son of the first informant Nihori

Yadav and is the brother of the deceased Sanjay Yadav. He states that the

accused-appellant shot his brother with his licensed gun which hit his left

chest. His brother then walked 2-3 steps and then fell down after which he

with the help of villagers took him to Heritage Hospital wherein the

8

doctors declared him dead at about 08:30 pm. He is also a witness of the

recovery of the gun and cartridges which was on the pointing out of the

accused-appellant on 16.01.2011. He states about the said recovery being

effected before him and the recovery memo being prepared before him. He

is also the witness of the recovery of blood stained mud and plain mud, the

recovery memo of which is Exb.: Ka-13 to the records which was also

done on 16.01.2011. He is a witness of the inquest. He states that he had

also given an affidavit in the matter through his lawyer which was

prepared on his instructions. He had stated in the same that Mohan and

Sohan were not present at the place of incident at the date and time of the

occurrence. Their names have been wrongly mentioned in the First

Information Report. To a suggestion to him that unknown persons have

murdered his brother in the night he denies. He further denies that he is not

an eye witness to the incident. It is further denied by him that he has

falsely implicated the accused-appellant and he was not present at the

place of occurrence. He denies the suggestion that no such incident took

place as stated by him in his examination-in-chief and also denies the

suggestion that he is giving a false statement in court.

23.PW-3 Umesh Rai is the Head Constable who transcribed the First

Information Report and prepared the Chik. He proves the same.

24.PW-4 Dr. Santosh Kumar Gupta conducted the postmortem

examination of the deceased Sanjay Yadav. He states that he conducted the

postmortem on 16.01.2011 at about 03:30 pm. The deceased had died on

15.01.2011 at about 08:35 pm in Heritage Hospital. He proves the

postmortem report and states that the cause of death was shock and

haemorrhage as a result of firearm injury on the left chest with rupture of

left lung.

25.PW-6 Sageer Ahmad is the Investigating Officer of the case. He

states about his taking over the investigation on 16.01.2011 and conducting

the Panchayatnama on the body of the deceased in the mortuary of

9

Heritage Hospital, Varanasi which is marked as Exb.: Ka-7 to the records.

He then prepared other documents relating to the same and sent the body

for postmortem. He states that on 16.01.2011 he prepared the site plan

which was marked as Exb.: Ka-12 to the records. He prepared the recovery

memo of the blood stained mud and plain mud in the presence of witnesses

which was dictated by him to Sub-Inspector Arun Kumar Yadav. The same

was marked as Exb.: Ka-13 to the records.

26.Accused Ramji Yadav gave his statement to him which was marked

as Exb.: Ka-14 to the records. Subsequently, as he was admitted in Kabir

Chaura, Hospital he reached the hospital and recorded his statement and

took him for the recovery of the 12 bore gun. The same was then got

recovered on the pointing out of the accused. The recovered gun was

bearing Gun No. 17283 - 96 of The Bhargava Arms Company and had an

empty cartridge in its barrel and four cartridges in its cover. The gun and

the cartridges were sealed and a recovery memo of the same was prepared

which was marked as Exb.: Ka-2 to the records. He then proceeded with

the investigation and subsequently on 24.01.2011 Section 34 IPC was

added in the investigation. The statements of witnesses were recorded.

Smt. Girja Devi and Smt. Dulari Devi were also interrogated by him on

09.03.2011 as eye witnesses of the incident. The statement of formal

witnesses were recorded by him. After investigation he submitted a charge

sheet under Section 302 IPC against the accused-appellant. The said

charge sheet is marked as Exb.: Ka-16 to the records. Articles were sent to

the Director Forensic Lab, Lucknow through Constable-188 Rajesh

Pandey in a sealed condition for analysis. A report was received from the

ballistic expert in the matter after examination of the articles received in

the lab.

27.He states that in the First Information Report, it is mentioned that

Mohan Yadav and Sohan Yadav exhorted Ramji who then fired and in the

statement of the first informant, he had stated about the same but later on

10

he gave an affidavit and an affidavit was also received from Rajendra

Yadav stating therein that the said persons have been falsely implicated. To

a suggestion that he did not get the recovery of the weapon done, he denies

the same. He further denies the suggestion that in conspiracy he brought

the licensed weapon of the accused from his house and fired from it at the

Police Station and made a false case. In the end, he denies the suggestion

that he has not investigated the matter properly and in conspiracy with the

villagers, has filed charge sheet against the accused-appellant without any

evidence. He further denies the fact that the deceased had enmity with

many people of the village and was murdered in the night by someone and

due to the enmity with the accused he has been falsely implicated.

28.The accused-appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

states that the case has been instituted against him due to enmity. He

further states that Nihori Yadav and Rajendra Yadav have enmity with

many people of the village. There is a dispute with regards to land between

the accused-appellant and his brother with Nihori Yadav and as such he has

enmity with him. The deceased has been murdered by some unknown

persons in the dark.

29.The prosecution case is specific in so far as it relates to the firing

upon the deceased Sanjay Yadav is concerned. The role of firing has been

assigned to the accused-appellant Ramji Yadav with his licensed gun. The

time of occurrence and the place of occurrence is also specified. There is

no challenge by the accused with regards to the date and place of

occurrence. Two eye witnesses examined in the trial being Nihori Yadav

PW-1 and Rajendra Yadav PW-2 although are the father and brother of the

deceased but are natural witnesses of the incident. Since the place of

occurrence is the house of the first informant, the presence of the said two

witnesses cannot be doubted.

30.The occurrence in the present case is of 15.01.2011 at 6:15 pm and

the First Information Report has been lodged on the same day at 19:30 hrs

11

(07:30 pm) which is after about one hour and fifteen minutes of the

incident. The same was lodged after Sanjay Yadav while being in an

injured condition was taken away to the hospital by Rajendra Yadav PW-2

and other villagers. The distance between the place of occurrence and the

Police Station is four and a half kilometres. The First Information Report is

a prompt report lodged by Nihori Yadav PW-1. There is a recovery of

SBBL gun on the pointing out of the accused-appellant which was having

an empty cartridge embedded in it which is said to have been used in the

present incident. The gun was sent to the ballistic expert for examination

and empty cartridge found in it, was found to have been fired from the

same. Since the matter is having eye witnesses being present, the motive

does not play an important role and the non-mentioning of any motive in

the First Information Report would not make the entire prosecution case

doubtful.

It is trite law that a related witness may not be labelled as interested

witness. Interested witnesses are those who want to derive some benefit

from the result of litigation or implicating the accused. Once it is

established that witnesses were present at the scene, to witness the

occurrence, they cannot be discarded merely on the ground of being

closely related to the victim. The Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh

Vs. Kishanpal and others : (2008) 16 SCC 73 held as under:

“18. The plea of defence that it would not be safe to accept

the evidence of the eye witnesses who are the close relatives

of the deceased, has not been accepted by this Court. There is

no such universal rule as to warrant rejection of the evidence

of a witness merely because he/she was related to or

interested in the parties to either side. In such cases, if the

presence of such a witness at the time of occurrence is proved

or considered to be natural and the evidence tendered by such

witness is found in the light of the surrounding circumstances

and probabilities of the case to be true, it can provide a good

and sound basis for conviction of the accused. Where it is

shown that there is enmity and the witnesses are near relatives

too, the Court has a duty to scrutinize their evidence with

great care, caution and circumspection and be very careful too

12

in weighing such evidence. The testimony of related

witnesses, if after deep scrutiny, found to be credible cannot

be discarded.

19. It is now well settled that the evidence of witness cannot

be discarded merely on the ground that he is a related witness,

if otherwise the same is found credible. The witness could be

a relative but that does not mean his statement should be

rejected. In such a case, it is the duty of the Court to be more

careful in the matter of scrutiny of evidence of the interested

witness, and if, on such scrutiny it is found that the evidence

on record of such interested witness is worth credence, the

same would not be discarded merely on the ground that the

witness is an interested witness. Caution is to be applied by

the court while scrutinizing the evidence of the interested

witness.

20. It is well settled that it is the quality of the evidence and

not the quantity of the evidence which is required to be

judged by the court to place credence on the statement. The

ground that the witness being a close relative and

consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied

upon, has no substance. Relationship is not a factor to affect

credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a

relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations

against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea

of false implication is made. In such cases, the Court has to

adopt a careful approach and analyse the evidence to find out

whether it is cogent and credible.”

31.Relationship is not sufficient to discredit a witness unless there is

motive to give false evidence to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate

an innocent person.

32.The exoneration of two accused persons who were assigned the role

of exhortation only cannot be a ground for discarding the entire

prosecution evidence. In so far as, the delay in sending of the First

Information Report to the Magistrate is concerned, there is no date and

time mentioned in the Chik of sending it to the Magistrate. Even there is

no cross examination done on behalf of the accused with regards to the

same. In the event of no cross examination being done with regards to the

13

same, the accused cannot take benefit of it by just placing arguments for

which the relevant witnesses have not been cross examined. As such, it

cannot be said that there was no compliance of Section 157 Cr.P.C. and the

First Information Report was an anti-timed document. The presence of the

eye witnesses and their unblemished testimony is sufficient enough to

prove the case. The prosecution cannot fail even for the reason that it has

not proved the motive for the commission of the incident. Even during

lengthy cross examination of PW-1 Nihori Yadav and PW-2 Rajendra

Yadav no material could be elucidated by the accused in his benefit and

favour from them which could be safely taken to discard their testimony in

full. The prosecution has succeeded its case beyond reasonable doubts

against the accused-appellant.

33.The alternative arguments of learned counsels for the accused-

appellant that the matter would not be one under Section 302 IPC but

would fall under Section 304 Part-I IPC is being taken up for consideration

now.

34.The incident started with some quarrel between the parties. The

accused-appellant fired a shot from his gun. The incident was not

premeditated. The accused-appellant is not said to have acted on his own.

The act of firing by him is said to have been done on impulse and that too

upon being instigated by his brothers Mohan Yadav and Sohan Yadav @

Patali Yadav. From the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 it is evident that there

had been hot exchange of words. The injury as received by the deceased

Sanjay Yadav is a single injury on his body which was the cause of his

death. The other injury was a surgical drainage with stitches which has

been stated by the doctor to be present on his body which was a procedure

done during the course of his treatment.

35.The accused-appellant has caused a single gun-shot injury to the

deceased that too on being instigated by his two brothers who have been

exonerated during investigation and therefore under these circumstances, it

14

cannot be said that the accused-appellant has committed an offence under

section 302 IPC. But according to the learned counsels for the accused-

appellant, the offence would fall under section 304 Part-I IPC. Learned

counsel submitted that the accused-appellant has already suffered

imprisonment of more than ten (10) years and ten (10) months and he is

first offender and he should be released on the sentence already undergone

by him.

We have meticulously considered the evidence in this case in the

light of the above submission of the learned counsels for the accused-

appellant. The alleged eyewitnesses Nihori Yadav PW-1 and Rajendra

Yadav PW-2 have deposed that the accused-appellant was abusing the

deceased who objected to it and some hot talks between them took place

after which his brothers Mohan Yadav and Sohan Yadav @ Patali Yadav,

the exonerated co-accused instigated the accused-appellant Ramji Yadav

and on this, he fired a shot on the deceased. None of these witnesses have

disclosed as to what was the cause or reason by the accused-appellant to

abuse the deceased. The accused-appellant had caused a single gun-shot

injury, on being instigated by his brothers Mohan Yadav and Sohan Yadav

@ Patali Yadav. Thus, if there was no dispute or quarrel or enmity before

the incident and it has not been made clear by the witnesses as to what was

the cause or reason for hurling abuses then certainly it can be inferred that

the genesis of the occurrence has not been established in this case, though,

it is proved beyond doubt that the accused-appellant fired a gun-shot on

the deceased resulting in his death. Therefore, the offence committed by

the accused-appellant would not fall under section 302 IPC, but in our

considered view, the offence would fall under section 304 Part-I IPC.

36. So far as sentence is concerned, from the records it is clear that the

accused-appellant was arrested on 16.01.2011 and during trial he remained

in custody and even after the impugned judgment he has remained in jail

till date. Thus, he has suffered imprisonment of about ten years and ten

15

months and if remission part is considered then this sentence would be

more. The incident is of the year 2011 and the accused-appellant has

suffered mental agony of this case for more than ten years. The accused-

appellant is not reported to have any previous criminal history. Looking to

the overall facts and circumstances of the case, nature of evidence

available on record, this Court is of the conclusion that the present case

would fall under Section 304 Part-I IPC and not under Section 302 IPC

and a conviction of twelve (12) years alongwith fine already imposed by

the trial court with compensation to the father of the deceased as ordered

by the trial court would meet the ends of justice.

37.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.

38.The accused-appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC to a

sentence of twelve (12) years rigorous imprisonment. The amount of fine

as imposed upon him by the trial court and the compensation as directed to

be paid from it under Section 357 Cr.P.C. is maintained. The default

sentence as ordered by the trial court is also maintained.

39.The lower court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent

back forthwith to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary

action.

Order Date :- 22.11.2021

M. ARIF

(Samit Gopal, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)