CRL.A. 644/2015 Page 1of 19

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on:7

th

May, 2026

Pronounced on: 29

th

May, 2026

Uploaded on: 29

th

May, 2026

+ CRL.A. 644/2015

STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP with

Ms. Divya Yadav, Adv.

versus

JAWAHAR SINGH & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr. Utkarsh

Jaiswal, Advs.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

JUDGMENT

MADHU JAIN, J.

1.The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Section 378

(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter,‘CrPC’) assailing

the impugned judgment dated 25

th

November, 2011 passed by the ld. ASJ- II

(North), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi arising out ofFIR No. 213/09registered at

P.S. Burari.

2.By the impugned judgment, the accused/Respondents(hereinafter

‘Respondents’)Jawahar Singh (husband of the deceased), Amar Singh

(father-in-law of the deceased), Vidyawati (mother-in-law of the deceased)

were acquitted of the charges under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘IPC’), on the ground that the conduct of the

CRL.A. 644/2015 Page 2of 19

Respondents towards deceased could not be said to be of such a nature, as

would have compelled her to commit suicide or that the deceased was

subjected to harassment by Respondents with a view to compel her parents

to meet the unlawful demand of dowry. The relevant portion of the

conclusion of the Trial Court are set out below:

“34. In view of above discussion, I am of the

considered view that allegations of harassment and

cruelty are general and vague in nature and do not

come under the category of 'harassment' and

'cruelty', which are required to prove dowry cases.

Further, prosecution has also miserably failed to

prove that the harassment or cruelty was in

connection with dowry demand, soon before her

death. Accordingly, accused Jawahar Singh, Amar

Singh and Vidyavati are acquitted of the offence

U/S 304 r/w Section 34 IPC.

xxx

38. In the present case, it has already been

discussed in detail in the earlier part of judgment

that allegation of harassment and cruelty are not

proved against the accused persons. The conduct

of accused towards deceased cannot be said to be

of such a nature, which would have compelled her

to commit suicide or that the deceased was

subjected to harassment by accused with a view to

compel her parents to meet the unlawful demand of

dowry. Since, the necessary ingredients as are

discussed in the cases, referred above, are not

present in this case, all accused are acquitted of

the offence U/S 498-A r/w Section 34 IPC.

39.In this case, accused Jawahar Singh, Amar

Singh and Vidyavati are on bail. In view of

amended provisions of Section 437A CrPC,

accused are directed to furnish personal bond and

surety bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- for a period

CRL.A. 644/2015 Page 3of 19

of six months with the directions that they will

appear before Hon'ble High Court as and when

any notice is received by them in respect of any

appeal filed by the State against the judgment.”

3.The Respondents were served and directed to furnish personal bonds.

Proceedings against Respondent No.3/Vidyawati (mother-in-law of the

deceased) stood abated on 25

th

March, 2015 on account of her demise.

Subsequently, ld. Counsel for the Respondents on 4

th

December, 2025

submitted that Respondent No.1/Jawahar Singh (husband of the deceased)

had also expired and placed on record their death certificates. Consequently,

proceedings against Respondent Nos.1 and 3 stand abated and only

Respondent No.2i.e.,the father-in-law, survives.

Facts

4.The case of the Appellant/State (hereinafter“Prosecution”) is

primarily based upon the testimonies of PW-1/Monu Malik and PW-

5/Sagar, brothers of the deceased, PW-2/Sarla Malik, mother of the

deceased, PW-3/ Saroj Devi, the marriage mediator, PW-4/Ishwar Chand,

friend of the father of the deceased, and PW-13/Sonia, younger sister of the

deceased.

5.As per the Prosecution, the deceased Manju was married to

Respondent No.1/Jawahar Singh on 15

th

February, 2009 at Arya Samaj

Mandir. It was her second marriage and she had earlier obtained divorce

through the Panchayat. Respondent No.1 was also previously married and

had a daughter from the said marriage. PW-2/Sarla Malik deposed that PW-

3/Saroj Devi had acted as mediator for the marriage proposal and after

making enquiries regarding Respondent No.1, the marriage was solemnized.

CRL.A. 644/2015 Page 4of 19

PW-2 further deposed that utensils, clothes and gold articles were given at

the time of the marriage and approximately Rs.50,000/- was spent

thereupon.

6.The prosecution alleged that after the marriage, the deceased was

subjected to cruelty and harassment by Respondent No.1/Jawahar Singh,

Respondent No.3/mother-in-law Vidyawati and Respondent No.2/father-in-

law Amar Singh in connection with demands of dowry, particularly for TV,

fridge and cash amount of Rs.10,000/-. PW-2 deposed that about 15 days

after the marriage, the deceased came to her parental home and stayed there

for about a week. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 along with his sister,

daughter andnandoicame to the parental home and took the deceased back

to her matrimonial home. PW-2 further deposed that after about 20 days, the

deceased again visited the parental home and informed her that her mother-

in-law used to harass her for not bringing sufficient dowry and was also

pressurising her to take up a job.

7.PW-2 further deposed that the deceased used to inform her

telephonically that she was not permitted to use TV and fridge in the

matrimonial home and whenever she attempted to use the said articles, her

mother-in-law used to taunt her by saying that she had not brought the same

from her parental house. She further deposed that whenever PW-2 attempted

to bring the deceased back to the parental home, the mother-in-law refused

to send her stating that there would be nobody to work in the house in her

absence. PW-2 further deposed that during one such visit, the deceased

informed her that Respondent No.1/Jawahar Singh and Respondent

No.3/Vidyawati, mother-in-law used to harass her and demand Rs.10,000/-,

TV and fridge from her. PW-2 stated that she assured the deceased that the

CRL.A. 644/2015 Page 5of 19

demanded articles would be provided at the time of delivery of her child.

PW-2 also contacted PW-3/Saroj Devi and informed her regarding the

alleged harassment and demands.

8.PW-3/Saroj Devi, who was the mediator of the marriage, made

similar allegations and deposed that after about 2-3 months, the deceased

informed her that Respondent No.1/Jawahar Singh used to consume liquor,

return home late in the night and beat her whenever she objected. PW-3

further deposed that the deceased informed her that her in-laws also harassed

her and did not permit her to use TV and fridge on the ground that she had

not brought the same in dowry. PW-3 stated that she advised the deceased to

remain patient and assured her that after the birth of a child, the articles

would be provided.

9.PW-3 further deposed that on one occasion, PW-2/Sarla Malik

approached her and requested her to make Respondent No.1 understand his

family responsibilities and also to stop consuming liquor and beating the

deceased. PW-3 stated that though she had called Respondent No.1 to her

house, he did not come there and later met her on the way whereupon she

advised him not to misbehave with the deceased and also asked him to stop

drinking and behave properly with Manju.

10.PW-1 and PW-5, brothers of the deceased, also deposed regarding

alleged harassment and dowry demands. PW-1 deposed that after one or two

months of the marriage, the deceased informed their mother in his presence

that Respondent No.1 and his parents were harassing her for bringing

insufficient dowry and she was not permitted to use TV and fridge in the

matrimonial home. PW-5 deposed that whenever the deceased visited the

parental home, she informed their mother that she was being harassed by her

CRL.A. 644/2015 Page 6of 19

husband and in-laws for TV, fridge and cash amount of Rs.10,000/- to

Rs.15,000/-. PW-13/Sonia, younger sister of the deceased, also deposed that

the deceased used to inform the family members that her husband consumed

liquor and used to beat her and that she was taunted for not bringing TV and

fridge in dowry.

11.It is further the case of the Prosecution that on 5

th

July, 2009,

Respondent No.1/Jawahar Singh along with his cousin came to the parental

home of the deceased to take her back. PW-2 deposed that she separately

spoke to Respondent No.1 and requested him not to harass or beat the

deceased on account of dowry demands. PW-2 stated that Respondent No.1

assured her that such conduct would not be repeated and thereafter took the

deceased back to the matrimonial home.

12.On 7

th

July, 2009 at about 4:15 PM, PW-2 received information

through PW-13/Sonia that the deceased had committed suicide. PW-2 along

with her son Sagar reached the matrimonial home and found the deceased

hanging from the ceiling fan with achunnitied horizontally over her mouth

and a saree tied around her neck, the other end of which was tied with the

ceiling fan. Police officials and relatives of the Respondents were already

present there.

13.PW-12/Lady Constable Savitri deposed that on 7

th

July, 2009, during

the formal search of deceased Manju conducted at the directions of the

Investigating Officer, one torn diary page, handwritten on one side, was

recovered from the left side of the brassiere of the deceased. The said note

was handed over to the Investigating Officer and was seized by PW-20

Inspector J.S. Mishra. The said document was exhibited as the suicide note

Ex. PW5/F. The suicide note reads as under:

CRL.A. 644/2015 Page 7of 19

“ममंजुअपनेजीतेजीयहलखरहहूँ,कल6/7/08

कोमेरेसास,ससुरनेमेरेसेलड़ाईकिजसकवजहसे

मअपनीजानदेरहहूँ।मेरेपासऔरकोईरातानहं

ममंजुअपनीमौतकखुदिजमेदारहूँ,इसलएमेरे

ससुरालऔरमायकेकतरफसेकोईकेसनहंचलाना

भगवानसजादेगाकानूननहं।— Manju”

14.The Respondents Jawahar Singh and Amar Singh were arrested on 7

th

July, 2009 at the instance of PW-5/Sagarvidearrest memos Ex. PW5/C and

CRL.A. 644/2015 Page 8of 19

Ex. PW5/B respectively. Respondent Vidyawati was arrested on 8

th

July,

2009 vide arrest memo Ex. PW5/D.

15.Post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by PW-

11/Dr. Akash Jhanjee, who opined the cause of death to be asphyxia as a

result of ante-mortem ligature hanging sufficient to cause death in ordinary

course of nature. The relevant portion of the testimony of PW-11 is

reproduced hereinbelow:

“Opinion:

After completing the post mortem, I gave cause of

death as Asphyxia as a result of anti-morterm

ligature hanging, which is sufficient to cause death

in ordinary course of nature. Ligature mark is anti-

mortem in nature and is consistent with ligature

material count insitu around the neck of the

deceased.”

16.PW-20 Inspector J.S. Mishra deposed that on 10

th

July, 2009, Sagar,

brother of the deceased, handed over a telephone diary allegedly containing

admitted handwriting of the deceased. The suicide note along with the

admitted handwriting samples, affidavit and other documents were sent to

FSL for handwriting examination. As per the FSL report Ex. PW20/J, the

handwriting on the suicide note was opined to be that of the deceased. The

relevant portion thereof reads as under:

“Similarities are observed in the general features

such as writing movement, skill, speed, spacing,

alignment, relative size and proportion of

characters and nature of commencing &

terminating strokes etc.

There is no divergence observed between the

questioned and standard writings & signatures and

the aforesaid similarities in the writing habits are

significant and sufficient and cannot be attributed

CRL.A. 644/2015 Page 9of 19

to accidental coincidence and when considered

collectively they lead me to the above said

opinion.”

17.The viscera report Ex. PW20/H further recorded that no poisonous

substance was detected in the viscera of the deceased. The relevant portion

whereof reads as under:

“RESULTS OF EXAMINATION

On Chemical & TLC examination, metallic

poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide,

phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers

CRL.A. 644/2015 Page 10of 19

and pesticides could not be detected in exhibits

‘1A’, ‘1B’ & ‘1C’.”

18.Upon completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against

Respondent Jawahar Singh, Amar Singh and Vidyawati for offences

punishable under Sections 304-B/498-A/34 IPC on allegations that deceased

Manju had committed suicide on account of dowry related harassment and

cruelty inflicted upon her by the Respondents. The Respondents pleaded not

guilty and claimed trial.

19.During the course of trial, the Prosecution examined as many as 21

witnesses in support of its case. The details of the witnesses are as under:

S. No. Name Prosecution

witness

1. Monu Malik PW-1

2. Sarla Malik PW-2

3. Saroj Devi PW-3

4. Ishwar Chand PW-4

5. Sagar PW-5

6. Kuldeep Kishore PW-6

7. HC Amarnath PW-7

8. SI Dheeraj Kumar PW-8

9. HC Rajpal PW-9

10. HC Chiddha Singh PW-10

11. Dr. Akash Jhanjee PW-11

12. W. Constable SavitriPW-12

13. Sonia PW-13

14. Satya Prakash PathakPW-14

15. Constable Shatrujeet

Thakur

PW-15

16. Ashok Kumar Rajput PW-16

17. SI Satya Prakash PW-17

18. Arvind Kumar PW-18

19. Constable Rajbir SinghPW-19

CRL.A. 644/2015 Page 11of 19

20. Inspector J.S. MishraPW-20

21. Inspector Hari KishanPW-21

20.After recording the Prosecution evidence, statements of the

Respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein they denied

the allegations of the Prosecution. It was submitted that before solemnisation

of marriage between Respondent Jawahar Singh and deceased Manju, the

mother of Manju along with her family members had approached the house

of the Respondents with the marriage proposal and had stated that they did

not have any cash or valuable articles to give in the marriage, which was to

be performed at Arya Samaj Mandir. The Respondents further stated that

Respondent Jawahar Singh had informed the mother of the deceased that it

was his second marriage and that he had one daughter from the first

marriage. It was further submitted that deceased Manju insisted that the

daughter be sent to hernanihaland allegedly threatened that if the same was

not done, she would commit suicide and falsely implicate the Respondents.

21.The respondents examined one witness, DW-1/Sh. Bhupender Singh

in their defence. DW-1 supported the Respondents and deposed that they

never made any demand of dowry since they already had colour TV, Fridge,

Almirah etc. in their house.

22.The ld. Trial Court observed that though the suicide note Ex. PW12/B

referred to a quarrel between the deceased and her parents-in-law on the

previous day, the exact reason for the quarrel was not disclosed therein and

no specific allegation regarding dowry demand or beatings by accused

Jawahar Singh was made in the said note. The Court further noted that the

deceased had stated that she herself was responsible for her death and that

no case should be initiated against anyone. The ld. Trial Court also took note

CRL.A. 644/2015 Page 12of 19

of the defence version that the deceased had allegedly concealed her earlier

marriage from the Respondents and observed that the marriage certificate

Ex. PW2/DX1 reflected her status as “unmarried”, despite prosecution

witnesses admitting that the marriage with Respondent No.1 was her second

marriage.

23.After considering the evidence on record, the ld. Trial Court held that

the allegations of harassment and cruelty were general and vague in nature

and that the Prosecution had failed to establish cruelty or harassment in

connection with dowry demand soon before the death of the deceased.

Accordingly, Respondents Jawahar Singh, Amar Singh and Vidyavati were

acquitted of the offences under Sections 304-B/34 IPC and 498-A/34 IPC

and, being already on bail, were directed to furnish personal bond and surety

bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each for a period of six months in terms of

Section 437A Cr.P.C., with directions to appear before this Court as and

when notice is received in respect of any appeal filed by the State against the

judgment.

Submissions on behalf of the Appellant/ State

24.Mr. Bahri, ld APP for the State, submits that Respondent

No.1/husband and Respondent No.3/mother-in-law of the deceased have

expired and only Respondent No.2/father-in-law survives.

25.He submits that the marriage between the deceased and Respondent

No.1 was solemnised on 15

th

February,2009 and the incident occurred on 7

th

July, 2009, thus the marriage subsisted for approximately five months.

Reliance is placed upon the testimonies of PW2 and PW13 to submit that the

deceased was subjected to harassment soon after the marriage. PW2/mother

of the deceased deposed that the trouble started within fifteen days of the

CRL.A. 644/2015 Page 13of 19

marriage, while PW13/sister of the deceased deposed that during May 2009,

the deceased stayed at her parental house for about one and a half months

and informed the family members that her husband and in-laws used to

harass and taunt her for not bringing T.V. and fridge in dowry and were

demanding Rs.10,000/- in cash. PW13 further deposed that the deceased

used to make telephonic calls informing the family members about the

harassment. The deceased returned to her matrimonial home on 5

th

July,

2009 and on 7

th

July, 2009, Respondent No.1 informed the family that she

had committed suicide.

26.He further places reliance upon Ex. PW-2/C, list of dowry articles, the

testimony of PW4 regarding demands for TV, fridge and cash, and the

suicide note Ex. PW-5/F, wherein the deceased stated that on 6

th

July, 2008,

(the year being apparently an inadvertent error) her mother-in-law and

father-in-law had quarrelled with her and, being left with no option, she was

ending her life.

27.He further submits that the marriage stands proved by Ex. PW-16/F

and the postmortem report proved by PW11/Dr. Akash Jhanjee is not

disputed. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence on record, it is

submitted that the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are made out.

28.On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Bahri urges this

Court to set aside the acquittal and convict Respondent No.2.

Submissions on behalf of the Respondent

29.Per contra, Ld. Counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that there are

material contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence,

which have been rightly appreciated by the ld. Trial Court while passing the

impugned judgment of acquittal. He submits that though the prosecution

CRL.A. 644/2015 Page 14of 19

witnesses supported the case of the Prosecution in their examination-in-

chief, they failed to support the same in their cross-examination. PW1, PW2,

PW5 and PW13 were unable to state the specific date, time or month when

the deceased allegedly complained of harassment or dowry demands.

30.He further submits that PW5/brother of the deceased admitted in his

cross-examination that the deceased had never directly complained to him

and that he had only heard that she was being taunted for not bringing a

fridge.

31.Ld. Counsel further submits that PW13/Sonia materially contradicted

her examination-in-chief in her cross-examination and admitted that she had

been tutored by the IO outside the courtroom. In her cross-examination,

PW13 deposed that the deceased had never informed her regarding any

beatings or misbehaviour by the Respondents and she was unable to state the

date or month of the alleged taunts, refusal to use T.V. and fridge, or

demand of Rs.10,000/-. PW13 further admitted that the deceased had not

obtained divorce from her first marriage prior to marrying Respondent No.1

and that she did not know whether the deceased was in depression on

account of her earlier marriage.

32.Ld. Counsel submits that though both the deceased and Respondent

No.1 were divorcees, the marriage certificate Ex. PW-16/F records the status

of the deceased as “unmarried”. According to the ld. Counsel for the

Respondent No.2, the Prosecution has failed to establish whether the quarrel

referred to in the suicide note was on account of alleged dowry harassment

or could be some other reason such as concealment of the previous marriage

of the deceased.

33.Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in

Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka(2007) 4 SCC 415 to submit that

CRL.A. 644/2015 Page 15of 19

in an appeal against acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the

accused and where two views are possible on the basis of the evidence on

record, the Appellate Court ought not to interfere with the order of acquittal

passed by the ld. Trial Court.

Analysis and Findings

34.The Court has considered the matter.

35.Before proceeding to the merits of the appeal, it is necessary to set out

the statutory provisions which are to be considered. The relevant portion of

Section 304-B and Section 498-A of the IPC read as under:

“304-B. Dowry death.—Where the death of a

woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or

occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances

within seven years of her marriage and it is shown

that soon before her death she was subjected to

cruelty or harassment by her husband or any

relative of her husband for, or in connection with,

any demand for dowry, such death shall be called

‘dowry death’ and such husband or relative shall

be deemed to have caused her death.”

“498-A.Husband or relative of husband of a

woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being

the husband or the relative of the husband of a

woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be

punished with imprisonment for a term which may

extend to three years and shall also be liable to

fine.”

36.For attracting Section 304-B IPC, the Prosecution is required to

establish that: (i) the death occurred otherwise than under normal

circumstances within seven years of marriage; and (ii) soon before her

CRL.A. 644/2015 Page 16of 19

death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection

with demand for dowry.

37.There is no dispute that the death occurred within seven years of

marriage. However, the essential ingredient of cruelty or harassment “soon

before death” in connection with dowry demand has not been established

beyond reasonable doubt.

38.The allegations regarding dowry demand are general in nature. PW1,

PW2, PW5 and PW13 were unable to state any specific date, month or

occasion when such alleged demands were made. PW5 admitted that the

deceased had never directly complained to him. PW13 materially

contradicted her examination-in-chief in her cross-examination and admitted

to having been tutored by the Investigating Officer outside the courtroom.

She further deposed that the deceased had never informed her regarding any

beatings or misbehavior by the Respondent.

39.The suicide note also does not specifically attribute the quarrel to any

dowry demand. Though reference has been made to a quarrel with the

parents-in-law on the previous day, the exact cause of the quarrel has not

been disclosed. Rather, the deceased stated that she herself was responsible

for her death and that no case should be initiated against anyone.

40.Another important circumstance which emerges from the record is

that both the deceased and Respondent No.1 were previously married. The

defence consistently took the stand that the deceased had concealed her

earlier marriage. The marriage certificate records her status as “unmarried”,

despite prosecution witnesses admitting that this was her second marriage.

PW13 also admitted that the deceased had not obtained divorce from her

CRL.A. 644/2015 Page 17of 19

first marriage prior to marrying Respondent No.1 and that she did not know

whether the deceased was under depression on account of her earlier

marriage. The possibility that the deceased was emotionally disturbed or

frustrated owing to her matrimonial circumstances, therefore, cannot be

ruled out.

41.It is also noteworthy that the alleged demands pertained to T.V.,

fridge and cash amount of Rs.10,000/-. Except for bald allegations, there is

no cogent evidence to establish persistent cruelty or harassment soon before

death in connection with dowry demand.

42.The Court is conscious of the legislative intent behind Sections 498-A

and 304-B IPC, which is to curb the menace of dowry deaths. InState of

Punjab v. Iqbal Singh,(1991) 3 SCC 1the Supreme Court observed that

such offences are generally committed within the privacy of the matrimonial

home and independent evidence may not always be available. However, the

foundational ingredients of the offence must still be established by the

Prosecution.

43.Having regard to the material on record, this Court concurs with the

finding of the ld. Trial Court that the ingredients of Sections 304-B IPC and

498-A IPC have not been established beyond reasonable doubt.

44.It is equally well settled that though the Appellate Court has the

power to re-appreciate the evidence in an appeal against acquittal,

interference is warranted only where the findings of the Trial Court are

perverse or based on a complete misreading of evidence. InChandrappa &

Ors.(supra) the Supreme Court held that an order of acquittal strengthens

the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and where two views

CRL.A. 644/2015 Page 18of 19

are possible, the Appellate Court ought not to interfere with the acquittal.

Similar observations were made by the Supreme Court inState of

Uttarakhand v. Sanjay Ram Tamta Alias Sanju Alias Prem Prakash

(2025) 3 SCC 433, wherein it was held that unless the findings are perverse

and the only conclusion possible from the evidence on record is that of guilt,

reversal of an order of acquittal would not be warranted, the relevant portion

of the same is reproduced as under:

“6.Trite is the principle that the appellate courts

would be slow in reversing an order of acquittal,

especially since the presumption of innocence that

is always available to the accused; as a basic

principle of criminal jurisprudence, stands

reinforced and reaffirmed by the acquittal and

unless there are very substantive and compelling

reasons to do so, there cannot be a reversal of an

order of acquittal. Unless it is found that the

findings are perverse and the only conclusion

possible from the compelling evidence is of guilt;

appellate courts will be slow to reverse an order of

acquittal.”

45.Upon a consideration of the evidence on record, this Court is of the

opinion that the view taken by the ld. Trial Court is a plausible view arising

from the evidence on record and does not call for interference.

Conclusion

46.For the reasons stated above, this Court finds that the Prosecution has

failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to

cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry soon

before her death.

CRL.A. 644/2015 Page 19of 19

47.The impugned order of acquittal is hereby upheld and the appeal is

dismissed.

48.The Personal Bonds and Surety Bonds of the Respondent No.2 is

cancelled.

49.Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

MADHU JAIN

JUDGE

PRATHIBA M. SINGH

JUDGE

MAY 29, 2026/Av/b