Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:10759-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1133 of 2023 Nagendra Tiwari S/o Devi Dayal Tiwari Aged About 34 Years R/o Ramsagarpara Ward, Opposite - Durga Mandir, P.S. - Bhatapara (City), District- Baloda - Bazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House OfÏcer, P.S. - Bhatapara (City), District - Baloda - Bazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 05/03/2025 1 This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.05.2023 2 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, in Sessions Trial No. H-23/2021 by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction under Section : Sentence 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for : Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. short, the IPC) 1000/-. In default, 6 months rigorous imprisonment (for short, the RI) more. 201 of the IPC : 3 years RI with fine of Rs. 500/-. In default, 1 month RI more. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2 The appellant had been charged for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC alleging that on 11.12.2020 at 11:30 p.m., he, at the house of the deceased at Ramsagarpara Ward Bhatapara, under Police Station Bhatapara City, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, suspecting her character, strangulated his wife Aparna Tiwari with a dupatta and killed her intentionally the appellant knowingly or having reason to believe that he has committed the crime of murder, which is punishable with life imprisonment, in order to destroy the evidence of that crime, he made the murder of the deceased appear like a case of suicide by hanging, by cutting the dupatta and placing a stool and tea table in the room and making it look like hanging from the fan, thus concealing the fact of murder and causing destruction of evidence so that he may escape from the legal punishment. 3 The facts of the prosecution, in brief is that the appellant appeared at the Police Station on 12.12.2020 at 1:30 a.m. and and gave a merg intimation regarding unnatural death of his wife. He stated that he was married to Aparna, daughter of Shailendra Pathak, resident of Karvdha, two years ago and since then she was living with him. They had a four-month-old son. On 11.12.2020 at 6:00 pm, he came home, had his dinner and went to the market. When he 3 returned home between 9:30 - 10:00 p.m., his wife Aparna asked as to why he was coming home so late, and started fighting and strangulating him. A scufÒe took place between the two and after some time when he asked the deceased to had her dinner, she did not respond and went inside the room with the child. She took a tea-table with her and closed the door. He was watching TV and at around 11:00 p.m. he pushed the door and went inside and saw that his wife had placed a plastic cushion on the tea table, climbed on a chair and tied her dupatta to the fan and put a noose around her neck. As soon as she entered, she kicked the chair and swung the noose, due to which he caught hold of her leg. He tried to save her by picking her up and brought a scissor and cut her dupatta and took Aparna down and laid her on the bed and tried to give breath to her but his wife had died. On the basis of information given by Nagendra Tiwari, merg intimation (Exhibit P-17) was registered by Jaswant Singh (PW- 12) and the said information was sent to the Sub Divisional Magistrate for information. 4 The Naib Tahsildar, Kaveri Mukherjee (PW-8), issued notice (Exhibit P- 1) to witnesses under Section 175 Cr.P.C for their presence in the inquest proceedings of the dead body and when the Panchas advised to get the postmortem done for correct reason of the death, the dead body was handed over to Constable 199 Yashwant Singh and the inquest (Exhibit P-2) was prepared. Jaswant Singh (PW-12) sent an application (Exhibit P-19) for post- mortem of the deceased to Community Health Center Bhatapara on 12.12.2020. The dead body was taken for post-mortem by Manju Sahu (PW- 10), on which Dr. Hemant Mannewar (PW-9) examined the body and gave a report stating that the cause of death was strangulation and that the death was homicidal in nature (Exhibit P11). In the postmortem report of the deceased, the doctor wrote that the cause of death was strangulation, obstruction of the breath and possibly the murder. On the basis of the inquest, panchnama and 4 postmortem report, it was found that the deceased's husband Nagendra had strangulated the deceased to death and had fabricated a story of hanging to hide evidence of murder under Section 302 of the IPC and had tried to conceal the evidence by showing it as hanging in the inquest report and had committed the crime under section 201 of the IPC. 5
Legal Reasoning
A First Information Report (Exhibit P-23) bearing Crime No. 487/2020 was registered by Jitendra Kumar Yadav (PW-17) on 26.12.2020 at 19:45 hours. A spot map of the crime scene (Exhibit P-4) was prepared in the presence of witnesses. A part of a scissor was seized from the crime scene in the presence of witnesses and prepared vide Exhibit P/6. On 26.12.2020, when the Viscera of the deceased was brought by Constable Suresh Bijhwar, it was seized in presence of witnesses and a seizure memo (Exhibit P-16) was prepared. The CCTV footage from the house of the appellant’s elder brother Sanjay Kumar's was obtained in a pen drive vide Exhibit P/7 and he also gave a certificate regarding CCTV footage (Exhibit P/24). On Jitendra Kumar Yadav (PW-17) giving a memo (Exhibit P25) to the Tehsildar on 30.07.2021 to get the spot map prepared by the Patwari, a spot map (Exhibit P-17) of the incident was prepared by Patwari Khileshwar Puraina (PW-14). The memorandum statement of the appellant (Exhibit P-26) was taken by Jitendra Kumar Yadav (PW-17) in presence of witnesses on 28.12.2020 and the accused was arrested and arrest memo (Exhibit P-8) was prepared. Information regarding the arrest of the appellant was given to his family members vide Exhibit P-27. Photographs of the place of incident were taken at the time of Panchnama. Vijay Chaudhary (PW-15) sent the items seized in the case for chemical testing through Superintendent of Police Balodabazar along with application to State Forensic Laboratory Raipur (Exhibit P19) (Exhibit P20), upon which the FSL report (Exhibit P-21) was received. On 08.02.2021, a memo was sent to the Nodal OfÏcer Cyber Cell, Bhatapara for providing the the CDR and SDR of the 5 mobile numbers of the accused namely 7389421244, 98957-07558, 96699- 16804, 82698-87777 and CDR and SDR and certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, were obtained. 6 The statements of witnesses were recorded and after completion of the investigation, it was found that in a quarrel between the accused and the deceased, in a fit of anger, the deceased grabbed the neck of the appellant and the appellant pulled her dupatta and strangulated her throat, causing her death due to blockage of breath and further, in order to make it look like a case of suicide, the appellant had cut the dupatta and also placed a stool nearby. 7 After investigation, the chargesheet was presented before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhatapara and the learned JMFC, Bhatapara, registered the said case as Criminal Case No. 285/2021 which was later on committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 01.04.2021. 8 Charges were framed against appellant on 15.07.2021 for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. The appellant denied the charges and prayed for trial. 9 In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses namely Arun Pathak (PW-1), Shailendra Pathak (PW-2), Anamika Pathak (PW-3), Jitesh Kumar Tiwari (PW-4), Suresh Kumar Sahu (PW-5), Ghanshyam Das Manikpuri (PW-6), Vyasnarayan Yadu (PW-7), Kaveri Mukherjee. (PW-08), Dr. Hemant Mannewar (PW-9), Manju Sahu (PW-10), Suresh Binjwar (PW-11), Jaswant Singh (PW-12), Chhatrapal Singh Verma (PW-13), Khileshwar Puraina (PW-14), Vijay Choudhary (PW-15), Om Sahu (PW-16), Jitendra Kumar Yadav (PW-17) and Sanjay Kumar Tiwari (PW-18) and exhibited as many as 28 Exhibits and 3 articles namely Article A1, A2 and A3 which are the photographs of the deceased. 6 10 The statement of the appellant/convict was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he expressed his ignorance about many questions and some of them were denied as well. He stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case. The appellant did not led any evidence in support of his case. 11 The learned trial Judge, after considering the statement of witnesses and evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant/ accused as detailed in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant/convict.
Legal Reasoning
12 Mr. Hemant Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has erred in holding the appellant guilty of the offences under Section 302 and 201 of the IPC. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no eye witness to the incident and the cases rests upon circumstantial evidence. The learned trial Court erred in law by ignoring the fact that the only aim of the prosecution witnesses was to get the appellant convicted. The learned trail court had not appreciated rather neglected that the statements of Dr. Hemant Mannewar (PW-9) were he had specifically mentioned that he was sole doctor who had signed the postmortem report whereas a team of Doctors had conducted the postmortem but not signed the report. It was also admitted that one of the cousin of the deceased, who is also a Doctor, namely Dr. Avinash Pathak, was present in the mortuary during the postmortem, thus certainly the influence and tampering with the postmortem report cannot be ruled out. Dr. Hemant Mannewar (PW-9) has not examined the dupatta nor measured it so as to determine whether it could have been used to commit suicide. Though the Doctor has opined the cause of death to be asphyxia but he has also advised for viscera but the viscera report was never produced before the learned trial Court. It is further submitted by Mr. Gupta that once the case is of 7 circumstantial evidence and no eye witness is available then only chain that complete the guilt of accused is necessarily required in the case, but in the present case the neither eyewitness not any FSL or any Visra report was produced before the learned trial Court by the prosecution, even the Doctor is not sure about the nature of death. Since the entire case is based upon the medical report given by the Doctor alone is also not proper and thus the appellant ought to have been given the benefit of doubt and the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charges. 13 On the other hand, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondent submits that the learned trial Court has committed no illegality by convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused which is based on cogent reasons and as such, no interference is warranted by this Hon'ble Court and the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 14 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 15 The information with regard to the death was given by the appellant himself. The dead body was found in the house of the appellant and the deceased is his wife. The appellant, at the first instance, has tried to explain the police that she had committed suicide and that he brought the body of the deceased down by cutting the dupatta which was used for commission of suicide by hanging on the ceiling fan. 16 Dr. Hemant Mannewar (PW-9) who conducted the postmortem has found that the body was of a normal built with a red mark on her neck and on the upper part of the chest. There was a red mark of 6x7 c.m. on the right arm and a 5 inch long C-shaped mark present on the neck, it was not V-shaped. On 8 dissecting that area, blood stains were present there. There were many abrasion marks and blood was oozing out of the nose. The eyes were congested, there were many bruises on the legs and there was a contusion on the foot. There was an abrasion on the right breast area, the skin of the neck was swollen. The body was stiff. Bruise over neck and chest region 7x15 c.m., bruise over right biceps 6x7 c.m., contusion and small multiple abrasion on both sides right and left of the neck and chest were present. On internal examination on opening the throat it was found that the hyoid bone was fractured and thyroid cartilage were damaged and blood stains were found in it. Lungs were collapsed, liver, kidneys, spleen were all congested, undigested food material was present inside the stomach. He had preserved the viscera. He had opined that the cause of death of the deceased was strangulation which was between 3-18 hours and was homicidal in nature. This witness had also examined the appellant Nagendra Tiwari on 12.12.2020. On examination (Exhibit P/14), he found that there were four small abrasions on his right hand, which were close to the elbow. The said injuries were of normal nature which were of between 18 to 24 hours of conducting the test. In the viscera report (Exhibit P/21) no poisonous substance has been found hence, the same is of no relevance in this case. 17 Arun Pathak (PW-1) who is the uncle of the deceased, had deposed that on 12.12.2020 at 1.30 p.m., Vyasnarayan Yadav, Ward Councillor of Ramsagarpara, called him and told him that his niece i.e. the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself. According to this witness, he informed the relatives and arranged for a car and reached Bhatapara in the morning where there was a crowd in front of the house. When the ofÏcers arrived, he went to the room at the scene of the incident. He saw that the deceased was lying dead on the bed. It did not seem true that she had committed suicide by hanging herself. It was told to him that the deceased committed suicide by 9 placing a plastic stool on the tea table, climbing on it and hanging herself from the ceiling fan using her dupatta and the appellant had cut the dupatta and laid the body on the bed below. According to this witness, it was not possible for a person to hang himself by climbing on the stool and tea table, because the table was made of plastic and would have toppled over with the weight of the person. The fan was covered with dust, and no sign of dupatta being stuck in it was visible, and the dust of the fan was not on the dupatta and the dupatta was lying on the ground. No damage of any kind was visible on the fan. Appellant’s statement that he had taken the body down from the fan appeared to be false. According to this witness, the height between the stool and the fan was quite big, so it was not possible for the deceased to reach upto that height. It was clear from the circumstances that the appellant had tried to make it look like a suicide. There were marks of beating and injury on the body of the deceased and there was a mark of a noose around her neck. The accused had strangled the deceased to death with a dupatta. This witness said in his statement that the deceased had been murdered. 18 Shailendra Pathak (PW-2), father of the deceased, stated that the deceased was married to the appellant on 25.06.2018. After 8-9 months of marriage, the appellant used to come home drunk late at night and used to beat the deceased when she used to make enquiries. Her daughter used to tell this whenever she come home. Before the incident, there had a scufÒe between the deceased and the appellant. So the deceased called him and he and his wife went, then she told about the fight and asked him to take her along. According to this witness, the deceased had told that the appellant doubted her character and said that the child growing in her womb was not his and assaulted her upon which she advised the appellant that if has such doubt, then he should get a DNA test done, then he accepted his mistake and apologized and said that he will not commit the mistake again, then they came back after convincing the 10 daughter and son-in-law. According to this witness, at the time of delivery of her daughter, her husband brought and dropped the deceased to her parental house and after the delivery at Jangde Hospital, where a boy was born, the appellant took the deceased with him. According to this witness, on 12.12.2020, on receiving a call from Vyas Yadu (PW-7), Ward Councilor Bhatapara, and being told that his daughter is ill and in a critical condition, he went to Bhatapara alongwith his wife and nephew and he saw in the room that his daughter was lying dead, there was a crowd and a chair and table were lying there. According to this witness, her in-laws had told her that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself, but on seeing the height of the stool and chair that was kept, it seemed that she could not have committed suicide by climbing to such a height. His daughter weighed 65 kg. If she had hung from the fan, the fan would have broken and fallen down. There were marks of beating on the body of the deceased. If his daughter would have hanged herself, then the cloth with which she had hanged should have had dust of the fan on it and the dust of the fan should have also been wiped off, but no such situation was visible, which made it clear that his daughter was killed by strangulating her. This witness has denied the suggestion that the deceased’s mental condition was not good before marriage. 19 Similarly, witness Anamika Pathak (PW-03), who is the sister of deceased, came to her house in Bhatapara after her death. This witness has stated in her deposition before the Court that she used to talk to the deceased. When the deceased was pregnant, she used to tell that her husband used to come home drunk and beat her. They used to have arguments among themselves. After that, her sister came to Kawardha for delivery and stayed there for few days after the delivery. According to this witness, her sister received a call from the deceased three-four days after Diwali. She was telling that the accused doubted her character and said that the child born to her is not 11 his. The appellant had tried to make the child drink phenyl and on being informed about this, his mother and father came to Bhatapara, then his father told the appellant if there is any doubt then get a DNA test done, then the appellant apologized, and thereafter her parents came back after giving advice. She has also expressed the same suspicion as has been expressed by her father that it was not a case of suicide but of murder. 20 Vyasanarayana Yadu (PW-7) is the neighbour of the appellant. He stated that he was the Ward Councillor of Bhatapara. He stated that the appellant came to house house crying and informed him that his wife had committed suicide. The appellant said to him that he should inform his in-laws over phone upon which this witness made phone call and informed the in-laws of the appellant. When, in the morning, the in-laws came, they started quarelling with the appellant alleging that he had committed murder of their daughter. However, in the cross examination, he admitted that when he reached the house of the appellant, the deceased was lying dead on the bed and there was no sign of breaking of the door or forceful entry in the room. 21 Jaswant Singh (PW-12) who is the Head Constable had recorded the merg intimation (Exhibit P/17) on the information given by the appellant himself. 22 Kaveri Mukherjee (PW-8) is the Naib Tahsildar who had received Exhibit P/10 letter relating to conducting the inquest proceedings. She had given the notice to the witnesses under Section 175 Cr.P.C. vide Exhibit P/1. On 12.02.2022, she had inspected the place of incident and found the body of the deceased on the bed with face towards sky and on the tea table next to the bed, there was a plastic stool and a piece of dupatta on it and another piece of dupatta on the stool. There was a ceiling fan on the tea table and stool and a small scissor was lying near the bed, the room was open, there were no signs of any breaking. The height of the fan installed at the crime scene was 9 feet 7 12 inches and the height of the plastic stool placed below was one and a half feet and the height of the tea table was 1 feet 5 and a half inches and the height of the stool placed on the tea table from the fan was 6 feet 8 inches. The fan on which the suicide was said to have been committed by hanging was covered with dust and there was no sign of wiping of the dust from the fan. There were no signs of dust on the dupatta and the fan was in good condition. This witness told in para 05 of his cross-examination that the police had also taken photographs of the room where the incident took place. This witness has told in para 07 of hes cross-examination that the parents of the deceased came there and were saying that it was murder. 23 The appellant has not discharge his initial burden of proving the fact that was especially within his knowledge. The appellant ought to have explained as to how the deceased died in her own house an unnatural death when she was hail and hearty. 24 Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, states as under: “106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.—When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.” 25 This provision states that when any fact is specially within the knowledge of any person the burden of proving that fact is upon him. This is an exception to the general rule contained in Section 101, namely, that the burden is on the person who asserts a fact. The principle underlying Section 106 which is an exception to the general rule governing burden of proof applies only to such matters of defence which are supposed to be especially within the knowledge of the other side. To invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the main point to be established by prosecution is that the accused persons were in such a position that they could have special knowledge of the fact concerned. 13 26 In the matter of Shambhu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer1, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 of the Evidence Act is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difÏcult, for the prosecution, to establish facts which are “especially” within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difÏculty or inconvenience. The Supreme Court while considering the word “especially” employed in Section 106 of the Evidence Act, speaking through Vivian Bose, J., observed as under: - “11. … The word "especially" stresses that it means facts that are preeminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. If the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not. It is evident that cannot be the intention and the Privy Council has twice refused to construe this section, as reproduced in certain other Acts outside India, to mean that the burden lies on an accused person to show that he did not commit the crime for which he is tried. These cases are Attygalle v. The King, 1936 PC 169 (AIR V 23) (A) and Seneviratne v. R. 1936-3 ER 36 AT P.49 (B).” Their Lordships further held that Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be used to undermine the well established rule of law that save in a very exceptional class of case, the burden is on the prosecution and never shifts. 27 The decision of the Supreme Court in Shambhu Nath Mehra (supra) was followed with approval recently in the matter of Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar2 in which it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as under: 1AIR 1956 SC 404 2(2021) 10 SCC 725 14 “22. Thus, Section 106 of the Evidence Act will apply to those cases where the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts which are within the special knowledge of the accused. When the accused fails to offer proper explanation about the existence of said other facts, the court can always draw an appropriate inference. 23. When a case is resting on circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of burden placed on him by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, such a failure may provide an additional link to the chain of circumstances. In a case governed by circumstantial evidence, if the chain of circumstances which is required to be established by the prosecution is not established, the failure of the accused to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not relevant at all. When the chain is not complete, falsity of the defence is no ground to convict the accused.” 28 Similarly, the Supreme Court in the matter of Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab3, while considering the provisions contained in Sections 103 and 106 of the Evidence Act, held that the burden of proving a plea specially set up by an accused which may absolve him from criminal liability, certainly lies upon him, but neither the application of Section 103 nor that of 106 could, however, absolve the prosecution from the duty of discharging its general or primary burden of proving the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. It was further held by their Lordships that it is only when the prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, will sustain a conviction, or which makes out a prima facie case, that the question arises of considering facts of which the burden of proof may lie upon the accused. Their Lordships also held that the 3AIR 1956 SC 460 15 burden of proving a plea specifically set up by an accused, which may absolve him from criminal liability, certain lies upon him. 29 The principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh (supra) has been followed with approval by their Lordships in the matter of Sawal Das v. State of Bihar4 and it has been held that burden of proving the case against the accused was on the prosecution irrespective of whether or not the accused has made out a specific defence. 30 The learned counsel for the appellant has tried to make out a case that there could have been tampering in the postmortem report as the postmortem was conducted by a team of doctors but the said report was signed by only one Doctor, is noticed to be rejected Dr. Hemant Mannewar (PW-9) has explained the injuries and the cause of death to be homicidal in nature which corroborates with the facts and situation existing in this case. 31 According to the prosecution in the case, the appellant and the deceased were in the house and apart from them no other outsider was in the house. The body of the deceased was found in her own house. When a fact is known to a person, the burden of proving that fact is on him. In this case, it has been proved by evidence that the deceased was living with her husband just before her death, the burden of explaining under what circumstances his wife died was on her husband himself, which could not be explained concretely by the appellant. Similarly, the accused has not given any explanation in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to how his wife died. The prosecution has been successful in proving its case that the death was homicidal and the appellant, in order to make the incident look like a suicide/hanging, cut her scarf, placed a stool, tea-table in the room and gave the appearance of hanging from the fan, thus concealing the fact of murder and causing disappearance of evidence and 4AIR 1974 SC 778 16 this was done with the intention of shielding the himself from the legal punishment for the crime. Looking to the photographs Articles A1, A2 and A3, especially Article A1 which shows that the stool is lying somewhere at a distant place which in fact should have been right below the fan if it was a case of commission of suicide. The police has also not found any dust on the dupatta allegedly used by the deceased to commit suicide and on the contrary, dust has been found on the fan which should have been wiped of if the duppata was used as rope for hanging. Injuries have also been found on the body of the deceased as well as on the body of the appellant which is suggestive of the fact that a scufÒe took place between both of them and being infuriated, as the appellant already suspected the character of the deceased, killed the deceased by strangulating. The appellant has further not given any explanation or any suggestion as to why the prosecution witnesses had deposed against him. 32 In the light of aforesaid discussion, we are inclined to endorse the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court convicting the appellant on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 and Section 201 of the IPC as well as the sentence imposed upon him by the learned trial Court is well merited and does not call for any interference by this Court. 33 Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 34 The appellant is stated to be in jail. He shall serve out the remaining part of the sentence as has been awarded to him by the learned trial Court. 35 Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentences to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the 17 present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 36 Let a certified copy of this judgment alongwith the original record be transmitted to trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.03.11 11:13:26 +0530