Afr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:49106-DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.1870 of 2019 Judgment reserved on : 22.07.2025 Judgment delivered on : 25.09.2025 Digitally signed by R NIRALA 1 - Budhram Singh @ Lallu S/o Ramdas Gond Aged About 23 Years R/o Sundarpur (Patrapara), Police Station Sonhat, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh versus Appellant (s) 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sonhat, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) For Respondent(s) : : Ms. Reena Singh, through Legal Aid Mr. Devesh Kela, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Per Rajani Dubey J. C A V Judgment 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.11.2019 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge (FTC) and Special Judge under the POCSO Act, 2012, Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) 2 in Special Session Trial No.25/2017, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 4 of POCSO Act and Sections 366 and 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.500/- and life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-, respectively, with default stipulations. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the mother of the deceased lodged a written report at the police station concerned alleging that the deceased i.e. her minor daughter was enticed away by the appellant on the pretext of marriage and deceased was kept by appellant in his house at night and he committed rape upon her and in order to flee away from marriage deceased was given poison by mixing it with tea and parents of appellant namely Ramdas (father) and Shyamjeera (mother) knowingly caused the deceased to stay at their house and committed the offence in furtherance of common intention with the appellant. Thereafter a case was registered against the accused persons and they were arrested. After investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate concerned. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and material available on record, learned trial court acquitted the parents of the appellant and convicted the accused/appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment
Legal Reasoning
passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. There are material omissions and 3 contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove any motive behind the commission of crime. On the other hand main witness like P.W. 1, P.W.3, P. W.5 and P.W.6 have accepted the fact that there was love relation between the deceased and appellant. The prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients for commission of offence under Sections 366 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Only the general and omnibus allegations have been made against the present appellant. The impugned judgment of the court below is based on the surmises and conjectures. The learned trial Court committed error by ignoring the fact that none of the prosecution witnesses supported the prosecution story. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab, passed in CRA No.163/2010, decided on 04.01.2024 and the judgment rendered by this Court in the matter of Niraj Jangde @ Nirja vs State of Chhattisgarh, passed in CRA No.1615/2022, decided on 07.02.2024. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 4 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 363, 366, 368 read with Section 34, 376, 328 read with Section 34 and Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act against the accused persons and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the co- accused, who are the parents of the appellant, and convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 7. As per prosecution, the victim was aged about 15-16 years at the time of incident. The mother of the prosecutrix (PW-5) stated that her daughter was aged about 16 years at the time of incident and she was born in Kartik month, but she does not know the exact month and year. In the cross-examination, she stated that her grandfather admitted the prosecutrix in Class-1 in the school and she does not know on what basis he got entered the date of birth of the prosecutrix in the school. 8. The father of the prosecutrix (PW-6) stated that her daughter was aged about 16 years at the time of incident but in the cross- examination, he admitted that he does not remember the date of birth of the prosecutrix. 9. PW-9 Rambachan Singh, Assistant Teacher of Primary School, Dumariyapara stated that the police seized the admission discharge register of the school, which is Ex-P/16. In this register, 5 at Sr. No.99 name of prosecutrix was entered and as per this register, the victim’s date of birth is 06.04.2001 and she was admitted in Class-1 on 18.06.2007. In the cross-examination, he admitted that as per this register, mother’s name is entered as Heermaniya and he also admitted that at the time of entry of victim, no document was filed by her parents regarding her date of birth. It is clear from the statement of the mother and father of the prosecutrix and teacher that no clinching and admissible evidence was filed by the prosecution regarding the age of the prosecutrix as per the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court, as teacher (PW-9) admitted that name of mother in the register was mentioned as Heermaniya and it is clear from the statement of PW-5 that her name was different and her real name was not entered in the admission discharge register as mother of the victim, as such it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that in Ex-P/16, whether the name of the mother of victim was entered or not and it is also admitted by the teacher that at the time of admission, no authentic document was filed by her parents so the prosecution has failed to prove the age of the victim below 18 years of age beyond reasonable doubt. 10. As regards the other charges, firstly we have to consider as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature or not? 11. PW-4 Dinesh Kumar, ward boy of the District Hospital, Baikunthpur stated that he gave written intimation of Dr. G. S. 6 Paikra to Police Station Baikunthpur, which is Ex-P/6 and as per this intimation, the merg intimation was lodged by the Police Station as Ex-P/7. He admitted his signatures on A to A part of the same. 12. Dr. G. S. Paikra (PW-19) stated that on 15.11.2017, he gave information to the Police Station Baikunthpur regarding the death of the deceased aged above 18 years who was admitted in the hospital on 13.11.2017 for treatment of poisoning (rat poison) and she died on 15.11.2017 at 8:55 morning so he sent information through ward boy Dinesh Kumar, which is Ex-P/6 and he admitted signatures on A to A part of the same. 13. Satyendra Tiwari, head constable – PW-15 stated that he lodged merg intimation as per intimation of Dr. G. S. Paikra through Dinesh Kumar and he gave notice to witnesses vide Ex-P/9A and prepared inquest memo before the witnesses vide Ex-P/10 and also gave application for postmortem vide Ex-P/26 and he admitted signatures on all documents. 14. Dr. G. S. Paikra (PW-19) conducted postmortem of the deceased and he discussed the internal and external injuries sustained by the deceased as under:- “3-……………….परी(cid:3)्ቌण मे(cid:8) मे(cid:9)ने(cid:8) प(cid:11)या(cid:11) कि(cid:14) शरी(cid:3)री परी अ(cid:14)डने आ चु(cid:20)(cid:14)(cid:11) था(cid:11) जो(cid:23) कि(cid:14) उस(cid:14)(cid:8) दो(cid:23)ने(cid:23) हा(cid:11)था एवं(cid:30) प(cid:9)री मे(cid:8) मे(cid:31)जो दो था(cid:11)। उस(cid:14)(cid:8) दो(cid:23)ने(cid:23) आख बदो एवं प(cid:20)तली(cid:3) फै(cid:9) ली(cid:3) हा’ई हा(cid:23)(cid:14)री ቝኌ*थारी था(cid:3) मे(cid:20)हा बदो था(cid:11) मे(cid:20)हा (cid:14)(cid:8) दो(cid:11)किहाने(cid:8) (cid:14)(cid:23)ने(cid:8) स(cid:8) ली(cid:11)री एवं(cid:30) झा(cid:11)ग मे(cid:31)जो दो था(cid:11) ली(cid:11)री एवं(cid:30) झा(cid:11)ग ने(cid:11)(cid:14) (cid:14)(cid:8) दो(cid:23)ने(cid:23) कि-्ቖ स(cid:8) आ रीहा(cid:11) था(cid:11)। मे/कित(cid:14)(cid:11) (cid:14)0 दो(cid:23)ने(cid:23) हा(cid:11)था फै(cid:9) ली(cid:3) हा’ई था(cid:3) तथा(cid:11) मे(cid:20)ठी(cid:3) आधी(cid:3) बदो था(cid:3)। हा(cid:11)था (cid:14)(cid:8) अग(cid:20)लिलीया4 एवं(cid:30) ने(cid:11)ख ने (cid:14)(cid:8) उपरी ने(cid:3)ली(cid:11)पने (स(cid:11)इने(cid:23)लिसस) आ चु(cid:20)(cid:14)(cid:11) था(cid:11)। मे/कित(cid:14)(cid:11) (cid:14)(cid:8) दो(cid:23)ने(cid:23) प(cid:9)री 7 फै(cid:9) ली(cid:8) हा’ऐ था(cid:8) तथा(cid:11) जोनेने(cid:11)ग *वं*था था(cid:8)। 4-आतरिरी(cid:14) परी(cid:3)्ቌण परी मे(cid:9)ने(cid:8) प(cid:11)या(cid:11) कि(cid:14) मे/कित(cid:14)(cid:11) (cid:14)(cid:8) मेቝኌ*तष्(cid:14) एवं मेቝኌ*तष्(cid:14) (cid:14)0 लिझाቤኍ(cid:3) *वं*था एवं रीक््ቈ मेया था(cid:8)। पदो(cid:11)< पसली(cid:3), (cid:14)(cid:23)मेलीस फै(cid:20) फैफै(cid:20) स, ब(cid:11)या(cid:11) फै(cid:8) फैड(cid:11) ब/हादो वं(cid:11)किहा(cid:14)(cid:11) *वं*था था(cid:8) तथा(cid:11) (cid:14)ठी एवं श्वं(cid:11)स (cid:14)0 नेली(cid:3) परी झा(cid:11)ग मे(cid:31)जो दो था(cid:11)। दो(cid:11)या(cid:11) फै(cid:8) फैड(cid:11) री्ሹमेया था(cid:11) हृदोया (cid:14)(cid:8) दो(cid:23)ने(cid:23) भा(cid:11)ग परी री्ሹ मे(cid:31)जो दो था(cid:11)। 5-उदोरी (cid:14)(cid:11) पदो(cid:11)< आत(cid:23) (cid:14)0 लिझाቤኍ(cid:3), मे(cid:20)हा ቇኋ(cid:11)सनेली(cid:3) एवं ቇኋसने(cid:3) *वं*था था(cid:8)। प(cid:8)ट (cid:14)(cid:8) भा(cid:3)तरी अनेपचु(cid:11) चु(cid:11)वंली तथा(cid:11) -(cid:23)ट(cid:3) एवं बड(cid:3) आत परी मेली मे(cid:31)जो दो था(cid:8)। या(cid:14)/ त प्ली(cid:3)हा(cid:11) एवं ग(cid:20)दो(cid:11)< री्ሹ मेया था(cid:11)। मे(cid:20)ቔኋ(cid:11)शया *वं*था था(cid:11), गभा(cid:11)<शया *वं*था हा(cid:23)(cid:14)री स(cid:11)मे(cid:11)न्या आ(cid:14)(cid:11)री (cid:14)(cid:11) था(cid:11)। या(cid:31)किने परी हा(cid:11)था (cid:14)0 दो(cid:23) अग(cid:20)लिलीया(cid:11) आस(cid:11)ने(cid:3) स(cid:8) जो(cid:11) रीहा(cid:11) था(cid:11)। मे/कित(cid:14)(cid:11) (cid:14)0 मे(cid:11)सप(cid:8)किशया(cid:11) औरी हाडड(cid:3) *वं*था था(cid:8)।" After postmortem, he opined the cause of death to be asphyxia resulting in cardio respiratory arrest due to poisoning but the exact cause of death may be given after viscera investigation report and nature of death depends upon the data collected by the Investigating Officer and gave his report vide Ex-P/31. 15. As per FSL report (Ex-P/48) in Article F & G, pieces of brain, heart, lungs, liver, spleen, kidney, uterus and pieces of stomach and small intestine were found. In article H, salt solution was found and in Article-I, orange colour paste was found in ratol tube. In Articles F, G & I, yellow phosphorous was found and in Article H, chemical poison was not found. 16. Thus, looking to the postmortem report (Ex-P/31) and FSL report (Ex-P/48), it is proved that the deceased died due to poisoning, but in the postmortem, it was not opined by the Dr. G. S. Paikra (PW-19) that as to whether the death of the deceased is homicidal or suicidal and he opined that the nature of death 8 depends upon evidence collected by the prosecution agency so we have to consider other evidence with utmost circumspection. 17. PW-1 Shivdhari stated that on the date of incident at about 7 am when he was going to Budhram’s uncle house for work, then he saw the deceased was stumbling while coming out from the house of Budhram and was sitting at field boundary, then he went to the deceased house and informed her mother and father that deceased was stumbling, then he went on to his work. When he returned from the work, his wife told that the deceased was taken to Baikunthpur Hospital and subsequently he came to know that the deceased has died. The mother of deceased told her wife that Budhram has given her poison in tea. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him, then he admitted this suggestion of the prosecution that the deceased was stumbling and fell down and was palpitating but he denied this suggestion that Budhram had given her inducement of marriage on 12.11.2017 and took her to his house. He denied his police statement vide Ex-P/3 on A to A part of the same. He admitted suggestion of defence that he did not do any kind of talk with the deceased and had only seen her while sitting in field boundary. 18. Pushpendra Kumar (PW-2) stated that he has bolero vehicle and on Ujit’s saying, the brother of victim, he took the deceased to District Hospital, Baikunthpur for treatment and at that time, victim was unconscious. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him but he denied all suggestions of the 9 prosecution and he denied his police statement (Ex-P/4) on A to A part of the same. 19. PW-3 Jagsheela stated that on 12.11.2017 at 3 pm, Budhram came to the house of her maternal aunt (mausi/mother of deceased) and when her mausi came to the house, she saw the deceased and Budhram together and talked about marriage with deceased and returned back to his house, thereafter in the evening he again came to the house of her mausi and took the deceased to his house, who was sitting at platform outside the house, thereafter she and her mausi informed her mausa about the same, thereafter they went to the house of accused, where the door was closed from inside and noise of talking was coming from inside, upon which they knocked the door but nobody opened the door thereafter they returned to their house. She further stated that on next day Shivdhari came and told that the deceased is stumbling at the door of accused, upon which her mausi went there and took the deceased with her and deceased told them that the accused took her on enticement of marriage and committed wrong with her and mixed some poisonous substance in the tea and made her drunk, thereafter she was taken to the hospital where she died during treatment. In the cross-examination, she stated that the deceased herself told about drinking of poisonous substance. She also admitted this suggestion of the prosecution that her aunt had scolded deceased as to why she calls the accused in her home. She also 10 admitted that they did not see the deceased while taking poison. She also admitted this suggestion that for giving the statement, her aunt and uncle had told her. 20. The mother of the deceased (PW-5) stated that prior to 6-7 months, the accused had come to her house and when she came back to the house from work, she saw the accused doing wrong with her daughter and when he saw her, he tried to hide but when she found him he told that he wants to do marriage with her daughter and went to his house, thereafter in the evening he again came to her house and took the deceased to his house, who was sitting at platform outside the house, thereafter she along with her niece and husband went to the house of accused, where the door was closed from inside and noise of talking was coming from inside, upon which they knocked the door but nobody opened the door thereafter they returned to their house. Next day, PW-1 Shivdhari came to her house and stated that the deceased is stumbling while coming out from the house of Budhram and is sitting at field boundary, then she went to the house of accused, where she saw the deceased stumbling and when she asked, the deceased told her that the accused has committed wrong with her and mixed some poisonous substance in tea and made her drunk, thereafter they took the deceased to Baikunthpur Hospital for treatment where she died during treatment. In the cross-examination, she admitted that she told the Police about administering of poison by the accused to her 11 daughter. She admitted suggestion of defence that they forbaded her daughter not to call Budhram in the house. She also admitted that prior to one day, the accused was hidden in her house. She self stated that Budhram was doing wrong with her daughter. In para 16, she stated that they did not see the accused while taking the deceased with him. She also admitted that they did not go inside the house of accused and she also admitted as to who were inside his house, she did not see and on assumption of talks, they assumed that the deceased is inside. She also admitted that how the deceased consumed poison she did not see. She also admitted that there was strife in the house regarding the marriage of the deceased and she used to be distracted. 21. PW-6 father of the prosecutrix also stated the same story that upon Shivdhari’s information, they took her daughter to their home and thereafter they took her to hospital where she died during treatment. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him then he admitted the suggestion of prosecution that they had gone to the house of accused along with his wife and niece Jagsheela, where the door was closed from inside and noise of talking was coming from inside, upon which they knocked the door but nobody opened the door and her daughter may be inside the door. He self stated that noise of daughter was not audible. He admitted this suggestion that she wanted to marry the accused and in their absence her daughter 12 and accused used to talk to each other and there was love affair between them. He also admitted that they were searching for a boy for her marriage. He also admitted this suggestion that they did not see their daughter while going to the accused’s house and in the night upon tapping the door when he did not open the door thats whey he assumed that her daughter might be inside the house. 22. Dhani Singh (PW-8) stated that the victim’s mother told him that the accused took her daughter to his home and did wrong with her and administered rat poison to her daughter. 23. Dwarika Singh (PW-11) stated that he came to now through villagers that the accused took the deceased to his house and administered poison to her. The police had recovered paste from cow dung pit behind accused’s house and except this he does not know anything. He admitted his signatures on the memorandum of the accused (Ex-P/19), seizure memo (Ex-P/20 & P/21) and arrest memo (Ex-P/22 & P/23). The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him then he admitted this suggestion that the police had interrogated the accused but he denied this suggestion that the accused administered rat poison to the deceased. He admitted that he was told by the accused that remaining poison was thrown on the cow dung pit. He again admitted this suggestion of defence that the police had not interrogated in front of him. He admitted that paste was seized by the police from the cow dung pit. He also admitted that 13 he does not know as to why the deceased consumed poison. 24. PW-13 Indralok Singh, another witness of memorandum and seizure admitted his signatures on the memorandum of the accused (Ex-P/19), seizure memo (Ex-P/20 & P/21) and arrest memo (Ex-P/22 & P/23), but he denied all suggestions of the prosecution but admitted this suggestion of defence that the police did not interrogate in front of him and did not seize anything before him. 25. Dr. Surendra Painkra (PW-14) stated that on 13.11.2017 at about 11 am, the victim was brought by her parents/relatives and he admitted her in the hospital. Her BP was 130/90 and pulse rate was 70 per minute and she was treated by him. Her treatment prescription is Ex-P/25 and he admitted this suggestion of defence that her relatives told him that she administered rat poison. 26. Close scrutiny of all the witnesses clearly shows that on 12.11.2017 PW-5 mother of the prosecutrix caught the victim and accused in her house and as per PW-5 accused was doing wrong with her daughter. After sometime, accused left her house and victim came out of the house and sat on the platform and as per PW-5 mother of victim and PW- 6 father of victim, victim was missing as such they went to accused’s house but he did not open the door thus they assumed that the victim may be inside the house and on the next day morning PW-1 Shivdhari saw the victim in front of accused’s house and she was stumbling so he 14 informed her parents and went onto his work. As per PW-5 & 6, mother and father of the victim, they brought her to their home and after drinking her water they took her to hospital. As per Dr. Paikra (PW-14) when victim was brought by her relatives, they informed that she consumed rat poison and she was admitted in hospital as per Ex-P/25. 27. In the whole story, no one saw the victim while going to the house of the accused and mother and father only presumed that the victim was in the house of the accused. As per FSL report (Ex- P/45) though in vaginal slide of victim, hymen sperm was found but only on this report it is not proved that the victim was with the accused in the night prior to the incident. The mother of the victim herself admitted that on same day, she saw the accused and the victim in her home and she self stated that the accused was doing the wrong thing with her. Thus, it is clear that the present case is based only on circumstantial evidence and as per PW-5 the accused gave the deceased poison in tea, but in her police statement (Ex-D/1) and statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC (Ex-P/14), she stated that victim herself stated that accused mixed something in tea and administered her. 28. It is clear from the inquest memo (Ex-P/10) that on 15.11.2017 at the time of inquest memo, PW-5 mother of victim and PW-6 father of victim were present along with all witnesses and it was written in inquest memo (Ex-P/10) that ‘we punchs after examination found that the deceased has died due to consuming 15 poison and to know the exact reason we recommend for postmortem of the dead body. It is clear that at that time, both the parents have not stated anything against the accused that he administered poison to their daughter. Head constable Satyendra Tiwari (PW-15) admitted in his cross-examination that it is true that at the time of punchnama, parents of the deceased were present and they told that she died due to poisoning. 29. It is clear from the impugned judgment that the learned Trial Court acquitted the co-accused Ramdas and Shyamjeera, who are father and mother of the accused, but convicted the appellant on same set of evidence for the aforesaid offences. 30. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Darshan Singh (supra) held in para 35 as under:- “35. It is important to notice that the respondent-State has not challenged the acquittal of Rani Kaur before this Court. It has accepted the verdict and therefore, the acquittal has reached finality. The State cannot on the one hand accept the verdict of the Court that the presence of Rani Kaur along with the appellant is doubtful and at the same time, maintain its case that the two of them were jointly present, committed the offence together and escaped together.” 31. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hariprasad @ Kishan Sahu vs State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2024) 2 SCC 557, held in para 20 as under:- “20. Before delving into the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it may be noted that this Court way back in 1984, in Sharad BirdhiChand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), which has been followed in catena of decisions, had observed that in the case of murder by poison, the prosecution must prove following four circumstances: - 16 “(1) there is a clear motive for an accused to administer poison to the deceased, (2) that the deceased died of poison said to have been administered, (3) that the accused had the poison in his possession, (4) that he had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased.” 32. In light of above, in the present case it is clear that there is no last seen evidence. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove this fact that victim went with the accused and went to accused house and stayed with him the whole night. Both memorandum and seizure witnesses PW-11 Dwarika Singh and PW-13 Indralok Singh have not supported the memorandum of the accused (Ex- P/19) and seizure (Ex-P/20 & 21) and they also admitted that rat poison tube was seized from the cow dung pit, which was described to be situated near the house of accused, but the prosecution did not collect this evidence that as to who bought this rat poison and from where it was bought. 33. Learned State counsel strongly relied on the FSL report in which semen was found and rat poison was found but the prosecution has utterly failed to prove this fact that the victim remained in company of the accused before her death. The mother of the victim saw them in their house in compromising position but after that accused left her house and victim came outside and sat on the platform except this no evidence is there regarding the same. The mother of the prosecutrix stated that the victim herself told her that the accused administered poison to her but at the time of inquest she did not disclose this fact that and for the first time she 17 stated in her police statement vide Ex-D/1 which was recorded by the prosecution on 18.11.2017 after 3 days and Dr. Paikra (PW- 14) stated that relatives of victim stated that she consumed rat poison so looking to the statement of all witnesses, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant but the learned Trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly and gave wrong finding, as such the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable.
Decision
34. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges under Section 4 of POCSO Act and Sections 366 and 302 of IPC. 35. The appellant is in jail. He be released forthwith if he is not required to be detained in any other offence. 36. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- before the court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 37. The Trial Court’s record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for 18 compliance and necessary action. The copy of this judgment be also sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary action. Sd/- Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge Amitendra Kishore Prasad Judge Nirala