REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.674 of 2006
State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Naresh & Ors. ...Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order
dated 19.5.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
in Criminal Appeal No.2866/1980, acquitting the respondents by
reversing the judgment and order dated 9.12.1980, passed by the
Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial Nos.181 and 182 of 1980, convicting
the said respondents under sections 302/34, 307/34 and 379/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called the `IPC’) and sentencing
them under the first count to life imprisonment, under the second
count to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and under the third count
to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. However, all the sentences
were directed to run concurrently.
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that on
16.10.1979, in the morning Naresh, respondent no.1 herein, started
digging the (Chak Road) to create a passage from the field of the
informant Subedar (PW.1). He was stopped by Balak Ram (PW.5).
Naresh, respondent no.1, not only abused Balak Ram (PW.5), but also
assaulted him and threatened him that he would face dire
consequences. With regard to this, Balak Ram (PW.5) lodged the
complaint of the incident at about 9.30 a.m. in Police Station, Kampil,
District Farukhabad. Balak Ram (PW.5) was accompanied to the
police station by the informant Subedar (PW.1) and their uncle Sri
Ram (deceased). Balak Ram (PW.5) and Sri Ram (deceased) had a
rifle and a gun with them.
3. After lodging the complaint in the police station, Kampil, one
of them, went to the market to make some purchases and,
subsequently, they returned to their village in the evening. While
coming back to their village Karanpur, from Kampil, at about 5 p.m.
2
on Kampil – Aliganj Road, as soon as they approached the fields of
Gajraj and Ganga Ram; they found the four accused (respondents
herein) emerging out from the bushes armed with gun and country
made pistols. They hurled abuse at them and also opened fire. Sri
Ram and Balak Ram (PW.5) received gun shot injuries. Sri Ram died
on the spot, however, Subedar (PW.1) escaped unhurt. After hearing
a distress cry, some persons working in the nearby fields rushed
towards the place of occurrence. The accused ran away from the
place of occurrence snatching the gun, rifle and ammunitions from the
victims.
4. After the arrival of the family members of the victims and some
villagers at the place of occurrence, Subedar (PW.1) went to the
police station in Kampil, at a distance of 6 miles from the place of
occurrence, and lodged the First Information Report (hereinafter
called the “FIR”) at 9.30 p.m. naming all the accused. Injured Balak
Ram (PW.5) was sent for a medical examination at Public Health
Centre, Kayamganj which was at a distance of 20 k.m from the place
of occurrence. He was examined on the same day by Dr. R.C. Gupta
(PW.3) at 10.30 p.m. The Investigating Officer reached the place of
3
occurrence at 10.15 p.m. on the same night, however, the inquest
could not be prepared at night due to inadequate light.
5. Ultimately, inquest proceedings could be started at 6.30 a.m. on
17.10.1979. The body of Sri Ram (deceased) was sealed and handed
over to Sughar Singh, Constable (PW.9) for taking to the mortuary for
post-mortem at Fatehgarh. The I.O. prepared the site plan and started
investigation. As none of the accused could be traced, proceedings
under Sections 82-83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter called “Cr.P.C.”) were initiated on 21.10.1979. For that
purpose, the Magistrate issued notices on 25.10.1979. In view
thereof, two accused, namely, Naresh and Shyam Singh surrendered
on 25.10.1979 in the court of the Judicial Magistrate. The remaining
two accused, namely, Bharat and Jagpal surrendered on 29.10.1979.
6. After completing the investigation, a chargesheet was filed
against all the four accused. They denied their involvement in the
crime and claimed trial. In order to establish its case before the trial
Court, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses including Subedar
(PW.1), informant and Balak Ram (PW.5), injured. After concluding
4
the trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced all the four accused
as mentioned hereinabove.
7. Being aggrieved, all the four convicts preferred Criminal
Appeal No.2866/1980, before the High Court which has been allowed
vide judgment and order dated 19.5.2004 (impugned) and all the four
convicts stood acquitted. Hence, this appeal.
8. During the pendency of this appeal before this Court, Bharat,
one of the accused died and his name stood deleted from the array of
parties vide order of this Court dated 5.5.2006. Thus, we have to deal
with three accused, namely, Naresh, Jagpal and Shyam Singh.
9. Shri R.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
State has submitted that the High Court has erred in reversing the well
reasoned judgment of the trial court giving unwarranted attention to
minor contradictions on trivial matters and taking into consideration
non-existent facts. The High Court has held that the FIR was ante-
timed and ante-dated without giving any reason whatsoever. The
High Court held that the FIR was subject to doubt, though such a
finding does not get any support from any material on record. The
FIR has been lodged most promptly considering the distance between
5
the place of occurrence and the police station. Balak Ram (PW.5) –
injured witness had been examined by Dr. R.C. Gupta (PW.3) within
a few hours of the incident. Therefore, the finding that the FIR was
ante-timed and ante-dated is erroneous and contrary to the documents
on record. The High Court without giving any cogent reason held that
testimony of Balak Ram (PW.5) who suffered gun shot injuries, was
not worth believing. Such a view is contrary to the consistent and
persistent view taken by this Court time and again that the presence of
injured witness cannot be doubted and his version of events can, even
in exceptional circumstances, be relied upon with care and caution.
The High Court reversed the trial court’s judgment also on the ground
that not a single independent witness has been examined by the
prosecution. Such a finding has been recorded without considering
the fact that incident occurred in the evening at a considerable
distance from the village on the road and some persons had arrived
after hearing the hue and cry by Balak Ram (PW.5) and Subedar
(PW.1). By that time, the accused had run away, snatching the arms of
the victims. In view thereof, the appeal deserves to be allowed and
the judgment and order of the High Court is liable to be set aside.
6
10. On the contrary, Shri Manoj Prasad, learned counsel appearing
for the respondents, has vehemently opposed the appeal contending
that the incident occurred three decades ago. The respondents have
been acquitted by the High Court after considering all the material on
record. In respect of the incident that occurred on the morning of
16.10.1979, Balak Ram (PW.5) lodged the complaint on the basis of
which NCR was recorded, wherein only Naresh, accused had been
named. The not naming of the other accused is a good ground for
rejecting the prosecution case in its entirety. The finding of fact
recorded by the High Court cannot be said to be perverse warranting
interference by this Court. No recovery of arms and ammunitions
had been made from the respondents/accused. The rifle and gun
which were allegedly snatched from the victims had been recovered
after a long time from the dacoits killed in an encounter in District
Etah. The High Court has rightly disbelieved Balak Ram (PW.5) on
the basis of material contradictions in his deposition. This Court has
laid down definite parameters for interference with the order of
acquittal and this case does not fall within those parameters. Thus,
there is no cogent reason for this Court to interfere with the same.
Prosecution suppressed the true genesis of the incident and enroped
7
the respondents due to pre-existing enmity. The prosecution failed to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, no interference is
warranted, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
11. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. The admitted facts of the case remained that the incident
occurred on the morning of 16.10.1979 in respect of which the NCR
was recorded by the police station in Kampil, naming Naresh as one
of the accused. The FIR, in respect of the incident that occurred on
the same day in the evening, was lodged within 3-1/2 hours of the
time of incident at police station, Kampil at a distance of about 6
miles from the place of occurrence; the I.O. reached the place of
occurrence at 10.15 p.m. Balak Ram (PW.5) injured, had been
examined in the Public Health Centre, Kayamganj at 10.30 p.m. on
the same day by Dr. R.C. Gupta (PW.3) at a distance of 20 k.m. from
the place of occurrence.
13. Dr. R.C. Gupta (PW.3) found the following injuries on the
person of Balak Ram (PW.5):
8
(i) Two abrasions in a area of 1 cm x < cm over outer side of right
forearm, lower part. Scab not formed.
(ii) Gun shot wound of entry 4 cm x 2 cm x through and through over
inner aspect of right thigh middle part. Margins are irregular and
inverted. Blackening and tattooing around the wound absent.
Direction is down and lateral. Oozing of fresh blood from the wound
present. Advised X-ray.
(iii) Guns shot wound of exit 17 cm x 8 cm x through and through
over outer side of right thigh 5 cm above the right knee joint. Margins
are irregular and everted. Blackening and tattooing absent. Oozing of
fresh blood present. Advised X-ray.
Injury No.1 is caused by friction. Injury Nos.2 and 3 are caused
by projectile firearm. Injury No.1 is simple in nature. Injury nos.2
and 3 are kept under observation. Advised X-ray right thigh.
Duration fresh.
Dr. Anil Kumar Dubey (PW.2) conducted the post-mortem
examination on the body of Sri Ram (deceased) and found the
following ante-mortem external injury on his corpse:-
(i) Circular gun shot wound of entry 1″ in diameter and chest cavity
deep situated on the right side of the back of the chest, 3″ below the
9
lower angle of the right scapula and 3″ away from the mid line in the
direction of 3 O’ clock. The margins of the wound were inverted and
charred.
On internal examination of the corpse of Sri Ram, Dr. Dubey
found 6th, 7th and 8th ribs broken under the external injury said above.
Beneath, he found the pleura and the right lung lacerated. All the four
chambers of the heart were empty. He found 2 lbs of free blood in
thoracic cavity. The upper lobe of the liver was lacerated. Right side
of the diaphragm also was lacerated. The stomach was empty. The
intestines had faecal matter and gas. In the thorax Dr. Dubey had
found a piece of wadding and 20 small shots respectively Exc.1 and 2.
14. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record came to
the conclusion that the FIR had been lodged most promptly at about
9.30 p.m. on the same date naming all the four accused. The High
Court doubted the FIR and labeled the same to be ante-timed or ante-
dated. Deposition of Constable Sughar Singh (PW.9) before the court
revealed that the dead body had been handed over to him for the
purpose of post-mortem on 17.10.1979 at 8 a.m. after having
panchnama and sealing thereof, he reached Fatehgarh Police line
1
along with Constable Ram Chand in a Tonga and got the entry made
in the Rojnamcha. Post-mortem was conducted on 18-10-1979 at
about noon on his identification of the dead body. The dead body
remained in sealed condition throughout and nobody had any occasion
to touch it. Record further reveals that Constable Sughar Singh
(PW.9) was not cross-examined by any of the respondents accused
nor any such question had been put to Dr. A.K. Dubey (PW.2) who
had conducted the post-mortem in this regard. According to Dr.
Dubey, Sri Ram could have died on 16.10.1979 at about 5-7 p.m. He
has not been cross-examined as to under what circumstances the post-
mortem could not have been conducted at an earlier point of time.
15. The High Court has believed the theory put forward by the
defence that the guns looted from the victims had been recovered
from the dacoits who were killed in an encounter on 14-15 November,
1979 in Etah District. Therefore, there had been some manipulation
in the prosecution’s case. None of the respondents accused had taken
this defence in their statement under 313 Cr.P.C. Naresh, respondent
no.1 had stated that he was not aware of the same. When a specific
question was put to him he replied that he had also heard that in an
encounter 6 dacoits had been killed in District Etah and some arms
1
and ammunitions had been recovered from them. He had not stated
anywhere that the said arms and ammunitions had been looted by
those dacoits or had been recovered from them. This suggestion was
also put to Balak Ram (PW.5) when examined on 30.8.1980 and he
has stated that he had not been aware that their rifle and gun had been
recovered from the dacoits killed in an encounter in District Etah. In
fact, Inspector Charanpal Singh (PW.11) had deposed first time on
11.11.1980 that 6 dacoits had been killed in an encounter in District
Etah and some arms and ammunitions were recovered from them and
out of the said recovered arms, namely, rifle – Ex.7, gun – Ex.8 and
some ammunitions – Ex.9 were produced in the court.
16. The High Court has doubted the case of the prosecution for
non-recovery of the arms from the respondents accused. The High
Court failed to appreciate that as the incident occurred on 16.10.1979
and none of these accused were traceable, the Investigating Officer
filed an application for initiating proceedings under Sections 82-83
Cr.P.C. on 21.10.1979. Proceedings of attachment of immovable
property were drawn on 25.10.1979. In consequence thereof, two
accused surrendered in the court on 25.10.1979 and the remaining two
surrendered on 29.10.1979. Meanwhile, S.I. Brijendra Singh (PW.7),
1
the I.O. stood transferred to another police station and the
investigation could not be carried out smoothly. Thus, such a ground
would not be sufficient to discredit the prosecution case.
17. The High Court has given undue weightage to the suggestion
made by defence that Surjan Singh, Inspector of U.P. Police, brother
of Balak Ram (PW.5) had been an instrument to the manipulation of
the record, though such a suggestion was denied by S.I. Brijendra
Singh (PW.7), the I.O., stating that Surjan Singh did not meet him on
17.10.1979, but he had met him at a later stage but he could not give
the exact date of meeting. The High Court had unnecessarily doubted
his statement without realising that his statement had been recorded
in the court on 30.8.1980 after about 11 months. The High Court has
given undue importance to the minor contradictions in the statement
of Subedar (PW.1) and Balak Ram (PW.5) as one of them had stated
that the I.O. reached the place of occurrence at 10.15 p.m. and another
has stated that he reached about mid night. The incident occurred in
mid October 1979. This is the time when the winter starts and in such
a fact-situation no person is supposed to keep record of exact time
particularly in a rural area. Everybody deposes according to his
estimate. More so, the statement had been recorded after a long lapse
1
of time. Therefore, a margin of 1-1/2 hours remained merely a trivial
issue. The High Court had taken a very serious note of the statement
of Balak Ram (PW.5) in respect of the first incident wherein he had
stated that Naresh, the accused, had initially abused him and then
beaten him with danda but in the FIR he had stated that accused
Naresh had given blow with butt-end of the spade. There was minor
contradiction in the statements of Subedar (PW.1) and Balak Ram
(PW.5) in respect of the first incident of the same date and minor
variations in their statements which persuaded the High Court to
disbelieve the presence of Subedar (PW.1) in the morning incident.
18. The trial Court had taken note of the first incident that occurred
in the morning and considered the same in correct prospective, that in
the morning incident Balak Ram (PW.5) got an injury on his arm as
has been found by Dr. R.C. Gupta (PW.3) and not on the head. The
statement made by Balak Ram (PW.5) may not be correct in this
regard for the reason that he could not remember that he got the injury
on his arm and not on the head. This version is duly supported by the
NCR shown by (Ex. Ka.6). Had there been any concoction in the said
NCR (Ex. Ka.6), either with the police personnel at Kampil Police
Station or at the behest of Inspector Surjan Singh, brother of Balak
1
Ram (PW.5), then there could not have been any discrepancy in the
contents thereof. So far as this minor contradiction was concerned,
Constable Shiv Nath Singh (PW.6) was not at all cross-examined in
this respect. No suggestion was put to Constable Shiv Nath Singh
(PW.6), who was examined much later than Subedar (PW.1) in this
regard. In respect of the first incident S.I. Brijendra Singh (PW.7), the
I.O., has stated that he had seen the pits made by Naresh, accused on
the western side of the Chak Road in front of his house. It had not
been a suggestion of any person that the pits had been made by any
person from the complainant party. Presence of the pits was an
important circumstance supporting the prosecution version so far as
the morning incident was concerned and the High Court erred gravely
not taking note of this specific finding by the trial Court.
19. The High Court had doubted the prosecution case that if in
respect of the first incident NCR had been lodged in the morning, why
had the complainant party stayed at Kampil for the whole day? The
trial Court had recorded a finding after scrutiny of the evidence that
12 rowdy persons had been taken into custody and that the police
officers of that police station remained pre-occupied with that
1
particular dispute and so not a single constable was available to come
with the complainants.
20. The High Court also fell in error that whilst reaching from the
place of occurrence to the police station, the complainant party
covered the distance in one hour but while coming back in the evening
they had taken a longer time. The time gap was not so much that it
could give rise to any kind of suspicion. Such a trivial issue could not
have been a ground for acquitting the accused. More so, no question
in this regard was put to either of the star witnesses, when they were
cross-examined.
21. The High Court has further found a material contradiction in
the statements of Subedar (PW.1) and Balak Ram (PW.5) and had
made this one of the grounds for the acquittal of the accused
observing:
“To meet the situation Balak Ram claims that he
fell unconscious little after receipt of his injury,
whereas Subedar Singh stated that he immediately
fell unconscious. Therefore, it is not possible for
him to see and notice his assailants. For the said
contradictions the testimony of this witness cannot
be given adequate weightage.”
1
In the facts of this case, time gap could be only of few minutes,
thus, it was not even worth taking note of by the High Court.
22. The High Court has doubted the prosecution version also on the
ground that Subedar (PW.1) did not suffer any injury in the said
incident without appreciating his deposition that all of them were
walking at some distance and he was about 7-8 steps behind Sri Ram
(deceased) and Balak Ram (PW.5) and immediately after seeing the
accused persons, he ran backward. After taking 15-20 steps, he saw
that persons working in the surrounding fields had started coming and
then he stopped, and saw the accused taking away the arms and
ammunitions from Sri Ram (deceased) and Balak Ram (PW.5).
23. The High Court has disbelieved Balak Ram (PW.5), who had
suffered the gun shot injuries. His evidence could not have been
brushed aside by the High Court without assigning cogent reasons.
Mere contradictions on trivial matters could not render his deposition
untrustworthy.
The evidence of an injured witness must be given due
weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be
doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and
it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely
1
implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its
own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and
place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was
present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured
witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not
like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to
implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence.
Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless
there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of
major contradictions and discrepancies therein. [Vide: Jarnail Singh
v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719; Balraje @ Trimbak v. State
of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673; and Abdul Sayed v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259].
24. The High Court disbelieved both the witnesses Subedar (PW.1)
and Balak Ram (PW.5) as being closely related to the deceased and
for not examining any independent witnesses. In a case like this, it
may be difficult for the prosecution to procure an independent
witness, wherein the accused had killed one person at the spot and
seriously injured the other. The independent witness may not muster
the courage to come forward and depose against such accused. A mere
1
relationship cannot be a factor to affect credibility of a witness.
Evidence of a witness cannot be discarded solely on the ground of his
relationship with the victim of the offence. The plea relating to
relatives’ evidence remains without any substance in case the
evidence has credence and it can be relied upon. In such a case the
defence has to lay foundation if plea of false implication is made and
the Court has to analyse the evidence of related witnesses carefully to
find out whether it is cogent and credible. [Vide Jarnail Singh
(supra), Vishnu & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 10 SCC 477;
and Balraje @ Trimbak (supra)].
25. In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur
in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation,
namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental
disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where
the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt
about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make
material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence
cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions,
inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters
1
which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be
made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety.
The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness
and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence.
“Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be
one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when
the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the
touchstone of credibility.” Therefore, mere marginal variations in the
statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the
same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness
earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material
particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or
core of the prosecution’s case, render the testimony of the witness
liable to be discredited. [Vide: State Represented by Inspector of
Police v. Saravanan & Anr., AIR 2009 SC 152; Arumugam v.
State, AIR 2009 SC 331; Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, (2009) 11 SCC 334; and Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal
Gupta & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, JT 2010 (12) SC 287].
2
26. The High Court has also fallen into error in giving significance
to a trivial issue, namely, that in respect of the morning incident all
the accused had not been named in the complaint/NCR.
It is settled legal proposition that FIR is not an encyclopedia of
the entire case. It may not and need not contain all the details. Naming
of the accused therein may be important but not naming of the
accused in FIR may not be a ground to doubt the contents thereof in
case the statement of the witness is found to be trustworthy. The court
has to determine after examining the entire factual scenario whether a
person has participated in the crime or has falsely been implicated.
The informant fully acquainted with the facts may lack necessary skill
or ability to reproduce details of the entire incident without anything
missing from this. Some people may miss even the most important
details in narration. Therefore, in case the informant fails to name a
particular accused in the FIR, this ground alone cannot tilt the balance
of the case in favour of the accused. [Vide: Rohtash v. State of
Rajasthan, (2006) 12 SCC 64; and Ranjit Singh & Ors. v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, JT 2010 12 SC 167].
27. We are fully aware of the fact that we are entertaining the
appeal against the order of acquittal. Thus, the Court has to scrutinize
2
the facts of the case cautiously and knowing the parameters fixed by
this Court in this regard.
Every accused is presumed to be innocent unless his guilt is
proved. The presumption of innocence is a human right subject to the
statutory exceptions. The said principle forms the basis of criminal
jurisprudence in India. The law in this regard is well settled that while
dealing with a judgment of acquittal, an appellate court must consider
the entire evidence on record so as to arrive at a finding as to whether
the views of the trial court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable.
An appellate court must also consider whether the court below has
placed the burden of proof incorrectly or failed to take into
consideration any admissible evidence or had taken into consideration
evidence brought on record contrary to law? In exceptional cases,
whether there are compelling circumstances and the judgment in
appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with
the order of acquittal. So, in order to warrant interference by the
appellate court, a finding of fact recorded by the court below must be
outweighed evidence or such finding if outrageously defies logic as to
suffer from the vice of irrationality. [Vide: Babu v. State of Kerala,
2
(2010) 9 SCC 189; and Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambudayal Gupta &
Ors. (supra)].
28. The instant case is required to be examined in the totality of the
circumstances and in the light of the aforesaid legal propositions. The
Court has to strike a balance in the interest of all the parties
concerned. Thus, there is an obligation on the court neither to give a
long latitude to the prosecution, nor construe the law in favour of the
accused. In view of the aforesaid analysis of facts and evidence on
record, we reach the inescapable conclusion that the High Court has
gravely erred in discarding the evidence of Subedar (PW.1) and Balak
Ram (P.W.5) as a result of merely being relatives of the deceased, Sri
Ram. The High Court further fell into error in not giving due
weightage to the deposition of Balak Ram (P.W.5), a stamped witness,
who had suffered gun shot injuries. The High Court made too much of
insignificant discrepancies, which were made the basis for acquittal.
Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by
the High Court are perverse and cannot be sustained in the eyes of
law.
2
29. Thus, the appeal is, accordingly, allowed. Judgment and order
dated 19.5.2004 passed by the High Court is hereby set aside and the
judgment and order of the trial court dated 9.12.1980 passed in
Sessions Trial No. 181 and 182 of 1980 convicting the respondents
under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 379/37 of IPC and the sentences so
imposed, is restored. As the respondents have been acquitted by the
High Court, the copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Farukhabad, to take the respondents into custody and send
them to jail to serve the unserved part of the sentence.
………………………J.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
………………………J.
(Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)
New Delhi,
March 8, 2011
2
2