Chattisgarh High Court
Narbada Prasad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally signed by 2026:CGHC:19127-DB
ALOK SHARMA
Date: 2026.04.28
10:53:48 +0530 NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 206 of 2023
1 - Narbada Prasad S/o Amarsay Cherwa Aged About 40 Years R/o Lie,
Mouhripara, Police Station Podi, District-Koriya (C.G.)
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through-Station House Officer, Police Of
Police Station-Podi, District Koriya (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate.
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice.
25/04/2026
1. Present is a criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure filed by the appellant against the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.11.2022 passed
by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh,
District Koriya (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 36/2019, whereby the
learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced him in the following manner:-
2
Conviction Sentence
U/s 302 of Indian Penal Life Imprisonment and fine amount
Code. of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment
of fine further RI for 15 days.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 07.03.2019 the complainant Son
Sai lodged Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/1, to the Police Assistance Centre,
Nagpur, Police Station Podi, District Koriya, informing that Up-
Sarpanch Heeradas Vaishnav informed him that at Mauharipara pit, a
person in an injured condition is lying. When he went on the spot, the
injured disclosed his name, Lala alias Suleshwar, a resident of village
Dugla and informed that they came there on a picnic, and four persons
had assaulted him, but he could not disclose the names of the persons
who assaulted him. The Police went there on the spot and then sent
him to the Community Health Centre, Manendragarh. He was medically
examined by Dr. Rakesh Soni PW-28, who gave him his report,
Ex.P/41. He advised an X-ray of the skull and CT-Scan of the head.
After his primary treatment, he was referred to District Hospital
Baikunthpur, where he died on 07.03.2019 during treatment. The death
intimation Ex.P/21 was sent by the doctor to Police Station City Kotwali
Baikunthpur, where unnumbered merg intimation Ex.P/22 was
recorded. Inquest Ex.P/11-A of the dead body of the deceased was
prepared in the presence of the witnesses, and the dead body was
sent for its post-mortem to District Hospital Baikunthpur. Dr. Surendra
Painkra PW-17, conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of the
deceased and gave his report, Ex.P/23. While conducting the post-
mortem, the doctor found the following injuries on the body:
3
Injury:- Stitched wound over vertex of head 5 stitches, 3″
in size, stitch wound over (L) distal end of leg 1½”, 3 stitch,
anterior bleeding, abrasion over Rt forearm 4½ × 1 cm, Rt
lat malleolus 2 × 2 cm, (L) forearm 3″ linear, multiple
abrasion over (R) elbow region, 2 × 2, 1 × 1 cm., contusion
over lateral (Rt) buttock 6″ × 4″ bluish, stab wound over
mid back of hip region 1 × 1 cm.
3. The doctor has opined that the injuries are ante-mortem, caused by a
hard, blunt and pointed object, and head injury is sufficient to cause
death and has also opined that the mode of death is coma due to head
injury, which is homicidal in nature. The merg intimation was
transferred to the jurisdictional police of Police Station Podi, District
Koriya, where numbered merg-intimation Ex.P/27 was recorded. The
FIR Ex.P/40 was registered against an unknown person for the offence
under Section 307 of IPC based on Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/1, lodged by
complainant Son Sai PW-1. Spot Map Ex.P/2 was prepared by the
Police and Ex.P/39 was prepared by the Patwari. The blood stained
and plain soil was seized from the spot vide seizure memo Ex.P/3. One
broken mobile phone and the keys of the motorcycle have also been
seized from the spot vide seizure memo Ex.P/4. During the
investigation, it was disclosed that one Krishna Bai was injured in the
incident, and then she too was sent for her medical examination to
Community Health Centre, Manendragah, where she was being
medically examined by Dr Kiran Kishore PW-19, who gave the MLC
report Ex.P/26 and found a bruise on the right tempro-partial-occipital
area of scalp and another bruise on back of the right knee. The injuries
were simple in nature, caused by a hard and blunt object. From the
statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. of Krishna Bai it also
4
disclosed that the appellant committed marpeet with her and the
deceased Lala and then the appellant was taken into custody on
10.03.2019, and his memorandum statement Ex.P/15 was recorded.
Based on his memorandum statement, one leg of the cot and one
bamboo club having iron nail were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/16,
one mobile phone and a blood-stained gamcha were seized from the
appellant vide seizure memo Ex.P/18. The leg of the cot was sent for
its query report to the doctor, who gave his query report Ex.P/42, in
which he answered that the injuries found on the body of the deceased
could have been caused by the said leg of the cot and for confirmation
of blood, he referred it for its chemical examination. The bamboo club
was also sent for its query report to the doctor, and as per the opinion
of the doctor Ex.P/25, the injury may be caused by the said club and
for confirmation of blood, it was also referred for its chemical
examination. The blood-stained and plain soil, gamcha, leg of the cot
and bamboo club seized from the appellant, full shirt, t-shirt, pant, and
underwear of the deceased were sent for their chemical examination to
Regional FSL Ambikapur, District Surguja, from where report Ex.P/37
was received, and human blood was found on all the sent articles
except the plain soil. ‘O’ group of human blood was found on the blood-
stained soil. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
has been recorded, and after completion of the usual investigation
charge-sheet was filed against the appellant before the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh, for the offence under Section
307, 302 of IPC.
5
4. The case was committed to the Court of Learned Sessions Judge,
Koriya, from where it has been transferred to the learned trial Court for
its trial. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellant
for the offence under Section 307, 302 of IPC. The appellant denied
the charge and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has
examined as many as 28 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has also been
recorded, wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances
appearing against him, pleaded innocence and stated that he has been
falsely implicated in the present case. The appellant did not examine
any defence witness in support of his case.
6. After appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by
the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the
appellant as mentioned herein above, which has been assailed by way
of the present appeal
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution
has failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that
there are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of
the prosecution witnesses, rendering their evidence unreliable. It is
further contended that the case rests primarily on the testimony of the
injured eye-witness, PW-3 Krishna Bai, who was allegedly injured by
the assault made by the appellant, but she turned hostile and has not
supported the prosecution’s case. The dead body of the deceased was
found in a pit far away from the house of the appellant, and from the
6
evidence of the witnesses, it clearly reveals that he was not being
assaulted by the appellant but assaulted by some other person who
came there to enjoy a picnic. The only piece of evidence against the
appellant is the human blood found on the gamcha, the leg of the cot
and the bamboo club allegedly seized from him. In the absence of any
corroborative evidence, the FSL report and the presence of blood are
not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty, particularly when the
prosecution could not establish the blood group of the deceased, as
well as the blood group of the blood found on the clothes seized from
the appellant. There is no evidence on record that the appellant was
last seen with the deceased or that he was having any animosity or
motive to assault him when the injured witness, PW-3 Krishna Bai,
herself is not support the prosecution’s case, the deceased himself
disclosed that he was being assaulted the persons who came in the
picnic the appellant cannot be convicted, therefore, the appeal may be
allowed and the appellant may be acquitted.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the
submissions made on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the
prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It is
contended that the case is based on the testimony of injured
eyewitness PW-3, though she turned hostile, but she, being the wife of
the appellant, has not supported the prosecution’s case. From the
evidence of other witnesses and also from the FSL report. The
involvement of the appellant in the offence in question has been
established, and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted him for the
7
alleged offence. The appeal filed by the appellant has no merit, and the
same is liable to be dismissed.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the rival
submissions advanced, and perused the record of the trial Court with
due circumspection.
10. The homicidal death of the deceased Lala alias Suleshwar has been
duly proved by the prosecution on the basis of the medical evidence of
PW-28/Dr. Rakesh Soni, who medically examined the deceased at
CHC, Manendragarh, found a lacerated wound on the left posterior
parietal region of the head, a lacerated wound on the left leg and a
contusion on the left frontal region of the head and referred for his X-
ray of the skull and CT scan of the head. The homicidal death of the
deceased is also proved by the evidence of PW-17 Dr. Surendra
Painkra, who conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of the
deceased and found injuries on the dead body and opined that the
injuries found on the body of the deceased are ante-mortem, caused
by hard, blunt and pointed object. Head injury is sufficient to cause
death, and opined that the mode of death is coma due to head injury,
and the nature of death is homicidal. In the cross-examination of
witnesses, nothing has been asked by the defence to discredit his
evidence on the nature and mode of death of the deceased. The
evidence of these medical doctors has been supported by the evidence
of PW-8 Feku Ram, who is the witness to the inquest Ex.P/11-A and
also the evidence of PW-16, R. R. Bhagat, who received the death
information of the deceased from the hospital. Nothing on record to
discredit these evidences that the death of the deceased is homicidal
8
in nature and thus we found that the consideration of the learned trial
Court regarding nature and mode of death of the deceased his death
was homicidal in nature is supported by proper appreciation of
evidence.
11. So far as the involvement of the appellant in the offence question is
concerned, the prosecution has mainly relied upon the evidence of
Krishna Bai PW-3, who was the injured witness, but she turned hostile
and has not supported the prosecution’s case. She is the wife of the
appellant and denied about any incident. She also denied by giving her
161 Cr.P.C. statement to the Police.
12. PW-1, Sonsai, was the Sarpanch of Village Lai. He was being informed
by Bindeshwar Prasad that a person was lying in the pit at
Mauharipara, when he went there, the injured informed him that he,
along with his four friends, came there to enjoy a picnic and they threw
him in the pit and went away. He informed the police through mobile
phone, and on his report, Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/1, was recorded. The
witness has also been declared hostile and does not support the
prosecution’s case. In cross-examination, he admitted that the place of
the incident is a picnic spot and the number of persons who used to
visit there. He also admitted that the visitors used to drink liquor there,
and the quarrel between them after consuming liquor usually occurred
there. In his evidence, it has not been established that the appellant is
connected with the offence in any manner.
9
13. PW-2, Amar Sai, is the father of the appellant. He is completely hostile
and does not support the prosecution’s case. He also denied his police
statement, Ex.P/6.
14. PW-4, Ram Sai, is the son of the appellant and also did not support the
prosecution’s case, and completely turned hostile.
15. PW-5 Urmila, is the second wife of the appellant. She also has not
supported the prosecution, and nothing has been stated against the
appellant.
16. PW-6, Rajesh Kumar, is the cousin brother of the deceased Lala alias
Sureshwar. He stated in his evidence that when he was on duty at
CHC, Mandragarh. He saw his brother, who was being taken to the
hospital in an injured condition. When he asked about the incident from
him, he did not disclose anything about the assault. He was shifted to
Baikunthpur hospital, where he died. He too has not stated anything
about the appellant or the assailant who caused injuries to the
deceased.
17. PW-7, Shyam Singh alias Daroga, is the person who went on the spot
when they received information about the incident. He too, has turned
hostile and supported the prosecution’s case.
18. PW-8, Fekuram, is the father of the deceased Lala alias Suleshwar. He
stated in his evidence that when he received information about the
injuries of his son, he also went to Baikunthpur hospital, where he saw
his dead body. On 10.03.2019, the police called him to the place where
his son was found in an injured condition. Where the appellant
10
disclosed that he assaulted the deceased Lala alias Suleshwar inside
his house, and thereafter he ran away from there. He also disclosed
that he saw the deceased Lala chatting with his wife, and for that
reason, he assaulted him. In his cross-examination, he admitted that
he had gone to village Lai after 3 – 4 days of the incident. He
subsequently came to know that his son had gone along with his two
friends. He voluntarily stated that he had gone alone. From the
evidence of this witness, except for the fact that at the place of the
incident, in the presence of the police, the appellant informed that he
assaulted the deceased, nothing has been disclosed by him that
implicates the appellant in the offence in question. He was neither an
eyewitness to the incident nor the witness about living the house by his
son.
19. PW-9, Ranu Sonwani, is the sister of the deceased. She too has stated
that after 3 days, when Nagpur Police called them, they had gone to
the house of the appellant along with the police persons, where the
appellant disclosed that he assaulted the deceased Lala alias
Suleshwar. He also disclosed the reason that the deceased entered his
house; therefore, he assaulted him. His father has suspected that the
injury caused by the rod appeared on the body of the deceased, and
the deceased could not have died from the assault made by the leg of
the cot. In cross-examination, she stated that his brother left the house
at 02:00 pm alone and subsequently, she came to know that two
persons of his own community accompanied him from Biharpur to
Kathautiya. The police have not recorded her statement.
11
20. PW-10, Smt. Ram Bai is the mother of the deceased. She stated in her
evidence that after 3 days of the incident, her husband informed her
that the appellant had admitted before the Police that he had assaulted
her son. In cross-examination, she admitted that on the day when the
deceased left the house, she was not there. She also admitted that
subsequently she came to know that two persons of her own
community accompanied her son, from Biharpur to Kathautiya.
21. PW-11 Heera Das Vaishnav and PW-12 Shri Ram are the villagers of
village Lai. He also saw the injured in a pit and took him out of there.
He also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’s case.
22. PW-13, Samaru Kurre, and PW-14, Sheshnarayan, are the witnesses
to the memorandum Ex.P/15 and seizure memo Ex.P/16 and Ex.P/18.
Though initially they did not support the seizure of the weapon of
offence, but after declaring them hostile, they supported the seizure. In
cross-examination, he admitted that the deceased Suleshwar alias
Lala was his nephew. On the date when the post-mortem of the
deceased was conducted, the police had taken his signature over
various documents, and thereafter, he never visited the police station.
At the time he signed the documents, the appellant Narbada was not
present there.
23. PW-15 Gender Tirkey, PW-16 R. R. Bhagat, PW-18 Dilip Singh, PW-20
Sanjay Bhagat, PW-21 Ramnayan Gupta, PW-22 Arvind Kol, PW-24
Kumar Sai Thakur, PW-26 Samrit Maravi are the police personnel who
conducted part of the investigation and procedural witnesses.
12
24. PW-19, Dr. Kiran Kishor, was medically examined the injured Smt.
Krishna, when she was taken to CHC, Manendragarh. He found certain
injuries on his body and gave his report, Ex.P/26. Since Smt. Krishna
PW-3 have not supported the prosecution’s case; the evidence of this
witness has no significance even if he found certain injuries on the
body of Smt. Krishna Bai PW-3. PW-23, Shivlal, is the witness to the
inquest Ex.P-11-A.
25. PW-25 Sandeep Singh is the Patwari who prepared the spot map
Ex.P/39 and Panchnama Ex.P/8.
26. PW-27, Mahesh Kumar Dubey, is the ward boy who had taken the
hospital memo Ex.P/21 to the Police Station, City Kotwali Baikunthpur.
27. From all this evidence, the prosecution could not establish the
involvement of the appellant in the offence in question. Except for the
record of the memorandum statement in the presence of the police
persons, there is no evidence against the appellant which implicate him
in the alleged offence. The seizure of weapons or clothes is also in
doubt, as the witnesses have signed the document at the police station
on the date when the post-mortem of the body was conducted. Even
otherwise, the memorandum statement is inadmissible in evidence,
and the involvement of the appellant in the offence cannot be held on
the basis of the memorandum statement. The only piece of evidence is
the FSL report in which human blood was found on the gamcha, leg of
the cot and bamboo club allegedly seized from the appellant. When the
seizure of these articles from the appellant itself is suspicious, the
involvement of the appellant by relying on this evidence could not be
13
proper. When the deceased was found in a pit, he was in a position to
talk and disclosed his name, he may have disclosed the name of the
assailants also because it is alleged that the deceased had gone to the
house of the appellant and when he was chatting with the wife of the
appellant the appellant assaulted him and in such position it cannot be
presumed that he could not know the name of the person of whose
wife he was chatting. Non-disclosure of the name of the appellant by
the deceased itself creates a doubt about the prosecution’s case.
28. In the matter of para Surendra Kumar and Another Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh, 2021 (20) SCC 430, the Hon’ble supreme Court has
held in 11 and 12 as under:-
“11. As the case against the appellants is entirely based on
circumstantial evidence, it is necessary to determine whether
the available evidence lead only to the conclusion of guilt and
exclude all contrary hypothesis. The enunciation on the law of
circumstantial evidence stood the test of time since Hanumant
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh1 where Mahajan J., has written
as under:-
“10…………It is well to remember that in cases where
the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to
be drawn should in the first instance be fully
established, and all the facts so established should be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency and they should be
such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one
proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a
chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused and it must be such as to
show that within all human probability the act must
have been done by the accused……………”
12. The nature, character and essential proof required in
criminal cases was discussed in detail by Fazal Ali J in
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra2 and the
proposition of law culled out on circumstantial evidence was
approved in many subsequent judgments and was recently
reiterated by Krishna Murari J., writing the opinion for a three
Judges Bench in Shailendra 1 AIR 1952 SC 343 2 (1984) 4
14
SCC 116 Rajdev Pasvan & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. 3
where it was succinctly laid down as under:-
“17. It is well settled by now that in a case based on
circumstantial evidence the courts ought to have a
conscientious approach and conviction ought to be
recorded only in case all the links of the chain are
complete pointing to the guilt of the accused. Each link
unless connected together to form a chain may suggest
suspicion but the same in itself cannot take place of
proof and will not be sufficient to convict the accused.”
29. In the matter of Nagendra Sah Vs. State of Bihar, 2021 (10) SCC 725
in paragraphs 17 and 18 replying upon the golden principles
enumerated in case Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of
Maharashtra, 1984 (4) SCC 116, the Supreme Court has held as
under:
“17. As the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence,
we may make a useful reference to a leading decision of this
Court on the subject. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda
v. State of Maharashtra2, in paragraph 153, this Court has laid
down five golden principles (Panchsheel) which govern a case
based only on circumstantial evidence. Paragraph 153 reads
thus : –
“153. A close analysis of this decision would show that
the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case
against an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
circumstances concerned ‘must or should’ and not ‘may
be’ established. There is not only a grammatical but a
legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and “must be
or should be proved” as was held by this Court in
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of
Maharashtra where the following observations were
made:
19…..Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must
be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict
and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is
long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.
(2) The facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to
say, they should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis
except the one to be proved, and
15
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability the act must have
been done by the accused.” (emphasis added).
18. Paragraphs 158 to 160 of the said decision are also
relevant which read thus :
“158. It may be necessary here to notice a very
forceful argument submitted by the Additional Solicitor-
General relying on a decision of this Court in
Deonandan Mishra v. State of Bihar, to supplement his
argument that if the defence case is false it would
constitute an additional link so as to fortify the
prosecution case. With due respect to the learned
Additional Solicitor-General we are unable to agree
with the interpretation given by him of the aforesaid
case, the relevant portion of which may be extracted
thus:
9…….But in a case like this where the various
links as started above have been satisfactorily
made out and the circumstances point to the
appellant as the probable assailant, with
reasonable definiteness and in proximity to the
deceased as regards time and situation, . . .
such absence of explanation or false
explanation would itself be an additional link
which completes the chain.”
159. It will be seen that this Court while taking into
account the absence of explanation or a false
explanation did hold that it will amount to be an
additional link to complete the chain but these
observations must be read in the light of what this
Court said earlier, viz., before a false explanation can
be used as additional link, the following essential
conditions must be satisfied :
(1) various links in the chain of evidence led by
the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved,
(2) the said circumstance points to the guilt of the
accused with reasonable definiteness, and
(3) the circumstance is in proximity to the time and
situation.
160. If these conditions are fulfilled only then a court
can use a false explanation or a false defence as an
additional link to lend an assurance to the court and not
otherwise. On the facts and circumstances of the
present case, this does not appear to be such a case.
This aspect of the matter was examined in Shankarlal
case where this Court observed thus:
16
30……..Besides, falsity of defence cannot take
the place of proof of facts which the prosecution
has to establish in order to succeed. A false plea
can at best be considered as an additional
circumstance, if other circumstances point
unfailingly to the guilt of the accused.” (emphasis
added)”
30. It is settled principles of law that prosecution has Burden to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt and where two views are possible,
arising based on the same evidence, the view which is favoruable to
the accused should be taken into consideration and the accused
should be given benefit of doubt. In the matter of Digambar Vaishnav
and Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2019 (4) SCC 522, it has
been held as under :
“19. It is also well-settled principle that in criminal cases, if two
views are possible on evidence adduced in the case, one
binding to the guilt of the accused and the other is to his
innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused,
should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in
cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be
established by circumstantial evidence [See Kali Ram v. State
of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808].
31. Considering the entire facts and evidence available on record and also
the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the
evidence available on record is not sufficient and does not clinch
towards involvement of the appellant in the offence in question. The
injured eye-witness, P.W. 3 Smt. Krishna Bai, who was the star witness
of the prosecution, completely turned hostile. The dead body of the
deceased was found in an open place, far away from the house of the
appellant, and there is no evidence of the last time they were seen
together. Except for the FSL report, there is no other incriminating
evidence against the appellant, which makes him liable for the
commission of the offence; therefore, we are of the considered opinion
that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
17
32. Accordingly, by giving him the benefit of the doubt, the appeal filed by
the appellant is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence is
hereby set aside, and the appellant is acquitted of all the charged
offences.
33. The appellant is reported to have been in jail since 10.03.2019, he
shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
34. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the appellant- Narbada Prasad is directed to
furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the
like amount before the Court concerned 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.
35. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to
the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and
compliance.
Sd/- Sd/-
Sd Sd/- S-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Alok