BASTIRAM Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Bench: RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI,MADAN B. LOKUR
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000758-000758 / 2004
Diary number: 1684 / 2004
Advocates: AMBHOJ KUMAR SINHA Vs
MILIND KUMAR
Page 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 758 OF 2004
Bastiram ....Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan ....Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 403 OF 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5240 of 2004)
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 759 OF 2004
J U D G M E N T
Madan B. Lokur, J.
Leave granted in S.L.P. (Crl.) No.5240 of 2004.
2. The question for our consideration is whether there is any
evidence that would warrant setting aside the conviction of the
appellants by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court. In our
opinion, the answer is in the negative and we uphold the conviction of
Crl. Appeal No. 758 of 2004 etc. Page 1 of 23
Page 2
the appellants for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 thereof.
The facts: 3. On 20th May, 1995 at about 7.15 p.m. Tara Chand, Station House
Officer in Police Station Nokha, District Bikaner in Rajasthan received a
cryptic telephonic message. The message was from an unknown
person and was to the effect that in Ward No.2 in village Nokha, Ram
Pratap and Sohan Lal (PW-4) who are real brothers were involved in a
fight. Several others had joined in and firearms, lathis, barchis and
other weapons were used in the fight. It was also informed that two
persons had died in the incident.
4. Tara Chand reduced the information in writing in a roznamcha
and then reached the place of occurrence along with some other police
officers.
5. At the place of occurrence, Sohan Lal gave a parcha bayan to
Tara Chand at about 8.30 p.m. Sohan Lal stated that his brother
Genaram (PW-1) had installed a dharam kanta or a weighbridge on
Roda Road and about five years later Ram Pratap also installed a
weighbridge on the same road. As a result of the installation of the
Crl. Appeal No. 758 of 2004 etc. Page 2 of 23
Page 3
second weighbridge, the relationship between Genaram and Ram
Pratap was not cordial.
6. Sohan Lal further stated that sometime between 6.30 p.m. and
6.45 p.m., he and Om Prakash (PW-3 – son of Genaram) were sitting in
a temple near his (Sohan Lal’s) house. At that time his two sons,
namely, Ram Narain (hereafter referred to as deceased Ram Narain)
and Mohanlal (hereafter referred to as deceased Mohanlal) came out of
his house and went towards Ram Pratap’s house. When they were near
his house, they were attacked by the four appellants, that is, Bastiram,
Mohan Lal, Ramnarayan and Banwari. These four appellants were
armed with pistols. Also participating in the attack were Mangilal,
Ramjus, Hariram, Ram Pratap, Bhagwanaram and Maniram who were
armed with either a barchi or a jayee or a sela.
7. Sohan Lal further stated that his two sons, deceased Ram Narain
and deceased Mohanlal, were surrounded by the ten persons aforesaid
who made a hue and cry that they should be killed. Thereupon Om
Prakash and Sohan Lal’s two other sons, namely, Rameshwarlal
(hereafter referred to as deceased Rameshwarlal) and Rajaram (PW-
10) rushed towards the site.
8. It was further stated by Sohan Lal that appellant Banwari fired at
Crl. Appeal No. 758 of 2004 etc. Page 3 of 23
Page 4
deceased Mohanlal; appellant Bastiram fired at deceased
Rameshwarlal; appellant Ramnarayan fired at injured Rajaram and
appellant Mohan Lal fired at deceased Ram Narain.
9. Sohan Lal also stated that deceased Mohanlal died on the spot
while injured Rajaram, Ram Narain and Rameshwarlal were taken to a
hospital. Ram Narain and Rameshwarlal later succumbed to their
injuries.
10. Before his death on 22nd May, 1995 deceased Rameshwarlal gave
a dying declaration on 21st May, 1995. In his dying declaration
deceased Rameshwarlal stated that appellant Bastiram had fired at
deceased Ram Narain who died on the spot. He stated that appellant
Bastiram also fired at deceased Mohanlal and appellant Mohan Lal fired
at him (deceased Rameshwarlal). Deceased Rameshwarlal also stated
that appellant Banwari fired at Maniram and that his brother
Goverdhan also arrived at the scene and Maniram Patwari fired at him.
The dying declaration is clearly at variance with the parcha bayan of
Sohan Lal.
11. That Maniram (from Ram Pratap’s group) died on the spot is not in
dispute. In this regard, we were given a copy of the judgment and
order dated 7th September, 2001 in Sessions Case No. 21 of 2001
Crl. Appeal No. 758 of 2004 etc. Page 4 of 23
Page 5
wherein the State had accused Sohan Lal and members of his group of
having murdered Maniram and causing injuries to others. In the
decision, Sohan Lal and all the members of his group were acquitted by
giving them the benefit of doubt. That decision seems to have attained
finality.
Decision of the Trial Court: 12. On these broad facts the four appellants and the other five
persons from Ram Pratap’s group were tried for various offences under
the Indian Penal Code. The Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track)
Bikaner delivered his judgment in Sessions Case No.24/2001 on 7th
September, 2001 in which he held the appellants guilty, inter alia, of
an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the
IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and fine. They were
also convicted of an offence punishable under Section 307 read with
Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five
years and fine. The remaining accused were acquitted.
13. The Trial Court found that there were four eye witnesses to the
occurrence, namely, Om Prakash (PW-3), Sohan Lal (PW-4), Jagdish
(PW-9) and Rajaram (PW-10). This was not questioned before the High
Court and was not disputed before us also.
Crl. Appeal No. 758 of 2004 etc. Page 5 of 23
Page 6
14. The Trial Judge held that appellant Banwari had caused a firearm
injury to deceased Mohanlal resulting in his death; appellant
Ramnarayan had caused a firearm injury to Rajaram and appellant
Bastiram had caused a firearm injury to deceased Rameshwarlal
resulting in his death. It was found that amongst other injuries,
deceased Ram Narain had received a gun fire injury on his thigh. It
was held that the gun fire injury was inflicted by appellant Mohan Lal.
The Trial Judge noted that the post-mortem report of deceased Ram
Narain revealed that there was no firearm injury on his body, but he
preferred to rely on the eye witness evidence rather than on the
medical report.
15. The Trial Judge did not place any reliance on the dying declaration
given by deceased Rameshwarlal, since it did not bear a certificate of
fitness given by the doctor at the time of its recording. The Trial Judge
noted that the contents of the dying declaration were at variance with
the contents of the parcha bayan given by Sohan Lal and that there
were some discrepancies in the dying declaration which could,
therefore, not be depended upon for its truthfulness. However, the
Trial Judge noted that the dying declaration was evidence for the
presence of the appellants at the place of occurrence.
Crl. Appeal No. 758 of 2004 etc. Page 6 of 23
Page 7
16. The appellants produced their defence evidence. Appellant
Bastiram produced evidence to the effect that on the fateful day, he
had gone to Bikaner in his capacity as Patwari in Nokha village at about
11 a.m. He reached Bikaner at about 1 p.m. and met several people
not only in connection with his official work but also in connection with
a State level conference of Patwar Sangh to be held on 8-9 June, 1995
at Alwar. He left Bikaner at about 7.30 p.m. and returned to Nokha at
about 9.30 p.m. As such, he was not present when the incident took
place. Some of the persons whom appellant Bastiram met at Bikaner
were produced as defence witnesses including Phoola Ram (DW-1) who
stated that after meeting him, appellant Bastiram left for the house of
Gopal Krishan at about 5.45 p.m; Mangi Lal (DW-2) stated that
appellant Bastiram was with him and at about 5.30 p.m. he went away
with Phoola Ram. Gopal Krishan (DW-3) stated that appellant Bastiram
had come to his house at about 6 p.m. on 20th May, 1995 and left at
about 6.30 p.m. Inder Chand (DW-7) stated that between 5.30 and 6
p.m. appellant Bastiram met Hanuman Singh, Sub Divisional
Magistrate, South Bikaner. Hanuman Singh (DW-9) stated that
appellant Bastiram had come to his chamber with Inder Chand at about
5.15 or 5.30 p.m. in regard to organizing a farewell party on his
(Hanuman Singh’s) transfer. Jagdish (DW-10) is the son of Gopal Crl. Appeal No. 758 of 2004 etc. Page 7 of 23
Page 8
Krishan and he stated that appellant Bastiram had come to his father’s
house at about 6 p.m. on 20th May, 1995 and he stayed there for about
half an hour. Jagdish also stated that he had gone to see off appellant
Bastiram at Ambedkar Circle.
17. Rajender Kumar Sharma appeared in the witness box as DW-11.
He was working as Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate
at Bikaner. He stated that he had recorded the dying declaration of
deceased Rameshwarlal on 21st May, 1995. He also stated that before
recording the dying declaration a Fitness Certificate was obtained from
the doctor on duty which is mentioned at ‘E’ to ‘F’ in the dying
declaration. In his cross-examination this witness stated that deceased
Rameshwarlal was fit to make a statement.
18. Umesh Joshi (DW-12) was working as Additional Superintendent of
Police, CID (CB) in Jaipur. He had conducted investigations in the case
and had sent a Factual Report to the Superintendent of Police of CID
(CB) Rajasthan, Jaipur in which he opined that the involvement of
appellant Bastiram in the occurrence had not been established.
19. Similarly, appellant Mohan Lal also produced defence witnesses to
prove that he was not at the place of occurrence on the fateful day.
Crl. Appeal No. 758 of 2004 etc. Page 8 of 23
Page 9
The evidence led by both these appellants was considered by the Trial
Judge but rejected.
Decision of the High Court: 20. Feeling aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the
appellants preferred Criminal Appeal No.798 of 2001 in the Rajasthan
High Court while the State of Rajasthan preferred Criminal Appeal
No.528 of 2002 against the acquittal of the other five accused.
21. By a judgment and order dated 9th September, 2003 the High Court
upheld the conviction of the four appellants and dismissed the appeal
filed by the State of Rajasthan against the acquittal of the remaining
five accused persons.1
22. The High Court confirmed the conclusions of the Trial Judge. It
was held that appellant Bastiram had caused a firearm injury leading
to the death of Rameshwarlal; appellant Banwari had also caused a
firearm injury leading to the death of Mohanlal; appellant Mohan Lal
had caused a firearm injury on the thigh of deceased Ram Narain and
appellant Ramnarayan had caused a firearm injury on Rajaram.
23. The High Court was of the view that even though the medical
evidence showed that deceased Ram Narain had not received a
1 The decision of the High Court is reported as MANU/RH/0542/2003
Crl. Appeal No. 758 of 2004 etc. Page 9 of 23
Page 10
firearm injury, the ocular evidence to the contrary was to be preferred
since that was reliable. Reliance was placed on Suraj Pal v. State of
U.P.2 Alternatively, it was held that even if deceased Ram Narain had
not received any gunshot injury, the fact is that appellant Mohan Lal
was armed with a pistol and it could safely be concluded that he
shared a common intention with the other accused persons thereby
attracting Section 34 of the IPC for the purposes of confirming his
conviction for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
24. The four appellants filed three appeals in this Court being Criminal
Appeal No.758 of 2004, Criminal Appeal No.759 of 2004 and Criminal
Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5240 of 2004.
Presence of appellant Bastiram: 25. Insofar as the appeal filed by appellant Bastiram is concerned, the
principal submission before us was to the effect that there is a
reasonable doubt whether he was at all involved in the incident.
Several factors were brought to our notice in this regard.
26. Firstly, it was submitted that the evidence given by the four eye
witnesses suggests that appellant Bastiram shot deceased
Rameshwarlal. However, in his dying declaration deceased
2 1994 Supp (1) SCC 528
Crl. Appeal No. 758 of 2004 etc. Page 10 of 23
Page 11
Rameshwarlal does not say that he was shot by appellant Bastiram.
According to the dying declaration, deceased Ram Narain was shot by
appellant Bastiram and he (deceased Rameshwarlal) received a
gunshot injury from appellant Mohan Lal.
27. The Trial Judge partially rejected deceased Rameshwarlal’s dying
declaration because it was too much at variance with the eye witness
account and it was doubtful whether he was fit to make a statement.
The dying declaration was accepted only for the purpose that it
confirmed the presence of the appellants including appellant Bastiram
at the place of occurrence. We do not see any perversity in this
conclusion of the Trial Judge, confirmed by the High Court.
28. Secondly, it was submitted that during the investigation, a fact
finding report was tendered by Umesh Joshi (DW-12) to the
Superintendent of Police of CID (CB) Rajasthan, Jaipur and it was
marked as Exhibit ‘D-51’.The report concludes that the involvement of
appellant Bastiram in the incident was not proved. It was submitted
that this exhibit was not considered either by the Trial Court or by the
High Court while convicting appellant Bastiram.
29. The fact finding report is only another piece of evidence and it has
to be read along with the statement of the defence witnesses which
Crl. Appeal No. 758 of 2004 etc. Page 11 of 23
Page 12
clearly brings out, and this has not been doubted, that appellant
Bastiram had in fact gone to Bikaner on that day for some official work.
The only question was about the approximate time when he left
Bikaner to return to Nokha.
30. On the basis of the statements made by the defence witnesses it
is not possible to accurately state when appellant Bastiram left
Bikaner, but he was certainly there till about 5.00 or 5.15 p.m. if not a
little later. Information about the incident at Nokha was received by
Tara Chand in Police Station Nokha at about 7.15 p.m. meaning
thereby that the incident had taken place a short while before that. As
per the parcha bayan given by Sohan Lal the incident took place
between 6.30 and 6.45 p.m. There is therefore a window of about one
hour and thirty or forty-five minutes between the time of appellant
Bastiram’s departure from Bikaner and his arrival at Nokha. It is,
therefore, quite possible, given the flexibility of time and a lack of
exactitude that appellant Bastiram was present when the incident took
place and as testified by the eye witnesses.
31. The Trial Court rejected the evidence of the defence witnesses
with regard to the absence of appellant Bastiram on three grounds:
Firstly, there was no occasion for him to remain in Bikaner after office
Crl. Appeal No. 758 of 2004 etc. Page 12 of 23
Page 13
hours, that is, after 5.00 p.m. This may not be a good enough reason
per se for rejecting the testimony of the defence witnesses. But a
reasonable conclusion can be drawn on the basis of the material on
record that appellant Bastiram was in Bikaner till about 5.00 or 5.15
p.m. but this is of no consequence. Secondly, the Trial Court also
noted some discrepancies in the evidence of the defence witnesses
with regard to the timings given by the various defence witnesses.
These are minor discrepancies and, as rightly noted by the Trial Court,
no person keeps an eye on the clock or notes the time of meeting. It is
for this reason that some flexibility in the timings must be given.
Thirdly, since appellant Bastiram was the President of the Patwar
Sangh at Nokha and the defence witnesses were either Patwaris or
related to the Revenue Department, appellant Bastiram could have
influenced them on account of being a leader. This may be a real
possibility considering the fact that though appellant Bastiram was
named in the parcha bayan as one of those armed with a pistol and
who caused the death of deceased Rameshwarlal, he was in fact
arrested about two and a half years later on 21st January, 1998.
Cumulatively considered, the reasons given by the Trial Judge for
rejecting the testimony of the defence witnesses are adequate.
Crl. Appeal No. 758 of 2004 etc. Page 13 of 23
Page 14
32. In any event, what is perhaps more important is the cogent and
consistent eye witness testimony relating to the presence of appellant
Bastiram. This cannot be simply discarded on the basis of possible
guesswork by the defence witnesses about the timings of the meetings
that appellant Bastiram had in Bikaner. In this regard, the conduct of
appellant Bastiram is also significant. He produced a copy of his
travelling allowance bill and daily diary which showed that he left
Bikaner at about 7.30 p.m. The Trial Judge noted that both these
documents were prepared after the incident and in the daily diary
(Exhibit D-52) it is recorded that appellant Bastiram met Hanuman
Singh (DW-9) in connection with a party and left Bikaner at about 7.30
p.m. and arrived at Nokha at 9.30 p.m. None of the defence witnesses
support the case of appellant Bastiram that he left Bikaner at 7.30 p.m.
It is quite clear that appellant Bastiram manufactured this evidence
with a view to cover his tracks when there was no need for him to do
so, assuming his witnesses were speaking the truth.
33. Under the circumstances, on a consideration of the evidence on
record there is no doubt that appellant Bastiram was present when the
incident occurred and, as stated by the eye witnesses, participated in
Crl. Appeal No. 758 of 2004 etc. Page 14 of 23
Page 15
it. We see no reason to upset the concurrent finding of fact in this
regard by the Trial Court and the High Court.
Other appellants: 34. There is also overwhelming evidence given by the eye witnesses
about the use of firearms by appellant Ramnarayan, appellant Mohan
Lal and appellant Banwari. The evidence of the eye witnesses in
regard to these appellants is consistent and we see no reason to differ
with the concurrent findings arrived at by the Trial Court as well as the
High Court. Little was said by learned counsel disputing their
involvement.
35. It was submitted that Maniram, one of the persons belonging to
Ram Pratap’s group was also killed in the incident and there is no
explanation for the cause of his death. It was submitted that it is
necessary for the prosecution to explain any injuries sustained by the
accused party. Nothing further need be said on this in view of the
benefit of doubt, as mentioned above, given to Sohan Lal’s group in
Sessions Case No. 21 of 2001. Under the circumstances, we are of the
opinion that the appellants cannot take advantage of the death of
Maniram or injuries caused to other members of their group in the
clash.
Crl. Appeal No. 758 of 2004 etc. Page 15 of 23
Page 16
Gunshot injury on deceased Ram Narain:
36. Finally, it was submitted that according to the post mortem report
and the evidence given by the doctor no firearm injury was found on
the body of deceased Ram Narain. However, the ocular testimony is to
the effect that deceased Ram Narain was shot at by appellant Mohan
Lal injuring him and thereby causing his death. It was submitted that
the Trial Judge and the High Court erroneously gave primacy to the
ocular evidence disregarding the medical evidence.
37. The question before us, therefore, is whether the “medical
evidence” should be believed or whether the testimony of the eye
witnesses should be preferred. There is no doubt that ocular evidence
should be accepted unless it is completely negated by the medical
evidence.3 This principle has more recently been accepted in
Gangabhavani v. Rajapati Venkat Reddy.4
38. The expression “medical evidence” compendiously refers to the
facts stated by the doctor either in the injury report or in the post
mortem report or during his oral testimony plus the opinion expressed
by the doctor on the basis of the facts stated. For example, an injury 3 Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259 following State of Haryana v. Bhagirath, (1999) 5 SCC 96 and Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, (1983) 2 SCC 174 4 AIR 2013 SC 3681
Crl. Appeal No. 758 of 2004 etc. Page 16 of 23
Page 17
on the skull or the leg is a fact recorded by the doctor. Whether the
injury caused the death of the person is the opinion of the doctor. As
noted in State of Haryana v. Bhagirath5 on the same set of facts,
two doctors may have a different opinion. Therefore, the opinion of a
particular doctor is not final or sacrosanct.
39. What about the facts recorded by a doctor – are they sacrosanct?
In Kapildeo Mandal v. State of Bihar6 the facts found by the doctor
were preferred over the eye witness testimony. The ocular evidence
was to the effect that the deceased suffered firearm injuries. However,
the doctor conducting the post mortem examination stated that he did
not find any indication of any firearm injury on the person of the
deceased. No pellets, bullets or any cartridge were found in any of the
wounds. Accepting the “medical evidence” on facts, it was observed
that,
“[T]he medical evidence is to the effect that there were no firearm injuries on the body of the deceased, whereas the eyewitnesses’ version is that the appellant-accused were carrying firearms and the injuries were caused by the firearms. In such a situation and circumstance, the medical evidence will assume importance while appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution by the court and will have priority over the ocular version and can be used to repel the testimony of the eyewitnesses as it goes to the root of the matter having an effect to repel conclusively the eyewitnesses’ version to be true.”
5 (1999) 5 SCC 96 6 (2008) 16 SCC 99
Crl. Appeal No. 758 of 2004 etc. Page 17 of 23
Page 18
40. Similarly, a fact stated by a doctor in a post mortem report could
be rejected by a Court relying on eye witness testimony, though this
would be quite infrequent. In Dayal Singh v. State of Uttaranchal7
the post mortem report and the oral testimony of the doctor who
conducted that examination was that no internal or external injuries
were found on the body of the deceased. This Court rejected the
“medical evidence” and upheld the view of the Trial Court (and the
High Court) that the testimony of the eye witnesses supported by other
evidence would prevail over the post mortem report and testimony of
the doctor. It was held,
[T]he trial court has rightly ignored the deliberate lapses of the investigating officer as well as the post-mortem report prepared by Dr C.N. Tewari. The consistent statement of the eyewitnesses which were fully supported and corroborated by other witnesses, and the investigation of the crime, including recovery of lathis, inquest report, recovery of the pagri of one of the accused from the place of occurrence, immediate lodging of FIR and the deceased succumbing to his injuries within a very short time, establish the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. These lapses on the part of PW 3 [doctor] and PW 6 [investigating officer] are a deliberate attempt on their part to prepare reports and documents in a designedly defective manner which would have prejudiced the case of the prosecution and resulted in the acquittal of the accused, but for the correct approach of the trial court to do justice and ensure that the guilty did not go scot-free. The evidence of the eyewitness which was reliable and worthy of credence has justifiably been relied upon by the court.”
7 (2012) 8 SCC 263
Crl. Appeal No. 758 of 2004 etc. Page 18 of 23
Page 19
41. An opinion given by a doctor, based on the facts recorded on an
examination of a victim of a crime, could be rejected by relying on
cogent and trustworthy eye witness testimony. In Mange v. State of
Haryana8 an eye witness to a rape stated that the offence was
committed on a particular day and at a particular time. However, the
lady doctor who examined the victim was of the
opinion that the offence was committed two days earlier. This Court did
not accept the opinion and preferred to rely on the eye witness
account holding, inter alia, that
“It is difficult for any medical expert to give the exact duration of time when the rape was committed. More particularly when we have the evidence of PW 4 [eye witness] as to the time and date of the occurrence, the medical evidence can hardly be relied upon to falsify the evidence of the eyewitness because the medical evidence is guided by various factors based on guess and certain calculations.”
42. This being the position, insofar as the injury to deceased Ram
Narain is concerned, Dr. D.K. Purohit (PW-18) stated that he had
conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body. He
described the injuries on the body and in his cross-examination
categorically stated as a matter of fact that “This is correct to suggest
that there was no firearm injury on the body of Ram Narain”. In the
face of this categorical factual assertion, and absent any cogent 8 (1979) 4 SCC 349
Crl. Appeal No. 758 of 2004 etc. Page 19 of 23
Page 20
evidence to the contrary, we cannot accept the conclusion arrived at
by the Trial Court and the High Court that deceased Ram Narain
suffered a gunshot injury. The ocular evidence undoubtedly shows that
deceased Ram Narain was fired at by appellant Mohan Lal, but in view
of the unchallenged testimony of the doctor it is quite clear that the
gunshot did not hit deceased Ram Narain and the cause of his death
was due to the cumulative effect of the various injuries suffered by
him.
43. However, this has no impact on our final conclusion since we are
in the agreement with the Trial Court and the High Court that the
appellants had the common intention of causing the death of deceased
Rameshwarlal, deceased Ram Narain, deceased Mohanlal and injured
Rajaram. That Rajaram survived the injuries is fortuitous. We are also
in agreement with both the Courts that the appellants were armed with
pistols and that they had fired at their victims with the intention of
killing them. We have not been shown anything that would suggest the
contrary.
Conclusion:
Crl. Appeal No. 758 of 2004 etc. Page 20 of 23
Page 21
44. We uphold the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High
Court and confirm the conviction and sentence on the appellants.
There is no merit in these appeals and they are accordingly dismissed.
……………………………….J (Ranjana Prakash Desai)
.……………………………….J (Madan B. Lokur)
New Delhi; February 13, 2014
Crl. Appeal No. 758 of 2004 etc. Page 21 of 23
Page 22
ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.13 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 758 OF 2004
BASTIRAM Appellant (s)
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondent(s)
WITH APPEAL (CRL) NO......./2014 @ SLP(Crl) NO. 5240 of 2004
APPEAL(CRL) NO. 759 of 2004
Date: 13/02/2014 These matters were called on for judgment today.
For Appellant(s) Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha,Adv.
Mr. V.J. Francis, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, AAG
Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv.
Mr. Varun Punia, Adv.
Mr. Harshvardhan Singh Rathore, Adv.
Mr. Milind Kumar,Adv.
Ms. Sandhya Goswami, Adv.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur pronounced the judgment of the
Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai and His
Lordship.
Leave granted in SLP (Crl.) No.5240 of 2004.
The appeals are dismissed, in terms of the signed judgment.
[Gulshan Kumar Arora] [Usha Sharma]
Court Master Court Master
Crl. Appeal No. 758 of 2004 etc. Page 22 of 23
Page 23
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)
Crl. Appeal No. 758 of 2004 etc. Page 23 of 23