STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs RAJENDRA .
Bench: SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA,V. GOPALA GOWDA
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000719-000719 / 2010
Diary number: 5921 / 2006
Advocates: ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE Vs
Page 1
1
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.719 OF 2010
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA … APPELLANT
VERSUS
RAJENDRA & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
With
Criminal Appeal No.720 of 2010 (Chandrakanta vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.)
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.
These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 18th
August, 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No.388 of 2005. By the
impugned judgment the High Court held that unless the
prosecution proves that death was suicidal and that the
deceased was treated with cruelty and was harassed by direct
evidence, the presumption under Section 113-A does not apply in
the case and acquitted all the accused-respondents from the
charges under Section 498-A, Section 304-B and Section 306 IPC
all read with Section 34 IPC, thereby reversing the finding of
the Trial Court.
2. Respondents – accused No.1, Shivpujan and accused No.3,
Malti Devi are husband and wife. Accused No.2, Rajendra,
accused No.5, Surendra and accused No.6, Virendra are their
Page 2
2
sons. Accused No.4, Anita is the daughter of accused Nos.1 and
3 and is married to one Satyam Mishra who is in Police
service. Accused Nos.1 and 5 are also in Police service.
Accused Nos. 1 to 3, 5 and 6 reside together in Plot No.96,
Adarsha Colony, behind Police Line Takli at Nagpur. Accused
No.4 resides in Police Line, Pathrigad Quarter, Sadar at
Nagpur. Accused No.2-Rajendra is the youngest son of accused
Nos.1 and 3. Deceased Ranjana was the wife of accused No.2-
Rajendra.
3. Marriage of deceased took place with accused No.2-Rajendra
on 19th April, 1998. She was the daughter of Ranchhod Prasad
Pande (PW-11) and Chandrakanta (PW-8)-the complainant. The
deceased was the younger sister of Ranjit (PW-9). Parents and
brothers of the deceased reside at Gandhi Nagar, Surendergarh,
Nagpur. The distance between the house of the accused and the
parental house of the deceased is about 1 km.
4. The deceased sustained 98% burn injuries in the early
morning of 8th April, 1999, in her matrimonial house i.e. the
house of the accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. She was taken to
Mayo Hospital, but before treatment could commence, she died
at 9.30 a.m. on the same day itself and at that time the
deceased was in the 7th month of her first pregnancy.
5. The prosecution case is that the husband and the mother-
in-law i.e. accused Nos.2 and 3 used to beat the deceased
whereas other accused together with accused Nos.2 and 3 used
to mentally and physically ill-treat the deceased on account of
dowry demand. Accused No.2-Rajendra wanted Hero Honda Motor
Page 3
3
Cycle from the parents of the deceased. He always used to press
his demand. The deceased had informed her parents that she was
being subjected to cruelty and that her in-laws behaved with
her like animals. Many a times father of the deceased went to
fetch the deceased but accused used to ask him that he should
first bring money for Hero Honda Motorcycle and then only he
can take the deceased along with him. Since 7th month of the
pregnancy of the deceased was to begin, on 8th April, 1999 at 6
a.m. her father had been to her matrimonial house to fetch her.
Accused insulted him on account of dowry demands and refused
to send the deceased with him. At 9 a.m. accused No.5-Surendra
i.e. elder brother-in-law (jeth) of the deceased came to the
house of parents of the deceased and told them that their
daughter had sustained burns and that she was admitted in Mayo
Hospital. The parents of the deceased immediately rushed to
Mayo Hospital. It was found that their daughter was already
dead.
6. A.D. No.28/99 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered at
10.50 a.m. on 8th April, 1999 on the basis of report of Police
Head Constable Diwakar from Mayo Hospital Police Booth. The
PSI-S.R. Parvekar thereafter visited the spot of occurrence,
prepared spot panchanama (Ext.40) and then proceeded to Mayo
Hospital and prepared inquest panchanama (Ext.43) and sent the
dead body for its postmortem. Postmortem was conducted by Dr.
Ashish Wankhede (PW-10) and report is Ext.62. Thereafter, the
report (Ext.54) was lodged by PW.8, mother of the deceased with
the Police Head Constable Girish Pande (PW-14) upon which FIR
Page 4
4
(Ext.55) was registered at 7.10 p.m. on 8th April, 1999 for the
offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w 34 IPC.
Further investigation was carried out by Police Sub-Inspector,
Parvekar. He recorded the statement of the father of deceased
and arrested accused No.2-Rajendra i.e. husband of the
deceased on 8th April, 1999 itself. The further investigation
was carried out by Police Inspector Ravindra Relgudwar (PW.12)
and then Police Sub-Inspector, Dadasaheb Khade (PW.13). In the
statements of witnesses i.e. neighbours of the complainant,
brother of the deceased, supplementary statement of the
complainant were recorded. Viscera of the deceased that was
preserved at the time of the postmortem examination, pieces of
saree, match box and a piece of burnt plastic which were
seized at the time of drawing the panchanama were forwarded to
the Chemical Analyser for examination. The marriage ceremony of
the deceased and accused No.2-Rajendra was shot by a video
shooting. Its video cassette was produced by the complainant
before the Investigating Officer. It was seized (Ext.45).
Pursuant to a direction in Criminal Writ Petition No.168/99
filed by the complainant, offence punishable under Section 304-
B IPC was also added. Other accused were arrested and on
completion of investigation, charge-sheet was sent up to the
Court of CJM, Nagpur who committed the case to the Court of
Sessions. Charges for offence punishable under Sections 498-A,
304-B, 306 r/w 34 IPC were framed to which the accused pleaded
not guilty. The prosecution produced altogether 14 witnesses.
The witnesses against the accused made their statements under
Page 5
5
Section 313 Cr. P.C. (Ext.91 to 96) and submitted their
written statement (Ext.97). Four defence witnesses viz. DW.1-
Mohd Asgar, DW.2-A.S.I., Chandrabhan Osare, DW.3-ASI Pralhad
Kaware and DW.4-Rajesh Soni were also examined. The defence, as
how it appears from the cross-examination of the witnesses
etc. is that of total denial with regard to the alleged
cruelty. The stand was that the accused always gave good
treatment to the deceased. They gave jewellery to the deceased
and also invested money in her name in the post office. It was
denied that they ever demanded any dowry from her parents. It
is their case that the deceased was under pressure from her
mother. They were disowned knowledge as to how the deceased
died.
7. The Trial Court, as noticed above on appreciation of
evidence, statements of witnesses and exhibits, held the
accused guilty for the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B,
306 r/w Section 34 IPC. However, the said finding was reversed
by the Appellate Court for the reasons mentioned in the
preceding paragraphs.
8. The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment mainly
on the following grounds:
(a) The High Court in the impugned judgment, while
quoting some portions of the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses has not given any cogent
reason for disbelieving the evidence of those
witnesses.
(b) The impugned judgment is cryptic, unreasoned
and order of acquittal was passed without discussion
and appreciation of evidence.
Page 6
6
(c) The High Court recorded completely erroneous
finding that prosecution has not proved suicidal
death of Ranjana. In fact, the defence itself came
with the story of suicidal death of Ranjana.
(d) The prosecution has proved the demand of dowry
and cruelty for the said demand. All ingredients for
conviction under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC were
present. It was presumed that the case was that of a
dowry death.
9. The stand of the respondents is that the deposition of
prosecution witnesses after five years was improved version
from their version made during the investigation. They added
allegation to attract Section 304B IPC. Chandra Kanta (PW-8),
mother of the deceased and Ranjit (PW-9), brother of the
deceased both improved their version from the version made
during the investigation on material aspect. Same is the
situation of Ranchhod Prasad Pande (PW-1), father of the
deceased. All were related to the deceased. Thus they were
interested witnesses and their credibility is considerably in
question.
10. Chandrakanta (PW-8), mother of the deceased is the
complainant. In her statement she stated that Ranjana
(deceased) was married with accused No.2- Rajendra on 19th
April, 1998. At the time of marriage it was decided that
Rs.25,000/- was to be paid, which was given apart from another
sum of Rs.25,000/- given for scooter and Rs.5,000/- in
addition to that, a total amount of Rs.56,000/- was given when
the marriage was settled. Prior to 2-4 days of the marriage,
accused No.1 and accused No.2 asked for Hero Honda Motorcycle
although the amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid for scooter:
Page 7
7
Deceased's family informed that they are unable to pay more
than what was already agreed. The marriage was thereafter
performed. At the time of Barat (procession) the accused had
also created chaos when the bridegroom was about to enter the
pandal of the marriage hall and the golden ring was given to
him. In the marriage, religious rites were going on throughout
the night. The accused No1 did not take any meals or food.
During the marriage a golden chain of about 12 gms. was
presented to accused No.2. Accused No.2 was refusing to accept
the said chain and wanted the chain of 2 tolas (20 gms.) and
the golden stick. However, at that time they were convinced.
The deceased had to come back to her parents house after 8-10
days of the marriage. She disclosed that her in-laws were
torturing her throughout the day for not giving the T.V. set,
Cooler, Almirah and Hero Honda Motorcycle. She asked the
deceased to convey the accused No.2 that she would somehow
arrange for the motorcycle. After 3-4 months of the marriage
they had given an amount of Rs.20,000/- to accused No.2 for
Almirah, Cooler and T.V., still the torture was continued. The
deceased-Ranjana used to come to her. The deceased was not sent
whenever called by her parents. Accused No.2-Rajendra used to
take the deceased to the house of her parents at an interval
of 3-4 days on some pretext or other. Initially, the deceased
was not disclosing freely even accused No.2 used to bring the
deceased. He used to torture the deceased by forcing her to
demand for the things and used to shout at her.
Page 8
8
11, She further stated that Ranjana had stayed with her for a
span of 3-4 days when she had come after 8-10 days of marriage.
Thereafter she was not sent for residing, however, she was sent
in January for 2-3 days. At that time on enquiry the deceased
disclosed that her in-laws are torturing and harassing her
very much. She further disclosed that she was also not
provided food properly and she was treated like an animal. The
mother enquired from the deceased as to who had harassed her
to which she disclosed that her father in-law, husband, brother
of husband, sister of husband and the husband of sister of
accused No.2 vexed her.
12. Chandrakanta (PW-8) further stated that her husband (PW-
11) had been to her daughter's materimonial house to bring her
on the day of incident i.e. 8th April, 1999 at 6.30 a.m. Some
religious rites were to be performed but she did not come out.
After one hour accused No.5, Surendra came and inform about
the burning incident happened with the deceased and took PW-11
to mortuary. She entered the mortuary and noticed the dead body
of Ranjana.
During the cross-examination she accepted that she has
not assigned any reason as to why she has not stated about
giving an amount of Rs.20,000/- after 3-4 months of the
marriage for Almirah, T.V. and Cooler and still the torture
continued.
13. Ranjit (PW-9) is the brother of the deceased. In his
statement he stated that at the time of Rakhi (probably in
August, 1998) he had been to the house of accused and
Page 9
9
disclosed to accused No.1 that he had come to call his sister
Ranjana. Accused No.1 refused to send Ranjana and commented
that he did not want to send beggar’s daughter. At that time
accused No.2 also came and started abusing and caught hold of
his collar. He further stated that 10-15 days thereafter
accused No.2 had come to their house along with the deceased
Ranjana. At that time his sister disclosed him that her in-
laws were demanding Hero Honda Motorcycle, Cooler, Almirah and
she was harassed for non-satisfying the demands. He convinced
her to the effect that she will have to pull and there was no
purpose in disturbing the family life.
In the cross-examination, he specifically stated that he
made statement before the Police that after 10-15 days after
accused No.2 had come to their house along with Ranjana, his
sister disclosed him that her in-laws were demanding a
motorcycle Hero Honda, Cooler, Almirah and she was vexed for
non-satisfying the demands.
14. Ranchhod Prasad Pande (PW-11) is the father of the
deceased. In his statement he stated that her daughter
disclosed that the accused and his family members ill-treated
her. Accused No.2 was asking for Hero Honda Motorcycle. She was
physically abused on account of dowry. The accused were also
demanding and asking for refrigerator. He further stated that
on 8th April, 1999 he had been to the house of accused to bring
Ranjana for some religious rites, as she was pregnant of 7
months. He reached the house of the accused at 6.00-6.30 a.m.
All the accused were present in the house. Accused Nos.1 and 2
Page 10
10
enquired from him as to whether he had brought the amount for
Hero Honda Motorcycle. He told that he had not brought the
amount. Thereafter, he wanted to meet Ranjana in case if the
accused were not ready to send Ranjana. At that time accused
No.2 had slapped Ranjana. Thereafter, he returned back. Ranjana
was not sent along with him. At about 8.30 a.m. accused No.5-
Surendra Shukla came and disclosed that Ranjana had poured
kerosene oil on her and set herself ablaze. During the cross-
examination he accepted that he has not stated before the
Police that accused No.1 and accused No.2-Rajendra were asking
him whether he brought the amount for Hero Honda and he
replied that he had not brought the amount.
15. Rajmani (PW-5) stated that at the time of marriage dowry
of Rs.25,000/-, one golden ring and watch was demanded. At the
time of bethrotal ceremony (Tilak) the accused had also
insisted for a scooter and the total amount of Rs.56,000/- was
given to the accused.
16. Santoshbai (PW-6), a neighbour, stated that after the
marriage when Ranjana had come at the time of Kajaltiz in her
parents’ house, she went there. At that time there a telephone
call came, Rajana attended the said call and started weeping.
She enquired from her (deceased) as to the cause of her
weeping. She stated that her in-laws were harassing her. So
also her other in-laws were vexing her. She stated that the
incident of the telephone message received by the deceased
Ranjana had occurred 2-3 months prior to her death.
Page 11
11
17. Geeta (PW-7), another neighbor, stated that Ranjana when
met her at the time of Kajaltiz after 2-3 months of her
marriage she was not appearing to be happy. At that time, she
enquired from Ranjana the cause of unhappiness, she told that
her in-laws were getting the complete work done from her but
murmuring at the time of meals. They used to ask for dowry.
Ranjana had also stated that in case she watched T.V. her-in-
laws used to say that she should have brought the T.V. from her
parents.
18. The statement of Chandrakanta(PW-8) that Ranjana had come
to him after 8-10 days of marriage and told that the members of
her in-laws were torturing her throughout the day for T.V.,
Cooler, Almirah and Hero Honda Motorcycle, is consistent with
the FIR. Omission of certain facts does not make any difference
as the same is corroborated by PW-12. Similarly omission of
statement that Rs.20,000/- was given to the accused for
almirah, cooler and TV is corroborated by PW.6. Therefore the
said omission is not fatal to the prosecution.
19. Chandrakanta(PW-8) categorically stated on her examination
that the deceased disclosed that her in-laws were harassing
her very much; she was not provided with food properly. This
evidence is un-shattered in the cross-examination and it is
stated in the FIR itself.
20. There is un-shattered evidence of Santoshbai (PW-6)
about the dowry demand and cruelty. That is when she enquired
her as to cause for her weeping she stated that her mother-in-
law and the brother of her husband were very much harassing
Page 12
12
her. So also her other in-laws were vexing her. This evidence
also corroborates the complainant Chandrakanta(PW-8) about the
payment of money to accused No.2 for purchasing of the house
hold articles.
21. Geeta (PW-7) categorically stated that the deceased told
that her in-laws were getting the complete work done from her.
The verbal abuse was stated to be on account of dowry. She also
stated that in case she watched TV her in-laws said that she
should bring TV from her parents.
Prior to one month of her death, she stated that there
was no certainty of her life, this evidence is not shaken in
the cross-examination and there are no improvements in the
evidence of PW-6 & PW-7.
22. Ranjit (PW-9) categorically stated in his evidence that
after 2-4 days they had received telephonic message from the
nurse of the Hospital of Dr. Kunda Tayade regarding
hospitalization of Ranjana. Thereafter, he, his mother (PW-8)
and father (PW-11) had been to Hospital of Dr. Kunda Tayade and
he noticed that his sister Ranjana was lying on the bed and
that too alone. Ranjana at that time disclosed that since last
2 days she was not provided food and as such she became weak.
At that time they came to know that Ranjana was pregnant. He
further stated that by that time they were talking with
Ranjana, accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 came to the same room and
abused them and enquired as to who provided the address of the
Hospital and thereafter his mother and father went and he
waited in the hospital. He had also a talk with accused No.3.
Page 13
13
He himself paid the amount of Rs.2,000/- towards the fees of
hospitalization of Ranjana.
23. From the above mentioned facts, it is clear that there
was a demand of dowry for purchasing Hero Honda Motorcycle and
other house hold articles. The evidence of torture is also
clear from the fact that the deceased was not provided food and
as such she had become weak that too at the time when she was
in the 7th month of pregnancy.
24. Section 304-B IPC relates to dowry death, which reads as
follows:
304B. Dowry death.--(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub- section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.”
The expression “soon before her death” is used in the
substantive Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence
Act. No definite period has been indicated and the expression
“soon before her death” is not defined. The determination of
period which can come within the term “soon before” is left to
Page 14
14
be determined by the Court depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. In this connection one may refer
the case of Yashoda and another vs. State of M.P., 2004 (3) SCC
98.
25. The presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act
with respect to dowry death can be raised only on the proof of
the following four essential conditions:
1) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment,
2) by the husband or his relatives;
3) For or in connection with any demand for dowry;
4) soon before her death.
Refer Kaliyaperumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2004 (9) SCC
157 [AIR 2003 SC 3828].
26. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act reads as under:
113B. Presumption as to dowry death.—When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “dowry death” shall have the same meaning as in section 304B, of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860).
27. In dowry death cases direct evidence may not be
available. Such cases may be proved by circumstantial evidence.
Section 304-B IPC read with 113-B of the Evidence Act indicates
the rule of presumption of dowry death. If an unnatural death
of a married woman occurs within 7 years of marriage in
suspicious circumstances, like due to burns or any other bodily
Page 15
15
injury and there is cruelty or harassment by her husband or
relatives for or in connection with any demand for dowry soon
before her death then it shall be dowry death.
28. Section 306 IPC relates to abetment to suicide as
follows:
“306. Abetment of suicide.—If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
29. Section 113-A of the Evidence Act deals with presumption
as to the abetment to suicide by a married woman, read as
follows:
“113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.—When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” shall have the same meaning as in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).]"
30. For the purpose of Section 113-A IPC cruelty shall have
the same meaning as in Section 498-A IPC which reads as
follows:
“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the
Page 16
16
husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means— (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”
31. In the present case from the evidence of prosecution
witnesses particularly of Santoshbai (PW-6), Geeta (PW-7),
Chandrakanta (PW-8), Ranjit (PW-9) and Ranchhod Prasad Pande
(PW-11), we find that the harassment of the deceased was with
a view to coerce her to convince her parents to meet demand of
dowry. The said willful conduct has driven the deceased to
commit the suicide or not is a matter of doubt, in absence of
specific evidence. Therefore, in the light of Clause (b) of
Section 498-A IPC, when we hold all the accused Nos.1 to 6
guilty for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, we hold that
the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased committed
suicide. The accused are, therefore, acquitted for the offence
under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC. This part of the judgment passed
by the Trial Court thus cannot be upheld.
32. The prosecution on the basis of evidence has successfully
proved that the deceased died within 7 years of her marriage;
the death of the deceased is caused by burns i.e. nor under
Page 17
17
normal circumstances. It has also been proved that soon before
her death, during her pregnancy the deceased was subjected to
cruelty and harassment by her husband and relatives of accused
that is accused No.1-Shivpujan, accused No.2-Rajendra, accused
No.3-Malti Devi, accused No.4-Anita, accused No.5-Surendra and
accused No.6-Virendra in connection with demand of dowry.
Therefore, we hold that the prosecution successfully proved
with beyond reasonable doubt that accused Nos.1 to 6 are guilty
for the offence under Section 304-B, r/w 34 IPC.
33. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the major part of
the judgment dated 18th August, 2005 passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal
Appeal NO.388 of 2005 except the part relating to offence
under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC. The judgment dated 20th July, 2005
passed by the Trial Court in Sessions Case No.447 of 2000
holding accused Nos.1 to 6 guilty for the offence u/s 498A and
304B IPC. is upheld but the part of the judgment relating to
offence under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC against the accused Nos.1
to 6 stands set aside by the judgment passed by the High
Court. The respondents- accused No.1-Shivpujan, accused No.2-
Rajendra, accused No.3-Malti Devi, accused No.4-Anita, accused
No.5-Surendra and accused No.6-Virendra be taken into custody
forthwith to undergo the remainder period of sentence for
offence under Section 498-A and 304-B read with 34 IPC.
34. The appeals are allowed to the extent above.
…………………………………………J. (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
Page 18
18
…………………………………………J.
NEW DELHI, (V. GOPALA GOWDA)
JULY 8, 2014.
Page 19
19
Page 20
ITEM NO.IA COURT NO.6 SECTION IIA (For judgment) 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). 719/2010 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Appellant(s) VERSUS RAJENDRA & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH Criminal Appeal No. 720 of 2010 Date : 08/07/2014 These appeals were called on for judgment today. For Appellant(s) Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee ,Adv. For Respondent(s)
Mr. K.L. Taneja, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Jain,Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Adv.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda.
The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated in the signed judgment.
(Sukhbir Paul Kaur) (Usha Sharma) Court Master Court Master
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)