Apex Court took a similar view and held as follows:
“10. Assuming that the deceased gave her
statement in her own language, the dying
declaration would not vitiate merely because it was
recorded in a different language. We bear in mind
that it is not unusual that courts record evidence in
the language of the court even when witnesses
depose in their own language. Judicial officers are
used to the practice of translating the statements
from the language of the parties to the language of
the court. Such translation process would not upset
either the admissibility of the statement or its
reliability, unless there are other reasons to doubt
the truth of it.
The main argument of Shri Bhatia is that Kachrabai (deceased)
was speaking in Chhattisgarhi and, therefore, her statement should13
have been recorded in Chhattisgarhi. It is true that the statement
should be recorded in as close a language as is possible to the
deceased. However, Chhattisgarhi has no script. No question has
been put to the Tahsildar/Magistrate that he did not know
Chhattisgarhi. Chhattisgarhi is quite similar to Hindi and a person who
is working as Naib-Tahsildar/Tahsildar can be presumed to have
knowledge of Chhattisgarhi. The statement had to be recorded in
Devnagari Script. The witness (PW-9, Naib-Tahsildar) has recorded it
in a language which he is more comfortable with him. No suggestion
has been put to him that the witness does not know Chhattisgarhi. In
fact, this witness clearly states that the questions answers were
exchanged in Chhattisgarhi. There is nothing unusual if the statement
was recorded in Hindi. The Apex Court in two judgments, which are
cited above, has held that merely because the dying declaration was
recorded in a different language is not a ground to discard the same.
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No.1063 of 2002
Dated : 29.9.2016
Suresh Purushottam,
v
State of Chhattisgarh,
Coram:
Shri Deepak Gupta, Chief Justice
Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.9.2002
delivered by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions
Trial No.179 of 2001, whereby he convicted the accused of having
committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life.
2. The prosecution story, briefly stated, is that on 20.3.2000, on the
day of the festival of Holi, two accused, i.e., Appellant Suresh and one
Venkat, residents of Risali Sector went to the residence of Kachrabai
(deceased). They wanted that Kachrabai should play Holi with them.
When she refused to play Holi with them, they sprinkled kerosene on
her and set her on fire. It is further alleged that Suresh had caught
hold of Kachrabai so he also received injuries. Kachrabai raised an
alarm and neighbours came to the spot and took her to the hospital.
Suresh was caught hold of by the neighbours and other accused
Venkat ran away. Kachrabai was admitted in hospital, but could not
survive and died on 29.3.2000. The Learned Additional Sessions
Judge has mainly convicted the accused on the basis of the dying
declaration of the deceased. Aggrieved by this judgment, the Appellant
has preferred the present appeal.
3. We have heard Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Learned Counsel appearing for
the Appellant and Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Deputy Government
Advocate appearing for the State/Respondent and have also perused
the record.
4. The main grounds raised by Shri Bhatia are that the dying
declaration is not reliable for various reasons. It was not recorded in
the language of the deceased. According to Shri Bhatia, deceased
Kachrabai only knew Chhattisgarhi and could not speak on Hindi in
which language the dying declaration has been recorded. There is
nothing to show that Kachrabai was in a position to make the
statement. It is further contended that other witnesses including the
husband of deceased Kachrabai did not support the prosecution story.
There are contradictions between Dehati Nalishi and First Information
Report recorded at the instance of Kachrabai.
5. Immediately after the occurrence which took place at 4:30–5:00
O’clock in the evening on 20.3.2000, the victim was taken to the
hospital. On the top portion of the dying declaration, it is stated that it
was recorded at 7:45 p.m. and at the end of the dying declaration the
time is recorded as 8:15 p.m. This means that the dying declaration
was recorded between 7:45 p.m. and 8:15 p.m. This dying declaration,
Ex.P-4 has been recorded in question and answer form. In the
opening portion of the dying declaration, opinion of the doctor has3
been given that the victim is in a position to make a statement. There
are some signatures below this also. In this dying declaration, the
victim states that when she was at home at about 5:00 p.m. then
Venkat Telugu and Suresh, who are residents of Risali, came to her
house and wanted her to play Holi with them. When she refused then
Suresh poured kerosene on her body and lit it with a match. She
raised an alarm then other residents of the area came to help her. In
answer to the third question, she states that the people of the colony
caught hold of Suresh, but Venkat Telugu ran away. Thereafter,
information was given to the police and she was admitted in hospital.
She then states that she is married and her husband works in HSCL.
Her daughter is also married and her son aged about 13 years lives in
another village. She further states that she was alone at the house
because on Saturday her husband had gone to the village where her
son resides. She also stated that Venkat Telugu and Suresh used to
come to meet her husband and on the day of occurrence in absence of
her husband they came and wanted to play Holi with her and when she
refused, Suresh poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. This
dying declaration was also thumb marked. Below the dying
declaration, there is a statement of the doctor recorded that the victim
was fully conscious while making the statement.
6. First of all her dying declaration was recorded. Thereafter, the
complaint of the deceased was recorded at 8:30 p.m. on 20.3.2000
itself. In this complaint, which is thumb marked by Kachrabai, she
states that she along with her husband resides in Newai Basti. Her
husband works in HSCL. Deceased Kachrabai had one daughter, who
is married and lives in her matrimonial home. Her son also resides in
some other village. Her husband had gone to the village on Saturday.
On that day, i.e., Monday, 20.3.2000, which was the day of Holi4
festival, at about 4:30 p.m., she was alone at her home. At that time,
one Suresh of Risali and Venkat, who both used to come and visit her
husband very often, came to her house. They wanted to play Holi with
her. When she refused to play Holi, Suresh and Venkat got angry.
They picked up one container of kerosene lying there and poured the
same over her body and set her on fire by lighting a matchstick with
intention of killing her. The victim raised an alarm then neighbours
came there and extinguished the fire of her body. Suresh was caught
hold at the spot and his hands were burnt. Venkat managed to run
away. Kachrabai and Suresh had been brought to hospital. Kachrabai
had recorded the report which had been read over and explained to
her. On the basis of this report (Ex.P-10), First Information Report
(Ex.P-10A) was recorded at 10:30 p.m. on 20.3.2000.
7. The first question is whether we should rely upon the dying
declaration (Ex.P-4) or not. The dying declaration was recorded by
PW-9, Pulak Bhattacharya. He states that at the relevant time, he was
posted as Naib-Tahsildar at Durg. On the directions of the Tahsildar,
he went to record the statement of Kachrabai, the wife of Prahlad,
resident of Newai, Police Station Newai, District Durg. According to
him, at 7:35 p.m. a request was received to record the dying
declaration of the victim and 2-3 minutes later, he was ordered to go to
the hospital. According to him, he had already reached the hospital at
Durg and Shri Das, Tahsildar was also present in the hospital. The
witness states that at that time, some victims of an accident in a rural
area had been brought to the hospital and, therefore, the entire
administration was in the hospital. He further states that he met the
doctor in the casualty and duty room. He inquired from the concerned
doctor whether the victim was in a position to make statement and the
doctor stated that she was in a position to make the statement. He5
then narrates what has been stated in the dying declaration. He
denied the suggestion that the statement had not been recorded
properly. He further states that he was told that Kachrabai was
illiterate. He then states that he cannot say whether Kachrabai was
literate and knew how to sign. According to him, he would first ask a
question thereafter Kachrabai would reply the same and then he noted
down the same. The witness admitted the suggestion that Kachrabai
was a Chhattisgarhi and that the questions and answers were orally
spoken in Chhattisgarhi. According to him, at the time when the dying
declaration was recorded, Kachrabai, he and the doctor only were
present. He denied the suggestion that Kachrabai was not in a
position to make a statement.
8. The other important witness is PW-5, Dr. Lal Mohammed. He
states that Kachrabai was admitted in the hospital and an application
was presented for recording her dying declaration. He after examining
the patient and talking to her, made a report that she is in a position to
make dying declaration. The application is Ex.P-3 dated 20.3.2000
and time 7:15 p.m. and the doctor in his handwriting written “c;ku
nsus ;ksX; gS” (fit to make a statement) and thereafter signed the
statement. He then states that the statement of the victim was
recorded by PW-9, Pulak Bhattacharya and he was also present when
the statement was recorded. He has also proved his opinion on the
dying declaration, Ex.P-4 that the victim was in a position to make the
statement when it was recorded. In cross-examination, he again
repeats that the victim was fully conscious and fit to make statement.
He has further stated that he did not note down the blood pressure etc.
on the statement because in his opinion it was not necessary to do so.
He denied the suggestion that after the statement had been recorded
by PW-9, Pulak Bhattacharya, he had put his signatures on the same.6
He also denied the suggestion that he was not present when the
statement was recorded. In cross-examination, he also stated that he
did not remember where exactly the statement of the deceased was
recorded. He stated that if he is shown bed head ticket, he would be
able to tell these facts also.
9. PW-1, Hemkumari is a neighbour who turned hostile. However, she
does state that when she was inside the house, she heard the sound
*cpkvks cpkvks^. She then came out and saw that a number of people
had gathered there and Kachrabai was lying in burnt condition.
However, she could not say how Kachrabai got burnt. Kachrabai was
taken to the hospital. In cross-examination, she admits that it was the
day of Holi. According to her, deceased Kachrabai did not know Hindi.
The witness states that they used to converse with each other in
Chhattisgarhi. She further goes to state that deceased Kachrabai was
literate and could sign. She had signed in her presence on many
occasions.
10. PW-2, Arjun Singh Yadav also turned hostile and states that he
does not know how Kachrabai received the burn injuries. PW-3, Dr.
S.R. Churendra carried out the post mortem and he opined that the
deceased had died because of the burn injuries. The statements of
PW-6, Ramayan Prasad Upadhyay and PW-7, S.S. Dhurve are not
very relevant for deciding the case.
11. PW-8 is Prahlad, the husband of deceased Kachrabai. He states
that he did not know accused Suresh and Venkat. He further states
that when he came to know that his wife had been burnt, he went to
the hospital. He further states that he never talked to Kachrabai
because she was unable to speak. He does not know how the
occurrence took place. He was declared hostile and cross-examined7
by the Public Prosecutor. He denied the suggestion that when he
reached the hospital, he talked to Kachrabai. He further states that
Kachrabai told him that Suresh had poured kerosene on her and set
her on fire. He further states that he does not remember whether
Kachrabai took the name of Venkat or not. When confronted with his
statement, Ex.P-6, he stated that he had not named Venkat and he
does not know how the police had recorded the name of Venkat in his
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In cross-examination by the
accused, he states that when he reached the hospital, Kachrabai could
not speak and, therefore, he could not talk with Kachrabai. He further
states that in his earlier examination, when he had stated that a person
named Suresh had poured kerosene on Kachrabai and set her on fire
on the basis of information received from some other people. He
further states that he does not know who is Suresh. In further crossexamination,
he states that Kachrabai was his second wife and son-inlaw
Ravi had come to inform him that Kachrabai was in hospital. He
states that his first wife lives in the village. He also states that
Kachrabai had studied upto Class 5 and could sign. According to him,
she could read newspapers. He further states that the accused never
used to visit him at his house.
12. PW-11, R.P. Yadav is an Assistant Sub-Inspector. He states that on
20.3.2000, it was the day of Holi and he was on town patrolling duty in
the police van. He received information on the wireless set that some
woman has been burnt in Village Newai. He then went to Newai. The
burnt woman was lying on the side of the road. A crowd had gathered
there. He then went to the place of occurrence and secured it. He also
states that accused Suresh had been caught by the villagers. He then
brought this burnt woman and Suresh to the District Hospital, Durg. He
also states that he made a request in writing to the doctor to certify8
whether the victim was in a fit position to make a statement or not.
This request is Ex.P-3. He has identified his signature on the same.
He then made a request Ex.P-9 to the Magistrate Shri Das, who was
present in the hospital and then PW-9, Pulak Bhattacharya recorded
the dying declaration of Kachrabai. Thereafter, he (PW-11) inquired
from victim Kachrabai as to what had happened and on the basis of
her statement, he recorded Dehati Nalishi, Ex.P-10 and on the basis of
the same, FIR, Ex.P-10A was recorded. He has also proved
document, Ex.P-11, which is a request for medico legal examination of
Suresh, son of P.L. Soni, who is none else than the accused.
13. Shri Bhatia has placed reliance on two documents. One is Ex.P-
13, which is the arrest warrant of accused Suresh and shows that he
was arrested on 8.4.2000. Shri Bhatia has also relied upon another
document which is not exhibited, but is purportedly signed by Dr. Lal
Mohammed and in this document it is mentioned that on 27.3.2000,
Suresh, son of P.L. Soni, aged about 27 years was admitted with burns
and his hands and face were burnt and these burns were about 12
hours old. Relying upon these documents, it is urged by Shri Bhatia
that the entire story set up by the police is false and no reliance can be
placed on the dying declaration (Ex.P-4). Shri Bhatia has placed
reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court in State of
Maharashtra V. v. Gopichand Uttamchand Keswani, 1985 Cri.L.J.
784 and Kashi Vishwanath v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 7 SCC 162
in which the Apex Court, dealing with the dying declaration, held as
follows:
“30. The prosecution has failed to state as to why
three dying declarations were recorded in Kannada,
if the deceased Neelamma was talking in Telugu. It
has also not been made clear as to who amongst the
Tahsildar, PSI or SI or the doctors who had signed
Ext. P12, Ext. P22 and Ext. P29 had knowledge of9
Telugu and translated the same in Kannada for
writing dying declarations in those exhibits and that
at the bottom of three dying declarations it has not
been mentioned that they were read over in
Kannada and explained in Telugu and that the
deceased understood the contents of the same. The
abovementioned facts create doubt in our mind as to
the truthfulness of the contents of the dying
declarations as the possibility of the deceased being
influenced by somebody in making the dying
declarations cannot be ruled out.”
Shri Bhatia has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court
in State of Gujarat v. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu, AIR 2016 SC
3218. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:
“10. The courts below have to be extremely careful
when they deal with a dying declaration as the
maker thereof is not available for the crossexamination
which poses a great difficulty to the
accused person. A mechanical approach in relying
upon a dying declaration just because it is there is
extremely dangerous. The court has to examine a
dying declaration scrupulously with a microscopic
eye to find out whether the dying declaration is
voluntary, truthful, made in a conscious state of
mind and without being influenced by the relatives
present or by the investigating agency who may be
interested in the success of investigation or which
may be negligent while recording the dying
declaration. …..
11. The court has to weigh all the attendant
circumstances and come to the independent finding
whether the dying declaration was properly
recorded and whether it was voluntary and truthful.
Once the court is convinced that the dying
declaration is so recorded, it may be acted upon and
can be made a basis of conviction. The courts must
bear in mind that each criminal trial is an
individual aspect. It may differ from the other trials
in some or the other respect and, therefore, a
mechanical approach to the law of dying declaration
has to be shunned.
12. ….. A dying declaration is entitled to great
weight. The conviction basing reliance upon the
oral dying declaration made to the father of the
deceased is not reliable and such a declaration can
be a result of afterthought. This is the reason the
Court also insists that the dying declaration should
be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of
the Court in its correctness. The Court has to be on
guard that the statement of deceased was not as a
result of tutoring, prompting or a product of
imagination. The Court must be further satisfied
that the deceased was in a fit state of mind after a
clear opportunity to observe and identify the
assailants. Once the Court is satisfied that the
declaration was true and voluntary, undoubtedly, it
can base its conviction without any further
corroboration. It cannot be laid down as an absolute
rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form
the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated.
The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of
prudence.”
14. On the other hand, on behalf of the State/Respondent, reliance has
been placed on Bakhshish Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC
904, wherein it was held that since the language of the subordinate
Courts and the police in the State of Punjab for recording statements
was Urdu, the mere fact that the dying declaration was recorded in
Urdu and not in the language of the deceased, was not a ground to
reject the dying declaration. The Apex Court held as follows:
“5. ….. As a matter of fact in the Punjab the
language used in the subordinate courts and that
employed by the Police for recording of statements
has always been Urdu and the recording of the dying
declaration in Urdu cannot be a ground for saying
that the statement does not correctly reproduce what
was stated by the declarant. This in our opinion was
a wholly inadequate reason for rejecting the dying
declaration.”
15. In State of Rajasthan v. Bhup Singh, (1997) 10 SCC 675, the
Apex Court took a similar view and held as follows:
“10. Assuming that the deceased gave her
statement in her own language, the dying
declaration would not vitiate merely because it was
recorded in a different language. We bear in mind
that it is not unusual that courts record evidence in
the language of the court even when witnesses
depose in their own language. Judicial officers are
used to the practice of translating the statements
from the language of the parties to the language of
the court. Such translation process would not upset
either the admissibility of the statement or its
reliability, unless there are other reasons to doubt
the truth of it.
11. Nor would a dying declaration go bad merely
because the magistrate did not record it in the form
of questions and answers. It is axiomatic that what
matters is the substance and not the form.
Questions put to the dying man would have been
formal and hence the answers given are material.
Criminal courts may evince interest in knowing the
contents of what the dying person said and the
questions put to him are not very important
normally. That part of the statement which relates
to the circumstances of the transaction which
resulted in his death gets the sanction of
admissibility. Here it is improper to throw such
statement overboard on a pedantic premise that it
was not recorded in the form of questions and
answers.”
16. In Mohd. Hushan Andhra Pradesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh,
(2002) 7 SCC 414, the Apex Court held as follows:
“5. ….. The High Court has noticed that Surender
Rao, PW1, the magistrate has testified that on
10.3.1988 he recorded dying declaration between
2.46 a.m. to 3.15 a.m. He has certified that he had
signed it and had taken the endorsement of the
doctor on duty that the deceased was in a fit state of
mind to make a statement; the deceased had made
the dying declaration in questionanswer form in
Urdu and he had translated the version and
recorded the declaration in English. After recording
her statement, he explained the statement in Hindi
to the deceased who admitted its correctness.
Thereafter, he took the thumb impression of the
deceased on her declaration (exhibit P2). In crossexamination,
he has stated that he could read and
speak in Hindi; the deceased had made statement in
Urdu which he could understand as Urdu and Hindi
languages are almost similar and in Hyderabad,
Urdu and Hindi languages are spoken in the same
way, there being no much difference. PW11, Dr.12
Vidya Sagar, corroborated the statement of PW1, to
the effect that the deceased was in a fit mental
condition to make statement and that he was
present when the statement was recorded by the
magistrate. …..”
17. In Meesala Ramakrishan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1994) 4
SCC 182, the Apex Court went on to hold that a dying declaration can
even be recorded on the basis of nods and gestures and the same
possesses evidentiary value.
18. In the present case, none of the neighbours or even the husband of
the deceased have come out to support the case of the prosecution.
In any event, the occurrence did not take place in the presence of any
witness. The statement of the husband of the deceased is neither here
nor there. He gave three different versions in his statement. Therefore,
one will have to go through the other evidence on record. PW-11, R.P.
Yadav is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who came to the site
after receiving the information on wireless. It is he who took Kachrabai
(deceased) as well as accused Suresh to the hospital. He has proved
the application, Ex.P-3, which he made to the doctor for recording the
statement of the Kachrabai. He has also proved his signatures on the
application made to the Tahsildar, Ex.P-9. He then himself recorded
the statement of Kachrabai, which is Ex.P-10 and on the basis of this,
FIR, Ex.P-10A was recorded. It was important to note that this witness
in cross-examination has stated that accused Suresh is the same
whom he had arrested at the spot. He further clarifies that when he
had got admitted Suresh in the hospital, he had not arrested him. He
further states that though he had not arrested accused Suresh, the
villagers had caught hold of him.
19. The main argument of Shri Bhatia is that Kachrabai (deceased)
was speaking in Chhattisgarhi and, therefore, her statement should13
have been recorded in Chhattisgarhi. It is true that the statement
should be recorded in as close a language as is possible to the
deceased. However, Chhattisgarhi has no script. No question has
been put to the Tahsildar/Magistrate that he did not know
Chhattisgarhi. Chhattisgarhi is quite similar to Hindi and a person who
is working as Naib-Tahsildar/Tahsildar can be presumed to have
knowledge of Chhattisgarhi. The statement had to be recorded in
Devnagari Script. The witness (PW-9, Naib-Tahsildar) has recorded it
in a language which he is more comfortable with him. No suggestion
has been put to him that the witness does not know Chhattisgarhi. In
fact, this witness clearly states that the questions answers were
exchanged in Chhattisgarhi. There is nothing unusual if the statement
was recorded in Hindi. The Apex Court in two judgments, which are
cited above, has held that merely because the dying declaration was
recorded in a different language is not a ground to discard the same.
We must also keep in mind the fact that PW-5, Dr. Lal Mohammed has
fully supported the version of PW-9. He states that he had, after
examining the victim, certified that she was fit to make a statement.
This fact is also recorded in the opening portion of the dying
declaration. Thereafter, the dying declaration has been recorded in
question answer form and at the end of the dying declaration it has
been mentioned that the dying declaration was read over and accepted
to be correct by the victim. Thereafter, there is another note of the
doctor that at the time of making of the statement, the victim was fully
conscious. Therefore, we find no reason why the dying declaration
should not be relied upon.
20. Shri Bhatia has placed great reliance on the statement of PW-1,
Hemkumari neighbour and PW-8, Prahlad, the husband of the
deceased, where they have stated that the deceased could read and14
write and that she could sign. This argument in itself is contradictory.
On the one hand, it is urged that the deceased could only speak
Chhattisgarhi and knew no other language and on the other hand, it is
argued that she was semi-literate and could even read newspapers.
As pointed out earlier, Chhattisgarhi has no script. Therefore, the only
newspaper which Kachrabai (deceased) could have read would be the
Hindi newspaper. If she could understand Hindi newspapers then mere
fact that her statement was recorded in Hindi would not make the
statement unreliable. Another important factor is that PW-11, R.P.
Yadav has stated that he had taken Suresh from the place of
occurrence straightway to the hospital. A suggestion has been put to
him that this part of the statement is false, but he has denied the same
and again he has reiterated the same that Suresh is the same person
who was caught hold by the villagers and whom he had taken to the
hospital. This statement of PW-11, R.P. Yadav is supported by the
document, Ex.P-11, which clearly shows that one Suresh, son of P.L.
Soni, aged 27 years was brought to the hospital for medico legal
examination. It is true that the prosecution has been lax in not proving
the documents relating to the admission of Suresh in hospital on
20.3.2000.
21. Next reliance has been placed by Shri Bhatia on unexhibited
document allegedly signed by PW-5, Dr. Lal Mohammed, which would
indicate that Suresh was taken to the hospital on 27.3.2000. However,
Dr. Lal Mohammed, when he appeared in the witness box, was not
confronted with this document and he was not asked any question in
this regard.
22. There are in fact not one dying declaration but there are two dying
declarations, one recorded by PW-9, Pulak Bhattacharya, NaibTahsildar
and another recorded by PW-11, R.P. Yadav, Assistant Sub-15
Inspector in the form of the statement of the victim as a Dehati Nalishi.
This is also thumb marked by the victim. There is no effective crossexamination
of PW-11 in this regard.
23. Another argument of Shri Bhatia is that the dying declaration as
well as the Dehati Nalishi have not been signed by the victim but have
been thumb marked. When a person has been burnt even though the
person may be asked it is not possible for that person to sign a
document and there is nothing unusual in getting it thumb marked. We
must also remember that PW-5 and PW-9 are a doctor and a NaibTahsildar,
respectively. They are independent witnesses. They have
no personal axe to grind. We cannot disbelieve their statements.
Nothing has been brought on record to show why these people should
tell a lie and why they should have created a false document with a
view to implicate the accused. The fact that Suresh was caught hold of
by the villagers and was brought to the hospital itself indicates that he
was at the spot and he has given no explanation in this regard.
24. Keeping in view all these facts, we are of the considered view that
the Learned Trial Court was fully justified in relying upon the dying
declaration (Ex.P-4). There is no merit in the appeal. We, therefore,
dismiss the appeal and uphold the impugned judgment. The Appellant
is on bail. He is directed to surrender before the Trial Court or he shall
be taken into custody forthwith for undergoing the remaining part of
sentence.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Deepak Gupta) (P. Sam Koshy)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Gopal
No comments:
Post a Comment