Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | ||
|---|---|---|
| CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION |
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1397 OF 2014
| RAMJI SINGH & ORS. | …APPELLANT(S) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Versus
| THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH | …RESPONDENT(S) |
|---|
J U D G M E N T
Deepak Gupta, J.
Babu Ram (PW1) lodged a written complaint (Exh.P.1) with
the Police Station Churkhi to the effect that he had been
informed by his nephew Sarman Singh (deceased) that when he
Sarman Singh was ploughing his field in the morning of
17.06.1982, accused Lakhan Singh (A1) reached there and
hurled abuses at Sarman Singh. Lakhan Singh told Sarman
Singh that he should not till the plot otherwise he would be
killed. Sarman Singh retorted that the plot does not belong to
1
Lakhan’s father and that though Lakhan Singh had been
cultivating the plot by force, now Sarman Singh would not permit
him to do so. Heated altercation took place between the two and
both of them abused each other. Thereafter, Lakhan Singh went
to his house. Sarman Singh after completing the ploughing came
home and mentioned about this incident to Babu Ram (PW1.) In
the FIR it is also reported that the relations between the two were
strained and Lakhan Singh belonged to a different group in the
elections for the post of Village Pradhan. Sarman Singh had
fought the election against Lakhan Singh. Lakhan Singh had
won the election.
2. Immediately, after informing Babu Ram of the incident,
Sarman Singh went to get his agricultural implement ( datuwa)
repaired from the carpenter and the informant Babu Ram (PW1)
also accompanied him. It was about noon. As soon as they were
crossing the house of Dasharath Singh, Sarman Singh told Babu
Ram (PW1) that Babu Ram should get the datuwa repaired from
the carpenter while he (Sarman Singh) went to collect the price of
the bullocks from Dasharath Singh. Sarman Singh entered the
courtyard of the house of Dasharath Singh and sat on a cot.
2
Informant Babu Ram (PW1) went towards the house of the
carpenter. He had just reached the house of the carpenter when
he heard some noise. He immediately ran and reached the house
of Dasharath Singh where he saw accused Lakhan Singh (A1),
armed with lathi, Ramji Singh (A2) and Krishna Autar (A3),
armed with guns and Laxman Singh (A4), son of Lakhan Singh,
and Lala Ram (A5), armed with axes and Virendra Singh (A6)
with kanta pitchfork. They were outside the house of Dasharath
Singh and Lakhan Singh pointed out that Sarman Singh is a big
gunda , he should not be permitted to escape and he should be
killed. Ramji Singh(A2) and Krishna Autar (A3) fired three
times each from their weapons from the entrance of the house of
Dasharath Singh. Laxman Singh (A4) and Lala Ram(A5) gave
blows with their axes, and Virendra Singh(A6), attacked him
with the pitchfork on his face and hands. Sarman Singh died on
the spot itself. In the meantime, Nand Kishore (PW2), Gaya
Prasad, Takhta Singh and Dasharath Singh’s wife Bhagwanta,
and other villagers reached the spot. The accused threatened all
the persons present there that if anybody interfered, he would kill
them and, thereafter the accused ran away from the spot.
3
3. A written complaint in this behalf was prepared by Babu
Ram (PW1) and was scribed by Ram Lakhan (PW4). Thereafter
Babu Ram (PW1) went to the police station which is about 8
miles from the village and handed over the written complaint.
Crime No.66/82 was recorded under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302
and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short), against
the aforesaid 6 accused. Thereafter, investigation was done and
the dead body of the deceased Sarman Singh was sent for post
mortem examination. After completion of the investigation charge
sheet under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (Cr.PC for short) was filed against all the 6 accused. The
Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The
Sessions Judge charged Lakhan Singh under Sections 147, 449,
302/149 of the IPC whereas Ramji Singh, Krishna Autar, Laxman
Singh, Lala Ram, and Virendra Singh were charged for having
committed offence punishable under Sections 148, 302/149, 449
of the IPC.
4. The prosecution examined a number of witnesses. The case
of the accused persons was of denial and according to them Babu
Ram was inimical to them and, therefore, they had been falsely
4
implicated by him. The Trial Court acquitted all the accused
mainly on the following grounds :
(1) Medical evidence did not support the oral
testimony of the witnesses and therefore the
presence of eye witness was doubtful;
(2) Material witnesses had been withheld by the
prosecution;
(3) Independent witnesses had not been
produced;
(4) Motive was not proved;
(5) Witnesses examined were inimical against the
accused and highly interested witnesses; and
(6) That the prosecution had failed to prove the
case beyond reasonable doubt.
5. The State filed an appeal in the High Court. During the
pendency of the appeal, three of the accused namely, Lakhan
Singh (A1), Krishna Autar (A3) and Virendra Singh (A6), died
and the appeal abated qua them. The High Court set aside the
judgment of the Trial Court and held that :
(1) there was no material contradiction between
the medical evidence and the statement of the
eye witnesses;
(2) that the presence of the eye witnesses on the
spot stood proved;
(3) that the prosecution had explained why it had
not examined one of the witnesses and held that
5
the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable
doubt the case against the accused.
Accordingly, Ramji Singh (A2), Laxman Singh (A4) and Lala
Ram (A5) were found guilty of having committed offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 of the IPC, and
for the offence under Section 302 read with 149, IPC they have
been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of
Rs.10,000/ each. Hence this appeal by the convicted accused.
6. We have heard Mr. Rajiv Dutta and Mr. Siddharth Luthra,
learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Ms.
Sansriti Pathak, learned counsel for the State of U.P. It is
contended on behalf of the appellants that the Trial Court had
rightly come to the conclusion that the medical evidence makes
the presence of Babu Ram (PW1) and Nand Kishore (PW2) at
the scene of occurrence extremely doubtful and, therefore, it is
urged that no reliance should be placed on their statements. It
is also urged that there are many contradictions in the
statements of these two witnesses which render their version
doubtful. Furthermore, these witnesses are related to the
deceased and being interested witnesses, no reliance should be
6
placed on their statements. It was also urged that the FIR is
ante timed and ante dated and this is evident from the delay in
delivery of the special report. It was also submitted that
material witnesses have not been examined and the ballistic
report was not proved by the prosecution. Lastly, it was
submitted that the Trial Court had taken a view which was a
probable view and this view should not have been disturbed by
the High Court.
7. On the other hand, Ms. Sansriti Pathak, learned counsel for
the State of U.P. urged that the view of the Trial Court was
perverse and she pointed out that there is no contradiction
between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence. She
further submitted that the time of recording of the FIR is
correctly recorded and is supported by the evidence on record.
Lastly, she submitted that all material witnesses have been
examined. According to her, the judgment of the Trial Court was
perverse which was rightly set aside by the High Court.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the original record in detail, we are of the view that the
main question which arises for consideration is whether reliance
7
should be placed on the statement of the eye witnesses.
Obviously, if we believe the statement of the eye witnesses and
hold that they are truthful witnesses, then the appeal has to be
dismissed. However, if a doubt is cast on the veracity of these
two witnesses then the benefit of doubt has to go to the accused.
As far as the statements of these witnesses recorded in the case
are concerned, they are almost identical and there are no major
contradictions between them. A lot of emphasis has been placed
by the appellants on the fact that many things stated by PW1 in
his examination in court have not been mentioned in the FIR.
As far as this aspect is concerned, we may note that according to
PW1, he was present at the place of incidence itself and
immediately after the occurrence dictated the complaint to Ram
Lakhan (PW4), who states that Exh.P.1 is in his hand writing
and he had written whatever was dictated to him by Babu Ram
(PW1). Thereafter, he and Babu Ram had both signed the said
complaint (Exh.P.1). From the signature of Babu Ram appearing
on Exh.P.1 it is apparent that Babu Ram is barely literate and
cannot write. PW4 is a teacher and the suggestion put to him
in cross examination was that there is some litigation between
his uncle and some persons connected with the accused, but he
8
said that he was not aware of the same. He clearly states that
he is not a party to any party politics. With regard to the
complaint the only suggestion put to him was that he had not
prepared any complaint in the village and that the complaint
was written at the police station. There was no examination
with regard to the contents of the complaint. Even with regard
to time this witness clearly states that he reached the spot at
about 12.45 PM and wrote the complaint and, thereafter, Babu
Ram was sent to the police station. He further states that the
investigating officer reached the place of occurrence at about 3
and 3.45 PM. According to him he remained at the place of
occurrence for about 4½ hours and the panchayat nama of the
dead body was prepared in his presence and he has signed on
the same. This means that the complaint was written
immediately after the occurrence. The FIR is based only on this
complaint and it does not contain anything more or less than the
complaint. If this complaint was scribed by this witness at
12.45 PM and sent along with PW1 to the police station then
the contents of the FIR is nothing more than the contents of the
complaint and hence cannot be said to be interpolated.
9
9. We may also take into consideration the fact that the
complainant is an illiterate villager. He dictated the complaint to
PW4 who, no doubt, is literate but is not well versed with law.
The complaint gives all the necessary facts but obviously it is not
drafted by a person having legal acumen. An FIR is not
supposed to be an encyclopaedia detailing all the facts in
extenso. In our opinion, the complaint (Exh. P.1) is complete
and the additions, if any, made during the evidence are not such
which cast a doubt on the correctness of the complaint.
10. We shall now deal with the submission with regard to the
delayed compliance of Section 157 of Cr.PC. The version of the
prosecution is that the report in terms of Section 157 of Cr.PC
and the U.P. Police Regulation was sent at 3.30 PM on
17.06.1982. Constable Atar Singh (PW7) who was working as
the Head Constable has stated that on 17.06.1982 special report
of the case was sent to all concerned through Constable No.406
Param Sukh Pal (PW8). He had produced the original general
diary before the court and its true extract is exhibited as P20.
He clearly states that since Babu Ram had brought written
complaint (Exh.P.1), he had not obtained signatures on the FIR.
10
In cross examination he states that he does not remember
whether the copy of the FIR was sent on 17.10.1982 to CJM,
Orai or any other Magistrate in Orai. He admits that there is no
entry in this respect in the general diary. He has denied that the
entries dated 17.06.1982 relating to despatch of the copies of the
FIR, and 18.06.1982 in respect of arrival of constable (PW8) in
the police station are forged and ante dated. PW8 further states
that he had left the police station at 3.10 PM on 17.06.1982
along with the special report which he handed over to the
Ahalmad (court master) of the SDM, Kalpi. He states that since
he became unwell, he spent the night at Kalpi and reached Orai
the next morning when he handed over the report to all other
officers and came back to the police station.
11. The appellant relied upon a document which is in
response to a Right to Information (RTI for short) query in which
the Ahalmad to the Court of the SDM, Kalpi has stated that the
special report was received on 27.06.1982. However, this RTI
report has not been proved by the We must also
Ahalmad.
remember that this RTI report must have been obtained after the
year 2005, more than 22 years after the incident took place. The
11
contents of the report have not been proved in accordance with
law and cannot be relied upon. We may also mention that in
U.P. there are U.P. Police Regulations which provide that in
cases of murder, rioting, burglary etc., copies of the report are to
be sent immediately in red envelopes to the Superintendent of
Police, the District Magistrate, the Sub Divisional Magistrate and
the Circle Inspector, by post or whichever quicker mode of
conveyance. Even if we assume that the prosecution has failed
to prove that Section 157 Cr.PC was complied with then also the
effect thereof has to be assessed. Mere delay in compliance of
Section 157 by itself is not fatal to prosecution. All it does is to
raise a doubt that the prosecution story may have been
concocted at a later stage. In our view, the statement of Ram
Lakhan (PW4) who scribed the report at about 12.45 PM at the
instance of Babu Ram (PW1), immediately after the occurrence
shows that there was no consultation before writing the
complaint. Babu Ram states that he went to the police station
on tractor and reached there before 2.00 PM when the report
was lodged. Even if the prosecution has failed to prove strict
compliance of Section 157 of the Cr.PC there is sufficient
material on record to show that copies of the FIR were sent to
12
other officials as required under the U.P. Police Regulations and,
therefore, in our opinion, there was no false FIR lodged after
consultation, as alleged by the appellants. In our opinion the
judgment cited by the appellants NK vs.
Meharaj Singh (L/ )
1
State of U.P . has no application to the facts of this case.
12. It was urged that Constable Siya Ram (PW3) who took the
dead body of the deceased from the place of occurrence to the
hospital for postmortem had admitted that the dead body was
given to him at 5.30 PM and he reached the Police Station, Orai
at 10.00 AM next morning. This witness states that he started
from the police station for the village at 2.00 PM, which
supports the prosecution version that the FIR was lodged at
about 2.00 PM. He was accompanied by another constable, the
SHO and the subinspector. According to him, they left
Pithuipur where the occurrence took place at 5.30 PM carrying
the dead body in the bullock cart and on the way the wheel of
the bullockcart stopped functioning and they spent that night
in village Bamohra. He states that he could make arrangement
of another wheel at about 6 to 7.00 AM in the next morning and,
thereafter, covered the distance between Bamohra and Orai in 3
1 (1994) 5 SCC 188
13
hours. The distance is 24 Kms, and according to the Trial Court
and the appellants bullock cart cannot cover this distance in 3
hours. In our opinion, the Trial Court had no material to come
to this conclusion that the bullockcart cannot cover this
distance in 34 hours.
13. The other main ground relied upon by the appellant is the
medical evidence. Since this is very relevant, we are quoting the
relevant portion of the evidence in detail. Dr.G.C.Misra (PW5)
was the medical officer who carried out the postmortem at 2.00
PM on 18.06.1982. On external examination he found the
following injuries :
“(i) Incised wound 12 x 2 cm x bone deep on left
side of forehead extending to left on exilla tailing towards
left.
(ii)Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on left side of
face 2 cm below injury no.1 tailing towards left.
(iii) Incised wound 13 cm x 3 cm x bone deep
starting from bone of nose going at the side of medial
angle of left eye to mandible left tailing towards left.
(iv) Incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep starting
from nose and going left side of face tailing towards left.
(v) Incised wound 14 cm x 3 cm x bone deep tailing
towards left starting from lateral orbital margins of right
eyes and going up to mandible.
(vi) Incised wound 5 cm x o.5 cm x muscle deep
starting from left angle and mouth going towards
downwards and lateral of cheek left tailing towards left.
14
(vii) Incised wound 2.5 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on
lateral side of right eye brow.
(viii) F.A. Entry wound 1 cm x 1 cm on anterior
axillary fold 2 cm away the right upper arm. No tattooing
charing etc. present.
(ix) Fire arm entry wound 1.2 cm x 1 cm on the
upper part medial aspect of right upper arm 2 cm lateral
to injury no.8. No tattooing charing etc. present.
(x)Incised wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm x muscles deep on dorsal
aspect middle joint of index finger of right hand.
(xi) Incised wound 6 x 2 cm x muscles deep on
dorsal of left hand adjacent to wrist joint.
(xii) Incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep on
durum of left hand, 2 cm below an injury no.11.
(xiii) Fire arm exit wound 3x2 cm on left scapula
region about middle.
(xiv) Fire arm exit wound 2 x 1.6 cm on right
scapular region medial border 6 cm above the infangle.
(xv) Fire arm entry wound 2 x 1.8 cm on left side of
abdomen upper part 20 cm above and lateral to
umbilicus intestine comes out.
(xvi) Entry wound fire arm 1.2x1.2 cm on left thigh
10 cm from penis no tattooing charing etc present.
(xvii) Fire arm entry wound 20 cm x 1.6 cm, 2 cm
above and lateral to injury no.16 tattooing charing etc.
present.
(xviii) Fire arm entry wound 4 x 2 cm, oblique 1.5 cm
lat to injury no.16 and 1.2 below the injury no.17
tattooing charing etc present.
(xix) Exit wound (fire arm) 6 x 6 cm on left thigh
margins adjacent to out supIliac spin.
(xx) Exist wound 8 x 4 cm on lateral side of left thigh
2 cm below the injury no.19.
(xxi) Fire arm exit wound4 cm x 4 cm on left lat side
of thigh 3 cm below the injury no.20.
(xxii) Exit wound 4 x 4 cm on post aspect left thigh 4
cm below and medial to injury no.21.
15
(xxiii) Six fire arm exit wound in area of 10 cm x 5 cm
x on medial side upper part of left thigh adjacent to the
penis size varying from 0.3 cm to 0.8 cm.
(xxiv) 3 fire arm exit wound in an area of 2 x 2 cm size
diameter 0.4 cm to 0.8 cm on upper lat part of scrotum.
(xxv) 3 fire arms wounds in an area of 6 x 4 cm on
right side of scrotum upper part adjacent to base of
scrotum size diameter 0.3 cm to 0.6 cm.”
14. On careful analysis of the medical evidence we find it fully
corroborates the prosecution story. According to both the eye
witnesses (PWs 1 and 2) accused Ramji Singh and Krishna
Autar, had fired three times each. There are corresponding 6
fire arm entry wounds which are mentioned at serial no.(viii),
(ix), (xv), (xvi), (xvii) and (xviii). As far as the exit wounds are
concerned, there are more than 6 exit wounds which is possible
since one of the fire arms used was a 12bore gun having
pellets. The doctor has opined that long barrel guns were also
used and according to him the death occurred between 12 and
12.30 PM on 17.06.1982 which also supports the prosecution
version. It is important to mention that the other injuries
described by the doctor are all relatable and could have been
caused by axe or by pitchfork, which were the weapons carried
by 3 of the accused.
16
15. Heavy reliance was placed by the Trial Court as well as
by the appellants before us on the fact that if the site map
prepared by the appellants is correct then most of the injuries
should have been caused on the left side of the body. We do
not understand as to how the Trial court could have come to
this conclusion. A site plan is prepared on the basis of
information given by witnesses. A site plan only gives a general
idea and is not a true to scale map. Even if the deceased was
sitting on the cot it is not necessary that he should have been
facing North only. He could have been facing NorthEast or
NorthWest. He could have also been sitting at one side of the
cot facing towards West. Even the two eyewitnesses were
present at the entrance of the house, inside which there was a
deoria. This is like a thick entrance gate way without any
doors. They were both standing on the outer side and
according to the statement of these witnesses accused Ramji
Singh (A2) and Krishna Autar (A3), fired their fire arms from
the entrance. Therefore, direction becomes virtually
meaningless. The High Court was absolutely justified in
coming to the conclusion that the Trial Court had totally
misdirected itself in holding that the medical evidence did not
17
support the ocular evidence. This was done only on the ground
that the injuries were not on the side on which they should
have been if the site plan was 100% right. As has already been
observed above, a site plan is not a true to scale map and it
generally gives the positions of the various eyewitnesses,
accused etc., but obviously such site plan cannot give exact
positions. Directions cannot be determined from exact position
also. The direction of the injury can also vary even if the
accused and the deceased are in the same place as mentioned
in the map and one of them is sitting or standing at an angle.
The view taken by the Trial Court was highly technical and, in
our opinion, this was not a sufficient ground to disbelieve both
the eye witnesses.
16. In fact, in our opinion, the medical evidence fully
supports the ocular evidence and there is virtually no
contradiction. The version of the two eye witnesses with regard
to the injuries caused by the fire arms and sharpedged
weapons, find corroboration from the medical report. Direction,
as pointed out above cannot be specifically ascertained from a
site plan. The occurrence took place in a small area. The
18
deceased was sitting on a cot which could at best be 6’ in
length. He was surrounded by six accused out of whom two
used fire arms. It would not be possible for any witness to
exactly state who was at which place. Even PWs 1 and 2 have
not stated the exact place from where the firing took place,
except that according to both of them the firing took place from
the entrance of the house and if that is so then the points D
and D1 in the site plan showing the points where the accused
carrying the fire arms were standing, may not be strictly
correct.
17. It has been urged that the statements of the two
witnesses PWs 1 and 2 should not be relied upon since they are
closely related to the deceased and there was enmity between
both the sides. It has been urged that PW2 had a dispute with
Krishna Autar (A3) and his brother had litigation with Lakhan
Singh(A1). We assume these facts to be true. There is no
manner of doubt as stated in the complaint itself that the
relationship between the two sides was strained. They belonged
to different groups and obviously there was enmity between
them. As is often said enmity is a doubleedged sword. It can
19
be both the motive for a crime and it can also be a motive to
falsely implicate some other people. However, each case has to
be decided on its own evidence. In this case we have come to
the conclusion that the written complaint was recorded
immediately after the occurrence. There was no time to concoct
a false case implicating those who were not involved. The fact
that Sarman Singh was murdered is not disputed. The only
question is whether it was the accused persons who murdered
him or somebody else. Once we believe that PWs 1 and 2 are
eyewitnesses, then there is no reason to hold that the
appellants were falsely implicated. They are all named in the
written complaint as well as in the FIR which was recorded at
the earliest. Their version is corroborated by the version of PW
4, who though not an eyewitness reached the spot at about
12.45 PM and then scribed the complaint. In our view this
complaint depicts what actually happened.
18. True it is that there are some minor variations and
contradictions in the statement of the two witnesses, especially
PW2. PW2 may have improved his version slightly while
appearing in court but the core of his evidence remains intact.
20
The essence of his evidence is that he had gone to pray in a
temple which is close to the house of Dasharath Singh, and he
heard a noise and saw all the accused armed as stated
hereinabove at the door of the house of Dasharath Singh.
Lakhan Singh(A1) pointed towards Sarman Singh and said,
“kill this goonda immediately.” On this, accused Krishna Autar,
and Ramji Singh fired three shots each from their guns upon
Sarman Singh. They were standing at the entrance of the
house of Dasharath Singh. Though he has been cross
examined at length, nothing material has come out of cross
examination. His statement supports the statement of Babu
Ram (PW1), who has virtually repeated what has happened, in
the complaint. The main effort of the defence appears to have
been to bring out the fact that there was enmity between the
two parties. That by itself is not sufficient to discredit the
witness.
19. We must remember that the prosecution story is that six
persons who were heavily armed, two of them with guns, killed
the deceased in broad day light. This itself shows that these
accused persons were not scared of the villagers. While leaving
21
the place of occurrence they threatened all gathered there by
saying that anybody who tried to interfere would meet the same
fate. In such a situation no other villager who may have been
present would turn up to give evidence. This Court cannot lose
sight of the harsh reality that witnesses are scared to depose in
Court. In this case two of the witnesses have spoken up and
their evidence has been corroborated on all counts. It may be
true that their relations with the accused may not have been
cordial but the evidence does not show that the enmity or
dispute between these two witnesses and the accused was of
such a nature that these two witnesses would make false
statements only to settle scores with the appellants thereby
leaving the real culprits to go scotfree. In our opinion merely
because these witnesses are interested witnesses their
testimony cannot be discarded.
20. Great emphasis was placed by the appellants on the fact
that neither Dasharath Singh, in whose house the occurrence
took place, nor his wife Bhagwanta who came immediately after
the occurrence, were examined. The Trial Court held that
Dasharath Singh must have been inside his house when the
22
occurrence took place. The Trial Court comes to this
conclusion on the ground that in the FIR it is mentioned that
Sarman Singh called Dasharath Singh. This finding of the Trial
Court is totally incorrect. There is nothing to show that
Dasharath Singh was called. In fact, both in the complaint as
well as in the FIR it is mentioned that deceased Sarman Singh
told Babu Ram (PW1) to get the agricultural implement
repaired while he would collect the money from Dasharath
Singh. Presence of Dasharath Singh is not established.
Bhagwanta, definitely reached immediately after the
occurrence. However, she filed an affidavit in the Trial Court in
which it was stated that she had seen nothing and nothing
happened in her presence. Therefore, the prosecution was
justified in not examining her. Nonexamination of the
carpenter is meaningless because he is not a witness to the
occurrence. At best he could establish the presence of PW1
before the occurrence.
21. The appellants are right when they urge that when the
report of the ballistic experts have not been proved and all the
bullets recovered from the spot have not been sent to the
23
ballistic expert, the guns seized cannot be connected with the
offence. Even if that be true, we cannot discredit the testimony
of the eyewitnesses that two of the accused used guns. The
guns seized may or may not be the guns used. However, when
the ocular evidence is direct and clear in this regard, and this
ocular evidence is fully supported by the medical evidence, the
negligence of the investigation team cannot be used by the
defence in support of their case.
22. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in
the appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if
any, shall also stands disposed of.
…..…………………………………….J.
(MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR)
..……………………………………….J.
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
New Delhi
December 11, 2019
24