# Khania (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2019) 3 ILRA 1088
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-12
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1558 of 1990
- **Bench:** Pritinker Diwaker, Raj Beer Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/khania-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-44631
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Evidence Law-Indian Evidence Act,
1872 - Evidence of an interested witness
should not be equated with that of a
tainted evidence or that of an approver so
as to require corroboration as a matter of
necessity - the evidence cannot be
disbelieved merely on the ground that the
witnesses are related to each other or to
the deceased - evidence having a ring of
truth to it, is cogent, credible and
trustworthy, it can, and certainly should,
be relied upon - Relationship is not a
factor to affect credibility of a witness - A
close relative cannot be characterized as
an 'interested' witness. He is a 'natural'
witness - If evidence found intrinsically
reliable, inherently probable and wholly
trustworthy, conviction can be based on
the 'sole testimony of such witness -
appellant had caused gunshot injury on
the vital part of the body, i.e. chest of the
deceased, resulting his instantaneous
death - manner in which the deceased
was done to death clearly proves the case
against the appellant under Section 302 -
cannot be convicted under Section 304
Part-I or Part-II of IPC. - Trial Court
rightly convicted the appellant. (Para
16,17,18,20,21)

Appeal dismissed (E-7)

Chronological list of cases cited:-

## Text

1088 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
see the appellant shooting at the deceased
does not have any substance in view of
the fact that the FIR of the incident was
lodged by the deceased while he being
injured on his dictation given to his real
brother PW4 Shambhu Nath .

52. There is also a dying declaration
of the deceased which also shows that it
was the appellant who had shot dead the
deceased with his licensee weapon as
there was some dispute between them on
the date of the incident while the
deceased was irrigating his field, hence,
the version given by the deceased Kailash
Nath Dubey while he being injured and
also in his dying declaration, is fully
corroborated by the medical examination
report of Kailash Nath Dubey as well as
his post mortem report, in which it was
found that he received firearm injuries on
his back and during the course of medical
treatment he died after two days of the
incident.

53. The appellant had also received
injuries in the incident as he was also
examined by PW3-Dr. K.D. Sharma who
examined the injured Kailash Nath
Dubey, which further goes to show that he
was present at the place of occurrence and
the argument of learned counsel for the
appellant that the injuries sustained by the
appellant has not been examined by
prosecution is hardly of significance as
the incident had taken place while a
quarrel took place between the parties at
the agricultural field and the appellant
with an intention to kill the deceased had
filed at him which hit him on his back,
which goes to show that the appellant had
an intention to kill the deceased with
deadly weapon, like gun. Even if it is
presumed that during the quarrel which
took place between the parties, the
appellant was assaulted by the accused
persons with lathis and he received only
simple injuries and the force which was
used by him was not proportionate to the
injuries received by him and he shot dead
the deceased with deadly weapon, i.e.,
licensee gun.

54. The finding recorded by the trial
Court in convicting and sentencing the
appellant appears to be correct and
justified which cannot be interfered with
by this Court, hence, conviction and
sentence of the appellant by the trial
Court is hereby upheld accordingly.

55. The appeal lacks merit. It is,
accordingly, dismissed.

56. The accused appellant is on bail,
his bail bonds are cancelled and sureties
are discharged. He shall be taken into
custody forthwith to serve out the
sentence, as has been awarded by the trial
Court.

57. Let a copy of this order along
with the lower court record be sent to the
trial Court concerned for its immediate
compliance forthwith.
----------

(2019)11ILR A1088

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.09.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1558 of 1990

Khania ...Appellant(In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent
3 All. Khania Vs. State of U.P.
1089
Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Sudarshan Singh.

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Amit Sinha, A.G.A.

A. Evidence Law-Indian Evidence Act,
1872 - Evidence of an interested witness
should not be equated with that of a
tainted evidence or that of an approver so
as to require corroboration as a matter of
necessity - the evidence cannot be
disbelieved merely on the ground that the
witnesses are related to each other or to
the deceased - evidence having a ring of
truth to it, is cogent, credible and
trustworthy, it can, and certainly should,
be relied upon - Relationship is not a
factor to affect credibility of a witness - A
close relative cannot be characterized as
an 'interested' witness. He is a 'natural'
witness - If evidence found intrinsically
reliable, inherently probable and wholly
trustworthy, conviction can be based on
the 'sole testimony of such witness -
appellant had caused gunshot injury on
the vital part of the body, i.e. chest of the
deceased, resulting his instantaneous
death - manner in which the deceased
was done to death clearly proves the case
against the appellant under Section 302 -
cannot be convicted under Section 304
Part-I or Part-II of IPC. - Trial Court
rightly convicted the appellant. (Para
16,17,18,20,21)

Appeal dismissed (E-7)

Chronological list of cases cited:-

1. Anil Rai Vs St. of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318;

2. St. of U.P. Vs Jagdeo Singh (2003)1 SCC
456;

3. Bhagalool Lodh & anr. Vs St. of U.P. (2011)
13 SCC 206;

4. Dahari & ors. Vs St. of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 256;

5. Raju @ Balachandran & ors. Vs St. of T.N.
(2012) 12 SCC 701;
6. Gangabhavani Vs Rayapati Venkat Reddy &
ors. (2013) 15 SCC 298;

7. Jodhan Vs St. of M.P. (2015) 11 SCC 52).

8. Bur Singh & anr. Vs St. of Pun. (2008) 16
SCC 65

9. Sudhakar Vs St. AIR (2018) SC 1372

10. Ganapathi Vs. St. of T. N. AIR (2018) SC 1635

11. Harbans Kaur & anr. Vs St. of Har. (2005)
AIR SCW 2074

12. Namdeo Vs St. of Mah. (2007) AIR SCW
1835

13. Sonelal Vs .St. of M.P., (20080 AIR SCW
7988

14. Dharnidhar Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2010) 7
SCC 759)

15. Lavghanbhai Devjibhai Vasava Vs St. of
Guj. (2018) 4 SCC 329

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker, J.)

1. This appeal arises out of
impugned judgment and order dated
08.06.1990 passed by Sessions Judge,
Varanasi in Sessions Trial No. 2 of 1990,
convicting the appellant under Sections
302/149, 307/149 and 148 of IPC and
sentencing him to undergo imprisonment
for life under Section 302/149, seven
years
rigorous
imprisonment
under
Section 307/149 and one year rigorous
imprisonment under Section 148 of IPC,
with a direction that all the sentences
shall run concurrently.

2. As per prosecution case, deceased
Kashi was a rickshaw puller and on
11.08.1988
at
about
12:00
in
the
afternoon, when he was returning to his
house for having his meal, accused
appellant Khania and the absconded
1090 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accused Munna and Radhey stopped and
asked him to transport stolen railways
articles, however, the deceased refused to
the said request. Hearing the reply of the
deceased, accused persons got annoyed
with him and threatened him for dire
consequences.
It
is
said
that
on
13.08.1988 at about 2:00 a.m., when
deceased Kashi was sleeping in his house
along with his wife Dasi (PW-2),
children, whereas his father Jagarnath
(PW-1) was sleeping at the western side
of
the
courtyard,
accused
persons
including the appellant gained entry in his
house, pulled the deceased out, absconded
accused persons caught hold of him,
whereas the accused appellant caused a
gunshot injury on his chest, resulting his
instantaneous death. It is said that when
Jagarnath (PW-1), father of the deceased,
tried to save his son, he too was subjected
to firearm injury. At 6:45 in the morning,
FIR (Ex.Ka.15) was lodged by PW-1
against the appellant and absconded
accused persons under Sections 148, 149,
302 and 307 of IPC. Inquest on the dead
body was conducted vide Ex. Ka.4 on
13.08.1988 and on the same day, injured
Jagarnath
(PW-1)
was
medically
examined vide Ex. Ka.3 by Dr. Umesh
Chand Sharma (PW-4).

3. Body of the deceased was sent for
postmortem which was conducted on
14.08.1988 by Dr. C.B. Tripathi (PW-3)
vide Ex.Ka.-2. As per Autopsy Surgeon,
following injuries were found on the body
of the deceased:

"1. Gunshot wound of entrance
2cm x 21⁄2cm over front right side of chest
12cm outer to midline and 7cm below
sternal notch. Blackening and tattooing
present over front of both sides of chest
and front and outer aspect of right
forearm, elbow and lower Lt. of arm.
Margins lacerated and inverted. The
Missiles had passed through chest wall
fracturing third right coastal cartilage
and adjacent sternal bone right border,
perforated
pericardium,
both
sides
abrasion pulmonary arteries and veins
and superior angle tissue over vena cava
perforated both sides lungs, pleura
pressed towards left, perforated pleura
and fracture 6th and 7th left side ribs on
back."

According to autopsy surgeon,
cause of death of the deceased was shock
and haemorrhage as a result of injuries to
heart and lungs.

4. But for accused appellant, other
accused persons remained absconded and
therefore, after filing of charge-sheet, the
accused appellant was tried for the
offence under Sections 148, 302/149,
307/149 of IPC.

5. So as to hold the accused
appellant guilty, the prosecution has
examined seven witnesses. Statement of
accused appellant was recorded under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he
pleaded
his
innocence
and
false
implication.

6. By the impugned judgment, the trial
judge has convicted the appellant under
Sections 302/149, 307/149 and 148 of IPC
and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph
1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits:

(i) that accused appellant has
been falsely implicated at the instance of
one Ram Dayal, who was having illicit
relation with Dasi (PW-2).
3 All. Khania Vs. State of U.P.
1091

(ii) that statements of Jagarnath
(PW-1) and Dasi (PW-2) are not reliable
and the same are self contradictory.

(iii) that as per medical report of
the deceased, only one gunshot injury was
found on his body and, therefore, the
appellant cannot be convicted under
Section 302 of IPC and, at best, he can be
convicted under Section 304 Part-I or
Part-II of IPC.

(iv) that no independent witness
has been examined by the prosecution and
Jagarnath (PW-1) and Dasi (PW-2) being
interested witnesses, are required to be
ignored.

8. On the other hand, supporting the
impugned judgment, it has been argued
by the State counsel:

(i) that there is no reason for
this Court to disbelieve the statements of
Jagarnath (PW-1) and Dasi (PW-2), who
appear to be natural eye-witnesses.

(ii) that incident occurred at
2:00 a.m. on 13.08.1988 inside the house
and in the facts and circumstances of the
case, no outsider could have been present
in the house and, therefore, statements of
Jagarnath (PW-1) and Dasi (PW-2) alone
appear to be justified.

(iii) that the manner in which
the deceased was done to death clearly
proves the case against the appellant
under Section 302 IPC.

(iv) that the medical report of
Jagarnath (PW-1) also supports the
prosecution case.

(v) that the manner in which the
offence has been committed, under no
circumstances, it can be diluted for the
offence under Section 304 of IPC.

9. We have heard learned counsel
for the parties and perused the record.

10. Jagarnath (PW-1), is a father of
the deceased Kashi, states that his son
was a rickshaw puller, whereas accusedappellant is resident of Taranpur. A few
days prior to the incident, when he was in
the godown, deceased came to him and
informed that accused appellant and other
accused persons were asking him to
transport stolen articles by offering
unlimited money and when he refused to
do so, he was abused and threatened by
the appellant and other accused persons.
He states that the deceased also informed
this fact to his wife Dasi (PW-2). On the
day of incident, i.e. in the night
intervening 12/13.8.1988, he was sleeping
in the courtyard of his house, whereas
deceased was sleeping in another room
along with his wife and children. In the
courtyard, an earthen lamp was burning
and he saw that deceased was pulled out
from his room, two persons were holding
the deceased and then appellant fired on
his chest. He states that the incident
occurred in the courtyard. He has further
stated that the incident has also been
witnessed by Dasi (PW-2), wife of the
deceased. He has further stated that
absconded accused Munna fired aiming
him as a result of which he suffered pellet
injury. After hearing his shout and the
shout of his family members, accused
persons fled away from the spot. In crossexamination, this witness remained firm
and has reiterated as to the manner in
which the incident occurred. He has
further clarified that earthen lamp was
burning and there was sufficient light.

11. Dasi (PW-2) is a wife of the
deceased, who at the time of occurrence,
was sleeping with him. While supporting
the prosecution case, she too has stated
that her husband was done to death by the
appellant, who caused gunshot injury on
1092 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
his chest. She has also stated that earthen
lamp was burning. In cross-examination,
this witness also remained very firm and
has not said anything, which may be of
any help to the defence. She has further
clarified that she knew the appellant very
well as in the same area her sister is
residing.

12. Dr. C.B. Tripathi (PW-3)
conducted the postmortem on the body of
the deceased and has proved the gunshot
injury
sustained
by
the
deceased.
According to him, cause of death of the
deceased was shock and haemorrhage as a
result of injuries to heart and lungs.

13. Dr. Umesh Chand Sharma (PW4)
medically
examined
the
injured
Jagarnath (PW-1) vide Ex.Ka.3 and the
following injuries were found on his
body.

"(1) Firearm injury - wound of
entry, circular in outline, two in nos.
margin inverted, scorching and tattooing
present with swelling around 31⁄2 cms x
1cm around on right side of scalp front
side 5cm above right eye brow, singeing
of hairs present, contact wound.

(2) Firearm injury - wound of
entry - circular in outline, margin
inverted, scorching and tattooing present
on right side face 1cm outer to lateral
angle of Rt. eye.

(3) Firearm injury - wound of
entry, multiple in nos. in the area 19cm x
12cm on the back of Rt. upper arm,
Elbow joint and forearm circular in out
line,
inverted
margin,
scorching
&
tattooing present.

- injuries are simple and caused
by firearm

- duration - fresh.

- X ray advised to show the
presence of pellets."

14. Bankey Bihari Singh (PW-5) is
an
Investigating
Officer,
has
duly
supported the prosecution case. Dina Nath
Sharma (PW-6) is a constable, has
recorded the FIR and Rajnath Yadav (PW7) is a constable, who had assisted during
investigation.

15. Close scrutiny of the evidence
makes it clear that on 11.08.1988, there
was some hot talk between the deceased
and the accused persons and the deceased
was threatened for dire consequences. In
the night intervening 12/13.8.1988, the
accused appellant along with other
accused persons gained entry in the house
of the deceased. The other accused
persons pulled out the deceased from his
room, caught hold of him, and then
appellant caused gunshot injury on his
chest, resulting his instantaneous death.
Incident has been witnessed by Jagarnath
(PW-1), father of the deceased and Dasi
(PW-2), wife of the deceased. Both these
witnesses
have
duly
supported
the
prosecution case and have categorically
stated that they saw the accused appellant
committing murder of the deceased. The
evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 have been
duly supported by the postmortem report
of the deceased. Most importantly, in the
incident Jagarnath (PW-1) also suffered
injury and his injury has also been proved
by Dr. Umesh Chand Sharma (PW-4) vide
Ex.Ka.3.

16. We find no substance in the
argument
of
the
defence
that
the
statements of Jagarnath (PW-1) and Dasi
(PW-2) are not reliable and the same are
self
contradictory,
and
they
being
interested witnesses, their statements are
3 All. Khania Vs. State of U.P.
1093
required to be ignored. As per prosecution
case, both these witnesses were present in
the house, there was sufficient light of
earthen lamp, and they saw the accused
appellant committing murder of the
deceased and the evidence of both these
witnesses have been duly supported by
the postmortem report of the deceased.
There is no reason for us to disbelieve the
statements of these two witnesses, who
appear to be natural eye-witnesses. They
appear to be trustworthy and their
statements inspire the confidence of the
Court.
Their
testimony
cannot
be
discarded simply on the ground that they,
being the father and wife of the deceased
respectively, are interested witnesses.
Law in this respect is very clear.

It is well settled principle of law
that the evidence of an interested witness
should not be equated with that of a
tainted evidence or that of an approver so
as to require corroboration as a matter of
necessity. All that the Courts required as a
rule of prudence, not as a rule of law, was
that the evidence of such witness should
be scrutinized with a little care. It has to
be realized that related and interested
witness would be the last persons to
screen the real culprits and falsely
substitute innocent ones in their places.
Indeed there may be circumstances where
only interested evidence may be available
and no other, e.g. when an occurrence
takes place at midnight in the house when
the only witnesses who could see the
occurrence may be the family members.
In such cases, it would not be proper to
insist that the evidence of the family
members should be disbelieved merely
because of their interestedness. But once
such witness was scrutinized with a little
care and the Court was satisfied that the
evidence of the interested witness have a
ring of truth such evidence could be relied
upon even without corroboration. Thus,
the evidence cannot be disbelieved
merely on the ground that the witnesses
are related to each other or to the
deceased. In case the evidence has a ring
of truth to it, is cogent, credible and
trustworthy, it can, and certainly should,
be relied upon. (See Anil Rai vs. State of
Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318; State of U.P.
vs. Jagdeo Singh (2003) 1 SCC 456;
Bhagalool Lodh & Anr. vs. State of U.P.
(2011) 13 SCC 206; Dahari & Ors. vs.
State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 256; Raju
@ Balachandran & Ors. vs. State of
Tamil Nadu (2012) 12 SCC 701;
Gangabhavani vs. Rayapati Venkat
Reddy & Ors. (2013) 15 SCC 298;
Jodhan vs. State of M.P. (2015) 11 SCC
52).

17. The Supreme Court in the matter
of Bur Singh and Anr. vs. State of
Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 65 has held that
merely because the eyewitnesses are
family members their evidence cannot per
se be discarded. When there is allegation
of interestedness, the same has to be
established. Mere statement that being
relatives of the deceased they are likely to
falsely implicate the accused cannot be a
ground to discard the evidence which is
otherwise cogent and credible. Further,
the Supreme Court in the matter of
Sudhakar vs. State, AIR 2018 SC 1372
and Ganapathi vs. State of Tamil Nadu,
AIR 2018 SC 1635 relying in its earlier
judgments held as under:

"18. Then, next comes the
question 'what is the difference between a
related witness and an interested witness?.
The plea of "interested witness", "related
witness" has been succinctly explained by
this Court that "related" is not equivalent
1094 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to "interested". The witness may be called
"interested" only when he or she derives
some benefit from the result of a litigation
in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing
an accused person punished. In this case
at hand PW 1 and 5 were not only related
witness, but also 'interested witness' as
they had pecuniary interest in getting the
accused petitioner punished. [refer State
of U.P. v. Kishanpal and Ors., (2008) 16
SCC 73] : (2008 AIR SCW 6322). As the
prosecution has relied upon the evidence
of interested witnesses, it would be
prudent in the facts and circumstances of
this case to be cautious while analyzing
such evidence. It may be noted that other
than these witnesses, there are no
independent
witnesses
available
to
support the case of the prosecution."

Relationship is not a factor to
affect credibility of a witness. There is no
proposition in law that relatives are to be
treated as untruthful witnesses. On the
contrary, reason has to be shown when a
plea of partiality is raised to show that the
witnesses had reason to shield the actual
culprit and falsely implicate the accused.
A witness who is a relative of deceased or
victim
of
the
crime
cannot
be
characterized as 'interested'. The term
'interested' postulates that the witness has
some direct or indirect 'interest' in having
the accused somehow or other convicted
due to animus or for some other oblique
motive. A close relative cannot be
characterized as an 'interested' witness.
He is a 'natural' witness. His evidence,
however, must be scrutinized carefully. If
on such scrutiny his evidence is found to
be
intrinsically
reliable,
inherently
probable
and
wholly
trustworthy,
conviction can be based on the 'sole
testimony of such witness. (See- Harbans
Kaur and another vs. State of Haryana,
2005 AIR SCW 2074; Namdeo vs. State
of Maharashtra, 2007 AIR SCW 1835;
Sonelal vs. State of M.P., 2008 AIR
SCW 7988; and Dharnidhar vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Others & other
connected appeals, (2010) 7 SCC 759).

18. We find no substance in the
argument of defence that as per medical
report, only one gunshot injury was found
on the body of the deceased and,
therefore,
the
appellant
cannot
be
convicted under Section 302 of IPC and
at best he can be convicted under Section
304 Part-I or Part-II of IPC. As per
prosecution case, it is the appellant, who
fired gunshot injury on the appellant,
resulting his instantaneous death and the
manner in which the deceased was done
to death clearly proves the case against
the appellant under Section 302 and
therefore, he cannot be convicted under
Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of IPC.

19. In the case of Lavghanbhai
Devjibhai Vasava vs. State of Gujarat
(2018) 4 SCC 329, following parameters
have been laid down by the Apex Court as
to whether a case would fall under
Section 302 or Section 304 of IPC.

(a) The circumstances in which
the incident took place;

(b) The nature of weapon used;

(c) Whether the weapon was
carried or was taken from the spot;

(d) Whether the assault was
aimed on vital part of body;

(e) The amount of the force
used;

(f)
Whether
the
deceased
participated in the sudden fight;

(g) Whether there was any
previous enmity;

(h) Whether there was any
sudden
provocation;
3 All. Satte @ Sattan Vs. State of U.P.
1095

(i) Whether the attack was in
the heat of passion; and

(j) Whether the person inflicting
the injury took any undue advantage or
acted in the cruel or unusual manner.

20. It is not a case where appellant
had caused gunshot injury on non-vital
part of the body of the deceased but he
chose the vital part of the body, i.e. chest
of the deceased and, therefore, under no
stretch of imagination, his case would fall
under Section 304 of IPC.

21. Taking cumulative effect of the
evidence and after due appreciation
thereof, the trial Court has rightly
convicted the appellant and we find no
infirmity in the judgment impugned.

22. Resultantly, the appeal fails and
is hereby dismissed. The appellant is
reported to be on bail. His bail bond
stands cancelled and he be taken into
custody
immediately
to
serve
the
remaining sentence
----------

(2019)11ILR A1095

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.10.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1782 of 1998

Satte @ Sattan ...Appellant(In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Dileep Kumar, Sri Radhey Shyam
Yadav(A.C.), Sri Rajeev Gupta.
Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

Criminal Law-Narcotics and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985, Section 50 r/w
8/20 and 42. 'Charas' recovered from the
shirt pocket of the accused. Personal search of
accused - compliance of section 50 NDPS Act -
mandatory in nature and non-compliance
would entail an order of acquittal - In a crime
based on recovery of illegal drugs for which
stringent provision in terms of procedure and
punishment has been provided in the NDPS
Act, it is necessary to ensure free and fair
investigation
without
any
objectionable
features and infirmities - Presumption against
innocence based on possession of illegal drug
and shifting the burden of proof on accused
requires fair and untainted investigation
without any glimpse of malice, mischief,
doubt, falsity, fabrication and prejudice to the
accused - Fairness and purity in investigation
is
so
necessary
for
criminal
justice
administration that without it fair trial will
become a mockery and will result in
miscarriage of justice - Trial court has ignored
the shortcomings and lapse in the prosecution
version, recovery process and evidence -
finding of the trial court is perverse and illegal
-
Impugned
judgment
convicting
and
sentencing the accused - not sustainable
under law - liable to be set aside.(Para
14,16,17,18)
Appeal allowed. (E-7)

List of cases cited: -
1. Jarnail Singh Vs St. of Pun. (2011) CRLJ
1738(SC)

2. Ajmer Singh Vs St. of Har. (2010) 3 SCC
746

3. St. of Pun.Vs Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC
172 (Five Judge Bench)

4. T. Hamza Vs St. of Ker. (2000) 1 SCC 300

5. Megh Singh Vs St. of Pun. (2003) 8 SCC 666

6. Ajmer Singh Vs St. of Har. (2010) 3 SCC
746