# Nand Kishore @ Nagpal (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2021) 2 ILRA 482
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-01-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 4159 of 2012
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Gautam Chowdhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nand-kishore-nagpal-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-46832
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 307 - Attempt to murder ,
Sections
326
-
Voluntarily
causing
grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or
means - Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 25/27
- conclusively proved that it is the
accused, who was involved in the incident
- firearm injuries in the eye - no witness
has mentioned - how P.W. 2 received
injuries in the eye - inflicted maximum of
punishment - requires modification. (Para -
22,23,27)

Informant gave a written complaint - his son
injured on the date of incident - going to ply van
on the kanta after having his meal - met
Lekhpal who was having illicit relation with one
woman of easy virtue had altercation with son
of the complainant - with a view to do away the
2 All. Nand Kishore @ Nagpal Vs. State of U.P.
483
injured, the accused fired one gun shot from
country made pistol which injured his son - On
hearing hue and cry, informant, converged to
the place of occurrence on which accused fled
with the country made pistol .(Para -2)

HELD:- Section 326 though is made out, the
nature of injuries, part of the body chosen by
the accused and weapon used are important
facts, which are to be considered. Medical
evidence go to show that the injuries were not
so grave so that the accused has to suffer
incarceration for life. Thus, punishment under
Section 326 I.P.C. is reduced
from life
imprisonment to the period already undergone.
While seeing blow on the vital part of the body,
i.e., on the neck, we hold him guilty under
Section 307. As far as Section 25/27 of Arms Act
is concerned, we do not delve into as period of
incarceration and default sentence therein is
also over. (Para - 28)

Criminal appeal partly allowed. (E- 6)

List of Cases Cited:-

## Text

482 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that the deceased died out during the short
span of her marriage. The learned counsel
for the appellant has relied on the decision
of G.V. Siddharamesh (Supra) and has
requested this Court that while confirming
conviction this court may sentence him for
10 years. The said decision would apply to
the facts of this case. Further relied on Hari
Om (Supra) will also permit us to vary the
sentence and reduce the same to ten years.
A recent decision of our High Court in
Criminal Appeal No. 4701 of 2013 dated
11.04.2019 in the case of Raju @ Rajiv Vs.
State of U.P. will also permit us to reduce
the sentence and the judgement of Lordship
Justice Pritinkar Diwakar in the case of
Raju @ Rajiv will permit us to reduce the
sentence for the following reasons.

(i) The death was not so
gruesome that the accused be sentenced
till his last breath though the period
during which the deceased had given up
her life was during a short span of her
marriage.

(ii) In the suicidal note which
has been sought to be proved by
examining D.W. 2 has not been converted
by prosecution even before the trial Judge
which also raise with us in lessening with
period of incarceration of the accused.

17. The sentence of imprisonment is
substituted by ten years of imprisonment
with remissions allowable. As far as 498A I.P.C. is concerned the period of
incarceration is already over, he shall
deposit fine of Rs. 10,000/- failing which
the default sentence would stand to run
from date of incarceration is over and as
far
as
Dowry
prohibition
case
is
concerned, the period of one year is
already over, he shall deposit Rs. 5,000/-
failing which the default sentence would
run from the date of incarceration.

19. The appeal is partly allowed.
The record of this case be sent back to the
trial court.

18. We are thankful to the counsels
for assisting this court.
----------
(2021)02ILR A482
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.01.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 4159 of 2012

Nand Kishore @ Nagpal
 ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Radhey Shyam Shukla, Sri Ashutosh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 307 - Attempt to murder ,
Sections
326
-
Voluntarily
causing
grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or
means - Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 25/27
- conclusively proved that it is the
accused, who was involved in the incident
- firearm injuries in the eye - no witness
has mentioned - how P.W. 2 received
injuries in the eye - inflicted maximum of
punishment - requires modification. (Para -
22,23,27)

Informant gave a written complaint - his son
injured on the date of incident - going to ply van
on the kanta after having his meal - met
Lekhpal who was having illicit relation with one
woman of easy virtue had altercation with son
of the complainant - with a view to do away the
2 All. Nand Kishore @ Nagpal Vs. State of U.P.
483
injured, the accused fired one gun shot from
country made pistol which injured his son - On
hearing hue and cry, informant, converged to
the place of occurrence on which accused fled
with the country made pistol .(Para -2)

HELD:- Section 326 though is made out, the
nature of injuries, part of the body chosen by
the accused and weapon used are important
facts, which are to be considered. Medical
evidence go to show that the injuries were not
so grave so that the accused has to suffer
incarceration for life. Thus, punishment under
Section 326 I.P.C. is reduced
from life
imprisonment to the period already undergone.
While seeing blow on the vital part of the body,
i.e., on the neck, we hold him guilty under
Section 307. As far as Section 25/27 of Arms Act
is concerned, we do not delve into as period of
incarceration and default sentence therein is
also over. (Para - 28)

Criminal appeal partly allowed. (E- 6)

List of Cases Cited:-

1. Mustak alias Kanio Ahmed Shaikh Vs St. of
Guj. , AIR 2020 Supreme Court 2799

2. Sattan Sahani case, 2002 7 SCC 604
3. Hasoraj Singh case, AIR 1993 Supreme Court
1256

4. Modi Ram case, AIR 1972 SC 2438

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.
& Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary, J.)

1. By way of this appeal, the appellant
has challenged the Judgment and order
24.9.2012 passed by court of Additional
Sessions Judge (Ex-Cadre), Rampur in
Sessions Trial No. 304 of 2011, State Vs.
Nand Kishore @ Nagpal arising out of
Case Crime No. 332 of 2011 under
Sections 307, 326 I.P.C. heard with
Sessions Trial No. 305 of 2011, State Vs.
Nand Kishore @ Nagpal, arising out of
Case Crime No. 362 of 2011 under
Sections 25/27 Arms Act, Police Station
Shahjad Nagar, District Rampur.

2. The brief facts which led to the
litigation and whereby the State had to start
investigation
are
that
on
19.3.2011,
informant Dal Chand gave a written
complaint to the Station House Officer,
Police Station Shahjad Nagar stating therin
that his son Rameshwar injured on the date
of incident, i.e., 19.3.2011 was going to ply
van on the kanta of one Buddhi Lal after
having his meal. When he reached at the
shopping place known as Kamora Bazar, he
met Lekhpal @ Sapera who was having
illicit relation with one woman of easy
virtue, namely, Savitri had altercation with
son of the complainant, at 7 pm, with a
view to do away the injured, the accused
fired one gun shot from country made
pistol which injured Rameshwar. On
hearing hue and cry, informant, Natthu Lal
and Ram Kishore converged to the place of
occurrence on which accused fled with the
country made pistol. This gave rise to the
investigation
by
the
police
for
the
commission of offence and for using and
having arms which was prohibited under
the Arms Act. The police registered
aforementioned case crime numbers under
the relevant sections of I.P.C. and also
under Arms Act after recovery of 12 bore
country made pistol.

3. After the investigation was over,
charge sheet was filed against the accused.
The case being exclusively triable by the
court of sessions, the same was committed
to the Sessions court. The accused was read
over the charges, who pleaded not guilty
and wanted to be tried.

4. The injured was taken to the
hospital, who had suffered two major
injuries, which were as follows:-
484 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Injury No.1:- Contused wound
2cmx 1.05 cm on left side of neck below 5
cm from ear towards behind.

Injury No.2:- Contused wound
1.05x 1.00 cm above the left eye.

5. These two injuries were certified
by the doctor P.W.4 Sri Mohd. Ahmad who
opined that they appeared to be caused by
firearms and testified that they were caused
by way of firing by a country made pistol
recovered from appellant.

6. The prosecution so as to bring
home
the
charges
examined
eight
witnesses, who are as under:-

1
Dalchandra
P.W.1
2.
Rameshwar P.W.2
3.
Ram
Kishore
P.W.3
4.
Dr.
Mohd.
Ahmad
P.W. 4
5.
Constable
Mohd.
Taukir
P.W. 5
6.
Dr.
Vipul
Kumar
P.W. 6
7.
Dr. Nishant
Gupta
P.W.7
8.
Dr.
Akhil
Agrawal
P.W.8

7. In support of the ocular version of
the witnesses, following documents were
produced and contents were proved by
leading evidence:

1
Written
Report
Ext. Ka-1

2.
Medical
Report
Ext. Ka-2
3.
Chik
Ext. Ka-3
4.
Nakal Rapat Ext. Ka-4
5.
Chik F.I.R.
Ext. Ka-5
6.
Nakal Rapat Ext. Ka-6
7.
Report
of
injured
Ext. Ka-7
8.
Operation
Note
Ext. Ka-8
9.
Information
at
Police
Station
Prem Nagar
Ext. Ka-9
10. Reference
Slip
Ext. Ka-10
11. X-ray Slip
Ext. Ka-11
12. Prescription
Receipt
Ext. Ka-12
13. Blood Bank
Receipt
Ext. Ka-13
14. Discharge
Slip
Ext. Ka-14
15. Pathology
Report
Ext. Ka-15
16. Report
of
Patient
Ext. Ka-16
17. Consent
letter
Ext.Ka-17
18. Statement of
Patient
Ext. Ka-18
19. Prescription Ext. Ka-19
20. High
Risk
Consent
Ext. Ka-20
21. Consent
letter
for
Ext. Ka-21
2 All. Nand Kishore @ Nagpal Vs. State of U.P.
485
rendering
unconscious
22. Site plan
Ext. Ka-22
23. Fard
bramdagi
Ext. Ka-23
24. Charge
sheet
Ext. Ka-24
25. Site
Plan
under
Section
25
Arms Act
Ext. Ka-25
26. D.M.
Permission
Ext. Ka-26
27. Charge
sheet under
Section
25
Arms Act
Ext. Ka-27

8. P.W. 1 Dalchandra in his statement
recorded on 1.12.2011 stated that about
eight months ago, his son Rameshwar, after
having meal, was going to kanta of one
Buddhilal for plying the van. When his son
entered the Kamora Bazar, accused present
in court, namely, Nand Kishore met him.
Accused asked his son as to where he was
going and why was he complaining about
his relations with Savitri. This witness
stated that there was illicit relations
between Savitri and accused which was
opposed by his son and due to this
acrimony, the accused fired at his son
Rameshwar with a countrymade pistol.
Rameshwar fell down on the ground. This
witness proved written report as Ext. Ka-1.

9. P.W. 2 Rameshwar (injured) in his
statement dated 3.1.2012 stated that the
incident took place on 19.3.2011. He after
having his meal was going to kanta of one
Buddhi Lal for plying the van. When he
reached Kamora Bazar at about 7 p.m., the
accused met him. The accused was having
illicit relations with a village woman
named Savitri on account of which accused
was nurturing acrimony with him and he
opened fire with an intent to kill him which
hit him on the left side of his neck near ear.
On being hit by gun-shot, he fell down on
the ground and the accused ran away. This
witness in his cross-examination stated that
he was hit by single shot which was fired at
from behind.

10. P.W. 3., who is eye witness, in his
statement recorded on 31.1.2012 stated that
incident relates to about ten and half years
back. When he was going to his house, he
heard sound of gun shot at about 7 p.m. and
also the hue and cry. He saw that villager
Lekhpal @ Sapera with an intent to kill,
fired at Rameshwar. This offence was
committed on account of woman of the
village, namely, Savitri.

11. Pws 4, 6, 7 & 8 who are doctors,
have proved the injuries sustained by the
injured Rameshwar.

12. After hearing the prosecution and
defence and also considering the evidences
available on record, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge by the impugned Judgment
convicted the appellant under Sections 307
I.P.C. and sentenced to him to undergo
rigorous incarceration for ten years with
fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, to undergo further one
year incarceration. He further convicted
and sentenced the appellant under Section
326
I.P.C.
to
under
to
rigourous
incarceration
for
life
with
fine
of
Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of
fine, to undergo eighteen months further
incarceration. For offences under Section
25/27 of Arms Act, the learned Judge
convicted and sentenced the accused-
486 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appellant to undergo five years rigorous
incarceration with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in
default of payment of fine, to undergo
further six months rigorous incarceration.

13. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied
with impugned Judgment and order passed
in Sessions Trials No. 304 of 2011 and 305
of 2011, the accused-appellant is before
this Court.

14. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant and learned counsel for the State
and perused the record.

15. At the outset, it is required to be
mentioned that the appellant accused is in
jail for more than nine years. Learned
counsel for the appellant had filed his
second bail application but we had perused
the first bail application and the facts and,
therefore, without paper book, we passed
the following order on 11.1.2021:-

"Learned
counsel
for
the
appellant submits that the appellant is in
jail since more than 9 years. Court below
has convicted the appellant under Section
307 IPC for ten years imprisonment with
fine of Rs.10,000/-.

We have requested for arguing
the main matter, learned counsel for
appellant has shown his agreement. Hence
even without paper book as the evidence
available with him, list this matter
tomorrow i.e. 12.1.2021 at 2:00 p.m."

16. Learned counsel for the appellant
made an alternative prayer that no offence
under Section 326 IPC is made out against
the accused as the injured has not stated in
his statement as to how his eye was hit and
in the alternative, he has submitted that the
offence is not so grave that the appellant is
required to be given incarcration for life.

17. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the trial court did not
appreciate that the incident occurred in
broad day light. It is submitted that P.W. 2
did not mention as to how he suffered the
injuries in his eye.

18. After going through the testimony
of the witnesses, we conveyed to the
counsel about our non agreement to the fact
that the accused was required to be
acquitted.

19. It is submitted by counsel for
appellant that according to the prosecution
case, the occurrence took place at 7 p.m.
The submission of the counsel is that in the
informant's version and the version of P.W.
1
and
P.W.
2,
there
are
certain
contradictions.
They
are
very
minor
contradictions. It is submitted that Nand
Kishor did not fire at the injured. It is
unknown who had fired on the injured and
injured his eye. Arrest of the appeallant
was on 30.3.2011.

20. It is submitted that the accused
was not named in the F.I.R. despite that he
had been charge sheeted and he had been
convicted. It is further submitted that
neither the prosecution witnesses nor
Rameshwar stated in his oral statement on
oath as to how he sustained injury on his
left eye. We are not aware that the accused
is also known as Lekhpal @ Sapera who
had injured the P.W.2. The oral statement
of PW 3 Ram Kishore and that of doctor
who examined the injured Rameshwar had
also opined that it was a fire arm injury. It
is submitted that only single fire arm shot
was heard and the accused had been roped
in falsely. It is further submitted that the
evidence on record goes to show that the
trial court has committed an error, which is
apparent on the face of the record.
2 All. Nand Kishore @ Nagpal Vs. State of U.P.
487

21. As against this, learned counsel
for the State has contended that the
punishment is just and proper as PW 2 was
injured and he has highly damaged eye as
per the medical evidence. Dr. Akhil
Agrawal, according to the counsel for the
State, had examined the injured on
20.3.2011 who has opined that he was
injured by gun shot injury. This gun shot
injury, according to the counsel for the
State, was caused by the gun which was
recovered from the accused.

22. Having deeply gone into oral
testimony of all the witnesses, three things
emerge , i.e., the incident occurred on
19.3.2011 at 7 pm; the presence of the
accused is proved; and the injuries of the
injured are proved by the evidence of PWs
2 and 3, who were present at the place of
the occurrence . It is evident from the
evidence of PW 2 that he received gun shot
injury from behind which went from his
neck and went through near the ear. The
dispute arose on account of illicit relations
between the accused and one Savitri for
which the injured went to advise him. PW 3
heard the noise of firing and reached there
and, according to him, the incident
occurred due to illicit relations with Savitri.
A confusion was sought to be created that
Lekhpal alias Sapera and Nand Kishore are
two different persons but the accused
Nandkishore @ Nagpal @ Lekhpal @
Sapera are the same person. Thus, it is
conclusively proved that it is the accused,
who was involved in the incident and he is
a named accused. We are not delving into
the further facts as we are convinced that it
was the accused who was involved in the
commission of the offence.

23. As far as the firearm injuries in
the eye is concerned, no witness has
mentioned that as to how P.W. 2 received
injuries in the eye. The learned Judge has
not assigned any reason as to why the
accused is sentenced for life imprisonment
under Section 326 I.P.C. The learned Judge
even without considering the evidence of
PW 8 the doctor, comes to the conclusion
that injuries were as such that injured
would have died. We have perused the
evidence of the doctors. It cannot be said
that injuries of the accused were so grave
that he should be sentenced to be life
imprisonment under Sections 307 and 326,
which read as follows:

"307.
Atempt
to
murder.-
Whoever does any act with such intention
or
knowledge,
and
under
such
circumstances that, if the by that act caused
death, he would be guilty of murder, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;
and if hurt is caused to any person by such
act, the offender shall be laible either to [
imprisonment
for
life],
or
to
such
punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.

Attempt by life convicts.-[When
any person offending under this section is
under sentence of [imprisonment for life],
he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with
death.]

326. Voluntarily causing grievous
hurt by dangerous weapons or means.-
Whoever, except in the case provided for by
Section 335, voluntarily causes grievous
hurt by means of any instrument for
shooting, stabbing or cutting or any
instrument which used as a weapon of
offence, is likely to cause death , or by
means of fire or any heated substance, or
by means of any poison or any corrosive
substance, or by means of any explosive
substance, or by means of any substance
which it is deleterious to the human body to
inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the
488 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
blood, or by means of any animal, shall be
punished with [imprisonment for life], or
with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine."

24. Recently, in the case of Mustak
alias Kanio Ahmed Shaikh Vs. State of
Gurarat, repored in AIR 2020 Supreme
Court 2799, the Apex Court, while
enhancing punishment under Section 307 of
the Indian Penal code, has sentenced the
accused to seven years.

25. The Apex Court in the case of
Sattan Sahani 2002 7 SCC 604 has held that
where the accused faced trauma of criminal
proceedings for more than two decades, the
sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the
period already undergone. In the case of
Hasoraj Singh reported in AIR 1993
Supreme Court 1256, the accused was
ordered to undergo three years as the
sentence of imprisonment was reduced to
period already undergone. In our case,
accused has remained in jail during trial and
again during the pendency of appeal before
this
Court.
The
sentence
has
to
commensurate with the injuries which the
injured has sustained. The Court commands
the first class Magistrate to try such cases as
it was coupled with 307 I.P.C. We hold that
as there was sudden quarrel where only two
injuries were found and the accused has been
in jail for more than nine years, we hold that
eight years would be sufficient period for
incarceration looking to the weapon used
looking to the young age of injured also.
Fight took place betwen the accused and
injured which arose out of exchange of
abuses due to alleged relations with some
lady. The proseuction has proved that the
assault was by the appellant. Even in a case
where the nose was cut, the court shall not
give life sentence.

26. In the case of Modi Ram, AIR
1972 SC 2438 also, where there are serious
allegation, the Apex Court held that the
accused should be adequately dealt with. The
Apex Court in a case, where a person whose
penis and nose were cut, held that eight years
of imprisonment were too harsh and reduced
the period to three years. The punishment
should commensurate with the injuries
caused. There should not be any undue
sympathy also. But, in our case, we find that
there were doubt regarding who injured PW 2
in his eye and as even in his testimony he did
not say that the accused had fired in his eye.

27. The learned Judge has gone on the
bare reading of Section 307 and 326 I.P.C.
and has inflicted maximum of punishment
which,
in
our
opinion,
requires
modification.

28. In that view of the matter, as far
as Section 326 I.P.C. is concerned, we hold
that Section 326 though is made out, the
nature of injuries, part of the body chosen
by the accused and weapon used are
important facts, which are to be considered.
Medical evidence go to show that the
injuries were not so grave so that the
accused has to suffer incarceration for life.
Thus, punishment under Section 326 I.P.C.
is reduced from life imprisonment to the
period already undergone, i.e., eight years
with reduced fine of Rs.10,000/-, and
default sentence is also reduced to six
months. While seeing blow on the vital part
of the body, i.e., on the neck, we hold him
guilty under Section 307 and sentence is
reduced to eight years, fine is reduced to
Rs.10,000/- and default sentence is also
reduced to three months which by now he
must have undergone. As far as Section
25/27 of Arms Act is concerned, we do not
delve into as period of incarceration and
default sentence therein is also over.
2 All. Amit Sharma Vs. State of U.P.
489

29. The appeals stands partly allowed.

30. Records are not before this Court.
The accused, who is in jail, be released if
he is not required in any other case.

31. Let a copy of this judgment be
sent to the Jail Authorities concerned and
District Magistrate for compliance.
----------
(2021)02ILR A489
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.01.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BACHCHOO LAL, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA
SHARMA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 4212 of 2009
&
Criminal Appeal No. 3967 of 2009

Amit Sharma ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Paritosh Shukla, Sri Gaurav Kakkar, Sri
R.B. Gaur, Sri S.K. Upadhyay, Sri Yogesh
Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

Criminal Law-Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860), S.304B - Evidence Act (1 of 1872) ,
S.113B - Dowry death - Held - Various cut
wounds were found on the body of the
deceased in which except the injury
number 13, all the other injuries were on
delicate organ, head, neck and abdomen,
which shows that the injuries to the
deceased were inflicted in the most brutal
and
ruthless
manner
-
Appellants
harassed the deceased for demand of
dowry and treated her with cruelty - death
of the deceased occurred within 7 years of
marriage as a result of injuries found on
her body otherwise than under normal
circumstances
-
no
legal
error
or
irregularity in the judgments and findings
of the trial - Life imprisonment of husband
and seven years sentence to mother in law
maintained. (Para 41)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-4)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Kailash Vs St. of M. P AIR 2007 SC 107

2. Hari Om Vs St. of Har. 2014 AIR SCW 6416

3. St. of Karnataka Vs M. V. Manjunath Gowda
& anr. AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 809, 2003(1)
SC 133,

4. Hem Chand Vs St. of Har. AIR 1995
SUPREME COURT 120; 1994 Supreme (SC)1014

5. G. V. Siddaramesh Vs St. of Karnataka 2010
AIR SCW 1387

(Delivered by Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal, J.)

1⁄4ekuuh; U;k;ewfrZ cPpw yky] }kjk iznRr fu.kZ;1⁄2

1. vihykFkhZ vfer 'kekZ us nkf.Md vihy
la[;k 4212 o"kZ 2009 rFkk vihykFkhZ Jerh dqlqe
yrk us nkf.Md vihy la[;k 3967 o"kZ 2009]
rRdkyhu fo}ku vij l= U;k;k/kh'k] 1⁄4Rofjr
U;k;ky;1⁄2] U;k;d{k la[;k 17] cqyUn'kgj Jh ih0
,u0 jk; }kjk l= ijh{k.k la[;k 305 o"kZ 2005
jkT; izfr vfer 'kekZ ,oa vU; esa ikfjr fu.kZ;
,oa vkns'k fnukad 2&7&2009 ds fo:} ;ksftr
dh gSA ftlds }kjk vihykFkhZx.k dks /kkjk 304[k]
498d Hkk0na0la0 ,oa /kkjk 3 o 4 ngst izfr"ks/k
vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr nks"kh ikrs gq, vihykFkhZ
vfer 'kekZ dks /kkjk 304[k Hkk0na0la0 ds vUrxZr
vkthou dkjkokl ds n.M ls ,oa vihykFkhZ
Jherh dqlqe yrk dks /kkjk 304[k Hkk0na0la0 ds
vUrxZr lkr o"kZ ds dkjkokl ds n.M ls rFkk
vihykFkhZx.k dks /kkjk 3 ngst izfr"ks/k vf/kfu;e
ds vUrxZr nks"kh ikrs gq, izR;sd dks ikap&ikap o"kZ
ds dkjkokl o iUnzg&iUnzg gtkj :i;s ds