# Raggu Baniya @ Raghwendra v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 769
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-10-26
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No.20452 of 2020
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raggu-baniya-raghwendra-v-state-of-u-p-46699
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Rape - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 313 & 376 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 375 & 376 - The
courts shall be extremely careful in accepting
the sole testimony of the prosecutrix when the
entire case is improbable and unlikely to
happen. It is true that in a rape case the accused
could be convicted on the sole testimony of the
prosecutrix, if it is capable of inspiring of confidence
in the mind of the court. If the version given by the
prosecutrix is unsupported by any medical evidence
or the whole surrounding circumstances are highly
improbable and belie the case set up by the
prosecutrix, the court shall not act on the solitary
evidence of the prosecutrix. (Para 9, 22)
B. For maintaining the conviction u/s 376
Cr.P.C.,
medical
evidence
has
to
be
in
conformity with the oral testimony. In our
finding, the medical evidence goes to show that
doctor did not find any sperm. The doctor opined that
no signs of forcible sexual intercourse were found.
This was also based on the finding that there were no
internal injuries on the girl who was minor girl. The
factual data also goes to show that there are several
contradictions in the examination-in-chief as well as
cross examination of the witnesses. (Para 23 to 28)

Hon'ble High Court examined the evidence of the
prosecutrix on which reliance is placed by trial court
and whether it inspires confidence or not so as to
sustain the conviction of accused. And held that the
chain of incident goes to show that the prosecutrix
was raped as would be clear from the provision of
S.375 read with S.376 of IPC. Learned Trial Judge has
given finding as to fact as to how commission of
offence u/s 376 IPC was made out in the present
case, but further has not put any question in the
statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 of the
accused relating to rape or statement which is against
him. The accused has been convicted for life. The
judgment and order impugned is reversed and the
accused is convicted for period undergone. (Para 22,
28, 29, 30)

Appeal partly allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

11 All. Raggu Baniya @ Raghwendra Vs. State of U.P.
769
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for no force
to be allowed, hence, the appeal is rejected. The
Criminal Misc. Application No.20452 of 2020
under Section 389 Cr.P.C. shall also stands
rejected in view of the rejection of the appeal.

23. However, learned trial court is directed
to conclude the trial expeditiously, if possible,
within one year from the date certified copy of
the order is produced before it.
----------
(2021)11ILR A769
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 544 of 2010

Raggu Baniya @ Raghwendra ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Anupam Lahoriya, Sri Amit Tripathi, Sri
Prashant Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Rape - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 313 & 376 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 375 & 376 - The
courts shall be extremely careful in accepting
the sole testimony of the prosecutrix when the
entire case is improbable and unlikely to
happen. It is true that in a rape case the accused
could be convicted on the sole testimony of the
prosecutrix, if it is capable of inspiring of confidence
in the mind of the court. If the version given by the
prosecutrix is unsupported by any medical evidence
or the whole surrounding circumstances are highly
improbable and belie the case set up by the
prosecutrix, the court shall not act on the solitary
evidence of the prosecutrix. (Para 9, 22)
B. For maintaining the conviction u/s 376
Cr.P.C.,
medical
evidence
has
to
be
in
conformity with the oral testimony. In our
finding, the medical evidence goes to show that
doctor did not find any sperm. The doctor opined that
no signs of forcible sexual intercourse were found.
This was also based on the finding that there were no
internal injuries on the girl who was minor girl. The
factual data also goes to show that there are several
contradictions in the examination-in-chief as well as
cross examination of the witnesses. (Para 23 to 28)

Hon'ble High Court examined the evidence of the
prosecutrix on which reliance is placed by trial court
and whether it inspires confidence or not so as to
sustain the conviction of accused. And held that the
chain of incident goes to show that the prosecutrix
was raped as would be clear from the provision of
S.375 read with S.376 of IPC. Learned Trial Judge has
given finding as to fact as to how commission of
offence u/s 376 IPC was made out in the present
case, but further has not put any question in the
statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 of the
accused relating to rape or statement which is against
him. The accused has been convicted for life. The
judgment and order impugned is reversed and the
accused is convicted for period undergone. (Para 22,
28, 29, 30)

Appeal partly allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe Vs St. of Mah., 2006 (10)
SCC 92 (Para 6, 8, 9)

2. Manne Siddaiah @ Siddiramulu Vs St. of A.P., 2000
(2) Alld (Cri) (Para 6, 8)

3. Rafiq Vs St. of U.P., AIR 1981 SC page 559 (Para 21)

4. Nawab Khan Vs State, 1990 Cri.L.J. Page 1179
(Para 21)

5. Bharvada Bhogin Bhai Hirji Bhai Vs St. of Guj., AIR
1983 SC page 753 (Para 21)

6. Ganesan Vs State Represented by its Inspector of
Police, Criminal Appeal No. 680 of 2020 (Arising from
S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 4976 of 2020) (Para 22)

7. Bhaiyamiyan @ Jardar Khan & anr.r Vs St. of M.P.,
2011 SCW 3104 (Para 28)
770 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Present appeal challenges judgment and order
dated 08.12.2009, passed by Additional Session
Judge, Special Court (Dakaity Affected Area),
District Kanpur Dehat.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra
Thaker, J.
Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has
challenged the Judgment and order dated
08.12.2009 passed by Additional Session Judge,
Special Court (Dakaity Affected Area), District
Kanpur Dehat in S.T. No.68 of 2009, State v.
Raggu Baniya @ Raghvendra, (arising out of
Case Crime No.413 of 2008), under Sections
376 of IPC, Police Station Ghatampur, District
Kapur Dehat whereby the accused-appellant was
convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced
to imprisonment for life imprisonment with fine
of Rs.5,000/-, and in case of default of payment
of
fine,
to
undergo
further
rigorous
imprisonment for six months.

2. The brief facts as per prosecution case are
that on 24.8.2008 at about 9:00 a.m., the
prosecutrix was going alone from her house to
break the cucumber in the field of Bhaiyadin
Yadav, when she reached, accused- Raggu Baniya
@ Raghwendra son of Chandra Pal Sankhwar who
had caught hold of her with bad intention and he
committed rape with her and on the sound of her
screaming,
complainant
with
his
brother
(Baburam) came running to the place of the
incident and tried to nab the accused, but accused
ran away from the place of offence. The
complainant reached the police station for
reporting the said incident as a case of rape. Sub
Inspector Ramraj Shukla, Chauki
Incharge
registered the First Information Report and started
the investigation, visited the spot (namely place of
offence), prepared site plan, recorded statements of
the prosecutrix and witnesses and after completing
investigation submitted charge sheet against the
accused.

3. The prosecution so as to bring home the
charges examined five witnesses, namely:-

1.
Prosecutrix
P.W.1
2.
Sukhram( Father)
P.W.2
3.
Dr. Geeta Yadav ( Doctor)
P.W.3
4.
Sughar Singh Sachan (Chief
Pharmacist)
P.W.4
5.
Ramraj
Shukla
(Chauki
Prabhari)
P.W.5

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

1.
F.I.R.
Ext. Ka-10
2.
Written report
Ext. Ka-2
3.
Recovery
memo
of
Cloth
Ext. Ka-7
4.
Statement
of
Pinki
(prosecutrix)
Ext. Ka-1
5.
Injury Report
Ext. Ka-3
6.
Supplementary Report
Ext. Ka-4
7.
Injury Report
Ext. Ka-5
8.
Charge Sheet Mool
Ext. Ka-9
9.
Site Plan with Index
Ext. Ka-8

5. Heard Shri Amit Tripathi, learned
counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for
the State and also perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for appellant has relied
on the following decisions of the Apex Court
rendered in the case of Sadashiv Ramrao
Hadbe
Vs.
State
of
Maharashtra,
2006(10)SCC 92 and the judgment of High
Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Manne
Siddaiah @ Siddiramulu Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh, 2000(2) Alld(Cri) so as to contend
11 All. Raggu Baniya @ Raghwendra Vs. State of U.P.
771
and submit that in fact no case is made out so as
to convict the accused under Section 376 I.P.C.
and the prosecutrix has roped in the accused
with ulterior motive i.e. because of dispute
between her father (Sukhram) and the accused
and in the alternative contends that reliance on
the aforesaid decision is placed so as to
demonstrate that life imprisonment is too harsh a
punishment.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
State that the judgment of learned Trial Judge
cannot be found fault with.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant Shri
Amit Tripathi has stated that the accused is in
jail since 24.8.2008. The accused who at the
time of incident was a young age of 19 years he
should be given chance of rehabilitation.
Learned counsel for appellant has relied on the
decision of Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe Vs. State
of Maharashtra (supra) and has submitted that
she presses for clean acquittal of the accused.
The appellant has been in jail since 24.08.2008.
In support of his submission, he presses into
service the judgment in the case of Manne
Siddaiah @ Siddiramulu (supra) rendered by
Andhra Pradesh High Court, though it is a
judgment of Single Bench, i.e. by Justice B.
Sudershan Reddy (as he then was). Learned
counsel has relied on findings returned in
paragraphs 14 and 15 of the said judgment,
which lay down as follows :-

"14. In nutshell the version given by
P.W.5 is not supported by even P.Ws. 1 and 2.
P.W.1 in his evidence in categorical terms states
that he caught hold of the appellant herein as
his wife informed him that the appellant has
raped her. P.W.5 in her evidence does not state
that she has informed P.W.1 about the rape at
any time. These major inconsistencies and
contradictions in the evidence of material
witnesses - P.Ws. 1, 2 and 5 create a lot of
suspicion and doubt about the prosecution case.
Added to that, P.W.10 - the Civil Assistant
Surgeon who examined P.W.5, in her evidence
clearly states that she did not find any external
injuries on the body of P.W.5. She has also not
noticed any semen and spermatozoa in the
vaginal slides.

15. In the aforesaid circumstances, it
would not be safe to convict the appellant herein
on mere suspicion. The inconsistencies and
contradictions noticed above are fatal to the
case of the prosecution and create any amount
of doubt. Obviously, it is the appellant who is
entitled for the benefit of doubt.

9. Learned counsel for appellant presses
into service the judgment in the case of
Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe Vs. State of
Maharashtra
(supra)
more
particularly
observations in paras 9, 10, 11 of the said
judgment, which are verbatim reproduced as
follows :-

"9. It is true that in a rape case the
accused could be convicted on the sole testimony
of the prosecutrix, if it is capable of inspiring of
confidence in the mind of the court. If the
version given by the prosecutrix is unsupported
by any medical evidence or the whole
surrounding
circumstances
are
highly
improbable and belie the case set up by the
prosecutrix, the court shall not act on the
solitary evidence of the prosecutrix. The courts
shall be extremely careful in accepting the sole
testimony of the prosecutrix when the entire case
is improbable and unlikely to happen.

10. In the present case there were so
many persons in the clinic and it is highly
improbable the appellant would have made a
sexual assault on the patient who came for
examination when large number of persons were
present in the near vicinity. It is also highly
improbable that the prosecutrix could not make
any noise or get out of the room without being
assaulted by the doctor as she was an able
bodied person of 20 years of age with ordinary
772 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
physique. The absence of injuries on the body
improbablise the prosecution version.

11. The counsel who appeared for the
State submitted that the presence of semen stains
on the undergarments of the appellant and also
semen stains found on her petticot and her sari
would probablise the prosecution version and
could have been a sexual intercourse of the
prosecutrix.

12. It is true that the petticot and the
underwear allegedly worn by the appellant had
some semen but that by itself is not sufficient to
treat that the appellant had sexual intercourse
with the prosecutrix. That would only cause
some suspicion on the conduct of the appellant
but not sufficient to prove that the case, as
alleged by the prosecution."

10. We are unable to convince ourselves
with the submission made by learned AGA for
State that the prosecutrix has been a victim of
atrocity as well as rape and, therefore, the
accused should not be leniently dealt with.

11. We have been taken through the
evidence
and
the
deposition
mainly
of
prosecution witnesses and judgment of Trial
Court. We have read the same and are discussing
the same.

12. PW-1, namely, the prosecutrix has
been examined on oath who was made to
understand that she was in a court of law, she
understood the importance of her testimony, she
understood why she was summoned to the Court
where she answered that as the accused had
committed bad work with her, she was
summoned and that she was capable of
answering or the questions. According to her,
when she was 11 years of age and when she
went with Pooja (sister of accused) for eating
cucumber in the field of Bhaiyadin. Raghvendraaccused sent his sister from the field of
Bhaiyadin to fetch water. When she also tried to
leave the place, he conveyed that he would give
her cucumber, he took her to the maize field, she
started screaming but the accused forcibly shut
her mouth by cloth and he had forcible
intercourse. She was brought to the police
station by her grand father. She was hospitalized
for three days. She was taken to the hospital by
her grand father and the police personnel. Her
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was
recorded before the concerned Magistrate. In her
cross examination, she stated that on the date or
day of incident she did not go to the school as it
was a Sunday. She was playing at her home and
when Pooja came, her grand-father and father
were not in the house. Her grand-father had gone
just three fields ahead of Bhaiyadin's field (the
place of incidence). The incident occurred when
Pooja called the prosecutrix at 9.00 a.m.

13. Sukhram, was examined as PW-2, who
is the uncle of the prosecutrix,who had given the
FIR. The prosecutrix was bleeding and so he
took her on his shoulder and took her to police
station and from there she was taken to hospital.
She was hospitalized in Urshila Hospital,
Kanpur, where she was hospitalized for three
days. PW-2 when he was in his field, he heard
the screaming of a girl, she was not able to speak
because her mouth was forcibly shut by cloth.
He brought the prosecutrix to their home and at
12.30 he took her to the police station.

14. Dr. Geeta Yadav, PW-3 in her ocular
version mentioned that hyman was ruptured and
was bleeding the vaginal smear for the
determination of the age of the prosecutrix was
prepared. The matter was sent to the Radiologist
and the injured, she was kept in emergency
ward. Doctor in her ocular version did not give
any finding of opinion about the sexual
intercourse
or
rape
committed
on
the
prosecutrix. The prosecutirx was sent for getting
her age examined by the C.M.O., Kanpur Nagar.
The Injury, according to the doctor could be
caused even otherwise then rape the hyman may
ruptured not be because of the rap.
11 All. Raggu Baniya @ Raghwendra Vs. State of U.P.
773

15. As far as PW-4, Chief Pharmacist is
concerned, he is also a medical officer and he
was summoned so as to prove the medico legal
cases. The prosecutrix was referred to Kanpur
accept the records he did not throw much light
on the other facts.

16. PW-5 is the Officer who had conducted
the investigation.

17. We now would to sift the evidence
threadbare of the prosecution story, the evidence
led and discussed before the trial court and
appreciated as by the learned Trial Judge.

18. Provision of Section 376 I.P.C. read as
follows :

"376. Punishment for rape.--

(1) Whoever, except in the cases
provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape shall
be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which shall not be less than
seven years but which may be for life or for a term
which may extend to ten years and shall also be
liable to fine unless the women raped is his own
wife and is not under twelve years of age, in which
cases, he shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to
two years or with fine or with both: Provided that
the court may, for adequate and special reasons to
be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence
of imprisonment for a term of less than seven
years.

(2) Whoever,--

(a) being a police officer commits rape--

(i) within the limits of the police station
to which he is appointed; or

(ii) in the premises of any station house
whether or not situated in the police station to
which he is appointed; or

(iii) on a woman in his custody or in the
custody of a police officer subordinate to him; or

(b) being a public servant, takes
advantage of his official position and commits
rape on a woman in his custody as such public
servant or in the custody of a public servant
subordinate to him; or

(c) being on the management or on the
staff of a jail, remand home or other place of
custody established by or under any law for the
time being in force or of a woman's or children's
institution takes advantage of his official
position and commits rape on any inmate of
such jail, remand home, place or institution; or

(d) being on the management or on the
staff of a hospital, takes advantage of his official
position and commits rape on a woman in that
hospital; or

(e) commits rape on a woman knowing
her to be pregnant; or

(f) commits rape on a woman when
she is under twelve years of age; or

(g) commits gang rape, shall be
punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than ten years but which
may be for life and shall also be liable to fine:
Provided that the Court may, for adequate and
special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment,
impose a sentence of imprisonment of either
description for a term of less than ten years.
Explanation 1.--Where a woman is raped by one
or more in a group of persons acting in
furtherance of their common intention, each of
the persons shall be deemed to have committed
gang rape within the meaning of this subsection. Explanation 2.--"Women's or children's
institution" means an institution, whether called
an orphanage or a home for neglected woman or
children or a widows' home or by any other
name, which is established and maintained for
the reception and care of woman or children.
Explanation 3.--"Hospital" means the precincts
of the hospital and includes the precincts of any
institution for the reception and treatment of
persons during convalescence or of persons
requiring medical attention or rehabilitation."

19. In respect of the victim, the doctor in
medical report has opined as under :-
774 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"In the x-Ray of both wrist A.P., all
eight carpal bones were found present. The
lower epiphyses of both wrist joints have not
fused. In the x-Ray of both elbow joints, all the
bony epiphyses around both elbow joints had
fused

In her supplementary report, lady
doctor opined that no spermatozoa was seen by
her. According to physical appearance, age of
the prosecutrix was 15 to 16 years. No definite
opinion about rape was given"

20. The evidence as discussed by learned
Judge discusses all the aspects and he has held
that the mere fact that no external marks of
injury wew found by itself would not throw the
testimony of the prosecutrix over board as it has
been found that at the time of occurrence as she
was a minor girl. We also do not give any
credence to that fact and would like to go
through the merits of the matter.

21. As far as the commission of offence
under Section 376 IPC is concerned, the learned
Judge has relied on the judgments of (1) Rafiq
Versus State of U.P., AIR 1981 SC page 559,
(2) Nawab Khan Versus State, 1990 Cri.L.J.
Page 1179 and the judgment in (3) Bharvada
Bhogin Bhai Hirji Bhai Versus State of
Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC page 753.

22. We venture to discuss the evidence of
the prosecutrix on which reliance is placed by
trial court and whether it inspires confidence or
not so as to sustain the conviction of accused.
There were concrete positive signs from the oral
testimony of the prosecutrix as regards the
commission of forcible sexual intercourse. In
case of Ganesan Versus State Represented by
its Inspector of Police, Criminal Appeal No.
680 of 2020 ( Arising from S.L.P. ( Criminal )
No.4976 of 2020) decided on 14.10.2020
wherein the principles of accepting the evidence
of the minor prosecutrix or the prosecutrix are
enshrined the words may be that her testimony
must be trustworthy and reliable then a
conviction based on sole testimony of the victim
can be based. In our case when we rely on the
said decision, it becomes clear that the testimony
of the prosecutrix can be said to be that of a
sterling witness and the medical evidence on
evaluation prove the fact that case is made out
against the accused.

23. Though the evidence of Dr. Geeta
Yadav, Medical Officer, PW-3, Mahila Hospital
Kanpur Dehat who medically examined the
prosecutrix on 22.10.2009, Auxiliary and public
hair was not present. The breasts was not
developed. The height of prosecutrix was 131
c.m. and her weight was 23 kg., teeth were
present in her mouth. There was no injury on the
breast. There was no injury and bleeding on the
vaginal but hymen was torn and heeled vagginal
smear was collected and was sent to the
Pathologist. No living or dead spermatozoa were
found in the vaginal smear. As per medical
examination report no external or internal injury
were visible on the whole body of the
prosecutrix. On perusal of the medical report it
appears that the victim was about 11 years old at
the time of incident.

24. In the x-ray examination, both wrist A.P.,
all eight carpal bones were found present. Lower
epiphyses of both writst joints were not fused. All
the bony epiphyses around both elbow joints were
fused. In the supplementary report, the doctor
opined that no spermatozoa was seen by her and
according to the physical appearance, age of the
victim was appearing to be 15 to 16 years and no
definite opinion about rape could be given.

25. As far as the medical evidence is
concerned, there are three facts which emerge.
Firstly, no injury was found on the person of the
victim. We are not mentioning that there must be
any corroboration in the prosecution version and
medical evidence. The judgment of the Apex
Court rendered in the case of Bharvada Bhogin
11 All. Km. Hashmi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
775
Bhai Hirji Bhai Versus State of Gujarat, AIR
1983 SCC page 753, which is a classical case
reported way back in the year 1983, on which
reliance is placed by the learned Session Judge
would be helpful to the prosecution. The medical
evidence should show some semblance of forcible
intercourse, the prosecutrix was gagged and
hospitalised for three days even if we go as per the
version of the prosecutrix that the accused had
gagged her mouth for ten minutes and had
thrashed her on ground, there would have been
some injuries to the fully grown lady on the basis
of the body.

26. In our finding, the medical evidence goes to
show that doctor did not find any sperm. The doctor
opined that no signs of forcible sexual intercourse
were found. This was also based on the finding that
there were no internal injuries on the girl who was
minor girl.

27. The factual data also goes to show that
there are several contradictions in the examination-inchief as well as cross examination of the witnesses.
The prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief, she
states that incident occurred at about 9:00 a.m. but
nowhere in her ocular version or the FIR, she has
mentioned that she was going to the fields to eat
cucumber.

28. For maintaining the conviction under
Section 376 Cr.P.C., medical evidence has to be in
conformity with the oral testimony. We may rely on
the judgment rendered in the case of Bhaiyamiyan
@ Jardar Khan and another Versus State of
Madhya Pradesh, 2011 SCW3104. The chain of
incident goes to show that the prosecutrix was raped
as would be clear from the provision of section 375
read with Section 376 of IPC.

29. The judgment relied on by the learned
counsel for the appellant will also permit us to concur
with the judgment impugned of the learned Trial
Judge where no perversity has crept in. Learned Trial
Judge has given any finding as to fact as to how
commission of offence under Section 376 IPC was
made out in the present case, but the learned Judge
further has not put any question in the statement
recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 of the accused relating to rape or
statement which is against him.

30. In view of the facts and evidence on record,
we are convinced that the accused has been convicted
for life, hence, the judgment and order impugned is
reversed and the accused is convicted for period
undergone. The accused appellant, if not wanted in
any other case, be set free forthwith.

31. Appeal is partly allowed accordingly.

32. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Law
Secretary, State of U.P. who shall impress upon the
District Magistrates of all the districts in the State of
U.P. to reevaluate the cases for remission after 14
years of incarceration as per mandate of Sections 432
and 433 of Cr.P.C. even if appeals are pending in the
High Court.

33. The accused, if not wanted in any other
case, may be released forthwith.

34. We are thankful to learned counsel for the
parties for ably assisting this Court.

35. Record be sent to Session Court.
----------
(2021)11ILR A775
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV, J.

Habeas Corpus No. 23362 of 2020

Km. Hashmi ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents