# Shrilal v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2003) 3 ILRA 696
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-05-06
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No.2912 of 1980
- **Bench:** M.C. Jain, K.N. Ojha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shrilal-v-state-of-u-p-40168
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Indian Penal Code Section 34, 302immediate and strong motive to commit
crime-presence of two witnesses on
place of occurrence well explained-delay
in lodging FIR also explained-finding of
fault recordes by trial court upheldappeal dismissed.
Held-paras 17 and 18
On consideration of all relevant and
important aspects, we find ourselves in
agreement with the finding of guilt
recorded by the learned trial judge
against the two accused appellants.

Resultantly, we subscribe to the view
taken by the trial judge and find no merit
in these two appeals. The appellants
have
rightly
been
convicted
under
Section 302 I.P.C. read with section 34
I.P.C. for the murder of Bachchu Singh
with
sentence
of
life
imprisonment
awarded to each of them.

## Text

696 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
neither any opportunity was given, nor the
employer inspite of opportunity being
given by labour court after coming to
conclusion that no enquiry was conducted
have tried to prove the charges against the
workman concerned before labour court.
The labour court, therefore, directed the
reinstatement of the workman concerned
with continuity of service and full back
wages. It is this award which is under
challenged by means of the present writ
petition, as stated above.

8. The law is well established that
the finding arrived at by the labour court
on the basis of the pleadings and the
evidence adduced by the parties should
not be lightly interfered unless the same
are demonstrated to be perverse or
suffering from any manifest error of law.
Nothing sort has been pointed out by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
finding recorded by labour court is
contrary to law.

9. In this view of the matter, the
finding record by the labour court to the
effect that no enquiry has been conducted
by the employer in the matter of charges
against the workman concerned and that
the workman has not been afforded any
opportunity,
whatsoever,
remains
unassailable. No other point has been
argued.

10. In view of what has been said
above, this writ petition deserves to be
dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The
interim order, if any, stands vacated.
There will be no order as to costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 6.5.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M.C. JAIN, J.
THE HON'BLE K.N. OJHA, J.

Criminal Appeal No.2912 of 1980

Shrilal

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.S. Tiwari
Sri K.K. Srivastava
Sri V.K. Sharma

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri G.S. Bisaria
A.G.A.

Indian Penal Code Section 34, 302immediate and strong motive to commit
crime-presence of two witnesses on
place of occurrence well explained-delay
in lodging FIR also explained-finding of
fault recordes by trial court upheldappeal dismissed.
Held-paras 17 and 18
On consideration of all relevant and
important aspects, we find ourselves in
agreement with the finding of guilt
recorded by the learned trial judge
against the two accused appellants.

Resultantly, we subscribe to the view
taken by the trial judge and find no merit
in these two appeals. The appellants
have
rightly
been
convicted
under
Section 302 I.P.C. read with section 34
I.P.C. for the murder of Bachchu Singh
with
sentence
of
life
imprisonment
awarded to each of them.

(Delivered by Hon'ble M.C. Jain, J.)

1. Both these criminal appeals arise
out of the judgment and order dated
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Shrilal V. State of U.P.
697
16.12.1980 passed by Sri Bhanwar Singh,
the then VIII Additional Sessions Judge,
Agra in Sessions Trial No.359 of 1980.
The
appellant
in
Criminal
Appeal
No.2912 of 1980 is Shrilal whereas Amar
Singh is the appellant in Criminal Appeal
No.2952 of 1980. Both of them have been
convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. read
with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to
life imprisonment. Both of them were
allegedly
armed
with
knives
and
committed the murder of Bachchu Singh
between the night of 4/5.4.1980 at about 1
O' clock near the brick-kiln of Durga
Prasad in village Khera Pangai, P.S.
Tajganj, District Agra. The report was
lodged on 5.4.1980 at 8.15 A.M. by Shiv
Singh PW 3. The distance of the police
station from the place of occurrence was
about 5 kms.

2. Broad spectrum of the case may
be set forth for the appreciation of the
subsequent discussion. Bachchu Singh
deceased and Veerpal were the nephews
of informant Shiv Singh PW 3. On
4.4.1980 at about 10 A.M., they had gone
to see a fair in village Semari Tal. In the
fair at about 1 P.M., the two accused
appellants teased Km. Malti Devi PW 1sister of Bachchu Singh and Veerpal. Km.
Malti Devi complained of it to her
brothers Bachchu Singh and Veerpal who
were annoyed on hearing about her
teasing by the accused appellants. They
gave a beating to them and insulted them
for such mis-behaviour. This occurrence
was witnessed by Udal, Nanhey PW 4 and
Udaibir Singh PW 8. They pacified
Bachchu Singh and Veerpal and rescued
the accused persons from their clutches.
After this incident, the accused persons
went away issuing a threat that they
would kill Bachchu Singh and Veerpal by
the same night to take revenge of their
insult. Bachchu Singh and Veerpal with
their sister Km. Malti Devi also returned
home from the fair after this incident.

3.

Again,
Bachchu
Singh
accompanied by some other boys of the
village, went to the fair in the night at
about 9 P.M. to hear the HOLI (songs
chanted by the villagers in the fair). After
hearing HOLI songs, Bachchu Singh set
out for his village at about 2 A.M. in the
night. When he reached near the brickkiln of Durga Prasad, the two accused
persons with their other two companions
who were putting on red shirts accosted
Bachchu Singh and killed him with knives
and Kachcha half bricks. Bachchu Singh
raised hue and cry. His shrieks attracted
the witnesses Dal Chand, Niranjan Singh
PW 6 and Darab Singh PW 7 who were
going in the night to hear the HOLI songs
in the Fair. They challenged the assailants
viz., the present two appellants and their
two unknown companions. Before they
would come nearer to the place of
occurrence, the assailants finished their
job in the sight of the said witnesses and
escaped towards the west of the place of
occurrence.
The
witnesses
saw
the
assailants killing the deceased in the torch
light as each of them had a torch with
him. Amongst the four assailants, present
two appellants were very well identified
by the witnesses, while the remaining two
remained
unidentified.
When
the
witnesses reached near Bachchu Singh, he
was groaning and crying of pain and
within a second he breathed his last. Dal
Chand informed the family members of
Bachchu Singh. On receiving information,
the family members of the deceased
reached at the site of occurrence and saw
Bachchu Singh lying dead in a pool of
blood. Due to fear, no body dared to go to
the police station in the night to report
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
698 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
about the incident. In the morning, three
constables, who were on duty in fair,
reached at the site and guarded the dead
body. Leaving the dead body to be
guarded by them and the family members
of the deceased and some villagers who
had collected their, Shiv Singh PW 3
reached the police station and lodged the
F.I.R. at 6.15 A.M., as stated earlier. The
investigation was taken up by S.I. Ram
Niwas Mishra PW 13. He reached the
spot, prepared the inquest report of the
dead body of the deceased and busied
himself with other activities related to the
investigation of the case. The dead body
was sent for post mortem which was
conducted on 6.4.1980 at 3 P.M. by Dr
K.P.Singh PW 5. The deceased was 18
years of age and about 11⁄2 days had
passed since he died. The following ante
mortem injuries were found on his person:

(1) Lacerated wound 1" x 2/10" x upto
the bone deep upper side head 3" above
the left ear.

(2) Incised wound 3/10" x 1/10" x 1"on
the left (punctured wound) side neck. 1"
below on the outer left ear.

(3) Contusion 6" x 21⁄2" on the left side
angle from mandible extending to the ear.

(4) Abrasion 41⁄2" x 11⁄2" on the right
scapular region.
(5) Abrasion 2" x 11⁄2" on the right side
neck 1" above the clavicle.

(6) Abrasion 1" x 1⁄2" on the right outer
part of the heel.

4. Both eyes were blue and swollen.
On internal examination there was found
a depressed fracture of the left parietal
bone corresponding to injury No.1. The
membranes and brain were congested.
The cause of death was coma as a result
of injury no.1 (head injury).

5. On the arrest of Amar Singh, his
bushirt was found to be blood stained
which
was
got
removed
by
the
Investigating Officer.

6. The defence was of denial and of
false implication. According to Amar
Singh, he had been falsely implicated
because of party factions between Jats and
Jatavas of village Pachgai Khera, he being
Jatav and the deceased being Jat. Shrilal
stated under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that Shiv
Singh and others were jealous of him
because he had constructed two storeyed
Pakka house. He being a Jatav, his such
prosperity was not digested by them.

7. The prosecution, in all, examined
13 witnesses. No witness was produced
by the defence.

8. None responded from the side of
the appellants on the revision of the list.
On record, Amar Singh is represented by
Sri S.K.Chaturvedi, Sri Tapan Ghosh and
Sri V.K. Sharma, Advocates and appellant
Shrilal is represented on record by Sri
S.S.Tiwari, Sri K.K.Srivastava and Sri
V.K.Sharma, Advocates. We have heard
Sri G.S.Bisaria, learned A.G.A. from the
side of State. We propose to decide the
appeals on merits.

9 Having gone through the record
and evidence and after hearing learned
A.G.A., we intend to deal with the
important aspects of the matter in
succeeding discussion.

10. The incident took place at about
1 O' clock in between the night of
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Shrilal V. State of U.P.
699
4/5.4.1980 at the outskirts of village
Semari Tal and the report was lodged by
Shiv Singh PW 3 on 5.4.1980 at 6.15
A.M. at P.S. Tajganj. The distance of the
police
station
from
the
place
of
occurrence was about 5 kms. We note
from the judgment of the lower court that
an argument was raised there about late
lodging of the F.I.R. However, on
consideration, we find that there was
satisfactory explanation as to why the
report could not be lodged earlier. The
incident
having
been
witnessed
by
Niranjan Singh PW 6, Darab Singh PW 7
and Dal Chand, one of them, namely, Dal
Chand rushed to inform the family
members of the deceased. The distance of
the house of the deceased from the place
of occurrence was about 11⁄2 furlongs.
Having reached there, Dal Chand narrated
the incident to the family members of the
deceased whereafter they rushed to the
site of occurrence finding the victim to be
dead. It has come in the evidence of the
eyewitnesses
and
also
Shiv
Singh
informant PW 3 that half of the dead body
of the deceased was lying in the Nali and
half of it was outside. Naturally, it was
decided to remove the dead body from the
Nali and keep at even place. On being
taken out from the Nali, it was placed on
the chak road. Obviously, it must have
consumed sometime. Still, it was dead of
night. Not even Shiv Singh, as stated by
him, was prepared to go to the police
station at that hour out of fear which was
at a distance of about 5 kms. The report
was got written by him by Kalyan, as he
himself suffered some injury in his finger
while
operating
his
tractor
earlier.
Further, the cycle which Shiv Singh used
for reaching the police station went out of
order in the way due to chain breaking as
stated by him. He went to the shop of one
Inder Singh Yadav in Semari Tal but
since it was still early in the morning no
mechanic had turned up till then.
Resultantly, he had to leave the cycle at
the shop of Inder Singh Yadav and had to
walk on foot upto the police station
Tajganj. He reached there at 8.15 A.M. to
lodge the F.I.R. The F.I.R. mentions this
fact too that due to fear none could dare to
reach the police station in the night to
lodge the F.I.R. To come to the point,
lodging of the F.I.R. on 5.4.1980 at 8.15
A.M. is very well explained and the
defence could not score any point by
complaining delay in lodging the F.I.R.

11. The second aspect is of motive.
It is found that both the appellants Shrilal
and Amar Singh had immediate and
strong motive against the deceased. Km.
Malti Devi PW 1, Veerpal Singh PW 2
and Udai Veer Singh PW 8 are the
witnesses of the earlier incident which
took place on 4.4.1980 at about 1 P.M. in
the fair of Semari Tal. Km. Malti Devi
PW 1 is the own unmarried sister of the
deceased and Veerpal Singh PW 2 is the
brother of the deceased. It had so
happened in the fair at about 1 P.M. that
the accused appellant Amar Singh had
placed his foot on the Chappal of Km.
Malti Devi. At this mischief, she had
raised objection. Amar Singh was at that
time
accompanied
by
Shrilal.
In
consequence of the objection raised by
Km. Malti Devi, both of them had started
abusing her and when she disclosed their
mischief
and
misbehaviour
to
her
brothers-Bachchu Singh deceased and
Veerpal Singh PW 2, they took ill of it
and gave beating to both of them.
Bachchu Singh had even given shoe
beating to Amar Singh as stated by
Veerpal Singh PW 2. He (Veerpal Singh
PW 2) had also beaten him up. Udaibir
Singh PW 8 and Udal Singh had
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
700 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
intervened in the matter and got them
separated. However, the two accused
appellants had taken this insult deep
inside and while going away, both of
them issued threat that they would kill
Bachchu Singh by night. This earlier
incident is found mentioned in the F.I.R.
too. It is noted from the impugned
judgment that the defence wanted to make
capital out of an admission of Km.Malti
Devi that that day she had attended the
school and school hours were 12 to 2
P.M. It was reasoned that it being so, she
could not at all be present in the fair at
about 1 P.M. However, it was crystal
clear that she, a girl aged about 12 years
only, happened to say so under some
confusion. 4.4.1980 was actually a
holiday, being Good Friday. Therefore,
there could be no question of school being
open on that day. The learned trial judge
has well dealt with this aspect of the
matter while rejecting the argument of the
defence that Veerpal Singh PW 2 fully
corroborated the version of Km. Malti
Devi PW 1 as regards the earlier incident,
he having also joined Bachchu Singh
deceased in beating the two appellants
when Km. Malti Devi had complained to
them about the mischief of one of them
Amar Singh in placing foot on her
Chappal. The testimonial assertions of the
sister and brother were corroborated by
the independent witness Udaibir Singh
PW 8, who had intervened and separated
the two parties. It is there in his testimony
too that the two appellants had left the
scene, saying that they would avenge
themselves of the insult by killing
Bachchu Singh and Veerpal Singh by
night. This witness is neither inimical to
the accused appellant nor friendly to the
members of the family of the deceased.
No time gap had intervened which could
heal up the bruised feelings of the accused
appellants. They got an opportunity the
same night and by joining their two
associates murdered Bachchu Singh upon
whom they could lay hands that very
night. They were in search of an
opportunity which came handy to them as
he had again gone to the fair in the night.
The evidence adduced by the prosecution
about the earlier incident was perfectly
believable and the accused appellants, as
we said, had a very strong motive to
commit this crime.

12. Thirdly, the eyewitness account
rendered by Niranjan Singh PW 6 and
Darab Singh PW 7 was capable of
inspiring confidence. Both of them had
been named as such in the F.I.R. It
consistently flows from their testimony
that the occurrence took place around 2
O' clock in the night. Both of them had
started from their village at about 1.45
A.M. and within a few minutes had
reached near the place of occurrence
where they heard cries of a lad in distress.
The distance of their village from the spot
was less than half km. Within seconds
they reached the site and saw the accused
appellant killing the deceased. As per the
post mortem report and the statement of
Dr K.P.Singh PW 5 also, killing could
have taken place at about 2 O' clock in
the night. It is there in the testimony of
Niranjan
Singh
PW
6
that,
he
accompanied by Darab Singh PW 7 and
Dal Chand, was going towards Semari Tal
to enjoy songs in the fair. He (Niranjan
Singh) had a torch and lathi whereas
Darab Singh and Dal Chand had torches.
Keeping of torches at that hour of night
was natural. The cries of a lad in distress
had attracted these witnesses. From a
distance of 10-20 paces that Niranjan
Singh PW 6 saw the accused appellants
near the brick-kiln killing the deceased.
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Shrilal V. State of U.P.
701
As regards the place of occurrence, Darab
Singh PW 7 also gave the same version.
The
site
plan
prepared
by
the
Investigating Officer shows that the way
from Pachgai (village of these witnesses)
to Semari Tal goes north-south from the
brick-kiln of Durga Prasad.

13. We note that Niranjan Singh PW
6 tried to help the accused appellant
Shrilal while in the witness box by
omitting to identify him in the Court. A
careful reading of his statement makes it
abundantly clear that he did so in an
attempt to provide Shrilal accused a base
to create a dent in the prosecution version
so far as he was concerned. At the start of
his statement, Niranjan Singh PW 6 had
named both the accused appellants and
two unknown persons as the assailants of
the deceased Bachchu Singh. He stated
that Amar Singh and an unknown person
with red shirt were assaulting the
deceased with knives whereas Shrilal and
another unknown person with red shirt
were assaulting the deceased with bricks.
Though Shrilal accused appellant was
present in the Court, but he defaulted in
not
identifying
him.
He
did
so
deliberately. Shrilal was the resident of
his village as admitted by him in his
cross-examination. It could not at all be
believed that he (Niranjan Singh PW 6)
did not know Shrilal accused appellant
living in the same village. Niranjan Singh
PW 6 clearly stated that Amar Singh
appellant was one of the assailants who
was assaulting Bachchu Singh with knife,
but assumed a lukewarm posture as
regards Shrilal accused appellant by
omitting to identify him in the Court,
though stating that he and one unknown
person with red shirt were assaulting the
deceased with bricks. An argument was
raised before the learned trial judge from
the side of State that Shrilal was a wealthy
man and he might have exercised his
influence
on
Niranjan
Singh
and
succeeded in winning him over. There is
no evidence in this behalf and, really
speaking, it is difficult to find any
evidence regarding the winning over of a
witness by the accused. But it is crystal
clear that Niranjan Singh PW 6 had
deliberately omitted to identify Shrilal in
the Court to provide him a defence base.
He as well as Darab Singh PW 7 had
flashed their torches on hearing cries of a
boy and had then witnessed the incident
of the assaulting of the deceased by four
persons out of whom two were the present
appellants. Amar Singh was assaulting the
deceased with a knife and Shrilal accused
appellant with brick. The testimonial
assertions of Niranjan Singh PW 6 and
Darab Singh PW 7 taken together
conclusively proved the involvement of
both the accused appellants in committing
murder of Bachchu Singh. It may also be
stated at the risk of repetition that both of
them had strong motive to commit this
crime and they were together in the fair
the preceding day where the earlier
incident with that Km.Malti Devi PW 1
had taken place and they had been beaten
up and insulted by Bachchu Singh and
Veerpal Singh PW 2 over the issue of
mischief played by them with Km.Malti
Devi.

14. The presence of both these
witnesses at the scene of occurrence is
well explained that they were going to
hear Bhajans at Semari Tal Fair. The
enjoyment of hearing songs/Bhajans is
usual source of entertainment for the
villagers. It is also gleaned from the
testimony of the two witnesses that
interesting Bhajans were chanted only
after midnight, though the programme
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
702 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
started at about 11 P.M. Thus, there was
nothing unnatural if these two witnesses
were going to hear Bhajans from their
village at about 1.45 A.M. Giving knife
blows to the deceased by Amar Singh was
spoken not only by Darab Singh PW 7 but
by Niranjan Singh PW 6 too (who
developed a soft corner for Shrilal by
omitting to identify him in Court to
provide
a
base
for
defence).
The
testimony of Darab Singh PW 7 is
clinching and beyond ray of doubt against
Shrilal too that he used brick in killing the
deceased.

15. An argument was also raised
before the learned trial judge from the
side of accused that there was only one
knife injury sustained by the deceased
whereas according to Niranjan Singh PW
6 and Darab Singh PW 7, Amar Singh
and one another unknown person attacked
the deceased with knives. We note that
Darab Singh PW 7 stated that in his
presence Amar Singh gave only one knife
blow which struck the neck of the
deceased. Incised wound found on the
person of the deceased was on the neck. It
could be caused by knife. Suffice it to say
in this regard that it is just possible that
blow (s) given by the other person missed
the target and did not strike on the person
of the deceased. A look at the post
mortem report shows that four assailants
including present two appellants had
targeted the head of the deceased and
possibility cannot be ruled out that some
blows missed the target. The point of the
matter is that the present two accused
appellants and two unknown persons
acted in concert. Amar Singh used a knife
and Shrilal made use of brick in
assaulting the deceased. The deceased did
sustain injuries capable of being caused
by knife as well as brick. The antemortem injury nos. 1 and 3 could be
caused by brick blows. Injury no.1 was a
lacerated wound which had caused
depressed
fracture
of parietal
bone
capable of being caused by brick blow.
The impact of other blows might have
resulted in contusions and abrasions as
found on the dead body of the deceased.
Thus, the ocular and medical evidence
completely reconcile. The halves of
Kachcha bricks were found lying by the
Investigating Officer near the dead body
and they were blood stained as per the
report of Chemical Examiner. The human
blood was found on these Kachcha bricks
as per the report of Chemical Examiner
on record.

16. Fourthly, it is also pertinent to
state that the bushirt (Ext. I) was got
removed by the Investigating Officer
from the person of the accused appellant
Amar Singh when he was arrested and he
was brought to the site of occurrence. The
accused appellant Amar Singh admitted
that bushirt to be belonging to him, but
his explanation was that after getting
bushirt removed from his person, it was
stained with blood from the dead body.
The learned trial judge rightly rejected
this
explanation
observing
that
the
Investigating Officer could not have dared
to do so in the presence of so many
villagers who had collected at the site of
occurrence when the investigation was
going on. We also note that it was not
even suggested to the Investigating
Officer, Ram Niwas Mishra PW 13 in his
cross-examination.
It
exposes
the
hollowness and falsity of this contention.
For the first time, this contention was
raised by him in his statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C.

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Jyoti alias Jannat and another V. State of U.P. and others
703
17. On consideration of all relevant
and important aspects, we find ourselves
in agreement with the finding of guilt
recorded by the learned trial judge against
the two accused appellants.

18. Resultantly, we subscribe to the
view taken by the trial judge and find no
merit in these two appeals. The appellants
have rightly been convicted under Section
302 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C. for
the murder of Bachchu Singh with
sentence of life imprisonment awarded to
each of them.

19. In view of the above discussion,
we dismiss both these appeals No.2912 of
1980 and 2952 of 1980 and affirm the
conviction of the accused appellants
Shrilal and Amar Singh under Section 302
I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and
sentence of life imprisonment awarded to
each of them. They are on bail. They shall
be arrested and lodged in jail to serve out
the sentence of life imprisonment. The
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra shall
cause them to be arrested and lodged in
jail.

20. The office shall send the copy of
this judgment along with the record to the
lower court to ensure compliance under
intimation to this Court within two
months.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.08.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE R.S. TRIPATHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21541 of 2003

Jyoti alias Jannat & another...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri B.B. Paul

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri N.S. Chahar
S.C.

Constitution of India-Article 21- Section
3 of Indian Majority Act 1875-a person in
the age of 18 years is major, and he/she
may live with any body. In a free
democratic and secular country no body
has any right to interfere in his/her
affairs.

Held- Para 2

Once a person becomes a major that
person cannot be restrained from going
anywhere or living with any body.
Individual liberty under Article 21 has
the highest place in our Constitution.

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

Heard counsel for the parties.

1. The petitioners as well as the
mother of petitioner no. 1 have appeared
before us. Petitioner No. 1 is a major as is
evident from her High School Certificate
filed as annexure 2 to the writ petition,
which shows that her date of birth is
20.7.1984. Thus she is over 19 years of
age. According to the provisions of the
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in