# Smt. Saroj Devi & Ors v. Amar Jeet Singh & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 10 ILRA 1028
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-10
- **Case number:** FAFO No. 3462 of 2016
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Subhash Chand
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-saroj-devi-ors-v-amar-jeet-singh-anr-46283
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Motor Vehicles Act,
(59
of
1988)
-
Section
168
-
Compensation - contributory negligence
- Motor Accident claim - Burden of
proof - burden of proof ordinarily on
the defendants in a motor accident
claim petition to prove that motor
vehicle
was
being
driven
with
reasonable care or that there is equal
negligence on the part the other side
(Para 13)

B. Criminal Law - Motor Vehicles Act (59
of 1988) - Section 168 - Compensation -
Determination - income of the deceased
as per salary slip Rs.10,736/- per month
- tribunal wrongly considered his income
to be Rs. 7413/ - deceased in age
bracket of 36 to 40 years - 50% future
loss of income requires to be added -
non-pecuniary
damages
should
be
Rs.70,000/- + 10% rounded to Rs.
30,000/- increase as per Pranay Sethi
case as three years have elapsed hence,
the lump sum amount under this head
Rs.1,00,000/- - deceased in hospital
from
15.11.2013
to
22.11.2013
-
entitled
for
trauma
and
medical
expenses to Rs. 25,000/- - rate of
interest should be 7.5%

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited :

## Text

1028 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
compensation as all other issues are already
decided, it would be a question of
composite negligence as the deceased was
a pillion rider on the vehicle being driven
by Akash son of Bhanwar Singh and if
ultimately the Tribunal holds both the
drivers negligent, they may give rights to
recover from the owner, driver of the
vehicle, who was not made party to the
case.

13. We are thankful to the Advocates,
who assisted the Court in disposing of the
matter finally.

14. Let the record of court below be
sent back to the Tribunal concerned.
----------
(2021)10ILR A1028
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED:ALLAHABAD 10.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH CHAND, J.

FAFO No. 3462 of 2016

Smt. Saroj Devi & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Amar Jeet Singh & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Anubhav Sinha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rahul Sahai

A. Criminal Law - Motor Vehicles Act,
(59
of
1988)
-
Section
168
-
Compensation - contributory negligence
- Motor Accident claim - Burden of
proof - burden of proof ordinarily on
the defendants in a motor accident
claim petition to prove that motor
vehicle
was
being
driven
with
reasonable care or that there is equal
negligence on the part the other side
(Para 13)

B. Criminal Law - Motor Vehicles Act (59
of 1988) - Section 168 - Compensation -
Determination - income of the deceased
as per salary slip Rs.10,736/- per month
- tribunal wrongly considered his income
to be Rs. 7413/ - deceased in age
bracket of 36 to 40 years - 50% future
loss of income requires to be added -
non-pecuniary
damages
should
be
Rs.70,000/- + 10% rounded to Rs.
30,000/- increase as per Pranay Sethi
case as three years have elapsed hence,
the lump sum amount under this head
Rs.1,00,000/- - deceased in hospital
from
15.11.2013
to
22.11.2013
-
entitled
for
trauma
and
medical
expenses to Rs. 25,000/- - rate of
interest should be 7.5%

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited :

1. National Insurance Com. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi
& ors. 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 105

2. Vimal Kanwar Vs Kishor Dan & ors. (2013) 7
SCC

3. Malarvizhi & ors. Vs United India Insurance
Company Ltd. 2020 (4) SCC 228

4. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Indira
Devi & ors. 2018 (7) SCC 715

5. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs
Mangey Ram & Ors 2019 0 Supreme (All) 1067

6. New India Assurance Com. Vs Urmila Shukla
MANU/SCOR/24098/2021

7. Kirti & ors. Vs Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd 2021(1) TAC

8. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs
Smt. Renu Singh & Ors FAFO No. 1818 of 2012
dated 19.7.2016 -
10 All. Smt. Saroj Devi & Ors. Vs. Amar Jeet Singh & Anr.
1029
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.
&
Hon'ble Subhash Chand, J.)

1. Heard Shri Anubhav Sinha, learned
counsel for the appellant and Sri.Rahul
Sahai, learned counsel for the respondentInsurance Company.

2. This appeal , at the behest of the
claimants, challenges the judgement and
award
dated
01.10.2016
passed
M.A.C.T/Additional District Judge, Court
No. 3, Gautam Budh Nagar (hereinafter
referred to as "Tribunal") in M.A.C. No.
101 of 2014.

3. Brief facts as culled out from the
record are that on 15.11.2013 at 7:00 p.m in
the evening Lakphat Singh was going to
Pari Chauk, Greater Noida by riding
bicycle to attend his duty and when he
reached near gram Garhi, he was hit by a
car bearing No. U.P.-16 A.L. 2432 due to
the rash driving of the driver of car.
Lakhpat Singh sustained injuries and was
admitted to Yatharth Hospital, Noida, then
to E.S.I. Hospital, Noida and because of his
deteriorating condition he was shifted to
AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi where he
succumbed to his injuries at 5:00 a.m on
22.11.2013.

4. The deceased was 38 years of age
at the time of accident. He was a security
guard in I.S.S. S.D.B Security Services
Private Limited and was earning Rs.
10,000/- p.m. He was survived by his
mother, wife, son and daughter. The
tribunal has considered his income to be
Rs. 7413 p.m, deducted 1/4th towards
personal expenses of the deceased, granted
multiplier 15, granted Rs. 1,00,000/-
towards loss of love and affection, loss of
consortium, loss of estate, Rs. 25,000/-
towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/-
towards transport and ultimately assessed
the
total
compensation
to
be
Rs.
16,36,200/-.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the appellants that the Tribunal has
deducted 50% of the award holding
deceased to be negligent which is bad as
the deceased was not plying the vehicle
which met with accident.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant
has submitted that the deceased was an
security guard in I.S.S. S.D.B Security
Services Private Limited, hence, his income
as considered by the Tribunal is on the
lower side and it should be considered to be
Rs.10,000/Per
month.
It
is
further
submitted that the Tribunal though has
granted amount for future loss of income of
the deceased and also the amount awarded
under non-pecuniary heads granted by the
Tribunal is on the lower side and which
should be as per the decision of the Apex
Court in National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others,
2017 0 Supreme (SC) 105. Lastly, learned
counsel for the appellant has submitted that
the interest as awarded by the Tribunal is
on the lower side and requires to be
enhanced.

7. As against this, ld advocate Sri
Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the
respondent-Insurance Company submits
that income as suggested by the appellants
cannot be granted even in the year of
accident. It is further submitted by ld
counsel for respondent that the Tribunal
has erred in granting future loss of income
to be 40% as it should be 30% in view of
the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay
Sethi (Supra).
1030 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8. It is submitted by Sri Rahul Sahai
that the quantum of compensation and the
interest awarded by the Tribunal is not just
and proper and calls for interference by this
Court and requires recalculation. Issue of
negligence is also required to be argued by
the respondent in this appeal though no
cross appeal is filed.

9. Having heard the learned counsels
for the parties, we will have to consider the
negligence from the perspective of the law
laid down.

10. The term negligence means failure
to exercise care towards others which a
reasonable and prudent person would in a
circumstance or taking action which such a
reasonable person would not. Negligence can
be both intentional or accidental which is
normally accidental. More particularly, it
connotes reckless driving and the injured
must always prove that the either side is
negligent. If the injury rather death is caused
by something owned or controlled by the
negligent party then he is directly liable
otherwise the principle of "res ipsa loquitur"
meaning thereby "the things speak for itself"
would apply.

11. The principle of negligence has
been discussed time and again. A person who
either contributes or is author of the accident
would be liable for his contribution to the
accident having taken place and not
otherwise.

12. The Division Bench of this Court in
First Appeal From Order No. 1818 of 2012
( Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd.
Vs. Smt. Renu Singh And Others) decided
on 19.7.2016 has held as under :

"16. Negligence means failure to
exercise required degree of care and
caution expected of a prudent driver.
Negligence is the omission to do something
which a reasonable man, guided upon the
considerations, which ordinarily regulate
conduct of human affairs, would do, or
doing something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do. Negligence
is not always a question of direct evidence.
It is an inference to be drawn from proved
facts. Negligence is not an absolute term,
but is a relative one. It is rather a
comparative term. What may be negligence
in one case may not be so in another.
Where there is no duty to exercise care,
negligence in the popular sense has no
legal consequence. Where there is a duty to
exercise care, reasonable care must be
taken to avoid acts or omissions which
would be reasonably foreseen likely to
caused physical injury to person. The
degree of care required, of course, depends
upon facts in each case. On these broad
principles, the negligence of drivers is
required to be assessed.

17. It would be seen that burden
of proof for contributory negligence on the
part of deceased has to be discharged by
the opponents. It is the duty of driver of the
offending vehicle to explain the accident. It
is well settled law that at intersection
where two roads cross each other, it is the
duty of a fast moving vehicle to slow down
and if driver did not slow down at
intersection, but continued to proceed at a
high speed without caring to notice that
another vehicle was crossing, then the
conduct of driver necessarily leads to c

"4. It is a case of composite
negligence where injuries have been
caused to the claimants by combined
wrongful act of joint tort feasors. In a case
of accident caused by negligence of joint
tort feasors, all the persons who aid or
10 All. Smt. Saroj Devi & Ors. Vs. Amar Jeet Singh & Anr.
1031
counsel or direct or join in committal of a
wrongful act, are liable. In such case, the
liability is always joint and several. The
extent of negligence of joint tort feasors in
such a case is immaterial for satisfaction of
the claim of the plaintiff/claimant and need
not be determined by the by the court.
However, in case all the joint tort feasors
are before the court, it may determine the
extent of their liability for the purpose of
adjusting inter-se equities between them at
appropriate stage. The liability of each and
every joint tort feasor vis a vis to
plaintiff/claimant cannot be bifurcated as it
is joint and several liability. In the case of
composite negligence, apportionment of
compensation between tort feasors for
making payment to the plaintiff is not
permissible as the plaintiff/claimant has the
right to recover the entire amount from the
easiest targets/solvent defendant.

14. There is a difference between
contributory and composite negligence. In
the case of contributory negligence, a
person who has himself contributed to the
extent cannot claim compensation for the
injuries sustained by him in the accident to
the extent of his own negligence;whereas in
the case of composite negligence, a person
who has suffered has not contributed to the
accident but the outcome of combination of
negligence of two or more other persons.
This Court in T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan &
Ors. [2008 (3) SCC 748] has held that in
case of contributory negligence, injured
need
not
establish
the
extent
of
responsibility
of
each
wrong
doer
separately, nor is it necessary for the court
to determine the extent of liability of each
wrong doer separately. It is only in the case
of contributory negligence that the injured
himself has contributed by his negligence
in the accident. Extent of his negligence is
required to be determined as damages
recoverable by him in respect of the
injuries have to be reduced in proportion to
his contributory negligence. The relevant
portion is extracted hereunder :

"6. 'Composite negligence' refers
to the negligence on the part of two or
more persons. Where a person is injured as
a result of negligence on the part of two or
more wrong doers, it is said that the person
was injured on account of the composite
negligence of those wrong-doers. In such a
case, each wrong doer, is jointly and
severally liable to the injured for payment
of the entire damages and the injured
person has the choice of proceeding
against all or any of them. In such a case,
the injured need not establish the extent of
responsibility
of
each
wrong-doer
separately, nor is it necessary for the court
to determine the extent of liability of each
wrong-doer separately. On the other hand
where a person suffers injury, partly due to
the negligence on the part of another
person or persons, and partly as a result of
his own negligence, then the negligence of
the part of the injured which contributed to
the accident is referred to as his
contributory negligence. Where the injured
is guilty of some negligence, his claim for
damages is not defeated merely by reason
of the negligence on his part but the
damages recoverable by him in respect of
the injuries stands reduced in proportion to
his contributory negligence.

7. Therefore, when two vehicles
are involved in an accident, and one of the
drivers claims compensation from the other
driver alleging negligence, and the other
driver denies negligence or claims that the
injured claimant himself was negligent,
then it becomes necessary to consider
whether the injured claimant was negligent
and if so, whether he was solely or partly
1032 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
responsible for the accident and the extent
of his responsibility, that is his contributory
negligence. Therefore where the injured is
himself partly liable, the principle of
'composite negligence' will not apply nor
can there be an automatic inference that
the negligence was 50:50 as has been
assumed in this case. The Tribunal ought to
have examined the extent of contributory
negligence of the appellant and thereby
avoided
confusion
between
composite
negligence and contributory negligence.
The High Court has failed to correct the
said error."

18.
This
Court
in
Challa
Bharathamma &Nanjappan (supra) has
dealt with the breach of policy conditions
by the owner when the insurer was asked to
pay the compensation fixed by the tribunal
and the right to recover the same was given
to the insurer in the executing court
concerned if the dispute between the
insurer and the owner was the subjectmatter of determination for the tribunal
and the issue has been decided in favour of
the insured. The same analogy can be
applied to the instant cases as the liability
of the joint tort feasor is joint and several.
In the instant case, there is determination
of inter se liability of composite negligence
to the extent of negligence of 2/3rd and
1/3rd of respective drivers. Thus, the
vehicle - trailor-truck which was not
insured with the insurer, was negligent to
the extent of 2/3rd. It would be open to the
insurer being insurer of the bus after
making payment to claimant to recover
from the owner of the trailor-truck the
amount to the aforesaid extent in the
execution proceedings. Had there been no
determination of the inter se liability for
want of evidence or other joint tort feasor
had not been impleaded, it was not open to
settle such a dispute and to recover the
amount in execution proceedings but the
remedy would be to file another suit or
appropriate proceedings in accordance
with law.

What emerges from the aforesaid
discussion is as follows :

(i) In the case of composite
negligence, plaintiff/claimant is entitled to
sue both or any one of the joint tort feasors
and to recover the entire compensation as
liability of joint tort feasors is joint and
several.

(ii) In the case of composite
negligence, apportionment of compensation
between two tort feasors vis a vis the
plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He
can recover at his option whole damages
from any of them.

(iii) In case all the joint tort
feasors have been impleaded and evidence
is sufficient, it is open to the court/tribunal
to determine inter se extent of composite
negligence
of
the
drivers.
However,
determination of the extent of negligence
between the joint tort feasors is only for the
purpose of their inter se liability so that
one may recover the sum from the other
after making whole of payment to the
plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has
satisfied the liability of the other. In case
both of them have been impleaded and the
apportionment/ extent of their negligence
has been determined by the court/tribunal,
in main case one joint tort feasor can
recover the amount from the other in the
execution proceedings.

(iv) It would not be appropriate
for the court/tribunal to determine the
extent of composite negligence of the
drivers of two vehicles in the absence of
10 All. Smt. Saroj Devi & Ors. Vs. Amar Jeet Singh & Anr.
1033
impleadment of other joint tort feasors. In
such a case, impleaded joint tort feasor
should be left, in case he so desires, to sue
the other joint tort feasor in independent
proceedings after passing of the decree or
award."

emphasis added

18. 10th Schedule appended to
Motor
Vehicle
Act
contain
statutory
regulations for driving of motor vehicles
which also form part of every Driving
License. Clause-6 of such Regulation
clearly directs that the driver of every
motor vehicle to slow down vehicle at every
intersection or junction of roads or at a
turning of the road. It is also provided that
driver of the vehicle should not enter
intersection or junction of roads unless he
makes sure that he would not thereby
endanger
any
other
person.
Merely,
because driver of the Truck was driving
vehicle on the left side of road would not
absolve him from his responsibility to slow
down vehicle as he approaches intersection
of roads, particularly when he could have
easily seen, that the car over which
deceased was riding, was approaching
intersection.

19. In view of the fast and
constantly increasing volume of traffic,
motor vehicles upon roads may be
regarded to some extent as coming within
the principle of liability defined in Rylands
V/s. Fletcher, (1868) 3 HL (LR) 330. From
the point of view of pedestrian, the roads of
this country have been rendered by the use
of motor vehicles, highly dangerous. 'Hit
and run' cases where drivers of motor
vehicles who have caused accidents, are
unknown. In fact such cases are increasing
in number. Where a pedestrian without
negligence on his part is injured or killed
by a motorist, whether negligently or not,
he or his legal representatives, as the case
may be, should be entitled to recover
damages if principle of social justice
should have any meaning at all.

20. These provisions (sec.110A
and sec.110B of Motor Act, 1988) are not
merely
procedural
provisions.
They
substantively affect the rights of the parties.
The right of action created by Fatal
Accidents Act, 1855 was 'new in its species,
new in its quality, new in its principles. In
every way it was new. The right given to
legal representatives under Act, 1988 to file
an application for compensation for death
due to a motor vehicle accident is an
enlarged one. This right cannot be hedged
in by limitations of an action under Fatal
Accidents Act, 1855. New situations and
new dangers require new strategies and
new remedies.

21. In the light of the above
discussion, we are of the view that even if
courts may not by interpretation displace
the principles of law which are considered
to be well settled and, therefore, court
cannot dispense with proof of negligence
altogether in all cases of motor vehicle
accidents, it is possible to develop the law
further on the following lines; when a
motor
vehicle
is
being
driven
with
reasonable care, it would ordinarily not
meet with an accident and, therefore, rule
of res-ipsa loquitor as a rule of evidence
may be invoked in motor accident cases
with greater frequency than in ordinary
civil suits (per three-Judge Bench in Jacob
Mathew V/s. State of Punjab, 2005 0
ACJ(SC) 1840).

22. By the above process, the
burden of proof may ordinarily be cast on
the defendants in a motor accident claim
1034 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petition to prove that motor vehicle was
being driven with reasonable care or that
there is equal negligence on the part the
other side."

emphasis added

14. The deceased was a cyclist. The
Tribunal has rightly held him not to have
contributed to the accident taken place. It is
not proved by the driver of the offending
vehicle that the deceased had contributed to
the accident having taken place, thus oral
submission of respondent is rejected.

15. This takes this Court to the issue
of compensation. We would place reliance
on the Apex court decision in Vimal
Kanwar Vs. Kishor Dan and others
(2013) 7 SCC, Malarvizhi & Ors Vs.
United
India
Insurance
Company
Limited, 2020 (4) SCC 228 and United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Indira Devi
& Ors, 2018 (7) SCC 715. and in The
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Mangey Ram and others, 2019 0
Supreme (All) 1067 and the recent
judgment of the Apex Court in New India
Assurance Company Vs. Urmila Shukla
decided by the Apex Court on 6.8.2021
reported in MANU/SCOR/24098/2021
and Kirti and others vs Oriental
Insurance company Ltd reported in
2021(1) TAC. It could not be culled out
from record that on what basis, the
Tribunal has deducted the pecuniary
benefits from the income cannot be
fathomed. The income of the deceased in
the year of accident and looking to his
salary slip was Rs.10,736/- per month and
the tribunal could not have considered his
income to be Rs. 7413/- as judgement of
Vimal Kanwar (Supra) will not permit
such deductions. Hence, his income is
considered to be Rs. 10,000/- per month to
which as the deceased was in the age
bracket of 36 to 40 years, 50% future loss
of income requires to be added in view of
the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay
Sethi (Supra). As far as amount under the
head
of
non-pecuniary
damages
are
concerned, it should be Rs.70,000/- + 10%
rounded to Rs. 30,000/- increase as per the
decision of the Apex Court in Pranay
Sethi (Supra) as three years have elapsed
hence, the lump sum amount under this
head would be Rs.1,00,000/-. The deceased
was in hospital from 15.11.2013 to
22.11.2013. The Tribunal has not given any
reasons why family was not entitle to
trauma expenses and medical expenses. Let
trauma and medical expenses to be Rs.
25,000/-

16. Hence, the total compensation
payable to the appellants is computed
herein below:

i. Income Rs.10,000/-

ii. Percentage towards future
prospects : (50%) Rs.5000/-

iii.Total income : Rs. 10,000 +
5,000= Rs.15,000/-

iv. Income after deduction of
1/3rd : Rs. 10,000/- (rounded up)

v. Annual income : Rs. 10,000 x
12 = Rs.1,20,000/-

vi. Multiplier applicable : 15

vii.
Loss
of
dependency:
Rs.1,20,000 x 15 = Rs.18,00,000/-

viii. Amount under non-pecuniary
head= 70,000/-Plus Rs 30,000/as per
pranay sethi (supra) = 1,00,000/-
10 All. Raju Vs. State of U.P.
1035

ix.Trauma and Medical expenses
= 25,000/-

x.
Total
compensation
:RS:
19,25,000/-

17. As far as issue of the rate of
interest is concerned, it should be 7.5%. In
the view of the latest decision of the Apex
Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Mannat Johal and Others, 2019 (2)
T.A.C. 705 (S.C.) wherein the Apex Court
has held as under :

"13. The aforesaid features equally
apply to the contentions urged on behalf of the
claimants as regards the rate of interest. The
Tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of
12% p.a. but the same had been too high a rate
in comparison to what is ordinarily envisaged
in these matters. The High Court, after making
a substantial enhancement in the award
amount, modified the interest component at a
reasonable rate of 7.5% p.a. and we find no
reason to allow the interest in this matter at any
rate higher than that allowed by High Court."

18. No other grounds are urged orally
when the matter was heard.

19. In view of the above, the appeal is
partly allowed. Oral objections are allowed and
compensation recalculated. The judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal shall stand
modified
to
the
aforesaid
extent.
The
respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit
the amount within a period of 12 weeks from
today with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the
date of filing of the claim petition till the
amount is deposited.

20. In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt.
Hansagori P. Ladhani v/s The Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd., reported in
2007(2) GLH 291 and this High Court in , total
amount of interest, accrued on the principal
amount of compensation is to be apportioned
on financial year to financial year basis and if
the interest payable to claimant for any financial
year
exceeds
Rs.50,000/-,
insurance
company/owner is/are entitled to deduct
appropriate amount under the head of 'Tax
Deducted at Source' as provided u/s 194A (3)
(ix) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and if the
amount of interest does not exceeds Rs.50,000/-
in any financial year, registry of this Tribunal is
directed to allow the claimant to withdraw the
amount without producing the certificate from
the concerned Income- Tax Authority. The
aforesaid view has been reiterated by this High
Court in Review Application No.1 of 2020 in
First Appeal From Order No.23 of 2001 (Smt.
Sudesna and others Vs. Hari Singh and
another) and in First Appeal From Order
No.2871 of 2016 (Tej Kumari Sharma v.
Chola Mandlam M.S. General Insurance
Co. Ltd.) decided on 19.3.2021 while
disbursing the amount.

21. Record be sent to tribunal forthwith.

22. This Court is thankful to both the
learned Advocates for getting this matter
disposed of during this pandemic.
----------
(2021)10ILR A1035
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH CHAND, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 5374 of 2019

Raju ...Appellant(In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant: