# Sonpal Singh & Anr. on Interim Bail v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 323 of 1983
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-17
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 323 of 1983
- **Bench:** Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sonpal-singh-anr-on-interim-bail-v-state-of-u-p-46392
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal law- Indian Penal Code -Section
376/511 - Appeal against conviction.

Held :-
Reliability of prosecution version -
Testimony of the victim not tally with the
medical evidence and does not inspire
confidences her conduct also not fair. (Paras
14 and 17)

Appeal allowed. (E-2)

## Text

202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
away by the fact of murder of the deceased.
Guilt is not a matter of inference and it
should be proved beyond shadow of any
doubt by cogent and reliable evidence. The
principle which governs the criminal
jurisprudence
is
the
presumption
of
innocence in favour of accused. Serious
and heinous crime requires more strict
proof and seriousness of offence itself is no
ground for conviction. The trial courts have
to give finding on the basis of legal proof
after making objective assessment of the
evidence. The FIR was against unknown
persons and the informant was declared
hostile.
Another
witness
who
was
accompanying the informant could not
convincingly state that he was acquainted
with the accused persons. He only saw the
accused persons from their back and
appears to be more probable that he could
not recognize them. There was no other
witness according to him and therefore, the
presence of PW-3 at the time of incident is
falsified. The own brother of the deceased
has
not
been
produced
for
crossexamination. He did not lodge FIR went
back to Kanpur. Both these witness did not
participate
in
inquest
proceeding
or
disclose their presence to the IO who came
there soon after the incident. Therefore, the
conduct of these witnesses is unnatural and
it gives rise to the probability that they
neither saw anything nor they were present.
No motive has been alleged nor any enmity
has been shown between two sides which
also creates doubt on the prosecution case.

26. On the basis of above discussion,
we find that the learned trial court has
based it's judgment on totally untrustworthy
and unreliable evidence ignoring inherent
infirmities in the prosecution version and
the material contradiction, inconsistencies
and substantial improvement made by the
fact witnesses. The learned trial court has
acquitted the co-accused Sunil which
shows that prosecution version was found
incorrect at least in respect of one accused.
As such there is apparent perversity and
illegality in the impugned judgment and the
same is not sustainable under law and is
liable to be set aside.

27. Consequently, this criminal appeal
is allowed. The impugned judgment dated
20.2.1996 passed in ST no. 26/1989 is set
aside. The accused-appellant Arvind Singh
is therefore acquitted from the charge under
section 302 IPC.

28. Sri Devendra Pratap Singh,
learned Amicus Curiae shall be paid Rs.
Ten Thousands only for the assistance and
legal
service
provided
by
him
in
conducting this appeal for the accusedappellants.

29. Office is directed to transmit the
lower court record along with a copy of this
judgement to the learned court below for
information and necessary compliance.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A202
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 323 of 1983

Sonpal Singh & Anr.
 ...Appellants on Interim Bail
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Y.K. Shukla, Sri Sudhakar Yadav, Sri
B.K.Tripathi

Counsel
for
the
Respondent:
3-5 All. Sonpal Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
203
A.G.A.

Criminal law- Indian Penal Code -Section
376/511 - Appeal against conviction.

Held :-
Reliability of prosecution version -
Testimony of the victim not tally with the
medical evidence and does not inspire
confidences her conduct also not fair. (Paras
14 and 17)

Appeal allowed. (E-2)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar
Singh-I, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sri B.K. Tripathi,
Advocate holding brief of Sri Sudharkar
Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant
no. 1 and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A.
appearing for the State.

2. This appeal has been preferred
against the judgment and order dated
24.1.1983 passed by VIth Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur
in S.T. No. 544 of 1982 (State vs. Sonpal
Singh and another), whereby appellant
Sonpal Singh has been convicted under
section 376 IPC and has been sentenced for
three years R.I. and appellant Rampal has
been convicted under section 376/511 IPC
and has been sentenced for three years R.I.

3. As regards the appellant no. 1
Sonpal Singh, it is reported by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur vide
report dated 11.08.2016 that he has expired
about 15-20 years ago and after having
conducted enquiry in that regard, the said
report has been submitted, hence appeal of
appellant no. 1 Sonpal Singh stands abated,
therefore, before this Court only appellant
no. 2 Rampal remains for consideration.

4. As per FIR, the prosecution case is
that when the informant (PW1) was going
on 16.01.1982 at about 5.00 p.m. along
with lota to ease herself out and when she
reached near the turn of southern 'med' of
sugarcane field of Suresh Singh, the
appellant no. 1 Sonpal Singh son of Gindu
Singh and appellant no. 2 Rampal son of
Jahan came from the front concealing
themselves and Sonpal Singh had caught
her waist from behind and had taken her
forcibly in the said field where sugarcane
was there and told her not to raise alarm.
The
appellant
no.
2
Rampal
was
continuously threatening her that if she
cried, she would be killed, therefore,
because of fear she did not raise any alarm
and both these appellants had thrown her
on the ground and thereafter committed
rape upon her. Appellant no. 2 Rampal was
holding her hand and had closed her mouth
while she was raped by appellant no. 1
Sonpal Singh and thereafter appellant no. 2
Rampal had also committed rape upon her
and when Rampal was committing rape,
her mouth became free and then she cried
loudly, hearing this, Ashok Singh son of
Shiv Narain Singh, Nek Pal Singh son of
Zalim Singh and Rajju son of Lallu of the
village came there and then both the
appellants fled towards east leaving her.
The
said
witnesses
have
seen
the
occurrence and had saved her from clutches
of the accused. She had gone to the police
station with her husband to lodge FIR.

5. On the complaint (Exhibit Ka-1),
chik FIR was prepared at the police station
(Exhibit Ka-4). Case Crime No.16 of 1982
was registered under section 376 IPC
against both the appellants on 16.01.1982
at 20.00 hours. The entry of this case was
204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
made in G.D. dated 16.01.1982 at report
no. 47 which is Exhibit Ka-5. Investigation
was assigned to S.I. Ram Charan Singh
(PW6),
who
had
conducted
the
investigation. During investigation, he
prepared site plan, which is Exhibit Ka-6.
Petticoat of the victim was also taken into
possession, recovery memo of which is
Exhibit Ka-2. Medical examination report
is Exhibit Ka-3 and after having recorded
statement of witnesses, he has submitted
charge-sheet against the appellants under
the above-mentioned sections, which is
Exhibit Ka-7.

6. On the basis of evidence on record,
charge was framed against the accusedappellant Rampal under section 109 read
with section 376 as well as 376 read with
section 511 IPC on 01.10.1982 to which he
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Thereafter the victim Phoolmati was
examined as PW1, Dr. Meenu Sagar, who
conducted medical examination of the
victim, has been examined as PW-2, Rajju
son of Zalim has been examined as PW-3,
who is witness of fact, Nek Pal Singh has
been examined as PW4 who is also witness
of fact. Thereafter, evidence of prosecution
was closed and statement of accused
Rampal was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on
04.01.1983 in which he has stated that the
evidence which has come on record is false
and has taken the plea of false implication
due to village rivalry but no witness has
been examined in defence.

7. Based on the above evidence, the
trial court has convicted the accusedappellant which has been assailed before
this Court.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants
has argued that the scribe of the FIR Sri
Krishna has not been examined. The
appellant has been falsely implicated due to
election rivalry. No injury has been found
to have been sustained by the victim, which
belies the occurrence because if such an
occurrence of rape takes place, certainly
victim would have suffered injuries on her
private part and on other parts of the body,
particularly when she was thrown down on
the ground. The victim is a married lady.
No specimen of vaginal smear was sent for
medical examination to establish the
perpetrator of crime, therefore, the accused
deserves to be acquitted.

9. I have gone through the evidence
on record. PW1, who is victim herself has
stated that on 25.10.1982 i.e. about nine
years ago when she was going to attend
nature's call at about 5.00 p.m. she had left
for field of sugarcane of Suresh Singh,
which was lying towards east of her house,
the accused Sonpal Singh had caught hold
of her from behind while the accused
Rampal had gagged her mouth and had
dragged her inside the field of sugarcane
and had committed rape upon her and
threatened her that if she cried, she would
be killed. While accused Sonpal Singh was
committing rape, the other accused Rampal
had kept her mouth closed and when
accused Sonpal Singh had done dirty work,
thereafter Rampal said that he would also
do the same work and in the process her
mouth became free and she got opportunity
to cry loudly, hearing which Ashok Singh,
Nek Pal Singh and Rajju came there, then
accused fled from there. Thereafter, she
came to her house and told all the details to
her husband. He got report scribed by one
Sri Kishan, who had written the same
which was dictated to him and thereafter
she had put her signature thereon which is
Exhibit Ka-1 and the same was given at
Police Station Jalalabad. The police had
taken petticoat of her also in his possession
3-5 All. Sonpal Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
205
and the memorandum, which was prepared
of the same, was signed by her. It is further
stated by her that she was medically
examined. About ten years ago she was
married to Ram Ratan and her petticoat is
material Exhibit-1 while recovery memo of
petticoat is Exhibit Ka-2.

10. In cross-examination, she has
stated that between her house and the place
of incident there is Kolhu which was
located about 2-4 paces away from the
'Med' of field of Suresh Singh. When she
was going for easing herself out about 1020 persons were present at Kolhu. From the
place of occurrence, the distance of Kolhu
would be around 50-60 paces. Thereafter,
she had responded to the court on query
that the Kolhu was towards west of the
field. The place where she had been
dragged was towards south which is a very
big field having area of about 4-5 bighas
and having crop of sugarcane which was
not very high. The height of the crop would
have been about one hand. It was further
stated by her that to the north of sugarcane
field, there was crop of Jwar and to the
south of it there was crop of Arhar. The
accused had come from eastern side while
she was sitting facing towards west. She
was dragged about 2-3 paces. Both the
accused had caught her hands and then
within two minutes of her raising alarm,
witnesses had reached there. As soon as the
accused saw the witnesses coming, Sonpal
Singh fled but witnesses had seen him. The
witnesses had seen the accused from a
distance of about 2-4 paces. He had fled
towards eastern direction. She has further
stated that Sonpal Singh had not fled
towards south. Her clothes had not got torn.
She had returned home at about 6.00 p.m.
The witness Ashok Singh is son of Bua of
Sri Kishan. Nek Pal Singh is cousin brother
of Sri Kishan. Raja Ram is Chachiya Sasur.
She had spoken to her husband for writing
report but he said let the same be scribed by
Sri Kishan. Sri Kishan has a godown. At
about 8.00 p.m. she had departed for police
station accompanied with Jaswant, Ram
Chandra, Rakshpal, Raja Ram, Ram Ratan
(husband of the victim). Sri Kishan, who
had
scribed
the
report,
had
not
accompanied her to the police station nor
Ashok Singh and Nek Pal had gone there.
She had reached the police station in the
night at about 12.00 O' clock where
Chaukidar of the police station was found.
She had handed over the written complaint
to Munshiji as Inspector was not available
there. From the police station at about 2.00
A.M. in the night she was sent to
Shahjahanapur in a trolley which belonged
to
Sri
Kishan,
where
her
medical
examination was conducted. She had not
taken bath in the meantime. Her husband
remained with her all along. Near her
village, field of accused Sonpal Singh is
also situated. She does not know whether
Sri Kishan had purchased any field from
Thakur of her village. She also does not
know whether Sri Kishan was purchasing
field from Sonpal Singh. When the accused
had come to catch hold of her, they did not
have their face covered nor were they
having any Lathi. When she was thrown
down on the ground, no bungles of her
were broken. She does not go out from her
house except for the nature's call. Sonpal
Singh used to come to her Jeth's house for
giving clothes, hence she used to recognize
him. She had never gone to the field of
Sonpal Singh, who was the only son of his
father. She does not know anyone of
village of Sonpal Singh. She has denied
that Sonpal Singh had any animosity with
Sri Kishan and because of that, at the
instance of Sri Kishan, she was giving false
statement. Accused Rampal was resident of
village Patiura, which is about half mile
206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
away from her house, which is situated in
District Hardoi. She was not visiting the
house of Rampal but Rampal used to come
to her house. She had seen Rampal coming
to her house. Her mother-in-law had
pointed out that he was Rampal. She knew
his name. At the time when he had gagged
her mouth, she knew his name. About two
months ago prior to this occurrence, her
mother-in-law had told her the name of
Rampal. On the date of occurrence, Rampal
had not come to her house rather he was
going from the road/ passage while she was
sitting in 'Dalan', at that her mother-in-law
had told her that Rampal was going. Her
'Dalan' was about 2-4 paces away from the
road/passage. Rampal used to come to her
village for washing of his clothes but had
not come to her house. On the day when
she had gone for nature's call, she was
alone with a lota. When she was thrown
down on the ground, her lota was left there
only. By that time, she had already eased
herself out in the field of Suresh Singh. The
place where she was thrown down on the
ground, was about two paces away from
the place of defecation. The said field of
sugarcane was very dense. When she was
being dragged in the field, she did not get
any abrasion from the leaves of the crop.
Rampal
was
holding her
hand
and
simultaneously he was also keeping her
mouth gagged and she has also shown
before the Court as to in what manner she
was being carried. She had tried to get
herself freed. When dirty work was done
with her, her petticoat had become dirty.
The place where she was thrown down on
the ground, there was little grass existing.
She had received injuries on her waist as
well as her back but no bleeding took place,
only pain was being felt. She was told by
the accused that if she cried loudly, she
would be killed and nothing else. It was not
said "Meri Jan Chillana Mat". She had not
told the Investigating Officer that Sonpal
Singh had told her that "Meri Jan Chillana
Mat" and she could not tell the reason as to
why the same was written by Investigating
Officer. In committing rape upon her,
Sonpal Singh took just a minute but during
this period, she did not remain quiet. It is
wrong to say that she was living on the land
of Sri Kishan and that she does farming of
his field on 'Batai'. After leaving the police
station, at about 6.00 A.M. she reached
Sahjahanpur and at about 8.00 A.M. her
medical examination was conducted.

11. The statement of this witness is
not inspiring much confidence because the
same appears to be very unnatural. Her
testimony to the effect that one accused
was holding her and got her mouth gagged
while she was being forcibly dragged
inside the field of sugarcane where this
offence is said to have been committed and
thereafter the said accused continued to
keep her in gagged condition till coaccused had committed rape upon her and
that thereafter when co-accused had done
dirty work, the accused-appellant had also
said that he would do the same act and then
she got an opportunity to scream loudly
because her mouth was freed. When she
screamed, then witnesses arrived there and
they had seen the accused fleeing from
there. It is admitted by her that the accused
were not armed with any weapons nor even
by a Lathi, therefore, she should not have
any apprehension and could easily have
cried out before the commission of alleged
offence. Therefore, the narration made of
this occurrence seems to be unnatural. It
has also been stated by her that she was
thrown down on the ground where there
was little grass and the place where she had
defecated, was just two paces away from
the place where she was raped, also seems
to be very unnatural that a person would do
3-5 All. Sonpal Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
207
such act close to the place where the
excreta would be lying. Further, she has
stated that she was thrown down on the
ground, she had received injury on her back
as
well
as
waist
but
in
medical
examination, no such injuries have been
found which seems to be a material
contradiction.

12. Km. Meenu Sagar has been
examined as PW2 who has stated that on
06.11.1982
she
conducted
medical
examination at about 1.00 p.m. of the
victim and found no mark of injury on her
body as well as on her private part. Vaginal
smear was taken and sent to District
Hospital for examination. She has proved
her report as Exhibit Ka-3.

13. In cross-examination, she has
stated that she did not notice any injury on
her waist nor on any other part of the body
nor did she find any sign of rape. Opinion
could be expressed within 24 hours as to
whether rape was committed or not or on
the basis of vaginal smear report.

14. During the argument, it has not
come on record whether any report with
respect to vaginal smear was found or not
and this witness has testified that she had
not noticed any injury either on her body or
on her private part which is not in
consonance with the statement given by the
victim herself as according to her when she
was thrown down on the ground, she had
suffered injuries on her waist and back.

15. Rajju son of Lallu has been
examined as PW3 and he has stated that
about 10 months ago at 5.00 p.m. he was
near the Kolhu and near him Netpal Singh
and Ashok Singh were also present, who all
had heard cry of Phoolmati which was
coming from south eastern direction from
the field of sugarcane, hearing which three
of them rushed there and saw both the
appellants and Phoolmati. Further, it is
stated that he saw that Sonpal Singh had
already raped Phoolmati in the said field
where she was lying on the ground and
Rampal was committing rape and the
victim was lying in naked condition. When
he challenged the accused, they fled
leaving the victim in the said condition and
thereafter she set right her clothes and went
home and this witness returned to Kolhu.

16. In cross examination, this witness
has stated that at the time of occurrence he
was at Kolhu and he had reached at the
place of occurrence only on hearing of
voice of Phoolmati. Kolhu was 100 paces
away from the place of occurrence. He had
gone to the field of sugarcane straight from
the place of Kolhu and within 2-4-6
minutes he had reached there and when he
reached there, he saw that Sonpal Singh
was holding the hands of Phoolmati and
Rampal was doing wrong work. Rampal
was holding her legs and was committing
rape while Phoolmati told him that Sonpal
Singh had already raped her. When he first
time reached there, he had seen that
Rampal
was
committing
rape
upon
Phoolmati. It is not that because of shame
Phoolmati did not utter anything to him.
When he had reached at the place of
incident, he had Lathi in his hand but he
did not have any quarrel with Rampal and
Sonpal Singh. These accused had fled from
there just on seeing him. When they were
hardly 6-7 paces away from the place of
occurrence, the accused fled from there.
The crop of sugarcane was of mans' height.
Near the place of occurrence, the field of
Sonpal Singh is also situated. Phoolmati is
daughter-in-law of his brother and Ram
Ratan is his real nephew. The house of
scribe is near his own house. He does work
208 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of farming. He has denied that due to him
belonging to the party of Kishan and
others, he was giving false statement.
Further, he has stated that at Kolhu,
sugarcane was being crushed. There was
only one Kolhu and near it, he was sitting.
The bangles of Phoolmati had not broken
nor her sari was found torn nor soiled.

17. The statement of this witness is also
not confidence inspiring because he has given
statement contradictory to the prosecution case
saying that when he reached there at the cry of
victim, he found the accused-appellant Rampal
committing rape upon her while as per
prosecution case as well as statement of PW1,
Rampal could not rape rather was holding her
hands and keeping gagged mouth of the victim
when she was being raped by co-accused
Sonpal Singh and that when Sonpal Singh had
finished raping, and the accused-appellant said
that he would also do the same act, the victim
got opportunity to cry loudly, hearing which the
witnesses reached there which included PW3.
Therefore, the testimony of PW3 is contrary to
the prosecution version. His statement is that
when he reached there having lathi with him, he
did not even try to catch hold of the accused,
which sounds also unnatural. Normal conduct
would be for him to immediately chase the
accused persons and catch hold up them. He
has stated that he simply saw occurrence and
when accused went away from there, he
returned to Kolhu and the victim went home.
Further he has stated that he did not see any soil
or any tear on the sari of the victim which also
seems to be unnatural that in a Kachcha place
where the occurrence is said to have taken
place, yet clothes of the victim would not get
soiled and torn.

18. Nek Pal Singh has been examined as
PW4. He has stated in examination-in-chief that
about 10 months ago at about 5.00 pm, he was
sitting near Kolhu along with Ashok, Raja Ram
and one person of Dhanu caste called Dhanu
Tanukool, Phoolmati had gone to attend
nature's call along with lota in the field of
sugarcane of Suresh Singh. After sometime, he
had heard cry of Phoolmati and thereafter all of
them went there and saw that Sonpal Singh was
holding Phoolmati and was committing rape
upon her, when he challenged the accused, they
fled from there and Phoolmati also got up with
shame. Thereafter, Phoolmati told him that she
was firstly raped by Sonpal Singh and thereafter
by Rampal. She also told them that when
Sonpal Singh was committing rape, Rampal
had gagged her mouth and was holding her
hands and when Rampal was committing rape,
her mouth was open because of which she
could cry loudly.

19. In cross-examination, this witness has
stated that they had challenged the accused
from a distance of 8-10 paces and when he
reached at the place of occurrence, Rampal was
committing rape and Sonpal Singh was
standing there only. He also did not find the
clothes of victim torn.

20. The statement of this witness is also
not inspiring confidence because he and PW3
both have stated to have reached the place of
occurrence
simultaneously
and
there
is
discrepancy between their statements because
PW4 has stated that when he reached there,
Sonpal Singh was holding Phoolmati and was
raping her while according to PW3 when he
had reached there Rampal was raping and not
Sonpal
Singh.
This
witness
in
crossexamination has also given different version
stating that when he reached there for the first
time, Sonpal Singh was holding the hands of
victim while in examination in chief, he has
stated that Sonpal Singh was holding the hands
of victim and was also committing rape.

21. After having analyzed the above
statements, I find that the version of the
3-5 All. Jagat Pal Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of U.P.
209
prosecution does not stand proved because the
prosecution version as per FIR is that when the
victim had gone to ease herself out in the
sugarcane of Suresh Singh at a little distance
from her house, she was caught from behind by
Sonpal Singh and at that time Rampal was also
accompanying him and both of them had
dragged her in the said field where rape was
committed upon her by Sonpal Singh and
before Rampal could rape her, she had liberty to
cry loudly, hearing which the witnesses PW-3
and PW4 reached there and saw the occurrence.
On minutely scanning the above testimony, I
find that the said version does not stand proved
for the reasons which have been disclosed after
analysis of the statements made of each witness
above. I also find that both the witnesses i.e.
PW3 and PW4 who were said to be eye
witnesses, are closely related to the victim,
therefore, their testimony could be doubtful on
this count also and they could give false
statement. Their conduct is also not found to be
natural in allowing the accused flee away from
the place of occurrence despite being armed
with a lathi. The conduct of the victim is also
not found fair because her version is very
unnatural that such kind of rape would be
committed upon her at a place where excreta
was lying and for other reasons also which have
also been given above.

22. In view of the above, the trial court's
judgment is not found in consonance with the
evidence on record. The conviction of appellant
no. 2 Rampal u/s 376/511 IPC deserves to be
set aside and is accordingly set aside, he stands
acquitted. The appeal stands allowed.

23. Record reveals that the accusedappellant is on bail, hence his sureties stand
discharged.

24. Let a copy of this judgment along
with lower court record be transmitted to the
trial court for necessary action at his end in
accordance with law.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A209
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 482 of 1991

Jagat Pal Singh & Anr.
 ...Appellants (In Jail)
Versus
The State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri R.B. Sahai, Sri Manvendra Singh

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

A. Criminal Law-Indian penal code-Section
307/34 - Common Intention - Injured
witness has clearly stated in his statement
that appellant is only with lathi but no
injury of lathi is inflicted on the part of the
injured by invoking section 307 read with
Section 34 IPC, it cannot be said that
there was common intention of the
appellant to attempt murder of the injured
- Although it may be considered that the
appellant was present at the place of
occurrence but no overt act is done by the
appellant.

Held- Mere presence of the accused at the
place of the occurrence, without doing any
overt act would not make him culpable with
the aid of Section 34 of the IPC. ( Para
30,31)

Appeal Allowed (E-3)

List of case cited:-

1. Kashmira Singh vs. St. of Punj., AIR 1994
SC 1651