# Gond1.mog11la 101a.J)'O v. /'enumatcha A nondd Vijaya Vtnkatc· roma Iimma Jagepat!.fraju !~:!4 SUPREME COCR'f REPOitTS [l!lli2) SUPP

- **Citation:** [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 334
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1959-11-03
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 108of1961
- **Bench:** J. L. K.Al'IJR, !(. C. Das Gup'!'A, Ragiiubar Dayal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/gond1-mog11la-101a-j-o-v-enumatcha-a-nondd-vijaya-vtnkatc-roma-iimma-jagepat-2383
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

(}1i11iinal Trial--Jfurd.er-- ·F'istol and cartridges recovered
frvni ucr-usr:d--··f'ailur"-
to send' to
balli.~tic F.xperl-lf entails
rPjr.ction of e.ye uJif-nes,w·.~- -1lpprt;ciation of ei.:idencc.
'I'he appellant
~\'idt su1nc others robbed Duila and t\VO
others and d11r1rig the robber)' the appellant !hot at and killed
Dull.a. \vi1h a pist ,l,
Afier a chase the appellant was appre·
hrnticd and the pistol a11d .some cartridges were recovered
from bun. 1'he pistol and cartridges , .. ·ere
not sent for·
examination to the ballistic. expert.
:\ number of eye "·it·
nc.s~es y.·cre
produced at the trial.
1"hc Sessions Judge ac·
quitted the appellant but 011 appeal the lligh Cou1 t convicted
him un<lcr ss. 302 and 1Y4 Indian Penal Code and sentenced
hin1 to death. The appellant contended that the circum·
stances of the case showed that the eye \Vitnesses could not
be relied upon and that the failure to get the pistol and
cartridges examined by a ballistic expert was a good ground
for rejecting the e .. ·idenr.c of the eye \•;itnesses.
Jleld, that though the prosecution would have done
well to send the pistol and cartridges to the ballistic expert
for his opinion, the omission to do so clid not furnish any
reason to doubt or reject the e\·idence of the eye witnesses.
'!"here
.... ·:1.s no reason to think that the injuries of \Vhich
Oulla died could not have been c:au;.ed by the pistol, on the
cvntrarv the
nature of the
injuries
\\'a5 \\·holly consistent
\vlth the prosecution story that a pistol \\'as used.
'
-
~
.
-.
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
335
Mohinder Singh v. The Stat•, [1950] S.C.R. 821, distingished.
Held
further
that even if there was no apparent
reason in ~ case to explain why witnesses were telling a lie
against an accused pcrson, circumstances brought out by the
evidence may show that in fact their
evidence could not be
safely relied upon. But in the present case there was no
circumstance that justified any doubt about the truth of the
prosecution case against the appellant.

## Text

1962
Gond1.mog11la
101a.J)'O
v.
/'enumatcha A nondd
Vijaya Vtnkatc·
roma
Iimma
Jagepat!.fraju
!~:!4
SUPREME COCR'f REPOitTS [l!lli2) SUPP.
within the meaning- of the Act, then there can be
no qncsti.or_i of giving them the benefit of the Act.
In.our op1mon, there is no substan~e in the second
pomt urged on belrnlf of the 1tppcllants.
.
In the r«sult the appeals fail and are clismi,~cd
mth cost; one hearing foe.
DosJ.
• /!Jfi2
Appwl'J dismissal.
t)HA.l\IBHOO
v.
STA
1l'J<; OF lJ'f'I'AR PRADl•~SH
( ,J. L. K.Al'IJR, !(. C. DAS GUP'!'A and RAGIIUBAR
DAYAL, J,J.)
(}1i11iinal Trial--Jfurd.er-- ·F'istol and cartridges recovered
frvni ucr-usr:d--··f'ailur"-
to send' to
balli.~tic F.xperl-lf entails
rPjr.ction of e.ye uJif-nes,w·.~- -1lpprt;ciation of ei.:idencc.
'I'he appellant
~\'idt su1nc others robbed Duila and t\VO
others and d11r1rig the robber)' the appellant !hot at and killed
Dull.a. \vi1h a pist ,l,
Afier a chase the appellant was appre·
hrnticd and the pistol a11d .some cartridges were recovered
from bun. 1'he pistol and cartridges , .. ·ere
not sent for·
examination to the ballistic. expert.
:\ number of eye "·it·
nc.s~es y.·cre
produced at the trial.
1"hc Sessions Judge ac·
quitted the appellant but 011 appeal the lligh Cou1 t convicted
him un<lcr ss. 302 and 1Y4 Indian Penal Code and sentenced
hin1 to death. The appellant contended that the circum·
stances of the case showed that the eye \Vitnesses could not
be relied upon and that the failure to get the pistol and
cartridges examined by a ballistic expert was a good ground
for rejecting the e .. ·idenr.c of the eye \•;itnesses.
Jleld, that though the prosecution would have done
well to send the pistol and cartridges to the ballistic expert
for his opinion, the omission to do so clid not furnish any
reason to doubt or reject the e\·idence of the eye witnesses.
'!"here
.... ·:1.s no reason to think that the injuries of \Vhich
Oulla died could not have been c:au;.ed by the pistol, on the
cvntrarv the
nature of the
injuries
\\'a5 \\·holly consistent
\vlth the prosecution story that a pistol \\'as used.
'
-
~
.
-.
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
335
Mohinder Singh v. The Stat•, [1950] S.C.R. 821, distingished.
Held
further
that even if there was no apparent
reason in ~ case to explain why witnesses were telling a lie
against an accused pcrson, circumstances brought out by the
evidence may show that in fact their
evidence could not be
safely relied upon. But in the present case there was no
circumstance that justified any doubt about the truth of the
prosecution case against the appellant.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
Appeal No. 108of1961.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated
May, 11 1961 of the Allahabad High Court in
Government Appeal No. 1492 of 1960.
A. S. R. Chari and Udai Pratap Singh, for the
appellant.
G. C. Mathur and G.P. Lal, for the respondent.
1962. February 20. The Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
DAs GUPTA, J.-The appellant, Shambhoo,
was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Moradabad for offences under sections 302 and 394
of the Indian Penal Code ands. 19(f} of the Indian
Arms Act.
Two other persons Altaf and Shaukat
were also tried along with Shambhoo on charges
under s.394 of the Indian Penal Code read with
s.34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case is that on November 3,
1959 Dulla and Ghasita, father and son and one
Bhassu were on their way to Tahirpur Bazar for
the purchase of bullocks. They had been to
Cbandarpur Bazar for this purpose but had not
made any purchases,-all the three were carrying
money. Dulla had Rs.300/-, Ghasita had Rs.100/-
and Bhassu had Rs.1051. Shortly before noon
they reached Mauza Bhainsora. When they were
near a tank about two or three furlongs from
1961
ShamblUJo
••
Stott. r>f Uttar
Pradesh·
Das J.
1961
Shambhoo
••
State of Utt4r
Pradesh
Das J,
:~36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SbPP,
Rhainsora theRc four persons, Shambhoo, Altaf,
Sibt.e and Shaukat, of whom Shamhhoo ancl :-;ibte
were armed with pistol and Shaukat and Altaf
were armed wit.h lat.bis,
c:\me out. of a wheat
fi.,Jd nearby. 'Vben they demanded money frnrn
Dulin, 13hassu and Gb1\Rita, Ghasita dcli\·crc·cl the
money readily, but his father Dulla reRiste<l.
At
this Sham bhoo fired his pistol and shot Du Ila <it-ad.
Shambhou then took out Its. :!00/- from Dulla's
poekd, while Shauk>tt took away the money from
.Bhit~RH aft,.,r giving him a lathi blow.
The alarm
whi"h Dulla, BhMsu arnl Ghasit.·1 raised when the
robberH att:u·ked t.hem, hrJ1rnv1>r, brought to the
plar<.' a number of person• who wore working in
th<' fit.>ld.< and tbeR<• snece<'ded in felling Sbambhoo
and Albf "'ith th<•ir lathiH
so that they could
not
rrot
awa.v.
Thf.• other two,
Shaui<at and
Sibte, however, mauaged lo escape, even though
they w<>re
pursued by the&" villager,;.
fn
the
course of the pursuit Sibte fired his pistol causing
bulkt injU1·ies to Lal Singh. :IIahcndra and Udaibir,
\\•ho \Vt:re ~tmc11g the puri:;uers.
Leaving
thc two pPt sons who
had
been
1trres\.<'d and the pi"tol and twolve live cartridgeH
which
were sl'izcd from Shambhoo at the place
of
nc<:urrc11ce
Ghasita accompanied
by
Kain
Chowkidar wc
011t to the Thana which was about
4 mil<'S off.
Th" information uf the occurren•'e
as given b,v him was recorded and the Officer-in·
Ch1trgo, proeee<lc<I to the pl1we of the occurrence
and after taking Altaf an<l Shambhoo into custody
and also the livt' cartridg,.s, the
pistol and onn
used cartridge case, investigated \.}10 C.'\se.
Dulla'H
dead body wns sent for post mortem examination,
Shambhoo's injuries
as also the injuries of Lal
Singh, :11".hendra and Uda.ibir were also medically
examined.
All
the accnscd pleaded not guilty. The
defence of the present ap['l<Jllant was that he had
(
3 s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
enmity with Talebar Singh and that he was arrested by Telebar and others on the d:i.te of the
oecurreuce when he stopped at a well for
bathin~
on his way back home from Moradabad.
He examined a defence witness in support of his story
that he was taking his bath near a well when he
was arrested.
To prove its case the prosecution rdied
mainly on the testimony of Ghasita and Bhassu
and of six persons who came on hearing the alarm,
namely, Kain Singh, Kain Chowkidar, Mahendra
Singh, Talebar Singh, Lal Singh and Udaihir Singh.
These 8 persons have given practically the same
account of the occurrence and there is no doubt
that if they are believed the case would stand
proved against ail the accused persons.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge was
however of the opinion that even though apparently there appeared to be no reason for discarding the testimony of the eye-witnesses, there
were several circumstances in the case, especially,
the medical evidence as regards the injuries on
Shambhoo and on Mahendra, Lal
Singh and
Udaibir Singh which left considerable room for
reasonable· doubt about the veracity of the prosecution story and that the accused were entitled
to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, he acquitted
all the three accused.
On
~ppeal by Government the Allahabad
High Court set aside this order of acquitial as
regards S~ambhoo and Altaf and has convicted
Shambhoo under ss.302 and 394 of the Indian
Penal Code and under s.19(f)' of the Arms Act
· and sentenced him to death under s.302, Indian
Penal Code, to four years' rigorous imprisonment
under s.394 and to one year's rigorous imprisonment under s. l 9(f) of the Arms Act. Altaf was
convicted an:l sentenced to four years' rigorous
imprisonment
under s. 39-l of the Indian Penal
1962
Shambhoo
v.
State of Uttst
PraaaA
DasJ.
1962
Shambhco
y,
Stale of Utt"'
Pradesh
DasJ.
338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
Code. The Government appeal against the acquittal of Shaukat was dismissed.
Shambhoo has appealed to this Court under
Art.134( I )(a) of the Constitution.
The accused was not represented by Counsel
and himself said what he wanted to say before us.
Mr. Chari, a Senior Counsel of this Court however
appeared as
an amicus curiae and &ubmitted
arguments in support of the appeal. As already
stated, the direct evidence given by the eight witnesses mentioned earlier, is that this appellant shot
Du Ila dead when the latter offered resi~tance in
making over the money which he had with him on
demand by the appellant and hib companion8 and
that than the appellant removed H.s.300/· from .
Dulla's pocket.
The question for our consideration is whether
the High Court· was right in believing this evidence.
The suggostion made by the accused that he
has been falsely implicated by the witnesses at tho
instance of Talebar does not bear a moment's
scrutiny. There is, apart from his own statement
nothing to show that Talebar had any enmity
with him. Even if Talebar had any enmity there is
vothing, to indicate that any of the other witneB11ee
are at all under Talebar's influence. The suggestion that the appellant has been wrongly involved
in the case at the instance of Talebar was therefore
rightly rejected by the learned Sessions Judge
a.11 also by the High Court and bas 1 indeed not
been pressed before us by Mr. Chari. It is true
however as pointed out by the learned Sessions
Judge that oven if there be no apparent reason in a
case to explain why witnoHses arc telling a lie
against an accused person circumstances brought
out by the evidence may show that in fact their
evidence cannot be safely relied upon.
..
,.
-
·I
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
33!)
The two main circumstances to which Mr.
Chari drew our attention and to which the learned
Sessions Judge also appears to have atta<lhed
great weight are : (1) that while according to. the
1 witnesses the appellant was felled by them with
lathies the medical evidence discloses only one
injury on Shambhoo which could have been caused
by a. lathi and (2) the injuries received by Lal Singh,
Mahendra and Udaibir Singh are not such as would
be caused by Sibt13's firing of which the witnesses
have spoken.
It is true that the eye.witnesses have spoken
generally of those who arrived on hearing the
alarm as having used their lathies and reading their
evidence one would have expected a number of
lathies injuries on Shambhoo's person. It is equally
. true that though the medical evidence shows as
many as 15 injuries on Shambhoo, 14 of these are
only abrasions, while one (Injury No. 7) is a swell·
ing on the outer aspect of the right ankle. . It is
clear that Injury No. 7 .could have been cause(! by
a lathi blow, while the other 14 injuries could not
have been so caused. ·We do not think however
that this gives any reason to disbelieve 'the evidence
of the witnesses as to what they saw.
What
appears to 'have happened is that one single lathi.
blow was sufficient to bring Shambhoo down a.nd
after that no lathi blow was given to him but he
was dragged and thus received the numerous
abrasions on his body. It is not unnatural in
circumstances like these that all those who canie on
hearing the alarm would try to take. the credit of
felling the robber. That, we think, is responsible
for the general statement that all of· them used
their lathies. This exaggeration of what they did
does not justify any doubt of their veracity.
The learned Sessions Judge seems, to h~ve
also thought that if these witnesses saw what they
claim to have seen, the attack on Shambh.oo w()uld
. .1962
, $lulrn6hoo
. v
S~Ot~ o.i Uttar
. , ,Prad<sh
DosJ.
~'liambliro
DtzsJ.
r.
i
' ·
,,
340
SUPRE:\TE COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
have been more ferocious.
With this we are unablo
to agree.
It has to be rcmernhPred that these
villagers who arrived on hoaring the alarm were
not related to Dulla.
Indt'ed,
it would appear
that Dull a and his companions wore unknown to
them. There is nothing unlikely or unnatural in
the fact that they were
~ontent with securing
Shambhoo and did not injure him further.
According to theeo witnesses Sibte fired his
pistol at his pursuers, amongst whom were Lal
Singh, Cde.ibir Singh, Mahendra and others. The
medical examination showd that on November 4,
1 !J5!J-tha.t is, tho date after the occurrence-when
tho Doctor examined the persons of Ma.hendra,
Udaibir anrl
Lal Singh he found one scabbed
abrasion l /8" x I /8'' on the front of upper part of
left leg 12-1/2" above the left knee on l\Iahen<lra;
(2) One scabbed abrasion 1/6" x 1/8" on the front
to tho right side of the ahdoment at 5 O' clock
position from the right nipple 5" away on the person
of Lal Singh and (3) - abrasions on the person of
Udaibir Singh-one abrasion l/10" x 1/2"
on the
inner side of the left leg, 11" above the left knee
and the other abrasion 1/2" x 1/6" to the front of
right leg, 8" below the right knee in the middle.
We can soe no reason to doubt the testimony of
the witnesses and do not think it at all unlikely
that injuries of this nature were ea.used by pellets
ejected by a firearm.
The medical examination
therefore far from being inconsistent with the
account given by the witnesses, as urged by Mr.
Chari lends support, in our opinion, to their account.
The next circumstance which in the opinion
of the Sessions Judge throws doubt the truth of
the prosecution story is that tho robber ·should
attack at a place so close to where many people
were working. We a.re uuable however to see
any. thing unlikely in robbery being attempted at
such a place. At least two of the miscreants,
..
·.
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
341
according to the witnesses, were armed with fire
arms and that itself was sufficient to make them
bold and to hope· that the people working in the
field nearby would not dare come to the assistance
of Dulla and his companione. The learned Judge
seems to have thought that there was no place
where
the miscreants
could
have concealed
themselves. In thinking thus he appears to have
overlooked the evidence
that sugarcane high
enough to afford good· place for concealment was
growing in several fields nearby.
The learned Sessions Judge also thought it
strange that there was no injury on the person of
Ghasita and Bhassu and said : "It does not stand
to reason that the robbers would leave these two
persons without leaving any injury on them." We·
find it difficult to understand why the learned
Judge thought so.
Robber
armed with pistol
do not always use them unnecessarily. A pistol
was used on Dulla as he did not readily hand over
the money with him.. Ghasita and Bhassu did not
offer such resistance, That itself. would explain
why they were not fired upon. It ma.y be mentioned here that according to the eviden3e, one of the
miscreants did use his lathi on Bhassu.
After a careful consideration of evidence we
are unable to discover any circumstance tha't justifies
any doubt about the truth :tbout the prosecution
story as against the appellant. Mr. Chari however
urged that in any caso the fact that though the pistol
which the appellant fired was according 1to the
evidence, seized from him it was not sent to the
ballistb expert for examination is a good reason
for rejecting the evidenPe of the eye-witnesses. The .
witnesses already mentioned have said that when
Shambhoo was secured thp pistol from which he
had fired the fatal shot was seized from him and
that one empty cartridge case was recovered from
inside· that pistol and 12 !Dore cartrid?es wer~
1962
Shambhuo
y
Stnte of l1Uo.r
Pradesh
DasJ.
1962
s,,.,,,u ...
••
St.11 •J U1tar
Pr a duh
342 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
recovered from the appellant's person and that
theso were made over to tho Sub-Inspector when he
arrived.
The Suh-I11spector's evidence is that he
received from Kalu Singh tho pistol which was
marked Ex. I in the case and 12 live cartridges.
He took these, as well as tho empty cartridges case
into his custody. It is equally clear that neither
the pistol nor these cartridll'es wero s<'nt to any
ballistic expert. While we think tho Sub·Insp<'ctor
would have done well to send the pistol and the
ammunition, especially the empty cartridges case,
to a
bal!i~tic expert for his opinion, we are unable
to accopt '.\Ir. Chari's contention that this omission
furnishes any reason to doubt or rcjrct the evidence
of the eye-witnesses.
Mr. Chari has phwed st.ronll'
reliancn on this Court's dedsion in Mohinder Singh,
v. The State(1) and has drawn our attention to the
following observations ma.de therein by Faz! Ali
J. :-
"In a cas<l where death is due to injuries
or wounds l'aused by a lethal weapon, it has
always beer considered to b" the duty of
tho prosecution to prove by export evidence
that it was likely or nt
lea.~t possible for the
injuries to have Leen caused with the weapon
with which and in the manner in which they
· are alleged to ha\'e been l~'lused."
This was a case in which the pro8ecution charged
ono i\iohinder Singh wit!{ haviug caused fatal in·
juries on one Dalip Singh with a g11n. The ~un·P-16
was identified aA the gun with which i\fohinder
Singh fired at Dalip Siugh. The Hi11h Court was
not satisfier! about the identification a.nd ~ppears to
hav'e also been doubtful whether the injuries could
have been causod by a gun. This Court after
agreeing with the High Court that it wa.., doubtful
whether the injuries which were attributed to the
appellant were caused by a gun or by a rifle tho·
ught t~a~ it was more likely that they wer(i caused
(I)
1950] S.C.JL 821.
-
/
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
343
by a rifle than by a gun and the Court proceeded to
observe :-. "It is only by the evidence of a duly
qualified expert that it could have been ascertained
whether the injuries attributed to the appellant
were caused by a gun or by a rifle and such evide.
nee alone could settle the control'ersy as to whether
they could possibly have been caused by a firearm
being used at such a close range as is suggested in
the evidence."
It has to be noticed that in that case one Dr.
Goy le, Director of the C.I.D. Laboratory has stated
in his evidence that the gun cartridges which were
seized could have been fired through the gun P-16
though he could not s ty whether they were actually
fired from that particular gun a similar gun or
guns." The High Court rejected the evidence of
Dr. Goyle and considered the nature of the wound
could have created a serious difficulty in the case.
It was in these circumstances of that case that this
Court ruade the observations on which reliance has
been placed and held that the evidence of the witnesses could nut be relied upon.
It has to be noticed that in the present case
there is not only no reason to think that the injuries of which DuJ.la died could not have been caused
by the pistol but on the contrary the nature of the
injuries as shown by Dr. Nigam who held the post
mortem examination is wholly consistent with the
prosecution theory that a pistol was used.
The external injuries as found on the body
were described by the Doctor were as follows :-
"Five gun-shot wounds (entrance) each 1/4"
x 1/8". Scorching was present on the margins
of these wounds. Four of these wounds were
going to the chest cavity and the fifth one
on the outer side was bone deep. The five
wounds were in an area 4-1/2" x 4-1/2". These
. injuries were on right side of chest about 1-1/4"
1962
Shami boo
••
Stal1 of Uttar
Pradesh
Das J.
1962
SliomiAoo
v.
State of Ull•r
Pr.J~"h
Z44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
to the upper and inner side of right chest.
The outermost injury was about l-1/2" below
right side. One bullet al out :!/4" wa.s extracted from the fle8h from the inner side of
· this wound."
He proceed to give the int€rnal examination of the bocly in this manncr:-
"The second, third and fourth right ribs
were broken in several pieces in the front and
back side. Clotted blood was present beneath
the external injuries and there were four holes
in the chest underneath those injuries/each
hole being 1/4" x 1/8" and all going inside the
chest. Undnrneath the external injuries were
four holes I /4" x I /8" through and through in
the right pleura. There were 4 holes l/4"xl/8"
in the right chest, 3 being through and through
and
ono being I" deep.
All of them
were in the upper part of right lung. About
3 pounds of blood wrui prC'sent in the chest
cavity. One shot was extracted from tho
right lung. Three shots were extracted from
the right side upper part of back underneath
the skin. Abdominal cavity was empty and
normal. The bladder contained about 2 Oz. of
.
"
urine.
In cross-examination he stated : "I cannot
tell whether the injuries received by the five bullets
were caused by I shot or many."
The very fact that tho Doctor used the word
"bullets" in this stat€mcnt in cross-examination
shows that he understood tho word to include
pellet. Once that becomes .clear it <•ppears to us
that the Doctor's evidence does not at all go against
the prosecution case that the injuries wore caused
by ono shot from a pistol. The absence of the
ballistic expert's evidence is therefore no reason to
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
345
doubt the testimony of the eye-witnesses. Kasimulla, one witness who was examined by the
appellant on his behalf said that it was when the
appellant was washing his haud and face at the
Haudia near a well at Jayantipur that Talebar
came with 7 or 8 persons and arrested him. In
cross-examination he stated that on several occa·
sions he bad purchased "Singharas" from Shambhoo at Sedhari Bazar and was so known to him.
On an examination of the entire evidence on
the record we have come to the conclusion that the
account given by the witnesses mentioned earlier as
regards what the appellant did and how he was
arrestPd is true and this witness Kasimullah has
given false evidence to help Shambhoo.
As this appeal is under Art. 134(1) (a) of the
Constitution we have re-appraised the evidence
for ourselves and on such reappraisal have come to
the conclusion that the view taken by the High
Court that persons claiming to be eye-witnesses of
the occurrence have told the truth and their evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that the
appellant committed the offence of murder puni·
shable under s. 302 of the Indian. Penal Code by
causing the death of Dulla and that he also committed an offence under s. 304, Indian Penal Code
ands. l9(f), Arms Act, is correct. We are also of
opinion that the High Court was right in passing
the sentence of death under s. 302 of the Indian
Penal Code.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
J96Z
Sh'ambhoo
v.
State of Uttar
Prade1h
DasJ,