A.F.

Court No. - 4

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3276 of 2013

Appellant :- Pappu And Another

Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Ravindra Sharma,A.P. Tewari,Abhilasha
Singh,Ashutosh Yadav,Nagendra Kumar Singh,Nayab Ahmad Khan,R.S.
Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.

(Per: Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.)

This appeal has been filed against the judgement and order dated

25.5.2013 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court

No. 6, Budaun, by which the appellants Pappu son of Bhole and Vijaypal

son of Bhole have been punished under Sections 323/34, 506, 376(2)(g)

and 342 of the I.P.C. They have been punished under Section 376(2)(g) of

the IPC with life imprisonment and have been fined with Rs. 1 lac each.

In the event of default it has been provided that they would have to further

undergo ten months simple imprisonment. They have been punished

under Section 342 IPC with an imprisonment of six months along with a

fine of Rs. 600/- each. In the even of default, they have to further undergo

three months of simple imprisonment. Under Sections 323/34 of the

I.P.C., they have been punished with one month’s imprisonment with a

fine of Rs. 100/- each. In the event of default, they have to further
undergo 15 days imprisonment. With regard to punishment under Section

506 IPC, the appellants have been punished with two years’ of

imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. In the even of default, they

would have to further undergo two months’ simple imprisonment. All the

sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The case as had been narrated in the first information report was

that the first informant along with his mother Smt. Ganga Dei, wife Rekha

and two small daughters, on 8.1.2010, while were going from Rasoolpur

Kalan to Aslaur, were at about 7PM in the evening stopped by Vijay Pal

s/o Bhole, Pappu s/o Bhole and Rishipal son of Saudan. The three

miscreants, after stopping them at pistol point took them to a field. There

the first informant, his mother with the two daughters were made to stay

at a particular place and one miscreant with a pistol remained with them.

The two other miscreants forcefully took the wife of the first informant to

a mustard field where they, one after the other, raped her.

As per the first information report, the whole incident started off at

7:00PM in the evening of 8.1.2010 and continued till 4:00AM of the next

day i.e. till the morning hours of 9.1.2010. At 4:00 am of 9.1.2010, when

Dharamveer and Danveer who were passing by saw the first informant

and his family and recognized the three miscreants, the latter ran away.

Through the first information report, action was prayed for.

Investigation, thereafter, commenced on 10.1.2010. The police in

the presence of Roopkishore, the first informant and Dharamveer

2 of 19
recovered the underwears of Vijaypal and Rishipal and kept them in a

sealed cover.

On the next date, i.e. on 11.1.2010, the Police in the presence of the

first informant, Roopkishore and Danveer took into custody the petticoat

and the white underwear of the prosecutrix and kept them in a sealed

cover. On the very same day, remains of the clothes which were burnt and

the broken bangles of the prosecutrix were also taken by the Police and

kept in sealed cover.

On 11.1.2010 at about 12:10PM, the prosecutrix was examined by

Dr. Anita Dhasmana. On the same day, she found from the vaginal smear

that there was no spermatozoa seen in the vagina and also gave her

conclusion in the medical report that no definite opinion about rape could

be given. In the medical examination, she had also categorically stated

that no mark of injury was seen on the body of the prosecutrix.

Roopkishore, the first informant, was also medically examined on

10.1.2010 and likewise, the mother Ganga Dei was also examined on

12.1.2010. After the accused Vijay Pal and Rishipal were arrested they

were also made to undergo medical examination on 10.1.2010. The

Doctor who had examined the accused had also sent the smear of the

penis of the accused for examination and thereafter, reports were also

received with a comment that no spermatozoa was seen in them.

The police after investigation submitted the charge sheet on

9.3.2010. Thereafter, the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Budaun,

3 of 19
framed charges under Section 376(2)(g), 342, 323 and 506 IPC against the

appellants Pappu and Vijay Pal on 4.2.2011.

In the meantime, Rishipal one of the accused was declared juvenile

on 27.8.2010 and his file, after separating his case, was sent to Juvenile

Justice Board.

The accused Pappu and Vijaypal were made to understand the

charges but they denied the charges and prayed for trial.

From the side of the prosecution, the first informant, Roopkishore

was examined as P.W. -1, the prosecutrix Rekha was examined as P.W. 2

and the Doctor Anita Dhasmana who had done the medical examination

of the prosecutrix was examined as P.W. 3. The Investigating Officer

Ram Surat Singh Yadav was examined as P.W. 4. Dr. A.K. Verma who had

done the medical examination of the first informant and also that of the

accused was examined as C.W. -1. Danveer and Dharamveer who as per

the first information report had passed by the first informant and his

family on 9.1.2010 at around 4:00AM were examined by the Court as

court witnesses 2 and 3. The statements of the accused appellants Vijay

Pal and Pappu were taken under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They, through their

statements, denied the charges and in fact stated that because of the

enmity which was there in the village due to the election of the Pradhan,

the Gram Pradhan and the first informant together had planted a false case

on them.

Thereafter when the trial took place and the Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Court no. 6 on 25.5. 2013 convicted the appellants under

4 of 19
Sections 323/34, 506, 376(2)(g) and 342 of the I.P.C., the instant criminal

appeal was filed.

Ms. Abhilasha Singh was heard for the appellants and Sri Vikas

Goswami was heard for the State.

Learned counsel for the appellant, in effect, essentially made the

following arguments.

I. The place of occurrence has been differently given by the different

witnesses. She submitted that as per the first informant, he along

with his family had reached Rashoolpur Ghat and there the three

accused persons stopped them and, thereafter, his wife was dragged

into the mustard field wherein she was raped several times by the

three accused one after the other between 7:00pm of 8.1.2010 and

4:00am of 9.1.2010. She tried to bring to the fore the fact that in the

first information report the place of occurrence was shown to be

Rashoolpur Ghat whereas in his examination-in-chief the P.W. 1

had stated that when the family had reached Kanua Nagla Ghat then

the accused had accosted them and had taken away his wife. This

was also as per the learned counsel stated by the P.W. - 2 the

prosecutrix that the incident had occurred at Kanua Nagla Ghat.

Learned counsel for the appellant relying upon Nain Singh

vs. State f U.P. reported in 1991 (2) SCC 432 and State of U.P. v.

Rajveer reported in 2014 (2) ACR 1561 (DB) stated that if there

was a discrepancy in the statement of the various witnesses with

5 of 19
 regard to the place of occurrence then that would vitiate the

prosecution case.

II. Learned counsel for the appellant further stated that there were

various other contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution

witnesses which went to the root of the matter and because of the

contradictions the prosecution case would get demolished.

(a) The P.W. 1, Roopkishore the first informant had stated in his

evidence that they had reached Kanua Nagla Ghat at about 7.30PM

then the accused person had met them while the P.W. - 2, the

prosecutrix, had deposed that the accused persons had met them at

Kanua Nagla Ghat at around 7:00pm.

(b) Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that P.W. 1,

Roopkishore had deposed that at about 4:00AM on 9.1.2010

Danveer and Dharamveer had reached the place of occurrence

while they were passing by and they had questioned the accused

persons as to why they had committed the crime and the three

accused persons had fled away brandishing the pistol on the

complainant and his family, Dharamveer and Danveer. On the other

hand, learned counsel also pointed out that P.W. - 2 had deposed

that when Danveer and Dharamveer had come to answer the call of

nature, namely, for defecation then they had met the accused and,

thereafter, the accused had fled away.

(c) The P.W. - 1, Roopkishore had mentioned in the First Information

Report the names of the three accused, but in the cross-examination

6 of 19
he had stated that when there was a hue and cry and the villagers

had collected then the names of the accused were known to him.

With regard to Pappu he states that the name came to the fore after

he was apprehended. Learned counsel states that Pappu in fact was

apprehended much later, about ten days after the incident. She

states, therefore, that the P.W. - 1 could not have know his name

also at the time of the lodging of the first information report.

To bolster her point, she specifically read out a certain

portion of the testimony of the P.W.-1 :- “जब शोर पर` गांव वाले इकट्ठे

हो गये थे तो गांव वालो ने इनके नाम पता पकडे जाने पर बताया था। पकड़े

जाने पर पप्पू ने अपना नाम पता बताया व गांव वालो ने नाम पता बताये थे

अगर यह बात मेरी रिरपोर्ट व ब्यान में नहीं है तो वजह नहीं बता सकता। यह

बात किक मै मुल्जि)जमों को पहले से जानता था यह बात न रपर्ट लिलखायी न

दरोगा जी को बतायी।”

Learned counsel categorically showed to the Court the

statement of Ram Surat Singh Yadav, the P.W. - 4 who had stated

that the accused Vijay Pal and Rishipal were arrested on 10.1.2010

and, therefore, learned counsel stated that if the names of Vijay Pal

and Rishipal were known only on 10.1.2010 then it could not have

been possible for the first informant to know the names of Vijaypal

and Rishipal on 9.1.2010 when he had got the first information

report lodged. Further, from the very statement of Ram Surat Singh

Yadav, she had pointed out that Pappu was not arrested till

7 of 19
 24.1.2010 and, therefore, again she argued that it was not possible

for the first informant to know the name of even Pappu.

(d) At one place, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the

appellant that, the first informant says that he was illiterate and,

therefore, he had got the first information report written on his

dictation by one Sajjan Singh whereas later on he had said that he

was a literate person and he had written the first information report

himself and had given it to the Darogaji.

III. The next argument which the learned counsel for the applicant has

made was that it was very unlikely that two real brothers would

commit the crime of rape together. She has submitted that the

appellant Pappu and Vijay Pal were real brother and therefore, there

was very little likelihood of their committing the crime of rape

together.

IV. The P.W.-2 had deposed in her cross-examination that the accused

persons had covered their faces and, therefore, learned counsel had

stated that there was no question of any identification. Learned

counsel further states that no identification parade was undergone

and, therefore, identification itself becomes doubtful.

V. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the P.W. 2

the prosecutrix, had admitted that both Danveer and Dharamveer

were relatives as they were uncle and nephew and both of them had

brought the family on their bullockart from Asraul to Rasoolpur and

they had on that date disclosed the names of the accused. Learned

8 of 19
 counsel, therefore, submits that this was also a fact which was

demolishing the story of the prosecution as P.W. 1 had at one place

in his cross-examination submitted that the accused had told their

names only after they were apprehended.

VI. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the

prosecutrix, the P.W. 2, had deposed in her cross-examination that

on account of continuous rape which continued throughout the

whole night she had sustained injuries in her back and on her

buttocks but in fact no external injury was found in the medical

examination. Learned counsel for the appellants stated that if three

strong young men had committed the crime of rape continuously

from 8:00PM of 8.1.2010 which had continued till 4:00AM of

9.1.2010 then the prosecutrix would have been in an extremely bad

shape and she would not have been able to even walk properly to

the Police Station. In this regard, the statement of P.W. 1 is

important which is mentioned below:-

“ मेरी पत्नी रेखा को मुल्जि)जमान पप्पू व ऋकि1पाल जबरजस्ती लहर्टा के

खेत में ले गए कि4र थोड़ी देर बाद पप्पू हमारे पास आ गया और

किवजयपाल हम लोगों के पास से मेरी पत्नी के पास चला गया। इसी

प्रकार तीनो मुलजिजमान का एक - एक करके हम लोगों के पास आना व

मेरी पत्नी के पास जाना सुबह चार बजे तक चलता रहा । मेरी पत्नी ने
चार बजे के करीब आने पर मुझे बताया की तीनो मुल्जि)जमान ने बारी -

बारी से उसके साथ बुरा काम किकया है ।”

Similarly, the P.W.-2, the prosecutrix has deposed that:

9 of 19
 “सबसे पहले मेरे साथ बलात्कार ऋकि1पाल ने किकया था। उसके बाद
पप्पू ने मेरे साथ बलात्कार किकया था जो आज हाजिजर अदालत है।

मुल्जि)जम ऋकि1पाल मेरे पास से चला गया तो उसके बाद किवजयपाल

हाजिजर अदालत ने मेरे साथ मेरी मज= के किबना बलात्कार किकया था।

यह क्रम सुबह के चार बजे तक लगातार चलता रहा और सभी ने एक-

एक करके चार बजे तक बलात्कार किकया था। ...... तीनो लोगो ने

रातभर बुरा काम किकया जिजससे मेरी पीठ, चूतड़ छिBल गए थे। मैंने
डॉक्र्टर को यह सब छिBला हुआ किदखा किदया था। मेरी पेर्टीकोर्ट, कच्Bी,

जांघ, पेर्ट सब वीय से सन गए थे। डॉक्र्टर ने सब देखा।”

In this regard, the statement of P.W. - 3 is also material who

deposed that:
“पीकिड़ता के शरीर पर किकसी संघ1 के किनशान नही पाये गए।
शुक्राणु भी पैथोलॉजी रिरपोर्ट में नही पाये गए ...... इसलिलए कहा

जा सकता है किक 80 घंर्टे की अवधिJ में पीकिड़ता के साथ मैथुन

की संभावना नही होती।”
On the contrary learned counsel submits that the medical

report states that neither was there any external injury and nor was

there any internal injury. What is more, the learned counsel for the

appellant states that there were absolutely no signs of any

spermatozoa found either in the vaginal smear of the prosecutrix or

on the glan penis smear of the accused persons. Learned counsel for

the appellant also brought to the notice of the Court the statement

of the Doctor which said that in vaginal smear if sexual intercourse

had taken place then spermatozoa would be found till as late as 80

hours. She also opined that no definite opinion about rape could be

10 of 19
 given. In the instant case when the vaginal smear sample was

collected well in time and when there was absolutely no indication

of any spermatozoa then it could be safely said that no sexual

intercourse had taken place. Learned counsel stated that definitely

no crime of rape had occurred.

VII. Learned counsel for the appellants has still further submitted that

P.W. 1 had stated that he himself, his mother and the two daughters,

one of whom was only 15 days old were left under the open sky in

the cold January night. Learned counsel states that in the freezing

conditions the children and the old mother would have died but in

fact nothing at all had happened to them.

Learned counsel for the appellants states that there is no

medical report with regard to any fever or with regard to any

ailment which might have been there because of the cold freezing

night.

Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that

statement of the Court Witness- 2 Danveer and the statement of the

Court Witness – 3 Dharamveer were at absolute variance with the

case which was taken by the P.W. -1 and P.W. - 2. Learned counsel

states that C.W. - 2 Danveer upon reaching the spot had found that

there was one male, one female and just one girl child. Therefore,

she says that where exactly that 15 days old girl child had

disappeared was not clear and, therefore, she states that the

prosecution case cannot be said to be truthful.

11 of 19
 Similarly, learned counsel for the appellants states that the

statement of C.W.-3 Dharamveer was also not in consonance with

the statement of P.W. - 1 and P.W.- 2 and C.W.-2. C.W. - 3 has

deposed that he did not know Pappu and Vijay Pal at all who were

present there in the Court. He states that on 8.1.2010 he had gone to

bed at 9:00PM and had got up at around 8:00AM on 9.1.2010 and,

thereafter, when he had gone to the field he had found one man, one

old lady and just one girl sitting in the cold. He, of course, had also

found prosecutrix shivering in the cold. This witness also does not

speak about the second daughter who was only 15 days old. Even

though the learned counsel for the appellants states that this

witness was declared hostile by the prosecution, the statements of

the C.W.-3 become very relevant specially in view of the medical

examination reports of the prosecutrix and of the two accused.

VIII. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that a very

important witness i.e. the mother of the first informant Ganga Dei

was never brought to the witness box.

IV. Learned counsel also submits that if Rekha had a fifteen days old

girl daughter she would not have ventured to travel from Budaun

to Delhi and also if the child was born fifteen days prior to the

incident then there would have been evidence of this fact in the

medical report.

Learned counsel for the appellant while summing up her argument

stated that in view of the various contradictions, in view of the statement

12 of 19
made by Dharamveer who, though was declared hostile and also in view

of the medical report of the prosecutrix and the accused, the conviction of

the appellants was wrongly done and the appellants, in fact, ought to have

been acquitted.

Learned AGA, however, has opposed the appeal and has submitted

that if there were any contradictions in the statements of the P.W. -1 and

P.W. - 2 then they were there because of the fact that the witnesses were

illiterate persons. Further submission is that the statement of Dharamveer

should not be read in evidence on the account of the fact that he had

turned hostile and, therefore, his testimony was not reliable. Still further,

learned AGA submitted that the incident could not be attributed to any

enmity because of the elections of the Pradhan etc. as no evidence was

brought on record to that effect.

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned

AGA, we are of the view that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the

appellants ought to be acquitted. Though we find that there were various

contradictions in the testimonies of P.W. - 1, P.W. - 2, C.W. - 2 and C.W. -

3 , we cannot lose sight of the fact that P.W. - 1 and P.W. - 2 and also

C.Ws. 2 & 3 were illiterate villagers and contradictions in their statements

cannot be taken seriously. However, one fact definitely occurs to us and

that is that the P.W. - 1, the first informant, had narrated the names of the

accused in the first information report as if he knew them at that point of

time but in his cross-examination he has stated that he came to know

about the names after the accused were apprehended and he specifically

13 of 19
states that Pappu had told his name only after he was arrested. From the

statement of P.W. - 4, we find that Pappu was arrested much later after

20.1.2010. This does not appear to be an innocent aberration. The lodging

of the first information report appears to be a motivated exercise on the

part of the first informant. Further, we find that even though C.W.-3 has

been declared hostile, his testimony cannot be ignored. He very truthfully

has said that though the first informant, the mother and one child were

found by him, he does not deny the finding of the prosecutrix in the field .

He, however, does not in any manner say that the prosecutrix was raped

by the appellants.

In the case of Lalta Prasad vs. State of M.P. reported in AIR 1979

SC 1276, it could not be established that the prosecutrix was ever

subjected to any sexual intercourse by the accused against her will. On the

other hand, there was the evidence of the Doctor that when she was

examined after the occurrence, the Doctor found old torn hymen and no

sign of any rape or any forcefully intercourse with her. That being so, the

conviction of the appellant under Section 376 IPC was set aside.

In the case of Sakariya vs. State of M.P. reported in 1991 CrLJ

1925(MP) there was an allegation of rape upon a married women who

was alleged to have been dragged towards the place of occurrence and

then raped but the report of medical examination was in the negative so

far as the seminal stains and presence of spermatozoa in the vagina was

concerned and to top it all there was not even a scratch on her body and

the accused was acquitted.

14 of 19
 In the case of Zahoor Ali vs. State of U.P. reported in 1989 CrLJ

1177(All) the Doctor did not find any recent injury on the private parts of

the girl. Hymen was found to be torn from before and healed. Therefore,

the charge was held to be not proved.

In the case of Charan Singh vs. State of Haryana (1988) 3

Crimes 85 (P&H) it was case of a girl above 16 years who was allegedly

raped. In this case also the question was whether when she admitted of

having suffered some injuries on her back during the incident and when

the same were not found then what had to be done. The lady doctor,

however, who examined her did not find any injury on her private parts or

on her body during the medico legal examination. No tenderness, swelling

or blood was found in the vagina. She further found that two fingers could

easily be admitted into the vagina. During the cross-examination, she

rightly admitted that the prosecutrix would have suffered tenderness and

swelling of the vagina if she was subjected to rape by two young boys.

The gap between the occurrence and her medico legal examination ruled

out any possibility of any abrasion being healed. Giving the benefit of

doubt the accused were acquitted.

In the case of State of State of Orissa vs. Rama Swain and others

reported in 2007 CrLJ 714 (Ori) the accused persons were alleged to

have committed a rape forcibly on the prosecutrix one after another but

the evidence showed that there was dispute between the victim and the

accused persons regarding damage of crop by the cattle of the victim over

the land cultivated by the accused persons. There was no semen stain on

15 of 19
the apparels of the victim found. Thus the evidence of prosecutrix did not

inspire confidence and the judgement of acquittal was upheld.

Similarly due to non support of medical report, in the case of

Mansingh vs. State of M.P. reported in 2007 CrLJ 201(MP), the

conviction of the accused was set aside as the prosecution case was not

supported by the medical report.

In the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Abdul Hafees Faroki

reported in 1998 CrLJ 3603 (SC), eight persons were accused for raping

a girl twice by turns and pushing the girl out of the running train.

However, when no serious injury was found on the person of the girl and

evidence showed that there was possibility of prosecutrix going with the

accused willingly, the acquittal of the accused was held proper.

In the case of Sampad vs. State of Odisha reported in 2001 CriLJ

793(Odisha), there was charge of gang rape against the accused persons

who allegedly had forcibly lifted the victim to a nearby river bank on

knife point and had committed sexual intercourse with her but no sign of

forcible intercourse or mark of violence was found either on the spot or

during the medical examination of prosecutrix. It was held that in the

absence of a proper proof they could not be convicted under Section 376

(2)(g).

In the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Rameshwar Sridhar

Jaware reported in 2008 CrLJ 675(Bom.), the accused persons were

alleged to have committed rape on a girl of 16 years. Medical report as

well as the report of the chemical analyst was contrary to the evidence of

16 of 19
prosecutrix. It was held that the possibility of a false accusation could not

be ruled out and the accused was entitled to acquittal.

In the case of Suresh Govinda Nagdeve vs. State of Maharashtra

reported in 2008 CrLJ 2943 (Bom.), the allegation was that the

prosecutrix was subjected to rape by three accused person. It was alleged

that in the night, the crime was committed in an open field but no injury

on the private part or on the back of the prosecutrix was found and the

Doctor could not confirm the theory of sexual intercourse. Similarly no

corresponding injury was there on the private parts or on the body of the

accused. Giving the benefit of doubt, the accused persons were acquitted.

In the case of Goverdhan vs. State of M.P. reported in 2006 CrLJ

4118, the parties were not keeping good relations in the past and had

lodged FIRs against each other. Medical report did not corroborate the

version given by the prosecutrix. It was held that guilt was not proved and

conviction was improper.

In the case of Joseph vs. State of Kerala reported in 2000 CrLJ

2467 (SC), the dhoti of the accused contained no blood or semen stains

and there was no injury caused to the private part of the body of the

victim. The conviction was sought to be proved by the fact that vaginal

smear’s examination confirmed the presence of semen and spermatozoa.

It was held that this was not a ground for conviction of accused for the

offence of rape and the accused was entitled to acquittal on the basis of

benefit of doubt.

17 of 19
 In even this case no semen or spermatozoa was found in the vaginal

smears of the victim. The facts of the above cited decisions are almost

similar to the facts of the present case. It is the case of the appellant that

due to enmity regarding election of gram pradhan they were falsely

implicated and also no spermatozoa or semen or any injury was found

during the medical examination of the victim and the accused person.

Therefore, all the above citations are applicable to this case.

Furthermore, we find that when the C.W.-2 and C.W. - 3 give their

statements they have conveniently forgotten about the presence of the 4th

member i.e. the 15 days old child about whom the first informant had

mentioned in the first information report. Furthermore, and most

importantly, we find from the medical examination that the prosecutrix

had absolutely no external or internal injury despite the fact that the

prosecution has stated throughout that she was gang-raped from 7:00PM

of 8.1.2010 to 4:00AM of 9.1.2010. This seems highly improbable. If

three young strong men commit the crime of rape on a feeble woman who

was 19 years of age and weighed only 37 kg as is clear from the medical

report of Dr. Anita Dhasmana, then she would definitely have had at least

some injuries. The prosecution had to prove its own case to the hilt and

when no injuries, external or internal, were found on the body of the

prosecutrix and no dead or live spermatozoa were found in her vaginal

smear and the glan penis smear of the accused-persons then it can safely

be said that at least there was no crime of rape committed on her.

18 of 19
 Under such circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The order dated

25.5.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Budaun, in

S.T. No. 5 of 2011, State vs. Pappu and another, under Section 376(2)(g),

342, 323, 506 IPC, P.S. Jarifnagar, District – Budaun, is quashed and set

aside.

The accused-appellants- Pappu and Vijaypal, who are in jail if they

are not wanted in any other criminal case be set free forthwith.

Order Date :- 27.7.2022

PK

(Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.)……..(Siddhartha Varma,J.)

19 of 19

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN

KUMAR
Date: 2022.07.27 16:23:30 IST
Reason:
Location: High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad