Holding

Relatives of a victim are not per se "interested" witnesses; their testimony is admissible if credible, and a delay in FIR registration is not fatal if satisfactorily explained, leading to upholding the convictions.

Summary

The appellants were convicted under IPC §§ 324, 307 and 34 for assaulting victims in a market. They challenged the convictions on the grounds that the prosecution relied on testimony of relatives of the victim, that no independent public witnesses were examined, that there was an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, and that medical evidence about the weapon was inconsistent. The Supreme Court held that a relative of the victim is not per se an "interested" witness and that such testimony cannot be discarded merely on that basis, and that the quality of evidence, not its quantity, is decisive. The Court also ruled that a delay in registering the FIR is not fatal if satisfactorily explained, and that the minor discrepancy in medical testimony did not undermine the prosecution case. Consequently, the convictions were upheld, but the sentences were reduced, and the appeal was partly allowed.

Issues considered

The evidentiary value of testimony of relatives of the victim and whether they are "interested" witnesses.
Whether the non‑examination of independent public witnesses warrants an adverse inference against the prosecution.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR defeats the prosecution case.
The impact of inconsistent medical testimony on the weapon used.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 307, s. 324, s. 34

Subjects

interested witnessrelated witnessFIR delayinjured witnessmedical evidenceIndian Penal Codeconvictionsentence modificationevidence law

Judgment

(2008) 7 S,C.R. 7.14

ASHOK KUMAR CHAUDHARY & ORS. "
-
A
v.
STATE OF BIHAR
(Criminal Appeal No. 798 of 2008)
MAY 5, 2008
B
[C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.]

Evidence:
Testimony of related witnesses - Evidentiary value of -
c Accused assaulting the victims in a busy market - Conviction
by trial court - Upheld by High Court - Plea that no public r
I
witness having been examined, related witnesses being ~
'interested' , their testimony was liable to be discarded - Held
: Merely because a witness happens to be a relative of the
D victim of crime, he cannot be characterized as 'interested'
witness - Relationship per se does not affect credibility of a
witness - Further, non-examination of a public witness by itself
would not give rise to an adverse inference against the
prosecution - On facts, courts below did not commit any infirmity
E in relying on the testimony of prosecution witnesses and
convicting the accused on its basis - However, keeping in view
the facts and circumstances of the case, sentence modified -
'
Sentence/sentencing - Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 307 and 3241
34.
F FIR - Delay in lodging - HELD : ' Fardbeyan' having
been promptly given to police in the hospital and it having
been forwarded to the Police Station the same day and delay
in registering the FIR having been satisfactorily explained,
prosecution case cannot be thrown out merely on the ground
G of delay in lodging the FIR.
WORDS AND PHRASES
Expression 'interested' witness - Connvtation of.
The three appellants (A-1 to A-3) were prosecuted for
H 714
..
,,.
...
ASHOK KUMAR CHAUDHARY & ORS. v.
STATE OF BIHAR

commission of offences punishable u/ss 324 /34 and 307/ p.
715

34 !PC. The prosecution case was that on the day of
occurrence, the complainant (PW 5) and PW 4 with two
others went to the 'haat' (local market) to make some
purchases. At about 6 p.m. they saw A-3 armed with a
'Hasua' and A-1 and A-2 with daggers dragging a person E
out of the 'haat' towards the road. The complainant along
with his companions rushed to save the victirfl who turned
out to be P.W.-2, the son of P.W.4. The appellants also
assaulted P.W.4 and other persons, who got badly injured.
Motive of the crime was stated to be previous enmity owing c
to civil and criminal litigation between some of the
members of both the sides. The trial Court convicted A-1
and A-3 u/s 324 IPC and sentenced them to rigorous
imprisonment for two months. A-2 was convicted u/s 307
IPC and sentenced to three years R.I. The High Court
0
upheld the conviction and the sentence.
-...
In the instant appeal filed by the accused, it wafj-,, inter
alia, contended for the appellants that the prose41.1tion
having failed to examine independent witness~s. the
evidence of related witnesses (PWs 4 and 5) anct: th~t o,f E
,,, 'highly interested' witness (PW-2) was liab•9i to be
discarded; that there was inordinate delay of fi.,e days in
lodging the F.l.R.; and that the evidence of t~e doctors
cast doubt on the kind of the weapon used for assult.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court F

HELD: 1.1. Merely because a witness happens to be
a relative of the victim of the crime, he/she cannot be
characterized as an "interested" witness. It is trite that the
term "interested" postulates that the person concerned
G
has some direct or indirect interest in seeing that the
accused is somehow or the other convicted either
., because he had some animus with the accused or for
some other oblique motive. [para 7) [720-H; 721-A]
1.2 Insofar as the question of credit-worthiness of H
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R.

A the evidence of relatives of the victim is concerned, it is
well settled that though the Court has to scrutinize such
. -•
evidence with greater care and caution, but such evidence
c;rnnot be discarded on the sole ground of their interest
in the prosecution. The relationship per se does not affect
B the credibility of a witness. It will be erroneous to lay down
as a rule of universal application that non-examination of
a public witness by itself gives rise to an adverse inference
against the prosecution or that the testimony of a relative
of the victim, which is otherwise credit-worthy, cannot be
c relied upon unless corroborated by public witnesses. It
is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which
matters. [para 7 and 12] [716-E, F, G, H; 723-F]
1.3 In the instant case, out of the nine witnesses
examined by the prosecution, five are injured witnesses.
D PW-2 is the main victim, who was dragged and assaulted
in the first instance; and his father, PW-4, was also
stabbed. Neither their testimony nor the evidence of other
three injured witnesses gives an indication that any of the
witnesses, whose testimony has been relied upon by the
E trial court and the High Court, bore any animus against
the appellants. In view of consistent evidence that has
come on record, it cannot be said that non-examination '

of pubic witness makes the case of the prosecution
untrustworthy or that the courts below have committed
F any legal infirmity in relying upon the testimony of the
injured witnesses. [para 12] [722-E, F, G; 723-A, E, F, G]
,..
Dalip Singh Vs. State of Punjab [1954] 1 S.C.R. 145;
Masalti Vs. State of UP [1964] 8 S.C.R. 133; Gu/i Chand &
Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan(197 4) 3 SCC 698; State of Punjab
G Vs. Jagir Singh, Baljit Singh & Karam Singh(1974) 3 SCC
277; Rizan & Anr Vs. State of Chhatisgarh, through The Chief
Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (2003)
2 SCC 661; and Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra 2007 AIR
sew 1835 - relied on.
H
ASHOK KUMAR CHAUDHARY & ORS. v. 717
STATE OF BIHAR

2.1 It is trite that mere delay in lodging the first A
information report is not by itself fatal to the case of the
prosecution. In the event the delay is properly and
satisfactorily explained, the prosecution case cannot be
thrown out merely on the ground of delay in lodging the
F.l.R. Obviously, the explanation has to be considered in B
the light of the totality of the facts and circumstances of
the case. This is a matter of appreciation of evidence. [para
14 and 16] [723-H; 724-A, B, C, G]
State of H.P Vs. Gian Chand (2001) 6 SCC 71; Ramdas
& Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra (2007) 2 SCC 170 - relied C
on.
2.2 In the instant case, PW-5 promptly gave his
fardbeyan to the police on the very next day, i.e. 18th July,
1988 in the hospital at Patna. The fardbeyan was forwarded D
by the police to the police station concerned the same
day and on the basis thereof, the formal F.l.R. was
registered on 22nd July, 1988. Though there is no denying
the fact that there was delay in registration of F.l.R. but it
is nobody's case that the F.l.R. was not in consonance
with the fardbeyan or it was embellished in any manner. E
The courts below have found that in the light of the
surrounding circumstances and the fact that the police
station was about 12 kms. away from the place of
occurrence, the delay has been satisfactorily explained;
and, therefore, it cannot be said that the courts below have F
committed an error in accepting the explanation for the
delay. [para 17] [725-A, B, C, D]
3. Insofar as the nature of injuries caused to PW-4 is
concerned, the evidence of both the doctors is consistent. G
Both of them have deposed that the injuries had been
caused by "sharp cutting weapon such as chhura". When the
injuries, the time and place of occurrence stand proved,
the said variation in fardbeyan fades into insignificance
and cannot be held to be fatal to the prosecution case.
H
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 7 S.C.R.

A [para 19] [725-G; 726-A]
4. On the basis of the evidence of the witnesses, the
High Court has concurred with the findings of the trial
court that the prosecution has succeeded in bringing
home the offences, the appellants were charged with.
8
.Nothing substantial has been shown to interfere with the
conviction of the appellants. [para 20] [726-A, B]
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case and bearing in mind the fact that the subject
C incident had taken place almost two decades ago, it is a
fit case where sentences awarded to the appellants
deserve to be reduced. Therefore, the sentence of two
months rigorous imprisonment awarded to appellants
Nos.1 and 3 is set aside and instead they are sentenced
D to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each. Similarly, the sentence
of three years rigorous imprisonment awarded by the Trial
Court to appellant-2 is reduced to one year rigorous
imprisonment. He shall also be liable to pay a fine of
Rs.20,000/-. [para 21-22] [726-C, D, E, F]
E
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
Appeal No. 798 of 2008.

From the Judgment and Order dated 1.12.2006 of the High
Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 1992.
F
P.N. Lekhi, Samar Bansal, Lokesh Kumar and M.K. Garg,
for the Appellants.

Manish Kumar and Gopal Singh for the Respondent.

G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

D.K. JAIN, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. The three appellants in this appeal, namely, Ashok Kumar
Chaudhary, Kailash Chaudhary and Baiju Chaudhary (hereinafter
H referred to as appellants A-1 to A-3 respectively) arrayed as
ASHOK KUMAR CHAUDHARY & ORS. v. . .7,19
. . STATE OF BIHAR '[D.K. JAIN, '.l.1
...(

accused Nos.1, 3 and 2 respectively in the charge-sheet, faced A
trial in Sessions Trial Case No. 187 of 1989, for having
committed offences punishable under Sections 324 and 307
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short
the l.P.C.). The trial court found appellants A-1 and A-3 guilty of
off~nce under Section 3241.P.C. ahd sentenced them to undergo B
rigorous imprisonment for two months each. However, appellant,
A-2 was found guilty of offence under Section 307 1.P.C. and
was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.
All the three convicts preferred common appeal to the High Court
of Judicature at Patna. The High Court upheld the decision of c
the trial court, which has resulted in the present appeal.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 17th
July, 1988 at about 6 p.m. the informant (PW-5) along with Bijoy
Kumar Sanyal, Hardeo Chaudhary and Kishan Singh had gone
to Dharampur Haat (Market) to make some purchases. They D
-,'
saw the appellants dragging a person out of the Haat towards
the road. They along with some other bystanders raised ha/la
(shouting), whereupon the informant and others reached the spot
and tried to rescue the victim, who turned out to be the son of
the said Hardeo Chaudhary. Meanwhile, appellant, A-3 who was E
carrying a Hasua and appellants, A-1 and A-2 who were carrying
daggers assaulted the informant and other persons. They were
badly injured. Hardeo Chaudhary sustained injuries in his
abdomen whereas Bijoy Kumar Sanyal sustained dagger
injuries in his chest and thigh and Kishan Singh sustained injuries F
on his head. The motive of occurrence was given as previous
-;>
enmity.
4. Fardbeyan of the informant was recorded by the AS.I.
of Pirbahore police station and was forwarded on the next day
to the officer incharge of Bidupur police station within whose G
jurisdiction the occurrence had taken place. On the basis of the
fardbeyan, a formal F.l.R. was registered. After completion of
investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the
appellants under Sections 324, 307 read with Section 34 l.P.C.
H
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R.
;..

A 5. Out of the total nine witnesses examined by the
prosecution to establish its case, five were the persons who
had been injured in the assault. Relying on the testimony of the
injured witnesses, the trial court convicted the appellants for the
offences aforenoted. As noted above, conviction and sentences
B awarded to the appellants have been affirmed by the High Court.
\

6. Mr. P.N. Lekhi, learned senior counsel appearing for
the appellants has assailed the convictions on a number of
grounds. Firstly, it is submitted that the incident having taken
place at a public place in the evening, the prosecution ought to
c have examined some independent witnesses. Having failed to
do so, the evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 should be discarded
as being closely related to the victim -Ajay Kumar, they were
"highly interested" and prone to falsely implicate the appellants,
particularly when PW-4 was also involved in civil and criminal
D litigation with one of the appellants' herein.
-,..-
7. We are not impressed with the argument. Though it is
true that the incident having taken place near the market around
6 p.m. on 17th July, 1988, the prosecution should have attempted
to secure public witnesses who had witnessed the incident, but
E
at the same time one cannot lose sight of the ground realities
that the members of the public are generally insensitive and
reluctant to come forward to report and depose about the crime
even though it is committed in their presence. In our opinion,
even otherwise it will be erroneous to lay down as a rule of
F universal application that non examination of a public witness
by itself gives rise to an adverse inference against the >;-

prosecution or that the testimony of a relative of the victim, which
is otherwise credit-worthy, cannot be relied upon unless
corroborated by public witnesses. Insofar as the question of
G credit-worthiness of the evidence of relatives of the victim is
concerned, it is well settled that though the Court has to scrutinize
such evidence with greater care and caution but such evidence H

cannot be discarded on the sole ground of their interest in the '
prosecution. The relationship per se does not affect the
H credibility of a witness. Merely because a witness happens to
ASHOK KUMAR CHAUDHARY & ORS. v. 721
STATE OF BIHAR [D.K. JAIN, J.]

be a relative of the victim of the crime, he/she cannot be A
characterized as an "interested" witness. It is trite that the term
"interested" postulates that the person concerned has some
direct or indirect interest in seeing that the accused is somehow
or the other convicted either because he had some animus with
the accused or for some other oblique motive. B
8. In Dalip Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1 , this Court had
the occasion to deal with the question as to whether a relative
is per se an "interested" witness. Dispelling the general
impression that relatives were not independent witnesses,
speaking for the Court, Vivian Bose, J., observed thus: C

"A witness is normally to be considered independent unless
he or she springs from sources which are likely to be
tainted and that usually means unless the witness has
cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to
0
implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would be
the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an
innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there
is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to
drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has
a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be E
laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship
far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of
truth."

9. In Masalti Vs. State of U.P 2 ., a four-Judge Bench of F
this Court had observed that though the evidence of an interested
or partisan witness has to be weighed by the Court very carefully
but it would be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by
a witness should be discarded only on the ground that it is
evidence of a partisan or interested witness. The mechanical G
rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan
would invariably lead to failure of justice. (Also see: Guli Chand

1
[1954] 1 S.C.R 145
2
[1964]8SC.R 133 H
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R.

A & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan 3 and State of Punjab Vs. Jagir
Singh, Baljit Singh & Karam Singh 4 ).
10. To the same effect is the decision in Rizan & Anr. Vs.
State of Chhatisgarh, through The Chief Secretary, Govt. of
Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 , wherein this Court has
8 observed that relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a
'•
witness. It is more often than not a relation would not conceal
the actual culprit and make allegations against the innocent
person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is
made. In such cases, the Court has to adopt a careful approach
C and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and
credible.
11. Very recently in Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra 6 ,
one of us (C.K. Thakker, J.) has said that a close relative cannot
be characterized as an "interested" witness. He is a natural
0
witness. His evidence, however, must be scrutinised carefully. If
on such scrutiny, his evidence is found to be intrinsically reliable,
inherently probable and wholly trustworthy, conviction can be
based on the 'sole' testimony of such witness. Close relationship
of witness with the deceased or victim is no ground to reject his
E evidence. On the contrary, close relative of the deceased would
normally be most reluctant to spare the real culprit and falsely
implicate an innocent one.

12. In the instant case, as noted above, out of the nine
F witnesses examined by the prosecution, five are injured
witnesses, which include PW-2-Ajay Kumar, the main victim,
who was dragged and assaulted in the first instance and his
father, PW-4-Hardeo Chaudhary, who was also stabbed.
Neither their testimony nor the evidence of other three injured
G witnesses gives an indication that any of the witnesses, whose

3
(1974) 3 sec 698
4
(1974) 3 sec 2n
5
(2003) 2 sec 661
H 6
2007 AIR sew 1835
ASHOK KUMAR CHAUDHARY & ORS. v. 723
STATE OF BIHAR [D.K. JAIN, J.]
--\
testimony has been relied upon by the trial court and the High A.
Court, bore any animus against the appellants. It is true that in
the cross-examination, an attempt was made to cast a doubt
that on account of an old case filed by the appellant No.1-
Ashok against PW-4, the said witness was deposing against
the appellants but in the light of the graphic details of the incident B
,. given by the said witness, who had also sustained serious
injuries in the stomach, there was no reason for the Courts below
to disbelieve the evidence of PW-4. Similarly, PW-5, who, in
his cross-examination had divulged that appellant Kailash
Chaudhary was his brother by gotra, was also injured, had been c
cross-examined at length, but nothing could be elicited to show
that he had any animosity towards the appellants or to discredit
his deposition in support of the prosecution. The Trial Court as
well as the High Court have found the evidence of all these
witnesses to be trustworthy and reliable, and it has been
D
recorded that their evidence inspires confidence and stands
._.,, corroborated by the medical evidence. The Trial Court has also
taken note of some minor variation in the timing of the
occurrence, which has also been highlighted before us by
learned counsel for the appellants, and has held that negligible
< variation of half an hour between the testimony of PW-1 to PW- E·
'
5, wherein all of them have given the time of occurrence either
at about 5.30 P.M. or between 5-6 P.M. (PW-5) and the evidence
of PW-8, wherein the time of occurrence has been given as
5.00 P.M. hardly affects the prosecution case. In view of
consistent evidence that has come on record, it cannot be said F
that non-examination of pubic witness makes the case of the
-J
prosecution untrustworthy or that the courts below have
committed any legal infirmity in relying upon the testimony of
the injured witnesses. It is the quality and not the quantity of
evidence which matters. G
13. It was then contended by 1e·arned counsel for the
appellants that there was inordinate delay of five days in lodging
~"
, the F.l.R., which is fatal to the prosecution case.
14. It is trite that mere delay in lodging the first information H
724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R.

)-

A report is not by itself fatal to the case of the prosecution.
Nevertheless, it is a relevant factor of which the Court is obliged
to take notice and examine whether any explanation for the delay
has been offered and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or not.
If no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming, an adverse
B inference may be drawn against the prosecution. However, in
the event, the delay is properly and satisfactorily explained; the ..,.
prosecution case cannot be thrown out merely on the ground of
delay in lodging the F.l.R. Obviously, the explanation has to be
considered in the light of the totality of the facts and
c circumstances of the case.

15. On this aspect, in State of HP Vs. Gian Chand 7 , a
three-Judge Bench of this Court had observed thus:
"Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic
formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding
D
the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging the first
information report. Delay has the effect of putting the court ,..,.
on its guard to search if any explanation has been offered
for the delay, and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or
not. If the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay
E and there is a possibility of embellishment in the
prosecution version on account of such delay, the delay
would be fatal to the prosecution. However, if the delay is
explained to the satisfaction of the court, the delay cannot
by itself be a ground for disbelieving and discarding the
F entire prosecution case."
16. More recently in Ramdas & Ors. Vs. State of \-

Maharashtra 8 it has been observed that the question whether
the delay in lodging the report adversely affects the case of the
prosecution has to be considered in the light of the totality of the
G
evidence. This is a matter of appreciation of evidence. There
may be cases where there is direct evidence to explain the delay.
...
1
(2001 l 6sec 71
H
8
(2007) 2 sec 170
ASHOK KUMAR CHAUDHARY & ORS. v. 725
STATE OF BIHAR [D.K. JAIN, J.]
->
Even in the absence of direct explanation, there rpay be host of A
circumstances appearing on record which may provide
reasonable explanation for the delay.
17. In the present case, PW-5-Laxmi Chaudhary promptly
gave his fardbeyan to the police on the very next day, i.e. 181h
July, 1988 in the hospital at Patna. The fardbeyan was forwarded B
I by the police to the concerned police station the same day and
on the basis thereof, the formal F.l.R. was registered on 22nd
July, 1988. Though there is no denying the fact that there was
delay in registration of F.l.R. butit is nobody's case that the F.l.R.
was not in consonance with the fardbeyan and it was c
embellished in any manner. The courts below have found that in
the light of the surrounding circumstances and the fact that the
concerned police station was about 12 kms. away from the
place of occurrence, the delay has been satisfactorily explained
and, therefore, it cannot be said that the courts below have D
committed an error in accepting the explanation for the delay.
The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants
is, thus, rejected.
18. It was then contended by learned counsel for the
appellants that the evidence of two doctors, namely, Krishna E
Nand Singh (PW-6) and Dr. R.K. Agrawal (PW-7) who had
examined Hardeo Chaudhary cast a doubt on the kind of the
weapon used for assault. It is pointed out that in their respective
depositions both the doctors have opined that the injuries were
caused by a sharp cutting weapon like "chhura", whereas in his F
~,
fardbeyan PW-5 had stated that appellant Kailash Chaudhary
had taken out "Hasua" and started inflicting injuries. It was urged
that this discrepancy falsifies the case of the prosecution.
19. We do not find much substance in the contention. In
G
our view, insofar as the nature of injuries caused to Hardeo
Chaudhary is concerned, the evidence of both the doctors is
consistent. Both of them have deposed that injuries had been
·-· caused by "sharp cutting weapon such as chhura". In our view,
when the injuries, the time and place of occurrence stand proved,
'-. H
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R.

th8 said variation in fardbeyan fades into insignificance and
cannot be held to be fatal to the case of the prosecution.
20. Thus, on the basis of the evidence of the witnesses,
the High Court has concurred with the findings of the Trial Court
that the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the
8 offences, the appellants were charged with. Nothing substantial
has been shown to persuade us to interfere with the conviction
of the appellants.

21. Lastly, it was pleaded by Mr. Lekhi that the sentence
c awarded to the appellants, particularly appellant No.2 - Kailash
Chaudhary who is an old person of about 81 years of age and
has already undergone five months rigorous imprisonment, may
be reduced. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case and bearing in mind the fact that the subject incident
had taken place almost two decades ago, we are of the view
0
that it is a fit case where sentences awarded to the appellants
deserve to be reduced.
22. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent
indicated above. The order of conviction passed against all the
E appellants is maintained. However, the sentence of two months
rigorous imprisonment awarded to appellants No.1 and 3 is set
aside and instead they are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/
- each within six weeks from today, failing which they will undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. Similarly, the
F sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment awarded by the
Trial Court to appellant - Kailash Chaudhary is reduced to one
year rigorous imprisonment. He shall also be liable to pay a
fine of Rs.20,000/- within six weeks from today and in default
will undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one
G month. The amount (s) offine so recovered shall be paid in equal
proportion, to Bijoy Kumar Sanyal, Kishan Singh, Hardeo
Chaudhary and Laxmi Chaudhary, who all were injured in the
incident.
··•
R.P. Appeal partly allowed
H