Holding

The Supreme Court held that the investigation was wholly tainted, the alleged eye‑witnesses were not present at the scene, and the conviction under Sections 302 and 34 IPC was not justified.

Summary

The appellants Suresh Rai, Pradeep Rai and Jitendra Prasad Rai were convicted for the murder of Shambhu Rai under IPC sections 302, 34, 109 and the Arms Act, and sentenced to life imprisonment. They appealed, contending that the three alleged eye‑witnesses were not present at the scene, that the investigation was tainted by a long‑standing family enmity, and that the Inquest Report under Sections 174 and 178 CrPC could not be used to identify the accused. The Supreme Court examined the contradictions between the informant’s statement and the investigating officer’s testimony, and found no evidence that the eye‑witnesses had actually scraped grass at the spot or that any grass or tools were found there. The Court held that the investigation was wholly compromised and the prosecution’s case was unreliable. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the eye‑witness testimony of PW‑10, PW‑16 and PW‑17 is reliable and can support a conviction under Sections 302 and 34 IPC.
Whether the investigation was tainted by family enmity, rendering the evidence inadmissible.
Whether an Inquest Report prepared under Sections 174 and 178 CrPC may be used to identify the accused.
Whether the conviction for murder and related offences can be sustained in view of the evidential deficiencies.

Legislation cited

Arms Acts. 27
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 174, s. 178
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 109, s. 302, s. 34

Subjects

murdereye-witness testimonyfamily enmityfalse implicationinvestigation taintInquest ReportSections 302 IPCSection 34 IPClife imprisonmentCriminal Procedure Code

Judgment

A SURESH RAI AND ORS.
V.

STATEOFBIHAR

MARCH 30, 2000

B [S. SAGHIRAHMAD, A.P. MISRA AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302 and 34-Appreciation of evidence-
Murder-Three eye-witnesses-Trial Court sentencing accused to life impris-
onment-Confirmed by High Cou1t-On appeal Held, entire investigation was
C wholly tainted and there was possibility of false imputation due to long enmity
between families-Time of occurrence and information to Investigating Officer
contradicted by prosecution witnesses-Presence of eye-witnesses at scene of
occurrence not proved-Conviction, not justified.

Cr.P.C., 1973-Sections 174and178-lnquest Report-Scope of inves-
D tigation limited to prima f acie nature of injuries, possible weapons used and
possible cause of death.

There was a long standing enmity between families of the appellants
and the deceased. Appellants allegedly murdered the deceased in presence
of P.W. 10, the informant, P.W. 16 and P.W. 17 at about 5.30 A.M. The
E
incident, was stated to have been reported to the police at 7 A.M. after
which investigation began. Appellants were sentenced to life imprison- --
ment under Sections 302, 34 and 109 JPC and Section 27 of the.Arms Act
by Trial Court, which was confirmed by High Court. Hence this appeal.

F The appellants contended before this Court that the alleged eye
witnesses were never present at the scene of occurrence; that the occur-
rence took place in the proceedings night; that due to bitter enmity be-
tween the families there was a possibility of false imputation; and that
witnesses of inquest did not name the assailants.
G Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD: 1. Under Section 174 read with Section 178 Cr.P.C. Inquest
Report is prepared by the Investigating Officer to firld out prima facie the
nature of injuries and the possible weapon used in causing those injuries
H as also possible cause of death. (803-G-H]
796
SURESH RAI v. STATE 797
Podda Narayan v. State of A.P., [1975) Supp. SCR 84; George v. State A
of Kerala, [1998) 4 SCC 605; Rameshwar Dayal v. State of U.P., [1987) 3
SCR 59; Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari v. State of M.P., [1991) SCR 1 and Kuldip
Singh v. State of Punjab, [1992) Supp. 3 SCC 1, relied on.

2. It is apparent that the names of the appellants were introduced in
the statement of P.W. 10 recorded after the Inquest Report was prepared, B
on account of the bitter enmity between their families. It was but natural
that they would have been implicated at the instance of P.W. 10 in the
incident which was not witnessed by him nor P.W. 16 and P.W. 17. The
entire investigation was wholly tainted and appellants were implicated on
the collective mischief of P.W. 10, the informant and P.W. 15, the lnvesti- C
gating Officer. [805-A; 806-A-B]

3. The Investigating Officer (P.W.15) directly and effectively contra-
dicted the statement of P.W. 10 that he had gone to the Police Station at 7
A.M. and reported the matter. He had stated that P. W. 10 had not come to
the Police Station nor had met him there. He admitted that he got the D
information at 8.15 A.M. from some other person after who did not dis-
close the name of the assailant. On scrutiny of the statement of P.W. 15
and P.W. 10 it comes out that P.W. 10 did not know the name of the
assailant; therefore he was not in a position to disclose the name to the
Investigating Officer at the Police Station. (801-B-E] E
...- 4. All three eye witnesses stated that they had gone to scrape grass
along with the deceased. Their presence at the spot could be justified on
the basis of the grass they had scraped, but the Investigating Officer was
neither shown the grass nor did he come across any portion of land from
where grass had been scraped. The explanation that large quantity of F
blood was spread over the field would not obliterate the evidence of the
grass having been cut from the field. Circumstances indicate that no grass
bad been scraped and none of the eye-witnesses were present at the scene
of occurrence. It is unbelievable that the three persons who were scraping
the grass with the deceased would meekly move away so as to facilitate the
killing of deceased. Their conduct is unnatural. (801-G; 802-B; 804-F] G

5. P.W. 2 stated the time of occurrence at about 4.30 A.M. and that
he heard the noise at his house which was about half a kilometer away the
scene of occurrence. He had no knowledge as to how the deceased died
and was not an eye-witnesses and appears to have been produced to fix H
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A the. place of occurrence, but in that process changed the time of occur-
rence. [803-C-D]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 740
of 1998.

B From the Judgment and Order dated 5.5.98 of the Patna High Court in
Crl. A. No. 241 of 1988.

U.R. Lalit, Chander Bhushan Pd. and Ranjit Kumar for the Appellants.

B.B. Singh and Kumar Rajesh Singh for the Respondent.
c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S. SAGHm AHMAD, J. Enmity, undoubtedly, is a double-edged
weapon; it may be a motive for commission of crime; it may also be a motive
for false implication. If, as in the instant case, one edge of the weapon of
D enmity is blunt, it cannot be sharpened by the judicial process. The weapon
of enmity in the instant case, as we shall presently see, does not cut any
· ground for tl1e commission of crime.

The appellants were charged and tried for offences under Section 302/
34 IPC for having committed the murder of Shambhu Rai on June 2, 1984 at
E
Dhamaun Chour, Village Garb Chak Seema, P.S. Patory, Distt. Samastipur.
One of the appellants, Pradeep Rai was further charged under Section 109/302
IPC for having abetted the offence by giving directions to his co-appellants,
Suresh Rai and Jitendra Prasad Rai to commit the murder of Shambhu Rai.
The appellant Suresh Rai was further ch~rged under Section 27 of the Arms
F Act for being in possession of a country-made pistol which he had fired twice
at Shambhu Rai. The appellants were convicted for the aforesaid offences by
judgment and order dated 15.4.1988, passed by the 2nd Addi. Sessions Judge,
Samastipur, and were sentenced to life imprisonment for the offences under
Section 302/34 IPC, but no separate sentence was passed under Section 109/
G 302 IPC against Pradeep Rai or under Section 27 of the Arms Act against
Suresh Rai. The appeal filed by the appellants in the High Court was
dismissed on 5th of May, 1998. Hence, this appeal.

The prosecution story, as set out in the FIR, is that on 2nd of June, 1984
at about 5.30 A.M., Shea Deo Rai (informant - P.W.10) along with Shatrughan
H Rai (P.W.16) and Ram Narain Rai (P.W.17), accompanied by Shambhu Rai
SURESH RAI v. STATE [S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J.] 799
(deceased), had gone to Dhamaun Chour to scrape grass and while they had A
scraped the grass for about half an hour, there came the appellants, Suresh Rai
(armed with a pistol), his father Pradeep Rai (armed with a dagger) and his
cousin Jitendra Prasad Rai @ Jaintri Rai (armed with a dagger). Out of them,
Pradeep Rai, who was the father of Suresh Rai, asked others, namely, Sheo
Deo Rai (P.W.10), Shatrughan Rai (P.W.16) and Ram Narain Rai (P.W.17) to
B
move away as they had come to commit the murder of Shambhu Rai. These
persons then moved a few paces away and then Suresh Rai, at the instigation
of his father, Pradeep Rai, fired two shots at Shambhu Rai, who fell down
and, thereafter, Pradeep Rai and Jitendra Prasad Rai gave Chhura (dagger)
blows to the deceased who died on the spot. This story has been held to have
been proved both by the trial court and the High Court. c
Mr. U.R. Lalit, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants, has contended that the three witnesses, namely, Sheo Deo Rai
(P.W.10), Shatrughan Rai (P.W. 16) and Ram Narain Rai (P.W.17), who were
produced as eye-witnesses of the incident in question, were really not present
at the spot and had not seen the occurrence, which had taken place some time D
in the preceding night and not in the morning at 5.30 A.M. as alleged by the
prosecution. It is contended that there was bitter enmity between the appel-
lants and their family members, on the one hand, and the deceased and his
family members, on the other. Sheo Deo Rai (P.W.10), Shatrughan Rai
(P.W.16) and Ram Narain Rai (P.W.17) were close relations of the deceased E
besides being related inter se. Admittedly, they were on inimical terms with
the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants has also attacked the
investigation which, according to him, was wholly tainted and taking advan-
tage of the enmity with the family of the deceased, the police, at the instance
of the complainant, had roped them in this case.
F
What is correct and what is not correct has to be decided on a
consideration of overall circumstances of the case as emanating from the
material brought on record, including the statement of witnesses recorded by
the trial court. The prosecution story, if analysed, indicates :

1. The time of the incident was 6.30 AM. G
2. The field at Dhamaun Chour was the place where the incident took
place.

3. Shambhu Rai was shot at twice by Suresh Rai (by pistol), and
thereafter given dagger blows by the otl.er two appellants, namely, Pradeep H
800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A · Rai and Jitendra Prasad Rai.

4. Sheo Deo Rai (PW-10), Shatrughan Rai (PW-16) and Ram Narain
Rai (PW-17) were at the spot and had witnessed the occurrence.

5. The presence of the deceased and the witnesses at t11e spot is
B evidenced by the heaps of grass which they had scraped and had kept in a
gunnybag. The 'Khurpis' with which tlley had scraped the grass was also with
them at the time of occurrence.

The incident was reported to t11e police by Sheo Deo Rai (PW-10) at
Police Station Patori where he reached at 7 .00 A.M., the distance from fue
c place of the incident being 5 kms. He specifically stated that he had met the
Inspector of Police (PW-15).and told him the whole incident. He stated in the
examination-in- chief as follows :

"After the incident I went to the Police Inspector at 7 .00 AM and gave
the information."
D
In t11e cross-examination, he reiterated these facts and stated as
under:-

"On the day of incident, I had gone to the Patori Police Station at
about 7.00 AM. I had gone to the Police Station on foot. Nobody was
E
accompanying me. I had gone alone. I had met the Police Inspector.
I had directly approached him that there had taken place murder,
. please go .......Then I came alone."

But the Police Inspector, Haleshwar Prasad Singh (PW-15), who was
F the Station Incharge of the Police Station, Patori on 2.6.1984 and had done
the main part of the investigation of the case, stated as under :

"On 2.6.84, I was posted as lncharge of Police Station, Patori. I came
to know that a person has been shot dead in Dhamaun Chour. I
registered the above information and proceeded towards Dhamaun
G Chour along with ASI Mahesh Prasad Singh and Constable Ram
Lokit Singh."

He further stated as under :

"On the day of incident, Shiv Deo Rai did not give any information
H at the Police Station. Even he did not meet me. On that day I had not
SURESH RAJ v. STATE [S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J.] 801
met him before 9 .30 A.M ..... At 8.15 I got a formal information about A
the incident. This fact is not mentioned in the Case Diary as to who
gave the information. Even I do not know his name. The person who
had given the information did not tell the name of the assailant."

Haleshwar Prasad Singh (PW-15), therefore, directly and effectively
contradicted Sheo Deo Rai (PW- 10), inasmuch as PW-10 stated that he had B
gone to the Police Station at 7.00 AM and reported the matter to the Police
Inspector, the latter, namely, the Police Inspector, who also took up the
investigation of the case, stated that PW-10 had not come to the Police Station
nor had he met him there. But what is certain, therefore, is that the Investi-
gating Officer had received the information at the Police Station that some- c
body was shot dead at Dhamaun Chour. This information was positively
recorded by the Investigating Officer in the General Diary, a copy of which
has, unfortunately, not been produced at the trial. The Investigating Officer
further stated in his statement that the fact as to who gave the information is
not mentioned in the Case Diary. The Investigating Officer even pleaded
ignorance of his name. He further admits that the person who gave the D
inf01mation did not tell the name of the assailant. What is also certain is that
though the information of commission of crime was given to the Investigating
Officer at 8.15 AM, the name of the assailant was not disclosed. If this
statement of the Investigating Officer is scrutinised in the light of the
statement of Sheo Deo Rai (PW-10) that he had gone to the Police Station at E
7.00 AM and met the Investigating Officer and informed him of the murder
of the deceased, Shambhu Rai, it would come out tl1at the name of the
assailant was not disclosed at that time. So also, PW-10 did not know the
name of the assailant and, therefore, he would not be in a position to disclose
the name to the Investigating Officer at the Police Station, would become
clear from a further scrutiny of the evidence on record which positively
F
indicates that Sheo Deo Rai (PW-10), or for that matter, Shatrughan Rai (PW-
16) and Ram Narain Rai (PW-17) were not present at the spot.

All the three eye-witnesses, Sheo Deo Rai (PW-10), Shatrughan Rai
(PW-16) and Ram Narain Rai (PW-17) have stated that they had gone to G
Dhamaun Chour along with the deceased for scraping grass. They further
stated that they had 'khurpis' with them and had scraped the grass for about
half an hour. Sheo Deo Rai (PW-10) further stated:

"On that day for about half an hour we collected the grass. We
collected the grass in 5 Dhurs. The rest of the three collected how H
802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A much grass, I don't know. They were collecting the grass again and
again. That field is of Keshu Rai .........Whatever grass we had cut that
was kept by us in our respective Boras (gunny bags). It was a summer
season. So we kept our grass in the bags and again started to cut the
grass."

B He further stated :

"I had shown the field, from which I had cut the grass to the police
inspector. The other three persons who had cut the grass had showed
it to the police inspector. After informing the police inspector when
I came back at the place of occurrence, many people had collected
c there ......... At that time, Khurpy and bags were there or not is not
known to me.

Similarly, Shatrughan Rai (PW-16) and Ram Narain Rai (PW-17) had
also stated that they had gone to the field to scrape grass. Ram Narain Rai
D (PW-17) positively stated that he had shown the 'Khurpi', 'Chhitta' and the
grass, which was cut. Then he stated that he does not remember. He further
stated that the portion of the ground on which the grass was cut was shown
to the Police Inspector.

Thus, the presence of these three eye-witnesses at the spot is justified
E on the basis of the grass, which had been scraped by them before the incident
had occurred and which had been kept in the gunny-bags. If it was true that
they were present at the spot and had scraped the grass, the portion of the plot
from which the grass was scraped would be visible to the naked eye. The
'khurpis' and the gunny-bags in which the grass was collected would also
have been available there. But the Investigating Officer, who visited the spot,
F
stated that Sheo Deo Rai (PW-10) neither showed him the 'Bora' (gunny-bag)
containing the grass nor the place at which the grass was cut. He further stated
that he had not seen the grass to have been cut in the area of 5 Dhur. He
further stated that he had not found any 'khurpi' at the spot. He, however,
tried to ~plain this by saying that the blood in large quantity had spread all
G over the field and, therefore, it was not clear whether the grass was cut or not.
This explanation is not convincing as the blood would· not obliterate the
evidence of the grass having been cut from the field. If the grass had really
been scraped as stated by Shiv Deo Rai (PW-10), Shatrughan Rai (PW-16) and
Ram Narain Rai (PW-17) and collected by them in their separate gunny-bags
H and 'khurpis' were utilised for scraping the grass, then the Investigating
SURESH RAI v. STATE [S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J.] 803
Officer, who visited the spot on receiving the information about the commis- A
sion of the crime, would have noticed that portion of the land from which the
grass was scraped and would have also found the gunny-bags and the
'khwpis'.

These circumstances clearly indicate that the grass was not scraped nor
was it collected in the gunny- bags and, therefore, none of the eye-witnesses, B
namely, Sheo Deo Rai (PW-10), Shatrughan Rai (PW-16) or Ram Narain Rai
(PW-17) was present at the spot when Shambhu Rai was done to death. In this
background, the statement of Shiv Chander Rai (PW-2) becomes extremely
relevant. He stated that the incident had taken place at about 4.30 AM and at
that time he was present in his house and had heard the noise that Shambhu c
Rai had been murdered. On hearing the noise he went out and found at a
distance of about half a kilometer from his house that Shambhu Rai was lying
dead. He saw his neck having been cut. He stated in the cross-examination
that the blood was not flowing from the body and it had stopped flowing. He
further stated that it was not within his knowledge as to how Shambhu ·Rai
had died. This witness, though not an eye-witness, is nevertheless a prosecu- D
tion witness. It appears that he was produced to fix the place of occurrence,
but in that process he changed the time at which the occmTence had taken
. _,/
place from 6.30 AM to 4.30 AM.

Though we have already held that none of the eye- witnesses was
E
present at the spot or had witnessed the occurrence, we may deal with another
submission of Mr. U.R. Lalit dealing with the presence of the eye-witnesses
at the spot.

Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. U.R. Lalit, contended that the
presence of three eye-witnesses, namely, Sheo Deo Rai (P.W.10), Shatrughan F
Rai (P.W. 16) and Ram Narain Rai (P.W.17), at the spot, is doubtful for the
reason also that though two of them, namely, Shatrughan Rai (P.W.16) and
Ram Narain Rai (P.W.17), are the witnesses of inquest, they did not state the
names of the assailants while describing the cause of death in the Inquest
Report. This argument cannot be accepted. Under Section 174 read with
Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Inquest Report is prepared by G
the Investigating Officer to find out prima facie the nature of injuries and the
possible weapon used in causing those injuries as also the possible cause of
death. In Podda Narayana v. State of A.P., AIR (1975) SC 1252 = 1975
=
(Supp.) SCR 84 [1975] 4 SCC 153, it was held by this Court that the
identity of the accused is outside the scope of Inquest Rep01t prepared under H
804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A Section 174 Cr.P.C. In George v. State of Kerala, [1998] 4 SCC 605 =AIR
(1998) SC 1376, it has been held that the Investigating Officer is not obliged
to investigate, at the stage of inquest, or to ascertain as to who were the
assailants. This Court has consistently held that Inquest Report cannot be
treated as substantive evidence but may be utilised for contradicting the
witness of inquest. (See: Rame$hwar Dayal v. State of U.P., AIR 1978 SC
B
1558 = 1978 (3) SCR 59 = (1978) 2 SCC 518; Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari v.
State of M.P., AIR 1991 SC 1853 = 1991 (3) SCR 1 = (1991) 3 SCC 627 and
Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab, (1992) Crl.L.J. 3592 SC= AIR (1992) SC
1944 = [1992] Supp. 3 sec L

c The appellants, who are three in number, had gone to the spot to
commit the murder of Shambhu Rai who, according to the prosecution story,
was scraping grass with three close relations, namely, Sheo Deo Rai (PW- 10),
Shatrughan Rai (PW-16) and Ram Narain Rai (PW-17). The appellants, oil
reaching at the spot, gave out loudly that they would commit the murder of
Shambhu Rai. At that stage, all the four would have immediately reacted and
D
tried to save Shambhu Rai, if not actually involving themselves into a
practical combat with the assailants. The absence of injury on these three
persons, who claim themselves to be eye-witnesses is· explained by all the
three by saying that the assailants gave out that they had come to commit the
murder of Shambhu Rai so as to wipe out the family of Awadh Ram. The
E remaining persons, namely Sheo Deo Rai (PW-10), Shatrughan Rai (PW-16)
and Ram Narain Rai (PW-17) moved away leaving Shambu Rai all alone who
was shot at by Suresh Rai and then given dagger blows by his co-appellants.
This is unbelievable that three of the persons who were scraping grass with
the deceased would meekly move away so as to facilitate the killing of
F Shambhu Rai by the appellants. Their conduct is unnatural.

On an overall assessment of the circumstances of the case, it, therefore,
becomes apparent that the murder of Shambhu Rai was reported to the Police
at 7.00 AM on 2.6.1984, which was also noted in the General Diary, and it
was on this Report that the Investigating Officer left for the place of
G occurrence where he did not notice any evidence of the presence of Sheo Deo
Rai (PW-10), Shatrughan Rai (PW-16) and Ram Narain Rai (PW- 17) at the
time of the occurrence as the 'khurpis' or the scraping of grass or the
collection of grass in gunny-bags was not evidenced by their presence at the
spot. After having done the Inquest and after having prepared the Inquest
H Report, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Sheo Deo Rai
SURESH RAI v. STATE [S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J.] 805

--
(PW-10) and in that statement the names of the appellants were introduced. A
Why this was done, is apparent on account of the bitter enmity between the
family of the appellants and the family of the deceased, which is admitted by
all the three eye-witnesses. Relevant portion of the statement of Sheo Deo Rai
(PW-10) which indicates the existence of enmity between the parties is
reproduced below :
B
"7. Hari Har Rai is my Baba. He had four sons. Theyare Avadh Rai,
Ram Nandan Rai, Lilu Rai and Ram Narain Rai. Shambhu is the son
of Avadh Rai. Ram Nandan Rai had three sons out of them I am elder
and rest are my brothers. They are Ram Naresh Rai and Ram Sureseb
Rai. Lilu Rai has three sons out of them the elder is Shatrughan Rai, c
second is Beij Rai and the third is Methuri Rai. In this case I myself,
Shatrughan and Ram Narain. Shatrughan is my step brother and Ram
Narain is my uncle. I will get the statement of Shatrughan recorded
in this case as a Witness. He is not present in the house. I do not know
where he is at this time. I cannot say as to whether there is a rape
case against him and he is absconder. D

8. My Uncle Ram Narain Rai is confined in Samastipur Jail.

9. I know Jagdeep Raison of Ram Soorat Rai who are my villager.
Jagdeep has filed a false case against we persons. This case of the time
prior to this case. I do not know as to how many defendants we are E
in the case of Jagdeep. But the witnesses of this case are the
defendants in that case. The charge sheet has been submitted in that
case and it is pending in the Court. Jagdeep Rai is present here. He
is lame. He cannot walk properly. His son Jayantri Rai is the
defendant in this case. F
The accused Pradeep Rai had filed a case against me and the
witness Ram Narain prior to this case. In the present case, Pradeep
Rai and his son Suresh Rai are the defendants.

10. The witness of this case is the real brother of Shatrughan Rai. G
Baijnath Rai who filed the case against the defendants Pradeep Rai,
Suresh Rai and Jayantri prior to the instant case. My wicle Ram
Narain Rai had filed the case against these defendants. Ram Narain
Rai is the witness in this case."

From the above, it will be seen that there were cases and cross-cases H
806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] 2 S.C.R.
A pending against each other. In this backdrop, it was but natural that the
appellants would have been implicated at the instance of Sheo Deo Rai (PW-
10) in the incident which he had not himseif witnessed nor had it been
witnessed by Shatrughan Ra(cPw-16) and Ram Narain Rai (PW-17). The
entire investigation was wholly tainted and the appellants have been impli-
cated in the case on the collective mischief of the informant, Sheo Deo Rai
B (PW-10) and the Investigating Officer, Haleshwar Prasad Singh (PW-15).

It was for these reasons that the appeal was allowed by us by our short
order dated 15.3.2000.

A.Q. Appeal allowed.

,