Bombay High CourtRam Vishwanath Salunke vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 May, 2011Author:B. H. MarlapalleBench:B. H. Marlapalle,A. M. Thipsay1                                   cri-appeal-61-11

pdp


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                            
                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                    
                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 61 OF 2011

      Ram Vishwanath Salunke
      Age 28 years, Occu- Tempo Driver,




                                                   
      R/o House No. 4612,
      Gaiwala Babancha Wada,
      Near Seva Kunj, Sri Ram Vidhyalaya,
      Panchawati, Nasik
      (At present lodged at Nashik Road




                                         
      Central Prison)                                    .. Appellant
                           ig                            (Org. Accused)
            Vs.

      The State of Maharashtra                           .. Respondent
                         
      Mr. Nitin Pradhan i/by Ms. S. D. Khot for appellant.
      Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for State.
        
     



                        CORAM:       B. H. MARLAPALLE &
                                     A. M. THIPSAY, JJ.

                        RESERVED ON:             30TH MARCH, 2011.





                        PRONOUNCED ON:            6TH MAY, 2011.





      JUDGMENT (PER B. H. MARLAPALLE,J.):1.          This appeal filed underSection 374 (2)of Cr.P.C. is

      directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed in::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:15:55 :::2                                   cri-appeal-61-11


    Sessions Case No. 21 of 2009 by the learned Sessions Judge,

    Nashik on 10/12/2010. The appellant-accused came to be tried for




                                                                          
    the offences punishable underSections 302,504and506of IPC as




                                                  
    well asSection 135of the Bombay Police Act. He came to be

    acquitted for the offences punishable underSections 504and506of IPC, but has been convicted for the offence punishable underSection 302of IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and




                                       
    to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo further SI for 15
                         
    days. He also has been convicted for the offence punishable underSection 135of the Bombay Police Act and sentenced to suffer SI

    for four months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo

    further SI for 15 days.2.           As per the prosecution, the accused is the husband of

    PW 7 - Hema, who is the daughter of the deceased Damodar





    Hage. The deceased was a patient of leprosy and had opted for

    voluntary retirement from the employment of Nashik Municipal





    Corporation. Consequently, in his place, PW 7 - Hema came to

    be appointed on compassionate ground. The accused and PW 7

    were married sometimes in 2004 and she co-habited with the::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:15:55 :::3                                    cri-appeal-61-11


    accused in the matrimonial home for few months and thereafter on

    account of the matrimonial disputes, she started residing with her




                                                                            
    father at Walmikinagar along with PW 2 - Manorama Pande, who




                                                    
    is her first cousin from paternal side (daughter of father's sister).On the date of the incident i.e. on 12/10/2008, the accused went to




                                                   
    the house of PW 6 - Smt. Sunanda Ingle located in front of the

    house of the deceased. He asked PW 6 to go to the house of his




                                        
    wife and call her, but his wife did not come and he got enraged.He proceeded towards the house of the deceased to take his wife
                       
    to the matrimonial home.       He was not allowed by PW 2 -Manorama, but he pushed her aside and entered in the house.             To

    threaten PW 2 - Manorama, accused took out a knife (Gupti) and
      
   



    after entering into the house, he stabbed his father-in-law -Damodar Hage. Damodar collapsed and was immediately taken to





    the civil hospital and while under treatment he died at about 6.15

    p.m.   After Damodar was admitted in the civil hospital, the

    statement of PW 6 was recorded at the Panchawati Police Station





    and FIR at Exh. 31 came to be registered for the offences

    punishable underSections 326,323,504and506of IPC andSection 135of the Bombay Police Act.           On the demise of::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:15:55 :::4                                   cri-appeal-61-11


    Damodar, the Crime Report came to be amended for the offence

    punishable underSection 302of IPC. The accused came to be




                                                                          
    arrested on 14/10/2008 vide arrest panchanama at Exh. 49. In the




                                                  
    meanwhile, the dead body of Damodar was sent for post mortem

    which was conducted by PW 10 - Dr. Hemant Sononis . Inquest




                                                 
    panchanama at Exh. 16 was drawn by PW 9 PSI -Subhashchandra Deshmukh, who had subsequently undertaken the




                                       
    investigation. Spot panchanama was drawn at Exh. 23 and the
                        
    sketch of the spot of the incident was also prepared. The weapon
                       
    used - Gupti (Art. 1) and its wooden case (Art.7) were recovered

    from the spot. PW 10 signed the post mortem notes at Exh. 52.On 13/10/2008 police constable      Shri Chaudhari produced the
      
   



    clothes of the deceased which were seized under panchanama at

    Exh. 25 and these clothes were a white coloured baniyan and





    maroon coloured underpant (Art. 2and3respectively).               On

    16/10/2008, the clothes of the accused, on the disclosure statement

    made by him, were recovered i.e.Art. 4and5 -Mehendi coloured





    pant and pista coloured lined shirt. All the seized articles were

    sent to C.A. The C.A. reports were received at Exhs. 47 and 48.In the meanwhile, the statements of PW 2 - Manorama and PW 7::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:15:55 :::5                                   cri-appeal-61-11- Hema came to be recorded underSection 164of Cr. P. C. before

    the Special Judicial Magistrate on 25/10/2008. On completion of




                                                                           
    investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and the case being triable




                                                   
    exclusively by the Sessions Court, it was committed.         Charge at

    Exh. 8 was framed against the accused on 21/8/2009.3.          The prosecution examined in all 10 witnesses and PW




                                        
    1 - Sanjay Yeole, PW 3 - Madhukar Jagtap, PW 4 - Ramesh
                        
    Garad and PW 5 - Pravin Bairagi were the panch witnesses and

    PW 3 - Madhukar Jagtap had turned hostile. The prosecution
                       
    claimed that PW 2 - Manorama Pande, PW 6 - Sunanda Ingle and

    PW 7 - Hema Salunke were the eye witnesses to the incident. PW
      


    8 - Ashok Nikam was attached to the Panchawati Police Station as
   



    Police Head Constable. He had received intimation from Police

    Head Constable Chavan regarding the incident and, therefore,





    MLC No. 1199 of 2008 was recorded by him (Exh. 34). He went

    to the civil hospital, where Damodar was admitted and in his





    presence the doctor had informed him that Damodar was not in a

    fit condition to record the statement.       On the basis of the

    complaint given by PW 7, he recorded C.R. No. 490 of 2008 for::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:15:56 :::6                                  cri-appeal-61-11


    the offences punishable underSections 326,323,504,506of IPC

    andSection 135of the Bombay Police Act.4.          As per the evidence of PW 10 - Dr. Hemant Sononis,

    the only injury noticed on the person of the deceased during the




                                                
    post mortem was,




                                       
                A sutured wound 2 cm. in length on abdominal wall
                       
                located 2 cm. above and 2 cm right to the unmilicus.On internal examination, he noticed          an incised

    wound of 2 cm x 1.5 cm. going inside the abdominal cavity and it
      


    had perforated abdominal walls, muscles and peritoneum going
   



    obliquely towards infers surface of liver. There was an incised

    wound on and in the surface of liver about 2 x 2 cm. All the





    injuries were ante mortem. As per the doctor, the cause of death

    was "hemorrhagic shock due to stab injury to abdomen". He





    further stated that the injury noticed on the abdomen was

    sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and the

    injury found on the person of the deceased was possible due toArt. 1 -Gupti shown to him in the court. He had signed the post::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:15:56 :::7                                  cri-appeal-61-11


    mortem notes at Exh. 52. Thus, the evidence of this witness

    proved that Damodar Hage died a homicidal death on account of




                                                                           
    the stab injury, on 12/10/2008.5.          Mr. Pradhan, the learned counsel for the appellant,




                                                  
    does not dispute that Damodar died a homicidal death, despite the

    fact that the accused had taken a defence before the trial court and




                                         
    by examining DW 1 - Shri Shrawan Kale that Damodar
                        
    committed suicide by self inflicting the injury on his abdomen. It

    was submitted by Mr. Pradhan that even if it is held that it was the
                       
    accused who inflicted the stab injury to the deceased, he could not

    be held to be guilty for the offence punishable underSection 302of IPC and more so when there is no evidence on record to point
   



    out that the accused had any dispute with the deceased. There was

    no motive brought on record by the prosecution in support of its





    case that the accused had premeditated the assault on Damodar

    and he had the intention to kill Damodar, when he made a forcible





    entry in the house of Damodar. The learned counsel submitted

    that the incident has taken place in a sudden fight that took place

    as the accused was not allowed to enter the house and in the heat::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:15:56 :::8                                    cri-appeal-61-11


    of anger, he took out the knife without aiming at the deceased and

    the deceased became an accidental or chance victim.               It was




                                                                            
    further urged that having regard to the evidence of all the three eye




                                                    
    witnesses and the pendency of matrimonial disputes between the

    accused and PW 7, the accused, at the best, could be convicted for




                                                   
    an offence punishable under Section 304 (Part II) ofIPC. It was

    further submitted that the accused has been in jail for the last more




                                        
    than two years and, therefore, by allowing the appeal he deserves
                        
    to be released forthwith. The learned Counsel, in support of his
                       
    submissions, relied upon the following decisions of the Supreme

    Court:(a) Tholan vs. State of Tamil Nadu[1984 Cri.L.J.
      


                     478](b) Ramesh Vithalrao Thakre and anr. vs. State of
                     Maharashtra [ 1995 Cri.L.J. 2907](c) Giani Singh vs. State of Haryanaand ors. [1995
                     Cri.L.J. 4168]6.           Mr. Dedhia, the learned APP, on the other hand,

    referred to the evidence of all the three eye witnesses and

    submitted that the accused had come with a deadly knife to visit

    his wife and that itself indicated his intentions. The accused did::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:15:56 :::9                                   cri-appeal-61-11


    not pick up a knife from the house of the deceased and the stab

    injury sustained by the deceased was not caused by such a knife.The preparation of the accused to come with a deadly weapon




                                                 
    would not bring the offence under Section 304 (Part II) ofIPCand

    though there was no premeditation or preparation to kill Damodar,




                                                
    the accused took out the knife and inflicted one blow on the

    abdomen of the deceased, without any provocation. The learned




                                       
    APP further submitted that when the prosecution case is supported
                         
    by the evidence of three eye witnesses, motive, as a circumstance,
                        
    does not remain significant and even if the submissions of the

    learned counsel for the accused are accepted, the offence

    committed by the accused would fall under Section 304 (Part I) ofIPC.7.            As per the prosecution case, the incident had taken

    place at 2 p.m. on 12/10/2008 and in the house of the deceased.The house of the deceased, as per the Gift Deed at Exh. 59,





    admeasures 10 x 15 ft. and as per the spot panchanama at Exh. 23,

    a portion admeasuring 10 x 3 ft. is the kitchen and the remaining

    area of the    living room -cum- bedroom is 10 x 12 ft. This::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:15:56 :::10                                   cri-appeal-61-11


    panchanama was sought to be proved through the evidence of PW

    3 - Madhukar Jagtap, but he turned hostile. It is also claimed by




                                                                         
    the prosecution that the weapon - Gupti (Art. 1) was collected




                                                 
    from the spot, but the said recovery could not be proved as PW 3

    turned hostile. The C.A. report at Exh. 48 indicated that on the




                                                
    blade of the weapon blood stains were noticed but its grouping

    remained inconclusvie. The blood group of the deceased appeared




                                       
    to be "O" and on the clothes of the accused blood stains were
                       
    noticed but its grouping remained inconclusive. The evidence of
                      
    the three eye witnesses i.e. PW 2 - Manorama, PW 6 - Sunanda

    and PW 7 - Hema, the wife of the accused, unerringly proved that

    it was the accused who had inflicted a blow on the abdomen of the
      
   



    deceased with a sharp edged weapon and PW 7 identifiedArticle 1Gupti as the weapon which was used by the accused in assaulting





    her father. The trial court has rightly discarded the evidence of

    DW 1 - Sanjay Yeole in support of the defence case that Damodar

    committed suicide by self inflicting an injury on his abdomen.Hence, the only issue we have to examine is whether the offence

    committed by the accused would amount to culpable homicide

    amounting to murder or only culpable homicide.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:15:56 :::11                                   cri-appeal-61-118.          PW 7 - Hema, in her complaint at Exh. 31, which




                                                                          
    complaint she verified to be correct in her evidence before the




                                                  
    court, had stated that the accused had his own truck and he used to

    drive the same. On 18/9/2008 the accused had visited her at about




                                                 
    8.30 p.m. and he had consumed liquor. He assaulted her and PW

    2 and, therefore, a complaint was      registered with the police




                                        
    station. She had warned the accused not to visit her again and also
                        
    threatened that she would file a complaint against him for the
                       
    offence punishable underSection 498-Aof IPC. She further stated

    that on the date of the incident, she herself, her deceased father

    and PW 2 - Manorama were at home at about 2 p.m. when the
      
   



    accused entered her house under the influence of liquor and told

    her that he wanted to talk to her. She asked him not to talk and on





    that accused told her to forget the past quarrels and accompany

    him to go to his house. She informed the accused that her father

    was not well and was to be taken to Shirdi for an operation. At





    this point, the accused got angry and started abusing all of them.PW 2 took the accused out of the house and tried to convince him.PW 2 at that stage had bolted the house from outside, so as not to::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:15:56 :::12                                    cri-appeal-61-11


    allow him to re-enter the house, but the accused broke the door

    and flashed the weapon when he entered into house. He inflicted




                                                                           
    two blows on the person of her father and her father died in the




                                                   
    hospital. When the complaint at Exh. 31 was filed with the police,

    Damodar was under treatment and, therefore, it was registered for




                                                  
    the offences punishable underSections 326,323,504and506of

    IPC. However, in her depositions before the trial court, she stated




                                        
    that on the date of the incident the accused first went to the house
                        
    of PW 6 - Sunanda Ingle and asked her to call his wife as he
                       
    wanted to talk to her. PW 6 came to her house and gave the

    message of the accused and she was informed that his wife was

    not willing to meet him. PW 2 - Manorama went out and pleaded
      
   



    with the accused not to come to their house and not to quarrel.PW 2 was standing in the door and PW 7 and her father were





    inside watching the arguments between PW 2 and the accused.PW 2 was not allowing the accused to enter the house and at that

    time he took out the weapon which was hidden inside his shirt.PW 2 got frightened and she pushed the accused. In turn, she was

    also pushed by the accused and he entered the house. He asked

    PW 7 to accompany him and she refused, saying that she was::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:15:56 :::13                                    cri-appeal-61-11


    illtreated. She further stated that the accused asked her whether

    she was willing to stay at the house of her father and if that be so




                                                                           
    he would kill her father and after saying so, he stabbed her father




                                                   
    in his abdomen by the weapon.9.          The medical evidence as has come on record in terms

    of the P.M. note at Exhibit 52 and the depositions of P.W.10-Dr.




                                        
    Hemant Sononis proved that Damodar received only one injury on
                        
    his abdomen and, therefore, the statement of P.W.7 that the
                       
    accused inflicted two blows with the gupti on the abdomen of

    Damodar cannot be accepted. At the same time the evidence of

    P.W.2 does not corroborate the statement of P.W.7 that the accused
      
   



    on hearing that his wife was not willing to stay with him and

    would continue to stay with her father, he would kill him and after





    saying so he stabbed the deceased. In addition, this statement of

    P.W. 7 does not find place in her complaint Exh.31.10.         PW 2 - Manorama Pande stated before the trial court

    that after PW 6 - Sunanda gave the message to PW 7 and sent by

    the accused, she went out of the house to tell the accused that PW::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:15:56 :::14                                    cri-appeal-61-11


    7 did not want to meet him, but the accused came to the house of

    the deceased and while she tried to block his entry by standing in




                                                                           
    the door, the accused took out a Gupti concealed in his shirt. He




                                                   
    put Gupti on her neck and threatened to kill her. She pushed the

    accused and the accused in turn pushed her and he stabbed




                                                  
    Damodar, who was standing behind her (PW 2) and at that time

    PW 7 - Hema was standing behind Damodar. From the evidence




                                        
    of this witness, it is clear that when there was a scuffle between
                        
    her and the accused and when the accused was waiving the Gupti
                       
    in his hand, deceased Damodar was standing behind her (PW 2)

    and in that scuffle between PW 2 and the accused, Damodar

    received a blow of weapon on his abdomen. This quarrel would
      
   



    not have taken place, if PW 2 had not obstructed the entry of the

    accused in her house. The intention of the accused to visit the





    house of PW 7 (his wife) and as is clear from the evidence of all

    the three eye witnesses was to meet PW 7 and persuade her to join

    him for cohabitation forgetting the past quarrels. It is, therefore,





    clear that the incident had taken place in a sudden fight and at the

    heat of the moment, the accused took out the weapon and while

    scaring away PW 2, who was standing in the door, he pushed her::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:15:56 :::15                                    cri-appeal-61-11


    and the weapon blow landed on the abdomen of the deceased who

    was standing behind her.      It is also true that there was no




                                                                          
    premeditation to the crime and the accused had no dispute with the




                                                 
    deceased.   His complaints were only against PW 7.            In such

    circumstances, he cannot be attributed with an intention to cause




                                                
    the death of or such bodily injury to Damodar as was likely to

    cause his death. We must also keep in mind that at no point of




                                       
    time it was the case of the prosecution that it was Damodar who
                        
    was insisting that his daughter PW 7 - Hema should not join the
                       
    company of her husband.11.         Admittedly, the deceased was a leprosy patient and
      
   



    had opted for voluntary retirement. The evidence of P.W.7 that

    after she refused to join the accused he got angry and stabbed her





    father is an improvement over the complaint Exhibit 31 she

    submitted to the police station and obviously by way of an

    afterthought.   The matrimonial disputes between the parties are





    already being litigated before the Competent Court.       At the first

    instance when he entered the house he had not shown any knife or

    threatened anybody. When P.W.2 obstructed his re-entry in the::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:15:56 :::16                                    cri-appeal-61-11


    house he got angry because of the provocation by P.W.2, he asked

    her to move out of his way and when she insisted on stopping his




                                                                            
    entry he took out the knife and threatened her. When she did not




                                                    
    move out of his way even then he pushed her aside and entered the

    house. At that time the deceased was standing behind P.W.2. In




                                                   
    these circumstances when he was whiping the knife towards P.W.2

    so as to threaten her to move out of his way it is possible that P.W.




                                         
    2 escaped and the blow landed on the abdomen of Damodar. The
                        
    circumstance of the accused visiting the house with the weapon -Gupti will not by itself be a factor indicating the intention of the

    accused to commit the crime. It is possible that he came armed to

    scare his wife so that she would accompany him to the matrimonal
      
   



    home and, therefore, it cannot be accepted, in the peculiar facts of

    this case, that he had prepared to commit the crime.12.          It is also pertinent to note that the doctor who

    examined the deceased and attended him at the civil hospital was





    not examined by the prosecution. P.W.10 stated before the trial

    court that the incised wound, which resulted in death of Damodar,

    was 2 cm. X 1.5 cm. The weapon (article-1) recovered from the::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:15:56 :::17                                    cri-appeal-61-11


    spot had a blade of 35 cm. and its width was 2 cm. and the grip

    was of 10 cm. It had a sharp and pointed edge. If a blow of the




                                                                           
    weapon was inflicted with an intention to kill any person, the




                                                   
    resultant injury would not be of the size of 2 cm. X 1.5 cm. and

    with the blow of such a weapon the intestine of the victim would




                                                  
    have come out, if such a blow was an intended one. The record

    also shows that the statements of P.W.2- Manorama and P.W.7-




                                        
    Hema were recorded undersection 164of Cr.P.C. before the
                        
    Special Judicial Magistrate on 25th October 2008 and, in her
                       
    statement so recorded, P.W.7 had disclosed that the accused had

    consumed liquor at the time of the incident. We have also noted

    that the Medical Officer, who treated victim on his admission at
      
   



    the civil hospital, has not been examined. He could be a better

    expert witness to state before the Court whether the injury suffered





    by the victim was sufficient, in the ordinary course, to cause his

    death. All the circumstances cumulatively support our view that

    the accused had not intended a knife blow to be inflicted on the





    deceased and the injury caused to the deceased was accidental and

    not an intended one. In the first round, the accused had entered

    the house of the deceased and persuaded his wife to join his::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:15:56 :::18                                    cri-appeal-61-11


    company at the matrimonial house and when she refused he was

    taken out of the house. Till then there was no incident of violence




                                                                            
    at the hands of the accused but when he tried to re-enter the house




                                                    
    of the deceased so as to take P.W.7 with him, he was not allowed

    to enter the house by P.W.2 and that was the sudden provocation to




                                                   
    him in as much as P.W.2 bolted the house from the outside and she

    stood outside the door so as to prevent his re-entry.13.In the case ofState of A.P. vs. Rayavarapu
                        
    Punnayya, (1976) 4 SCC 382 the Supreme Court held,



                "12. In the scheme of the Penal Code, "culpable
      
   



                homicides" is genus and "murder" its specie.               All

                "murder" is "culpable homicide" but not vice-versa.Speaking generally, "culpable homicie" sans "special

                charqacteristics of murder", is "culpable homicie not

                amounting to murder".       For the purpose of fixing





                punishment, proportionate to the            gravity of this

                generic offence, the Code practically recognises three

                degrees of culpable homicide. The first is, what may::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:15:56 :::19                                    cri-appeal-61-11


                be called, "culpable homicie of the first degree". This

                is the greatest form of culpable homicide, which is




                                                                           
                defined in Section 300 as "murder". The second may




                                                   
                be termed as "culpable homicie of the second degree".This is punishable under the first part of Section 304.Then, there is "culpable homicie of the third degree".This is the lowest type of culpable homicide and the




                                        
                punishment provided for it is, also, the lowest amongst
                        
                the punishments provided for the three grades.Culpable homicide of this degree is punishable under

                the second part of Section 304."14.Section 299of I.P.C., defines "culpable homicide".As per the said Section, whoever causes death by doing an act

    with the   intention of causing death, or with the intention of

    causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the





    knowledgte that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits

    the offence of culpable homicide. Thus it has three parts (a) with

    the intention of causing death or (b) with the intention of causing::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:15:56 :::20                                    cri-appeal-61-11


    such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or (c) with the

    knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death. At the




                                                                           
    same time the Exception 1 below Section 300 states that culpable




                                                   
    homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the

    power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the




                                                  
    death of the person who gave the grave and sudden provocation,

    or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.It is trite law that Section 304 (Part II) comes into play when the
                        
    death is caused by doing an act with the knowledge that it is likely
                       
    to cause death, but there is no intention on the part of the accused

    either to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to

    cause death. In the instant case as the incident had taken place at
      
   



    the spur of the moment due to the altercation between the accused,

    P.W.2 and P.W.7 and the deceased became a victim by chance or





    by accident. We, therefore, hold that the offence punishable under

    section 304 (Part II) ofI.P.C. has been proved against the accused.The view taken by us in this judgment is supported by the decision





    in the case ofJagriti Devi vs. State of H.P., AIR 2009 S.C.

    2869.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:15:56 :::21                                    cri-appeal-61-1115.          In the premises, this appeal succeeds partly. The order

    of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No. 21 of




                                                                           
    2009 against the accused for the offence punishable undersection




                                                   
    302of I.P.C. is hereby quashed and set aside and instead the

    accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304




                                                  
    (Part II) ofIPC. He is sentenced to suffer RI for seven years.Undoubtedly, he shall be entitled for set off, if any, under Section




                                        
    428 of Cr. P. C.
                        
                       
    (A. M. THIPSAY, J.)                   (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:15:56 :::