HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

AFR

Reserved on 20.09.2019

Delivered on 07.11.2019

Court No. – 1

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. – 5021 of 2011

Appellant :- Kunwar Pal

Respondent :- State Of U.P.

Counsel for Appellant :- Abhitabh Kumar Tiwari,Ajay Kumar Mishra,Amit Rana,Lokesh Kumar Mishra,Noor Mohammad

Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate

With

Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. – 7242 of 2011

Appellant :- State Of U.P.

Respondent :- Smt. Leelawati And Others

Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate

Counsel for Respondent :- Ayank Misra

Hon’ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

Hon’ble Ajit Kumar,J.

(Delivered by Ramesh Sinha,J.)

1. The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant Kunwar Pal against the judgment and order dated 12.8.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.11, Meerut in S.T. No.346 of 2007 (State Vs. Kunwar Pal and Others), by which he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo for life imprisonment under Section 304B I.P.C. and further to undergo imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 498A I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine further undergo imprisonment for six months and to undergo imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 4 of D.P. Act and in default of payment of fine further undergo imprisonment of one month. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

2. The State Government has also preferred a Government Appeal being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgement and order of the trial Court by which the trial Court has acquitted the accused respondents no.1 to 3, namely, Smt. Leelawati, Smt. Omwati and Hirday Kumar from the aforesaid charges, which is also connected with the present appeal.

3. The prosecution case as has been set-forth in the written report which has been lodged by the complainant Pintoo, son of Mahendra Singh, resident of Village Khanauda, Police Station Daurala, District Meerut is that on 5th May, 2004 his sister, namely, Smt. Pinki was married to Kunwar Pal, son of Ram Singh, resident of Village Saini, Police Station Inchauli according to Hindu rites and traditions and in the marriage sufficient dowry was given but the in-laws of Smt. Pinki were not happy with the dowry and they started pressurizing Smt. Pinki for demand of a colourT.V., motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- from her father. The husband of Pinki, namely, Kunwar Pal, mother-in-law Smt. Leelawati, who were resident of Village Saini and sister-in-law, namely, Smt. Ompati and brother-in-law, namely, Hirday Kumar presently residing at Village Saini used to cruelly treat her and assault her for dowry. Pinki had told to her parents about the said fact, on which the informant and his family members had tried to pacify the in-laws of Smt. Pinki but they still used to assault and mentally torture her. On 7.12.2006 at 10.35 a.m. all the accused persons poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze and information regarding the same was given to the father of Pinki on phone by the villagers of Village Saini. On which, father and family members of Smt. Pinki reached at the in-laws house of Smt. Pinki in Village Saini and admitted her for medical treatment in District Hospital Pyare Lal Sharma, Meerut. The doctor after seeing her in badly burnt condition, referred her to Medical College, Meerut and during treatment on 8.12.2006 in the morning at about 4.45 a.m. Pinki succumbed to her burn injuries. Kunwar Pal had also committed murder of his first wife Smt. Anju, D/o Gajraj Singh, R/o Bulandshahr and with regard to the said case an FIR was also registered against him at police station Inchauli being Case Crime No.172 of 1997, under Section 304B I.P.C. and the said fact came in the knowledge of the informant after the marriage of his sister Pinki. Thus, he prayed that the First Information Report be registered and proper action be taken.

4. In pursuance of the said written report, the First Information Report was registered on 8.12.2006 at 14.45 p.m. being Case Crime No.378 of 2006, under Sections 323, Section498A and Section304B I.P.C. and under Section ¾ SectionDowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Inchauli, District Meerut against the accused husband Kunwar Pal, mother-in-law Smt. Leelawati, sister-in-law (nanad) Smt. Omwati and brother-in-law (Bahnoi) Hirday Kumar respectively.

5. The Investigating Officer after investigation, submitted charge sheet against the appellant and other three accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 323, Section498A, Section304B I.P.C. and ¾ D.P.Act in the Court of C.J.M, Meerut and C.J.M. Merut on 16.3.2007 committed the case of the accused to the Court of Sessions for trial.

6. The trial Court framed charges against the appellants Kunwar Pal and accused respondents no.1 to 3, namely, Smt. Leelawati, Smt. Omwati and Hirday Kumar for the offence under Sections 498A, Section323, Section304B I.P.C. and ¾ D.P. Act. The accused denied charges and claimed their trial.

7. The prosecution in support of its case examined PW1-Pintoo (the informant and brother of the deceased), PW2-Mahendra Singh (father of the deceased), PW3-Constable Maroof Ali, PW4-Dr. Satendra Satyaveer Savyasachi, PW5-Dr. Vikram Singh, Senior Pathologist, District Government Hospital, Meerut who conducted the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased Smt. Pinki, PW6-Rakesh Kumar, Naib Tehsildar, Meerut under whose supervision the panchayatnama of the deceased was prepared, PW7-Mahendra Bahadur,Tehsildar, Meerut who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased Smt. Pinki, PW8-Dr. Ajeet Kumar who gave the fitness certificate regarding the mental condition of the deceased, PW9-Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Circle Officer who started the investigation, PW10-B.P.Singh, Circle Officer who concluded the investigation and submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons.

8. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in their statements the accused have stated that they never demanded any colour T.V., motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- cash as dowry from the deceased or her family members and further stated that they have not committed the murder of the deceased Smt. Pinki and on the advice of some persons, a false report was lodged against them. It was also stated by the accused that a false dying declaration of the deceased Smt. Pinki was recorded as she was not in a condition to give the statement. The investigating officer submitted a wrong charge sheet against them. The accused intended to adduce evidence in evidence but on 8.6.2011 they stated that no evidence in defence is to be adduced on their behalf.

9. The trial Court after examining the prosecution as well as defence evidence arrived at a conclusion convicting and sentencing the appellant Kunwar Pal for the offence under Sections 498A, Section304B I.P.C. and 4 D.P.Act, whereas it acquitted the accused respondents no.1 to 3, namely, mother-in-law Smt. Leelawati, sister-in-law (Nanad) Smt. Omwati and brother-in-law (Bahnoi) Hirday Kumar.

10. The appellant Kunwar Pal being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence preferred the present criminal appeal against the judgement and order of the trial Court and the State Government has filed the Government Appeal against the acquittal of the accused respondents no.1 to 3, namely, mother-in-law Smt. Leelawati, sister-in-law (Nanad) Smt. Omwati and brother-in-law (Bahnoi) Hirday Kumar of the deceased Smt. Pinki respectively. Thus, both the appeals arise out of the common judgement and order, hence, are being decided by this common judgement and order.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant has mainly argued the appeal on behalf of the appellant Kunwar Pal on the question of sentence. He submitted that the appellant Kunwar Pal who is husband of the deceased has been in jail since 31.12.2006 near about 13 years. He submitted that the minimum punishment provided under Section 304B I.P.C. is 7 years and the trial Court has erred in recording the conviction of the appellant under Section 304B I.P.C. and sentencing him for maximum period of life imprisonment, which is too severe, hence he should be released to the period already undergone as he has already served almost 13 years in jail for the ofence under Section 304B I.P.C.

12. He next submitted that even if the dying-declaration of the deceased is believed, then perusal of the same goes to show that there appears to be some quarrel between the appellant and the deceased as the deceased was issue-less and marriage between the deceased and appellant Kunwar Pal was solemnized two years prior to the incident and due to frustration the deceased had set ablaze herself, though it has been stated by the deceased that she was set ablaze by her husband Kunwar Pal because of demand dowry and a child.

13. He has also drawn the attention of the Court towards another fact that though the deceased has stated that the appellant Kunwar Pal had set her ablaze by pouring kerosene oil and thereafter she ran outside the house, but none had come to save her and to extinguish the fire and it was the appellant Kunwar Pal who himself extinguished fire on the deceased and thereafter he ran away from the place of occurrence. Thus, he argued that if the dying declaration of the deceased is taken to be true, then an effort was made by the appellant himself to extinguish the fire of the deceased and since he has already undergone about 13 years in jail, his period may reduce to already undergone and sentence for life imprisonment be set aside.

14. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the appellant with respect to the accused respondents no.1 to 3, namely, mother-in-law Smt. Leelawati, sister-in-law (nanad) Smt. Omwati and brother-in-law (Bahnoi) Hirday Kumar against their acquittal by the trial Court from the charges are concerned, against which the State Government has preferred the aforesaid Government Appeal, he argued that as per the dying declaration of the deceased, the mother-in-law of the deceased was not present on the date and time of the incident as she was out of the house, whereas sister-in-law Smt. Omwati and brother-in-law Hirday Kumar are concerned, there appears to no allegation against them in the dying declaration, hence they have been falsely implicated in the present case as accused by the complainant PW1 Pintoo and PW2 Mahendra who are brother and father of the deceased respectively who have given evidence regarding the involvement of the said accused on the basis of the information given by the deceased to the PW1 that the said accused also participated in the crime, is belied. Thus, he argued that acquittal of the said accused respondents no.1 to 3 by the trial Court does not suffer from any perversity which may call for this Court to interfere with the acquittal by the trial Court and prayed that Government appeal be dismissed.

15. Per contra, learned AGA on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant Kunwar Pal with respect to his conviction and sentence under Section 304B I.P.C. is concerned and submitted that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant Kunwar Pal under Section 304B I.P.C. for life imprisonment taking into account the dying declaration of the deceased which was recorded by the PW7-Mahendra Bahadur Tehsildar (PW7) and fitness certificate was given by PW8-Dr. Ajeet Kumar and on the strength of the evidence he submitted that the dying declaration specifically mentions the appellant Kunwar Pal for setting ablaze the deceased by pouring kerosene oil who also fled away from the place of occurrence and the deceased was admitted in the hospital by her father who arrived at the place of occurrence on receiving an information from the villagers after the incident.

16. He next submitted that the marriage of the appellant with the deceased was solemnized two years prior to the incident, i.e.on 7.4.2004 whereas the incident had taken place on 7.12.2006 and the deceased was subjected to cruelty for want of dowry and succumbed to her injuries on the next day, i.e., on 8.12.2006, hence, the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 304B I.P.C. for life imprisonment. Thus, the appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed.

17. So far as the acquittal of the accused respondents no.1 to 3, namely, mother-in-law Smt. Leelawati, sister-in-law (Nanad) Smt. Omwati and brother-in-law (Bahnoi) Hirday Kumar which has been challenged in the Government Appeal preferred by the State Government are concerned, he argued that the statements of PW1-Pintoo (brother of the deceased) and PW2-Mahendra (father of the deceased) respectively goes to show that the deceased was harassed, beaten and tortured for the demand of dowry in the form of colour T.V., motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- cash soon after the marriage, for which the deceased had also told to her father Mahendra.

18. He further submitted that when PW1 along with his father PW2 reached the house of in-laws of the deceased after receiving the information from villagers, the deceased was done to death by the said accused respondents no.1 to 3 along with her husband Kunwar Pal, hence, their acquittal by the trial Court appears to be wrong and be set aside and they be convicted.

19. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties in the aforesaid two appeals, it would be appropriate to consider the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses before the trial Court.

20. PW1-Pintoo who is brother of the deceased and complainant of the case, in his evidence before the trial Court has reiterated the prosecution case as has been stated in the FIR. He stated before the trial Court that the marriage of his sister Pinki was solemnized with accused Kunwar Pal on 7.4.2004 but since marriage the accused were harassing his sister and were demanding motorcycle, colour T.V. and Rs.50,000/- in cash and when their demand was not fulfilled, on 7.12.2006 at about 10.35 a.m. they poured kerosene oil on the deceased Smt. Pinki and set her ablaze. On receiving information, he reached at the house of his sister’s in-laws where he found his sister in a burnt condition, who told that it was the accused persons who have burnt her death. She was immediately rushed to the Pyare Lal Sharma District Hospital, Meerut where she was admitted but since her condition was critical, she was referred to Medical College, Meerut where she died on 8.12.206 at 14.45 a.m. PW1 Pintoo proved the written report lodged by him at police station Inchauli District Meerut which was marked as Ext. Ka.1.

21. PW2-Mahendra Singh who is father of the deceased, deposed before the trial Court that Pinki was his elder daughter and her marriage was solemnized with accused Kunwar Pal on 7.4.2006 but since her marriage accused Kunwar Pal (husband), Smt. Leelawati (mother-in-law), Smt. Omwati (sister-in-law) and Hirday Kumar (brother-in-law) of the deceased respectively were not happy and were demanding colour T.V., motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- in cash as dowry and continuously harassed and tortured his daughter. He stated that he received a telephonic message that his daughter Smt. Pinki has been burnt by the accused and when he reached at the house of the accused, his daughter was found lying on the floor in burnt condition and she informed that it was all the accused persons who burnt her. He further deposed that Smt. Pinki was admitted in District Government Hospital, Meerut and thereafter she was referred to Medical College where she succumbed to her injuries in the morning during treatment and prior to it her dying declaration was recorded by the Naib Tehsildar (PW8) .

22. PW3- Constable Maroof Ali is the formal witness who has proved the FIR lodged about the incident and relevant G.D. which have been marked as Ext. Ka.2 3.

23. PW4-Dr.Satendra Satyaveer Sabyasachi deposed before the trial Court that on 7.12.2006 he examined the deceased Smt. Pinki wife of Kunwar Pal at District Hospital Meerut at about 2.10 p.m. an found that she was burnt about 60-70% and proved the injury report which has been marked as Ext. Ka.4. He found the following injuries on her person:-

“Superficial to deep burn (80%) all over body, skin peeled off at places. Burn is all over body except right side face, right thigh, middle hand, left thigh, middle lower both legs and both foot and both sole and both legs.

24. He also stated that he noticed the smell of kerosene oil on the person of the deceased and he has also proved the injury report.

25. PW5-Dr. Vikram Singh, Senior Pathologist posted at P.L.Sharma Hospital,Meerut deposed before the trial Court that he conducted the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased Smt. Pinki on 8.12.2006 at about 3.15 p.m. and proved the same as Ext. Ka.5 and stated that the deceased died due to superficial burn injuries about 80% and found the following the following anti mortem burn injuries:-

1. Body is covered by surgical dressing except front half face, right and left buttock umblicus, right side thigh lateral aspect and right knee, right leg, left thigh posterio lateral aspect, left knee joint, left leg, right and left sole, lower part of back.

2. Superficial to deep burn (80%) all over body except injury no.1,

Line of redness present at burn wound margins.

Small blisters present (vesicles).

Singing of scalp hairs and eye-lashes present.

In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death of the deceased is due to asphyxia as a result anti mortem burn injuries.”

26. PW6-Rakesh Kumar has deposed before the trial Court that on 8.12.2006 he was posted as Naib Tehsildar in District Meerut and inquest report of the deceased was prepared in his supervision and he has proved the inquest report, copy of the G.D in this regard, letter to C.M.O., letter to R.I., photolash, form no.77, specimen seal, which have been marked as Ext. Ka.6 to Ka.12.

27. PW7-Mahendra Bahadur has deposed before the trial Court that he was posted as Naib Tehsildar, Meerut on 7.12.2006 and further stated that on receiving the information he reached at Medical College Hospital, Meerut for recording the dying declaration of Smt. Pinki and found that she was conscious and was in a position to give statement and PW8-Dr.Ajeet Kumar also certified her mental fitness and thereafter he recorded dying declaration on 7.12.2006 between 6.05 p.m. to 6.35 p.m. and proved the said dying declaration and which has been marked as Ext. Ka.13.

28. PW8-Dr. Ajeet has deposed before the trial Court that he was on duty in the emergency at Medical College Hospital, Meerut on 7.12.2006 and Tehsildar Mahendra Bahadur (PW7) arrived for recording the statement of Smt. Pinki when she was in a burnt condition and he further gave certificate that she was able to make statement and her statement was recorded from 6.05 p.m. to 6.35 p.m. by which time the same was completed and he again certified about her mental condition which was found to be a sound one. He has proved the said two certificates of the mental state of the deceased firstly given at 7.12.2006 at about 6.05 p.m. and the second after which her statement was completed at 6.35 p.m. on the same day as Ext. Kha.14 15.

29. PW9-Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Circle Officer who was also examined by the trial Court has deposed that he was posted as Circle Officer, Daurala on 8.12.2006 and had taken over the investigation of the present case and informant of the case, i.e., PW1 Pintoo and he has proved the marriage card (calendar wherein programme of the marriage of Smt. Pinki with accused Kunwar Pal dated 7.4.2004 was published) and proved the same as Ext. Ka.16.He further proved the site plan of the place of occurrence as Ext. Ka.17 and has also shown the place where the deceased was found to be burnt in the house of the accused. He proved memo of piece of floor, place of occurrence and memo of open closing of lock of the house of the accused which has been marked as Ext. Ka.18 19.

30. PW10-B.P.Singh, who is the second Investigating Officer, has deposed before the trial Court that on 23.12.2006 he was posted as Circle Officer, Daurala and he had taken over the investigation of the case after the earlier Circle Officer Rajesh Kumar Srivastava was transferred. He completed the investigation and submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 498A, Section304B I.P.C. and ¾ D.P.Act and proved the same as Ext. Ka.20.

31. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Kunwar Pal in the present criminal appeal and holding brief of Sri Ayank Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the accused respondent no.1 to 3 in Government Appeal and Sri G.P.Singh, learned AGA for the State .

32. As the learned counsel for the appellant has confined his argument only to the extent on the question of sentence of the appellant Kunwar Pal under Section 304B I.P.C. for life imprisonment awarded by the trial Court, as has been referred above, the Court proceeds to consider the said argument of the learned counsel for the appellant to that extent.

33. It is admitted to the parties that the deceased Smt. Pinki was married with the appellant Kunwar Pal on 7.4.2004 and the incident had taken place on 7.12.2006 at about 10.35 a.m. and she was found in a burnt condition in the house of the accused appellant Kunwar Pal and thereafter she succumbed to her injuries on 8.12.2006 on at about 4.45 a.m. in the morning. Prior to it, the dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by PW7-Mahendra Bahadur, Naib Tehsildar, Meerut and fitness certificate regarding her mental state was also given by Dr. Ajeet Kumar (PW8) on 7.12.2006 firstly before recording her statement at 6.05 p.m. and thereafter again at 6.35 p.m. on the same day after her statement was completed. The dying declaration has been proved by PW7 as Ext. Ka.13 and fitness certificate has also been proved by PW8 as Ext. Ka.14 15 respectively.

34. The dying declaration is in question and answer form in which the deceased has categorically stated that her husband Kunwar Pal had set her ablaze by pouring kerosene oil on her in the morning at 10 a.m. and set her ablaze for for want of dowry and for a child. She further stated that she ran outside but none had come to save her or to extinguish her fire and her husband had extinguished her fire and fled away. She further deposed that her father-in-law and mother-in-law were not present in the house as they had gone outside. Further, from the dying declaration it is evident that she was admitted in the hospital by her parents. The presence of the accused respondents no.1 to 3, namely, mother-in-law Smt. Leelawati, sister-in-law (nanad) Smt. Omwati and brother-in-law (Bahnoi) Hirday Kumar were also not disclosed by her in the said dying declaration.

35. The trial Court after considering the dying declaration of the deceased has convicted the appellant Kunwar Pal for the offences in questions and sentenced him for life imprisonment under Section 304B I.P.C., whereas the trial Court has acquitted the accused respondents no.1 to 3, namely, mother-in-law Smt. Leelawati, sister-in-law (nanad) Smt. Omwati and brother-in-law (Bahnoi) Hirday Kumar as it did not found their participation or presence in the house on the date of time of the incident except the husband Kunwar Pal. Hence, involvement of the appellant Kunwar Pal for setting ablaze his wife Smt. Pinki by pouring kerosene oil is well established beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the conviction of the appellant Kunwar Pal under Section 304B I.P.C. along with other offences is fully justified in the facts and circumstances of the case, which has also not been assailed and disputed by learned counsel for the appellant, but he has assailed the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court on the question of sentence arguing that minimum sentence provided under Section 304B I.P.C. is 7 years R.I. and the trial Court has committed error in sentencing the appellant Kunwar Pal for life imprisonment and as he is on the verge of completing 13 years of sentence as he is in jail since 31.12.2006, hence, his period of sentence may be reduced to already undergone, hence, sentence for life be set aside and he be released accordingly.

36. Learned AGA on the other hand, has though opposed the argument of learned counsel for the appellant on the question of sentence but he could not dispute the fact that as per the dying declaration of the deceased it is quite apparent that though the deceased was set ablaze by the appellant Kunwar Pal for want of dowry and a child and when the deceased ran outside the house, none had come to rescue her or to extinguish her from fire and it was her husband Kunwar Pal who had extinguished fire from her body and thereafter had fled away from the place of occurrence.

37. Learned AGA has further pointed out that as per the FIR it is apparent that the appellant Kunwar Pal had also earlier murdered his first wife in the year 1997 for want of dowry for which a case was also registered under Section 304B I.P.C., hence, the said factor was considered by the trial Court in sentencing the appellant for life imprisonment, to which learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the said case he was acquitted by the trial Court.

38. The two circumstances which have been mentioned in the dying declaration of the deceased for setting ablaze the deceased earlier by the appellant Kunwar Pal that she was burnt by her husband only on account of dowry and a child goes to show that the deceased was issueless and it appears that in heat of passion the deceased was burnt by the appellant Kunwar Pal, but it was the appellant Kunwar Pal who had extinguished the fire from the body of the deceased, goes to show that he tried to realize his mistake and after extinguish fire from the deceased he fled away. The said conduct of the appellant Kunwar Pal goes to show that the incident had taken place on account of heat of passion and the sentence of the appellant Kunwar Pal by the trial Court for life imprisonment under Section 304B I.P.C. appears to be too severe. Thus, while upholding the conviction of the appellant Kunwar Pal by the trial Court, but considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered opinion that it would meet the ends of justice that the sentence of the appellant Kunwar Pal under Section 304B I.P.C. be modified from life imprisonment to 14 years R.I. and, therefore, his sentence for life imprisonment under Section 304B is hereby modified accordingly to the extent of an imprisonment upto 14 years R.I.

39. So far as the argument of learned AGA with respect to acquittal of the accused respondents no.1 to 13, i.e., mother-in-law Smt. Leelawati, sister-in-law (nanad) Smt. Omwati and brother-in-law (Bahnoi) Hirday Kumar in the aforesaid Government Appeal by the trial Court is concerned, the same does not find force as it is evident from the dying declaration that the said three accused respondents were not found to be present on the date and time of the incident at the place of occurrence and the deceased has only levelled allegation against her husband Kunwar Pal for setting her ablaze and evidence of PW1 and PW2 that it was the deceased who had informed them that the accused respondents have set her ablaze, is belied by the dying declaration itself.

40. Learned AGA also could not dispute the fact that except the husband Kunwar Pal against whom allegation of burning the deceased finds mention in the dying declaration, the presence of the other accused respondents does not find mention and hence the argument raised by learned counsel for the accused respondents no.1 to 3 that the judgement and order of the trial Court does not suffer from any perversity with respect of the said appellants, has merit and we find justification in their acquittal by the trial Court.

41. In view of the above, the appeal with respect to appellant Kunwar Pal is partly allowed.

42. The Government Appeal with respect to accused respondents no.1 to 3, i.e., mother-in-law Smt. Leelawati, sister-in-law (nanad) Smt. Omwati and brother-in-law (Bahnoi) Hirday Kumar of the deceased respectively, is hereby dismissed.

(Ajit Kumar, J.) (Ramesh Sinha,J.)

Order Date :- 07.11.2019

NS