SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vijay vs State on 30 March, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

A.F.R.

Reserved on 03.01.2018

Delivered on 30.03.2018

Court No. – 12

Case :- JAIL APPEAL No. – 828 of 2008

Appellant :- Vijay

Respondent :- State

Counsel for Appellant :- From Jail,Nishi Mehrotra(Amcus Curi

Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.

Hon’ble Daya Shankar Tripathi,J.

Heard Ms. Nishi Mehrotra, learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of appellant, Sri Tarkeshwar Yadav, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

Appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated 21.04.2007 passed by the Additional District Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 4, Meerut, in Sessions Trial No.1451 of 2002 (State Vs. Vijay and others) arising out of Case Crime No.408 of 2001, under Section 363, 366, 368, 376 I.P.C., Police Station Nauchandi, District Meerut, by which co-accused Basant has been acquitted from the charge under Section 368 IPC and appellant-accused has been convicted and sentenced under Section 363 I.P.C. with rigorous imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs.1,000/- (in default of payment of fine, six months additional imprisonment), under Section 366-A IPC with rigorous imprisonment of seven years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- (in default of payment of fine, six months additional imprisonment) and under Section 376(1) IPC with rigorous imprisonment of seven years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- (in default of payment of fine, six months additional imprisonment).

In the present judgment, I do not propose to mention the name of the victim girl in view of the provisions of Section 228A I.P.C. and in pursuance of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-4 in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Shree Kant Shekari (AIR 2004 SC 4404) the prosecutrix (hereinafter referred to as ‘victim’).

Prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant Ram Kumar son of Khem Karan Dhinwar, resident of Lane No. 1, Jai Devi Nagar, P.S. Nauchandi, Meerut, submitted a written report dated 02.10.2001 (Ex. Ka-1) before the police station concerned, stating therein that his daughter (victim) aged about 15 years is student of Class-9 in Shanta Smarak Kanya Inter College. Accused Vijay, resident of village Mirzapur (Bulandshahr) resides in his neighbourhood. Accused used to come his house and knows his daughter. When victim was going to Sector-6, Shashtrinagar for work on 30.09.2001 at about 12:30 noon, accused enticed away the victim from the way. Complainant searched the victim in Khandak, where brother of accused Rakesh and his maternal uncle reside and several places, but victim was not traced. Kailash and Sanju residents of complainants’ locality had seen the victim being enticed away, hence, his report should be lodged and action may be taken.

On the basis of aforesaid written Tahrir (Ex. Ka-1), Case Crime No.408 of 2001, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. was registered in the police station concerned on 02.10.2001 at 13:00 hrs. and entry of the case was made in the General Diary (G.D.) of the police station. Investigation of the case was taken up by Sub-Inspector, Kunwar Pal Singh. Place of occurrence was inspected by Investigating Officer (‘I.O.’) and map of spot was prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded, victim was recovered during the course of investigation on 18.04.2002 and she was medically examined and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. After completing the investigation, charge sheet (Ext. Ka-4) was submitted against the appellant-accused and one co-accused Basant under Section 363, 366, 368, 376 I.P.C.

Charges under Sections 363, 366A, 376 I.P.C. were framed against appellant-accused and charge under Section 368 IPC was framed against the co-accused Basant. Accused persons denied the charges levelled against them and claimed for trial.

As many as eight prosecution witnesses were examined before the Trial Court.

PW-1, victim, has been examined, who has deposed that she was enticed away by the appellant-accused and she was kept in several places by the appellant-accused and appellant-accused committed rape with her in places where she was kept by him. She has further deposed that she was recovered and and appellant-accused was arrested by the police and she was medically examined and her statement was recorded. She has further deposed that she was aged about 15-16 years at the time of occurrence and she was student of Class-IX.

PW-2, Ram Kumar (complainant), has been examined, who has supported the FIR version and proved written report (Ext. Ka-1). He has further deposed that he had searched the victim at several places and lastly it was known that the appellant-accused is residing with victim in village Mirzapur, district Bulandshahr, from where the victim was recovered and appellant-accused was arrested by the police, in his presence on 18.04.2002 and victim was medically examined.

PW-3, Dr. Sangeeta Gupta has been examined, who has deposed that the victim was brought before her by Women Constable 1024 Swarnlata on 19.04.2002 and victim was medically examined by her and she has proved medical examination report of the victim (Ext. Ka-2). She has further deposed that the victim was referred for pathological test and X-ray examination and after receiving the said reports, supplementary report was prepared by her on the back of medical examination report, according to which the victim was found to be aged about 17-18 years. She has also proved that the victim was having pregnancy of about four months. Relevant portion of the medical examination report and supplementary are reproduced below:-

“Medical Examination Report:

See Sex Characters developed- Well developed, Satisfactory, LMP- 4 mths back.

Per Vaginal Examination-Hymen torn, old healed tears, present, vagina admits two fingers easily, Ut. 16 wks, soft fx free, no bleeding, no discharge, no mark of injury on private parts.

Vaginal smear being sent for histopathology- Yes

The girls being sent for X-ray of knee, elbow and wrist joint for determination of age.

Opinion

According to above findings, no opinion about rape can be given. The girl is pregnant (4 mths).

Adv. USG for confirmation of pregnancy”

Supplementary Report:

Final Opinion- No further opinion about rape can be given according to above findings. The age of girl is between seventeen to eighteen years (17-18 Yrs.) according to above X-ray reports, the girl is pregnant of 14.1 wks.”

PW-4, Dr. N.S. Pal has been examined who has deposed that X-ray examination of the victim was conducted in his supervision on 20.04.2002 and he has proved X-ray report (Ext. Ka-3).

PW-5, Dr. G.D. Goyal has been examined, who has proved that pathology test of the victim was conducted by him on 19.02.2002 and pathology report was prepared by him in his handwriting and signature.

PW-6, S.I. Kunwar Pal Singh (I.O.), has been examined, who has proved that investigation of this case was conducted by him. After inspecting the place of occurrence, map of spot was prepared by him. He has further proved that statement of witnesses were recorded by him and he had searched the victim to several places, alongwith complainant and the victim was recovered and appellant-accused was arrested on 18.04.2002. Victim was medically examined and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He has further proved that after completing the investigation, charge sheet (Ext. Ka-4) was submitted by him.

PW-7, S.I. Sripal Rana (Head Moharrir) has been examined, who has proved that on the basis of written report of the complainant, case crime no. 408 of 2001, under Section 363, 366 IPC was registered at 13:00 hrs. and entry of the case was made in the G.D. of the police station and proved Chik FIR (Ext. Ka-5) and carbon copy of G.D. (Ext. Ka-6)

PW-8, Chhanga Singh has been examined, who has proved that he is posted as Assistant Teacher in Shanta Smarak Kanya Inter College, Meerut since 2001 and he has come with record of the college, regarding admission. He has proved application for admission of the victim (Ext. Ka-7), Transfer Certificate of previous school (Ext. Ka-8) and he has also proved transfer certificate of the victim issued by his college (Ext. Ka-9). He has also proved that according to school record, date of birth of the victim is 09.01.1987.

Statements of appellant-accused and co-accused Basant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded by the Trial Court. Accused persons stated that the prosecution evidence is false and they have been falsely implicated in the case due to enmity. Appellant-accused has further stated that victim was having pregnancy, she was major and her age was about 18 years.

DW-1 Satyamuni has been examined on behalf of appellant-accused before the trail court in his defence. He has deposed that marriage was performed between the victim and the appellant-accused in the Arya Samaj Temple, Nayagaon, Khwajpur, District Bulandshahr and marriage certificate (Ext. Kha-1) was issued by him under his signature. He has further stated that the victim had performed marriage with the appellant-accused, on her own will.

After giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties, judgment and order dated 21.04.2007 was passed by learned Trial Court, by which co-accused Basant was acquitted from the charge under Section 368 Cr.P.C. and appellant-accused was convicted under Sections 363, 366A, 376(1) I.P.C. and sentenced as stated above.

It is this impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant-accused, which is under challenge to this criminal appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that according to medical evidence, victim was major on the date of occurrence. He further submitted that evidence of PW-1 (victim) is not trustworthy as it is not supported by evidence of two eye witnesses named in the FIR. He further submitted that contradictions have appeared in the ocular evidence of prosecution witnesses, hence the prosecution version is not trustworthy. He further submitted that the victim was a consenting party, hence conviction recorded by learned trial court against the appellant-accused under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(1) IPC is not sustainable. He lastly submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by learned trial court suffers from legal infirmity, hence it is liable to be set aside.

Learned AGA submitted that according to school certificate of the victim, she was minor on the date of alleged occurrence. He further submitted that conviction of the appellant-accused can be based on sole testimony of the victim, if it is trustworthy. He further submitted that evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be thrown out merely on the basis of minor contradictions appearing in their testimony. He further submitted that consent of the victim is immaterial, because she was minor on the date of occurrence. He lastly submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and order passed by learned trial court, hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

It is borne out from the record that PW-1 (victim) has supported the prosecution version and deposed that she was enticed away by the appellant-accused and she was kept in several places by him and he committed rape with her in several places, where he had kept her and said to marry her. She has further stated that she was lastly brought by the appellant-accused to his village Mirzapur, from where she was recovered and the appellant-accused was arrested by the police. She has further stated that she was medically examined and her statement was recorded. PW-2 Ram Kumar (complainant) has supported the prosecution version and proved written report (Ext. Ka-1). He has further proved that the victim was searched at several places and she was recovered from village Mirzapur, district Bulandshahr and the appellant-accused was arrested by the police on 18.04.2002, in his presence. He has further proved that the victim was medically examined. PW-3 Dr. Sangeeta Gupta has proved that medical examination of the victim was conducted by her on 19.04.2002 and proved medical examination report (Ext. Ka-2). She has further proved that victim was referred for X-ray examination and pathological test and after receiving the aforesaid reports, supplementary report was prepared by her. She has further proved that the victim was having pregnancy of about four months. PW-6 S.I. Kunwar Pal Singh (I.O.) has deposed that investigation of this case was conducted by him and victim was recovered and appellant-accused was arrested from village Mirzapur, district Bulandshahr on 18.04.2002 and victim was medically examined and her statement was recorded. These prosecution witnesses have been put to lengthy cross-examination, but no material contradiction has come out from their testimony.

The first and foremost argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that according to medical evidence of PW-3, the victim was found between age of 17 to 18 years, in which two years’ variation is possible on either side and two years’ variation which is beneficial to the appellant-accused may be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, he has argued that the victim was major on the date of occurrence. But PW-8 Chhanga Singh has been examined before the trial court, who has proved that he is Assistant Teacher in Shanta Smarak Kanya Inter College, Meerut since the year 2001 and he has brought record of college with him, regarding the admission. He has further proved the admission application of the victim (Ext. Ka-7) and Transfer Certificate of previous school (Ext. Ka-8). He has also proved the Transfer Certificate of the victim, issued by his college (Ext. Ka-9). He has further proved that the date of birth of the victim is 09.01.1987, as per school records. No material contradiction has appeared in cross-examination of this witness and evidence of this witness is reliable. Accordingly, the victim was minor and below the age of 15 years on the date of occurrence.

It is settled legal principle of law that age of the victim is to be determined in the same manner as provided under Rule (3) of Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, for determining the age of a juvenile.

In State of Madhya Pradesh v Anoop Singh reported in 2015 LawSuit(SC) 615, it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court that Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007 is applicable for determining the age of victim of rape. Relevant portion of the report is reproduced below:-

“[12] This Court in the case of Mahadeo S/o Kerba Maske Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 637, has held that Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, is applicable in determining the age of the victim of rape. Rule 12(3) reads as under:

“Rule 12(3): In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining –

(i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof;

(ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof;

(iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;

(b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year. and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a)(i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law.”

[13] This Court further held in paragraph 12 of Mahadeo S/o Kerba Maske (supra) as under:

“Under rule 12(3)(b), it is specifically provided that only in the absence of alternative methods described under Rule 12(3)(a)(i) to (iii), the medical opinion can be sought for. In the light of such a statutory rule prevailing for ascertainment of the age of the juvenile in our considered opinion, the same yardstick can be rightly followed by the courts for the purpose of the ascertaining the age of a victim as well.”

This Court therefore relied on the certificates issued by the school in determining the age of the prosecutrix. In paragraph 13, this Court observed:

“In light of our above reasoning, in the case on hand, there were certificates issued by the school in which the proseuctrix did her V standard and in the school leaving certificate issued by the school under Exhibit 54, the date of birth has been clearly noted as 20.05.1990 and this document was also proved by PW 11. Apart from that the transfer certificate as well as the admission form maintained by the Primary School, Latur, where the prosecutrix had her initial education, also confirmed the date of birth as 20.05.1990. the reliance placed upon the said evidence by the Courts below to arrive at the age of the prosecutrix to hold that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age at the time of occurrence was perfectly justified and we do not find any grounds to interfere with the same.”

Considering the documentary evidence available on record and aforesaid principles laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), it may be concluded that the victim was minor and below the age of 15 years on the date of occurrence. Hence there is no force in the aforesaid argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that victim was major on the date of occurrence.

Next argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that contradictions have appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, due to which their testimony is not reliable.

It is borne out from the record that some minor discrepancies have appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses on the point regarding the manner in which the victim was enticed away, the manner in which she was kept by the appellant-accused on different places and the manner in which the victim was recovered and the appellant-accused was arrested. But it is settled principle of law that evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the basis of minor discrepancies appearing in their testimony.

In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Anil Singh reported in 1989 SCC (Cri) 48, it has been held by the Apex Court that testimony of prosecution witnesses can not be discarded, unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or falsehood are so glaring as to destroy confidence in the prosecution witnesses. Relevant portion of the report is reproduced below:-

“Invariably the witnesses add embroidery to prosecution story, perhaps for the fear of being disbelieved. But that is no ground to throw the case overboard, if there is a ring of truth in the main. It is the duty of the court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or falsehood are so glaring as to utterly destroy confidence in the witnesses.”

In the case of Sucha Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2003) 7 SCC 643, it has been held by the Apex Court that even if major portion of the evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, it is the duty of the court to separate grain from chaff. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has no application in India and the witness cannot be branded as a liar. In case this maxim is applied in all the cases it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a dead stop. Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however true in the main.

Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of credence, and merely because in some respects the court considers the same to be insufficient or unworthy of reliance, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respects as well.

In the case of Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabeer Singh and others reported in 2017 CRLJ 291 SC, it has been held by Hon’ble the Apex Court that conclusion of trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on probity of investigation. Relevant portion of report is reproduced below:

“30. In C. Muniappan v. State of T.N. reported in (2010) 9 SCC 567, this Court explained the law on this point in the following manner: (SCC p. 589, para 55)

55. There may be highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the IO and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc. which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation.”

Considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and principles laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases of State of U.P. (supra), Sucha Singh (supra) and Yogesh Singh (supra), testimony of prosecution witnesses cannot be thrown away merely on the basis of aforesaid minor discrepancies appearing in their evidence. Hence there is no force in the aforesaid argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant.

Next argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that two witnesses namely Kailash and Sanju have been named in the FIR, who are said to have seen the victim being enticed away by the appellant-accused, but none of them have been examined by the prosecution. Accordingly, it has been argued that sole evidence of victim cannot be relied, without corroboration of aforesaid two independent witnesses. But it is settled principle of law that evidence of victim is treated at par with the evidence of an injured witness and her testimony can be relied even without corroboration of any other witness, if it is found to be trustworthy.

In the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1983 SC 753, it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court that conviction of an accused can be based solely on the evidence of victim provided her evidence is worthy of reliance.

In the case of Alamelu Vs. State reported in AIR 2011 SC 715, It has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court that conviction can be recorded on the uncorroborated evidence of the victim provided her evidence does not suffer from any basic infirmities or improbabilities.

In the present case, PW-1 (victim) has supported the prosecution version and no material contradiction has come out from her evidence, her evidence is corroborated by evidence of PW-2 (complainant), medical evidence of PW-3 and evidence of PW-6 (I.O.)

Considering the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai (supra) and Alamelu (supra), evidence of victim cannot be discarded merely on the basis that it is not corroborated by evidence of aforesaid two witnesses named in the FIR. Accordingly, there is no force in the aforesaid argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant has lastly submitted that the victim has performed marriage with the appellant-accused and she is a consenting party, hence charges levelled against the appellant-accused are not proved and findings recorded by the learned trial court on this score, is perverse. In support of his argument, he has drawn attention towards evidence of defence witness DW-1 Satyamuni, who has deposed that he was Secretary of Arya Samaj Temple, Nayagaon, Khajpur, district Bulandshahr on 24.03.2002. He has further deposed that the victim had performed marriage with the appellant-accused in the aforesaid temple and proved that marriage certificate (Ext. Ka-1) was issued by him under his signature. He has also deposed that the victim had performed marriage with appellant-accused, on her own will. Learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn attention of the Court towards the statement of PW-1 (victim), who has stated in her cross-examination that she had performed marriage with the appellant-accused in Mirzapur. She has further stated that court marriage was performed and thereafter marriage was performed by her in the temple according to Hindu custom. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the victim has been recovered on 18.04.2002 and she had been with the appellant-accused for a period of about seven months and according to medical evidence she was having pregnancy of about four months. He has further submitted that the victim has travelled several places with appellant-accused and no alarm has been raised by her. Accordingly, he has submitted that the victim was a consenting party, hence charges levelled against the appellant-accused are not proved. But it is evident from the discussion made hereinabove that the victim was minor and under age of 15 years on the date of occurrence, hence consent of the victim is immaterial.

In the case of In the case of Satish Kumar Jayanti Lal Dabgar Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2015) 7 SCC 359, it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court that consent of a minor for sexual intercourse is not material. Relevant portion of report is reproduced below:

“14. The first thing which is to be borne in mind is that the prosecutrix was less than 16 years of age. On this fact, clause sixthly of Section 375 IPC would get attracted making her consent for sexual intercourse as immaterial and inconsequential. It reads as follows:

“375. Rape.- A man is said to commit ‘rape’ who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions–

Sixthly,- With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age.

Explanation.–Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.”

15. The legislature has introduced the aforesaid provision with sound rationale and there is an important objective behind such a provision. It is considered that a minor is incapable of thinking rationally and giving any consent. For this reason, whether it is civil law or criminal law, the consent of a minor is not treated as valid consent. Here the provision is concerning a girl child who is not only minor but less than 16 years of age. A minor girl can be easily lured into giving consent for such an act without understanding the implications thereof. Such a consent, therefore, is treated as not an informed consent given after understanding the pros and cons as well as consequences of the intended action. Therefore, as a necessary corollary, duty is cast on the other person in not taking advantage of the so-called consent given by a girl who is less than 16 years of age. Even when there is a consent of a girl below 16 years, the other partner in the sexual act is treated as criminal who has committed the offence of rape. The law leaves no choice to him and he cannot plead that the act was consensual. A fortiori, the so-called consent of the prosecutrix below 16 years of age cannot be treated as mitigating circumstance.”

Considering the principles laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case of Satish Kumar Jayanti Lal Dabgar (supra) and the fact that the victim was minor on the date of occurrence, consent of the victim is not material. Hence, aforesaid argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant does not find any favour to him.

For all the reasons mentioned hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion that findings recorded by learned trial court are based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record and reasoning. There is no legal infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by learned trial court. Appeal is devoid of merit and it is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the jail appeal is dismissed. Impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, is affirmed.

The appellant-accused has been released from jail, after completing the period of sentence and depositing the amount of fine on 26.07.2011, hence, he need not surrender before the trial court.

Let copy of this judgment and record of trial court be sent back to the court concerned forthwith, for information and necessary action.

Order Date :-30.03.2018

SR

Court No. – 12

Case :- JAIL APPEAL No. – 828 of 2008

Appellant :- Vijay

Respondent :- State

Counsel for Appellant :- From Jail,Nishi Mehrotra(Amcus Curi

Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.

Hon’ble Daya Shankar Tripathi,J.

Appeal is dismissed.

For orders, see order of date passed on separate sheets.

Ms. Nishi Mehrotra, learned counsel (Amicus-Curiae) holding Enrollment No. 10724/03, will be entitled for remuneration of Rs.7,500/- (Rs. Seven Thousand and Five Hundred Only), as indicated in the order dated 18.04.2017.

Order Date :-30.03.2018

SR

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation