CR.A/634/1987 of JAVSING MANUBHAI SOLANKI Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 15 November 1995

1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Judgment ?

4. Whether this case involves substantial question of law as tothe interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?

5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?

Shri P.M. Vyas, Advocate for the appellant.Shri S.T. Mehta, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondentState.

Coram: A.N. Divecha,J. & H.R. Shelat,J.(15-11-1995)

ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per: H.R. Shelat, J.)

The then learned Sessions Judge of Panchmahals at Godhra, in Sessions Case No. 73 of 1986, on 29th July 1987, convictedthe appellant of the offence under Section 302 and Section 201 ofthe Indian Penal Code and sentenced him for the offence underSection 302 to life imprisonment; and for the offence underSection 201 rigorous imprisonment for 2 years, and a fine ofRs.1,000/-, in default, further rigorous imprisonment for 6months, and therefore the present appeal before us by theoriginal accused-appellant.

2. In short, it is the case of the prosecution that on 3rdMarch 1986 at 10.30 p.m.,the appellant serving as aschool-teacher gave blows by a washing club on the head of hiswife Savitaben and caused the injuries which were sufficient inthe ordinary course of nature to cause death, and therebyintentionally caused death of his wife Savitaben. Not only thatbut with the intention to save himself from the legalconsequences he put the dead body into a cask and then locked thesame with the number-lock and hid the same in the pit which wasavailable in the school compound where he was residing.Thereafter as and when members of the staff, and the familymembers inquired, he pretended saying that Savita had gone to herNatal house. On 14th March 1986 the appellant with his threechildren namely Saroj, Sonal and son went to his mother-in-law'splace and informed that Savita was missing for the last few daysand he was in search of her. He immediately left the placehanding over the custody of his 3 children to Kankuben, hismother-in-law. His mother-in-law thereafter also inquired abouthis daughter Savita. She made inquiries at different placeswhere her relatives were residing. She also moved arounddifferent places but got no information and her efforts were invain. Her other son-in-law, Valchand Dhulabhai, was residing atAhmedabad. He is the husband of Madhuben, the eldest daughter ofKankuben. On 25th March 1986, he was at Ratlam and had gone toDahod. At that time Kankuben informed that Savita was missing.Thereafter Valchand and Kankuben made search but could not findSavitaben. Once Kankuben and Valchand who had gone out in searchof Savitaben were returning from Vadodar by the S.T. bus. Asthe luck would have it, the appellant was also travelling by thesame bus. They espied the appellant in the bus. Both then madehim to alight at Piplod. Thereafter he was questioned aboutSavita. The appellant admitted that he had killed Savita andthey could do their worst, and also said that he had buriedSavita placing her dead body in the cask. Thereafter going tothe police station they lodged a complaint. The police officerof Devgadhbaria police station initiated the investigation. Atthe conclusion of the investigation the charge-sheet against theappellant for the aforesaid offences came to be filed before theCourt of the learned Judicial Magistrate, (First Class) atDevgadhbaria. As he was not competent to hear and decide thematter the learned Magistrate committed the case to the SessionsCourt at Godhra which came to be registered as Sessions Case No.73 of 1986. The learned Judge framed the charge at Exh.2. Itwas read over and explained to the appellant. The appellantpleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution thenadduced necessary evidence. The learned Judge appreciating theevidence before him came to the conclusion that the charge wasduly proved beyond reasonable doubt. He therefore held theappellant guilty, and sentenced him as stated hereinabove.

3. Preferring the appeal, the appellant has challenged thejudgment and order convicting and sentencing him of the offenceswith which he was charged. Mr. P.M. Vyas representing theappellant submitted that the learned Judge erroneously acceptedthe evidence of the witnesses, and more particularly the evidenceof Sarojben aged about 8 years who is said to have seen theincident. As there were glaring contradictions their evidencewas inspiring no confidence. Further the evidence of Sarojben(Exh.28) was not recorded administering oath.The F.I.R. wasfiled very late. Every one owing to hatred assumed against theappellant. This Court was therefore the hope for the absolution.Mr. Mehta, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representingthe respondent submitted that in fact there was no infirmity inthe evidence led by the prosecution and there was no cause todoubt the testimony of any of the witnesses. By demagogy thedefence could not succeed. The appellant was catching anythingavailable like a drowning man. By trite, insignificant, andflabby submissions the dreamy appellant had weltered, and hadmade a lame attempt to crumple and scuttle the prosecution'scase, but it was a far cry. The evidence on record was leavingno scope or way out favouring the defence.

4. We have carefully perused the evidence of all thewitnesses and we see no justification to disbelieve or doubt thetestimony of any of the witnesses. Dr. Parmar who performed thepost mortem has been examined at Exh.7. He could see thefollowing injuries on the dead body of Savitaben; Decomposed swollen body. Skin was dark bluish, discololured and peeled off. Fractures unrecognisable. Bristers forming all over the body. Nails and hair loose and earlily detached. The eyeball was soft and yielding. Cornea was white and milky and concave. Abdomen was distended with gas. The tongue was swollen and protruded from mouth. Skin was dark, bluish, discoloured andpeeled off due to putrefaction. Comminuted fracture of left temporal and left parietal bone at skull. Brain was liquified greyish fluss. Ribs were loose softened decomposed, soft, loose, semifluid black mars. Greenish and softened putrefied. Lungs were dark bluish, soft collpse, redbead to a small black mars.

According to the Doctor, the death was the result of the aboveinjuries. He opined that all those injuries were possible by awashing club and were sufficient to cause death in ordinarycourse of nature. On the basis of the Doctor's evidence it canbe said that the death of Savitaben is certainly unnatural.Whether death is caused by the appellant is the point now arisesfor consideration.

has deposed before the lower Court at Exh.6. She is residing atDahod. Out of her two daughters, Madhuben and Savitaben;Madhuben has married Valchand; while Savitaben married theaccused, after both were enamoured of each other. The appellantwas serving as a teacher in the primary school at Vadodar. Inthe school compound there is a quarter and that quarter wasallotted to the appellant. Savitaben and the appellant wereresiding in the quarter. Once about 2 months prior to theincident Savitaben had been to Dahod because of the dissensionthat arose between the two and it was because of Kavita a studentwith whom the appellant had developed intimate relations. Afterpersuasion made from an interceder she was sent back. On 14thMarch 1986 the appellant with his children went to Kankuben andleft the children there saying that he was going out in search ofSavita as she was missing for the last few days. ThereafterKankuben also made search at different places taking help of heranother son-in-law Valchand but no one could get the trail.However both had not given up their efforts. Once Kankuben andher another son-in-law Valchand were returning from Vadodar by abus. Accidentally, the appellant was also travelling by the samebus. Both espied the appellant. They made the appellant toalight at Piplod. On being questioned,the appellant admittedabout the wrong he committed, saying that he had killed herdaughter (Savita) and had buried her in the school compound.Thereafter he was taken to the outpost at Piplod and thecomplaint came to be lodged. Thus, Kankuben supports the case ofthe prosecution in toto. Valchand Dhulabhai the other son-in-lawof Kankuben, has also narrated the story which he came to knowfrom 25th March 1986. He has supported the prosecution. It alsotranspires from his evidence that the appellant led him, thepanchas,and the policemen to his house; with the key he washaving, the house was opened; and in the presence of the panchasthe house was searched. It was found that there wereblood-stains on the walls and the washing club was also found.The appellant took all of them to the compound of the schoolabout 100 feet away from his place where he had interred the deadbody keeping the same into a cask. By the spade the ground wasdug up; the cask was brought out.The cask was locked with anumbered-lock. He was knowing the set figures of the lock. Theappellant moving the figures adjusted the set number and openedthe lock. The dead body of Savitaben was found. That wasidentified by Valchand, Kankuben and others and thereafterinquest was made. The Doctor was then called at the spot for thepurpose of post mortem. Thus, Valchand also in clear termswithout any doubt supports the case of the prosecution.Pankajkumar Sitaram and Balwant Somabhai were students in theschool where the appellant was serving. The appellant wasimparting tuition to them in 7th class where one of the studentswas Kavita aged about 16 with whom as alleged the appellantdeveloped intimate relations and that resultant infatuation wasthe cause of the death of Savitaben. Both the students being

ignorant have not stated much on the point, but they have made itclear that once few months before the incident the appellant hadasked them to dig up the pit for the purpose of erecting alavatory as till then there was no lavatory either in the schoolor in his quarter, and from that very pit the dead body interredwas found out. Kavitaben is examined at Exh.15. She hasadmitted that she was a student and the appellant was herteacher, but has denied all other allegations. RatansinhGopalbhai was called as a panch witness. In his presence thepanchnama was drawn. The accused willingly pointed out the placewhere the dead body was hidden. The the appellant led them tohis place; with the key he was having, the house was got openedand searched and thereafter the appellant took them to a placewhere Savitaben was hidden which was about 165 feet away from theresidential quarter allotted to him. The appellant himself withthe aid of the spade (pavda)removed the covering bricks, dug upthe ground and brought out the cask and opened the lock adjustingthe figures to the set-number. The dead body was brought out.It was identified as the dead body of Savitaben. ParvatbhaiBhodubhai is another panch who has also supported the prosecutiontestifying that in their presence the appellant took them to hisplace and opening the quarter, showed the place where on thewalls the blood-stains were found. The blood was then collectedby scraping and the panchnama to that effect was drawn.

6. Jesingbhai Terabhai Baria was the Head Master of the School wherein the appellant was serving. According to him therewas only one quarter which was allotted to the appellant. On 3rdMarch 1986, two daughters of the appellant were absent in school.He therefore inquired why those two were not attending theschool. The appellant then guardedly replied that Savitaben hadgone to her mother's place and since there was no one at home tolook after his minor son, his daughters had opted out fromattending the school. The appellant then proceeded on casualleave on 14th and 15th March. No doubt he resumed duties on 17thMarch, but again proceeded on leave from 18th March to 21st March1986 on the ground of sickness. On 24th he was required toresume the duty but he did not. Thereafter he never resumed theduties and on inquiry the Head Master came to know that theappellant was arrested in connection with the offence of murderof his wife. According to him, there was a pit in the compoundof the school but the school authority had not resolved or takenthe decision to construct the lavatory. Rupsing Shankerbhai wasa colleague of the the appellant in the school. The appellant'sdaughters were studying in the class assigned to this witness.He could also mark that on 3rd March, Sonel and Saroj wereabsent, and on 14th March 1986 the appellant was also on leave.

7. Sarojben the minor daughter of the appellant aged about 8

at that time, is examined at Exh.28. According to her testimony,Kavita used to go to their place, not only for tete-a-tete but

for fomentation also; and so her parents were quarrelling as aresult the deceased had to bear the beastliness. On the day ofthe incident she could see that the appellant (her father) wasbeating her mother-Savita by the washing club. The blows weregiven on the head. Her mother demanded water. When she tried togive water the appellant intervened and did not allow her to givewater to Savitaben. Thereafter the appellant put out the lightso that his minor daughters might not see what was happening.For want of light this witness then in fact could not see whathappened thereafter. But in the morning she did make query tothe appellant questioning where her mother was. The appellantsuppressing the truth replied that she had gone to answer thenatural call. However Saroj persisted so as to know about hermother, the appellant pointing out another lady at a distancesaid she was there. Sarojben thus supports the prosecution.Chandrakant Kantilal Jaiswal was called as a panch-witness. Thethe appellant showed his willingness to point out the place ofoffence and the place where the dead body was inhumed. Thiswitness has also stated the facts without missing any link. Itis evident from his evidence that the appellant showed his house,opened it with his key, and then took them to the place where thedead body was hidden. How the dead body was brought out and whatthen was done is not missed by the witness. Bharatbhai Maganbhaiunwilling to suppress the truth, testifying the case partly halfheartedly supports the prosecution with regard to search of ahouse and bringing out the dead body. Kesharisinh Rupsinh wasserving as Police Jamadar in Piplod outpost. In his presence,the complaint was lodged which he received and registered andthen on being assigned the work of investigation, started theinvestigation and thereafter handed over the furtherinvestigation to P.S.I. Aggrawal. Such evidence having noinherent improbabilities on record without any doubt lead us tohold that the prosecution has fully established the chargelevelled against the appellant. The learned Judge below hastherefore rightly accepted the evidence and held the appellantguilty.

8. However, Mr. Vyas, the learned Advocate representing thethe appellant submitted that there were certain contradictions inthe evidence of certain witnesses which would show that the storynarrated was far from truth, there were improvements, and for thereasons not known, the appellant was wrongly embroilled. BalwantSoura stated that Kavita used to go to the appellant's housewhile Kavita stated that once on diwali occasion the appellantand his family members had stayed overnight at her place but theydid not state so before the Court. Kankuben did not state beforethe police that Saroj informed her. Valchand did not statebefore the police that the appellant told him to do his worst andafter alighting from bus at Piplod, they consumed 1 1/2 hours forinterrogation. Mukund Vyas did not state that the doctor waswith him when he went to the appellant's house. Balwant and

Pankaj did not state before the police that Kavita used to go tothe appellant's house. Jesing T. Bariya did not state beforethe police that the appellant explained why his daughters werenot attending school. Saroj did not state before the police thatKavita used to go to her house for fomentation. She tried togive water and the appellant did not allow her to give. Hermother was shouting for help etc. It appears to us that by suchsubmission the appellant has tried to catch anything availablelike a drowning man. In our view, such minor contradictions, notimpairing the pith and gist of the case cannot lead us to holdthat the case of the prosecution is nothing but a drivel assought to be urged pointing out such contradictions. Such minorcontradictions are bound to be there, on the contrary suchdiscrepancies ordinarily lead the court to hold that thewitnesses tell the truth and there is no concoction, ill-will orspite. The Supreme Court in the case of Narotam Singh vs. Stateof Punjab and another - AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1542 while dealingwith the contentions with regards to contradiction has beratedobserving as under; "Discrepancies do not necessarily demolish testimony; delay does not necessarily spell unveracity and tortured technicalities do not necessarily upset conviction when the Court has had a perspicacious, sensitive and correctly oriented view of the evidence and probabilities to reach the conclusion it did. Proof of guilt is sustained despite little infirmities, tossing peccadilloes and peripheral probative shortfalls. The 'sacred cows' of shadowy doubts and marginal mistakes, procedural or other, cannot deter the Court from punishing crime where it has been sensibly and substantially brought home."

It is held by the Supreme Court in another case between State ofU.P. vs. Manoharlal and others-AIR 1981 Supreme Court 2073 asunder; "That in heinous nature of offence not affecting the crux and chest of the case are bound to occur and while appreciating the evidence the court cannot have a computerised approach without giving any allowance to human factor."

Again when an occasion arose the Supreme Court has expressed itsresentment with regards to the attempt made to succeed on thebasis of minor contradictions in the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat-AIR 1983 Supreme Court 753,observing:- "Overmuch importance cannot be given to minor discrepancies. Discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses, therefore, cannot be annexed with undue importance. More so when the all important "probabilities-factor" echoes in favour of the version narrated by the witnesses."

If accordingly the evidence of the witnesses are appreciated wedo not find any justification to disbelieve the witnesses for thecontradictions pointed out are minor or trivial, and play nopivotal role affecting the crux and gist of the case.

9. Mr. Vyas then made a lame attempt to convince ussubmitting that in this case though the offence was committed on3rd March 1986 the complaint came to be lodged on 27th March1986. Thus there was a delay of about 24 days which was fatal tothe prosecution. He also urged to hold that delay was caused soas to make out a case and implicate the appellant. Thecontention is misleading. Of course delay in some cases will befatal to the prosecution but not as a matter of course in allcases. If the delay is satisfactorily explained, howsoever longthe same may be, will not be fatal to the prosecution. We inthis case find satisfactory explanation from the materials onrecord. On 3rd March, 1986 the incident happened, but no oneexcept Saroj the minor daughter came to know. Saroj was indilemma because she was initially made to understand that hermother had gone out to answer the natural call, and thereaftershe was told that her mother had gone to her Natal house. Oncethe appellant made her to believe that the woman going at adistance was her mother. She was naturally being a girl of 8years puzzled and could not know what to do, where to go and whatto say and to whom. As she was also puzzled being misdirectedshe could therefore do nothing. It is also pertinent to notethat on one or the other pretext she was not allowed to attendthe classes and was compelled to stay at home so that she mightnot come in contact with others and divulge about the incidentthat took place. When such precaution the appellant had taken,naturally no one else could know immediately about the incident.The appellant also cleverly took extra care while disposing ofthe dead body. He did not allow any one to visit him, and alsosaw that the dead body was not seen by any one. He thereforepacked the dead body in the cask, locked the same and duringnight time throwing the cask into the pit covered the same withdust so that no one would come to know even by smell or perceive.Thereafter on 14th March 1986 the the appellant went to hermother-in-law at Dahod with his minor children and placed them in

her custody. He immediately left the place saying that Savitawas missing and he was going in search of her. He left sosuddenly that Kankuben got no time to ask for further and betterparticulars and know in details what had happened,what was thereason for Savita to leave the house and where she could be etc.Kankuben was thus kept in dark without any scope to riddle. Shewas an illiterate woman, she could not know what to do, whom toapproach, how to find out a solution or a way, and where tocontact the appellant. She was put to quandary. However,Kankuben made all endeavours leaving no stone unturned so as tofind out Savitaben. She moved from place to place individuallyor in the company of her other son-in-law, but from nowhere shecould get the clue. Once she and her son-in-law Valchand werereturning by the bus from Vadodar. In the same bus,as thecoincidence would have it, the appellant was also travelling.They espied him. They suddenly seized the opportunity and causedhim to alight at Piplod. On making necessary queries theincident came to light. Thereafter immediately Kankuben andValchand went to the Piplod outpost for the purpose of lodgingthe complaint, and the complaint came to be lodged. It isevident from such facts on record, that without any delay theF.I.R. was lodged. There is in fact no delay as soon after theycame to know of the incident the complaint was lodged. The delayif any is caused is satisfactorily explained. The delay is notdeliberate, it in no way points to concoction, and we cannot holdthat the appellant has been falsely implicated after making out acase. Further there is nothing on record answering the point whyKankuben should falsely rope in the appellant. On the contraryshe in past with a view to always making both happy,intercededand sent the deceased back to the appellant. Delay if at allcaused, it is because the appellant suppressed the truth andmisdirected all concerned. The appellant cannot take advantageof the so called delay, his own creation. The contentiontherefore fails.

10. It was next submitted that, in this case there was no eyewitness. It seems, the learned Advocate lost the sight of theevidence of Sarojben about which we have hereinabove referred to.It was therefore submitted that, when oath was not administeredto Sarojben her evidence was of no value, it was required to beignored. We cannot accept the submission. If by puttingnecessary questions the Court is of the opinion that to the childwitness the oath should not be administered, the Court is freenot to administer and record the evidence. In that case theevidence has to be weighed with care and caution so as to besatisfied that the child had good grasp, memory, observationpower and capacity to express. We have gone through the evidenceof Sarojben and found that the lower court did ascertain aboutsuch capacities and then her evidence was recorded. She had noidea about oath and its consequences to the required level and sooath was not administered. She was in all other respect a

competent witness. When weighed with great care no inherentimprobability is found in her evidence; it inspires confidenceleaving no room to doubt. Sarojben being above all worldly viceshas told the unvarnished truth. Her evidence can therefore berelied upon although oath is not administered. It may be statedthat as per the proviso to Sec.4 of The Oaths Act, where thewitness is a child under the age of 12 years the Court canexamine such witness without administering oath if the courtfinds that the witness understands the duty of speaking the truthalthough he does not understand the nature of oath; and in thatcase the evidence of such witness will neither be inadmissiblenor affect the obligations to state the truth. The evidencerecorded therefore cannot be discarded especially when the lowercourt ascertained the capacity to understand, state, express,grasp and observe and memory power, and then recorded theevidence.

11. Sarojben at one stage has stated that for whatever she deposed before the Court she was primed by Kankuben, hergrandmother. Mr. Vyas, the learned Advocate has therefore triedto take advantage of that statement contending that the witnesswas tutored, and whatever she stated was nothing but concoction.We disagree with the contention raised. The evidence has to beappreciated as a whole and not by picking one or anothersentence. Further in the context natural meaning emerging mustor have the sense conveyed predominates and not the meaningforeign to it or the quixotic meaning by suitably stretching.Weighing accordingly what can be said is that she aged about 8years was unaware about the most proper word to be used to conveythe real sense. She was not accustomed to the Court'satmosphere. It appears that, when questions crafty in naturewere bombarded she made the statement in the words struck to herat that ticklish moment. What she wanted to convey was that shewas advised or guided to tell the truth without being confused orperturbed; and remaining firm. She was not advised or tutored totell a lie and falsely involve her father. When such meaning ofthe statement made is perspicuous, we cannot construeincongruously as canvassed. It may be recollected here that theabove referred other witnesses have testified the fact aboutconfessional statement made before them by the appellant. Onbeing convicted Saroj was also to lose the shelter of her father,and in that case Kankuben had to shoulder the liability ofmaintenance of minor grand-children. She would not thereforeill-advise Saroj and instigate her to tell a lie. The statementmade therefore cannot perversely be construed laughable meaningcannot be given.

12. The conduct of the accused more eloquent than the wordsuttered by witnesses cannot be lost the sight of. Right from thebeginning his conduct is dubious and unnatural, and revealingguilt and nothing but the guilt on his part. He concealed the

wrong having been committed from several persons with whom he washaving relations or contacts. In the school he misguided everyone assigning false reason as to why his daughters were notattending the school and where his wife was. He did not allowhis daughters to attend the school so as to keep the eventoccult. Thereafter he also misdirected his mother-in-law,Kankuben and also his brother-in-law, Valchand and put every oneto a wrong track telling them that deceased Savitaben was missingand he was deeply engrossed in her search. When accordingly hehas deliberately hushed up and has misdirected all the concerned,his conduct reveals his guilty mind. We are fortified by thedecision in the case of Smt. Basanti vs. State of HimachalPradesh - AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1572, wherein also the accusedin that case likewise put all concerned to a false track tellinga lie, and the Supreme Court then considering his such conductheld that it was sufficient to hold the accused guilty on thebasis of that conduct. Let us not miss to mention that theconcupiscent appellant had developed familiarity with his studentKavita, a girl of tender age, and Savitaben being the hindrance,the appellant ideated to do away with her. Further the appellantnever lodged a complaint with the police so as to find out Savitaif she was really missing. He after killing Savitaben packed thedead body in the cask and locked the same by a lock which couldbe opened by numeration to the set digit which was known to noneelse. He then buried the cask into the pit which he got preparedunder the guise of construction of a latrine. He led the policeand panchas to his residence and opened the lock with his key.He showed the pit and brought out the cask and by numeration tothe set digit opened the lock. It can therefore be said that heapplied the lock, and he alone knew how to open it. When hisdaughter and relatives made query he some times falterred andsome times boldly narrated involving himself. In view of suchconduct and law made clear by the Supreme Court, it cannot begainsaid that in this case the the appellant is rightly heldguilty by the learned Judge below.

13. Facing with such situation, Mr. Vyas, the learnedAdvocate for the the appellant then urged us to show leniency inthe matter, to which the learned Additional Public Prosecutorsubmitted that the flagitious-appellant deserved no leniency.The contention cannot be accepted. Atrocities on women are goingberserk and lead the society from civilization to barbarism, andtherefore no leniency can be shown. We may at this stage referto few decisions of the Supreme Court supporting our view. It isheld in the matter between Kailash Kaur vs. State of Punjab-AIR1987 Supreme Court 1368 that murder by bride burning for dowry isbarbaric method and by pouring kerosene if some one is charred todeath is certainly barbaric and therefore maximum punishment mustbe awarded as a deterrent. In another case between Virbhan Singhand another vs. State of U.P. - AIR 1983 Supreme Court 1002,while dealing with the question of awarding punishment in the

case of bride killing, it is observed: "The instances of bridekilling are alarmingly on the increase. If society should beridden of this growing evil, it is imperative that wheneverdastardly crimes of this nature are detected and the offencebrought home to the accused, the courts must deal with theoffender most ruthlessly and impose deterrent punishment." Inview of such decisions also, no lenient view can be taken. Itshould also be mentioned that the minimum punishment provided forthe offence of murder is life imprisonment, and therefore also inthis case, no lighter view than the minimum prescribed can betaken. The learned Judge was hence perfectly right in awardingthe life imprisonment to the the appellant.

14. In view of the matter, we see no justification tointerfere with the conclusions drawn by the learned Judge below,and his Judgment and Order convicting and sentencing theappellant. The appeal is, therefore devoid of merits and isliable to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the appeal andmaintain the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passedby the lower Court.

.......