Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 25 (CAL)

NADIR KHAN v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2006-01-17

ALOK KUMAR BASU, PRANAB KUMAR DEB

body2006
ALOK KUMAR BASU, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal was preferred challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st court, Alipore in the district of 24 -Parganas (South) in connection with Sessions trial No. l (l) of 1995 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 18 (7) of 1994 arising out of section R Case No. 3 dated 10th February, 1994. ( 2 ) IN all name of three persons figured in the final chargesheet submitted by police under section 302/201/34 of the IPC and of those three persons, Md. Mayeen @ Raju did not face the trial and hence, charge under section 302/34 of the IPC in the alternative section 201/34 of the IPC was framed against the present appellants Md. Nadir and Md. Ajad. ( 3 ) THE prosecution case, in brief, was that on 10th February, 1994 in the afternoon, deadbody of an unknown youth was found in the Christian Cemetery at 184, A. J. C. Bose Road, Kolkata-17 within P. S. Beniapukur. The deadbody was detected by the Secretary of the said Cemetery and Beniapukur P. S. was informed and thereafter holding inquest over the deadbody, arrangement was made for post-mortem examination of the same. ( 4 ) ON getting information about detection of a deadbody, brothers of the deceased came to the morgue and identified the deadbody to be that of one gopal Roy, their young brother, who had left their residence in the evening of 6th February, 1994 in the company of the appellants and since then found missing. ( 5 ) ON the basis of the complaint filed by the Secretary of the Cemetery, police started a specific case of murder and in course of investigation, police collected materials to hold the present appellants along with Md. Nayeem guilty of commission of murder of Gopal Roy and accordingly, chargesheet was submitted. ( 6 ) THE learned Trial Judge, on perusal of necessary papers and after hearing both the prosecution and defence framed charge under section 302/34 of the ipc against the present appellants and he also framed an alternative charge under section 201/34 of the IPC and when the charge was read over to the appellants, they pleaded innocence and claimed for trial. ( 7 ) IN a lengthy trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, prosecution examined as many as 34 witnesses and broadly speaking those witnesses may be classified under the following heads for appreciation of the rival points raised before us during hearing of the appeal: 1st group of witnesses was regarding detection on of the deadbody of the victim in the Christian Cemetery at 184, A. J. C. Bose Road, Kolkata-17; 2nd group of witnesses was relating to the brothers of the victim who had deposed about friendship of the deceased with the appellants, identification of the deadbody and also about the deceased being last seen in the company of the appellants; 3rd group of witnesses was relating to the noticing of the appellants to enter into the cemetery in the night of 6th February, 1994 along with the deceased and subsequently departure of only the appellants from the cemetery; 4th group of witnesses related to the identification of the appellants regarding their presence within the cemetery in the night of 6th February, 1994; 5th group of witnesses related to recovery of money bag of the deceased and also recovery of incriminating weapon and a lungi of one of the appellants from the hiding place within the cemetery; and the final group of witnesses related to the police officers who participated in the investigation right from the beginning when information about detection of the deadbody was received and who arranged for post-mortem examination, who arrested the appellants at different stage of investigation, who recorded the statement of the witnesses, made seizure at different points of time and recorded statement of the appellants pursuant to which recovery was made. ( 8 ) APART from the above classification of witnesses, prosecution also produced plan maker, photographer, doctor who conducted post-mortem examination, magistrate who conducted TI parade, Magistrates who recorded confessional statement of the appellants and employee of the wine shop wherefrom wine was procured by the appellants etc. ( 8 ) APART from the above classification of witnesses, prosecution also produced plan maker, photographer, doctor who conducted post-mortem examination, magistrate who conducted TI parade, Magistrates who recorded confessional statement of the appellants and employee of the wine shop wherefrom wine was procured by the appellants etc. ( 9 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge, apart from recording the statement of the witnesses produced by the prosecution, also brought on record different documents produced by the prosecution namely written complaint received from the Secretary of the Christian Cemetery, inquest and post-mortem report, FSL report, seizure lists relating to recovery of money bag and incriminating weapon and also different material exhibits namely the incriminating weapon, wearing apparels of the deceased, one lungi belonging to one of the appellants etc. ( 10 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge, after perusal of the statement of different witnesses produced by the prosecution and on perusal of different documents and material exhibits and after considering the submissions of both the prosecution and the defence, came to the conclusion that appellants along with Raj committed murder of Gopal Roy in the night of 6th February, 1994 within the Christian Cemetery at 184, A. J. C. Bose Road, Kolkata -17 by cutting throat of the deceased Gopal Roy with a razor in furtherance of their common intention since they were annoyed with Gopal Roy for not giving them share of the property stolen by them jointly and also for handing over the tape-deck stolen by them jointly and on such conclusion, the learned Additional Sessions judge convicted the appellants under section 302/34 of the IPC and also under section 201/34 of the IPC, but, sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under section 302/34 of the IPC only. ( 11 ) BOTH the appellant Nadir Khan and Md. Ajad jointly preferred the present appeal challenging the order of conviction and sentence. Md. Ajad @ Shamim was granted bail during pendency of the appeal, but, Nadir was refused the privilege of being let out on bail. ( 12 ) APPEARING for the appellants in support of the appeal, Mr. Asim Roy addressed us on several dates challenging the prosecution case and contending inter alia that prosecution did not succeed at all to prove its allegation either against Md. Nadir or Md. ( 12 ) APPEARING for the appellants in support of the appeal, Mr. Asim Roy addressed us on several dates challenging the prosecution case and contending inter alia that prosecution did not succeed at all to prove its allegation either against Md. Nadir or Md. Ajad for commission of the offence under section 302/ 34 of the IPC. ( 13 ) MR. Roy while drawing our attention to framing of charge by the Trial court submits that it has been the specific case of the prosecution that victim gopal was murdered on 6th February, 1994 within the Christian Cemetery at 184, A. J. C. Bose Road Kolkata -17 in furtherance of common intention of three persons including the present appellants. ( 14 ) MR. Roy through his oral submission as well as by presenting a written note of argument has challenged the prosecution case on the following points amongst others: a) From the cross-examination of P. W. 29 Dr. R. N. Basu who conducted post mortem examination over the deadbody of Gopal Roy it would appear that from the features noticed during examination, there were indications to hold that Gopal was not murdered on 6th February, 1994 as alleged. To substantiate this point, Mr. Roy has contended that presence of rigor mortis, freshness of injuries, presence of green patches only in abdominal portion, little blotting and absence of maggot on the body supported the contention of the appellants taken through the cross-examination of the post-mortem doctor that in all probability the deceased might have been killed on any date subsequent to 6th February, 1994, but, certainly not on 6th February, 1994 as alleged and if prosecution fails to prove the particular date of commission of murder mentioned in the charge framed against the appellants, the prosecution case cannot be supported at all. b) Mr. b) Mr. Roy submits that according to prosecution the deadbody was detected on 10th February, 1994 within the cemetery by one of the gardeners working in the cemetery and it is available from the evidence of prosecution that a large number of persons used to work in the cemetery and they have their residential quarter near the place where the deadbody was detected and naturally, there is no truth in the prosecution allegation that Gopal was murdered on 6th February, 1994 and the body went unnoticed for a couple of days although several persons used to work in the vicinity of the place of occurrence. c) Mr. Roy contends that in this case prosecution totally failed to prove any motive of murder and the present case being a case purely based on circumstantial evidence, motive assume a significant role and when prosecution could not establish such motive and when the statement of P. W. 9 who came forward to support the motive factor cannot be believed at all, it can be firmly stated that prosecution could not establish from its evidence that appellants shared a common motive for killing Gopal as alleged. d) Mr. Roy submits that the prosecution story presented through P. W. Signeswar Roy and the brothers of the deceased that deceased was seen before his death for the last time in the company of the appellants was not trustworthy and, that apart, the brothers of the deceased did not make any statement regarding presence of appellant Nadir on 6th February, 1994. e) Mr. Roy contends that the story of prosecution witnesses that the appellants entered into the cemetery by scaling the wall does not appear to be convincing or acceptable for the simple reason that according to plan maker of the prosecution there were several holes in the wall and there is no reason at all while instead of making their entry in the easy way through hole, the appellants would take the trouble of jumping over the wall. f) Mr. Roy contends that identification of appellants Nadir and Ajad through the gardeners of the cemetery cannot be believed at all since identification of the suspects took place after unusual delay from their arrest and since none of the witnesses identifying the suspects gave any indication regarding physical Teature of the appellants to the I. 0. f) Mr. Roy contends that identification of appellants Nadir and Ajad through the gardeners of the cemetery cannot be believed at all since identification of the suspects took place after unusual delay from their arrest and since none of the witnesses identifying the suspects gave any indication regarding physical Teature of the appellants to the I. 0. before placing of the appellants in the T. I. parade and this lacuna in the prosecution case is sufficient to demolish the prosecution evidence regarding identification of the appellants. g) Mr. Roy contends that the witnesses examined by prosecution to prove the alleged recovery of money bag and incriminating weapons were all tutored witnesses of the prosecution and, that apart, the alleged recovery was hit for not complying with the statutory provisions of section 27 of the evidence Act. h) Mr. Roy contends that the confessional statement of appellant Nadir cannot be of any help for the prosecution for the reason that Nadir made an exculpatory statement and under the provisions of the Evidence Act, such statement can neither bind the statement maker nor any co-accused. i) Mr. Roy contends that the confessional statement of Ajad suffers from legal infirmities inasmuch as there is no satisfactory evidence on record to indicate that Ajad voluntarily gave the statement. Mr. Roy contends that the confessional statement of both the appellants was recorded long after their detention in police custody which would go to suggest that only after pressure, both the appellants were controlled to make such statement which has no value in the eye of law. j) Mr. Roy on the basis of above submissions contends that admittedly prosecution case against the appellants was based on circumstantial evidence since there is not a single witness to depose about the commission of murder. Mr. Roy submits that it is accepted position of law that in a case where prosecution wants an order of conviction relying on circumstantial evidence it must satisfy the Court that the circumstances presented by it are so complete and natural that taken as a whole the chain of circumstances would prove only one hypothesis leading to an irresistible conclusion indicating the guilt of the appellants and there would not be any possibility to hold otherwise. ( 15 ) MR. ( 15 ) MR. Roy, therefore, contends that in this particular case medical opinion suggested that murder of the deceased should not have taken place on 6th february, 1994. The staff of the cemetery did not notice the deadbody for a couple of days which was quite absurd, there was no satisfactory evidence that appellants called Gopal in the evening of 6th February 1994; there was no satisfactory evidence that appellants actually entered into the cemetery along with Gopal or that they had left the cemetery excluding Gopal on the night of 6th February, 1994, there was no satisfactory evidence that pursuant to the statement of the appellants and in presence of appellants investigating officer recovered money bag of Gopal or the incriminating weapon with which Gopal was murdered and finally, there are enough indications to hold that appellants did not give any voluntary statement implicating themselves and in such a situation it cannot be stated that prosecution presented a complete chain of circumstances pointing out the guilt of the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt and that being the position, the appellants deserve an order of acquittal and the impugned order of conviction and sentence should be set aside. ( 16 ) MR. Safiullah on behalf of the State respondent submits that in this particular case although prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to prove the charge framed against the appellants, the circumstantial evidence was so complete and natural that there is no scope to challenge the veracity of the prosecution case and to claim an order of acquittal. ( 17 ) MR. Safiullah contends that from the entire examination of P. W. 29, the post-mortem doctor, it would appear that the said witness gave hypothetical answers to different hypothetical questions put to him during cross-examination, but, the witness firmly asserted that he noticed presence of alcohol in the stomach of the deceased and in his subsequent opinion given before the I. O. , he categorically asserted that considering the weather condition of the relevant time and other associated features, the murder of the deceased could take place four to five days prior to the date when post-mortem examination wa held. Mr. Mr. Safiullah, therefore, contends that there is no reason whatsoever for the appellants to be encouraged from the cross-examination of the doctor, because, of the fact that opinion of a doctor about the exact time of death is always a probable opinion and which cannot be an empirical truth and that statement of doctor must be taken along with attending circumstances. ( 18 ) MR. Safiullah contends that the cemetery in question covered a long area and that has not been challenged by the appellants and it is available from the statement of the Secretary of the Cemetery that even the gardeners who happened to be the permanent resident of the cemetery did not notice the deadbody, but, only a child had noticed the same and informed one of the gardeners and this was clear to demolish the appellant's point that it was not possible for the gardeners not to detect the deadbody for a couple of days. ( 19 ) MR. Safiullah contends that deceased was friend of the appellants and this has been sufficiently proved by all the three brothers of the deceased who deposed in Court and it has come from the evidence of P. W. 9 that deceased in the evil company of the appellants stole a tape-deck from the shop of P. W. 9 and thereafter he had to return the same under pressure from his family and this was the probable reason of annoyance of the appellants with the deceased and on 6th February, 1994 appellant Ajad along with another accused brought the deceased from his house in the evening and since thereafter deceased was found missing. ( 20 ) MR. Safiullah contends that from the evidence of prosecution witnesses it was proved that in the night of 6th February, 1994 appellants procured wine from a nearby shop and thereafter appellants along with deceased Gopal entered into the cemetery by scaling the wall and presence of the appellants in the cemetery on the night of 6th February, 1994 was proved through the persons attached with the cemetery and it was specifically proved through those persons that appellants fetched water for drinking wine and after sometime they left the cemetery again by scaling the wall, but, this time Gopal was not found with them. ( 21 ) MR. ( 21 ) MR. Safiullah contends that there is no dispute regarding the homicidal death of Gopal and it was also not disputed that Gopal suffered several cut injuries on his neck, face and hand and a sharp-cutting weapon was used for inflicting such injuries. ( 22 ) MR. Safiullah submits that after much trouble appellant Nadir and thereafter Ajad were arrested and during their police custody they gave statement and the relevant portion of the said statement was produced before the Court and pursuant to such statement investigating officers recovered the money bag of the deceased from the roof of a shop and thereafter pursuant to the statement the razor and a lungi of one of the appellants were recovered from the cemetery. ( 23 ) MR. Safiullah contends that in this case both the appellant Nadir and ajad gave confessional statement before learned Judicial Magistrate and from the statement of the learned Judicial Magistrate along with the confessional statements of the appellants it is very much clear that both the appellants voluntarily gave statement explaining their role in the commission of murder of Gopal. ( 24 ) MR. Safiullah submits that prosecution, first of all, proved beyond all shadow of doubt that Gopal was a friend of the appellants and on 6th February, 1994 appellants brought Gopal from his residence and prosecution has shown that Gopal with the appellants entered into the cemetery in the night of 6th february, 1994. Mr. Safiullah contends that prosecution has shown from evidence that appellants had left the cemetery without Gopal and subsequently pursuant to the statement of the appellants money bag of Gopal and also the incriminating weapon and lungi of one of the appellants stained with blood were recovered. Mr. Safiullah contends that prosecution has proved from evidence that appellants had a definite motive to get rid of Gopal. ( 25 ) THUS, Mr. Safiullah submits that when it was proved from evidence that Gopal was last seen in the company of the appellants and Gopal was also seen along with appellants to come inside the cemetery and when the deadbody of Gopal was recovered from the cemetery itself and when none else than the appellants alone had motive of killing of Gopal, from the surrounding circumstances proved through evidence it was established beyond all shadow of doubt that appellants along with Md. Nayeem @ Raja committed murder of gopal on the night of 6th February, 1994 and had left the body concealed within the cemetery and naturally, the chain of circumstances was complete leading to the only hypothesis about guilt of the appellants. ( 26 ) WE have considered submissions of both Mr. Roy and Mr. Safiullah and we have also carefully considered all the points taken by Mr. Roy in his written argument placed before us in support of the present appeal. ( 27 ) WE find from record that in this particular case prosecution examined as many as 34 witnesses to prove its charge against the appellants and we have already indicated how prosecution witnesses came before the Trial Court to prove each part of the prosecution case so as to present a complete chain of i ircumstances against the appellants. ( 28 ) WE fully agree with the contention of Mr. Roy that in a case based on circumstantial evidence prosecution must satisfy the Court about each part of the chain and if there is even a single break in the chain, the benefit must go in support of the appellants demanding an order of acquittal. ( 29 ) MR. Roy put very much emphasis on the point touching the actual date of murder. We agree with Mr. Roy that when a charge was framed indicting 6th february, 1994 as the date of murder, prosecution must stick to that point and if there is any possibility to draw a conclusion otherwise, the benefit will go in support of the appellants and the entire prosecution case is bound to fail. ( 30 ) MR. Roy was encouraged to emphasis the above point mainly getting inspiration from the cross-examination of P. W. 29 and from the fact that the cemetery being a common place of visit of the relatives of the deceased persons and being occupied by some permanent workers, a deadbody could not escape attention of either of the outsiders or of the permanent residents of the cemetery. ( 31 ) WE have examined the statement of P. W. 29, the doctor, carefully and we are constrained to hold that during cross-examination several theoretical and hypothetical questions were put to the doctor in order to bring deviation from his findings which he recorded on examination of the dead body. ( 31 ) WE have examined the statement of P. W. 29, the doctor, carefully and we are constrained to hold that during cross-examination several theoretical and hypothetical questions were put to the doctor in order to bring deviation from his findings which he recorded on examination of the dead body. We have also noticed from record that the doctor gave a subsequent opinion before the i. O. on 9th March, 1994 affirming his view that the death of the deceased might have taken place four or five days prior to examination of the deadbody by the doctor and we find from record that post-mortem examination was held on 11th february, 1994 while the deadbody was detected on 10th February, 1994 and the prosecution case is that the murder took place in the night of 6lh February, 1994. ( 32 ) WE find from the FIR as well as from the statement of the Secretary of the Cemetery who lodged the FIR that neither he nor any of his staff had noticed the deadbody, but, only a child found the deadbody and informed one of the staff of the cemetery who in his turn informed the FIR maker. The discovery of the deadbody by a child who perhaps came to the cemetery in connection with flying of kites or for playing in the open field of the cemetery was very important, because, only he while moving hither and thither noticed the deadbody in a comer of the cemetery which was a long area and this at once destroys the claim of Mr. Roy that it was quite improbable that the deadbody left in the cemetery was unnoticed for several days. ( 33 ) THE date of occurrence was the early part of February of the calendar year and the deadbody was discovered along with full wearing apparels including the winter garments and the deadbody had shoe with sock. We find from evidence that deadbody was lying in half-dug manner and a cement slab was placed on the face of the deadbody. We find from evidence that deadbody was lying in half-dug manner and a cement slab was placed on the face of the deadbody. ( 34 ) THUS, from the evidence which has not been challenged during cross-examination we get that the deadbody was not exposed to the sun and wind and it was fully covered with winter garments and it had the chance of receiving dews through the whole night and up to certain parts of the morning for three consecutive days after murder and considering the time of murder and the weather condition prevailing at that time, if we consider the statement of the post-mortem doctor recorded during trial along with cross-examination and with the subsequent opinion of the post-mortem doctor we are not in a position to accept the contention of Mr. Roy that murder could not have taken place on 6th February, 1994. ( 35 ) FROM the post-mortem report as well as from the evidence of witnesses belonging to the cemetery, we find that the deceased received injuries on his neck and face and according to doctor the injuries on the neck were sufficient cause of his homicidal death and such injuries were caused by a sharp-cutting weapon. ( 36 ) FROM the statement of three brothers of the deceased we get that appellants were very much known to the victim and victim had left his house in the evening of 6th February, 1994 in the company of the appellants and we have also gathered from the statement of those brothers that on earlier occasion victim along with appellants had stolen a tape-deck from the shop of P. W. 9 and victim was compelled to return the tape-deck to P. W. 9 under pressure from his brothers. ( 37 ) IT is the specific case of the prosecution that in the night of 6th February, 1994 appellants along with victim purchased wine from a nearby shop of the cemetery and thereafter they entered into the cemetery not from the usual gate, but, after scaling the wall and we do not get any evidence to support the contention of Mr. Roy that from the place wherefrom the appellants and the victim scaled upon the wall, there were holes to encourage the appellants and the victim to have their entry through any of such hole and at that point of time, prosecution witnesses had noticed the appellants and the victim to enter into the cemetery. ( 38 ) MR. Roy was very much critical about the identification of the appellants by the workers of the cemetery both in jail and in Court on the ground that those workers of the cemetery has not disclosed earlier physical feature of the appellants and such identification in jail took place after unusual delay. We find from the statement of those witnesses that on a wintry night when they were warming up themselves from burning wood, appellants appeared there to fetch water and there was altercation and even one of the appellants gave a slap on the face of one of the workers of the cemetery and subsequently during identification in jail some of the workers identified appellant Nadir as the man who went to fetch water and looking at the evidence of these witnesses, we do not find ay infirmity in their statement so as to throw away their statement altogether supporting the prosecution case. ( 39 ) WE find from record that one of the prosecution witnesses also deposed that he had noticed three accused persons to come out of the cemetery and gopal was not noticed. ( 40 ) AFTER arrest of the appellants. Nadir in particular gave statement and pursuant to the statement, I. 0. recovered money bag of Gopal which was subsequently identified by his brothers and I. O. also recovered the razor and one lungi with bloodstain from the cemetery. ( 41 ) IN this particular case, apart from circumstantial evidence as indicated above, prosecution has also produced confessional statement of both Nadir and ajad. ( 42 ) WE have examined the statement of the learned Judicial Magistrates who recorded the confessional statement of both the appellants and we have also examined both the confessional statements and from such examination, we. have sufficient reason to hold that both the statements were voluntary in nature. ( 43 ) IT is true that Md. ( 42 ) WE have examined the statement of the learned Judicial Magistrates who recorded the confessional statement of both the appellants and we have also examined both the confessional statements and from such examination, we. have sufficient reason to hold that both the statements were voluntary in nature. ( 43 ) IT is true that Md. Nadir made a self-exculpatory statement, but, Ajad in his confessional statement has given a full detail how the murder of Gopal took place and how Nadir assaulted the victim with a razor. From the statement of Nadir we find that he received cut injury on his thumb and this fact was corroborated from his subsequent medical examination as stated by P. W. 29, the doctor. ( 44 ) THUS, after giving our anxious deliberations to the several points taken by Mr. Roy in support of the present appeal and on perusal of prosecution evidence as a whole, we find that relying on the cross-examination of P. W. 29, it cannot be stated firmly that murder of Gopal did not take place in the night of 6th February, 1994, on the contrary, from the evidence of P. W. 29 along with his subsequent opinion together with surrounding circumstances, we have sufficient reasons to hold that Gopal was killed on the night of 6th February, 1994 within the Christian Cemetery at 184, A. J. C. Bose Road Kolkata-17. ( 45 ) FROM the evidence of the brothers of Gopal along with P. W. 9 we find that appellants had clear motive for killing Gopal and for that reason they brought gopal from his residence and took him to the cemetery and all of them consumed alcohol which was proved by the doctor while examining the deadbody of Gopal. ( 46 ) WE find from the statement of prosecution witnesses that Gopal came inside the cemetery along with appellants and presence of the appellants in the cemetery on the night of 6th February, 1994 was proved by the persons belonging to the cemetery. ( 47 ) WE find from evidence that money bag of Gopal was taken by the appellants after his murder and that was subsequently recovered pursuant to +++ the statement of the appellants and the appellants brought out the razor with which Gopal was murdered. ( 47 ) WE find from evidence that money bag of Gopal was taken by the appellants after his murder and that was subsequently recovered pursuant to +++ the statement of the appellants and the appellants brought out the razor with which Gopal was murdered. ( 48 ) THUS, on careful examination of the prosecution evidence we find that appellants brought Gopal inside the cemetery and killed him on 6th February, 1994 and the chain of circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was further strengthened and corroborated by the confessional statement of appellant Ajad. ( 49 ) THUS, having regard to the submissions of both Mr. Roy and Mr. Safiullah and after careful analysis of prosecution evidence both oral and documentary, we are of the considered view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly convicted the appellants under section 302/34 of the IPC as well as under section 201/34 of the IPC and we do not find any merit in the present appeal. ( 50 ) IN the result of our above discussion the appeal is dismissed. ( 51 ) WE confirm both the order of conviction and the sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge against both the appellants. ( 52 ) AS we find from record that appellant Ajad has been released on bail, we cancel his bail bond and we direct him to surrender before the Trial Court within a fortnight from this order failing which the Trial Court would take steps in accordance with law to arrest the appellant Ajad and to send him to jail to serve out his sentence. ( 53 ) SEND a copy of this judgment at once along with LCR to the Trial Court for communication and necessary action. ( 54 ) SEND a copy of this judgment to the Superintendent of the Correctional home where Md. Nadir has been detained for his information. ( 55 ) URGENT xerox certified copy of this judgment may be supplied to the learned advocate for the appellants on making proper application within seven days from such application. Appeal dismissed.