Judgment Chandramauti Kr.Prasad and Anwar Ahmad JJ. 1. Awadhesh Singh, Arjun Singh & Parshuram Singh alias Sanmukh Singh, aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.2.2005 and order dated 26.2.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. V, Aradn Sessions Trial No. 129 of 1993, have preferred this appeal, which has been registered as Criminai Appeal No. 197 of 2005. By the said judgment and order, Awadhesh Singh has been found guilty of offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Arjun Singh has been found guilty of offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death. Parshuram Singh @ Sanmukh Singh has been found guilty of offence under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Capital sentence inflicted on Arjun Singh has also necessitated reference under Sec. 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which has been registered as Death Reference No. 2 of 2005. 2. Both the appeal and the reference were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. All the convicts hereinafter shall be referred as appellants. 3. Prosecution started on the basis of a fardbeyan given by P.VV.3 Chandra Mukha Devi on 26.6.1992 at 10.15 A.M. at State Dispensary, Piro before the Sub-Inspector of Police of the Piro Police Station. According to the fardbeyan, at 8 A.M. on 26.6.1992 while the informant was going from her house to fetch water from the well she saw her co- villagers, namely, Parashuram Singh alias Sanmukh Singh, Arjun Singh and Awadhesh Singh the appellants herein, removing earth from beneath the foundation-wall of her house. She objected to the removal of the earth, whereupon all the three appellants assaulted her with fists and slaps. On alarm being raised, her husband Ramuna Singh and daughter Sonamuni Devi came. In the meanwhile, appellant Parashuram Singh alias Sanmukh Singh brought a garasa from his house and gave blow on her head causing injury to her. Appellant Arjun Singh, who had Sabal in his hand assaulted informants husband Ramuna Singh on his head and appellant Awadhesh Singh gave lathi blow on the head of her daugther Sonamuni Devi, which caused injury on her head. Appellant Arjun Singh, who had Sabal in his hand assaulted informants husband Ramuna Singh on his head and appellant Awadhesh Singh gave lathi blow on the head of her daugther Sonamuni Devi, which caused injury on her head. Thereafter all the three injured went to Government Hospital, Piro for treatment, where her statement was recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police of the Piro Police Station. On the basis of the aforesaid information, Piro Police Station Case No. 88 of 1992 was registered under Sections 323 and 323/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. According to the prosecution, thereafter Ramuna Singh was referred to Sadar Hospital, Ara and from there he was further referred for treatment to Patna Medical College Hospital, where he died on 2.7.1992. On account thereof, Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added. After investigation police submitted charge sheet and ultimately the appellants were put on trial. Appellant Arjun Singh was charged for intentionally committing the murder of Ramuna Singh punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Parshuram Singh and Awadhesh Singh were charged for attempting to commit the murder of Chandramukha Devi and Sonamuni Devi punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants denied to have committed any offence and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to bring home the charge, prosecution altogether had examined 7 witnesses, out of whom P.W.1 Ram Chandra Singh, P.W.2 Chandrma Singh, P.W.3 Chandra Mukha Devi and P.W. 4 Sonamuni Devi claimed to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.5 Ramashish Kamat is the Investigating Officer of the case, whereas P.W.6 Dr. Dinesh Mishra had for the first time examined the deceased and the two injured, namely, P.W.3 Chandra Mukha Devi and P.W.4 Sonamuni Devi, P.W. 7 Manulal Singh is a formal witness, who had proved the post mortem report of deceased Ramuna Singh. 6. The defence of the appellants is denial simplicitor and from the trend of cross-examination their defence further seem to be that the occurrence had not taken place in the manner, unfolded by the prosecution. In order to prove its case the defence examined one witness, namely, D.W.I Gorakh Singh who has proved the petition of complaint filed by appellant Parshuram Singh. 7. In order to prove its case the defence examined one witness, namely, D.W.I Gorakh Singh who has proved the petition of complaint filed by appellant Parshuram Singh. 7. P.W.1 Ram Chandra Singh has stated in his evidence that while he was at his Dalan, on hearing hullah he came out and saw that appellants Sanmukh Singh alias Parshuram Singh, Arjun Singh and Awadhesh Singh were armed with farsa, Sabal i.e. khanti and lathi respectively. Appellant Sanmukh Singh gave farsa blow to Chandra Mukha Devi, whereas appellant Awadhesh Singh assaulted Sonamuni Devi with lathi. Appellant Arjun Singh, according to this witness gave sabal blow to Ramuna Singh. According to him ail the injured had sustained injury on their heads. He had further deposed that Ramuna Singh succummed to the injury sustained by him. 8. P.W.2 Chandrma Singh has stated in his evidence that while he was at his Dalan at about 8 A.M. on 26.6.1992 saw appellant Arjun Singh giving sabal blow to Ramuna Singh, whereas appellant Parshuram Singh farsa blow on the head of Chandra Mukha Devi and appellant Awadhesh Singh assaulting Sonamuni by lathi on her head. According to him Ramuna Singh fell down sustaining the sabal-blow and became unconscious and later on died. In the cross-examination, he has stated that when he reached the place of occurrence Ramuna Singh was lying down in unconscious state and his wife Chandra Mukha Devi and daughter Sonamuni Devi were lifting him. 9. P.W. 3 Chandra Mukha Devi is the wife of the deceased and the informant of the case. According to her, on the date and time of occurrence she was going to fetch water from the well when she saw that the three appellants were removing earth from near her wall. She forebade them to do the same, whereupon appellants abused her and on alarm her daughter Sonamuni Devi and husband Ramuna Singh came. According to her, appellant Sanmukh Singh gave garasa- blow on her head, whereas appellant Awadhesh Singh assaulted him by danda on her arm and back. Appellant Awadhesh Singh also assaulted Sonamuni Devi with lathi. Arjun Singh gave sabal blow to her husband and she fell down when P.W.1 Ram Chandra Singh and P.W.2 Chandrma Singh came there. Thereafter the appellants fled away. Appellant Awadhesh Singh also assaulted Sonamuni Devi with lathi. Arjun Singh gave sabal blow to her husband and she fell down when P.W.1 Ram Chandra Singh and P.W.2 Chandrma Singh came there. Thereafter the appellants fled away. Her husband was referred to Ara Sadar Hospital from Piro and thereafter to Patna Medical College Hospital, where he died due to the injuries caused by sabal. She has stated that her statement was recorded at Piro Hospital by the Police and a case was registered. In the cross-examination she had stated that appellant Parshuram Singh had filed a false case in respect of occurrence said to have taken place on the same day against her husband and witnesses. According to her, her husband died seven days after the occurrence and the sabal was of the length 3 to 4 feet. 10. P.W. 4 Sonamuni Devi is the daughter of the informant as also the deceased and according to her on the date of occurrence she was at her parents place and when came out of her house hearing the hullah, saw the three appellants abusing her mother and slapping her. Appellant Sanmukh Singh gave garasa blow to his mother and Appellant Arjun Singh assaulted her father by sabal on his head, causing head injury. Appellant Awadhesh Singh assaulted her with lathi. Thereafter her father and mother went to the Government Hospital, Piro. From Government Hospital, Piro, according to this witness, her father was referred to Sadar Hospital, Ara and from there to Patna Medical College Hospital, where he died. In the cross-examination she had stated that appellant Parshuram Singh cut his own finger and filed a false case against them. 11. P.W. 5 Ramashish Kamat, at the relevant time was posted as Sub-Inspector of Police at Piro Police Station and recorded the fardbeyan of Chandra Mukha Devi. On that basis he had drawn up a formal First Information Report, investigated the case, recorded the statement of the witnesses, visited the place of occurrence and submitted the charge sheet against the appellants. 12. P.W.6 Dr. Dinesh Mishra at the relevant time was posted as Medical Officer at Piro, Primary Helath Centre and examined Ramuna Singh and found him unconscious, having swelling on right side of the scalp of 2 1/2" circumference. He also found linear bruise on right thigh with swelling 3 1/2" x 1/4". 12. P.W.6 Dr. Dinesh Mishra at the relevant time was posted as Medical Officer at Piro, Primary Helath Centre and examined Ramuna Singh and found him unconscious, having swelling on right side of the scalp of 2 1/2" circumference. He also found linear bruise on right thigh with swelling 3 1/2" x 1/4". He referred said Ramuna Singh to Ara Sadar Hospital for treatment and according to him the report from the Ara Sadar Hospital showed fracture of parietal and frontal bone. 13. On 26.6.1992 at 8.30 A.M. he also examined Chandra Mukha Devi and found following injuries on her person: (i) Bruise and swelling on left forearm 1" circumference. (ii) Swelling and tenderness on right forearm 1" circumference. (iii) Bruise swelling on back 1" x 1/4". (iv) Lacerated wound on left thumb 1/4"x1/4". (v) Sharp cutting wound on left side of scalp 1 1/2" x 1/2". (vi) Sharp cutting wound on right side of scalp 1 1/2" x 1/2". 14. In the opinion of the doctor all the injuries found on her person were simple in nature and injury Nos. 1 to 4 were caused by hard and blunt substance, whereas injury nos. 5 and 6 caused by sharp cutting weapon. 15. On the said date at 8.20 A.M. he had also examined P.W.4 Sonamuni Devi and found following injuries on her person: "(i) Swelling and tenderness on right forearm upper part in 1/2" circumference. (ii) Swelling and tenderness on left thumb 1/2" circumference. (iii) Swelling and tenderness on right forearm in 1" circumsference with laceration 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4". (iv) Lacerated wound on scalp 1" x1/2". 16. In the opinion of the doctor the injuries found on her person were simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance. 17. P.W. 7 Manulal Singh is a formal witness who has proved the post mortem report of the deceased Ramuna Singh conducted by Dr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha of the Patna Medical College Hospital. He had stated in his evidence that on inquiry he came to know that said Dr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha had gone to a foreign country and not available in the country. 18. D.W. 1 Gorakh Singh has stated in his evidence that appellant Parshuram Singh had filed complaint case No. 253 of 1992 against Chandra Mukha Devi and others. He had identified the signature of the complainant on the said petition. 19. Rajiv Kumar Sinha had gone to a foreign country and not available in the country. 18. D.W. 1 Gorakh Singh has stated in his evidence that appellant Parshuram Singh had filed complaint case No. 253 of 1992 against Chandra Mukha Devi and others. He had identified the signature of the complainant on the said petition. 19. The Court below on appraisal of evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted and sentenced the appellants as above. 20. Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Senior Advocate, appears on behalf of the appellants, whereas the State is represented by Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, Additional Public Prosecutor. 21. Mr. Singh, sumbmits that prosecution has failed to prove the place of occurrence and this itself is enough to discard the case of the prosecution. He points out that from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses it is no clear as to where the occurrence had taken place. Mr. Prasad, however, submits that from the evidence of P.W.3 Chandra Mukha Devi, the informant it is evident that occurrence had taken place where the earth from the wall of the informant was being removed. In this connection Mr. Prasad has drawn our attention to the evidence of P.W.3 Chandra Mukha Devi, where she has specifically stated that the appellants were removing earth near her wall and when she forbade them, they abused her and when her husband and daughter came, they were assulted. There is nothing in her cross-examination to discredit her claim. In view of aforesaid, we are of the opinion that from the evidence of P.W. 3 Chandra Mukha Devi, it is evident that the three appellants committed the offence near the wall of her house. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Singh that the prosecution has failed to prove the place of occurrence. 22. Mr. Singh, then submits that the prosecution has concealed the real version of the occurrence. He submits that the appellants were also injured and how they sustained injuries have not been explained. He also points out that a complaint case was also lodged by Parshuram Singh for the occurrence, which has taken place on the same day when the present occurrence is alleged to have taken place. He submits that the appellants were also injured and how they sustained injuries have not been explained. He also points out that a complaint case was also lodged by Parshuram Singh for the occurrence, which has taken place on the same day when the present occurrence is alleged to have taken place. P.W. 3 Chandra Mukha Devi and P.W.4 Sonamuni Devi have clearly stated in their cross-examination about the said case lodged by Parshuram Singh and they have further deposed that said case was lodged by said Parshuram Singh making false allegeation. It is common ground that persons put on trial in the said case have been acquitted and there is no material on record to substantiate this part of the appellants case excepting the evidence of D.W.1 Gorakh Singh that a complaint was filed by Parshuram Singh against Chandramukha Devi and others. Accordingly, we reject this submission of Mr. Singh. 23. From the evidence of P.W.3 Chandramukha Devi, it is evident that while she objected to removal of earth from near the wall of her house by the appellants she was assaulted by fists and slaps by them. Further on alarm being raised by her, when her husband Ramuna Singh and daughter P.W.4 Sonamuni Devi came Arjun Singh assualted her husband by sabal on his head and appellant Parshuram Singh assaulted the informant by garasa on her head. From her evidence it is also evident that appellant Awadhesh Singh assaulted her daughter Sonamuni Devi by lathi on her head. P.W. 1 Ram Chandra Singh and P.W.4 Sonamuni Devi in their evidence have supported the case of the prosecution and according to them on hearing alarm raised by P.W.3 Chandra Mukha Devi, when he reached the place of occurrence saw the three appellants abusing the informant. According to them, appellant Sanmukh Singh gave garasa blow to the informant, whereas Arjun Singh assaulted Ramuna Singh on his head by sabal. P.W. 6 Dr. Dinesh Mishra, had found injuries on the persons of P.W. 3 Chandra Mukha Devi and P.W. 4 Sonamuni Devi. The post mortem report of Ramuna Singh (Ext. 7) shows as follows: "haematoma under scalp was found all over. There were comminuted fracture under frontal, both parietal and upper occipital bone. On opening the skull cavity, extradural haematoma as well as subdural haematoma was found all around brain. There was slight intracerebral haemorrhage also in right parietal region." 24. The post mortem report of Ramuna Singh (Ext. 7) shows as follows: "haematoma under scalp was found all over. There were comminuted fracture under frontal, both parietal and upper occipital bone. On opening the skull cavity, extradural haematoma as well as subdural haematoma was found all around brain. There was slight intracerebral haemorrhage also in right parietal region." 24. P.W.3 Chandra Mukha Devi and P.W. 4 Sonamuni Devi are natural witnesses and have sustained injuries on their person and, as such, their claim to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence is fit to be accepted. They have lost their husband/father and it is unlikely that they will spare the real culprit. Not only this their evidence is also corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 6 Dr. Dinesh Mishra, who had examined the aforesaid two witnesses and the deceased for the first time and found injuries on their person. 25. While assailing the conviction of appellant Arjun Singh, Mr. Singh submits that even if entire prosecution story is accepted it does not make out a case under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He points out that this appellant is alleged to have used sabal and it is not the allegation that he had used its pointed portion. He also points out that he had not repeated the blows and in fact the deceased died about seven days after the incident and, hence, it cannot be said that this appellant intended to cause death so as to bring home the charge under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on a judgment to the Supreme Court in the case of Harish Kumar vs. State (Delhi Administration) ( AIR 1993 S.C. 973 ) and our attention has been drawn to paragraphs 7 and 8 of the judgment, which reads as follows: "7. We have seen the nature of the injuries and also time gap between the time of infliction of the injury till the date of death which was two days after the injury was inflicted. We have no sufficient material as to the nature of the treatment given to the deceased during those two days. 8. Under these circumstances, though the injury had resulted in the death of the deceased, we cannot conclusively say that it was sufficient to cause his death. We have no sufficient material as to the nature of the treatment given to the deceased during those two days. 8. Under these circumstances, though the injury had resulted in the death of the deceased, we cannot conclusively say that it was sufficient to cause his death. Accordingly, the offence would be one falling under Section 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code. In the result, we set aside the conviction under Sec. 302 I.P.C. and sentence of life imprisonment and convict the appellant under Sec. 304, Part II of IPC and impose a sentence of imprisonment for a period of seven years rigorous imprisonment. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent and the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years". 26. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Babu Lal and others vs. State of M.P., AIR 1993 S.C. 1941 and our attention has been drawn to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the judgment which reads as follows: "5. Now coming to the nature of the offence, according to the eyewitnesses the three accused came together armed with sharp-edged weapons and inflicted injuries which resulted in the fracture of the skull bones. The fracture of the tibia, fracture of the metacarpal bone and some other injuries were also caused. However, if their intention was to cause death, they should have inflicted some more injuries on any vital part of the body but they have given blow only with blunt side of the axe and the deceased died only six days later. Therefore, in these circumstances, it cannot be said that they had a common intention for causing the death. But they must be attributed that by inflicting such injuries they were likely to cause the death of the deceased, in which case the offence will amount only to culpable homicide and not murder. 6. In the result, the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302/34, IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded by the High Court are set aside. Instead all three of them are convicted under Sec. 304 Part II/34, IPC, and each of them is sentenced to five years imprisonment." 27. Mr. Prasad, however contends that merely the fact that this appellant had given single blow itself shall not mean that he did not intend causing death. Instead all three of them are convicted under Sec. 304 Part II/34, IPC, and each of them is sentenced to five years imprisonment." 27. Mr. Prasad, however contends that merely the fact that this appellant had given single blow itself shall not mean that he did not intend causing death. He submits that the very fact that bones were fractured clearly show that this appellant intended to cause death. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in this case of Dina Nath Yadav vs. State of Bihar, 2001 (3) PLJR 334 : 2001 (1) PCCR 599 (SC) and our attention has been drawn to the following passage from paragraph 12 of the judgment, which read as follows: "The Doctor, P.W.5, found infection and has stated that death was due to head injury and infection and as such conviction of the appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not justified. In this regard it would be pertinent to mention herein that the Doctor has categorically stated that death was mainly due to injury no.2 and the injuries found on the person of the deceased were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. More-over, there is nothing on the record to show that occurrence of assault took place due to sudden fight and upon heat of passion, rather it is evident from the discussion of evidence that while Puran Sao was fixing Tanti the appellants came and assaulted him with Garasi and lathi. It further appears from the evidence of the Doctor that septicaemia was not primary cause of death rather death was mainly due to the injuries found on the person of the deceased which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature." 28. Having appreciated the rival submission, we find substance in the submission of Mr. Singh. According to the prosecution, the weapon of crime is sabal. it is not the case of the prosecution that this appellant used its pointed portion or gave repeated blows. It is also not the case of the prosecution that because of intervening circumstances this appellant was prevented from giving fuither blows. Occurrence had taken place on 26.6.1992 and the decased had died on 2.7.1992. it is not the case of the prosecution that this appellant used its pointed portion or gave repeated blows. It is also not the case of the prosecution that because of intervening circumstances this appellant was prevented from giving fuither blows. Occurrence had taken place on 26.6.1992 and the decased had died on 2.7.1992. When we take into account the aforesaid factors, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that from the facts proved it cannot be said that this appellant had the intention to cause death. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the facts proved do not make out a case under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code but the allegation proved makes out a case under Sec. 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. The view which we have taken finds support from the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Harish Kumar (supra) and Babu Lai (supra). 29. Now reverting to the decision of this Court in the case of Dina Nath Yadav vs. State of Bihar, 2001 (3) PLJR 334 : 2001 (1). PCCR 599 (SC) relied on by Mr. Prasad, same is clearly distinguishable. In the said case accused persons were charged for offence under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and on fact it was found that one of the accused gave garasa blow, whereas others gave 3 to 4 lathi blows. Taking into account the aforesaid facts, this Court came to the conclusion that the accused of the said case had intended to cause death. That is not the situation here and hence same is clearly distinguishable. 30. As we have been found that appellant Arjun Singh to be guilty of offence under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, we are of the opinion that sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment shall meet the ends of justice. 31. Assailing the conviction of appellant Parshuram Singh, Mr. Singh contends that the allegation proved do not make out a case under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He points out that all the injuries found on person of Chandra Mukha Devi were simple in nature and further in the absence of any intervening circumstance preventing said appellant from causing the murder of Chandra Mukha Devi, it cannot be said that this appellant attempted to cause her murder. 32. He points out that all the injuries found on person of Chandra Mukha Devi were simple in nature and further in the absence of any intervening circumstance preventing said appellant from causing the murder of Chandra Mukha Devi, it cannot be said that this appellant attempted to cause her murder. 32. We find substance in the submission of Mr. Singh. All the injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature. Further there is no evidence on record to show that this appellant was prevented from causing her death. From the aforesaid it cannot be held that this appellant attempted to murder Chandra Mukha Devi. In our opinion, the allegations proved constitute an offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 33. As regards the sentence, we have been told that this appellant had remained in jail for about two months. The occurrence had taken place as back as on 26.6.1992. This appellant had suffered the ordeal of trial and appeal for such a long time. Taking into consideration the manner in which the occurrence had taken place and the ordeal this appellant had suffered, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice shall be met if the sentence of the period already undergone by him is awarded for offence under Sec. 324 of the Indian Panel Code. 34. As stated earlier, appellant Awadhesh Singh has been found guilty of offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for causing hurt to P.W. 4 Sonamuni Devi. The eye-witnesses examined in the case has supported this version. Further P.W.6 Dr. Dinesh Mishra who had examined her had found injuries on her person. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that no fault can be found out so far as conviction of this appellant under Sec. 323 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned. However, we are of the opinion that the sentence of imprisonment of one year inflicted on this appellant is excessive. He has also faced the ordeal of trial and appeal for such a long time and we are of the opinion that the ends of justice shall be met, if the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 35. We are amazed to see that in a case of this nature, the learned Judge had inflicted the death-sentence. 35. We are amazed to see that in a case of this nature, the learned Judge had inflicted the death-sentence. The learned Judge, even if right that offence proved is murder, same does not justify the extreme penalty of death. It is well settled that death sentence has to be inflicted in rarest of the rare cases. The learned Judge did not apply its mind to this vital question at all. True it is that so long the statute provides for punishment of death, a Judge is under an obligation to inflict such punishment, if the facts of the case so justify, de hors his personal opinion. The learned Judge did not realise that the power to inflict death sentence requires to be used with great care and caution in rarest of the rare case. It gives us an impression that he is blood-thirsty. It is high time that he sheds this attitude. 36. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, conviction of appellant Arjun Singh under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside and altered to that of Sec. 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. He is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. Appellant Parshuram Singhs conviction under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code is also set aside and altered to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. He is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. So far as the conviction of Awadhesh Singh under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, same is maintained but the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 37. Consequently the reference made is rejected. 38. Let a copy of this judgment be forwarded to Sri Arun Kumar Singh, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. V, Bhojpur at Ara.