Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1051 (GAU)

Mohendra Naik v. State of Assam

2014-12-11

C.R.SARMA, PRASANTA KUMAR SAIKIA

body2014
JUDGMENT Prasanta Kumar Saikia, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06.08.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Sessions Case No. 106/2008 convicting the accused persons, namely, 1) Sri Mohendra Naik, 2) Sri Kishor Naik, 3) Sri Chawar Naik, 4) Sri Sushil Naik, 5) Sri Tanu Naik, 6) Sri Mithun Naik, 7) Sri Randhir Naik and 8) Sri Bhadar Naik @ Bachan (herein after referred to as the accused persons) of offence u/s.302/34 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default R.I. for another 1 (one) month. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment, the accused persons have preferred this appeal citing several infirmities in the judgment under challenge. 2. Heard Mr. P.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the accused/appellants and Mr. B.J. Dutta, learned Addl. P.P., appearing for the State. 3. The projected case of the prosecution is that on 28.03.2008 at about 7.30 p.m., accused persons assaulted one Mangra Naik (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) with various weapons, such as, lathi, cycle chain etc., and injured him on his head, chest and other parts of the body. On 23.09.2008 at about 9 a.m., the injured was taken to Dibrugarh for treatment However, on the way, he expired. 4. An Ejahar to that effect on being lodged with I/C, Borbari Police Outpost on 30.08.2008 by Smti. Deepali Karmakar, wife of the deceased the I/C, of the Police Out Post aforesaid, made necessary GD entry in that regard and forward the FIR to the O/C, Dibrugarh Police Station for doing needful in accordance with law. On the receipt of the FIR, O/C Dibrugarh Police Station registered a case vide Dibrugarh P.S. Case No. 137/2008, u/s. 302/34 IPC and ordered one Sri Pradip Kr: Bora, S.I. of police to investigate the case. 5. Being so entrusted with the investigation, Sri Bora visited the place of occurrence, held inquest on the dead body, sent the dead body to the hospital for post mortem examination, examined the witnesses and on the conclusion of investigation, he submitted charge-sheet u/s. 302/34IPC against as many as 9 accused persons including the appellants herein and one Satan Naik. 6. Being so entrusted with the investigation, Sri Bora visited the place of occurrence, held inquest on the dead body, sent the dead body to the hospital for post mortem examination, examined the witnesses and on the conclusion of investigation, he submitted charge-sheet u/s. 302/34IPC against as many as 9 accused persons including the appellants herein and one Satan Naik. 6. The Magistrate before whom charge sheet was so laid, committed me case to the court of Sessions since the offence u/s. 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions. After commitment of the case and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh framed charge u/s. 302/34 IPC. Charge, so framed, on being read over and explained to the accused persons, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. During trial, the prosecution had examined as many as 9 witnesses including the informant, the Medical Officer, the I/O of the case. However, during trial, Satan Naik went underground and as such, the case was filed against him on declaring him as absconder. The statements of the accused persons u/s. 313 Cr.P.C., were recorded. The appellant's plea was of total denial. They, however, declined to adduce any evidence of their own on being so required. 8. On the conclusion of trial and on hearing the arguments, advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh convicted the accused persons of offence u/s. 302/34 IPC and sentenced them punishment as aforesaid. It is that judgment which has been assailed in the present appeal. 9. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the appellants submits that judgment under challenge is unsustainable in law for reasons more than one. In that connection, it has been stated that the alleged incident was witnessed by more than 100 persons but the prosecution founded its case basically on the testimony of PW 1 Dipali Karmakar, PW 2 Dhiraj Karmakar, PW 3 Raj Karmakar who are close relatives of the deceased. 10. Since those witnesses are close relatives of the deceased, their evidence needs to be viewed with suspicion, more so, when all other non official independent witnesses refused to corroborate the prosecution claim. In such a situation, conviction which is basically based on the testimonies of the relatives/interested witnesses is liable to be quashed and set aside. 11. 10. Since those witnesses are close relatives of the deceased, their evidence needs to be viewed with suspicion, more so, when all other non official independent witnesses refused to corroborate the prosecution claim. In such a situation, conviction which is basically based on the testimonies of the relatives/interested witnesses is liable to be quashed and set aside. 11. It has also been stated that the incident occurred at night There was no arrangement of electricity in the place where the alleged incident occurred on the night of 28.03.2008 at about 7.30 p.m. in absence of sufficient light, how the witnesses could recognize the appellants herein out of a big group of more than 100 persons remained completely unexplained. This only shows that claim of the PW1, PW 2 and PW 3 that they saw the accused persons herein assaulting the deceased on the night in question is nothing but a huge lie. 12. The incident in question occurred on the night of 28.03.2008. However, the FIR was lodge with police only on 30.03.2008. There was no possible explanation as to why the FIR was not lodged soon after the alleged incident or at least on the next day when the deceased met his death. Such unexplained delay, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, become testimony of prosecution case being based on concoction and falsehood. 13. It is also the case of the accused persons that there was enmity between the deceased and his family members and the accused persons since before. The deceased was a man of loose character and as such, he invites wraths of many people. In fact, on the night in question, the deceased was assaulted by those people out of grudge for deceased being a man of loose character. Unfortunately, due to previous enmity, the accused persons herein were falsely implicated with the crime in question. 14. Since the prosecution case is founded on so many lapses and infirmities, it was not right on the part of the trial court to convict the accused/appellant of an offence as serious as 302 IPC. Situation being such, the judgment under challenge is liable to be quashed and set aside. He therefore, urges this court to acquit the accused persons on setting aside the judgment under challenge, 15. Controverting the argument, so advanced from the side of accused/appellants, Mr. B.J. Dutta, learned Addl. Situation being such, the judgment under challenge is liable to be quashed and set aside. He therefore, urges this court to acquit the accused persons on setting aside the judgment under challenge, 15. Controverting the argument, so advanced from the side of accused/appellants, Mr. B.J. Dutta, learned Addl. P.P., submits that though the PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 are the relatives of the deceased, yet, their evidence cannot be discarded only for their being relatives of the deceased, more so, when those witnesses successfully overcome the stiff cross-examinations, they were subjected to. Therefore, only for their being the relatives of the deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded as claimed by the appellants. 16. Taking us through the evidence of PW 1, PW 2 an PW 3 and the evidence of M.O., and I/O, who are examined as PW 9 and PW 6 respectively, learned Addl. P.P., submits that evidences of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 are consistent, cogent and as such convincing which unmistakably leads one to the conclusion that on the night in question the deceased was brutally beaten by the accused persons who are facing trial along with one Satan Naik. 17. These apart, the claim of those P.Ws. that on the night in question, accused persons and others had brutally beaten the deceased draws support from the averments, made in the inquest report (Ext. 6) as well as the evidence of doctor. Therefore, claim of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 that on the fateful night the accused persons had beaten the deceased stand fortified more and more in view of evidence rendered by the doctor and the averments made in inquest report. 18. Regarding the delay in lodging the FIR, it has been contended that though there was delay, it cannot be said that such delay remained unexplained. The evidence on record shows that the family members of the deceased were aware of nature and degree of injuries, sustained by the deceased, only in the morning of 29.03.2008. As such, they took him to hospital soon thereafter although he breathed his last on way to hospital. 19. The death of the deceased put his entire family on peril which is why they could not lodge the FIR soon after the incident in question. As such, they took him to hospital soon thereafter although he breathed his last on way to hospital. 19. The death of the deceased put his entire family on peril which is why they could not lodge the FIR soon after the incident in question. Such revelations speak loud and clear that the delay in lodging the FIR is well explained and as such, on this count too prosecution case cannot be discarded as prayed for by the accused/appellants. 20. Referring to the enmity between the parties which, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, propelled the informant of the aforementioned case to lodge a false case against the appellants and other person. The learned Addl. P.P., submits that plea of enmity is a double edged weapon. It can hit the opposite party or it can very well hit the person who holds it. In our instant case, unfortunately, according to the learned Addl. P.P., it hit the appellants instead of it hitting the prosecution. 21. In that connection, it has been stated that the testimonies of witnesses, more particularly PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3, have clearly established that on the fateful night accused/appellants and others had brutally assaulted the deceased. The reason for such assault is not far to find. According to learned Addl. P.P., the relations between parties were strained sometime before the alleged incident and it was for deceased eloping with the daughter of the accused Mohendra and it clearly speaks about motive of the accused persons in committing the crime in question. 22. Therefore, previous enmity not only shows motive of the accused persons in assaulting the deceased on the night in question but it also gives more and more firm footing to the prosecution case under consideration. Therefore, learned Addl. PP., urges this court to dismiss the appeal on affirming the judgment of the trial court. 23. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties having regard to the judgment under challenge and evidence on record. 24. Before we proceed further we find it necessary to have a look at the evidence of Dr. Shrubha Deka who was examined as P.W. 9. According to him, on 29.03.2008, he was working as Assistant Professor in Assam Medical College and Hospital, Dibrugarh. 24. Before we proceed further we find it necessary to have a look at the evidence of Dr. Shrubha Deka who was examined as P.W. 9. According to him, on 29.03.2008, he was working as Assistant Professor in Assam Medical College and Hospital, Dibrugarh. On that day he conducted post mortem and found the following:-- "External Appearance Average built male body wearing long part & half pant. Both eyes black rigor mortis present all over the body. Post mortem staining present on the back except on the pressure areas. Injuries 1. Lacerated injury over the lelix of right ear of size 1 cm x cm reddish 2. Abrasion over left shoulder 10 cm x 4 cm obliquely place 4 cm from tip and 6 cm from the midline over the back of chest. 3. Abrasion over the back of right side of-8 cm x 5 cm and 20 cm below tip of shoulder red dish. 4. Boggy swelling over the whole head. Cranium & Spinal Canal Scalp_ Hematoma over scalp. Skull- Left temporal fissure fracture obliquely 6 cm in length Right temporo parital suture fracture. Vertebrare healthy. Membrane - Extradured hemorrhage left side. Both sided subdural hemorrhage. Brain congested. Spinal cord not dissected. Thorex Wall, Ribs, cartilage are healthy. Pleurae Laynx & traces are congested. Both lungs are congested. Heart conjected and Chambers filed with clotted blood. Injuries as described. Peritoneum healthy. Abdomen Walls of abdomen are conjected. Peritoneum healthy. Mouth phaynx, Oesophagus conjected. Liver, Spleen healthy, Kidnys conjected. Organs of generation healthy, Stomach is healthy and filled with semi digested food materials. Small intestine healthy and filled with semi digested food materials. Small intestine healthy and filled with semi digested food materials. Large intestine healthy and filled with semi digested food materials. Opinion Death is due to coma, as a result of head injury sustained as described. All the injuries were ante mortem caused by blunt force impact and homicidal in nature. Time since death 6 to 12 hours. Ext. 4 is P.M. & Ext. 4(1) is my signature." 25. The evidence of doctor coupled with the post mortem report (Ext. 4) and inquest report (Ext. All the injuries were ante mortem caused by blunt force impact and homicidal in nature. Time since death 6 to 12 hours. Ext. 4 is P.M. & Ext. 4(1) is my signature." 25. The evidence of doctor coupled with the post mortem report (Ext. 4) and inquest report (Ext. 6) distinctly demonstrates that the deceased died a homicidal death on or about 29.03.2008 and such death was occasioned by many lacerated ante mortem wounds which the Doctor found inflicted on the body of the deceased on 29.03.2008 while he conducted the post mortem examination on it. 26. Now, the question is who occasioned the death of the deceased on or about 28.03.2008. In order to find an answer to the above query, we find it necessary to have a look at the evidence of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3. P.W. 1, Smti. Deepali Karmakar, deposes that she is the second wife of the deceased. Deceased married her after the death of his first wife. However, in-spite of living with her, her husband eloped with the daughter of the accused Mohendra. 27. The relative of the deceased and other persons located the deceased and the girl and brought them back to the house of the deceased and left them there. But accused Mohendra, his wife and other persons assaulted the PW 1 in the meantime. She therefore, lodged the complaint with the Tea Garden Manager. This enraged the accused persons for which they came to their house on the night in question being armed with rods, cycle chain etc and brutally assaulted her husband. 28. Though she had seen the incident with her own eyes, she did not interfere with such an incident out of fear. Next day, in the early morning, PW 1 reported the matter to the Garden authority. In the meantime, Mohendra took her daughter back to his house. Though the deceased was taken to hospital he died on the way. In that connection, she lodged an Ejahar. During the course of investigation, her statement was recorded by the Magistrate. 29. In her cross examination, she stated that the incident occurred in the Pucca line, that most of the accused persons resided in the vicinity of their house, that there was electricity in her house and also in adjacent area. In that connection, she lodged an Ejahar. During the course of investigation, her statement was recorded by the Magistrate. 29. In her cross examination, she stated that the incident occurred in the Pucca line, that most of the accused persons resided in the vicinity of their house, that there was electricity in her house and also in adjacent area. In her cross examination, she further states that in the early morning, next day she found her husband in an extremely horrible condition for which they took him to the hospital for treatment. 30. PW 2, Dhiraj Karmakar, deposes that deceased was his 'Peha' (paternal uncle). According to him, the deceased married PW 1 after the death of his first wife. But deceased eloped with the daughter of the accused Mohendra and on such elopement; there was a commotion in their village. The accused Mohendra alongwith his relatives came to the house of deceased to enquire about it. They also searched various places and ultimately located the girl in the house of deceased. 31. In the meantime, the accused Mohendra asked PW 2 to bring the deceased so that they could settle the matter amicably. But then, on the evening of 28.03.2008, the accused Mohendra and other persons attacked the deceased when he was returning home. He saw the incident but did not interfere the same out of fear. Next day, in the morning, he went to the house of the deceased and found him sleeping on a Khatia in his residence. His condition was too terrible since he was not in a position to speak. 32. He was, therefore, taken to hospital but he died on the way. In course of time, he rendered his statement before the Magistrate which he proved as Ext. 1. In his cross examination, he states that there was electricity at the place of occurrence and in the light of such electric lamp, he could recognize all the accused persons. According to him, before eloping with the daughter of accused Mohendra, the deceased did not have any enmity with the family of the accused and the deceased. In his cross examination, he further states that he made an attempt to prevent the deceased from being beaten but accused persons tried to, assault him for which he could not render any help to the deceased. 33. In his cross examination, he further states that he made an attempt to prevent the deceased from being beaten but accused persons tried to, assault him for which he could not render any help to the deceased. 33. PW 3 deposes that the deceased was his paternal uncle and be married the P.W. 1 after the death of his first wife. Thereafter, he eloped with the daughter of accused Mohendra. The deceased was searched and found and was brought back to his house. The act of eloping the deceased with the daughter of accused Mohendra had enraged accused persons so much so that they had assaulted the deceased on the night in question inflicting grievous injuries on his person. 34. At the time of incident, he was in his house and on hearing hue and cry from the place of occurrence he went to such place and found that the deceased being beaten by accused persons with rods, cycle chain etc. Though PW 3 attempted to pacify accused persons, he was also threatened for which he left the P.O., out of fear. 35. In that connection, a case was lodged and his statement was recorded during the course of investigation by the Magistrate which he proved as Ext. 2. Police also seized the Khatia (temporary bed) from the house of the deceased on the strength Ext. 3. Such Khatia was strained with blood. In his cross examination, he states that at the time of incident he was studying in his house. 36. He also states that a number of the persons were present at the place of occurrence when the incident was going on. He, however, could not quantify the people who gathered at the place of occurrence, on the evening in question. In his cross examination, he further states that while incident in question was going on, many persons came to the place of occurrence and witnessed the incident under consideration, 37. Sri Robin Karmakar, Sri Mohan Naik, Sri Rajen Bawri and Sri Madhu Nag were examined as PW 4, PW 5, PW 7 and PW 8 respectively. On going through their evidence, we have found that they had no direct knowledge of the incident under consideration. P.W. 4 further states that he was informed that the deceased eloped with the daughter of the accused Mohendra. 38. On going through their evidence, we have found that they had no direct knowledge of the incident under consideration. P.W. 4 further states that he was informed that the deceased eloped with the daughter of the accused Mohendra. 38. PW 6 is Sri P.K. Bora and he is the I/O of the case. According to him, on 30.03.2008, he received the FIR from PW 1 and after doing needful, he forwarded the same to the then O/C, Dibrugarh Police Station for registering a case. On the receipt of the FIR, O/C Dibrugarh Police Station registered a case vide Dibrugarh P.S. Case No. 137/2008, u/s. 302/34 IPC and ordered him to investigate the case. 39. During the investigation, he visited the P.O. conducted inquest on the dead body, sent the same for post mortem examination to hospital, examined the witnesses, did other needful and on conclusion of the investigation, he submitted charge-sheet u/s. 302/34 IPC against the accused persons. In his cross examination, he admitted that he could not seize any weapon of offence. 40. Above, being the evidence on record, let us see how far such evidence make out the charge against accused persons. The evidence of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 reveals that they were the eye witnesses to the incident. Their evidence further shows that accused persons are the neighbours and on the night in question, they assaulted the deceased brutally at the place of occurrence and they could very well recognize them in the light of electricity lamp found fitted at the place of occurrence. 41. Their evidence further reveals that accused persons assaulted the deceased armed with various weapons. It is also evident from their testimonies that deceased died next day while he was taken to hospital for treatment. Therefore, it would appear clear that evidence of PW 1 PW 2 and PW 3 clearly establish that on the night in question, all accused persons being armed with various weapons assaulted the deceased at the P.O., inflicting grievous wound on him which occasioned his death on the next day while he was being taken to hospital. 42. We have already found that deceased died a homicidal death on or about 29.03.2008. We have also found that the deceased met his death after being subjected to a good number of injuries caused by blunt object. The evidence of doctor coupled with averments in Ext. 42. We have already found that deceased died a homicidal death on or about 29.03.2008. We have also found that the deceased met his death after being subjected to a good number of injuries caused by blunt object. The evidence of doctor coupled with averments in Ext. 4 and 6 lends more and more support to the claim of PW 1 PW 2 and PW 3 that on the night in question the deceased sustained grievous wound on being brutally beaten by accused persons. 43. It is worth noting that there was indisputable evidence on record to show that his elopement of the deceased with the daughter of Mohendra was the root cause of incident. Such act on the part of deceased had enraged the family members of the victim girl since the deceased who married twice during his life time, enticed away a young girl. But then, when the deceased was located and brought back to his house, temper was running high and such temperament reached its peak when the wife of the deceased lodged a complaint against the family members of the victim girl. 44. Such episode are the forceful testimony of motive of the accused persons for which they had taken the law in their hand and in that process the accused persons had brutally beaten the deceased occasioning his death on the next day when he was being taken to hospital for treatment. Motive of accused persons in assaulting the deceased on the night of 28.03.2008 having been well established, gives more and more strength to the prosecution case which is under consideration in this appeal. 45. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that there is delay in lodging the case and as such, prosecution case needs to be viewed with suspicion for the case with delay. However, we have found that there are very and many valid reasons as to why the FIR could not be reported to the police in time. In that context, it may be stated that though deceased was brutally beaten on the night of 28.03.2008, yet, his family members were not aware of the fact that deceased sustained too grievous injuries in the incident under consideration. 46. In that context, it may be stated that though deceased was brutally beaten on the night of 28.03.2008, yet, his family members were not aware of the fact that deceased sustained too grievous injuries in the incident under consideration. 46. Once they found on the morning of 29.03.2008 that the injury sustained by the deceased was too grievous, they immediately took measure to shift him to hospital, however, he breathed his last before he could be brought to hospital. Such revelations coupled with the fact that the death of deceased throws his family out of gear clearly shows that though there was delay in lodging the FIR same was well explained. 47. Though the appellants argue that PWs, more particularly, P.W. 1, PW2 and PW 3 are the relatives and as such, they should not be believed, in our opinion, such a contention does not hold any water. The PWs aforesaid had well explained their presence at the place of occurrence enabling them to witness such incident quite closely. Their cross examination could make no dent in the credibility. Situation being such, only for those witnesses being relatives of the deceased, their evidence could not be thrown away as claimed by appellant 48. In so far allegation of present case being lodged by the wife of the deceased due to previous enmity is concerned, we have already found that the offending conduct on the part of deceased had enraged the family members of the accused persons since he eloped with the very young girl although in the meantime he married twice. Worse still, on being manhandled by the family member of the accused persons, the wife of deceased had lodged a complaint with the Garden Manager. 49. In the fact and circumstances of the present case, the previous enmity becomes a sword which instead of hitting the prosecution hit hard the accused persons. In other words, in our opinion, previous enmity is the reason as to why the accused persons took the law in the own hand on the night in question which ultimately occasioned the death of the deceased next day in the morning. 50. It is also the case of appellants that the incident was witnessed by a large number of people who are no way connected to the deceased. However, those persons were not made witnesses in the case in hand. 50. It is also the case of appellants that the incident was witnessed by a large number of people who are no way connected to the deceased. However, those persons were not made witnesses in the case in hand. Keeping those persons beyond the purview of the case under consideration raises serious doubt about the veracity of prosecution case. This is not true. 51. It is true that the there was evidence on record to show that the incident in question was witnessed by a large number of people. But then, there is evidence on record to show that most of the witnesses were threatened by the accused persons to go away from the P.O. That apart, the other persons who witnessed the incident in question remained unrecognized or they were not coming forward to be witnesses to support the prosecution case. 52. Further, many persons who came to the place of occurrence on the evening in question may not be witnessing the entire incident since people came and left such place as the incident was going on. Therefore, non examination of all those witnesses cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case, more so, when the PW 1, PW 2, and PW3 have established beyond all reasonable doubt that accused persons have brutally beaten the deceased at the P.O. on the night of 28.03.2008. 53. In view of what we have discussed hereinabove, we are of the opinion that prosecution has successfully proved that on the evening of 28.03.2008, the accused persons brutally beaten the deceased at the P.O., with various weapons which occasioned his death next day. 54. Now, the only question that needs to be answered is whether the act of accused persons made them liable to be convicted of offence u/s.302 IPC. We have already found that the deceased eloped with the daughter of the accused Mohendra. We have also found that the deceased had already married twice during his life time. We have also found that over some dispute relating to elopement of deceased with the daughter of Mohendra, the wife of deceased had lodged a complaint before the Garden Manager. 55. Such conduct on the part of deceased had reasonably angered the accused persons since they became victim of very unfortunate incident. We have also found that over some dispute relating to elopement of deceased with the daughter of Mohendra, the wife of deceased had lodged a complaint before the Garden Manager. 55. Such conduct on the part of deceased had reasonably angered the accused persons since they became victim of very unfortunate incident. In such situation, when they found the wife of deceased to have made a complaint against them to the garden Manager who being the employer provides food and shelter, they felt forced to take the law in their hand. 56. We have also found that deceased was not provided with any medical help on the night of 28.03.2008. He was taken to hospital next day when his family members found him in serious condition. Thus, despite he being beaten by a good number of people, he survived for a quite long period without being provided with any medical treatment in the mean time. These require this court to hold that accused/appellants had no intention to kill the deceased. Nor had they any intention of inflicting any bodily injury which is sufficient in normal course to cause the death of the deceased. 57. However, the number of the injuries, found on the body of the deceased and nature thereof as well as placement of such injuries on the body of the deceased require us to hold that the accused/appellants had beaten the deceased with the knowledge that the injuries inflicted upon him would occasion his death. 58. Therefore, in our opinion, the accused persons is guilty of offence u/s. 304-II/34 IPC and not guilty of offence u/s. 302/34 IPC. 59. In view of above, the judgment under challenge needs to be modified. 60. Accordingly, the conviction imposed on the appellants stands modified from u/s. 302/34 IPC to 304-II/34 IPC. 61. We have considered entire facts and circumstances of the present case which leads to the unfortunate incident and found that the sentence of 5 years with fine of Rs. 1000/- each would meet the justice. 62. Accordingly, accused/appellants are sentenced to suffer R.I. for 5 years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default R.I. for another 1 month. 63. With the above, this appeal is partly allowed and disposed of. Return the LCR.