JUDGMENT P.N. DESHMUKH, J. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 30th March, 2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gr. Mumbai at Dindhosi in Sessions Case No.148/09 thereby convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 452, 302 & 307 of IPC and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- i/d. to suffer R.I. for one month for offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC. The appellant is further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC for causing death of Dipali and Prashant and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.l,000/- each i/d. to suffer R.I. for one month each. The appellant is further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC for attempting to commit murder of PW 1 Lata and PW3 Rahul and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- i/d. to suffer R.I. for one month. Sentence to suffer imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC are directed to run consecutively, while sentence of imprisonment for offences punishable under Sections 452 & 307 of IPC are directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case can be briefly stated as under: PW1 Lata Yeshwant Sawant, the complainant was residing at Sakharbai Chawl, Ram Nagar Zopadpatti, Kandivili (East), Mumbai and her nephew Ravi Shelar with his minor children namely, Dipali, aged 13 years, Prashant, aged 14 years and Rahul, aged 10 years were residing with her as Mangala, wife of Ravi Shelar died one year prior to the incident. The appellant was residing as their neighbour along with his sister Indirakumari and thus were known to each other. The incident occurred on 10th September, 2009 at about 7.00 a.m. One day prior to the incident, Indirakumari was found missing and, therefore, the appellant suspected that she might have gone with Ravi Shelar. At the time of incident, PW1 Lata was present in the house along with Dipali, Prashant and Rahul and at about 7.00 a.m. when they were sleeping, the appellant entered their house having armed with a cricket bat and started abusing. All of a sudden, the appellant then committed assault by cricket bat on the backside of her head and also assaulted Dipali, Prashant and Rahul on their heads while they were sleeping. All of a sudden, the appellant then committed assault by cricket bat on the backside of her head and also assaulted Dipali, Prashant and Rahul on their heads while they were sleeping. Due to this assault, all sustained bleeding injuries. The appellant ran away from the spot. All the injured were referred to Bhagwati Hospital where Dipali died on the same day while Prashat died on 18th September, 2009 in the hospital while under treatment. PW 1 Lata and Rahul Shelar were discharged from the hospital on 11th September, 2009. Thereafter, she learnt that after the incident, appellant ran towards the railway track and met with an accident and was admitted in the same hospital. When PW1 Lata was in the hospital, her statement was recorded by police and offence came to be registered vide Crime No.283/09, initially for offences punishable under Section 452, 307 & 326 of IPC. After the death of Dipali and Prashant, offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC came to be added in the above crime. 3. During the course of investigation, PW7 Rajendra Nikam, PSI visited the spot and drew spot panchanama Exhibit-28 and had seized cricket bat and quilt having stained with blood, under said panchanama. Clothes on the person of PW1 Lata was seized under panchanama Exhibit-21. On effecting arrest of the appellant and on recording statements of witnesses, seized muddemal property came to be forwarded for its analysis to the Chemical Analyser. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed before the learned 17th M.M. Court, Borivili, Mumbai. In due course of time, the case came to be committed to the Sessions Court for trial. 4. Charge is framed against the appellant vide Exhibit-3 for offences punishable under Section 452, 302 & 307 of IPC. Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. His defence is that of total denial and false implication. The appellant has also taken an alternate defence of his suffering from insanity. In support of his defence, the appellant has examined himself on oath and DW2 Dr. Amol Jeur. On considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as defence, learned trial Court convicted the appellant as aforestated, hence this appeal. 5. Heard Mr.Swapnil Ovalekar, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mrs. G.P.Mulekar, learned A.P.P. for the State. In support of his defence, the appellant has examined himself on oath and DW2 Dr. Amol Jeur. On considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as defence, learned trial Court convicted the appellant as aforestated, hence this appeal. 5. Heard Mr.Swapnil Ovalekar, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mrs. G.P.Mulekar, learned A.P.P. for the State. To effectively evaluate the submissions advanced by both the sides, we have scrutinized the evidence on record with the assistance of learned counsel for both the sides. Admittedly, the case of the prosecution is based on ocular evidence of PW1 Lata, PW3 Rahul, both the injured witnesses and medical evidence. PW1 Lata, the complainant has stated that her nephew Ravi Shelar along with his three children deceased Dipali, aged 13 years deceased Prashant, aged 14 years and Rahul, aged 10 years were residing with her, as Mangala, wife of Ravi Shelar had died one year prior to the incident and there was nobody to look after them. PW 1 Lata was acquainted with the appellant being their neighbour, who was residing in the said area. The incident occurred on 10th September, 2009 at about 7.00 a.m. One day prior to the incident, at about 6.30 p.m. after PW 1 Lata returned back from her work, she learnt that Indirakumari, sister of appellant, was missing and she had eloped with Ravi Shelar. Ravi Shelar also did not return home in the night intervening 9th September, 2009 and 10th September, 2009, for this reason in the midnight at about 1.00 a.m., appellant came to their house along with police and took Diledar Kanojia, husband of PW 1 Lata to police station. PW 1 Lata further stated that on 10th September, 2009 at 7.00 a.m. when she along with her nephews were sleeping in the house, the appellant having armed with cricket bat came to her house and on abusing, all of a sudden committed assault on her head due to which she sustained bleeding injuries. She further stated that the appellant then assaulted Dipali and Prashant on their heads due to which they also sustained bleeding injuries and further assaulted Rahul on the forehead due to which he sustained bleeding injuries and by dropping the bat on the spot ran away. She further stated that the appellant then assaulted Dipali and Prashant on their heads due to which they also sustained bleeding injuries and further assaulted Rahul on the forehead due to which he sustained bleeding injuries and by dropping the bat on the spot ran away. PW 1 Lata further stated that on her raising shouts, neighbours arrived at her house and carried all the injured in auto rickshaw to Bhagwati hospital, where police also arrived and recorded her statement as per Exhibit-20. PW 1 Lata further stated that on the following day she was discharged from the hospital along with Rahul. However, Dipali was unconscious for four days and succumbed to her injuries on 14th September, 2009 while Prashant was referred to Nair Hospital for further treatment where he succumbed to his injuries on 18th September, 2009. 6. In the cross-examination, it has come on record that along with PW 1 Lata deceased Dipali & Prashant and injured Rahul were also assaulted while they were sleeping by means of cricket bat. It has also come on record that before opening the assault, the appellant on entering into the house of the complainant raised shouts and hurled abuses, abusing Ravi Shelar. PW1 Lata has admitted that prior to the incident in the night at about 1.00 a.m. her husband was taken to the police station since some report was lodged by the appellant with reference to kidnapping of his sister Indirakumari. PW1 Lata specifically denied that at the time of incident, the appellant had become totally insane. Except for the above, nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of said material witness, particularly on the point of incident of assault by appellant on her as well as on both the deceased Dipali and Prashant and on injured Rahul. 7. Evidence of PW3 Rahul, injured eye witness stands corroborated with ocular evidence of PW 1 Lata, wherein he has stated that PW 1 Lata is his maternal aunt and deceased Dipali and Prashant are his sister and brother and they were all residing with PW1 Lata along with their father Ravi. 7. Evidence of PW3 Rahul, injured eye witness stands corroborated with ocular evidence of PW 1 Lata, wherein he has stated that PW 1 Lata is his maternal aunt and deceased Dipali and Prashant are his sister and brother and they were all residing with PW1 Lata along with their father Ravi. He further states that on 10th September, 2009, his father Ravi was out of house throughout the night while he, PW 1 Lata, his brother Prashant and sister Dipali had gone to sleep and at about 7.00 a.m. in the morning, he noticed someone had assaulted him due to which he woke up and found the appellant being armed with bat assaulting his brother Prashant and sister Dipali on their heads. He further states that PW1 Lata tried to intervene when Dipali and Prashant were being assaulted but was also assaulted by the appellant and sustained head injury. He has stated that in the assault all of them had sustained injuries on their head which were profusely bleeding while he sustained bleeding injury on his forehead, for which they were admitted to Bhagwati Hospital. However, Prashant and Dipali succumbed to their injuries. In the cross-examination, though PW3 Rahul denies that after assault on him, he did not wake up, the suggestion put as such, in fact, does not appear to be acceptable for the reason that after having sustained some assault, whosoever is sleeping is likely to wake up. In the circumstances, further suggestion to PW3 Rahul about his inability to witness the assault also do not find to be acceptable. PW3 Rahul has specifically denied that he has not witnessed the assault. In view of the above evidence of PW3 Rahul, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that he is a got-up witness, as according to him, he was witness to the incident of assault on PW1 Lata, while according to PW1 Lata, she was assaulted first and then PW3 Rahul was assaulted, who was till then sleeping. We have carefully considered the evidence of both these eye witnesses together with the submissions advanced as above. however, we do not find any substance in the submissions as evidence of PW3 Rahul cannot be discarded merely on the ground of such slight discrepancy about the difference of sequence in assault committed by the appellant on himself. PW1 Lata and deceased Prashant and Dipali. however, we do not find any substance in the submissions as evidence of PW3 Rahul cannot be discarded merely on the ground of such slight discrepancy about the difference of sequence in assault committed by the appellant on himself. PW1 Lata and deceased Prashant and Dipali. We are conscious of the fact that while appreciating the evidence in criminal trial involving murder and when the assault committed is all of a sudden, evidence of eye witnesses, who are themselves victim of assault, slight discrepancy towards the sequence of assault or even to the extent of number of blows by the accused to the deceased as well as where blows fell are likely to occur in their evidence. We, thus, do not find any substance to discard the evidence of eye witnesses on this ground whose evidence does not appear to be otherwise shaken at all particularly on the point of assault. 8. Above ocular version of PW1 Lata and PW3 Rahul further stands substantiated by PW2 Usha Tari, sister-in-law of Ravi Shelar. She has stated that at the time of incident, she was residing as neighbour of the complainant with whom deceased Dipali and Prashant and PW3 Rahul were staying. She has stated that on 10th September, 2009 when she was in her house at about 7.00 a.m., she heard shouts of PW1 Lata as "Marie, Marie" due to which she came out of the house and saw the appellant present at the door of the house of PW1 Lata, armed with cricket bat which he had left on the spot and fled towards public latrine. PW2 Usha further states that she had, therefore, entered in the house of PW1 Lata and found PW1 Lata, Dipali, Prashant as well as PW3 Rahul having sustained bleeding injuries on their head. They were, therefore, referred to Bhagwati Hospital. In her cross-examination, nothing is brought on record to doubt her presence at the scene of offence, immediately after the incident. Evidence of PW2 Usha, therefore, substantiates the case of prosecution in establishing the presence of the appellant after committing assault in the house of PW1 Lata. 9. They were, therefore, referred to Bhagwati Hospital. In her cross-examination, nothing is brought on record to doubt her presence at the scene of offence, immediately after the incident. Evidence of PW2 Usha, therefore, substantiates the case of prosecution in establishing the presence of the appellant after committing assault in the house of PW1 Lata. 9. Evidence of PW4 Ravi Shelar is that he was informed on 10th September, 2009 at about 8.00 to 8.30 a.m. by his brother Prakash on his cell phone about the assault on PW 1 Lata, PW3 Rahul, and deceased Prashant and Dipali and, therefore, he rushed to Bhagwati Hospital. On considering evidence of PW 4 Ravi, we find that from the suggestions put to this witness, in fact, the appellant's motive for committing the assault has been established. Though in a case having direct evidence, motive plays very negligible role, from the evidence of this witness, in fact, motive is established as it is suggested to him that on the date of incident. he enticed Indirakumari knowing that she was a minor girl. It is further suggested that one day prior to the incident, PW4 Ravi took sister of the appellant with intention to marry her, to Nalasopara. It is also suggested that one day prior to the incident, the appellant had at about 2.00 p.m. spoken to PW4 Ravi on his cell phone and inquired if his sister Indirakumari was with him. It is further suggested to him that on the same day at about 7.00 p.m., the appellant spoke to PW4 Ravi on phone when PW4 Ravi informed him that he had married his sister and they were going to visit Pune. It is also suggested that the appellant when asked PW4 Ravi on phone, was informed by him that he had taken his sister only for having sexual relationship, but will not marry her and will involve Indirakumari in prostitution. Having considering the suggestions as above, which are denied by PW 4 Ravi. we find that since the appellant was suspecting PW4 Ravi for the reasons suggested as above, who is nephew of complainant PW1 Lata and father of both deceased and injured PW3 Rahul, the appellant having grudge in his mind for this reason in the early hours of 10th September, 2009 when they were all sleeping, all of a sudden assaulted them. 10. 10. Above ocular evidence is further found substantiated from the evidence of PW6 Dr. Shailesh Mohite, who on 18th September, 2009 performed autopsy on the dead body of deceased Prashant, aged 13 years. On his examination, he found following external injuries: I) A sutured semicircular wound of size 29 cm. with 32 black coloured sutures was present over the left side of scalp involving temporal, parietal occipital areas. After opening the sutures margins were adherent to each other suggestive of surgical incised wound for craniotomy. 2) A lacerated wound of size 1 cm x 0.1 cm x subcataneous deep present on left temporal region, blackish in colour. 3) An abrasion of size 06 cm x 0.5 cm was present over the left side of nose, blackish scab. 4) An abrasion of size 1 cm x 1 cm was present over left zygomatic region of face, 4 cm from tragus, blackish scab. 5) An abrasion of size 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm was present over left side of mandibular region of abdomen of face, 1.5 cm below left angle of mouth, blackish scab. 6) A linear, vertical sutured wound of size 6 cm x 0.2 cm was present over epigastric region of abdomen in the midline, 5 cm below xyphoid process and 7 cm above umbilicus with 5 intact sutures. On opening the suture margins were adherent to each other, suggestive of lapratomy wound for gastrostomy. 7) An open wound of size 1.2 cm x 1 cm x peritoneum deep was present over left hypochondric region of abdomen; margins were reddish brown, suggestive of wound for feeding gastrotomy. 8) An abrasion of size 1 cm x 1 cm, obliquely placed was present over the posterior superior of left shoulder joint, blackish scab. 9) An abrasion of size 2 cm x 1 cm, obliquely placed was present over the posterior aspect of left shoulder joint, blackish scab. 10) A curved shaped abrasion of size 8 cm x 1.5 cm was present over the left scapular region, 6 cm below the left acromion process and 7 cm away from midline, blackish scab. 11) A sutured wound size 3 cm with 4 black colour sutures was present over the right cubital region of elbow. After opening the sutures margins were adherent to each other, suggestive of wound for venesection. 11) A sutured wound size 3 cm with 4 black colour sutures was present over the right cubital region of elbow. After opening the sutures margins were adherent to each other, suggestive of wound for venesection. 12) A contusion of size 4 cm x 2 cm was present on flexor aspect of right forearm, 0.5 cm above right wrist joint, blackish coloured. 13) A contusion of size 3.5 cm x 1 cm was present on extensor aspect of right forearm, 3 cm above right wrist joint, blackish. 14) Multiple abrasions of sizes 0.1 cm x 0.1 cm were present in an area of 3 cm on flexor aspect of right inguinal region of right thigh, blackish scab. 15) Bed sore of size 8 cm x 5 cm and oval shape was present over left gluteal region, reddish. 16) A sutured horizontal wound of size 4 cm x 0.5 cm with 3 black coloured sutures was present over the medial aspect of right lower limb, 3 cm above right medial malleous. After opening the sutures margins were adherent to each other, suggestive of wound for venesection. He had noted following internal injuries: 1. Injuries under the scalp, their nature-Under scalp haematoma of size 15 x 5 cm was present over the bilateral frontoparietal and temporal region, oedematous and reddish brown coloured. 2. Skull-Vault and base describe fractures, their sites, dimensions, directions (a) Bony flap of size 6 x 4 cm with 5 burr holes at the periphery in the left parietotemporal region suggestive of craniotomy. (b) A linear fissured fracture of size 11 cm present over both parietal bone. (c) Brain After separation of the bone flap; gel foam was present in the left parietotemporal region with infiltration of blood, dura was sutured at places; all sutures were intact. (1) Subdural hemorrhage of size 4 cm x 4 cm with weight about 30 gm was present over right parietal region, reddish brown coloured. (2) Subarachnoid hemorrhage was present over left parietal and temporal region as thin film, brown reddish coloured. (3) Multiple contusions of size 2 cm x 2 cm to 5 cm x 5 cm were present over the left tempoparietal and occipital lobe, bluish black coloured. 11. Post-mortem notes are on record at Exhibit-35, wherein it is opined that head injury sustained by deceased was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. (3) Multiple contusions of size 2 cm x 2 cm to 5 cm x 5 cm were present over the left tempoparietal and occipital lobe, bluish black coloured. 11. Post-mortem notes are on record at Exhibit-35, wherein it is opined that head injury sustained by deceased was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injury is certified to be possible by cricket bat. PW6 Dr.Mohite has denied that if insane person commits assault, he could make multiple assaults. According to the doctor, no such opinion can be given unless such person is examined by a Psychiatrist. 12. According to the post-mortem notes of deceased Dipali on record at Exhibit 34, which is an admitted document, she is found to have sustained following external injuries: i) Linear surgically stitched wound (L.S.S.W.) over left side of forehead ½ cm. left to midline and 5 cm above left side eyebrow, horizontal size 4 cm x 0.5 cm, 3 intact stitches present, reddish. ii) L.S.S.W. over left parietal region, 5 cm. left ear pinna, antero posterior, size 6 cm x 0.5 cm, 5 intact stitches, reddish. iii) Contused abrasion over left knee, anterior aspect, oblique, size 1 cm x 4 cm reddish coloured. iv) Two injection mark over left elbow, anterior aspect, over median cubital vein and over dorsum of left hand reddish coloured. She is certified to have sustained following external injuries: i) Contusion under scalp as related to injury Nos.1 & 2 in column 17. ii) Communited fracture of both parietal bones. Fissure fracture of left frontal bone present. iii) Epidural ematoma present in left parietal convexily. iv) Subarachnoid haemorrhage present in left cerebral oedema present in both cerebral hemisphares. Both the deaths are certified to be unnatural. In view of the fact involved in the appeal, there can be no case of both the deceased committing suicide as from Exhibits 34 & 35 as well as cause of death, certified by Doctors, We find that both the minors died of homicidal death. Even otherwise, there are no circumstance establishing the fact that both the minors died of natural death. In the light of above discussed evidence, we, therefore, find that prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant has committed murder of minor Prashant and Dipali. 13. Even otherwise, there are no circumstance establishing the fact that both the minors died of natural death. In the light of above discussed evidence, we, therefore, find that prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant has committed murder of minor Prashant and Dipali. 13. Further, considering the case of prosecution of involvement of the appellant for attempting to commit murder of PW1 Lata and PW3 Rahul, evidence of PW 1 Lata establishes that she has sustained injury on her head which is found corroborated by injury certificate Exhibit-46. Evidence of PW3 Rahul also establishes the fact of his sustaining injury on his forehead by cricket bat which is corroborated with the injury certificate at Exhibit-47. We find that considering the fact of the appellant committing assault on the head of injured, he had every intention for causing their death. In the circumstances, considering ocular evidence of both the injured eyewitnesses, which is corroborated by medical evidence, prosecution is found to have established involvement of appellant in attempting to cause murder of PW 1 Lata and PW3 Rahul. In this respect, reference can be usefully made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Mahara V/s. Balram Bama Patil reported in A.I.R. 1983 Supreme Court 305, wherein it is observed that: "To justify a conviction under this section it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result. if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the culprit would be liable under this section. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned to this section. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned to this section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof." Having considering as above and the evidence of injured witnesses, we thus find that the prosecution has established intention of the appellant on this count also. 14. So far as the specific defence of the appellant of his committing the act due to insanity is concerned, the appellant in support of his case has examined himself on oath and had stated about his having knowledge of PW4 Ravi Shelar taking his sister and, therefore, he became mad and decided to leave the locality and not to remain alive and thus, went to the railway track and attempted to commit suicide. Above evidence of the appellant to the extent of his attempting to commit suicide stands corroborated from the evidence of PW5 Shrimant Dombale, Police Naik, Buckle No.1286, who has stated that when he was posted at Borivili railway police station and was on duty. On 10th September, 2009 at about 7.55 a.m., he was informed by Station Master that one person was lying in injured condition between track Nos.2 & 3. He was accordingly removed by police and admitted in Bhagwati Hospital. PW5 Dombale has admitted the appellant to be same person. On this fact, evidence of PW7 Rajendra Nikam, PSI also substantiates appellant's attempt to commit suicide, as said witness has admitted that after the incident, the appellant had attempted to commit suicide by jumping in front of a train and has admitted that he sustained injuries and was admitted in the hospital. The investigating officer however has denied that the mental condition of the appellant was not good or that he was violent stating that for that purposes, it would be necessary to refer the appellant to Mental Hospital for his examination. The investigating officer however has denied that the mental condition of the appellant was not good or that he was violent stating that for that purposes, it would be necessary to refer the appellant to Mental Hospital for his examination. In view of above circumstances, it can thus only be held that the appellant after commission of the offence of murder of two minors and on attempting to commit murder of PW 1 Lata and PW3 Rahul, attempted to commit suicide. However, on considering his evidence, it cannot be said that the appellant has established his defence of insanity. 15. Though appellant has examined DW2 Dr. Amol Jeur, his evidence does not establish that at the time of incident, the appellant was insane within the scope of Section 84 of IPC as DW1 Amol has only deposed that the appellant was mentally disturbed. In fact, DW2 Amol is the one who has treated the appellant on 10th September, 2009 after he had sustained injuries in his attempt to commit suicide. In the circumstances, the fact remains that there is nothing on record to establish that the appellant on the date of incident was a person of unsound mind and as such, by reason of unsoundness of mind. the appellant was unable to know the nature of act done by him or to hold that he was unable to know as to what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. 16. In the circumstances, we find that the defence of the appellant is not at all established to prove or to show even by preponderance of probability that the appellant committed the act due to mental unsoundness. On the contrary, from the above evidence, it is found that the appellant at the time of incident had intention to commit assault and as such, visited the house of the appellant, having being armed with cricket bat and for no reason, all of sudden opened brutal assault causing death of two minor children namely. Dipali and Prashant and attempted to commit murder of PW1 Lata and PW3 Rahul. 17. In view of the above, we, therefore, do not find any substance in the appeal and dismiss the same. 18. The conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 452, 302 & 307 of IPC are maintained. Dipali and Prashant and attempted to commit murder of PW1 Lata and PW3 Rahul. 17. In view of the above, we, therefore, do not find any substance in the appeal and dismiss the same. 18. The conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 452, 302 & 307 of IPC are maintained. However, judgment and order of the learned trial court directing the appellant to suffer life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC for causing murders of Dipali and Prashant to run consecutively is modified to the limited aspect directing the same to run concurrently. 19. At this stage, we must record our appreciation for Mr. Swapnil Ovalekar, appointed from High Court Legal Services Committee, Bombay to represent the appellant. We found that he had meticulously prepared the matter and has very ably argued the appeal We quantify legal fees to be paid to him by the High Court Legal Services Committee at Rs.3,000/-. 20. A copy of this judgment be forwarded to the appellant through the Superintendent of Prison, Kolhapur Central Prison. Kolhapur. Appeal dismissed.