Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 686 (GAU)

Azad Khan v. State of Assam

2015-06-04

PRASANTA KUMAR SAIKIA, RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : Prasanta Kumar Saikia, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.08.2011, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Sessions Case No. 64/2005 convicting the accused, namely, Md. Azad Khan (herein after referred to as the 'accused person') of offence u/s 302 IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- i.d. imprisonment for another 3 (three) months for the offence aforesaid. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment, the accused person has preferred this appeal from jail citing several infirmities in the judgment under challenge. 2. We have heard Mr. D.K. Das, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. P.P., for the State. 3. The case, projected by the prosecution in the FIR dated 04.10.2002 and in subsequent trial, in short, is that on 03.10.2002, at around 4:30 pm, one Sibu Mandal was returning home from market along with Gobinda Nayak @ Robin Nayak. When the duo reached a place near Chabua Junior College, they were attacked by the accused person with a knife for which Gobinda Nayak died at the Place of Occurrence (in short, PO). On the other hand, Sibu Mandal sustained several injuries and was, therefore, brought to Chabua St. Luke's Hospital where he was declared brought dead. 4. An FIR, to that effect, on being lodged by one Mantu Mandal father of Sibu Mandal with O/C, Chabua P.S., on 04.10.2002, O/C Chabua PS registered a case vide Chabua P.S. Case No. 113/2002, u/s 302 IPC and ordered one Md. Saifuddin Ahmed, (PW 12) S.I. of police to investigate the case. 5. Being so entrusted, Md. Ahmed, I/O of the case visited the PO, conducted inquest on the dead body, sent the same to hospital for post mortem examination, examined the witnesses and arrested the accused person who surrendered before the police allegedly with the "khukri" used in committing the crime in question and on conclusion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet u/s 302 IPC against the accused person and forwarded him to the Court to stand his trial for the offence aforesaid. 6. The Jurisdictional Magistrate before whom charge sheet was so laid committed the case to the Court of Session at Dibrugarh since the offence u/s 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. 6. The Jurisdictional Magistrate before whom charge sheet was so laid committed the case to the Court of Session at Dibrugarh since the offence u/s 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. On receipt of the case on commitment, the Learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh transferred the same to the file of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, for disposal in accordance with law. 7. On receipt of the case on transfer, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh on hearing the learned counsel for the parties was pleased to frame charge u/s 302 IPC against the accused person and charge, so framed, on being read over and explained to the accused person, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 (fourteen) witnesses including the informant of the case, the M.O. who conducted autopsy on the dead body and the I/O. 8. The statement of the accused person u/s 313 CrPC was also recoded. Accused plea was of total denial. On conclusion of trial and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh convicted the accused person of offence u/s 302 IPC and was pleased to sentence him to punishment as aforesaid. It is that judgment which has been assailed in the present appeal. 9. Mr. D.K. Das, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant submits that the judgment under challenge cannot be sustained since the judgment was not rendered in accordance with the prescription of law. In that respect, it has been submitted that the prime prosecution witness is PW11, Sri Arun Patnayak, however, his evidence suffers from infirmities of serious nature and as such, no implicit reliance can be placed on his evidence. 10. In that connection, it has been pointed out that though he claims to be the eye witness to the incident of killing of Sibu Mandal, yet, it is found from evidence that he did not notice the accused planting blows on the body of the person aforesaid which is indicative of the fact that claim of PW11 that he saw the accused assaulting Gobinda Nayak @ Robin Nayak and Sibu Mandal cannot be accepted without a large grain of salt. 11. 11. It has also been contended that prosecution heavily banked on the testimonies of PW 1, Sri Deepak Mandal, PW 6, Dhiren Saikia and PW 12, Saifuddin Ahmed who are found saying that on the fateful afternoon, the accused surrendered at the Police Station with the weapon used in committing the crime. But such evidence cannot be relied on inasmuch as, they gave different descriptions regarding the weapon which the accused reportedly produced before the O/C, of the police station aforesaid while surrendering before him on the afternoon of 04.10.2002. 12. It is also the case of learned amicus curiae that there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that Robin Nayak @ Gobinda Nayak was killed by the accused person on the afternoon of 04.10.2002. Despite above, learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the accused also killed Robin Nayak @ Gobinda Nayak and he did so merely on surmise and conjecture and not on evidence on record. 13. It is alleged that there was delay in lodging the FIR, however, such delay remained unexplained and that too in an incident which occasioned the death of 2 (two) young persons. Therefore, delay in lodging the FIR, in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, also raises a serious doubt about the authenticity of the prosecution case. 14. According to learned Amicus Curiae, the prosecution case suffers on other count as well. It has been pointed out that a college girl reported the alleged incident to PW 12 and on the basis of such information, PW 12 too made a GD Entry vide GD Entry No. 93 dated 03.10.2002 and proceeded to the PO and found Rabin Nayak lying dead in a ditch by the side of the road. However, such a vital witness was not examined, and that too, without assigning any reason whatsoever. Learned Amicus Curiae, therefore, urges this court to acquit the accused person of offence u/s 302 IPC on setting aside the judgment under challenge. 15. Alternatively, he submits that if this court, for one reason or other, has found that the accused was the person responsible for killing the boys aforesaid, even men, in view of testimony of PW 11, the accused could not have been convicted of offence u/s 302IPC. Rather, on the facts on record, he ought to have been convicted of offence u/s 304-II IPC. 16. Rather, on the facts on record, he ought to have been convicted of offence u/s 304-II IPC. 16. On the other hand, Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. PP, submits that prosecution convincingly proved the charge u/s 302 IPC against the accused person. In that connection, it has been stated that PW 11 was the eye witness to the incident in question in which the deceased got killed. Though he was cross examined, nothing did emerge there-from to show that his evidence cannot be relied on for any reason whatsoever. 17. Further, in their testimonies, PW 1, PW 6 and PW 12 depose that some time after the alleged incident, the accused on his own surrendered before the Chabua PS with a knife in his hand for which he was arrested and knife, he produced before the police, was seized on the strength of seizure list Exbt. 1. The surrender of the accused person voluntarily before the police, and that too with a knife, firmly show that the accused was the person responsible for killing of the aforesaid ill fated boys. 18. According to learned Addl. PP, when the evidence of PW 11 is read together with the other circumstances projected by prosecution during trial, it would appear clear that the accused was the person responsible for killing both of the boys aforesaid and, therefore, learned trial court has rightly convicted the accused person of offence u/s 302 IPC and sentenced him to punishment as aforesaid. Learned Addl. PP therefore, urges this court to dismiss the appeal on affirming the judgment under challenge. 19. We have considered the rival submissions having regard to the judgment under challenge and evidence on record. We have found that learned trial court has reproduced the evidence, so tendered before it during trial in the judgment under challenge. We have also found that Trial Court has properly reproduced the evidence on record in the judgment under challenge. 20. Having regard to the arguments canvassed before this court by the counsel for the parties, we also find it necessary to re-reproduce the evidence of witnesses from the judgment under challenge and same is done in the following manner:- "Sri Deepak Prasad is the first prosecution witness. He s a business by profession and on the day of occurrence, he was present in the Chabua Police Station. He s a business by profession and on the day of occurrence, he was present in the Chabua Police Station. Deepak Prasad stated that while he was in the police station, the present accused went to the police station and disclosed before a police officer that he had some after killing a man. Deepak Prasad stated that the accused was holding a Dagger at that time. The police officer immediately seized the Dagger from the accused and the witness Deepak Prasad had put his signature in the seizure list. The seizure list has been proved the Ext. 12 and his signature thereon as Ext. 1(1). The witness Deepak Prasad also stated that the he had seen police men bringing two dead bodies in to the police station. The witness Deepak Prasad disclosed that accused Azad Khan had confessed before the police in his presence that he had killed two person that day. Sri Mantu Mandal, the informant as well as the father of the deceased Sibu Mandal is the second prosecution witness. He stated that on the day of occurrence, while he was sitting at his home, a policeman from Chabua Police Station came to his house and informed him that his son Sibu Mandal has been stabbed by the accused and therefore, Sibu Mandal was taken to the Hospital. The witness Mantu Mandal disclosed the said policeman also informed him that Robin Nayak was also injured because of the same incident. The policemen wanted to know the location of the house of the Robin Nayak. This witness shows the house of Robin Nayak. The said policeman went to the house of Robin Nayak, but there was no one in the house. Therefore, the witness Mantu Mandal took a ride in the police vehicle to come to the hospital. He had seen the dead body of the Robin Nayak lying by the side of the road near Tata Hospital at Chabua. After being dropped by the police vehicle at the hospital, the witness Mantu Mandal went into the hospital to see his son but he found that the body of his son was kept covered by a while cloth. Police immediately shifted the body of the Sibu Mandal to the police station. The witness also accompanied the dead body to the police station. Mantu Mandal disclosed that he had seen Azad Khan in the lock-up of the police station. Police immediately shifted the body of the Sibu Mandal to the police station. The witness also accompanied the dead body to the police station. Mantu Mandal disclosed that he had seen Azad Khan in the lock-up of the police station. Mantu Mandal asked the accused as to why he had killed Robin Nayak and Sibu Mandal. Mantu Mandal quoted the accused as saying to him that after killing Robin Nayak, he had an argument with the deceased Sibu Mandal and during the heat of the argument, he had pushed the Dagger into the stomach of Sibu Mandal. Mantu Mandal proved his ejahar as Ext. 2 and his signature thereon as Ext. 2(1). This witness is also the witness of the inquest report pertaining to the dead body of his son. He had proved his signature in the inquest report as Ext. 3(1). Mantu Mandal also witnessed the preparation of inquest report pertaining to Robin Nayak and therefore he had proved his signature thereon as Ext. 4(1). The witness had also put his signature in the seizure list pertaining to the seizure of cloths of the deceased persons. The witness Mantu Mandal stated in evidence that he had seen the weapon, used by the accused at the time of commission of the offence, in the police Station. He exhibited the weapon as M. Ext. 1. The third witness is Mahendra Gogoi. He is a shopkeeper near Chabua Police Station. He had written the ejahar (Ext. 1). This witness proved his signature in Ext. 2 as Ext. 2(2). The fourth prosecution witness is Anil Patra. He is a former school teacher. This witness Anil Patra is a brother-in-law of the deceased Robin Nayak. This witness was summoned to the Police Station after the occurrence. Anil Patra stated that he had seen the dead bodies of his brother-in-law Robin Nayak and that of the son of the witness Mantu Mandal. Anil Patra stated that he had seen injuries on the dead bodies. He is also a witness to the seizure of the cloths of the deceased persons. He proved his signature in the seizure lists as the Ext. 5(2) and Ext. 6(2). The fifth prosecution witness is Rajen Deep. He is a rickshaw puller. He stated that he has not knowledge about the occurrence. The sixth prosecution witness is Dhiren Saikia. He is a cultivator and a tailor. He proved his signature in the seizure lists as the Ext. 5(2) and Ext. 6(2). The fifth prosecution witness is Rajen Deep. He is a rickshaw puller. He stated that he has not knowledge about the occurrence. The sixth prosecution witness is Dhiren Saikia. He is a cultivator and a tailor. At the time of occurrence he was working as a tailor and for that matter he had to visit Chabua Police Station to take measurement of dresses of a certain customer in the Police Station. While he was still in the Police Station, he saw that the present accused arrived there and handed over a knife to a policeman. The said policeman reportedly asked the accused as to why he was handing over the knife to him. The witness quoted the accused as saying to the policeman that he had killed a man with that knife. Policeman immediately seized the knife and took a signature of this witness. The witness proved his signature in the seizure list as Ext. 1(3). The witness also exhibited the said knife as material Ext. 1. The seventh prosecution witness is Mohan Tanti. He stated that he does not know the deceased Robin Nayak. The witness stated that he knew Sibu Mandal, who died some years ago. Mohan Tanti quoted the witness Mantu Mandal as saying to him that the accused Azad Khan had killed his son Sibu Mandal. Mohan Tanti disclosed that after about six months of the occurrence, he accompanied Mantu Mandal to the Police Station. The witness stated that police produced him and Mantu Mandal before a Magistrate for giving a statement. Mohan Tanti proved his statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC as Ext. 7 and his signature thereon as Ext. 7(1). The witness Mohan Mandal was declared hostile because of the fact that he had stated before the Magistrate u/s 164 CrPC that he had seen the accused following Sibu Mandal on the day of occurrence. The witness stated before the Magistrate that the accused Sibu Mandal had a scuffle and the accused had stabbed Sibu Mandal with a Dao. The witness stated before the Magistrate that the said occurrence took place in front of his eyes in spite of this. The witness Mohan Tanti stated before the prosecution Counsel that he never stated before the Magistrate like that. The eight prosecution witness is Krishna Kanta Gogoi. The witness stated before the Magistrate that the said occurrence took place in front of his eyes in spite of this. The witness Mohan Tanti stated before the prosecution Counsel that he never stated before the Magistrate like that. The eight prosecution witness is Krishna Kanta Gogoi. He was working as Senior BDO cum Executive Magistrate at Panitola at the relevant time of occurrence. The witness sated that on the day of occurrence, he went to Chabua Police Station to prepare the inquest reports of the dead bodied of the deceased persons. The witness Mr. Gogoi proved the inquest reports as Ext. 3 and Ext. 4. He proved his signatures on those reports as Ext. 3(2) and 4(2). The ninth prosecution witness is the Medical Officer Dr. B.C. Roy Medhi. At the relevant time of occurrence, he was the Head of the Department, Forensic Medicine, Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh. He performed the postmortem examination of the dead bodies of the deceased persons. Dr. Medhi proved his reports as Ext. 9 and his signature thereon as Ext. 9(1). The tenth prosecution witness is Pratima Nayak. She stated that she knew deceased Sibu Mandal. She stated that she did not know deceased Robin Nayak. Pratima Nayak stated before the prosecution counsel that on the day of occurrence while she was returning home from a market, she met Sibu Mandal, who was riding a bicycle at that time. The witness stated that she was walking home and Sibu Mandal gave her company for a short period. Pratima Nayak disclosed that Sibu Nayak had left her company when he had quickened pace of his bicycle and disappeared from her sight. At that time a big commotion started to build up around Pratima. She saw people were dispersing at great speed. Someone amongst those people told Pratima Nayak that Azad Khan had killed Sibu Mandal. The witness became scared. She also quickly left the place and returned home. Pratima Nayak disclosed that at the place of occurrence she had seen Azad Khan holding a Dagger which was splattered with blood. The witness subsequently heard that Sibu Mandal had died. Like the witness Mohan Tanti, Pratima Nayak was also declared hostile because of the fact that she denied having made the statement before the Magistrate that she had seen the accused Azad Khan stabbing the deceased Sibu Mandal with a knife. The witness subsequently heard that Sibu Mandal had died. Like the witness Mohan Tanti, Pratima Nayak was also declared hostile because of the fact that she denied having made the statement before the Magistrate that she had seen the accused Azad Khan stabbing the deceased Sibu Mandal with a knife. The eleventh prosecution witness is Arun Patnayak. He is a thelawala by profession. Arun Nayak stated that on the day of occurrence, he had seen a fight between Azad Khan and Sibu Mandal. The witness stated that both Azad Khan and Sibu Mandal were having a violent fight by the side of the road. The witness claimed that a lot of people have seen the said occurrence. Arun Patnayak disclosed that he had seen Sibu Mandal falling down on the ground and blood was oozing out from his stomach. Arun Patnayak however did not confirm as to whether Sibu was bleeding from his stomach or from his back. The witness immediately left the place. Arun Patnayak stated that he had seen a knife in the hands of the accused at that time. The twelfth prosecution witness is Police Investigating Officer Saifuddin Ahmed. On the day of occurrence, he was working as Sub-Inspector in the Chabua Police Station. He stated that on the day of occurrence at about 5 O' Clock in the afternoon, an unnamed girl informed him that a dead body is lying by the side of the road near Chabua Junior College. The witness stated that on the basis of the said information, the OC made a GD Entry No. 93 dated 04.10.2002. this witness was directed by the OC to investigate the case, therefore, the witness arrived at the place of occurrence. He found a dead body lying in a ditch by the side of the road. No one of the locality knew the identity of the dead body. The witness stated that while he was still near the dead body, the OC Horendra Nath Sasa of Chabua Police Station arrived there told the witness that one boy has surrendered in the police station with a knife. The OC also quoted the said boy as saying to him that he had killed the person whose dead body is lying at the place of occurrence. The OC also quoted that boy as saying that he had also stabbed another person who has been taken to St. Luke's Hospital. The OC also quoted the said boy as saying to him that he had killed the person whose dead body is lying at the place of occurrence. The OC also quoted that boy as saying that he had also stabbed another person who has been taken to St. Luke's Hospital. By that time, night fell and therefore, the dead body was not removed from the place. The witness returned to the Police Station and there he met the accused Azad Khan. The witness seized a knife from the accused. He also seized a blood soaked T-shirt which was worn by the accused at that time. The witness prepared the seizure list. He proved the seizure list as Ext. 1 and his signature thereon as Ext. 1(4). This witness also exhibited the seized knife as M. Ext. 1. He further disclosed that on the same day at about 6 O'clock in the evening one Mantu Mandal had lodged and ejahar alleging that his son Sibu Mandal was injured by the accused and one Gobinda Nayak @ Robin Khan was stabbed to death by the accuse. In the ejahar itself, it was stated that the injured Sibu Mandal had died while being shifted to St. Luke's Hospital. The witness stated that on the basis of the ejahar, Chabua Police Station Case No. 113/02 u/s 302 IPC was registered. The OC handed over the charge on investigation upon this witness. Therefore, the witness returned to the place where the dead body of Robin Nayak was lying. This time the witness removed the dead body of Robin Nayak to the Police Station. He had inquest report prepared by Circle Officer Krishna Gogoi. Both the two dead bodies were sent to the Dibrugarh Medical College Hospital for post mortem examination. The cloths of the decease bodies were seized. He proved the seizure list as Exts. 5 and 6. The witness sent the cloths of the dead bodies to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Guwahati. The witness collected the postmortem examination report from the Forensic Science Laboratory. By that time, he was transferred and for that matter, he had handed over the case diary to the CC. The thirteenth witness is Pritam Saikia. He is a Police Officer. The witness sent the cloths of the dead bodies to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Guwahati. The witness collected the postmortem examination report from the Forensic Science Laboratory. By that time, he was transferred and for that matter, he had handed over the case diary to the CC. The thirteenth witness is Pritam Saikia. He is a Police Officer. He stated in evidence that Sri Horendra Nath Sasa, the Officer-in-charge of Chabua Police Station had handed over the case diary to him after the erstwhile Investigating Officer Saifuddin Ahmed was transferred. Pritam Saikia stated that the earlier Investigating Officer had already completed the investigation and therefore on the basis of the materials available in the case diary, he had only filed the charge-sheet against the accused. The last witness in this case is Niten Chetia who was the Bench Assistant of Judicial Magistrate Raushnara Rahman at the relevant time. The Magistrate Raushnara Rahman had recorded the statements of Pratima Nayak and Arun Patayak u/s 164 CrPC. This witness simply proved his signature of Magistrate Raushnara Rahman." 21. On perusal of evidence of PW 9, in the light of post mortem reports (Ext. 8 and Ext. 9) as well as inquest report (Ext. 3 and Ext. 4), it is found that the deceased aforementioned died homicidal death and the wounds found inflicted on their bodies had occasioned their death almost instantaneous death. Now the question that needs to be answered is whether accused was the person responsible for killing those 2 (two) hapless boys on the afternoon of 04.10.2002. 22. We have considered the evidence on record and found that though PWs were subjected to detailed cross examination, nothing has been discovered to show that testimonies of those witnesses suffer from any serious infirmities. On the perusal of evidence of PWs, particularly, PW11, it is found that on the fateful afternoon, he saw the accused quarreling with the deceased. He also saw the deceased sustaining wounds on his person for which he fell down on the ground. 23. What is equally important to note is that PW 11 saw the accused holding a knife at that point of time. It is also in his evidence that Sibu Mandal died on sustaining wound at the PO at the hand of the accused person. 23. What is equally important to note is that PW 11 saw the accused holding a knife at that point of time. It is also in his evidence that Sibu Mandal died on sustaining wound at the PO at the hand of the accused person. Such evidence draws more and more support from the averments made in Exbt 13 which is a statement which PW11 rendered before the Magistrate during investigation. In our considered opinion, the evidence of PW 11 coupled with Exbt. 13 firmly establish that Sibu Mandal died sustaining wounds at the PO which was inflicted by the accused person. 24. The evidence of PW 10, Pratima Nayak who was declared hostile also reveals that on the eventful evening she was proceeding to her house in the company of deceased Sibu. However, little before the incident in question, the deceased left her and PW 10 too started proceeding to her own house. A little while thereafter, she heard hue and cry coming from the PO and heard that Sibu was assaulted. It is also in her evidence that she saw the accused at the PO and also saw a knife stained with blood in his hand. 25. It may be stated that during investigation, the statement of PW 10 was recorded which was proved as Ext. 12. The evidence of PW 10, despite her being declared hostile, together with some statements in Ext. 12 (which are found symmetrical with the testimony rendered by PW 10 before the court during trial) gives support to the prosecution case on a very vital aspect which, in turn, lends more and more credence to the testimony of PW 11 who in no uncertain term claims that the accused was the person who assaulted and injured Sibu Mandal at the PO on the evening aforementioned. 26. We have also found that in their evidence, PW 1 and PW 6 and PW 12 stated that on 04.10.2002 in the afternoon, the accused had surrender before the O/C, Chabua PS and that too with a knife which police seized on the strength seizure list Ext.1. Though these PWs were subjected to cross examination, yet, such cross examination fails to show any serious infirmities in the testimonies of those witnesses. 27. Though these PWs were subjected to cross examination, yet, such cross examination fails to show any serious infirmities in the testimonies of those witnesses. 27. Such evidence, both oral and documentary, again throws their way behind the claim of prosecution that on the eventful afternoon, the accused attacked Sibu Mandal with a knife inflicting wounds on his person which occasioned his death some time thereafter. The story, so narrated during trial, has drawn support from the story, narrated in the FIR Ext.2, since the story projected during trial and story in the FIR are found to be very symmetrical. 28. We may note here that one Robin Nayak @ Gobinda Nayak died on the eventful afternoon on sustaining cut injuries on the various parts of his body. Though there are strong circumstances to show that the person responsible for killing said Robin Nayak @ Gobinda Nayak was the accused herein, yet, there is no conclusive proof of the accused being author of such crime. Being so, in our opinion, the accused cannot be held responsible for killing the said Robin Nayak @ Gobinda Nayak. 29. But then, facts on records as well circumstances projected and proved by prosecution, unmistakably demonstrate that the accused had attacked Sibu Mandal with a knife at the PO on 04.10.2002 inflicting grave injuries on his person for which he died little thereafter. Being so all the allegations against the prosecution case, so projected by learned Amicus Curiae are found to be without any substance and therefore, those allegations are rejected. 30. We have considered all the evidence on record including the evidence of Doctor and found that the accused attacked and injured Sibu Mandal at the PO on 04.10.2002 and he did so with the intention of killing him. Therefore, the prosecution has successfully proved the charge u/s 302 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and as such, judgment under challenge does not invite any interference from this court. 31. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed being found devoid of merit. 32. Return the LCR. We deeply appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. D.K. Das, learned Amicus Curiae in disposing the present appeal. We, therefore, direct the State to pay him an amount of Rs. 31. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed being found devoid of merit. 32. Return the LCR. We deeply appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. D.K. Das, learned Amicus Curiae in disposing the present appeal. We, therefore, direct the State to pay him an amount of Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand) as being his professional fee and same needs to be paid within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.