Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 87 (ALL)

Jhangan v. State of U. P.

2017-01-06

A.K.MUKHERJEE, BHARAT BHUSHAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : Bharat Bhushan, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.3.1983 passed by the then 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Sessions Trial No. 142 of 1982 (State v. Jhangan) arising out of Case Crime No. 330 of 1981, Police Station Aonla, District Bareilly whereby the appellant Jhangan was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. 2. Prosecution story in brief is that the informant Mohabbat Ali (P.W.-1) was friend of deceased Taqi Mohammad as well as the appellant Jhangan. Deceased Taqi Mohammad used to own a shop of cut-piece clothes as well as small tailoring shop. Both the informant and appellant used to get their clothes tailored by Taqi Mohammad (deceased) which in turn developed into friendship among all the three persons. Appellant used to live in a rented house near Chacha Nehru School. Deceased and informant used to visit the appellant Jhangan frequently. One month prior to the main incident, deceased Taqi Mohammad was cracking jokes, laughing and talking mainly with the wife of appellant infuriating the appellant. A row erupted between the appellant and his guest deceased Taqi Mohammad. Appellant was on the verge of the assaulting the deceased but informant Mohabbat Ali (P.W.-1) managed to broker the peace between them. 3. This did not satisfy the angry appellant who wanted to retaliate and continued to say to informant that one day he would take revenge. Eight -ten days prior to the incident the appellant Jhangan vacated his rented accommodation in town Aonla and went back to his village Vijai Nagla. On the date of incident, the appellant invited both the deceased Taqi Mohammad and informant Mohabbat Ali on the occasion of Deepawali, which was accepted by them. Both of them went to residence of appellant Jhangan at about 3-30 afternoon on 26.10.1981. Appellant treated them first with tea. 4. Deceased Taqi Mohammad and informant Mohammad Ali told the accused that they would first go to answer the call of nature in the jungle and then they will take their food. At about 4.45 p.m. both deceased and informant came back from the jungle after defecating and reached the house of Kailash Natt where the appellant Jhangan also met them. All three of them started moving the house of host. P.W-2 Kamla minor daughter of Kailash Natt was standing on the main door of his house. At about 4.45 p.m. both deceased and informant came back from the jungle after defecating and reached the house of Kailash Natt where the appellant Jhangan also met them. All three of them started moving the house of host. P.W-2 Kamla minor daughter of Kailash Natt was standing on the main door of his house. Other witnesses namely Gaffar, (not produced), and P.W.-3 Hafeez Khan were also present nearby. Suddenly the appellant Jhangan whipped out a gun from his pocket and shot Taqi Mohammad from his behind. Prosecution story is that the deceased, appellant and P.W-1 Mohabbat Ali (informant) were coming back to their house together, however, deceased Taqi Mohammad was slightly ahead of accused and informant Mohammad Ali was one or two steps behind the appellant. After receiving the gun shot injury on his back, deceased Taqi Mohammad started falling down and thereafter the appellant Jhangan again shot the deceased Taqi Mohammad on upper part of the right side of back of heart and thereafter ran away. 5. It appears that Taqi Mohammad died almost immediately, however, the informant got the First Information Report (FIR3 Ex-Ka-1) scribed by Karamat Ali and lodged it at Police Station Aonla at 6.15 p.m. which was five miles away from the place of occurrence, meaning thereby that the FIR was lodged within 90 minutes in presence of P.W.-4 Sampat Singh, the then Station House Officer of Police Station Aonla, who had investigated the aforesaid case. A Check report (Ex-Ka-6) was carved out. Relevant entries were made in the General Diary (Ex-Ka 7) of the police station. Inquest proceedings were initiated and completed. Inquest report (Ex-Ka-2) was prepared and the dead body of deceased was sent for postmortem through constable Kripal Singh. The postmortem was conduced by P.W.-6 Dr Mahesh Chandra Sharma on 27.10.1981 at 3 p.m. The postmortem report (Ex-ka-12) was prepared and following injuries were reported on the person of deceased Taqi Mohammad, which is reproduced as under:- (i) A circular gun shot wound 1 cm X 1 cm X skull cavity deep on the right side of back of head 7 cm behind the right side of ear with bleeding. (ii) Circular wound 2 cm X 2 X cavity deep in the coccygeal region below the sacrum in between buttock. (iii) Incised wound 1 cm X cm X muscle deep on the left upper scapular region. (ii) Circular wound 2 cm X 2 X cavity deep in the coccygeal region below the sacrum in between buttock. (iii) Incised wound 1 cm X cm X muscle deep on the left upper scapular region. (iv) Contusion 4 cm X 3 cm on the left side of neck in the upper part on left side underneath which there was palpable rounded bullet which was removed. 6. As per opinion of the Dr Mahesh Chandra Sharma, (P.W- 6) injury no. 1, 2 & 4 were caused by firearm while injury no. 3 could have been caused as a result of fall on some sharp pointed object. Doctor also opined that the deceased might have died on 26.10.1981 around 5.30 p.m. The doctor also concluded that the injuries sustained by deceased were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Doctor has also opined that his conclusions contained possible variations of 5-6 hours. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer (P.W-4) Sampat Singh filed a charge sheet (Ex Ka-11) against the sole accused. It is pertinent to point out that the site plan prepared during course of investigation is available on record as Ex-Ka-9 on page no. 63 of the paper book. 7. The then 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge framed charge against the appellant Jhangan under Section 302 IPC on 28.4.1982. The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried. 8. Prosecution has adduced the evidence of six witnesses in support of their allegations. Informant Mohabbat Ali P.W.-1, Km Kamla (eye witness)-P.W-2, Hafeez Khan-P.W.-3, Sampat Singh (Investigating Officer- P.W.-4) and P.W.-6 Dr Mahesh Chandra Sharma have given their evidence in favour of the prosecution. Link evidence of P.W-5 Kripal Singh has also been tendered on record. 9. We have heard Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ajeet Ray, learned AGA for the State and perused the entire material on record. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the motive put forward by the prosecution has not been established by the independent witnesses and even the story of motive itself is weak. Presence of eye witnesses on the spot is highly doubtful. There are significant contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witnesses creating doubt about the presence of the witnesses on the spot. 11. Presence of eye witnesses on the spot is highly doubtful. There are significant contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witnesses creating doubt about the presence of the witnesses on the spot. 11. Submission further is that the medical evidence is inconsistent with the ocular evidence and the facts enshrined in the FIR (Ex-Ka-1). Learned counsel for the appellant has further tried to create doubt about the bona fide of informant Mohammad Ali (P.W-1) 12. On the other hand, learned AGA has defended the prosecution evidence. He has claimed that minor discrepancies are not sufficient to discard the otherwise trustworthy evidence of prosecution. He claims that the incident occurred in day time in presence of several witnesses. The information was communicated to police immediately and the FIR was lodged within 90 minutes of the incident. The postmortem was conducted next day and link evidence indicates that the dead body of deceased was not tampered with. 13. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the allegations and claimed false implications on account of previous enmity with informant Mohabbat Ali. Defence has adduced the evidence of D.W.-1 Jagdish Prakash. This evidence is formal in nature. It appears that one application was moved to ADM (E) purportedly by appellant Jhangan. In this application, D.W-1 Jagdish Prakash has primarily tried to prove the existence of application stated to have been given by appellant Jhangan. 14. Before analysing the prosecution evidence in detail it would be proper to have a glance over the prosecution evidence in brief. 15. P.W-1 Mohabbat Ali is principle witness in this case. It is alleged that Mohabbat Ali was aware of the dispute between the deceased Taqi Mohammad and appellant, stated to have occurred one month prior to the incident. He brokered peace between the parties, however, the appellant issued threats to deceased behind his back. P.W-1 has indeed supported the prosecution evidence fully. Testimony rendered by Mohabbat Ali is of high quality, natural and consistent with the normal human conduct. 16. PW-2 Kamla's names figured in the FIR itself wherein it has been stated that Kamla was standing at the door way of his house when the appellant fired twice upon the deceased. 17. P.W-3 Hafeez Khan is another witness of fact in whose presence the murder of deceased took place. 16. PW-2 Kamla's names figured in the FIR itself wherein it has been stated that Kamla was standing at the door way of his house when the appellant fired twice upon the deceased. 17. P.W-3 Hafeez Khan is another witness of fact in whose presence the murder of deceased took place. Apart from this, evidence of fact, the Investigating officer Sampat Singh has also deposed as P.W-5. Dr Mahesh Chandra Sharma, who conducted the postmortem has testified as PW-6. The link evidence of P.W-5 Constable Kripal Singh has been tendered on record. 18. Bare perusal of the prosecution evidence would reveal that the edifice of prosecution case primarily depends upon the eye witness accounts rendered in this case by P.W.-1 Mohabbat Ali informant, P.W-2 Kamla and P.W.-3 Hafeez Khan, for the simple reason that not only the incident occurred in their presence but P.W.-1 Mohabbat Ali was also aware of the tense relationship between the appellant and deceased. Story is that one month prior to the incident Taqi Mohammad (deceased) perhaps angered the appellant on account of his light hearted banter with the wife of the appellant which the appellant did not like. It is true that as far as the FIR is concerned, not much details have been given regarding this episode which soured the relationship between the deceased and appellant. But, while giving the evidence before the trial court informant Mohabbat Ali (P.W-1) has conceded that on earlier occasion deceased not only touched the hands of the wife of appellant but also asked her to "MERI ZAAN MUJHSE MOHABBAT KAB KAROGI'' 19. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that this line was not mentioned in the FIR and that addition of this line indicates improvement as well as an attempt to create the evidence. We are afraid that this argument of learned counsel for the appellant is not impressive at all for the simple reason that the FIR, as is well known, is not treated like an encyclopedia, although statement made in the FIR at the earliest point of time should be given primacy, it would not be proper to say that all particulars with regard to commission of offence must be furnished. FIR is essentially a document which sets law and order machinery into motion. 20. FIR is essentially a document which sets law and order machinery into motion. 20. No specific format is provided for lodging of the FIR nor any time limit is prescribed for lodging of the FIR. It is accepted that there should be some details in the FIR so as to initiate investigation or to establish the fact whether any cognisable offence had been committed or not. Other than this, no specific requirement are prescribed by law as far as FIR is concerned. Of course, it is expected that the FIR should be lodged quickly but it cannot be treated as an encyclopedia or substitute of full fledged evidence in the Court. 21. It is apparent that the deceased, informant and witnesses belong to simple lower middle class section of rural India with their own social norms. Light hearted banter or light talks of deceased resulted ultimately in his assassination. This itself should depict the contours of social life of rival parties. We believe that mention of the fact that Taqi Mohammad (deceased) entered into light hearted banter with the wife enraging the appellant Jhangan itself is sufficient as far as FIR is concerned. 22. Sworn testimony on the other hand is altogether a different thing. Details of episodes are naturally provided in the sworn testimonies during both examination in chief and cross examination. Witnesses are guided, controlled and questioned by the lawyers. Therefore, it is always possible that question are answered in larger perspective and context with more details during sworn depositions. We believe as far as earlier incident in which row erupted between the deceased and appellant due to light hearted talks with wife of appellant has already been mentioned by informant in his FIR. He has provided more details during his sworn testimony as was perhaps required and asked for by the legal eagles. 23. Evidence rendered by P.W.-1 Mohabbat Ali has narrated the entire episode in great detail. First eruption of row between the parties, patch up at the instance of P.W-1 Mohabbat Ali and thereafter attempt at normalization of relationship between friends turned foe has been described by Mohabbat Ali in a very simple, natural and trust worthy manner. 24. We have examined the testimony of P.W.-1 Mohabbat Ali in great details and we are convinced that there is absolutely no reason for him to lie about the incident. 24. We have examined the testimony of P.W.-1 Mohabbat Ali in great details and we are convinced that there is absolutely no reason for him to lie about the incident. His presence on the spot has been established with impeccable evidence. The fact that the FIR was lodged within 90 minutes at P.S. Aonla, which was five miles away from the place of occurrence itself indicates that the prosecution did not have any opportunity to fabricate and concoct the story. It is pertinent to point out that the incident occurred in the month of October at about 4.45 p.m. There was no possibility of any mistake in identification. Light was sufficient. In fact all three persons namely the deceased, informant and appellant not only knew to each others for long time but also moving together at the time of incident. 25. Testimony of Kamla (P.W.-2) suffers from legal flaw. Trial Judge first tested him for his ability to render the evidence and found her competent to give evidence on oath. She supported the prosecution case fully. She was in fact standing at the door steps of Kailash Natt, a house from where she saw the entire episode in which the appellant shot Taqi Mohammad. This witness was first examined on 24.9.1982 but her cross examination was deferred at the request of counsel for defence. Then after six months her cross examination was conducted on 4.3.1983. On this occasion initially she changed the story and conceded that she had testified on account of suggestion of her father as well as the prosecution counsel but when she was recalled and again examined by State counsel on the same day, she again reiterated that the accused had shot the deceased in her presence. But thereafter, before she could answer the questions of counsel for accused, she started crying, weeping, shivering and sobbing. Her statement, therefore, could not be completed. Non completion of further examination by learned counsel for the accused creates a legal flaw in acceptance of her evidence. Her evidence cannot be taken into consideration for the simple reason that further cross examination could not be completed on account of her health issues. So this evidence cannot be taken into consideration. 26. Another witness P.W.-3 Hafeez Khan was produced by the prosecution namely Hafeez Khan. This witness has supported the prosecution story fully. Her evidence cannot be taken into consideration for the simple reason that further cross examination could not be completed on account of her health issues. So this evidence cannot be taken into consideration. 26. Another witness P.W.-3 Hafeez Khan was produced by the prosecution namely Hafeez Khan. This witness has supported the prosecution story fully. He has narrated that appellant Jhangan shot the deceased Taqi Mohammad twice in his presence. First shot hit the deceased Taqi Mohammad around waist and second shot hit him some where around temple region. He has been extensively cross examined. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred this witness as chance witness. We are afraid that merely because P.W-3 Hafeez Khan as a labour was in search of work on that particular day, is not sufficient to discard his testimony. He has very simply and naturally indicated that he usually used to leave his residence at 8 in the morning in search of his work but on that particular date he left his home at about 2.30-3.00 p.m. on cycle. Evidence revealed that village Vijaee Nagla is 7-8 kms away from Police Station Aonla, therefore, for Hafeez Khan to seek work in nearby villages is not surprising at all. He has also testified that first shot hit deceased on his buttock and second shot caught him on temple region. We have carefully examined the sworn depositions of P.W.-1 Mohabbat Ali and P.W.-3 Hafeez Khan and we believe the testimonies of these witnesses are highly credible, natural and trustworthy. Learned counsel for the defence has not been able to disclose any reason for disbelieving the testimony of these witnesses. 27. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that motive attributed to prosecution is very weak and has not been established. We are afraid that this argument is not sufficient for rejection of prosecution evidence. The fact of the matter is that motive is one of the perception. Motive lies locked in the heart of the perpetrators of crime. Other side can merely perceived it. An incident occurred one month prior to the main incident in which the appellant Jhangan lost his cool on account of light hearted talks with his wife by the deceased. In feudal societies, this kind of talks can certainly result into 'marpeet'. Motive lies locked in the heart of the perpetrators of crime. Other side can merely perceived it. An incident occurred one month prior to the main incident in which the appellant Jhangan lost his cool on account of light hearted talks with his wife by the deceased. In feudal societies, this kind of talks can certainly result into 'marpeet'. P.W-1 Mohammad Ali has in fact testified that the appellant Jhangan was on the verge of assaulting the deceased on the very same day, however, intervention of P.W.-1 Mohammad Ali perhaps saved the day. But the appellant did not forget the incident and continued to hold the grudge. It is apparent from the fact that he continued to express his anger and frustration to Mohammad Ali repeatedly. Similarly evidence of P.W.-3 Hafeez Khan is highly trustworthy. Both of them have no reason to implicate the appellant. Story given by appellant Jhangan that bad relationship with Kailash Natt has resulted in false implication is way off the mark for the simple reason that Kailash Natt did not appear as witness which he could have done very easily. In fact the testimony rendered by P.W.-2 Kamla, his daughter has been ignored by the trial court as well as by this appellate court. As far as P.W.-1 Mohammad Ali and P.W.-3 Hafeez Khan are concerned they have no reason to implicate the appellant falsely. 28. Learned counsel for the appellant has also claimed that medical evidence is not in consistent with the ocular testimony. We have carefully examined all the materials on record and we do not accept this argument of learned counsel for the appellant. The FIR itself says that the first shot fired by the appellant hit the deceased at his back and second shot was fired when deceased was falling down. 29. P.W-1 Mohammad Ali reiterated the same story during his testimony. He has specified that the first shot was fired from behind the deceased as the deceased was falling down and the second shot was fired on the right temple region. 30. Similar story has been given by P.W.-3 Hafeez Khan. If we carefully examine the evidence of P.W-6 Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma, it would be revealed that the injuries indicated by the doctor are broadly consistent with the ocular testimony. A gun shot wound was found on the skull cavity deep on the right side of back of head. 30. Similar story has been given by P.W.-3 Hafeez Khan. If we carefully examine the evidence of P.W-6 Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma, it would be revealed that the injuries indicated by the doctor are broadly consistent with the ocular testimony. A gun shot wound was found on the skull cavity deep on the right side of back of head. Another wound was found near buttock. One injury was found on the left side of neck and the upper part of the left side. These injuries are broadly consistent with the prosecution evidence. To say that ocular testimony of even an illiterate witness of rural India should be consistent with the evidence of expert with mathematical precision is not acceptable. Medical evidence is never compared with the ocular testimony in a mathematical manner. Legal requirement is that core of medical evidence and ocular testimony should be consistent. This has been repeatedly held in plethora of judgments by Apex Court. 31. Apex court in Vitthal Pundalik Zende v. State of Maharashtra, 2009 (2) ACR 1497 (SC)" held that minor discrepancies between ocular testimonies and medical evidence would not result in rejecting the evidence of injured witness. Apex Court in G.S. Walia v. State of Punjab, (1998) 5 SCC 150 has held that medical evidence should not be mechanically compared with oral testimony. In the case of G.S. Wallia (supra) certain injuries caused by sharp edged weapon was found on the body yet oral testimony did not refer any sharp edged weapon yet the Apex Court declined to reject the oral testimony. 32. In this connection, it would be also relevant to refer the case of "Ajay Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 2000 SC 3538 ", location of second injury in postmortem report was described at different place in oral testimony but still oral testimony was not rejected by Apex Court on this stated inconsistency. 33. Learned counsel for the appellant has questioned the presence of single weapon at the spot. He has drawn the attention of the court towards the fact that during the postmortem examination some 47 pellets were found as well as one wad and one bullet were recovered. It is further submitted that this indicates use of two weapons while prosecution story says that the appellant Jhangan used single weapon and shot the deceased twice. He has drawn the attention of the court towards the fact that during the postmortem examination some 47 pellets were found as well as one wad and one bullet were recovered. It is further submitted that this indicates use of two weapons while prosecution story says that the appellant Jhangan used single weapon and shot the deceased twice. Claim of learned counsel for the appellant is that bullet and pellets could not have been discharged by the same weapon. Weapon was not recovered during investigation, therefore, it is not possible to say that two weapons were used. It depends on the nature of cartridges. It is possible to use single weapon of a particular type and specification and use of two different kind of cartridges. 34. In any case, no ballistic expert has been produced by the prosecution. At the same time no ballistic expert was summoned by the defence as well. There is nothing on record to establish that two weapons were used. In the absence of any specific evidence, it cannot be concluded that two types of weapons were used by the two assailants. This suggestion was not even given to any witness despite availability of postmortem report right from the beginning to the learned counsel for the defence. Now suddenly at the appellate stage to put forward theory of two weapons and two assailants is neither sustainable nor acceptable. 35. We also do not accept the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the timing of incident has not been established. The time of incident has been established by several witnesses. The FIR was lodged at 6.15 p.m. which indicates that the incident had taken place prior to this time. In fact the general diary (Ex-Ka-7) also indicates registration of case prior to 6.15 p.m. It is pertinent to point out that incident occurred on 26.10.1981 at 4.45 p.m. Inquest proceedings were initiated in the aftermath of the incident and were finished by 9.30 p.m. as is evident from the inquest report (Ex-Ka-2). This inquest report also includes mention of crime number. Had FIR been not in existence at that point of time, it would not have been possible to include the crime number in the inquest report. 36. Story of ante-timing has not been established at all. Evidence of both prosecution witnesses have no significant discrepancies. This inquest report also includes mention of crime number. Had FIR been not in existence at that point of time, it would not have been possible to include the crime number in the inquest report. 36. Story of ante-timing has not been established at all. Evidence of both prosecution witnesses have no significant discrepancies. Prosecution evidence is broadly consistent with the contents of the FIR as well as medical evidence. 37. Learned counsel has further argued that the dead body of deceased was not shown in the site plan and according to him this creates credible doubt about the place of occurrence. Empty shell has not been shown in the site plan. In fact learned counsel for the appellant has denounced the site plan saying that it does not disclose the full contours of the incident. We are afraid that this argument of learned counsel for the appellant is not sustainable. Site plan (Ex-Ka-9) is detailed. Distances have been shown. Place from where assailant shot the deceased has been indicated. The Investigating Officer has taken the blood stained earth and the simple earth from the place of occurrence. Site plan indicates the place of Kamla as well as witness Gaffar and Hafeez Khan. It is pertinent to point out that the site plan was prepared on 26.10.1981 i.e. on the same day when the incident occurred. This also contains the crime number. It is evident, therefore, that the FIR was in existence on the same day before preparation of the site plan. Site plan delineated the contours of place of occurrence in vivid details. In any case, merely because the investigation was not done efficiently that would not be sufficient to ignore the eye witness account of trustworthy witnesses. In the case of a defective investigation the Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the minor defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective. 38. In the case of a defective investigation the Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the minor defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective. 38. Apex Court in Dhanaj Singh @ Shera And Ors v. State of Punjab, 2004 (45) ACC 940 has held that so called mistake committed during the course of investigation have to be considered by courts seriously but merely because that some mistake has been committed by the Investigating Officer, trustworthy evidence of eye witnesses cannot be rejected if such course is adopted court will play in the hands of the Investigating Officer and police personnel. 39. Similar view has been reiterated by Apex Court in Ram Singh @ Chhaju v. State of H.P, 2010 (1) SCC(Cri) 1496, wherein the Apex Court has held that defective investigation is not necessarily sufficient for rejection of prosecution case. 40. Apex Court in Vishnu Deo Poddar and another v. State of Bihar, 2003 CrLJ 1558 has held that fate of prosecution does not depend on what prosecution or investigating officer ought to have done. The fate depends on the material already available on record. If the available material is sufficient to hold the accused guilty of offence then the court cannot refuse to convict the accused merely because some part of investigation was poor or done in lackadaisical manner. 41. Considering all facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of accused-appellant by trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence. Learned trial judge has marshalled the facts and evidence adroitly. Sufficient evidence has been placed to establish the guilt of the appellant. 42. In view of the aforementioned discussion, we are of the view that the appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed and impugned judgment and order dated 25.03.1983 of the trial court is affirmed. Appellant, who is on bail, is directed to surrender immediately. His bail is cancelled and sureties are discharged. Trial court is also directed to get him arrested and send him to jail to serve out the sentence awarded by trial court and affirmed by this judgment. 43. Office will certify this order to the court concerned within 15 days. Appellant, who is on bail, is directed to surrender immediately. His bail is cancelled and sureties are discharged. Trial court is also directed to get him arrested and send him to jail to serve out the sentence awarded by trial court and affirmed by this judgment. 43. Office will certify this order to the court concerned within 15 days. Trial court shall thereafter communicate compliance of this judgment within a month thereafter.