JUDGMENT : 1. Case called out in the revised list. None has appeared on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal. 2. Record shows that this appeal is of the year 1988 and Moti Lal, sole appellant in this appeal is on bail since 19.08.1988. 3. Record further shows that when this appeal was taken up for hearing on 05.11.2016, none had appeared on behalf of the appellant. As a result, this Court had passed the following order:- "Case called out in the revised list. No one is present on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal even though learned AGAs are present. Perused the order sheet. This appeal is of the year 1988. Record shows that the appellant is on bail. In view of above, issue non-bailable warrant against accused-appellant through Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur returnable at an early date. In case the appellant surrenders and/or is arrested, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the undertaking that he shall appear before this Court on the next date fixed. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur shall submit his report along with copies of bail bonds and sureties furnished by the appellant. List on 7.12.2016. A copy of this order shall be given to learned AGA within 48 hours." 4. When this matter was taken up on 02.01.2017, it transpired that the appellant Moti Lal was absconding and as such the non-bailable warrants issued against him pursuant to the order of this Court dated 05.11.2016 could not be executed. As a result, we passed an order on the same day directing the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur to continue with his efforts to locate the whereabouts of appellant Moti Lal and ordered this matter to be listed again on 02.02.2017. 5. The matter could not be taken up on 02.02.2017 and the same appeared in the cause list again on 06.03.2017. On that day, after perusing the report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur dated 30.01.2017, we passed the following order:- "Case called out in the revised list. None appears on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal. Heard learned AGA. The matter could not be taken up on 02.02.2017 and the same appeared in the cause list again on 06.03.2017. On that day, after perusing the report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur dated 30.01.2017, we passed the following order:- "Case called out in the revised list. None appears on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal. Heard learned AGA. From the perusal of the report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur dated 30.01.2017, it transpires that he could not proceed against the sureties of the absconding appellant, Moti Lal on account of non-availability of bail bonds furnished by the appellant at the time of his being released on bail pursuant to the order of this Court dated 2.1.2017 as the same were forwarded to this Court. In view of the above, we direct the office to dispatch photostat copies of the bail bonds furnished by the accused-appellant, Moti Lal, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur which were forwarded to this court, within a period of one week from today. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur shall thereafter, proceed against the sureties and submit his compliance report within a further period of three weeks. List on 10.04.2017 along with the report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur." 6. When this matter was listed today, after perusing the report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur dated 07.04.2017 which has been forwarded to this Court in compliance of our order dated 06.03.2017, we noted that out of two sureties furnished by the appellant Moti Lal at the time of his being released on bail, namely Zaheerul Islam and Imtiaz Ali, Imtiaz Ali had died about 15 years before. In response to the notice issued to Zaheerul Islam in the proceedings instituted against him u/s 446 Cr.P.C. he appeared before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur on 03.04.2017 and informed him that the accused Moti Lal is absconding since a very long time and despite making his best efforts, he has not been able to make any contact with him and he was not in a position to produce accused appellant Moti Lal before the Court. 7. 7. Faced with the aforesaid contingency, the question which arises before us is that whether we are bound to adjourn the hearing of this appeal in the absence of both the appellant and his counsel and wait perennially for the appellant to be traced out, if at all, and produced before this Court. Under identical circumstances, the Apex Court after a comprehensive analysis of previous decisions on the issue has distilled the legal position into six propositions in paragraph 19 of its judgment delivered in the case of K.S. Panduranga vs. State of Karnataka, (2013) 3 SCC 721 : 19.1 That the High Court cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter without examining the merits. 19.2 That the Court is not bound to adjourn the matter if both the appellant or his counsel/lawyer are absent. 19.3 That the court may, as a matter of prudence or indulgence, adjourn the matter but it is not bound to do so. 19.4 That it can dispose of the appeal after perusing the record and judgment of the trial court. 19.5 That if the accused is in jail and cannot, on his own, come to court, it would be advisable to adjourn the case and fix another date to facilitate the appearance of the appellant-accused if his lawyer is not present, and if the lawyer is absent and the court deems it appropriate to appoint a lawyer at the State expense to assist it, nothing in law would preclude the court from doing so. 19.6 That if the case is decided on merits in the absence of the appellant, the higher court can remedy the situation. 8. Thus, in view of the legal position propounded by the Apex Court in the case of K.S. Panduranga (Supra), we do not find any good reason to adjourn the hearing of this appeal suo motu in the absence of the appellant or his counsel and we proceed to examine this appeal on merits with the assistance of Sri J.K. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. and Smt. Manju Thakur, learned brief holder for the State. This appeal has been filed by the appellant Moti Lal against judgment and order dated 20.01.1988 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in S.T. No. 156 of 1987, State v. Moti Lal, u/s 302 I.P.C., P.S. Charkhari, District-Hamirpur, by which he has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life u/s 302 I.P.C. 9. This appeal has been filed by the appellant Moti Lal against judgment and order dated 20.01.1988 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in S.T. No. 156 of 1987, State v. Moti Lal, u/s 302 I.P.C., P.S. Charkhari, District-Hamirpur, by which he has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life u/s 302 I.P.C. 9. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that the deceased Smt. Sumitra Devi was admitted to Government Hospital, Charkhari on 25.08.1985 at about 11:50 A.M. by the accused Moti Lal with burn injuries, information thereof was conveyed to P.S. Charkhari and then the injuries of Smt. Sumitra Devi were examined. Information was sent from the hospital for sending some officer to record the dying declaration of the deceased. However, when no one turned up, her dying declaration was recorded by Dr. Indra Kumar Jain, who was treating her in the hospital in which she stated that the accused-appellant had solemnized marriage with her before Gant Sahab in Mahoba. From the aforesaid wedlock, three daughters and two sons were born to her and presently she had two sons and one daughter with her. She also stated that Moti Lal, who had kept a sunarin had on her instigation beaten her after tying her up with chains and thereafter at instigation of the same lady, the accused Moti Lal had poured kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze at which she ran through the door and fell into a drain on which Moti Lal sprinkled water on her. She also stated that she had returned to the house of accused Moti Lal on the assurance given by his brother-in-law (behnoi) that he would not ill-treat her. However, Moti Lal had deceived her. The dying declaration of the deceased recorded before Dr. Indra Kumar Jain was sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur. Thereafter, at about 7:15 A.M. on the next day, Smt. Sumitra Devi died in the hospital. Information about her death was communicated to P.S. Charkhari on which S.H.O. Ram Raj Singh arrived at the hospital and conducted the inquest on the dead body of the deceased and after preparing the inquest report and other related documents sealed her dead body and dispatched the same to District Hospital for her postmortem examination. On the basis of the dying declaration of the deceased (Ext.Ka.4), Case Crime No. 64 of 1985 was registered against Moti Lal. On the basis of the dying declaration of the deceased (Ext.Ka.4), Case Crime No. 64 of 1985 was registered against Moti Lal. The Investigating Officer during the course of investigating the aforesaid case, examined the injuries allegedly sustained by Moti Lal in the occurrence and after completing the investigation, came to the conclusion that the deceased Smt. Sumitra Devi fed up of being tortured and maltreated by her husband Moti Lal had committed suicide and submitted charge-sheet u/s 306 I.P.C. against accused Moti Lal on 20.06.1985. 10. Since, the offence mentioned in the charge-sheet was triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur committed the case for the trial of the accused to the Court of Sessions Judge, Hamirpur where it was registered as S.T. No. 156 of 1987 and made over for trial to the Court of IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur. The learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur on the basis of the material collected during the investigation and after hearing the accused Moti Lal on the point of charge, framed charge against accused-appellant Moti Lal u/s 302 I.P.C. The accused Moti Lal pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 11. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as five witnesses including PW-1 Dr. Ghanshyam Pandey, PW-2 Dr. Indra Kumar Jain, PW-3 Vijay Kumar Srivastava, PW-4 Virendra Pal Singh and PW-5 Ram Raj Singh, retired Deputy S.P. Apart from oral evidence, the prosecution also adduced documentary evidence which apart from other document comprised of dying declaration of the deceased (Ext.Ka.2), injury report of the deceased and her postmortem reports (Ext.Ka.2 and Ext.Ka.1), recovery memo of the articles seized from the place of occurrence by the Investigating Officer (Ext.Ka.9), inquest report (Ext.Ka.10) and charge-sheet (Ext.Ka.2). The accused Moti Lal in his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. denied that he had poured kerosene oil over his wife and set her ablaze. He further stated that his wife was hot-tempered on account of which she was mentally imbalanced. While cooking food, her clothes had caught fire accidentally on which she started screaming and on her hearing her screams, he rushed inside his house and tried to save her and in the process, he also received burn injuries and thereafter, he got her admitted to the hospital. While cooking food, her clothes had caught fire accidentally on which she started screaming and on her hearing her screams, he rushed inside his house and tried to save her and in the process, he also received burn injuries and thereafter, he got her admitted to the hospital. His opponents taking advantage of the circumstances, had got a false criminal case registered against him whereas the written report of the occurrence given by him at the P.S. Charkhari was not registered. He was living with his wife in perfect harmony. 12. Learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, after considering the submissions advanced before him by learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the entire evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to imprisonment for life u/s 302 I.P.C. 13. Hence, this appeal. 14. We have very carefully perused the lower court record and heard Sri J.K. Upadhyay, learned AGA. The record of this case shows that the Case Crime No. 64 of 1985 was registered against the appellant Moti Lal on the basis of the dying declaration of his wife Smt. Sumitra Devi which was recorded before PW-2 Dr. Indra Kumar Jain in Government Hospital, Charkhari (Ext.Ka.4) in which she had categorically charged the accused- appellant Moti Lal with pouring kerosene oil on her at the instigation of his concubine, wife of a goldsmith and setting her ablaze. She had further stated that the accused Moti Lal had solemnized marriage with her in the Court before "Gant Sahab" and from the aforesaid wedlock, three daughters and two sons were born to her and on the day of the occurrence, she had two sons and one daughter alive. She had also deposed in her dying declaration that before setting her ablaze, accused-appellant Moti Lal had chained her and beaten her at the behest of his concubine. 15. The dying declaration was recorded on 25/26.04.1985 before Dr. Indra Kumar Jain, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital-Charkhari, District-Hamirpur, who has certified that the dying declaration was recorded while the deceased was in full state of consciousness on 12:15 A.M. on 26.04.1985. 15. The dying declaration was recorded on 25/26.04.1985 before Dr. Indra Kumar Jain, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital-Charkhari, District-Hamirpur, who has certified that the dying declaration was recorded while the deceased was in full state of consciousness on 12:15 A.M. on 26.04.1985. After the information of the death was conveyed by the hospital authorities to the P.S. Charkhari, PW-5 Ram Raj Singh, S.H.O. P.S. Charkhari had arrived at the Government Hospital, Charkhari and after conducting the inquest and preparing the inquest report and other related documents had dispatched the dead body of the deceased for conducting postmortem. Thereafter, he took possession of burnt pieces of deceased's saree and a bottle with remains of kerosene oil at the bottom and prepared the recovery memo (Ext.Ka.9). Record further shows that postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Smt. Sumitra Devi was conducted by PW-1 Dr. Ghanshyam Pandey on 26.04.1985 at about 4:45 P.M. The postmortem report of the deceased is on record as (Ext.Ka.1). PW-1 Dr. Ghanshyam Pandey, who had prepared the postmortem report of the deceased was of the opinion the deceased had died as a result of shock and suffocation due to ante-mortem burn injuries. 16. It is noteworthy that apart from the dying declaration of the deceased, the prosecution had examined PW-3 Vijay Kumar Srivastava and PW-4 Virendra Pal Singh as witnesses of fact. However, PW-3 Vijay Kumar Srivastava and PW-4 Virendra Pal Singh failed to support the prosecution case during the trial and were declared hostile. 17. The only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is that whether the conviction of the accused-appellant Moti Lal recorded by the trial court on the basis of the dying declaration of the deceased, can be maintained or not in the absence of corroboration by evidence of any other witness. The dying declaration of the deceased which was recorded before Dr. The dying declaration of the deceased which was recorded before Dr. Indra Kumar Jain, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Charkhari, District-Hamirpur on 25/26.04.1985 at about 12:15 A.M., is being reproduced hereunder:- ^^esjk uke lqfe=k nsoh gS eSa eksrhyky ds ;gka dksVZ eSfjt gS egksok ls tUV lkgc }kjk esjs 3 yM+dh o 2 yMds gks x, rFkk bl le; esjs nks yM+dk vkSj ,d yM+dh gSA ;s yksx eksrh yky us vius firk dh jk; ls eq>s tathj can dj jke esa ds ekjk gS eksrh yky ,d lqukfju dks j[ks gS mls dgus ij eq>s ekjk gSA vkt esjs 'kjhj ij eksrh yky us feV~Vh dk rsy M+kydj vkx yxkbZ eSa njokts fudy dj Hkkxh rks ukyh fxj iM+h vkSj eksrhyky us ikuh myhp fn;kA eSa lkMh VsjhdkV dh rFkk Cykmt lwrh igus FkhA eksrh yky us vkt [kkuk ugha [kk;k rks eSus Hkh ugha [kk;k eq>s tathj yxk yxk dj ekjk gS jLlh gS dg jgs Fks dqYgkM+h ls dkV gksA tcjnLrh eq>s ekj ekj ds [kkuk f[kyk;k] iwjs eksgYys ds yksx jgs ysfdu fdlh us ugha cpk;kA eq>s ?kj ls vk, ,d eghuk Ms<+ eghuk gks x;k ugha ekjk vkSj vkt gh ekjk gSA buds cguksbZ jkB okyks dh ftEesnkjh ij eSa ;gka vkbZ FkhA blus /kks[kks djks eksjs laxA eq>s jfLl;u ls cka/k cka/k dj ekjksaA nwljh vkSjr ds pDdj esa eq>s 1&1@2] 2 lky Hkxk, Hkxk, fQjsA eksgYys ds yksxu esa NksVs ds cEgksjh ds odhy lkgc] eqyyw ukÅ] jes'k ukm] y{eh ukm] fVM+h ukm] vM+tfM+;k ekLVj lkgc dqy igkM+ okys jgsA** 18. The doctrine of dying declaration is enshrined in the legal maxim Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire, which means a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth. The doctrine of dying declaration is enshrined in section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter called as, Evidence Act) as an exception to the general rule contained in section 60 of the Evidence Act, which provides that oral evidence in all cases must be direct i.e., it must be the evidence of a witness, who says he saw it. The dying declaration is, in fact, the statement of a person, who cannot be called as witness and, therefore, cannot be cross-examined. Such statements themselves are relevant facts in certain cases. The dying declaration is, in fact, the statement of a person, who cannot be called as witness and, therefore, cannot be cross-examined. Such statements themselves are relevant facts in certain cases. In the instant case, the deceased had suffered burn injuries on 25/26.04.1985 at about 12:15 A.M. She was admitted to Civil Hospital, Charkhari, District-Hamirpur on 25.04.1985 at about 11:50 P.M. PW-2 Dr. Indra Kumar Jain who had examined her injuries on the same date at about 1:10 A.M. on 26.04.1985 had noted following injuries on her person:- Injury not traceable due to mud and burn. There is IInd, IIIrd degree burn all over the body except in private parts (seen in presence of Smt. Urmila Sachar, staff nurse, Civil Hospital, Charkhari) and scalp. The mud is present all over the body. Smell of kerosene coming out from her body and from pieces of burnt cloth: G.C. - poor, Pulse - 120/min Dehydration+burn- 90% Cause-Burn Duration-Fresh injury 19. Deceased Smt. Sumitra Devi had expired on 26.04.1985. Her dying declaration was recorded on 26.04.1985 at 12:15 A.M. by PW-2 Dr. Indra Kumar Jain, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Charkhari, District-Hamirpur when after despite his having informed the police about the deceased being admitted to Civil Hospital, Charkhari with severe burn injuries, no one turned up to record her dying declaration, who has no animus with the accused or affinity with the deceased or the complainant's family. On perusal of the language used by the deceased in her dying declaration, it transpires that she has narrated the entire incident in a very natural manner and there is nothing in her dying declaration which may persuade us to discard it on the ground of the same being either tutored or unreliable. 20. In the case of Munnawar and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 2010 (70) ACC 853 (SC), the Apex Court held as under: "That a dying declaration can be relied upon if the deceased remained alive for a long period of time after the incident and died after recording of the dying declaration. That may be evidence to show that his condition was not overtly critical or precarious when the dying declaration was recorded." 21. It would be pertinent to note the case of Bhajju alias Karan Singh vs. State of M.P. 2012 (77) ACC 182 (SC) before the Apex Court which had almost identical facts. That may be evidence to show that his condition was not overtly critical or precarious when the dying declaration was recorded." 21. It would be pertinent to note the case of Bhajju alias Karan Singh vs. State of M.P. 2012 (77) ACC 182 (SC) before the Apex Court which had almost identical facts. The dying declaration of the deceased was relied upon as the witnesses of fact did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile and similar defence was taken that the deceased had caught fire while she was cooking food. The Hon'ble Court referring to the case of Munnu Raja and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1976) 3 SCC 104 relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant observed as under: "Reliance by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Munnu Raja and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (1976) 3 SCC 104 to contend that a dying declaration cannot be corroborated by the testimony of hostile witnesses is hardly of any help. As already noticed, none of the witnesses or the authorities involved in the recording of the dying declaration had turned hostile. On the contrary, they have fully supported the case of the prosecution and have, beyond reasonable doubt, proved that the dying declaration is reliable, truthful and was voluntarily made by the deceased. We may also notice that this very judgment relied upon by the accused itself clearly says that the dying declaration can be acted upon without corroboration and can be made the basis of conviction. Paragraph 6 of the said judgment reads as under:- ".....It is well settled that though a dying declaration must be approached with caution for the reason that the maker of the statement cannot be subject to cross-examination, there is neither a rule of law nor a rule of prudence which has hardened into a rule of law that a dying declaration cannot be acted upon unless it is corroborated (see Khushal Rao vs. State of Bombay). The High Court, it is true, has held that the evidence of the two eye-witnesses corroborated the dying declarations but it did not come to the conclusion that the dying declarations suffered from any infirmity by reason of which it was necessary to look out for corroboration." In para-22 of this report the Hon'ble Court has further held that- "The law is very clear that if the dying declaration has been recorded in accordance with law, is reliable and gives a cogent and possible explanation of the occurrence of the events, then the dying declaration can certainly be relied upon by the Court and could form the sole piece of evidence resulting in the conviction of the accused. This Court has clearly stated the principle that section 32 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (for short the Act) is an exception to the general rule against the admissibility of hearsay evidence. Clause (1) of section 32 makes the statement of the deceased admissible, which is generally described as a dying declaration." The Apex Court relying upon the dying declaration of the deceased being consistent with the prosecution case which was fully corroborated by medical evidence did not disturb the concurrent findings of guilt of accused-appellant recorded by the two Courts. In view of the aforesaid preposition of the law the dying declaration of the deceased recorded in this case fulfills all the legal requirements and it is in consonance with the prosecution story as also the medical evidence. 22. The dying declaration of the deceased in this case also is throughout consistent with the prosecution case. The fact that the kerosene oil was poured on the deceased whereafter she was set ablaze finds full corroboration from the medical and other evidence on record. PW-2 Dr. Indra Kumar Jain, who had examined her injuries at about 11:50 P.M. on 25.04.1985 when she was admitted to Government Hospital, Charkhari, District-Hamirpur has categorically deposed on page 17 of the paper book in his examination-in-chief that at the time when the deceased Smt. Sumitra Devi was brought to the Civil Hospital, Charkhari, and admitted with burn injuries. Her dead body was covered with quagmire and she was fully conscious and in a fit mental state. Smell of kerosene oil was emanating from all over her body including her burnt clothes. PW-2 Dr. Indra Kumar Jain proved the injury report of the deceased as (Ext.Ka.4). 23. Her dead body was covered with quagmire and she was fully conscious and in a fit mental state. Smell of kerosene oil was emanating from all over her body including her burnt clothes. PW-2 Dr. Indra Kumar Jain proved the injury report of the deceased as (Ext.Ka.4). 23. The postmortem report of the deceased (Ext.Ka.1) also indicates that smell of kerosene oil was coming out from all over her body at the time of conducting postmortem examination of her body. From the evidence of PW-1 Dr. Ghanshyam Pandey, who had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased, it is fully proved that she had died due to shock, suffocation and ante-mortem burn injuries. He also deposed that at the time of conducting her postmortem, he had noticed that her body was covered with quagmire. 24. The recovery of a bottle with remains of kerosene oil which was seized by the Investigating Officer of this case from the place of occurrence further corroborates the prosecution case that the deceased was set ablaze after kerosene oil was poured on her. 25. We have gone through the lower court record including the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. but we have found that there is no suggestion that the doctor who had recorded the dying declaration of the deceased was in any manner inimical towards the accused so as to fabricate the dying declaration with the object of implicating him falsely. 26. Another notable feature of this case is that the accused-appellant has come up with the defence case that as his wife was mentally challenged and as a result, her clothes got fire while she was cooking food. The aforesaid statement of fact stands totally falsified from the following circumstances:- (1) The presence of strong smell of kerosene oil emanating from all parts of her dead body at the time when she was admitted to Government Hospital, Charkhari. No explanation has come off forthwith that why smell of kerosene oil emanated from her person if her clothes had caught fire while she was cooking food. (2) The presence of semi-digested food in her stomach which indicates that the deceased had taken her meals about two or three hours before the occurrence and hence, the defence version stating that her clothes had caught fire is palpably false and is totally unbelievable. 27. (2) The presence of semi-digested food in her stomach which indicates that the deceased had taken her meals about two or three hours before the occurrence and hence, the defence version stating that her clothes had caught fire is palpably false and is totally unbelievable. 27. Moreover, the accused-appellant Moti Lal has not challenged the veracity or the genuineness of the dying declaration of the deceased in his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. as is evident from the answer given by him to the third question which was put to him in this regard. 28. Although, the accused-appellant had alleged in his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that the deceased was mentally challenged, but strangely, he failed to file any documentary evidence for proving that his wife, deceased Smt. Sumitra Devi was suffering from any mental illness or mental dysfunction. 29. After having examined the matter from all the aspects and critically evaluated and scrutinized the entire evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary, we do not find that the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur committed any error, illegality, infirmity or perversity in convicting the appellant u/s 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. 30. This appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 31. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur is directed to make every possible effort to trace out the accused appellant Moti Lal who is absconding and send him to jail to enable him to serve out the remaining part of his sentence and submit his report in this regard to the Registrar General of this Court within three months. 32. Office is directed to transmit a copy of this judgment and order to Court concerned/ Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur for necessary follow up action.