Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 137 (ALL)

Ashok Kumar v. State of U. P.

2021-01-25

BACHCHOO LAL, SUBHASH CHANDER SHARMA

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1- ;g nkf.Md vihy] vihykFkhZx.k v'kksd dqekj] lUrks"k dksjh ,oa ohjsUnz dqekj pekj dh vksj ls l= ijh{k.k la[;k 84 o"kZ 2006 mRrj izns'k jkT; izfr v'kksd dqekj ,oa vU; rFkk l= ijh{k.k la[;k 269 o"kZ 2006 mRrj izns'k jkT; izfr lUrks"k dksjh] eqdnek vijk/k la[;k 74 o"kZ 2005 vUrxZr /kkjk 302 Hkk0na0la0] Fkkuk pjok] ftyk dkS'kkEch ,oa l= ijh{k.k la[;k 82 o"kZ 2006 mRrj izns'k jkT; izfr v'kksd dqekj eqdnek vijk/k la[;k 132 o"kZ 2005 vUrxZr /kkjk 25 vk;q/k vf/kfu;e] Fkkuk pjok ftyk dkS'kkEch esa fo}ku vij l= U;k;k/kh'k@,Q0Vh0lh0] f}rh;] dkS'kkEch }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa vkns'k fnukad 20&8&2010 ds fo:} ;ksftr dh x;h gS ftlds }kjk vihykFkhZx.k dks /kkjk 302 Hkk0na0la0 ds vUrxZr nks"kh ikrs gq, vkthou dkjkokl ,oa ik¡p&ik¡p gtkj :i;s ds vFkZn.M ls rFkk vFkZn.M vnk u djus dh fLFkfr esa izR;sd dks ,d&,d o"kZ ds vfrfjDr lk/kkj.k dkjkokl rFkk vihykFkhZ v'kksd dqekj dks /kkjk 25 vk;q/k vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr rhu o"kZ ds lk/kkj.k dkjkokl ,oa ,d gtkj :i;s ds vFkZn.M ls rFkk vFkZn.M vnk u djus dh n'kk esa rhu ekg ds vfrfjDr dkjkokl ls nf.Mr fd;k x;k gSA ;g Hkh vknsf'kr fd;k x;k fd vfHk;qDrksa }kjk iwoZ esa bl ekeys esa fcrkbZ xbZ tsy vof/k bl ltk esa lek;ksftr dh tk;sxh rFkk lHkh ltk;sa lkFk lkFk pysxhA 2- vihy ds fuLrkj.k gsrq vko';d rF; la{ksi esa bl izdkj gS fd oknh eqdnek tXxh yky iq= Lo0 jke [ksykou dksjh us ,d rgjhj jke cnu iq= f'ko izlkn dksjh ls fy[kokdj Fkkuk pjok ftyk dkS'kkEch esa bl vk'k; ds lkFk nkf[ky fd;k fd mldh o mlds xk¡o ds lUrks"k dksjh dh tehu dk eqdnek py jgk Fkk ftlls lUrks"k dksjh jaft'k ekurk gSA dy fnukad 20&6&2005 dks mldk HkkbZ gjh yky mez djhc 40 o"kZ o xk¡o dk eksguyky iq= jke/kuh xk¡o esa jk/ks';ke dksjh ds edku ds pcwrjs ij cSBs ckrphr dj jgs Fks djhc lkढs N% cts 'kke dks xk¡o ds lUrks"k dksjh o mldk HkkbZ v'kksd dqekj iq=x.k jkefgr dksjh gkFkksa esa reUps fy, rFkk ohjsUnz dqekj pekj iq= I;kjs yky fuoklh jk;Hkku dk iqjok etjk pjok Fkkuk pjok ftyk dkS'kkEch pkdw fy, gq, vk;s tku ls ekjus dh fu;r ls bu yksxksa us reUpksa ls gjh yky ds Åij Qk;j dj fn;kA gjh yky 'kksj epkrk o fpYykrk gqvk esokyky ds ?kj esa ?kql x;kA ;s yksx ihNk djrs gq, esokyky ds ?kj esa ?kqldj reUpksa o pkdw ls ekjdj xkyh nsrs gq, okil vius ?kj dh vksj Hkkx x;sA og o mldk cMk HkkbZ jke lqesj 'kksjxqy lqudj ekSds ij vk x;s Fks ftUgksusa ?kVuk ns[khA ;s yksx Hkkxrs le; Qk;j djrs gq, reaps ygjkrs gq, xkyh xykSt ns jgs Fks ftlls xk¡o esa Hk; o ng'kr dk ekgkSy iSnk gks x;k gSA e`rd gjh yky dh yk'k ekSds ij iMh gSA Mj dh otg ls og jkr esa fjiksVZ fy[kkus Fkkus ugha vk ldkA vkt vk;k gw¡ mldh fjiksVZ fy[kdj dkuwuh dk;Zokgh dh tk,A 3- oknh dh mDr rgjhj izn'kZ d&1 ds vk/kkj ij Fkkuk ij vihykFkhZx.k ds fo:} eqdnek vijk/k la[;k 74 o"kZ 2005 /kkjk 302 Hkk0na0la0 ds vUrxZr eqdnek iathd`r fd;k x;kA fpd izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ izn'kZ d&2 gS rFkk eqdnek dk;eh ls lEcfU/kr th0 Mh0 dh izfr izn'kZ d&3 gSA 4- ekeys dh foospuk vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k 9 jke Hkjksls dq'kokgk] Fkkuk/;{k ds lqiqnZ dh x;hA mUgksusa vius c;ku esa ;g dgk gS fd fnukad 21&6&2005 dks og Fkkuk pjok esa Fkkuk/;{k ds in ij dk;Zjr FkkA mDr frfFk dks eqdnek vijk/k la[;k 74 o"kZ 2005 /kkjk 302 Hkk0na0la0 e`rd gjhyky dh foospuk mlds }kjk xzg.k dh x;hA fnukad 21&6&2005 dks bl eqdnes dh udy fpd] udy jiV ysdj e; ftYn iapk;rukek ,oa t:jh dkxtkr ds lkFk e; gejkgh ?kVukLFky xzke cjxnh jokuk gqvk FkkA Fkkus ij udy fpd] udy jiV djds ys[kd ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 dk c;ku fy;k x;k FkkA ?kVukLFky ij e`rd dh yk'k dk iapk;rukek eqjRrc fd;k x;k FkkA yk'k dks okLrs iksLVekVZe 'ko foPNsnu x`g bykgkckn Hksth x;h FkhA ekSds ij oknh dk c;ku fy;k x;k FkkA oknh dh fu'kkunsgh ij fujh{k.k ?kVukLFky djds uD'kk utjh rS;kj fd;k x;k FkkA bl lk{kh us uD'kk utjh dks izn'kZ Ø&7 ds :i esa lkfcr fd;k gSA ;g Hkh dgk gS fd ekSds ij ekStwn vkse izdk'k o 'kQhd vgen dk lebZ lk{; vafdr fd;k x;kA ?kVukLFky ij ,d dkjrwl [TRUNCATED] The last case we need to concern ourselves is Namodeo v. State of Maharashtra, wherein this Court after observing previsous precedents has summarised the law in the following manner: : (SCC P. N164, Para “38. It is clear that a close relative cannot be characterised as an “interested' witness. He is a “natural” witness. His evidence, however, must be scrutinized carefully. If on such scrutiny, his evidence is found to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and wholly trustworthy, conviction can be based on the “sole” testimony of such witness. Close relationship of witness with the deceased or victim is no ground to reject his evidence. On the contrary, close relative of the deceased would normally be most reluctant to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent one.” 36....From the study of the aforesaid precedents of 18 this court, we may note that whoever has been a witness before the court of law, having a strong interest in result, if allowed to be weighed in the same scales with those who do not have any interest in the result, would be to open the doors of the court for perverted truth. This sound rule which remains the bulwark of this system, and which determines the value of evidence derived from such sources, needs to be cautiously and carefully obsered and enforced. There is no dispute about the fact that the interest of the witness must affect his testimony is a universal truth. Moreover, under the influence of bias, a man may not be in a position to judge correctly even if they earnestly desire to do so. Similarly, he may not be in a position to provide evidence in an impartail manner, when it involves his interest. Under such influences, man will, even though not consciously, suppress some facts, soften or modify others, and provide favourable colour. Similarly, he may not be in a position to provide evidence in an impartail manner, when it involves his interest. Under such influences, man will, even though not consciously, suppress some facts, soften or modify others, and provide favourable colour. These are most controlling considertions in respect to the credibility of human testimony, and should never be overlooked in applying the rules of evidence and determining its weight in the scale of truth under the facts and circumstances of each case.” 22- nkf.Md vihy la[;k 15 o"kZ 2002 yYyw eka>h ,oa vU; izfr jkT; >kj[kaM fu.khZr fnukad 7 tuojh] 2003 ds ekeys esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k x;k gS fd%& “The law of Evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact. However, faced with the testimoney of a single witness, the Court may classify the oral testimoney into three categories, namely (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first two categories there may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimoney of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimoney, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon testimoney of a single witness. { See- Vadivelu Thevan etc. V. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 }.” 23- ¼2014½ 1 ,l0 lh0 lh0 ¼fØ0½ 846] ¼2014½ 2 ,l0lh0lh0 455 ohj flag ,oa vU; izfr jkT; mRrj izns'k ds ekeys esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k x;k gS fd%& “21. The legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is not the number of witnesses but quality of their evidence which is important as there is no requirement under the law of evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to prove/disprove a fact. The evidence must be weighed and not counted. It is quality and not quantity which determines the adequacy of evidence as has been provided under Section 134 of the Evidence Act. As a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. The evidence must be weighed and not counted. It is quality and not quantity which determines the adequacy of evidence as has been provided under Section 134 of the Evidence Act. As a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. (Vide Vadivelu Thevar V. State of Madras, Kunju V. State of T.N., Bipin Kumar Mondal V. State of W.B., Mahesh V. State of M.P., Prithipal Singh V. State of Punjab, Kishan Chand V. State of Haryana and Gulam Sarbar V. State of Jharkhand.)” 24- mYys[kuh; gS fd vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls ?kVuk ds lanHkZ esa vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k 1 jke lqesj dks ijhf{kr djk;k x;k gS mlus vius c;ku esa ;g dgk gS fd ?kVuk vkt ls yxHkx nks lky ,d eghuk dh gSA ;g ?kVuk N% lkढs N% cts 'kke dh gS mldk HkkbZ gjh yky xkao ds gh jk/ks';ke ds njokts cSBk FkkA eqyfteku v'kksd] lUrks"k tks cjxnh ds gh jgus okys gSA gjh yky ds Åij Qk;j fd;k D;ksafd tehu dk eqyftekuksa ls gjhyky ls eqdnek py jgk Fkk tSls gh Qk;j dh vkokt rFkk 'kksjxqy gqvk rc og rFkk mldk HkkbZ tXxh yky rFkk xkao ds cgqr ls yksx nkSMdj x;sA tSls gh ge yksx ogka nkSMdj igqaps rks esok yky ds ?kj esa mldk HkkbZ gjh yky ?kql jgk Fkk mlds ihNs rhuksa eqyfteku nkSM jgs FksA v'kksd o lUrks"k vius gkFk esa reapk fy, Fks o ohjsUnz vius gkFk esa pkdw fy, FkkA esokyky ds ?kj esa rhuksa eqyfteku ?kql x;sA muds ihNs og o mldk HkkbZ tXxh yky Hkh vUnj ?kql x;s rks mlus ns[kk fd larks"k o v'kksd mlds HkkbZ ds Åij Qk;j dj fn,A tc ;g yksx ekj pqds rc ohjsUnz us mlds HkkbZ dks pkdw ls ekjuk 'kq: fd;k tc ohjsUnz pkdw ekj jgk Fkk rc og ogka [kMk Fkk rc mldk HkkbZ Mj dh otg ls ykSVdj ihNs pyk vk;k mlds ckn eqyfteku xkyh xykSt nrs gq, vius ?kj dh vksj pys x;s mlus ns[kk fd ;s yksx vius gkFk esa reapk upkrs gq, vius ?kj dh vksj pys x;s fQj ge yksx ogka ls vius ?kj pys vk;sA ge yksx jkr esa Mj dh otg ls jiV djus ugha tk ik;sA fQj nwljs fnu lqcg 6&7 cts og o tXxh yky jiV ds fy, Fkkus x;s Fks fQj dgk fd 6&7 vkSj yksx Fkkus igqap x;s Fks mlds HkkbZ tXxh yky us ?kj ls xkao ds jke cnu ls ?kVuk dh fjiksVZ mlds lkeus fy[kokdj og o mlds HkkbZ tXxh yky us ys tkdj fn;k Fkk mlij mlds HkkbZ tXxh yky us nj[kkLr fy[kkus ds ckn vaxwBk Hkh yxk;k Fkk fQj ge yksx jiV ntZ djokdj ?kj okil vk;sA fjiksVZ ntZ gksus ds ckn iqfyl vk;h FkhA iapukek gqvk FkkA ekSds ij gh yk'k dks ns[kdj fy[kk&iढh gqbZA mlds ckn yk'k dks iksLVekVZe ds fy, Hkst fn;kA iksLVekVZe ds le; og ugha x;k Fkk iksLVekVZe ds le; mlds HkkbZ tXxh yky x;s FksA njksxkth us mldk o tXxh yky] eksgu yky ds c;ku fy, FksA njksxkth us ekSds dk uD'kk cuk;k Fkk mldk HkkbZ tXxh yky iq= Lo0 jke [ksykou dksjh mldk lxk NksVk HkkbZ Fkk mlus gh ?kVuk dh fjiksVZ Fkkus ij ntZ djok;h Fkh ftldh gR;k ?kVuk ds pkj lkढs pkj eghus ds ckn gks x;h FkhA ftjg esa dgk gS fd og N% lxs HkkbZ gS ftuesa mldk uke jke lqesj ¼2½ iape yky ¼3½ tXxh yky ¼4½ gjh yky ¼5½ cokyh ¼6½ c`tykyA ge N% HkkbZ;ksa esa ftudh gR;k gqbZ gS muds uke tXxh yky o gjhyky gSA iape yky isM ls fxj dj ej x;k FkkA c`tyky dh jsy nq?kZVuk ds dkj.k e`R;q gks x;h FkhA thfor HkkbZ;ksa esa og ¼jke lqesj½ o cokyh ekStwn gSA mlds xkao ds esokyky iq= elqfj;knhu dqy rhu HkkbZ gS ftuesa Øe'k% ¼1½ esokyky ¼2½ n'kjFk yky ¼3½ jke lqesj gSA rhuksa lxs HkkbZ esokyky] n'kjFk o jke lqesj vyx vyx jgrs gSA rhuksa HkkbZ;ksa dk edku ,d nwljs ls lVs gq, gS mlds xkao ds jk/ks';ke iq= I;kjs yky ds edku ls mldk edku nf{k.k if'pe dksus ij fLFkr gS mlds edku dh nwjh 100 ehVj ls vf/kd gSA mlds edku o jk/ks';ke ds edku ds chp esa 25&30 edku gSA og ,DlhMsaV ds dkj.k bl le; nkfgus iSj ls fodykax gSA og vius HkkbZ gjhyky dh gR;k ds 24&25 lky igys ls fodykax gSA ,DlhMsaV gksus ds dkj.k mldk iSj xkaB dh Åij ls dkV fn;k x;k FkkA mlds xkao dh vkcknh yxHkx 1000 ;k 1500 lkS dh gSA vkjkth la[;k 779 ds ckcr mlds o eqyfteku v'kksd o lUrks"k ds chp eqdnek py jgk gSA [TRUNCATED] Therefore, in case there is direct trustworthy evidence of witnesses as to commission of an offence, the motive part loses its significance. Therefore, if the genesis of the motive of the occurrence is not proved, the ocular testimony of the witnesses as to the occurrence could not be discarded only by the reason of the absence of motive, if otherwise the evidence is worthy of reliance. (Vide Hari Shankar Vs. State of U.P., (1996) 9 SCC 40 ; Bikhu Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, (2003) 12 SCC 616 ; and Abu Thakir & Ors. Vs. (Vide Hari Shankar Vs. State of U.P., (1996) 9 SCC 40 ; Bikhu Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, (2003) 12 SCC 616 ; and Abu Thakir & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 5 SCC 91 ).” 34- pw¡fd vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k 1 jke lqesj bl ?kVuk dk izR;{kn'khZ lk{kh gSA bl lk{kh us vius c;ku esa vfHk;kstu dFkkud dh Hkyh Hkkafr iqf"V dh gS rFkk ?kVuk ds le; ekSds ij mldh mifLFkfr fl} gS ,oa mldh lk{; fpfdRlh; lk{; ls Hkh lEiq"V gSA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa ,oa vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k 1 jke lqesj us vius c;ku esa vihykFkhZx.k ls tehu dk fookn crk;k gSA ,slh n'kk esa ?kVuk dk tks gsrqd j[kk x;k gS og lk{; ls lkfcr gSA 35- vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k 9 jke Hkjksls dq'kokgk }kjk bl ekeys dh foospuk dh x;h Fkh mUgksusa vius }kjk dh x;h foospuk rFkk foospuk ds nkSjku rS;kj fd;s x;s izi=ksa dks lkfcr fd;k gSA bl lk{kh us vius c;ku esa ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd /kkjk 82&83 na0iz0la0 dh dk;Zokgh ds i'pkr vihykFkhZx.k ds fo:} eQ:jh esa vkjksi i= U;k;ky; izsf"kr fd;k FkkA vkjksii= nkf[ky gksus rd vihykFkhZx.k Qjkj jgs gSaA bl lk{kh us vihykFkhZ v'kksd dqekj }kjk vkReleZi.k dj nsus ds i'pkr mldh fu'kkunsgh ij fnukad 15&9&2005 dks e`rd dh gR;k esa iz;qDr reaps dks cjken djus dh iqf"V dh gSA ;g ckr vo'; gS fd ekSds ls cjken [kks[kk dkjrwl rFkk vihykFkhZ v'kksd dqekj dh fu'kkunsgh ij cjken reaps dks fof/k foKku iz;ksx'kkyk tkap gsrq ugha Hkstk x;k gS rks ek= mDr vk/kkj ij vfHk;kstu dFkkud dks iw.kZrk xyr ,oa vfo'oluh; eku ysuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA ;g ckr vo'; gS fd vihykFkhZx.k lUrks"k dksjh o ohjsUnz dqekj ls fdlh Hkh gfFk;kj dh cjkenxh ugha crk;h tkrh gS rks vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k 9 ¼foospukf/kdkjh½ dh lk{; ls ;g Li"V gS fd mlds }kjk ckj ckj nfc'k nsus ds ckotwn vihykFkhZx.k@vfHk;qDrx.k nLr;kc ugha gq, Fks rRi'pkr mlus /kkjk 82&83 na0 iz0 la0 ds vUrxZr dk;Zokgh ds mijkUr vihykFkhZx.k ds fo:} eQ:jh esa vkjksi i= U;k;ky; izsf"kr fd;k FkkA ,slh n'kk esa ;fn vihykFkhZx.k lUrks"k dksjh o ohjsUnz dqekj dh fu'kkunsgh ij fdlh gfFk;kj dh dksbZ cjkenxh ugh fn[kk;h x;h gS rks mDr vihykFkhZx.k dh lafyIrrk ds lEca/k esa lansg djus dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugha ik;k tkrk gSA 36- vihykFkhZx.k dh vksj ls ,d rdZ ;g j[kk x;k fd vihykFkhZ ohjsUnz dqekj ,d vU; nwljs xkao dk gS rFkk vU; vihykFkhZx.k ls mldk dksbZ lEca/k ,oa ljksdkj ugha gS vkSj u gh og mUgs tkurk gSa rks mYys[kuh; gS fd vihykFkhZ ohjsUnz dqekj izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa uketn gS rFkk mlds gkFk esa pkdw gksuk n'kkZ;k x;k gS ,oa 'ko foPNsnu ds le; e`rd ds 'kjhj ij pkdw dh pksVsa ik;h x;h gSA e`rd ds 'kjhj ij pksV la[;k 5 ds :i tks pksVsa n'kkZ;h x;h gS mlesa djhc 11 dVs gq, ?kko ik;s tkus dk mYys[k gSA vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k 1 jke lqesj dh lk{; esa ;g vk;k gS fd tc vihykFkhZx.k lUrks"k o v'kksd e`rd ij Qk;j dj fn;s vkSj tc ;s yksx ekj pqds rc ohjsUnz us mlds HkkbZ dks pkdw ls ekjuk 'kq: fd;k vkSj tc ohjsUnz pkdw ekj jgk Fkk rc og ogha ij [kMk FkkA bl izdkj vihykFkhZ ohjsUnz dqekj dh lafyIrrk Hkh lansg ls ijs lkfcr ik;h tkrh gSA 37- vihykFkhZx.k dh vksj ls ,d rdZ ;g j[kk x;k fd e`rd dh gR;k esokyky ds ?kj esa gksuk crk;k x;k gSA vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k 1 jke lqesj dh lk{; esa ;g vk;k gS fd ?kVuk ds le; esokyky dh iRuh o mldh cgw ekStwn Fkh ysfdu foospukf/kdkjh us u rks mudk c;ku vUrxZr /kkjk 161 na0iz0la0 vafdr fd;k vkSj u gh mUgsa xokg cuk;k vkSj u gh mUgsa lk{; esa ijhf{kr djk;k x;k tc fd os egRoiw.kZ lk{kh gks ldrs Fks rks mYys[kuh; gS fd ;g ,d gR;k dk ekeyk gS lkekU;rk vklkuh ls dksbZ O;fDr fdlh nwljs ds >xMs esa ugha iMuk pkgrk gS rFkk vijkf/kd izo`fR;ksa ds O;fDr;ksa ds fo:} xokgh nsus esa Hkh yksx drjkrs gSaA vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k 1 jke lqesj ?kVuk dk izR;{kn'khZ lk{kh gS rFkk mldh lk{; lansg ls ijs fo'oluh; gS ,oa dfFkr ?kVuk ds le; mldh mifLFkfr lkfcr gSA ,slh n'kk esa ;fn bl ekeys esa esokyky dh iRuh o mldh cgw dks xokg ugha cuk;k x;k ;k mUgsa lk{; esa ijhf{kr ugha djk;k x;k rks ek= mDr vk/kkj ij ?kVuk ds lEca/k esa lansg djus dk dksbZ vk/kkj izrhr ugha gksrk gSA 38- i=koyh ij miyC/k leLr lk{; ,oa vfHkys[kksa ij lE;d fopkj djus ds mijkUr ge blh er ds gSa fd vihykFkhZx.k }kjk dfFkr ?kVuk dkfjr djuk lansag ls ijs fl} gS rFkk vihykFkhZ v'kksd dqekj dh fu'kkunsgh ij e`rd dh gR;k esa iz;qDr reaps dh cjkenxh Hkh lkfcr gSA ,slh n'kk esa ge fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ,oa vkns'k esa dksbZ fof/kd =qfV ugha ikrs gSa rFkk vihykFkhZx.k dh vksj ls mBk;s x;s fcUnqvksa esa ge dksbZ cy ugha ikrs gSaA 39- fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ,oa vfHkys[kksa ij lE;d fopkj djus ds mijkUr vihykFkhZx.k dks iz'uxr vijk/k esa nks"kh ikrs gq, rnuqlkj nf.Mr fd;k gS ftlesa ge dksbZ fof/kd =qfV vFkok vfu;ferrk ugha ikrs gSaA 40+- mijksDr foospuk ls ge blh er ds gSa fd ;g vihy cyghu gS ,oa fujLr gksus ;ksX; gS rnuqlkj ;g nkf.Md vihy fujLr dh tkrh gS rFkk fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr nks"kflf} ,oa n.Mkns'k dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA 41- vihykFkhZx.k v'kksd dqekj] lUrks"k dksjh rFkk ohjsUnz dqekj pekj tsy esa fu:} gS mUgsa ltk Hkqxrus gsrq ;Fkkor fu:} j[kk tk,A 42- fu.kZ; dh izfr ,oa ijh{k.k U;k;ky; dh i=koyh vfoyEc v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks Hksth tk,A