Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1326 (BOM)

Babikala Sharad v. Siddharth Sukhdeo

2023-06-20

G.A.SANAP

body2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. The appeal and revision arise out of the judgment and order dtd. 11/6/2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur and therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the I.P.C") and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.75, 000.00 and in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused of main charge under Sec. 302 of the I.P.C. 2. The facts are as follows: Informant - Babikala(PW-1) is the wife of deceased Sharad. On the report of the informant, crime bearing No.65/2004 came to be registered initially for the offence punishable under Sec. 324 of the I.P.C. The husband of the informant died in hospital on 22/2/2004 and therefore, the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the I.P.C. was added in the said crime. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that accused and the informant are residents of same locality. The accused at the relevant time was a Corporator of Municipal Council. The work of digging of drainage for laying the pipeline in Buddha Nagar, Kamptee area had started in the locality under Jiwan Pradhikaran Scheme of the Government. The accused, being a Corporator of the said ward, was instrumental in undertaking the said work. However, after digging the drainage, the work of laying pipeline was not completed expeditiously. It was therefore, causing inconvenience to deceased Sharad, his family members and others inhabitants of the locality. It is stated that the deceased repeatedly requested the accused to complete the said work. 4. It is the case of prosecution that on 18/2/2004 the deceased was proceeding on his bicycle. The accused met him on the way in front of house of Sidharth Chaure. The deceased again requested the accused to complete the work. There was exchange of words between them on this count. The accused, therefore, inflicted a blow with stick on the head of deceased. The deceased sustained serious injuries. He fell down and became unconscious. After hearing commotion the informant and other people from locality rushed to the spot. Some of the people actually witnesses the incident. There was exchange of words between them on this count. The accused, therefore, inflicted a blow with stick on the head of deceased. The deceased sustained serious injuries. He fell down and became unconscious. After hearing commotion the informant and other people from locality rushed to the spot. Some of the people actually witnesses the incident. They carried the deceased to the hospital of Dr. Roy. The informant thereafter went to Police Station and lodged the report. 5. The deceased was shifted from hospital of Dr. Roy to Super Speciality Department of Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur for treatment. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on 22/2/2004 at about 4.15 p.m. The investigation was carried out. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused. After committal of the case, the Sessions Court conducted the trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Sec. 304 Part II of the I.P.C. and sentenced him as above. 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the accused has filed the appeal. The informant, who is wife of the deceased, being aggrieved by acquittal of the accused under Sec. 302 of the I.P.C., filed the revision. 7. I have heard Shri A.K. Bhangde, learned Advocate for the accused and Shri Amit Chutke, learned APP for State. Learned Advocate for the informant despite granting number of opportunities, failed to appear before the Court. With the able assistance of learned Advocate for the accused and learned APP for State, I have gone through the record and proceedings. 8. Learned Advocate for the accused submitted that informant/Smt. Babikala (PW-1) is not an eye-witness to the incident. It is submitted that therefore, her evidence is hardly of any use to the prosecution. Learned Advocate submitted that remaining two witnesses, Smt. Ratnabai (PW-5) and Smt. Shalini (PW-7), are interested witnesses and therefore, reliance cannot be placed on their evidence. Learned Advocate further submitted that Smt. Ratnabai (PW-5) and Smt. Shalini (PW-7) are the interested witnesses. Their evidence with regard to their presence on the spot and being witnesses to the actual occurrence of the incident does not inspire confidence. Learned Advocate further submitted that Jaikumar (PW-2) and Rohit (PW-8) are sons of the deceased. Therefore, the evidence of all these witnesses is not sufficient to prove the charge against the accused. Their evidence with regard to their presence on the spot and being witnesses to the actual occurrence of the incident does not inspire confidence. Learned Advocate further submitted that Jaikumar (PW-2) and Rohit (PW-8) are sons of the deceased. Therefore, the evidence of all these witnesses is not sufficient to prove the charge against the accused. Learned Advocate further submitted that there are major inconsistencies in the evidence of the eye-witnesses and informant/ Smt. Babikala (PW-1) as to the weapon of offence. It is pointed out that Smt. Ratnabai (PW-5) and Smt. Shalini (PW-7) have stated that accused assaulted the deceased with the stick. It is seen that in the recovery panchanama the weapon is described as bamboo stick. Learned Advocate submitted that insulting language used by the deceased while questioning the accused provoked the accused and therefore, the act committed due to sudden provocation by the deceased could not be said to be culpable homicide amounting to murder. Learned Advocate submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence of the eye-witnesses as well as evidence of medical officer. Learned Advocate submitted that on the basis of the evidence, complicity of the accused in commission of the crime has not been proved. Learned Advocate submitted that therefore, the accused is required to be acquitted. 9. Learned APP submitted that evidence of eye witnesses Ratnabai (PW-5) and Shalini (PW-7) has been found to be credible by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Learned APP submitted that the first hand account of the incident narrated by Ratnabai (PW-5) and Shalini (PW-7) is sufficient to establish the charge against the accused. Learned APP submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge considering the nature of the incident and actual cause of the incident has taken a liberal view and convicted and sentenced the accused for the minor offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Sec. 304 Part II of the I.P.C. Learned APP further submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge was very lenient in awarding the substantive sentence as well as fine. Learned APP took me through the evidence of medical officer Dr. Shashikant (PW-12) and submitted that on the basis of this evidence prosecution has proved that the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Learned APP further submitted that prosecution has proved that he died homicidal death. Learned APP took me through the evidence of medical officer Dr. Shashikant (PW-12) and submitted that on the basis of this evidence prosecution has proved that the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Learned APP further submitted that prosecution has proved that he died homicidal death. Learned APP, in short, supported the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 10. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the evidence of medical officer to record a finding that even though the death was homicidal, the offence proved was culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Dr. Shashikant (PW-12) had conducted postmortem of the dead body along with Dr. M.B. Shrigiriwar. In his evidence, he has stated about ante mortem and post mortem injuries found on the dead body. He found following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body: "Surgical stitched wound from left temporal region to left occipital region with 58 stitches (Stipless) of size 30 cm in length." Dr. Shashikant (PW-12) found following internal injuries:- "(i) Under scalp haemotoma over occipital region of size 6 x 6 x 1 cm and left temporo-occipital region of size 10 x 10 x 1 cm. (ii) Base-Intact. Surgical burhole over left temporal region of size 10 x 8 cm. Liner undisplaced fracture of occipital region over left side of size 5 cm. (iii) Meningos-Torn Extradural haemotoma over left occipital region of size 4 x 4 x 1 cm and left temporo parital region of size 5 cm x 5 cm x 1 cm. Subdural haemotoma over left temporo occipital and occipital region of size 6 cm x 6 cm x 1 cm and 5 x 5 x 1 cm respectively. Subarachnoid haemorrhage left temporo occipital region and occipital region of size 6 x 6 x 1 cm and 5 x 5 x 1 cm respectively. Colour of haemotoma -brownish." 11. Dr. Shashikant (PW-12) has deposed that the cause of death was intracranial haemorrhage due to head injury. Dr. Shashikant (PW-12) has stated that the injuries were 5 days old. The injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. It is to be noted that weapon of the offence a bamboo stick was sent for examination and opinion of doctor. He has given an opinion that the injuries mentioned in column No.19 of the postmortem report could be caused by stick. His opinion to that effect is at Exh.79. Postmortem report is at Exh.77. It is to be noted that weapon of the offence a bamboo stick was sent for examination and opinion of doctor. He has given an opinion that the injuries mentioned in column No.19 of the postmortem report could be caused by stick. His opinion to that effect is at Exh.79. Postmortem report is at Exh.77. He has further stated that the injuries found on the dead body and mentioned in column No.19 of the postmortem report were ante-mortem in nature. The prosecution has relied upon the inquest panchanama of dead body. Similarly, prosecution has relied upon other evidence to prove that the injuries were inflicted by the accused. The prosecution on the basis of evidence of medical officer and other corroborative evidence has proved that the deceased died homicidal death. 12. The next important aspect is with regard to the evidence adduced by prosecution to establish complicity of the accused in commission of the crime. It is undisputed that the accused and the informant are resident of same locality. There is no dispute about digging of drainage in front of the house of Sharad under the supervision of the accused, being Corporator of said ward of the Municipal Council. Smt. Babikala (PW-1), wife of the deceased, has stated that on the date of the incident she was at her house. She heard commotion from outside. She came out of her house and came to know from the people that in a quarrel between the accused and her husband, the accused mercilessly beat her husband. The informant, therefore, rushed to the spot with her son Banti. They found that the deceased was lying on the ground in injured condition. She has stated that thereafter they carried the deceased to the hospital of Dr. Roy for treatment. She has further stated that from hospital of Dr. Roy the deceased was shifted to Super Speciality Department of Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur. She has stated that after admission in Government Hospital, on next day he died. The report lodged by her is at Exh.36. The First Information Report registered on the basis of report is at Exh.37. In the cross-examination she has admitted that her husband was vegetable vendor. The incident had occurred in the morning. The report was lodged at 08.00 p.m. in the evening. It is submitted that this delay has not been explained. The report lodged by her is at Exh.36. The First Information Report registered on the basis of report is at Exh.37. In the cross-examination she has admitted that her husband was vegetable vendor. The incident had occurred in the morning. The report was lodged at 08.00 p.m. in the evening. It is submitted that this delay has not been explained. It is to be noted that at the relevant time the priority of the informant must be to save the life of husband. The husband was admitted in the hospital in unconscious condition. In the facts situation it cannot be said that there was any significant delay in lodging the first information report. It is further seen that time taken for lodging the report at 8.00 p.m. has been properly explained. Smt. Babikala (PW-1) was subjected to gruelling cross-examination. However, nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to discard her evidence. 13. It would be necessary to consider the evidence of two important eye-witnesses Ratnabai (PW-5) and Shalini (PW-7). They have deposed that the deceased was proceeding on his bicycle. They have further stated that exchange of words took place between the accused and the deceased. They have further stated that the accused picked up a stick lying on the road and gave a blow on the head of the deceased from back side. PW-5 has further deposed that the deceased was shifted to hospital. She had gone to the hospital to see the deceased. According to her, the deceased was unconscious. She has stated that bamboo stick was used by the accused for beating. In the cross-examination, an attempt was made to establish that she has improved her evidence with regard to the nature of the weapon. In her statement, she had stated that stick was used by the accused. However, in her evidence before the Court she has stated that it was a bamboo stick. It is submitted on the basis of this material omission that Ratnabai (PW-5) could not be said to be an eye-witness to the incident. It is to be noted that weapon recovered during the course of investigation at the instance of the accused was bamboo stick. The improvement is with regard to bamboo. In my view, this could not be said to be material improvement. It is to be noted that weapon recovered during the course of investigation at the instance of the accused was bamboo stick. The improvement is with regard to bamboo. In my view, this could not be said to be material improvement. This would have been material improvement if, in place of stick, Ratnabai (PW-5) had stated that some other weapon was used by the accused. Perusal of her cross-examination would show that searching cross-examination could not destroy the crux of her evidence. 14. On perusal of evidence of PW-5 Ratnabai, I am satisfied that her evidence is worth credible. Ratnabai (PW-5) is resident of the same locality. She has stated that at the relevant time she was going to shop. She saw that the accused and the deceased were quarrelling and abusing each other in filthy language. Perusal of her evidence would show that despite searching cross-examination no material has been elicited to doubt her presence on the spot at the relevant time. In her cross-examination she has stated that she was on visiting terms with the informant. She is not relative of the informant. On the basis of this admission an attempt has been made to suggest that Ratnabi (PW-5) being friend of the informant has deposed against the accused. In my view, perusal of her evidence in entirety does not fortify this submission. 15. Shalini (PW-7) is another eye-witness. She is resident of same locality. She has stated that on the date of the incident at about 8.30 to 9.00 a.m. she was going to shop to fetch curd. At that time she saw crowd in front of Gautam decorations belonging to the brother of the accused. She went there. At the spot she found that the accused and the deceased were abusing each other. She has stated that she tried to convince the deceased. The deceased started proceeding on his bicycle. She has stated that at that time accused picked up a stick from the spot and gave a blow from behind on the head of the deceased. She has stated that deceased fell down. She covered both ears of the deceased with hands. People initially took the deceased to his house and then took him to the hospital. She has stated that the deceased had became unconscious on the spot. It has come on record in her crossexamination that the informant is her sister. She has stated that deceased fell down. She covered both ears of the deceased with hands. People initially took the deceased to his house and then took him to the hospital. She has stated that the deceased had became unconscious on the spot. It has come on record in her crossexamination that the informant is her sister. She has admitted in cross-examination that she is residing at a distance of about 4 to 5 houses from the house of the deceased. Perusal of crossexamination would show that except above admission and suggestions, no other material has been brought on record. In her evidence she has narrated before Court the first hand account of the incident. Her credibility as eye witness has not at all been shaken. There is no reason to discard and disbelieve evidence of this witness. 16. Rohit (PW-8) is son of the deceased. He is also an eye-witness to the incident. He has stated that on the date of the incident his brother had sent him to Kalmana Road to bring mixture of nut tobacco etc. He saw crowd on Kalmana Road. He therefore, went there. He has stated that he saw the accused giving blow with stick to his father. He has stated that his father fell down. He cried and went near to his father. He ran from the spot to his house. Nobody was present at his house. Again he went towards the spot. At that time, he saw that people were carrying his father to his house. He has stated that his father died due to the injuries sustained in the incident. Perusal of his cross-examination would show that except suggestions no other material has been elicited to discard and disbelieve his evidence. The presence of the witnesses in locality was but natural. They are residing in the same area. I do not see any reason to doubt the credibility of this witness. Ratnabai (PW-5), Shalini (PW-7) and Rohit (PW8) fully corroborated the evidence of Babikala (PW-1). Their evidence is sufficient to prove the incident of assault on the deceased by the accused with bamboo stick and injury sustained by the deceased on his head. It is to be noted that in cross-examination of these witnesses there was no suggestion indicating the defence of accused of false implication in this crime for one reason or the other. Their evidence is sufficient to prove the incident of assault on the deceased by the accused with bamboo stick and injury sustained by the deceased on his head. It is to be noted that in cross-examination of these witnesses there was no suggestion indicating the defence of accused of false implication in this crime for one reason or the other. On the basis of their evidence, complicity of accused in commission of the crime has been established. 17. Anand Borkar (PW-9) and Ganesh Kadam (PW-10) are panch witnesses to the memorandum panchanama and recovery panchnama. It is seen that they have not supported the case of the prosecution. Perusal of their evidence would show that they have admitted their signatures on the memorandum and discovery panchanama. Memorandum panchanama is at Exh.66 and recovery panchanama is at Exh.66-A. The investigating Officer in his evidence has deposed about the confessional statement made by the accused with regard to the place of concealment of the bamboo stick and ultimate discovery of bamboo stick at the instance of the accused. It is to be noted that this weapon was shown to all eye-witnesses. They have identified the same. The mode and manner of the recovery of the weapon has not been supported by independent panch witnesses. However, on the basis of evidence of the eye-witnesses, prosecution has proved that the very same bamboo stick was used by the accused in commission of the crime. The Investigating Officer in his evidence has deposed about this aspect in great detail. 18. Learned Additional Sessions Judge found the evidence of all these witnesses worth credible and as such sufficient to prove the charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 304 Part II of the I.P.C. The informant has filed revision and contended that learned Judge has committed mistake in acquitting accused under Sec. 302 of the I.P.C. This aspect needs to be addressed keeping in mind the evidence on record and the reasons recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 19. 19. It is the contention of the informant that the evidence on record is sufficient to prove the charge of murder punishable under Sec. 302 of I.P.C. It is further contended that learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed mistake in convicting the accused for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Sec. 304 Part II of the I.P.C. It is contended that evidence on record is sufficient to establish that the accused inflicted the blow with stick on the head of the deceased with an intention to kill him. It is further contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not recorded cogent and convincing reasons for not convicting and sentencing the accused under Sec. 304 Part I of the I.P.C. Learned Advocate for the accused submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken into consideration the oral evidence of the eye witnesses and evidence of medical officer to conclude that the offence proved against the accused was culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Sec. 304 Part II of the I.P.C. 20. The Indian Penal Code recognises two kinds of culpable homicide. The first one is culpable homicide amounting to murder and second one is culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Sec. 299 and Sec. 304 of the I.P.C.). Sec. 304 of the I.P.C. provides punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Under Sec. 304 of the I.P.C. there are two kinds of punishment provided for two different circumstances. Sec. 300 of the I.P.C. postulates the circumstances where culpable homicide is murder and where it is not murder. Sec. 300 exception 4 would be relevant for the purpose of this case. Exception 4 provides that culpable homicide is not murder, if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Explanation to this exception 4 provides that it is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. Explanation to this exception 4 provides that it is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. If a case is covered by exception 4 to Sec. 300 of the I.P.C. then it is culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Sec. 304 of the I.P.C. When the offence made out is culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the next important question would be whether it is punishable under Part I or Part II of Sec. 304 of the I.P.C. 21. It needs to be stated that expression 'intention' and 'knowledge' postulates the existence of a positive mental attitude. In order to address the issue of this nature, the Court has to consider the intention and knowledge of the accused to ascertain the mental condition of the accused. Similarly, the Court has to consider the knowledge of the accused with regard to the likely result of the bodily injury inflicted on the deceased. In case of first part of Sec. 304 the element of intention is mandatory circumstance. The intention means the expectation of the consequences in question and the intention therefore, does not necessarily involve premeditation or thinking to kill the victim beforehand. It needs to be stated that if a person performing some act either expects death to be the consequence thereof, or expects a dangerous bodily injury likely to cause death or knows that death is the likely consequence thereof, and in each case the death occurs, the intention of the accused in the first two cases and knowledge in the third mentioned case, assumes importance while deciding the applicability of part I or part II of Sec. 304 of the I.P.C. 22. In this case, on the basis of evidence, it is necessary to see whether the accused had inflicted the head injury with an intention of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, punishable under Sec. 304 Part II of the I.P.C. or the act was done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Learned Judge on the basis of the evidence found the accused guilty of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Sec. 304 Part II of the I.P.C. 23. Learned Judge on the basis of the evidence found the accused guilty of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Sec. 304 Part II of the I.P.C. 23. It is seen on perusal of the evidence that deceased had grudge against the accused because he had not completed the work of the drainage expeditiously and therefore, it was causing nuisance and inconvenience to him and the people of the locality. At the time of the incident, the deceased was proceeding on his bicycle. He met the accused on the way. He questioned the accused about the delay in completion of the work. It has come on record that in that process they abused each other. The accused picked up a bamboo stick lying on the road and inflicted a blow on the head of deceased Sharad. Deceased Sharad fell down on the ground and became unconscious. The evidence would show that after inflicting one blow, the accused did not assault him by taking undue advantage or acted in cruel and unusual manner. In my view, in this case exception 4 to Sec. 300 of the I.P.C. would get attracted. There was no previous enmity. There was no motive behind the commission of murder by the accused. The act was not pre-planned and with premeditation. The accused in a quarrel and that too on a trifle cause, lost his temper and inflicted a blow on the head of the deceased, which ultimately proved fatal and resulted in his death. 24. It needs to be stated that whether the act committed by the accused falls within Part I or Part II of Sec. 304 of the I.P.C, is a question of fact and has to be addressed on the basis of the evidence and the facts and circumstances obtaining on record. In this case, on the basis of the evidence, the act committed by the accused could not be said to be with an intention or knowledge to cause death of the deceased. He inflicted one blow of stick on the head of the deceased. On the basis of this, knowledge can be attributed to the accused that his act or bodily injury was likely to cause the death. In this case, the intention and knowledge as postulated under Part I of Sec. 304 of the I.P.C. to convict the accused under that part, is not made out. On the basis of this, knowledge can be attributed to the accused that his act or bodily injury was likely to cause the death. In this case, the intention and knowledge as postulated under Part I of Sec. 304 of the I.P.C. to convict the accused under that part, is not made out. Therefore, in my view, in this case, the offence proved is culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Sec. 304 Part II of the I.P.C. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, the contention of the informant that the offence proved against the accused is under Sec. 302 of the I.P.C. and not under Sec. 304 Part II, cannot be accepted. On this count, no interference is warranted in the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 25. The next important aspect is with regard to the quantum and proportionality of the substantive sentence. Learned Advocate submitted that the accused has already undergone the imprisonment for three months and 10 days. Learned Advocate pointed out that learned Judge imposed fine of Rs.75, 000.00 and ordered the same to be paid to the informant Smt. Babikala Sharad Deshbratar. Learned Advocate submitted that the accused was convicted and sentenced on 11/6/2009. During the pendency of this appeal he was already on bail. Learned Advocate submitted that the accused is now 57 years old. He has responsibility to maintain his family, being the only earning member of the family. Learned Advocate submitted that the crime committed was without premeditation and without any motive. It is pointed out that the accused has no criminal antecedents. Learned Advocate submitted that therefore, subject to enhancement of fine and payment of the said fine by way of compensation to the informant, the order of substantive sentence may be modified. It is submitted that the imprisonment already undergone by the accused, in the facts and circumstances, would meet the ends of justice. 26. Learned APP submitted that in the revision filed by the informant, she has prayed for remand of case to the trial Court for re-trial by setting aside the order of conviction and sentence. She has further prayed that the accused be directed to pay compensation of Rs.5, 00, 000.00 (Rs. Five Lakhs Only) to the informant. 26. Learned APP submitted that in the revision filed by the informant, she has prayed for remand of case to the trial Court for re-trial by setting aside the order of conviction and sentence. She has further prayed that the accused be directed to pay compensation of Rs.5, 00, 000.00 (Rs. Five Lakhs Only) to the informant. Learned APP submitted that considering the nature of the proved offence against the accused the Court may modify the substantive sentence and consider awarding fine amount of Rs.7, 00, 000.00 payable to the informant as compensation. 27. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions. The husband of the informant died due to the injuries sustained at the hands of the accused. The death of husband is the permanent loss to the informant. It cannot be compensated in money. However, in the facts situation, the Court would be required to keep in mind the interest of the informant. In my opinion, in the facts situation, grant of reasonable compensation can provide some solace to the informant in her life. It would be in her best interest inasmuch as she has been leading her life without her husband. Therefore, in my view, keeping in mind the best interest of the informant, it would be just and proper to modify the substantive sentence. In my view, the substantive sentence can be modified as prayed for subject to imposition of fine of Rs.7, 00, 000.00 (Rupees Seven Lakhs Only). 28. The Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The Revision Application is also dismissed. 29. The substantive sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is modified. The accused is sentenced to suffer the imprisonment already undergone by him. i) The accused/appellant is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.7, 00, 000.00 (Rupees Seven Lakhs Only) within a period of two months from today. ii) This fine is in addition to the fine already awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. iii) If the accused fails to deposit the fine within two months from today, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two years. iv) The fine, as and when deposited, be paid to the informant-Smt. Babikala Sharad Deshbhartar by way of compensation. v) The learned Judge of the trial Court shall inform this order to the informant-Smt. Babikala Sharad Deshbhartar.