IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1035 OF 2005

MOTI LAL & ORS. … APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. … RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

This appeal by special leave is directed against the  

Judgment and Order dated 14th July, 2003 passed by the  

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal  

No.  2405  of  2002  by  which  the  conviction  of  the  

appellants under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149,  

Section 307 read with Section 149, Sections 452 and 427  

of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) recorded by the Sessions  

Court in Sessions Trial No. 184 of 1995 is upheld except  

in  case  of  appellant  Sharda  Singh  whose  conviction  

recorded under Section 148, IPC is altered to one under  

Section  147,  IPC  whereas  punishment  of  death  sentence  

imposed  on  the  appellants  Moti  Lal,  Surendra  Singh,  

Virendra Singh, Amar Singh and Dhunnan Singh is reduced  

to  one  of  rigorous  imprisonment  for  life  but  other  

punishments imposed on all the appellants for commission

of  offences  punishable  under  Sections  302  read  with  

Section 149, Section 307 read with Section 149, Sections  

452 and 427 are upheld.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal are that on the  

night intervening 24th/ 25th June, 1994 at about 1.45  

a.m.,  one  Motilal,  Surendra  Singh,  Virendra  Singh,  

Sharda Singh, Miyadi @ Ram Miyadi Singh, Dhunnan Singh,  

Amar Singh (all are appellants herein) along with Anil  

Singh  (not  approached  this  Court)  and  Thagai  Singh  

(died during trial) armed with deadly weapons entered  

the house of one Sita Ram Singh and attacked him and  

other family members, resulting  instantaneous death of  

Sita Ram Singh and his two sons namely Surinder Singh  

and Jai Govind and also injuries to the other family  

members of Sita Ram Singh. The assailants had also set  

fire  to  a  motorcycle  parked  in  the  house  of  the  

deceased Sita Ram Singh. In the attack, the appellants  

used country made pistols (katta), gun, bomb, iron rod  

(ramma), pharsa fitted lathi etc. The cause of attack  

is due to rivalry between the family of deceased Sita  

Ram Singh and the attacking party over a piece of farm  

land in respect of which some cases were pending in the  

Civil Courts.

3. Smt. Manju Singh (PW5) is the wife of the deceased Sita  

Ram Singh who also sustained the injuries in the said  

attack. She is the informant who rushed to the police  

2

station Hata on the same night and got prepared report  

(Ex. Ka-1) based on which the First Information Report  

(Ex.  Ka-43)  was  issued  at  about  2.40  am  for  the  

offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302,  

307 and 427, IPC against nine persons including the  

appellants herein.

4. The  injured  were  immediately  sent  to  Primary  Health  

Center,  Hata  where  they  were  medically  examined  by  

Dr. Ghan Shyam Singh (PW8) between 5.30 and 6.30 a.m.  

Mr. Umesh Chandra Misra, Investigating Officer (PW9)  

visited  the  place  of  occurrence  and  found  the  dead  

bodies  of  Sita  Ram  Singh,  Surendra  Singh  and  Jai  

Govind. He seized the remnants of the burnt motorcycle  

(Ext. Ka-37), the blood stained ramma (iron rod with an  

edge on one end), empty cartridges, wads and pellets  

from the spot (Ext. Ka-34 and Ka-35) and prepared a  

site map, recorded statements of the injured and others  

who were  found to be conversant with the incident,  

made inquest report (Ext. Ka-13, Ka-14 and Ka-15) and  

sent the dead bodies for post-mortem. On the same day,  

he arrested Sharda Singh, Anil Singh, Virendra Singh,  

Thagai Singh (died during trial) and Surendra Singh and  

also recovered one licensed gun (Ext. Ka-38) from the  

house  of  one  Toofani  Singh  who  was  found  murdered  

before half an hour of the present occurrence. Dr. K.  

Singh (PW7) conducted post-mortem on 26th June, 1994,  

3

found ante mortem injuries on the persons of deceased  

and  opined  the  cause  of  death  as  “shock  and  

haemorrhage”. The post-mortem reports are Exts. Ka-2,  

Ka-3 and Ka-4. The Doctor’s opinion and the details of  

ante mortem injuries on the persons of the deceased  

need  not  be  referred  in  detail  as  they  have  been  

noticed  by  the  Courts  below.  On  completion  of  

investigation, the I.O. submitted charge-sheet against  

Motilal, Surendra Singh, Virendra Singh, Dhunnan Singh,  

Miyadi Singh and Anil Singh for commission of offences  

punishable under Sections      148, 302 and 307 read  

with 149, 452 and 427 IPC whereas Sharda Singh, Amar  

Singh and Thagai          Singh were charged with the  

offences  punishable  under  Sections  147,  302  and  307  

read with Section 149, 452 and 427, IPC.

5. Cognizance of the offences was taken by the Magistrate  

who committed the case to the Court of Sessions vide  

Sessions Trial No. 184 of 1995. The appellants pleaded  

not guilty and preferred trial.  The learned Sessions  

Judge,  upon  appreciation  of  evidence  and  material  

available  on  record,  found  that  the  prosecution  has  

successfully established its case and accordingly found  

the appellants guilty of various offences and sentenced  

them vide judgment dated 11th June, 2002. The details of  

the conviction and sentence awarded are as under:

Name of Appellan Provisions  under Sentence

4

the  accused

t No. which convicted Awarded

Moti Lal 1 Section  302  read  with  Section  149,  IPC

Death  Penalty  and  a  fine  of  Rs.10,000/-  in default, S.I. for  3 years.  

Section  307  read  with  Section  149,  IPC

R.I. for 7 years and  fine  of  Rs.2,000/-,  in default S.I.  for  1 year.

Section 452, IPC R.I. for 1 year and  fine  of  Rs.500/-  in  default,  S.I.  for  3  months

Section 427, IPC R.I. for 1 year and  fine of Rs.500/-, in  default,  S.I.  for  3  months

Section 148, IPC R.I. for 1 year

Surendra  Singh 2

Same as shown  against Appellant  

No.1

Same as shown against  Appellant No.1

Virendra  Singh 3

Same as shown  against Appellant  

No.1

Same as shown against  Appellant No.1

Amar Singh 4

Same as shown  against Appellant  

No.1

Same as shown against  Appellant No.1

Dunnan  Singh 7

Same as shown  against Appellant  

No.1

Same as shown against  Appellant No.1

5

Sharda  Singh

5 Section 302 read  with Section 149,  IPC

Life imprisonment and  fine of Rs.10,000/-,  in default, S.I. for  3 years.

Section 307 read  with Section 149,  IPC

R.I. for 7 years and  fine  of  Rs.2,000/-,  in default, S.I. for  1 year.

Section 452 R.I. for 1 year and  fine of Rs.500/-, in  default,  S.I.  for  3  months.

Section 427, IPC R.I. for 1 year and  fine of Rs.500/-, in  default,  S.I.  for  3  months.

Section 148, IPC R.I. for 1 year

Miyadi  Singh

6 Same as shown  against Appellant  

No.5

Same as shown against  Appellant No.5

6. The learned Sessions Judge ordered the sentence to run  

concurrently  and  further  referred  the  matter  to  the  

High  Court  for  confirmation  of  death  penalty  as  is  

required  under  Section  366  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  

Procedure. All the convicts jointly preferred Criminal  

Appeal  No.  2405  of  2002  before  the  High  Court  of  

Judicature  at  Allahabad  challenging  their  conviction  

under different provisions of I.P.C. and imposition of  

sentences.

7. The  High  Court,  by  the  impugned  judgment  dated  14th  

July, 2003, while rejecting the reference made by the  

learned  Sessions  Judge  for  confirmation  of  death  

penalty, awarded life sentence to the appellants Moti  

Lal,  Surendra  Singh,  Virendra  Singh,  Amar  Singh  and  

6

Dhunnan Singh for the offence committed under Section  

302 read with Section 149, IPC and maintained their  

conviction  recorded  under  Sections  307  read  with  

Section  149,  Sections  452,  427  and  147,  IPC  and  

sentences  imposed  by  Sessions  Court.  The  High  Court  

also confirmed conviction of Sharda Singh, Miyadi Singh  

and Anil Singh under Section 302 read with Section 149,  

Section 307 read with Section 149, Sections 452, 427  

and 148, IPC and sentences imposed for commission of  

those  offences.  The  High  Court  further  altered  

conviction of appellant Sharda Singh under Section 148,  

IPC to one under Section 147, IPC while maintaining the  

sentence. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court,  

the appellants preferred the present appeal.

8. We  have  heard  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

appellants  as  well  as  the  State  and  considered  the  

record of the case.

9. The prosecution, in support of its case, mainly relied  

upon the evidence of Smt. Manju Singh (PW5) and Smt.  

Kaushalya Devi (PW6). Be it noted that Smt. Manju Singh  

sustained (1) two round lacerated wound of 0.5 c.m.  

Radius each present in an area of 1 c.m. on front of  

right  thigh,  18  c.m.  above  right  knee  joint  bone.  

Bleeding  was  present;   and  (2)  two  round  lacerated  

wounds of 0.5 c.m. radius each present at a distance of  

4 c.m. from each other in right groin, 10 c.m. above  

7

injury  No.1.  Bleeding  with  clotted  blood  was  found  

present.  It  was  found  that  injuries  were  caused  by  

firearm, simple in nature and were fresh in duration.  

She is the crucial witness and the entire case mainly  

centres  around  her  evidence.  She,  in  clear  and  

categorical  terms,  stated  that  her  husband  Sita  Ram  

Singh and two sons Surendra Singh and Jai Govind were  

murdered. On the fateful day, they were sleeping in the  

house  in  the  Chhappar  of  Dalan.  The  appellants  Ram  

Miyadi, Amar Singh, Moti Lal, Surendra Singh, Virendra  

Singh,  Dhunnan  Singh,  Sharda  Singh  along  with  Anil  

Singh and Thagai Singh (since died during trial) barged  

into  her  house.  Anil  Singh  was  holding  gun,  Sharda  

Singh was having lathi, Miyadi was having bomb and Moti  

Lal was holding  katta  (country made pistol). Surendra  

Singh and Virendra Singh were also having kattas. Amar  

Singh was having pharsa fitted with lathi. Anil Singh  

and Virender Singh were sons of Sharda Singh. Dhunnan  

Singh was armed with ramma. At the relevant time, the  

lights were on in the house. Smt. Kaushalya Devi (PW6)  

was also sleeping inside the house. Immediately upon  

entering into the house, the appellants started abusing  

the inmates and indulged in attack during which she  

also sustained injuries on her body. The appellants hit  

her husband and two sons with the weapons in their  

hands. It is in her evidence that her husband and two  

8

sons died on the spot due to the injuries inflicted  

upon  them  by  the  appellants.  She  also  stated  that  

amongst  others,  Smt.  Kaushalya  Devi  (PW6)  had  also  

witnessed  the  occurrence.  She  also  deposed  that  the  

appellants set fire to the motor cycle that was parked  

in the house. Upon hearing the sounds of bomb, guns and  

shrieks neighbours came to the spot and witnessed the  

occurrence. That immediately after the occurrence, she  

went to police station, Hata and got prepared report  

(Ext. Ka-1) from one Dwarika Tiwari, resident of Hata  

and  lodged  report  at  police  station.  The  appellants  

were in inimical terms with Bichari Singh Vakil who  

belonged  to  her  family  and  there  was  a  litigation  

pending between them in respect of a piece of farm  

land.  It  is  also  in  her  evidence  that  few  minutes  

before the incident, one Toofani Singh was murdered.  

She  explained  that  the  other  witnesses  Smt.  Vijai  

Laxmi, Smt. Bela Devi, Ram Lachhan Singh and Ram Bilas  

were won over by the appellants. Though this witness  

was  subjected  to  intense  cross-examination,  nothing  

could be brought on record to impeach her credibility.  

During her cross-examination, minor discrepancies with  

reference  to  her  earlier  statement  recorded  under  

Section 161, Cr.P.C. were brought on record which are  

trivial in nature and the Courts below rightly ignored  

them.  She  herself  was  injured  in  the  incident,  

9

therefore,  her  presence  at  the  time  and  place  of  

incident can hardly be doubted.  

10.Smt. Kaushalya Devi (PW6), wife of Bichari Singh Vakil  

corroborated the statement of Smt. Manju Singh (PW5).  

She stated that she was sleeping inside her house and  

woke up upon hearing the sounds of bomb blast. She  

heard the appellants shouting that the deceased killed  

Toofani  singh  and  therefore,  no  one  in  his  family  

should be spared of their life. It may not be necessary  

to repeat and recapitulate what has been stated by her  

except  to  notice  that  she  broadly  corroborated  the  

statement  of  PW5.  It  is  in  her  evidence  that  her  

sister-in-law—Smt.  Manju  Singh  (PW5)  went  to  police  

station,  Hata  to  lodge  report  to  police.  She  also  

stated that there was enmity regarding a piece of farm  

land  between  her  husband  Bichari  Singh  and  Toofani  

Singh  and  it  so  happened  that  Toofani  Singh  was  

murdered  in  the  same  night.  Her  evidence  is  fully  

corroborated by the testimony of PW5 and as well as the  

other evidence available on record.

11. Be it noted, the appellants have not disputed the date  

and place of occurrence. According to the prosecution,  

the incident took place on the intervening night of  

24th/25th June, 1994 at about 1.45 a.m. The report of  

occurrence  was  lodged  at  2.40  a.m.  on  the  same  

intervening night. The police station is at a distance  

10

of about five kilometres. It is in the evidence of Smt.  

Manju Singh (PW5) that she went to police station on a  

cycle of an unknown person. The fact remains that she  

and other injured persons were examined between 5.30  

and 6.30 a.m. on 25th June, 1994. Dr. Ghanshyam Singh  

(PW8) who examined the injured persons, in clear and  

categorical terms, stated that the injuries could have  

been  caused  at  1.45  am  in  the  same  night.  In  the  

circumstances there is nothing on record to disbelieve  

her evidence.  

12.In  this  appeal,  Shri  Nagendra  Rai,  learned  senior  

counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  appellants  

strenuously  contended  before  us  that  the  appellants  

have been falsely implicated due to enmity between the  

parties. According to him, the first information report  

was  not  lodged  at  2.40  a.m.  as  alleged  by  the  

prosecution but it was lodged during day time after due  

deliberations to falsely implicate the appellants. The  

contention was that no crime number was mentioned in  

the injury report as well as inquest and it is clearly  

apparent  even  to  a  naked  eye  that  there  was  

interpolation  in  the  first  information  report  as  

regards  the  timing  which  makes  claim  of  Smt.  Manju  

Singh highly unbelievable that in that atmosphere, she  

went to the police station on the bicycle of an unknown  

person and lodged the first information report. Another  

11

aspect  highlighted  by  the  learned  counsel  was  that  

Dwarika Tiwari who is stated to be the scribe of the  

report was not examined. These factors according to the  

learned senior counsel cast a shadow and doubt on the  

prosecution story.

13.Both  the  Courts  below  found  that  there  is  some  

overwriting in the original report (Ka-1) and Chick FIR  

(Ka-43)  as  regards  the  timing.   Initially,  it  was  

written as 1.30 a.m. in the night and subsequently some  

re-writing was made and time of occurrence was shown as  

1.45 a.m. There is no dispute that Toofani Singh was  

murdered at about 1.30 a.m. in the same night and the  

present incident admittedly has taken place subsequent  

to the murder of Toofani Singh. It is thus clear that  

the  occurrence  had  taken  place  after  1.30  a.m.  

Admittedly, the murder of Toofani Singh and occurrence  

in the present case had taken place one after the other  

in that sequence at different places.  It is not in  

dispute that the houses of Toofani Singh and deceased  

Sita Ram Singh are not adjacent to each other. In the  

circumstances,  there  cannot  be  any  doubt  whatsoever  

that the incident had taken place at about 1.45 a.m.  

after the murder of Toofani Singh at about 1.30 a.m. As  

rightly observed by the Courts below, the police in  

some confusion, initially treated the present case as  

the cross case of Crime No. 151 of 1994 concerning the  

12

murder of Toofani Singh and accordingly registered the  

case as Crime No. 151A of 1994. It is evident from the  

evidence  of  Umesh  Chandra  Misra,  the  Investigating  

Officer (PW9) that it was a mistake on their part to  

register  the  present  case  as  a  cross  case.  Having  

regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the  

corrections, if any, made by the Investigating Officer  

or the Station House Officer, as the case may be, in  

the first information report  do not have any vital  

bearing on the case of the prosecution. On that score  

lodging of the first information report itself cannot  

be doubted. Once it is conceded that the occurrence had  

taken place after the murder of Toofani Singh at about  

1.30  a.m.  on  the  same  intervening  night,  the  

overwriting in first information report, if any, itself  

has no material bearing on the prosecution’s case.

14.An analysis of the sequence of events apparent from  

the  record  would  reveal  that  admittedly  there  was  

enmity between the appellants and Bichari Singh Vakil  

who is none other than the elder brother of deceased  

Sita Ram Singh with regard to some landed property.  

Toofani Singh, who is none other than the real brother  

of appellant Sharda Singh was murdered at about 1.30  

a.m. on the same intervening night and the appellants  

suspected  that  the  murder  was  committed  by  Bichari  

Singh and his family members. The suspicion entertained  

13

by the appellants about the involvement of the deceased  

led to the murderous attack on deceased Sita Ram Singh  

and  his  family  members.  Bichari  Singh  Vakil  escaped  

from the wrath of the appellants as he was not in the  

village  on  that  particular  day.   These  facts  are  

clearly evident from the evidence of Smt. Manju Singh  

(PW5)  and  Smt.  Kaushalya  Devi  (PW6).  In  the  

circumstances,  the  alteration,  if  any,  made  in  the  

first  information  report  as  regards  the  time  of  

occurrence is not of much significance.

15. Secondly, the distance between the place of occurrence  

and the police station is about five kilometres. Smt.  

Manju  Singh  (PW5)  was  not  seriously  injured.  She  

explained that her husband and two sons were killed on  

that fateful intervening night of 24th/25th June, 1994  

and there was no male members left in the house and it  

was under those circumstances she had to muster her  

courage and reach the police station to lodge first  

information  report.  We  find  no  reason  whatsoever  to  

doubt her statement in this regard. It is true that she  

admitted  in  her  evidence  that  apart  from  the  other  

injured persons, one Uday Singh who was not injured was  

also present in the house, but it is not brought on  

record as to who this Uday Singh was. There is nothing  

strange in Smt. Manju Singh securing the help of a  

person who dropped her at the police station on his  

14

bicycle. Non-examination of the said person and equally  

the  non-examination  of  the  scribe  of  the  first  

information report, in our considered opinion, are not  

that fatal to doubt the entire prosecution story. There  

is nothing unnatural and improbable in Smt. Manju Singh  

reaching  the  police  station  and  lodging  the  first  

information report at about 2.40 a.m.

16.The omission on the part of the Investigating Officer  

in not mentioning the case number in the injury report  

and inquest is not a ground by itself to doubt the  

reliable and clinching evidence adduced in this case by  

the prosecution. The Investigating Officer  may have  

committed an error in registering the first information  

report lodged by PW5 as a cross case initially to that  

of  Toofani  Singh’s  murder  case  which  he  rectified  

subsequently.  The Investigating Officer may not have  

been that diligent that led to making some corrections  

in the first information report but that is no reason  

to reject the evidence of Smt. Manju Singh (Pw5). The  

courts below rightly appreciated the evidence available  

on record and found the so-called interpolation in the  

first information report, if any, itself was no ground  

to doubt the prosecution’s story.  

17.Learned senior counsel further submitted that presence  

of PW6 (Smt. Kaushalya Devi) at the place of occurrence  

is highly doubtful since her name is not mentioned in  

15

the first information report lodged by Smt. Manju Singh  

(PW5). It is well settled that the first information  

report need not contain every minute detail about the  

occurrence. It is not a substantive piece of evidence.  

It is not necessary that the name of every individual  

present at the scene of occurrence is required to be  

stated in the first information report. It is true that  

Smt.  Kaushalya  Devi  (PW6)  admitted  in  her  cross  

examination  that  she  was  residing  in  Gorakhpur  in  

connection with the education of her minor daughter.  

But she also stated that she very often comes to her  

village  to  look  after  cultivation  of  lands  and  

household affairs. It is in her evidence that she came  

to  the  village  about  4  –  5  days  prior  to  the  

occurrence. It is an admitted fact that deceased Sita  

Ram Singh and Bichari Singh, husband of Smt. Kaushalya  

Devi are real brothers and residing in the same house  

in the village, but in separate portions. Bichari Singh  

has interest in the lands possessed by the family in  

the  village.  There  is  nothing  improbable  in  Smt.  

Kaushalya  Devi  frequently  visiting  the  village  and  

staying in the house at her own convenience. It is  

relevant to note that the Investigating Officer (PW9)  

stated  that  on  26.6.1994,  he  visited  the  spot  and  

examined  PW6  along  with  other  witnesses.  Therefore,  

there is no reason to disbelieve her statement that she  

16

was very much present on that fateful night at the  

scene of occurrence.  

18.Learned senior counsel further contended that absence  

of injuries on the person of Smt. Kaushalya Devi (PW6)  

makes her presence at the scene of occurrence doubtful.  

This aspect of the matter has been clearly explained by  

PW6  who  was  subjected  to  very  rigorous  cross  

examination that when she came out of her room to see  

as to what was happening, the appellants Moti Lal and  

Virendra Singh after spotting her, chased her and she  

ran away and re-entered into her room and bolted the  

doors from inside. Two shots were fired aiming at her  

out  of  which  one  hit  the  door  and  the  other  went  

through the window hitting the inner wall of the room.  

She saved herself from those two shots aimed at her. We  

do not find any reason to disbelieve her evidence in  

this regard as to how she escaped from getting injured  

in the melee.

19.It was lastly contended that even if the prosecution’s  

case is to be accepted, the appellants Sharda Singh and  

his son Anil Singh are entitled to benefit of doubt.  

The submission was that their presence at the scene of  

offence is highly doubtful in view of the categorical  

admission made by the Investigating Officer (PW9) that  

both of them were present in the police station at 2.10  

a.m. to lodge information about Toofani Singh’s murder  

17

that had taken place in the same intervening night. We  

express our inability to accede to the submission made  

in  this  regard.  The  occurrence  took  place  in  the  

midnight at about 1.45 a.m. The distance between the  

police  station  and  the  place  of  occurrence  is  only  

about five kilo meters which could easily be covered  

within 10-15 minutes. May be the said appellants went  

to the police station to  inform about the murder of  

Toofani Singh and they may have been present in the  

police station at about 2.10 a.m. Their presence in the  

police station at 2.10 a.m. does not rule out their  

presence at the scene of offence at about 1.45 a.m. The  

eye-witnesses Smt. Manju Singh and Smt. Kaushalya Devi,  

in  specific  terms,  stated  in  their  evidence  about  

presence  of  these  two  appellants  at  the  scene  of  

offence.  They  may  have  been  present  at  the  police  

station at about 2.10 a.m., but on that count, their  

participation in the murderous attack on the deceased  

at about 1.45 a.m. cannot be ruled out.

20.The ocular evidence of PWs 5 and 6 and the medical  

expert’s  (PW7)  evidence  leads  us  to  an  irresistible  

conclusion that the appellants are guilty of all the  

charges  levelled  against  them  and  the  Courts  below  

rightly convicted all of them for the charged offences.

21.No other point is urged.

18

22.For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any error  

whatsoever to have been committed by the High Court.  

The  High  Court  properly  re-appreciated  the  entire  

evidence  available  on  record,  considered  all  the  

submissions that were made and arrived at the correct  

conclusion to confirm the conviction of the appellants  

under  various  Sections  mentioned  hereinabove.  This  

Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article  

136 of the Constitution, normally does not interfere  

with such concurring finding of facts arrived at the  

Courts  below  upon  proper  appreciation  of  evidence  

available  on  record  unless  it  is  shown  that  such  

appreciation suffers from any manifest error resulting  

in miscarriage of justice. In the present case, we are  

satisfied that the Courts below properly appreciated  

the  evidence  and  rested  their  conclusions  mainly  

relying  upon  the  evidence  of  PWs  5  and  6  and  the  

evidence  of  forensic  expert  Dr.  K.  Singh  (PW7).  We  

accordingly find no merit in this appeal.  

23.The appeal shall accordingly stand dismissed.

…………………………………………….J. (B. SUDERSHAN REDDY)

NEW DELHI,    ………………………………………………J. DECEMBER 2, 2009.       (J.M. PANCHAL)

19