SATNI BAIversusSTATE OF M. P. (NOW CHHATTISGARH)

                        [2010] 2 S.C.R. 186


A                           SATNI BAI
                                v.
             STATE OF M. P. (NOW CHHATTISGARH)
                 (Civil Appeal No. 212 of 2010)
                        JANUARY 29, 2010
B
             [P. SATHASIVAM AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.]

        Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 - Conviction under, on the
  basis of circumstantial evidence - Accused prosecuted for
C killing 11er own son - Evidence of close relatives that accused
  was found near dead body of her son with blood stained axe
  in her hand - Her sari was also blood stained - On seeing
  them, she tried to flee away from scene of crime -
  Circumstances pointing her involvement in the crime -
D Defence not able to dispel the chain of events which emerged
  from the testimony of these witnesses -Case of false
  implication also not made out - No reason to interfere with
  the order of conviction - Evidence - Circumstantial evidence.

E      Witness: Hostile witness - Testimony of - Evidentiary
  value - Girl who allegedly saw dead body of 4 years old boy
  declared hostile witness and contradictions in her testimony
  - Held: Witness was a 16 year old girl, with an impressionable
  mind - It was likely that she was shocked beyond belief at the
  sight of the dead body - With passage of time between the
F occurrence of the crime and recording of her testimony, her
  memory of the incident might have blurred - That by itself
  would not be enough to affect the prosecution case -
  Evidence.

G       Tll'ial court convicted appellant for killing her own son
    and sentenced her to life imprisonment. The conviction
    was based on circumstantial evidence. High court upheld
    the conviction. Hence the appeal.

H                                186
SATNI BAI v. STATE OF M.P. (NOW CHHATIISGARH) 187


      Dismissing the appeal, the Court                         A

     HELD: 1.1. When a case rests only on circumstantial
evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when
all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found
to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or        8
the guilt of any other person. The circumstances from
which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn,
have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have
to be shown to be closely connected with the principal
fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances.           C
[Para 11] [193-G-H; 194-A]

     State of U.P. vs. Satish, (2005) 3 SCC 114; Joseph vs.
State of Kera/a, (2000) 5 SCC 197; Padala Veera Reddy v.
State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1990 SC 79; Chenga Reddy
and ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 3390, State   D
of U.P. vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992) 2 SCC 86, relied
on.

   , · 1.2. This case is not of direct evidence of committing
murder of deceased by the accused/appellant, who is E
none other than the mother of the deceased, but is based
on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances brought
on record by the prosecution were of two categories. The
accused was seen at the place of occurrence holding
blood stained axe in her hand near the dead body of the
                                                              F
deceased and she also tried to run away from the place
of occurrence. The axe which was snatched from the
accused by PW-2 and the saree of the accused were
found stained with the blood. To prove the first
circumstance, the prosecution examined PW-1, PW-2 and
PW-4. The evidence of PW-1 was corroborated by the G
evidence of PW-2 and PW-4. In the cross-examination of
these witnesses, the defence was not able to elicit any
circumstance which shows that the accused was not
present when PW-1 and PW-2 went to the scene of
occurrence and-, ·therefore, the presence of the accused H
     188    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 2 S.C.R.


 A at the place of occurrence near the dead body of her son
   holding blood stained axe in her hand was established.
   These witnesses were closely related to the appellant.
   There are no inherent contradictions in the testimony of
   these witnes~s. The defence was unable to dispel the
 B chain of events which emerged from the testimony of
   these witnesses. [Para 17] [196-G-H; 196-A-D; 197-C; 197-
   D-E]
                  '
       1.3. According to the doctor who prepared the post
 C mortem report, wound No.2 was life endangering and
   undoubtedly was caused by the axe which was
   recovered from the hands of the accused. The post
   mortem report coupled with the testimony of the
   witnesses presents a very clear and cogent chain of the
   events which occurred on the fateful day unerringly
 D points towards the guilt of the appellant. The picture
   emerging has also not been refuted satisfactorily by the
   defence. [Para 19] [198-C-D]
         2. Motherhood is one of the most precious gifts
· E endowed upon mankind and there is no relationship
    more pristine and pure than that of a mother and her
    child. No mother in normal circumstances can tolerate
    even a scratch on the body of her child. Basic instinct of
    a mother is well explained by a well known author
  F Washington Irving in one of his books, wherein he has
    said, that, "a father may turn his back on his child;
    brothers and sisters may become inveterate enemies;
    husbands may desert their wives, and wives their
    husbands. But a mother's love endures through all; in
    good repute; in bad repute, in the face of the world's
  G condemnation, a mother still loves on, and still hopes that
    her child may turn from his evil ways, and repent; still she
    remembers the infant smiles that once filled her bosom
    with rupture, the merry laugh, the joyful shout of his
    childhood, the opening promise of his youth; and she
 H
  SATNI BAI v. STATE OF M.P. (NOW CHHATTISGARH) 189


 can never be brought to think him an unworthy." In the            A
 present case, the appellant was found standing near the
 dead body of her son with a bloodstained axe in her
  hand. The normal reaction for any mother would have
 been to go hysterical and clutch the body of her son. But,
 the accused tried to flee away from the scene of the crime        B
  before being restrained. This kind of reaction and lack of
 remorse would not have been forthcoming had she been
 innocent. This unusual reaction to the death of her son
 who was aged 4 at the time of his death, in no uncertain
 terms point towards her involvement in the crime. This            c
 is an unusual case and therefore the plea that a mother
 is not capable of killing her own son, in the absence of
 any evidence to the contrary cannot be accepted. Apart
 from this, at the time of questioning under Section 313
 Cr.P.C., the appellant instead of making at least an              0
 attempt to explain or clarify the incriminating
 circumstances inculpating her and connecting her with
 the crime by her, totally denied everything when those
 circumstances were brought to her notice by the
 Sessions Court, and thus she not only lost the
 opportunity but also stood self condemned. [Para 21]              E
 [198-E-H; 199-A-E]
         3. There is also no question of falsely implicating the
   appellant. The witnesses were her close relatives. PW-1
   being the brother-in-law of the appellant and PW-2 being        F
   the sister-in-law of the appellant, had no enmity nor
   animosity against the appellant. With regard to the issue
·. of PW-4, being declared a hostile witness by the
   prosecution and the contradictions in her testimony, it
   needs to be kept in mind that the witness is a 16 year old      G
   girl, with an impressionable mind. It is very likely that she
   was shocked beyond belief at the sight of the dead body
   and it is not possible to comprehend how she would have
   reacted. Different people react differently to crisis
   situations, so it is very much possible that with the
                                                                   H
    190       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 2 S.C.R.


A passage of time between the occurrence of the crime and
  recording of her testimony, her memory of the incident
  would have blurred. That by itself is not enough to set
  aside the conclusion reached at by the courts below.
  [Para 22] [199-F-H; 200-A]
B                          Case Law Reference:
          2005 3 sec 114            Relied on               Para 11
          2000 5 sec 197            Relied on               Para 12

c         AIR 1990 SC 79            Relied on               Para 13
          AIR 1996 SC 3390          Relied on               Para 14
          1992 2 sec 86             Relied on       .1.1/   Para 15
                                                    ' .
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :;;Criminal Appeal
D No. 212 of 2010.
        From the Judgment & Order dated 21.3.2006 of the High
    Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 1383
    of 1997.
E         Kiran Bhardwaj (AC) for the Appellant.
        Dhramendra Kumar Sinha and Atul Jha for the
    Respondents.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F         H.L. DATTU, J.
                "A mother is the truest friend we have, when trials
          heavy and sudden, fall upon us; when adversity takes the
          place of prosperity; when friends who rejoice with us in our
          sunshine desert us; when trouble thickens around us, still
G
          she cling to us, and endeavor by her kind precepts and
          counsels to dissipate the clouds of darkness, 13nd cause
          peace to return to our hearts"
                                                 - Washington Irving
H
SATNI BAI v. STATE OF M.P. (NOW CHHATTISGARH) 191
                 [H.L. DATTU, J.]
     Leave granted.                                                  A
     2. It is in this backdrop, we seek to introduce the facts of
this case : A wicked mother is facing life sentence having been
convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for killing
her own son with an axe by the Court of First Additional Judge,      B
Ambikapur in Case no. 366 of 1996. On appeal, the conviction
is upheld by the Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court.

    3. The appellant, Satni Bai is the mother of the deceased.
She belongs to a tribal community. She has filed this appeal
from prison, where she is undergoing her sentence of life            C
imprispnment. She is represented by amicus curiae in this
appeal.

       4. The case of the prosecution is that, on 18.8.1996, Heera
 PW-1 and his elder brother Naihar Sai had gone to the forest        0
 in the morning to collect wood and at about 1.00 P.M., they
 returned to the house and when they were sitting inside the
 house, they heard the cries of his daughter, Sumitra PW-4 and
 Anita, the daughter of his younger brother. On hearing the cries,
 they came out of the house and went towards the side from           E
 where the sound of cries were heard and saw Kannilal
 (deceased) lying in a pool of blood. Heera lodged the report
 P-1 in the Police Station, Sitapur. A.K. Tiwari PW-7 was
 officiating in the post of Station House Officer, Sitapur. He had
 recorded the statements of Heera PW-1 Balobai PW-2 and
Sumitra PW-4. Heera PW-1 had stated that the appellanU
                                                                     F
accused was standing near the dead body of Kannilal with a
bloodstained axe in her hand. As the appellant was attempting
to run away from the scene of crime, he instructed his wife
Balobai PW-2 to stop her and snatch the bloodstained axe
from her. He had also stated, that, there were bloodstains on        G
the clothes of the appellant as well. Balobai PW~2 in her
statement before the police had stated, on the date of the
incident they were sitting in the house and on hearing the cries
of her daughter Sumitra PW-4, she came out of the house and
saw appellant's son was lying dead and she saw the appellant         H
    192     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 2 S.C.R.


A   standing near the dead body with the wooden part of the axe
    in her hand and the metal part of the axe on the floor. She had
    also stated, that, when the appellant started running away from
    the place, on instructions from her husband, she caught hold
    of appellant and locked her inside the house.
B
        5. After recording the report P-1, the Station House Officer,
   Sitapur, left for the scene of occurrence and after giving notice
   to the Panchas, he had prepared Panchanama of the dead
   body of Kannilal. He had taken into his possession the blood
   stained axe on production by Heera PW-1 and also blood
C stained saree of the accused. He had also taken into
   possession the blood stained soil and plain soil from the place
   of occurrence. The investigating officer had also prepared the
   site plan. Thereafter, the dead body of deceased Kannilal was
  sent to the hospital situated at Sitapur for post mortem
D examination. The post mortem was carried out by Dr. K.K Datta
  PW-8, who in his detailed report had stated that the axe wound
  on the left side of the head of the deceased was sufficient to
  cause the death. The blood stained articles were sent for
  examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory and, according
E to the report, blood was found on the saree of the accused and
  the weapon of offence - axe. After completion of the
  investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant in
  the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambikapur, who
  in turn committed the case to the Sessions Judge for trial.
F
        6. The prosecution in order to establish the charge against
  the appellanUaccused, examined eight witnesses including
  Heera PW-1, his wife Balobai PW-2 and their daughter Sumitra
  PW-4, but were declared hostile and cross examined by State
  counsel. The accused when questioned under Section 313 of
G the Criminal Procedure Code, denied all the incriminating
  circumstances brought against her and reiterated about her
  being innocent.

       7. The trial court raised the following questions for
H determination:
SATNI BAI v. STATE OF M.P. (NOW CHHATTISGARH) 193
                 [H.L. DATTU, J.]
           (1) Whether the prosecution was successful in                A
     establishing that the death was homicidal in nature ?

           (2) Whether the prosecution was successful in
     establishing that the accused with the intention of causing
     death, caused the death of Kannilal?
                                                                        B
      8. To answer the first' question in the affirmative, the trial
court has placed reliance on the post mortem report of the
doctor. To answer the second question, the trial court has taken
into consideration the circumstantial evidence available on
record, since the sole eye witness Sumitra PW-4 has turned              c
hostile. The trial court had also taken other factors into
consideration like the recovery of bloodstained axe and saree
of the appellant, for which there was no proper explanation on
the part of the appellant. Based on these materials on record,
the trial court after holding the appellant guilty for the commission   D
of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for
committing the murder of her son Kannilal has sentenced her
to undergo imprisonment for life.

      9. Since the appeal filed against the judgment and order
                                                                        E
of the trial court is dismissed by the High Court, the accused
is in appeal before us.

     10. We have heard amicus curiae for the appel!ant and the
learned counsel for the State. The learned amicus-curiae
submitted that the evidence on record does not establish the            F
case of homicide and that at any rate the chain of
circumstances is not so complete as to lead to the hypothesis
of guilt of the accused.

     11. It has been consistently laid down by this Court, that,        G
when a case rests only on circumstantial evidence, the
inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating
facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the
innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. The              .      .
                                                                            'ti'""'-



circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of t~e
                                                                        H
    194           SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 2 S.C.R.


A   accused is drawn, have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt  1




    and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal
    fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. [See State
    of U.P. vs. Satish, (2005) 3 sec 114].

B       12. In Joseph vs. State of Kera/a, [(2000) 5 SCC 197],
  the court has explained under what circumstances conviction
  can be based purely on circumstantial evidence. It is observed,
  that, "it is often said that though witnesses may lie,
  circumstances will not, but at the same time it must cautiously
C be scrutinized to see that the incriminating circumstances are
  such as to lead only to a hypothesis of guilt and reasonably
  exclude every possibility of innocence of the accused. There
  can also be no hard and fast rule as to the appreciation of
  evidence in a case and being always an exercise pertaining
  to arriving at a finding of fact the same has to be in the manner
D necessitated or warranted by the peculiar facts and
  circumstances of each case. The whole effort and endeavor in
  the case should be to find out whether the crime was committed
  by the accused and the circumstances proved form themselves
  into a complete chain unerringly pointing to the guilt of the
E accused."

         13. This court in the case of Padala Veera Reddy v. State
    of Andhra Pradesh, (AIR 1990 SC 79), has observed that when
    a case rests on circumstantial evidence, the following tests
F   must be satisfied:

          (i)      The circumstances from which an inference of guilt
                   is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly
                   established;

G         (ii)     those circumstances should be of a definite
                   tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the
                   accused;

          (iii)    the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form
                   a chain so complete that there is no escape from
H
SATNI BAI v. STATE OF M.P. (NOW CHHATTISGARH) 195
                 [H.L. DATTU, J.]
             the conclusion that within all human probability the    A
             crime was committed by the accused and none
             else; and

      (iv)   the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain
             conviction must be complete and incapable of
                                                                     8
             explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the
             guilt of the accused and such evidence should not
             only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but
             should be in consistent with this innocence.

    14. In C. Chenga Reddy and others v. State of Andhra             C
Pradesh, (AIR 1996 SC 3390), this Court has held that:-

     "In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled
     law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of
     guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such                  0
     circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all
     the circumstances should be complete and there should
     be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved
     circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis
     of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his   E
     innocence."

       15. In State of U.P. vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, [(1992)
2 sec 86], it was pointed out that great care must be taken in
evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied
on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour        F
of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that
the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully
established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so
established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the
guilt.                                                               G
      16. The principles that would emerge from these decisions
is that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial
evidence, but it should be tested on the touchstone of law
relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by this Court.
                                                                     H
    196     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 2 S.C.R.


A         17. Keeping in view the settled legal principle, we have re-
    appreciated the evidence on record. It is true that this case is
    not of direct evidence of committing murder of deceased
    Kannilal by the accused/appellant, who is none other than the
    mother of the deceased, but is based on circumstantial
B   evidence and the circumstances brought on record by the
    prosecution are of two categories: That the accused was seen
    at the place of occurrence holding blood stained axe in her
    hand near the dead body of the deceased Kannilal and she also
    tried to run away from the place of occurrence; that the axe
c   which was snatched from the accused by Balobai and the saree
    of the accused were found stained with the blood. To prove the
    first circumstance, the prosecution has examined Heera PW-
    1, Balobai PW-2 and Sumitra PW-4. PW-1 has stated that on
    the fateful day when he returned from the forest at about 1.00
    P.M., he heard the cries of Sumitra and came out of the house,
0
    went towards the court yard of Naihar Sai and saw the dead
    body of Kannilal in the court yard. Accused was standing there
    holding axe in her hand and he lodged the report, P-1. This
    witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution. The
    prosecution was allowed to cross examine this witness, on
E   which he has stated that the portion 'A' to 'A' of the report P-3
    shows that the girls were crying that the aunt has murdered
    Kannilal. The accused was running away with the axe and the
    axe was snatched from her and she was tied, all this was
    informed by him while lodging the report, P-3. He had also
F   stated in the report P-3, that the axe was smeared with blood
    and hair and accused's garments were also stained with blood.
    In the cross-examination, he has stated that the place of
    occurrence was the house of Naihar Sai who is his brother. His
    wife Balobai was scolding Satni (accused) and on their
G   remonstrations, Satni (accused) tried to run away, but, before
    that the accused was sitting by the side of her son Kannilal
    (deceased). The above evidence of Heera PW-1 is
    corroborated by the evidence of Balobai PW-2 and Sumitra
    PW-4. In the cross-examination of these witnesses, the defence
H
 SATNI BAI v. STATE OF M.P. (NOW CHHATTISGARH) 197
                  [H.L. DATIU, J.]

has not been able to elicit any circumstance which shows that        A
the accused was not present when Heera PW-1 and Balobai
 PW-2 went to th.e seen~ of occurrence and, therefore, the
 presence of the accused at the place of occurrence near the
dead body of her son Kannilal holding blood stained axe in her
 hand is established. It is also .established from the evidence of   B
these witnesses that the accused tried to run away from the
place of occurrence and she was caught by Balobai PW-2.
These witnesses are closely related to the appellant. From their
deposition, a clear and consistent picture emerges that when
they gathered at the courtyard being alarmed by the cries of         c
Sumitra (daughter of Heera) and Anita (daughter of the
appellant), they saw that the appellant was standing with a
bloodstained axe near the body of her son, Kannilal. She also
tried to run away, and Balobai restrained her and seized the
axe from her possession. The axe as well as the saree of the         0
appellant was blood stained according to the witnesses. There
are no inherent contradictions in the testimony of these
witnesses. The defence has been unable to dispel the chain
of events which emerge from the testimony of these witnesses.

     18. Next comes the second circumstance. The blood               E
stained axe and the blood stained saree of the accused was
taken into possession by the investigating officer as has been
recorded in the seizure memo. They were sent to Forensic
Science Laboratory for examination and the report received
mentions that both the articles were found blood stained.            F
Therefore, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused was standing with the blood stained axe near the
dead body of the deceased Kannilal.

     19. The third circumstance is the post mortem report            G
prepared by Dr. K.K Datta, which revealed the following wounds
on the body of the deceased:

     i.    One incised wound measuring 12 X 1.5 cm till
           mandible bone deep in the cheek.
                                                                     H
    198          SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010) 2 S.C.R.


A         ii.     Incised wound measuring 10 X 1.5 cm on left side
                  behind the head, from which the brain was visible.

          iii.    Incised wound 6 X 1 cm deep till bone, on left side
                  of the neck, deep till bone.
B         iv.      Incised wound 7.5 X 1.5 cm deep till vertebrae.

         According to Dr. Datta, wound No.2 was life endangering
    and there is no doubt this was caused by the axe which was
    recovered from the hands of the accused. We find that the post
c   mortem report coupled with the testimony of the witnesses
    presents a very clear and cogent chain of the events which
    occurred on the fateful day unerringly points towards the guilt
    of the appellant. The picture emerging has also not been
    refuted satisfactorily by the defence.
D
       20. The learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant
  submits that the appellant is the mother of the deceased child
  and it is not possible for a mother to possibly kill her own child.
  She further sub_mits that because of the illiteracy and ignorance
  of the appellant, she has been falsely implicated for the death
E of her child.

        21. Motherhood is one of the most precious gifts endowed
   upon mankind and there is no relationship more pristine and
   pure than that of a mother and her child. No mother in normal
F circumstances can tolerate even a scratch on the body of her
   child. Basic instinct of a mother is well explained by a well
   known author Washington Irving in one of his books, wherein
   he has said, that, "a father may turn his back on his child;
   brothers and sisters may become inveterate enemies;
G husbands may desert their wives, and wives their husbands.
   But a mother's love endures through all; in good repute; in bad
 , repute, in the face of the world's condemnation, a mother still
   loves on, and still hopes that her child may turn from his evil;
   ways, and repent; still she remembers the infant smiles that
H once filled her bosom with rupture, the merry laugh, the joyful
SATNI BAI v. STATE OF M.P. (NOW CHHATTISGARH) 199
                 [H.L DATTU, J.]
shout of his childhood, the opening promise of his youth; and         A
she can never be brought to think him an unworthy." In the
present case, the appellant was found standing near the dead
body of her son with a bloodstained axe i~ her hand. The·
normal reaction for any mother would have been to go hysterical
and clutch the body of her son. But, what is the reaction of a        B
mother in the present case, as stated by PW-1 and PW-2 in
their evidence, who came near .the scene of occurrence on
hearing the cries of Anita and Sumitra, that the accused tried
to flee away from the scene of the crime before being
restrained. This kind of reaction and lack of remorse would not       c
have been forthcoming had she been innocent. This unusual
reaction to the death of her son who was aged 4 at the time of
his death, in no uncertain terms point towards her involvement
in the crime. In our view, this is an unusual case and therefore
the plea that a mother is not capable of killing her own son, in
                                                                      0
the absence of any evidence to the contrary cannot be
accepted. Apart from this, at the time of questioning under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant instead of making at least
an attempt to explain or clarify the incriminating circumstances
inculpating her and connecting her with the crime by her total        E
denial of everything when those circumstances were brought
to her notice by the Sessions Court, she not only lost the
opportunity but stood self condemned.

     22. There is also no question of falsely implicating the
 appellant. The witnesses are her close relatives. Heera PW-1         F
 being the brother-in-law of the appellant and Balobai PW-2
 being the sister-in-law of the appellant, had no enmity nor
 animosity against the appellant. With regard to the issue of
 Sumitra PW-4, being declared a hostile witness by the
 prosecution and the contradictions in her testimony, it needs        G
to be kept in mind that the witness is a 16 year old girl, with an
impressionable mind. It is very likely that she was shocked
beyond belief at the sight of the dead body and it is not possible
to comprehend how she would have reacted. Different people
react differently to crisis situations, so it is very much possible   H
    200     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 2 S.C.R.


A that with the passage of time between the occurrence of the
  crime and recording of her testimony, her memory of the
  ir:icident would have blurred. That by itself is not enough to set
  aside the conclusion reached at by the courts below.

        23. For all the reasons stated su,pra, we have no hesitation
8
    to agree with the findings of the Division Bench of the High
    Court holding the appellant guilty of the offence under Section
    3021.P.C. Accordingly, the appeal fails and it is dismissed.

    D.G.                                        Appe9I dismissed.