State of Karnataka vs Raja and Others

P.D. Waingankar, J.

By judgment and order dated 31.1.2010 in S.C. No. 155/2008 on the file of Fast Track Court-II at Tumkur, all the accused Nos. 1 to 6 were tried and acquitted for the offences punishable under sections 302, 201 r/w 149 IPC. Against acquittal of all the accused, the State has preferred this appeal.

The brief facts which gave rise to this appeal are stated as under:--

"Accused No. 6 Sujatha is the wife of deceased Jayaram. Accused No. 1 Raja, who is a mason was constructing the house of deceased Jayaram. The deceased was working as driver and therefore accused No. 6 was supervising the construction work of the house. In the process, she developed intimacy with accused No. 1, which came to the notice of deceased-husband of accused No. 6. Deceased was not happy with the way in which the accused No. 6 was behaving with accused No. 1. He scolded her and warned her to desist from talking to accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 and accused No. 6 thereby developed grudge against deceased Jayaram. So accused No. 1 and 6 hatched a conspiracy to eliminate the deceased as he became obstacle for them. Accused No. 6 gave Rs. 30,000/- as supari to accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 to eliminate the deceased."

On 1.3.2008 at about 4.30 p.m. the accused No. 1 took deceased Jayaram-husband of accused No. 6 from his house at Dyapalapura on the pretext of attending a dinner party on his motor bike bearing No. KA-02-EN-6563 to Kengeri Anjeneyaswamy temple where accused Nos. 2 to 5 joined accused No. 1 and deceased. From there, all of them proceeded in Swaraj Mazda Tempo bearing registration No. KA-03-B-407 towards Shivapura, where they purchased whisky from a wine shop. From there they went to Dyapasandra. By that time, all the accused made the deceased consume sufficient alcohol, as a result of intoxication, he slept in the Swaraj mazda tempo. The tempo was taken to Huliyur forest near Laxmipura in the land bearing Sy. No. 18 of one Belliyappa near eucalyptus groove. At about 1.30 p.m., night, accused lifted deceased Jayaram who was under total influence of liquor from the tempo and took him to dense forest area where he was relieved of his pant and shirt. Accused No. 1 and 2 dropped big boulders over the head of deceased Jayaram and committed his murder. They left the dead body on the spot where he was murdered. On 2.3.2008 the dead body of unknown male person was noticed by PW-1 Mudduraju, PW-1 lodged a complaint as per Ex P-1 on the basis of which crime No. 42/2008 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 IPC. During the course of investigation, it transpired that the unknown deadbody that was found within the jurisdiction of Huliyurdurga police station was cremated by the police, after obtaining the photographs of deadbody. Said photographs were shown to the relatives of the deceased, who inturn identified the deadbody as that of deceased Jayaram. The Investigating Officer during the course of investigation arrested all the accused, recorded their voluntary statements and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against accused Nos. 1 to 6 for the offences punishable under sections 120-B, 302, 201 r/w 149 IPC.

The prosecution in order to establish the charges examined as many as 26 witnesses as PWs-1 to 26 marked documents as per Exs-P1 to P29 apart from M.O. 1 to M.O. 16. On behalf of the accused, the portion of statement of PWs-3, 4 and 5 came to be marked as Exs-D1 to D5. The learned Sessions Judge on appreciation of evidence recorded a finding that the prosecution failed to establish the charges levelled against the accused and thereby acquitted all accused Nos. 1 to 6 for the aforesaid offences by the impugned judgment and order. Therefore, the State is before this Court.

We have heard the submissions made by learned Government Pleader and the defence counsel. Perused the records and the judgment passed by the court below.

The learned Government Pleader would submit that appreciation of evidence as done by the trial Court is improper. According to him, the trial court ought to have placed reliance on the testimony of PW-3-the sole eyewitness to the incident and convicted all the accused.

The learned counsels for the respondent/accused on the other hand supports the view taken by the trial court which according to them is based on proper appreciation of evidence. According to them, the trial court has taken all the circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and has accordingly proceeded to appreciate the evidence of PW-3 and other witnesses. So they submit that there is no merit in the appeal and it is liable to be dismissed.

Before appreciating the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, it would be appropriate to place on record the gist of the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution.

PW-1-Mudduraju is the complainant, who lodged the complaint as per Ex-P1, which came to be registered in Huliyurdurga police station in Cr. No. 42/2008 for the offences punishable under sections 302, 201 of IPC against unknown persons. He is also the pancha to the spot panchanama Ex-P2, where the deadbody of the deceased and M.O. 3 stone were lying.

PW-2 Siddalingaiah is the elder brother of deceased Jayaram. He has spoken that his brother Jayaram was residing at Bangalore at a distance of 3 to 4 km away from his house, that deceased Jayaram was constructing his house at Doddanna layout. He had entrusted the work to accused No. 1 Gareraja. He has also spoken regarding the difference of opinion between deceased Jayaram and his wife accused No. 6 and the efforts made by him to settle the disputes between husband and wife. He has also spoken about the advice given by him to accused No. 1 not to interfere in the affairs of wife of the deceased.

PW-3-Mehamood Pasha is stated to be cleaner in Swaraj Mazda, wherein deceased was taken by the accused and murdered in the presence of PW-3. He has fully supported the case of the prosecution. Entire prosecution case rests on his evidence, inasmuch as, he is said to be an eye witness.

PW-4 Narayanaswamy has spoken that in the month of December 2007, his friend Vinaykumar had brought deceased Jayaram to his office at Bangalore as he was in need of funds for construction of his house, which was partly constructed. Accordingly, he financed Rs. 1,00,000/- to deceased who promised to repay the loan only after completion of construction of the house and leasing out the same. His evidence would further go to show that till the end of April 2008, Jayaram did not come forward to repay the loan. Hence, on 29.2.2008, he contacted his friend Vinaykumar and asked him to furnish residential address of Jayaram and thereafter both of them viz., Narayanaswamy and Vinaykumar went to the house of Jayaram at about 6.00 p.m. There they found the front door was partially opened, they noticed three pairs of adult footwear and two pairs of shoes of children at the door and they heard the voice of two male and two female persons, who were in conversation with each other. They also heard about illicit relationship of accused No. 6 which came to the notice of deceased Jayaram and in anticipation of future trouble, they decided to kill him. In other words, PW-4 has been examined to speak about criminal conspiracy hatched by accused to terminate the life of deceased Jayaram-husband of accused No. 6.

PW-5 Vinaykumar is the friend of PW-4, who has also given evidence in conformity with the evidence given by PW-4 regarding criminal conspiracy hatched by the accused.

PW-6 Gangaiah of Kunigal in his evidence has spoken that he had been to Dypasandra in order to purchase the sheeps. He came across accused No. 1 going in a 407 tempo. He requested to transport the sheeps purchased by him in the said tempo, he declined. The tempo proceeded ahead wherein he saw Jayaram. Thereafter after about three months, all the accused Nos. 1 to 6 were shown to him in the Kunigal police station and he identified accused No. 1 as the same person he had seen in the tempo on that day, on the date of murder of the deceased.

PW-7-Chikkanna has spoken that on receipt of the information that deadbody was lying in Eucalyptus groove, he went to the spot and saw the deadbody with face crushed. But he turned hostile to the prosecution case to the effect that on enquiry, he came to know that it was deadbody of deceased Jayaram-husband of accused No. 6.

PW-8 Srinivas, who has been examined by the prosecution to speak about that he saw the deadbody of a person in the tempo.

The evidence of PW-9 Sathish is that deceased Jayaram was known to him. He was driving the car. He had seen him while driving the car from Mysore to Kunigal and he came to know that he has been killed by Supari killers through newspaper report and he also came to know that his wife was behind his murder. He has stated while he was at Bidadi in order to have a cup of tea, he saw Jayaram going in a bike alongwith one person and he asked him to join him to have cup of tea, but he went away stating that he is proceeding for a dinner near Mandya since tempo is waiting for him.

PW-10-Shivamma and PW-11 Geetha have deposed about one year and eight months, they had been to forest area at Laxmipura in order to bring fire wood. At that time, they saw a deadbody of a male person with face crushed and thereafter PW-10 Shivamma went to her home and informed PW-1 Mudduraju, who inturn went to the spot, saw the dead body and lodged the complaint Ex-P1.

PWs-12 and PW-13 Shankaraiah and Boraiah-panchas to Ex-P9 whereunder the clothes found on the deadbody were seized. Both of them have turned hostile.

PW-14 Ramanna is the pancha to Ex-P2 spot panchanama of the spot where the deadbody was lying, whereunder M.Os-1 and 2 the baniyan and nicker and M.O. 3-boulder were seized. He has turned hostile to the prosecution case.

PW-15 Ramachandra is the owner of Swaraj Mazda Tempo, which was said to have been used for commission of the crime. His evidence is that he is the owner of Swaraj Mazda vehicle. The said vehicle was taken by accused-Ramesh about 4.30 p.m. in order to go to dinner party and on next day morning, he brought back the vehicle, at about 5.00 a.m.. He has further deposed that about one month, thereafter, Kunigal police seized the vehicle.

PW-16 is the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination over the dead-body of the unknown male person aged about 35 years in between 5.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. in the evening in the Government General hospital, Kunigal on 3.3.2008 and issued postmortem report as per Ex-P11, wherein he has opined cause of death due to multiple fracture of skull with exposed brain which are sufficient to cause death.

PW-17 Raveesh is the person acquainted with the deceased. His evidence is that accused was working as car driver. He saw him on 1.3.2008 in between 4.30 -4.45 p.m. at his house. He was driving the car of a travel agency, wherein PW-17 is also working as driver. Since deceased did not turn up, PW-17 had been to his house to make enquiry. PW-17 talked to him and that deceased went away stating that he had some work near Mandya.

PW-18 Rangaswamy is the PSI of Huliyurdurga police station, who received the complaint Ex P-1 from Mudduraju. PW-18 registered the case in Cr. No. 42/2008 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC against unknown accused persons and forwarded FIR to the Magistrate. Further he has deposed that about 1.00 p.m., he went to the spot, where the deadbody was lying and drew up the spot panchanama, wherein he seized banian, nicker and boulder, Ex-P1 is the complaint and Ex-P2 is the spot mahazar drawn by him.

PW-19 N.C. Kumar is the pancha to inquest panchanama Ex-P14 over the dead-body of deceased Jayaram. He has admitted having put his signature on the panchanama, though has pleaded ignorance about contents of panchanama.

PW-20 Shankar has deposed that after he heard news about the deadbody lying near the land of one Biliyappa, he went and saw the deadbody and that police obtained his signature.

PW-21 Guru is also pancha to Ex-P15 in respect of seizure of Swaraj mazda bearing No. KA-03-B-407 from the house of PW-15 Ramachandra-owner of the vehicle.

PW-22 Biliyappa in whose land the deadbody was found has turned hostile to the prosecution case. He has denied having given any statement to the police in connection with deceased Jayaram.

PW-23 Ramakrishna is one of the panchas to Exs-P17 to P21. His evidence is that he has put his signature to panchanama of the spot, where deceased was found murdered, where conspiracy was hatched and panchanama that was drawn at Anjaneyaswamy temple where accused No. 1 left scooter and went in Swaraj mazda. He has been treated as hostile witness.

PW-24 Rangappa is also another pancha to panchanama Exs-P17 to P21. He is also treated as hostile witness by the prosecution.

PW-25 K.S. Balaramegowda was working as CPI, Kunigal Circle. He undertook further investigation from PSI Rangaswamy on 2.3.2008 and drew up inquest panchanama over the deadbody and forwarded the deadbody for post-mortem examination and drew up panchanama as per Ex-P22 for having cremated the dead-body on 3.3.2008.

PW-26 Ramachandrappa was working as CPI, Kunigal Circle from March 2008 to September 2008. He took up further investigation from CPI-Balaramegowda on 26.3.2008 and conducted further investigation i.e., he obtained post-mortem examination report as per Ex-P11 and recorded statement of witnesses, arrested the accused, recorded their voluntary statement and after completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 6 for the offences punishable under sections 120-B, 302, 201 r/w 149 IPC.

The first question required to be answered is whether the death was homicidal. PW-16 is the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead-body and issued a report as per Ex-P11 and opined that the cause of death was homicidal. We have no reason to disbelieve the same in the absence of any other theory advanced on behalf of the defence as to the cause of death. The evidence of PW-16 coupled with Ex-P11 post mortem report is sufficient to hold that the deceased died a homicidal death.

Coming to the appreciation of evidence, PW-1 Mudduraju lodged the complaint as per Ex-P1 after he noticed the deadbody of an unknown male person in the land belonging to one Billiyappa. He is not an eyewitness to the incident of murder. PW-2 Siddalingaiah is the elder brother of deceased Jayaram. He has deposed about the differences cropped up between the husband and wife and advise given by him to sink the differences. He has also deposed that he advised accused No. 1 to behave properly. At the most, his evidence would throw some light on the affairs between accused No. 1 and accused No. 6 Sujatha. But, he is not eyewitness to the incident of murder. PW-3 is stated to be sole eye-witness to the incident of murder of the deceased and the entire prosecution case rests on evidence of PW-3, who supported the case of the prosecution. PWs-4 and 5 have deposed that they had been to the house of deceased Jayaram to demand repayment of the loan advanced by PW-4 to the deceased and it is at that time, they overheard the conspiracy being hatched by the accused to eliminate the deceased. But they did not enter the house. They did not speak who were all present in the house. They have not produced even a scrap of paper to show the advancement of loan of Rs. 1.00 lakh to the deceased. Their evidence is as vague as it could be. As far as conspiracy was concerned, there was no specific evidence as to who were all conspirators, where and when the conspiracy was hatched. In other words, the basic ingredient to support the theory of conspiracy is lacking. It is not supported by any other evidence and therefore, the trial court has rightly held that the charge of conspiracy under Section 120-B of IPC is not proved.

PW-6 has deposed having seen the deceased in the Swaraj mazda tempo. He does not speak about the registration number of the tempo, the name of the driver and other particulars such as colour etc., in the absence of these particulars, the evidence of PW-6 that he saw the deceased in swaraj mazda tempo is of no use for the prosecution. PW-8 Srinivas has also deposed having seen one tempo near Laxmipura in between 10.00- 11.00 p.m. while he was returning from Hanumapura on his TVS after attending a dinner. He has also not spoken about the registration number of the tempo, its colour etc., and moreover it is stated that he had not seen anything in the said tempo. PW-9 the car driver who knew deceased Jayaram is a formal witness. He has deposed having heard that Jayaram had been murdered by supari killers at the instance of his wife. Though he has stated that he had seen the deceased going alongwith one person on a motor bike, he does not speak about the name of that person or age of that person or registration number of the motor bike. Therefore, his evidence is of no assistance to the prosecution to prove the charge of murder. Moreover, he is treated as hostile witness. PW-10 Shivamma and PW-11 Geetha are the two women who deposed having seen the deadbody of a male person in the forest when they had been to forest to bring the firewood. PW-12 Shankaraiah is a pancha to seizure panchanama Ex-P9. Though he admits his signature, he stated no articles were seized in the presence of the police. In other words, he has turned hostile to the prosecution case. The evidence of PW-13 Boraiah is not material for the reason that he is pancha to panchanama, whereunder the clothes found on the dead-body of the deceased were seized after post-mortem examination. Moreover, he has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW-14 L. Ramanna is a pancha to spot panchanama Ex-P2 of the spot where the deadbody was lying whereunder M.Os. 1 to 3 were seized. He is also treated as hostile witness. PW-15 Ramachandra is the registered owner of swaraj mazda tempo said to have been used for commission of murder. He has deposed that his tempo was taken at about 4.30 p.m. in order to go to a dinner party by accused No. 5- the driver and next day morning, it was brought and parked in front of his house which was seized after about 1 1/2 months after the incident. He has turned hostile since he denied that this tempo was used for commission of murder. PW-17 Raveesh who knew the deceased has deposed that he saw the deceased on 1.3.2008 between 4.30 p.m. to 4.45 p.m. nearby his house when he went on the motor bike wearing a red shirt with one Raju and after one week, he came to know that Jayaram was killed. PW-18 Rangaswamy PSI of Huliyurdurga police station has deposed having registered a case on the basis of a complaint lodged by PW-1 against unknown persons. PW-19 is a pancha to inquest panchanama. PW-21 Guru is pancha in respect of seizure of tempo. PW-22 is the owner of the adjacent land where the dead-body was traced. PWs-23 and 24 are the panchas to Exs-P17 to P21 panchanamas drawn at various places. Both of them have turned hostile. PWs-25 and 26 are the Investigation Officers.

Thus from the closer scrutiny of evidence of all these witnesses, it is evident that except PW-3, there were no eyewitnesses to the incident of murder. PW-3 as already stated is the sole eyewitness to the incident and the entire prosecution case rests on his evidence. Of-course, he has fully supported the case of the prosecution. He has given detailed account of the incident of murder of deceased Jayaram. The question is whether his presence at the time of commission of murder on the spot is reliable. His evidence is that he was working as a cleaner in the swaraj mazda tempo bearing registration No. KA-03-B-407 belonging to one Ramachandrappa; accused No. 5 Ramesh was the driver of the said tempo; he joined as cleaner on 29.2.2008; on that day, he was informed by accused No. 5-driver to attend the dinner party in the house of his sister and accordingly; on 1.3.2008, he went to the house of accused No. 5, where he was informed by accused No. 5 that his friend would be coming and in the mean-while, the friend of accused No. 5 viz., Puttaswamy and Gangaraju -accused Nos. 2 and 3 came to the house of accused No. 5. He went alongwith accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 in the said tempo; they left at about 6.00 p.m.; at a distance of 15 km, the tempo was stopped in front of Anjaneyaswamy temple where accused No. 4 boarded the tempo and within no time, accused No. 1 alongwith one Jayaram came in two wheeler near Anjaneyaswamy temple; they parked the two wheeler and boarded the tempo; from there, the tempo proceeded; on way to Ramanagar; the driver asked to take passengers going upto Ramanagar; accordingly, PW-3 took the passengers who were to go to Ramanagar; from Ramanagar, the tempo went towards a distance of 30 km and stopped; accused No. 1 asked deceased Jayaram to go to liquor shop and bring liquor of his choice; accordingly, deceased Jayaram got down from the tempo and brought liquor from the shop; from there, accused No. 5 Ramesh drove the tempo to the place of his elder sister, where accused No. 5 got down from the tempo, went to his sister''s house and returned back within 10 minutes, thereafter all of them proceeded ahead in the same direction, where the tempo was stopped; accused Nos. 1 to 5 made deceased Jayaram to consume as much liquor as he could, thereby, Jayaram was fully intoxicated; he went in fast sleep; after about five kms, the tempo was again stopped and Jayaram who was fully intoxicated was lifted from the tempo by accused Nos. 1 to 5, he was taken deep into the forest, where he was relieved of his pant and shirt; the accused dropped a big stone over his face, committed murder of the deceased, so that nobody should identify the deadbody as that of Jayaram; after committing the murder of deceased, they abandoned the deadbody in the forest; the clothes of the deceased were thrown under a bridge and thereafter all of them travelled in the said tempo; PW-3 was brought to his house and was asked to get down from the tempo; while he was getting down from the tempo, he was threatened by accused Nos. 1 to 5 of dire consequences to his life if the incident is disclosed by him to anybody else. PW-3 has further deposed after about 1 1/2 months, he came to know the arrest of accused Nos. 1 to 5. After coming to know of their arrest, PW-3 went to the police station and gave a statement in connection with the incident. Thus from the chief examination of PW-3, it can be said that he has fully supported the case of the prosecution by giving detailed account of the modus-operandi of the accused in commission of the murder of deceased Jayaram, though, he has been treated as hostile witness and cross-examined, for the reason that in his cross-examination, he has stated that accused No. 4 dropped the stone over the head of the deceased, though in his statement before the police as per Ex-P6, he stated that accused Nos. 1 and 2 asked accused No. 3 to drop the stone over the head of the deceased.

Coming to the cross-examination of PW-3, he has deposed that he studied upto B.A.-II; he was driving an autorickshaw for which he obtained a licence; he lost licence obtained by him; he did not inform the RTO of loss of licence and did not make an application to obtain another licence; further he has deposed that before joining as cleaner in the vehicle belonging to Ramachandrappa, he was working as cleaner at Tumkur. He has admitted that he has no relations in Bangalore; though he worked as cleaner for a period of six months at Tumkur in a vehicle belonging to one Somanna, he does not remember the registration number of the said vehicle; he has admitted that before February 2008, he never worked as cleaner; he does not know Ramachandrappa; accused No. 5 Ramesh is friend of his brother Syed Gosh; accused No. 4 used to come to the house of his brother and therefore accused No. 5 was known to him prior to 2008; accused No. 5 Ramesh is resident of Mandya; PW-3 does not know the parents of accused No. 5, he also does not know how many family members accused No. 4 has got; at the recommendation of his brother he was taken as cleaner by accused No. 5. He joined as cleaner in the house of accused No. 5 at Rajarajeshwarinagar only on that day; In other words, according to PW-3, he joined as cleaner in the vehicle of Ramachandrappa on 29.2.2008 and worked as cleaner only on 1.3.2008; when the deceased was taken in the tempo and murdered. PW-3 has admitted in his further cross-examination that he is unmarried, he does not remember the marks obtained by him in his B.A. II examination; he has also stated that he does not know his date of birth; further, he has stated that he was called by accused No. 5 over telephone on 29.2.2008 to join as cleaner and accordingly, on 1.3.2008, he went to the house of accused No. 5 in the afternoon. He has also admitted prior to 1.3.2008, he never went to the house of accused No. 5; he has admitted that before 1.3.2008, he had not seen deceased Jayaram; he was also not known to him; Thus from the answer given by PW-3 in the cross-examination, more particularly, that he does not know his date of birth though he has studied upto B.A.-II; that he does not remember the registration number of the scooter, wherein accused No. 1 came towards Anjaneyaswamy temple alongwith deceased would create serious doubt in the mind of the Court as to the presence of PW-3 at the time of commission of the offence and veracity of his evidence. If we go by the evidence of PW-3 in the chief examination wherein he says in his presence, the deceased was lifted from the tempo and was murdered by dropping a big stone over his face it gives an impression that he was also participant in the commission of the crime alongwith other accused. It is quite possible that when his name came to the limelight after arrest of other accused, during interrogation he must have decided to support the case of the prosecution in order to get immunity from his arrest; In that event, he should have been made as an approver, that has not been done. But, he has given evidence as if he is an approver. No person would accompany the accused as cleaner in the tempo even after knowing that the accused were taking the deceased to an isolated place under intoxication to commit his murder. If PW-3 was really in the tempo, wherein the deceased was carried and he had witnessed the incident of murder, he would not have kept quiet for a long period of 1 1/2 months without disclosing the incident till the arrest of accused Nos. 1 to 6. Thus the manner in which PW-3 gave evidence creates strong suspicion in the mind of the Court as to the presence of PW-3 at the time of commission of murder. Needless to say, suspicion however strong it may be, cannot take place to proof. After closer scrutiny of the evidence of PW-3, we are of the considered opinion that PW-3 cannot be called as an eye-witness to the incident, inasmuch as, his evidence is not worthy of credence. When there was no eyewitness to the incident, PW-3 has been planted by the police that too, after 1 1/2 months from the date of commission of murder. When the prosecution case rests on the testimony of sole eye witness it should be wholly reliable to convict the accused. If the evidence of PW-3 is eschewed, what remains behind is some stray circumstances like motive, conspiracy etc., which are also not proved with cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Even if those circumstances are proved, they are not sufficient to point towards guilt of the accused. Thus the learned Sessions Judge upon appreciation of evidence has rightly recorded a finding that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Having regard to the nature of evidence, quality of evidence, facts and circumstances of the case, the view taken by the learned Session Judge is reasonable and possible view in acquitting the accused. The settled position of law regarding the powers to be exercised by High Court in an appeal against the Order of acquittal is that while High Court has full powers to appreciate the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based and to act on its own thereof, it will not do so lightly and will be slow to reverse the order of acquittal, except for strong and compelling reasons when it differs from that of the trial Court. In the circumstances, we find there is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.

We place on record the valuable services rendered by Amicus Curiae Sri Sampangi Ramaiah, learned advocate, who appeared on behalf of respondent No. 5 and assisted the Court. His Honorarium is fixed at Rs. 10,000/-.