Golu Singh vs The State of Bihar & Anr.

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

Matter has been taken up today.

We have interacted with Golu Singh (the appellant) in presence of Mr. Md. Sadab Alam, Assistant Jail Superintendent, Bhojpur.

Since no one is appearing on behalf of the appellant, Golu Singh, we offered him the services of a panel lawyer from the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee. Mr. Md. Irshad, Advocate, who is one of the panel lawyer, is present in the Court. We apprised the appellant Golu Singh about him and on his giving consent to appointment of Mr. Md. Irshad, Advocate, we have heard the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant.

Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor is present in the Court and has made submissions. No one has entered appearance on behalf of the informant-respondent no.2. There is a valid service of notice on respondent no.2

This appeal has been preferred for setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 01.07.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) and the order of sentence dated 10.07.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’) passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Bhojpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in POCSO Case No. 39 of 2016 arising out of Koilwar P.S. Case No. 238 of 2016.

By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and vide impugned order dated 10.07.2023, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo twenty years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376D IPC and in default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

The prosecution case is based on the written application of the informant (victim/PW-4) wherein she has alleged that on 29.10.2016 at around 01:00 PM, she had come from her house to Kayamnagar for getting her photograph taken. After getting the photograph taken, the informant was returning to her house when near the pond ahead of the Paper Mill situated at Gidha, two boys riding on a bike came and coaxed her by saying that they will drop her at her house. The informant fell into their trap and sat with them on the vehicle and left, then those two boys took her near a boring at Ram Shahar Bagicha (Barhara) and took her inside the boring room and both boys started to commit forcible wrongful act, then one boy also came and he also started trying to commit wrongful act with the informant. It is alleged that the informant started shouting. On hearing the shouting, villagers gathered. Seeing the crowd, all three boys started running away taking one mobile, photo and Rs. 150 from the informant's purse. After being chased by the villagers, one boy was apprehended who disclosed his name as Chandan Kumar, S/o Ajit Singh and the two boys who succeeded in fleeing away were named Govind Singh and Golu Singh. The villagers then informed the Barhara Police, who brought the informant and Chandan Kumar to the police station.

On the basis of the written application of the informant (PW-4), Koilwar P.S. Case No. 238 of 2016 dated 29.10.2016 was registered under Sections 376D, 379 and 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act against Chandan Kumar, Govinda Singh and Golu Singh (the appellant). After investigation, the police submitted a chargesheet bearing Chargesheet No. 37 of 2017 dated 19.04.2017 under Sections 376D, 379 and 34 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act against Chandan Kumar, Govinda Singh and Golu Singh.

The learned trial court vide order dated 02.05.2017 took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 376D, 379 and 34 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act against all the three accused persons.

Charges were read over in Hindi and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, vide order dated 23.06.2017, charges were framed against all the accused persons under Sections 376D, 379 and 34 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

On 31.01.2023, the learned trial court directed for opening of separate file against the accused Govind Singh who had absconded from court.

In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses and got exhibited various documentary evidence. The description of the prosecution witnesses and the list of documents exhibited on behalf of prosecution are provided here under for ready reference in a tabular form:-

Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘CrPC’) in which he denied the allegations and pleaded innocence.

Learned trial court, after examining the oral as well as documentary evidences available on the record, found that from perusal of the evidence of the victim and the victim's mother, it is clear that the incident of rape was committed by Govind Singh but Golu Singh was trying to commit rape when there was hulla and Chandan Kumar @ Chandan Singh had also come to commit rape but by then he had identified the victim and there was a scuffle among the three accused persons. Thus, according to the learned trial court, the intention of all three accused was common and they had gathered at the place of occurrence with the common intention to commit sexual assault upon the victim.

The learned trial court has found that presence of the accused Golu Singh at the place of occurrence was corroborated by the testimony of defence witnesses. Chandan Kumar @ Chandan Singh was caught by the villagers and later along with the victim, Chandan Kumar @ Chandan Singh was taken to the police station.

It has been further found by the learned trial court that the victim is the sole witness of the incident and her evidence clearly establishes that Govind Singh committed rape upon her, while Golu Singh attempted to commit rape and slapped her due to which she raised hulla and people gathered. The learned trial court has further found that while Govind Singh was committing the act of rape, accused Golu Singh and Chandan Kumar @ Chandan Singh were standing outside. The learned trial court has found that this fact is also corroborated by the victim's mother in her evidence.

Learned trial court, after considering all the facts and circumstance of the case, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove it’s case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant Golu Singh. Accordingly, the learned trial court convicted the appellant Golu Singh under Sections 376D IPC.

Mr. Md. Irshad, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that he was present in course of hearing of the Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 797 of 2023 (Chandan Kumar @ Chandan Singh). It is submitted that the case of the present appellant is based on same set of evidences.

Learned counsel submits that the learned trial court, at first instance, could not appreciate that there was a delay of 4 days in sending the First Information Report to the learned jurisdictional court. The alleged occurrence took place on 29.10.2016, the FIR is said to have been registered on the same day, but it was sent to the learned Special Court, POCSO Act on 02.11.2016. In course of trial, the I.O., Poonam Kumari (PW-6) has stated in her examination-in-chief that she had taken over the charge of investigation of the case from the SHO, Koilwar Police Station, on 29.10.2016 itself. She has also stated that she had prepared the production-cum-seizure list of the clothes which the victim was wearing (Exhibit ‘P/5’). She had also prepared the production-cum-seizure list of the red color salwar on which, in the left side leg below the knee, something like soil was present. It is submitted that on perusal of the trial court’s order, it would appear that on 02.11.2016, the FIR of Koilwar P.S. Case No. 288 of 2016 was received in court and the same was registered, fixing 06.02.2016 awaiting the final form. It nowhere talks of any production-cum-seizure list attached with the FIR.

Learned counsel submits that on perusal of Exhibit ‘P/5’, it would appear that the same is said to have been prepared on 30.10.2016 at 00:45 Hrs. in Koilwar Police Station premises. The mother (PW-1) of the victim had produced the same. There are only thumb impressions against the column showing the signature of the witnesses. The thumb impression has not been identified by any person. It is further mentioned that the seizure list (Exhibit ‘P/5’) shows that at the time of occurrence, the victim was wearing a red color salwar, but the victim (PW-4) has stated in paragraph ‘12’ of her deposition, during cross-examination by this appellant, that at the time of occurrence she was wearing a black colour trouser and she had not given that cloth to Darogaji because he had not asked for the same. She had not shown any such cloth to Darogaji. It is, thus, submitted that the production-cum-seizure list (Exhibit ‘P/5’) seems to have been manufactured at a belated stage.

Learned counsel submits that the learned trial court has rightly held that the charge under the POCSO Act could not be established because the prosecution had failed to show that the victim was below 18 years of age. Although, the victim was studying in a school, her date of birth certificate from the school first attended was not brought on the record and the medical examination report (Exhibit ‘P/3’), proved by doctor (PW-5) showed on the basis of X-rays of the elbow, pelvis and wrist that she was aged between 17-19 years.

Learned counsel submits that the doctor (PW-5) has also stated that she had not found any objective sign of commission of rape and the cloth of the victim, on which any substance of rape would have been present, was not shown to her.

Learned counsel further submits that in this case, the place where the rape was committed allegedly has not been proved. The I.O. (PW-6) has stated that the second place of occurrence is the boring room in the plot of Mahesh Singh, which was locked. She has stated during cross-examination that the first place of occurrence is a lonely place where there is no house. No person has stated about taking over of the victim forcibly on a motorcycle from the place of occurrence. The I.O. has further stated that in her 164 CrPC statement, the victim had stated that she was taken to an orchard by the accused persons which she had never seen earlier, but she has not stated in her 164 CrPC statement that she was taken to the boring of Mahesh Singh by a motorcycle. The I.O. (PW-6) had not seized any motorcycle. In paragraph ‘21’, she has stated that at the second place of occurrence, she had not found any motorcycle. It is, thus, submitted that the case of the prosecution that the victim was taken by two accused on a motorcycle to the second place of occurrence has not been proved by cogent evidences.

Learned counsel submits that the I.O. (PW-6) had not recorded in the case diary about her visiting to the second place of occurrence. She had not prepared any najri naksha and had not recorded as to in which direction the second place of occurrence is from the first place of occurrence, nor had she recorded the distance between the first and second place of occurrence. In such circumstances, it is to be concluded that the I.O. (PW-6) had not gone to the second place of occurrence.

Learned counsel further submits that the cloth of the victim, as per the production-cum-seizure list (Exhibit ‘P/5’), was sent to the FSL. The FSL report has been marked Exhibit ‘P/7’ on 23.06.2023, but on perusal of the ordersheet of the learned trial court it appears that on the said date arguments on behalf of both the sides were concluded and records were fixed for judgment on 01.07.2023. In this order dated 23.06.2023, it seems that one line has been inserted saying “FSL report कक पदरर P-7 अअककत ककयय गयय”. It is not known how the FSL report was exhibited on 23.06.2023. Be that as it may, it is submitted that the FSL report (Exhibit ‘P/7’) found no ‘blood’ or ‘semen’ on the torn red color salwar.

Learned counsel submits that in the aforesaid background of the materials collected in course of investigation, when the ocular evidences are analysed, it would be found that the mother of the victim (PW-1) has alleged that when her daughter was going to Kayamnagar for getting photographed, on the way, the accused Golu and Govind gagged her daughter by mouth and forcibly took her on their vehicle and took her near Barhara. PW-1 has stated that both the accused persons had called Chandan Singh for committing the wrong act but when Chandan Singh reached there, then he identified her daughter and stated that she was from his village and related to her, therefore, he questioned the accused persons as to why they had brought her and asked them to open her mouth. She has stated that thereafter a scuffle took place between the two accused persons on the one hand and Chandan on the other hand. Thereafter, a lot of persons assembled there and Barhara Police also came and took them to the police station. PW-1 went to Barhara Police Station where her daughter told her the story. She has stated that she knows Chandan. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she was not aware of the place of occurrence and the occurrence had not taken place in her presence.

It is submitted that as per the victim, the occurrence took place when she was returning after getting photographed. She has given a different manner of occurrence as according to her, she was allured that she would be left at her house and she agreed under that allurement and sat on the vehicle. It is submitted that the evidence of PW-1 is not in consonance with the prosecution case.

PW-2 is the father of the victim, who has not supported the prosecution case, therefore, he has been declared hostile.

Learned counsel submits that PW-3 is the uncle of the victim, who has clearly stated that at the time of occurrence he was not in his house and he did not know who committed the occurrence with the victim.

It is submitted that the victim (PW-4) has stated that she had studied up to Class-V, she was born in the year 2001 but did not remember the month and date of her birth. It is submitted that in her examination-in-chief, she has not taken name of the accused person. She does not say that the accused persons, who took her near the boring, had called any third boy. She has stated that she did not know the person who had committed wrong act with her, but she can identify on seeing. She has identified this appellant saying that she knows him, but in her examination-in-chief, she does not say that the appellant had committed wrong act with her.

In her cross-examination, the victim (PW-4) has stated that the accused persons were not known to her. But this statement of the victim is not believable for the reason that how she could sit on the motorcycle with two boys who were not known to her. This cannot be natural conduct of a victim who has been found adult.

Learned counsel submits that in her examination-in-chief, she has stated that the boys were taking her on a different route leaving the road, the I.O. has stated in paragraph ‘24’ of her deposition that in between the first place of occurrence and second place of occurrence, some villages are there. It is, thus, evident that the victim sat on the motorcycle with unknown persons and went to the second place of occurrence without raising any hulla. She was suggested by the defence that Chandan was known to her and she had old relationship with him of visiting and moving around. The victim denied this suggestion, but she has admitted in paragraph ‘35’ that he is in the neighborhood of her house. It is submitted that the victim tried her level best to deny her acquaintance with Chandan in several paragraphs, but ultimately she admitted her acquaintance with Chandan. It is, thus, submitted that the victim has made vacillating statements and at one place, she has stated that Govind had told her that he would drop her at her home. He was driving the motorcycle in speed and was in drunken condition and he had forcibly committed act with her. It is submitted that in the present case, the victim cannot be put in the category of a sterling witness. The defence witnesses, namely, Kamlesh Singh (DW-1), Shivji Ram (DW-2) and Shiv Kumar Rai (DW-3) have deposed in support of the accused-appellant. It is also pointed out that the vacillating statement of the victim (PW-4) may be found from the fact that in her 164 CrPC statement, she has stated that five persons had taken her away, but she did not know anyone earlier. Her 164 CrPC statement has been marked Exhibit ‘P/2’.

Learned counsel submits that for convicting an accused for the offence under Section 376D IPC, there must be cogent and wholly reliable evidence before the court. The presumption of innocence is not lost in the present case. In a case where the victim is not consistent, she is not disclosing the name of the accused even though she is known to him and then she is making statements to the effect that five persons had taken her away but she did not know anyone, the incoherent and materially inconsistent statement of the victim would not be fit to be relied upon for the purpose of conviction.

The appeal has been opposed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the victim (PW-4) is a wholly reliable witness. There may be some minor inconsistencies in the statement of PW-4, but that would not make her wholly unreliable.

It is submitted that the learned trial court has concluded that it was Govind Singh who had committed rape upon the victim. Golu Singh (the appellant) also wanted to do the same, but in the meantime, a hulla took place. The learned trial court also concluded that Chandan Singh had also come there with an intention to commit rape, but he identified the victim, whereafter there was a scuffle among three accused persons. The trial court concluded that all three had assembled there with common intention. Chandan Kumar was caught by the villagers and was taken to the police station with the victim.

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, as also on perusal of the records of the learned trial court, we have found that in the present case, the first place of occurrence is said to be a lonely place. The victim had gone to get her photographed on 29.10.2016 at 10:00 o'clock during day hour and after getting photographed, she was returning to her home. In her written information, she has stated that when she reached near the pond, then two boys came riding on a bike and they allured her to come with them. They told her that they would leave her at her house. The victim says that she came in their allurement and sat on the vehicle. This is the first place of occurrence. We find the conduct of the victim quite unnatural. It is not believable that the victim, who has been found adult, would sit on a bike with two boys who were not known to her. She would go to a lonely place where the boys would come with the bike is another fact which creates doubt in the prosecution story.

The written information was submitted to the SHO of Koilwar Police Station, whereas the victim alleged that she was taken to Ramsahar orchard (Barhara) near a boring. At this place, one more boy came and he was also trying to commit wrong act with her. On this, she raised hulla and people assembled there. Then the boys started fleeing away, but one boy was caught by the villagers, who disclosed his name as Chandan Kumar and disclosed the name of those two boys, who had fled away, as Govind Singh and Golu Singh.

From the written information, it would appear that Chandan Kumar is a resident of village Udaybhanpur in Krishnanagar Police Station in the district of Bhojpur, whereas Govind Singh and Golu Singh are residents of village Deorath under Barhara Police Station. The villagers had given information to Barhara Police and it was Barhara Police who had come and taken away Chandan and the victim to the police station. There is nothing on the record to show that statements were made by the victim before Barhara Police. It has been withheld by the prosecution. The written information has been signed on 29.10.2016, the occurrence took place at 13:00 Hrs., but the FIR has been registered in Koilwar Police Station at 23:00 Hrs., i.e. after 10 hours of the occurrence. The formal FIR does not show the date of dispatch of the FIR to the learned jurisdictional court, but from the endorsement made at the top of the written information “seen” by the learned Special Judge, it would appear that it was seen by the learned Judge on 02.11.2016, i.e. after almost five days of the occurrence. This is an inordinate delay in sending the copy of the First Information Report to the learned jurisdictional court. On this point, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) vs. State of U.P. reported in (1994) 5 SCC 188 and Chotkau vs. State of U.P. reported in (2023) 6 SCC 742 would be important to take note of. We reproduce the relevant paragraph from the judgment in the case of Meharaj Singh (supra) hereunder:-

Further, in the case of Chotkau (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph ‘69’ as under:-

The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 CrPC on 09.11.2016. The same has been marked Exhibit ‘2’. A perusal of the same would show that in her 164 CrPC statement, the victim did not mention the name of any of the accused persons. She made a statement that public had informed the police, whereafter police had come and taken her to the police station. She was sent to Mahila Thana from Koilwar Police Station. The learned SDJM who recorded the statement asked her as to how many persons were involved? The victim (PW-4) has stated that five persons had taken her away, but she did not know anyone out of them. It is evident that in her written information, she says about two boys coming on a bike and taking her away on a false pretext, but in her 164 CrPC statement, she says that five persons were involved who had taken her away. This cannot be said to be a minor discrepancy in the statement of the victim, as it has potential to take away her credibility.

This Court finds that in course of trial, the learned trial court found that the prosecution had not proved the age of the victim being below 18 years, therefore, the charges framed under the POCSO Act failed. The I.O. (PW-6) has named Shiv Kumar Rai and Kamlesh Paswan as independent witnesses of this case, but the prosecution neither produced them nor explained any reason for not producing them on behalf of the prosecution. The defence has brought Shivji Ram as Defence Witness No.2, who had found that one boy and one girl of Birampur were caught by the charwahas of Ramsahar in the orchard near a boring. Golu Singh (the appellant) had gone with this witness and he had scolded the boy and the girl. The boy and the girl were taken away by the police. This witness has denied the suggestion of the prosecution that before police, he had made statement that Chandan and Govind had forcibly brought her there. It is, thus, evident that the prosecution case, as per the written information, is that Govind and Golu were on the motorcycle and they had brought the victim (PW-4) to the second place of occurrence, but while cross-examining DW-2, the prosecution suggested that in his statement before police, he had stated that Chandan and Govinda had forcibly brought her. The prosecution has not proved the writings in the case diary through the I.O. to contradict DW-2.

It is further evident from the testimony of the victim (PW-4) that at the police station, thana people had written the case and had got her signature thereon. She has admitted that there is no witness to say that Chandan Kumar was seen taking her to the boring. She has stated in paragraph ‘18’ of her deposition that she had gone for photography to Kayamnagar, but she had not got her photograph. This statement of the victim is in complete conflict with her case in the fardbeyan. She did not disclose the name of the studio where she had gone for photography. She could not disclose the motorcycle number. She has stated that it takes half an hour from Kayamnagar Market to reach her village, but she did not know the direction in which it is situated. She has stated that she had left for Kayamnagar Market at 11:00 AM and went to the house of her friend and stayed there till 1:00 o’clock. She was returning without getting photographed because the shop was closed, but there was no one with her. She disclosed the name of her friend with whom she stayed at her house and also disclosed the name of the village of her friend, i.e. Birampur. It is evident that the victim (PW-4) had left Birampur village for Kayamnagar, but then she claimed to have stayed with her friend at Birampur itself upto 01:00 o’clock. If it is so, then her statement in the written information (Exhibit ‘1’) that she had reached Kayamnagar at 1:00 o’clock and after getting the photograph, she was returning home, then the first occurrence took place, cannot be believed.

This Court finds that the defence suggested this witness (victim) that she was known to Chandan and she was moving with him. The victim denied this suggestion. In paragraph ‘34’, she made a statement that she had not seen Chandan prior to the occurrence, but in paragraph ‘35’ of her deposition, she has stated that Chandan is not from the village of her maternal uncle, he was in the neighborhood of her house. She has stated in paragraph ‘41’ that only Govind had committed wrong act with her, Golu had come and was about to force her, but he could not do it because the villagers had come.

We have noticed that the doctor (PW-5) has proved the medical report (Exhibit ‘3’). She has stated that she had not found any objective sign of rape. She was not shown clothes of the victim having any substance of rape and according to the report, it was not clear whether rape is done or not.

We have further noticed that from the deposition of the I.O. (PW-6), it is evident that the I.O. had not visited the second place of occurrence. The victim has stated that she was taken to the second place of occurrence on a motorcycle, but the I.O. (PW-6) did not find any motorcycle at the second place of occurrence. Neither at the first place of occurrence nor at the second place of occurrence she found any independent witness. The informant/victim had not shown her the orchard, which is the second place of occurrence. She had not found any sign of rape at the first place of occurrence or second place of occurrence. She had not recorded the direction and the distance of the second place of occurrence from the first place of occurrence. Thus, this Court concludes that the I.O. had not visited the second place of occurrence.

We have further noticed that the FSL report (Exhibit ‘P/7’) mentions a red salwar, whereas the victim has stated that she was wearing black color trouser at the time of occurrence. The very preparation of the production-cum-seizure list (Exhibit ‘P/5’) is highly doubtful because it was not filed in the court with the FIR. The FSL report (Exhibit ‘P/7’) is recorded as under:-

So far as PW-1, who is mother of the victim, is concerned, her testimony is based on the information said to have been given by the victim to her mother. The father of the victim has not supported the prosecution case, as he was in Chandigarh at the time of occurrence, he has been declared hostile. Similarly, the uncle (PW-3) of the victim did not know anything about the occurrence. Thus, the whole prosecution case depends upon the sole testimony of the victim (PW-4), which has to be analysed keeping in view the testimony of the doctor (PW-5) and the I.O. (PW-6). It is well settled that the quality of the evidence matters, not the quantity. Conviction may take place even on the basis of a sole testimony of the victim, provided he/she falls in the category of a sterling witness and is found wholly reliable. Who will be a sterling witness has been discussed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rai Sandeep @ Deepu vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21. The relevant paragraph no. ‘22’ is quoted hereunder for a ready reference:-

We have analysed the evidence of the victim (PW-4) hereinabove and come to the conclusion that in the kind of evidence adduced in this case, the victim being highly inconsistent to the extent of contradicting her own statements, she cannot be put in the category of a sterling witness. It would, thus, not be safe to convict the appellant on the sole testimony of the victim (PW-4) in the present case.

Presumption of innocence is a human right, though the exception may be created by statutory provisions. But even such statutory presumption of guilt of the accused under a particular statute must meet the tests of reasonableness and liberty enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Babu Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2010) 9 SCC 189.

While dealing with a case under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in Latu Das Vs. State of Assam reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Gau 5947 has also held that the presumption does not absolve the prosecution of its usual burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. It only lessens its burden to some extent and put a corresponding burden on the accused. Initial burden in a criminal case is always on the prosecution to bring on record reasonable evidence and materials to prove that the accusation against the accused is true.

In the case of Ramanand vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2022 (SC) 5273, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that presumption of innocence is not lost in case of serious offences. The relevant paragraph of the judgment in the case of Ramanand (supra) is quoted hereunder for a ready reference:-

In result, the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial court are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges giving benefit of doubt. The appellant is in jail, he shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

Let a copy of the judgment together with the trial court records be sent down to the learned trial court.

We acknowledge the assistance rendered by Mr. Md. Irshad, learned Advocate in this appeal. In token of his assistance, we direct that he shall be paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand) by the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.