Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: July 16 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 16 July, 2024
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur, Virender Singh
1 ( 2024:HHC:5179 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr. Appeal No. 303 of 2020
Date of Decision: July 16, 2024
Daleep Kumar ...Appellant.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ..Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Appellant: Mr.Sunil Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr.Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate
General.
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Accused-Appellant-Daleep Kumar has preferred this appeal against the judgment/order dated 03.09.2019, passed by Special Judge, Chamba Division Chamba, H.P., in Sessions Trial No.11 of 2019 (NDPS Act), titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Daleep Kumar, in case FIR No.118 of 2018, dated 18.09.2018, registered in Police Station Chowari, District Chamba, H.P., whereby for having been found in possession of 7 kilograms 56 grams charas, appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 11 years and to pay a fine of `1,10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 ( 2024:HHC:5179 ) commission of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS Act'). 2 We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Additional Advocate General, and have also gone through the entire record.
3 Prosecution case is that on 18.09.2018, at about 10.00 a.m., PW.17 ASI Kartar Singh alongwith PW.20 HHC Mohd. Aslam, PW.12 HHC Manohar Lal and PW.13 Constable Sanjay Kumar of State Narcotic Crime Control (SNCC) Field Unit, Kangra, H.P., during patrol duty, laid Nakka at RTO Barrier at Tunnuhatti in District Chamba. They were in civil dress, therefore, Home Guard Volunteer PW.10 HHG Raman Kumar, who was in Uniform and posted at RTO Barrier, was requested to help the Police Team to stop the vehicles coming from Chamba side for checking. At about 10.40 a.m., one car bearing Registration No.PB02-BT-4588 Etios, being driven by appellant-Daleep Kumar coming from Chamba side, was stopped for checking.
4 On inquiry by PW.17 ASI Kartar Singh, appellant became nervous and could not give satisfactory reply about his journey and, therefore, he was asked to come out of the car. When he was coming out of the car, one transparent polythene packet was noticed by ASI Kartar Singh in the door trim (plastic gatta) of the driver side door. By that time, PW.11 Ranjeet Singh, who was also crossing the spot, was associated in the proceedings. The transparent polythene noticed in the door trim was taken out by 3 ( 2024:HHC:5179 ) ASI Kartar Singh in presence of Ranjeet Singh and other police officials, wherein black coloured substance in the shape of sticks and balls was found. On the basis of smell and experience, the recovered substance was identified as charas. Thereafter, with the help of screwdriver on opening the door trim of driver side of the car two more polythene packets containing charas were recovered. On opening the door trim of other side of front door four packets of charas were recovered. On inquiry appellant disclosed his identity and address. Police party weighed the recovered contraband on Digital Weighing Scale available with them in their car and total weight of recovered contraband was found to be 7.056 kilograms. All the seven packets were sealed in a cloth parcel and were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW.11/B, witnessed by PW.11 Ranjeet Singh and PW.20 HHC Mohd. Aslam and signed by appellant-Daleep Kumar. Vehicle bearing Registration No. PB02- BT-4588 alongwith documents was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW.11/C witnessed by PW.11 Ranjeet Singh, PW.20 HHC Mohd. Aslam and signed by appellant-Daleep Kumar. Thereafter, ASI Kartar Singh prepared Rukka Ex.PW.8/A and sent the same to Police Station Chowari through PW.12 HHC Manohar Lal. He simultaneously informed SDPO SNCC, DySP Surinder Sharma telephonically at 12.40 p.m., who, in turn, deputed PW.19 SI Madan Lal, second Investigating Officer, to carry out further investigation. SI Madan Lal reached the spot at 4.00-4.30 p.m. Whereafter, investigation was handed over to him. PW.12 HHC Manohar Lal reached Police Station Chowari at about 2.15 p.m. Whereupon, 4 ( 2024:HHC:5179 ) PW.8 HC Rakesh Kumar registered FIR No.118 of 2018 (Ex.PW.8/B) and made an endorsement Ex.PW.8/C to this effect on Rukka and handed over the case file to PW.12 HHC Manohar Lal, who returned to the spot at about 6.15 p.m. and handed over the case file to SI Madan Lal. In the meanwhile, finding sufficient material for arresting the appellant, he was arrested on the spot. After receiving file, PW.19 SI Madan Lal and appellant went to Police Station Chowari in the vehicle alongwith PW.17 ASI Kartar Singh and PW.20 HHC Mohd. Aslam in the vehicle of ASI Kartar Singh and vehicle of appellant was driven to the Police Station by PW.13 Constable Sanjay Kumar, who had also taken photographs on the spot at the time of recovery and seizure of contraband. Spot Map Ex.PW.19/A was prepared. Statements of witnesses except Manohar Lal were recorded. Thereafter at about 6.15-6.30 p.m., information of arrest, as desired by the appellant, was given to his son-in-law on his Mobile phone and Memo Ex.PW.19/B was prepared in this regard. Jamatalashi Memo Ex.PW.19/C was also prepared. At about 9.45 p.m., case property alongwith seized contraband was handed over to PW.9 Inspector Mukul Sharma, the then SHO of Police Station Chowari, who resealed the contraband and deposited the case property with MHC Police Station in the Malkhana, after preparing reseal memo Ex.PW.5/A, which was witnessed by PW.5 Atul Kumar. Case file was handed over to PW.9 SHO/Inspector Mukul Sharma for further proceedings. On 20.09.2018, PW.4 LC Sapna delivered special report Ex.PW.4/A to 5 ( 2024:HHC:5179 ) SDPO Dalhousie, which was handed over to her by SHO Mukul Sharma.
5 On 19.09.2018, appellant was produced before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chamba, alongwith an application Ex.PW.19/D for certification of correctness of inventory, photographs, sample of seized NDPS controlled substance and conveyance. On this application, taking out of two samples of 26 grams each and verifying the inventory, photographs vide order dated 19.09.2018 Ex.PW.19/E, Judicial Magistrate First Class Chamba allowed the application and certified the correctness of inventory, photographs and samples of seized NDPS controlled substance by issuing certificate Ex.PW.19/F. Inventory of seized NDPS substance is Ex.PW.19/G. On 22.09.2018, appellant was produced before the Court, whereafter, he was remanded to judicial custody. On 20.09.2018, MHC Police Station Chowari handed over samples of contraband to PW.14 HHC Shankar Dev alongwith relevant documents, who deposited the same in State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga vide RC No.114 of 2018, dated 20.09.2018. PW.6 HHC Raj Kumar on 29.10.2018 received the contraband alongwith documents and FSL report from SFSL, Junga and handed over it to MHC Police Station Chowari on 02.11.2018. Copy of SFSL report Ex.PX was delivered to accused in Open Air Jail Chamba vide memo Ex.PW.19/P on 24.11.2018. As per FSL report, recovered contraband was confirmed as charas. 6 On 28.11.2018 owner of the vehicle produced two Agreements/Deeds Ex.PW.1/A and Ex.PW.1/B, which were taken 6 ( 2024:HHC:5179 ) into possession vide Memo Ex.PW.1/C. The agreements were in Punjabi. Their translations Ex.PW.2/A and Ex.PW.2/B were obtained from Bhupinder Singh. Verification of impounded vehicle was done from RTO Office Amritsar vide verification report Ex.PW.11/G. On completion of investigation, case file was handed over to PW.9 Inspector Mukul Sharma.
7 PW.1 Vikas Kumar has deposed that vehicle was purchased by them from PW.2 Bhupinder Singh by his father and he has endorsed Agreements Ex.PW.1/A and Ex.PW.1/B with further explanation that on 17.09.2018 at about 7.00 p.m. appellant borrowed the vehicle on the ground that his relative was ill. On 18.09.2018, he and his father made a call to appellant, but his phone was switched off and house of the appellant was found locked and, lateron, they came to know that vehicle was apprehended by Himachal Pradesh Police with charas. PW.2 Bhupinder Singh has endorsed agreements Ex.PW.1/A and Ex.PW.1/B and has proved their translation in Hindi Ex.PW.2/A and Ex.PW.2/B. 8 PW.3 Sher Khan has developed photographs Ex.PW.3/A to Ex.PW.3/D taken by PW.13 Constable Sanjay Kumar. Photographs Ex.PW.3/F and Ex.PW.3/G were taken by PW.15 Constable Vinod Kumar at the time of destruction of contraband. Sher Khan had issued certificates Ex.PW.3/E and Ex.PW.3/H under Section 65(b) of Indian Evidence Act. PW.15 Constable Vinod Kumar clicked photographs of destruction of case property Ex.PW.3/F and Ex.PW.3/G. 7 ( 2024:HHC:5179 ) 9 PW.5 Atul Kumar has witnessed resealing of the contraband by PW.9 Inspector Mukul Sharma. Seal used for resealing was handed over to him. Inspector Mukul Sharma handed over the resealed contraband and documents to MHC PW.8 HC Rakesh Kumar. Seal used for seizure at the spot of recovery was handed over to PW.11 Ranjeet Singh.
10 PW.7 HC Prabhat Nahar has proved receipt of special report Ex.PW.4/A on 20.09.2018 by DySP, being Reader to SDPO Dalhousie.
11 On 25.02.2019 Inspector Mukul Sharma produced case property for destruction before the Committee headed by Superintendent of Police Chamba, which was handed over by PW.8 HC Rakesh Kumar to PW.16 Bachiter Singh. The case property was destroyed and destruction certificate Ex.PW.9/A was prepared. 12 On completion of investigation, Inspector Mukul Sharma prepared the challan and presented the same in the Court. 13 PW.18 SI Yudhbir Singh has recorded statement of PW.4 LC Sapna and PW.8 HC Rakesh Kumar on 26.11.2018 and, thereafter, handed over the case file to PW.19 SI Madan Lal. 14 PW.10 Raman Kumar, PW.11 Ranjeet Singh, PW.13 Constable Sanjay Kumar, PW.17 ASI Kartar Singh, PW.12 HHC Manohar Lal and PW.20 HHC Mohd. Aslam are spot witnesses. In their examination-in-chief they have corroborated prosecution story and in their cross-examination there are minor discrepancies with respect to time taken by PW.12 HHC Manohar Lal for returning from Police Station after registration of FIR, handing over file to 8 ( 2024:HHC:5179 ) PW.19 SI Madan Lal and also with respect to arrival of SI Madan Lal on the spot. However, there is no major contradiction in their statements.
15 It is also a fact that PW.5 Atul Kumar and PW.11 Ranjeet Singh did not produce respective seals in the Court which were handed over to them after resealing and sealing the contraband.
16 Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that it is fatal for prosecution as there is possibility of tampering with recovered contraband and, therefore, on this count appellant deserves to be given benefit to acquit him. It has further been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that Rukka was prepared after 12.40 p.m. after seizure of the contraband which was witnessed by PW.11 Ranjeet Singh also. But in his cross- examination Ranjeet Singh has stated that he signed the Rukka at 4.00-4.30 p.m. and, therefore, veracity of seizure is doubtful and, thus, appellant is entitled for benefit of this glaring discrepancy which goes to the root of the case.
17 Learned counsel for the appellant has referred pronouncements of the Supreme Court in cases Noor Aga vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in (2008) 16 SCC 417; Khekh Ram vs. State of H.P., reported in (2018) 1 SCC 202; and Hanif Khan @ Annu Khan vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics, reported in (2020) 16 SCC 709, with submissions that offence under ND&PS Act is more serious in nature providing higher punishment, therefore, higher degree of proof is needed to convict the accused and strict 9 ( 2024:HHC:5179 ) compliance with provisions and fair trial is necessary to recognize the individual human rights and dignity of accused. Further that testimony of official witnesses is required to be evaluated with more care and caution; and contradictions in their depositions are fatal for prosecution. He has submitted that gravity of sentence and stringency of provisions under NDPS Act call for heightened scrutiny of evidence for establishment of foundational facts by prosecution and, therefore, he has contended that judgment of conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant deserves to be interfered with.
18 No other argument raised or urged.
19 Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any material on record, including suggestion to given to the witnesses, where from it can be inferred that appellant was prejudiced by non production of seals used for sealing and resealing the contraband.
20 At this stage, it is also apt to record that in statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., appellant has admitted entire prosecution story in answers given to questions No.1 to 48 and in answer to question Nos.49 to 51, he has stated that as under:-
"Q.49 Why this case has been made against you?
Ans. I did mistake. However, the charas does not belong to me. It belonged to one Mangal resident of Amritsar. My greed for money led me to carry the charas of Mangal Singh for a consideration of `14,000/-
Q.50 Why the witnesses have deposed against you?
10 ( 2024:HHC:5179 ) Ans. They have deposed the truth.
Q.51 Do you want to say anything else?
Ans. I did mistake. My greed for money led me to carry the charas of Mangal Singh for a consideration of `14,000/-. I have three children and blind parents, therefore, leniency be taken against me."
21 In defence, he has not led any evidence. It is also born out from the record that at the time of admitting the case of the prosecution in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., respite was given to the appellant to rethink over answers being given by him in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., but despite that he remained firm in answering the questions in affirmative. 22 In the State of Maharashtra and ors. vs. Sukhdeo Singh and ors., 1992(3) SCC 700, the Supreme Court has observed as under:
51. That brings us to the question of whether such a statement recorded under S. 313 of the Code can constitute the sole basis for conviction. Since no oath is administered to the accused, the statements made by the accused will not be evidence stricto sensu. That is why sub-sec. (3) says that the accused shall not render himself liable to punishment if he gives false answers. Then comes sub-sec. (4) which reads:
"(4). The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed."
Thus, the answers given by the accused in response to his examination under S. 313 can be taken into consideration in such an inquiry or trial. This much is clear on a plain reading of the above sub-section. Therefore, though not strictly evidence, sub-sec. (4) permits that it may be taken into consideration in 11 ( 2024:HHC:5179 ) the said inquiry or trial. See State of Maharashtra v.R.B. Chowdhari (1967) 3 SCR 708 : (AIR 1968 SC
110). This Court in the case of Hate Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat, 1953 Cri LJ 1933:(AIR 1953 SC
468) held that an answer given by an accused under S. 313 examination can be used for proving his guilt as much as the evidence given by a prosecution witness. In Narain Singh v. State of Punjab (1963) 3 SCR 678: (1964 (1) Cri LJ 730) this Court held that if the accused confesses to the commission of the offence with which he is charged the Court may, relying upon that confession, proceed to convict him. To state the exact language in which the three-Judge Bench answered the question it would be advantageous to reproduce the relevant observations at pages 684-685 (of SCR) : (at p.733 of Cri LJ):
"Under S. 342 of the Code of Criminal procedure by the first sub-section, insofar as it is material, the Court may at any stage of the enquiry or trial and after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before the accused is called upon for his defence shall put questions to the accused person for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstance appearing in the evidence against him. Examination under S.342 is primarily to be directed to those matters on which evidence has been led for the prosecution to ascertain from the accused his version or explanation - if any, of the incident which forms the subject matter of the charge and his defence. By sub-sec. (3), the answers given by the accused may "be taken into consideration" at the enquiry or the trial. If the accused person in his examination under S. 342 confesses to the commission of the offence charged against him the Court relying upon that confession, proceeds to convict him, but if he does not confess and in explaining circumstance appearing in the evidence against him sets up his version and seeks to explain his conduct pleading that he has committed no offence, the statement of the accused can only be taken into consideration in its entirety."
23 In Mohan Singh Vs Prem Singh, 2002 (10) SCC 236 , it was held that the statement made by the accused under Section 12 ( 2024:HHC:5179 ) 313 Cr.P.C. can be used to lend credence to the evidence led by the prosecution, but a part of such statement cannot form the sole basis for conviction. Observations of the Supreme Court are as under:-
"28. The statement made in defence by the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. can certainly be taken aid of to lend credence to the evidence led by the prosecution, but only a part of such statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction. The law on the subject is almost settled that statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused can either be relied on in whole or in part. It may also be possible to rely on the inculpatory part of his statement if the exculpatory part is found to be false on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution. See Nishi Kant Jha v. State of Bihar, (AIR 1969 SC 422):
"In this case, the exculpatory part of the statement in Ex. 6 is not only inherently improbable but is contradicted by the other evidence. According to this statement, the injury, which the appellant received was caused by the appellant's attempt to catch hold of the hand of Lal Mohan Sharma to prevent the attack on the victim. This was contradicted by the statement of the accused himself under S. 342 Cr.P.C. to the effect that he had received the injury in a scuffle with a herdsman. The injury found on his body when he was examined by the doctor on 13th October 1961 negatives both these versions. Neither of these versions accounts for the profuse bleeding which led to his washing his clothes and having a bath in the river Patro, the amount of bleeding and the washing of the blood stains being so considerable as to attract the attention of Ram Kishore Pandey, PW 17 and asking him about the cause thereof. The bleeding was not a simple one as his clothes all got stained with blood as also his books, his exercise book and his belt and shoes. More than that the knife which was discovered on his person was found to have been stained with blood according to the report of the Chemical Examiner. According to the post-mortem report, this knife could have been the cause of the injuries on the victim. In 13 ( 2024:HHC:5179 ) circumstances like these, there being enough evidence to reject the exculpatory part of the statement of the appellant in Ex. 6 the High Court had acted rightly in accepting the inculpatory part and piercing the same with the other evidence to come to the conclusion that the appellant was the person responsible for the crime."
24 Object and scope of the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has been discussed and explained by the Apex Court in Manu Sao vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 310, as under:-
"12. Let us examine the essential features of this Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the principles of law as enunciated by judgments, which are the guiding factors for proper application and consequences which shall flow from the provisions of Section 313 of the Code.
13. As already noticed, the object of recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code is to put all incriminating evidence against the accused so as to provide him an opportunity to explain such incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. At the same time, also to permit him to put forward his own version or reasons, if he so chooses, in relation to his involvement or otherwise in the crime. The Court has been empowered to examine the accused but only after the prosecution evidence has been concluded. It is a mandatory obligation upon the Court and besides ensuring the compliance thereof the Court has to keep in mind that the accused gets a fair chance to explain his conduct. The option lies with the accused to maintain silence coupled with simplicitor denial or in the alternative to explain his version and reasons, for his alleged involvement in the commission of crime. This is the statement which the accused makes without fear or right of the other party to cross- examine him. However, if the statements made are false, the Court is entitled to draw adverse inferences and pass consequential orders, as may be called for, in accordance with law. The primary purpose is to establish a direct dialogue between the Court and the accused and to 14 ( 2024:HHC:5179 ) put to the accused every important incriminating piece of evidence and grant him an opportunity to answer and explain. Once such a statement is recorded, the next question that has to be considered by the Court is to what extent and consequences such statement can be used during the enquiry and the trial. Over the period of time, the Courts have explained this concept and now it has attained, more or less, certainty in the field of criminal jurisprudence.
14. The statement of the accused can be used to test the veracity of the exculpatory of the admission, if any, made by the accused. It can be taken into consideration in any enquiry or trial but still it is not strictly evidence in the case. The provisions of Section 313 (4) explicitly provides that the answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such enquiry or trial and put as evidence against the accused in any other enquiry or trial for any other offence for which such answers may tempt to show he has committed. In other words, the use is permissible as per the provisions of the Code but has its own limitations. The Courts may rely on a portion of the statement of the accused and find him guilty in consideration of the other evidence against him led by the prosecution, however, such statements made under this Section should not be considered in isolation but in conjunction with evidence adduced by the prosecution.
15. Another important caution that Courts have declared in the pronouncements is that conviction of the accused cannot be based merely on the statement made under Section 313 of the Code as it cannot be regarded as a substantive piece of evidence. In the case of Vijendrajit Ayodhya Prasad Goel v State of Bombay , AIR 1953 SC 247, the Court held as under: (AIR p.248, para 3) "3. ... As the appellant admitted that he was in charge of the godown, further 15 ( 2024:HHC:5179 ) evidence was not led on the point. The Magistrate was in this situation fully justified in referring to the statement of the accused under Section 342 as supporting the prosecution case concerning the possession of the godown. The contention that the Magistrate made use of the inculpatory part of the accused's statement and excluded the exculpatory part does not seem to be correct. The statement under Section 342 did not consist of two portions, part inculpatory and part exculpatory. It concerned itself with two facts. The accused admitted that he was in charge of the godown, he denied that the rectified spirit was found in that godown. He alleged that the rectified spirit was found outside it. This part of his statement was proved untrue by the prosecution evidence and had no intimate connection with the statement concerning the possession of the godown."
16. On similar lines reference can be made in quite a recent judgment of this Court in the case of Ajay Singh v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 12 SCC 341, where the Court held as under: (SCC p.347 paras 11-13) "11. So far as the prosecution case that kerosene was found on the accused's dress is concerned, it is to be noted that no question in this regard was put to the accused while he was examined under Section 313 of the Code.
12. The purpose of Section 313 of the Code is set out in its opening words - 'for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him'. In Hate Singh 16 ( 2024:HHC:5179 ) Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat , AIR 1953 SC 468, it has been laid down by Bose, J. (AIR p. 469, para 8) that the statements of the accused persons recorded under Section 313 of the Code 'are among the most important matters to be considered at the trial'. It was pointed out that: (AIR p.470, para 8) '8. .... The statements of the accused recorded by the committing Magistrates and the Sessions Judge are intended in India to take the place of what in England and in America he would be free to state in his own way in the witness box [and that] they have to be received in evidence and treated as evidence and be duly considered at the trial.' "
This position remains unaltered even after the insertion of Section 315 in the Code and any statement under Section 313 has to be considered in the same way as if Section 315 is not there.
13. The object of examination under this section is to give the accused an opportunity to explain the case made against him. This statement can be taken into consideration in judging his innocence or guilt. Where there is an onus on the accused to discharge, it depends on the facts and circumstances of the case if such statement discharges the onus."
17. The statement made by the accused is capable of being used in the trial though to a limited extent. But the law also places an obligation upon the Court to take into consideration the stand of the accused in his statement and consider the 17 ( 2024:HHC:5179 ) same objectively and in its entirety. This principle of law has been stated by this Court in the case of Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat, AIR 1953 SC 468."
25 By taking similar view in Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 12 SCC 350, Supreme Court has held as under:-
"Now we may proceed to discuss the evidence led by the prosecution in the present case. In order to bring the issues raised within a narrow compass we may refer to the statement of the accused made under Section 313, Cr.PC. It is a settled principle of law that dual purpose is sought to be achieved when the Courts comply with the mandatory requirement of recording the statement of an accused under this provision. Firstly, every material piece of evidence which the prosecution proposes to use against the accused should be put to him in clear terms and secondly, the accused should have a fair chance to give his explanation in relation to that evidence as well as his own versions with regard to alleged involvement in the crime. This dual purpose has to be achieved in the interest of the proper administration of criminal justice and in accordance with the provisions of the Cr.P.C. Furthermore, the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.PC can be used by the Court in so far as it corroborates the case of the prosecution. Of course, conviction per se cannot be based upon the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.PC.".
26 In Ramnaresh & Ors versus State of Chhattisgarh, 2012 (4) SCC 257 , it was observed that the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in so far as it supports the case of the prosecution can be used against him for rendering conviction. Reiterating the aforesaid principle in Ashok Debbarma @ Achak Debbarma V/S State of Tripura, 2014 (4) SCC 747, and it was held as under: -
"24. We are of the view that, under the Section 313 statement, if the accused admits that, from the evidence of various witnesses, four persons sustained severe bullet injuries by the firing by the accused and his associates, that admission of guilt 18 ( 2024:HHC:5179 ) in Section 313 statement cannot be brushed aside. This Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh and another (1992) 3 SCC 700 held that since no oath is administered to the accused, the statement made by the accused under Section 313 CrPC will not be evidence stricto sensu and the accused, of course, shall not render himself liable to punishment merely on the basis of answers given while he was being examined under Section 313 CrPC. But, Sub-section (4) says that the answers given by the accused in response to his examination under Section 313 CrPC can be taken into consideration in such an inquiry or trial. This Court in Hate Singh Bhagat Singh (supra) held that the answers given by the accused under Section 313 examination can be used for proving his guilt as much as the evidence given by the prosecution witness. In Narain Singh v. State of Punjab (1963) 3 SCR 678, this Court held that when the accused confesses to the commission of the offence with which he is charged, the Court may rely upon the confession and proceed to convict him.
25.This Court in Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh and another (2002) 10 SCC 236 held that the statement made in defence by the accused under Section 313 CrPC can certainly be taken aid of to lend credence to the evidence led by the prosecution, but only a part of such statement under Section 313 CrPC cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction. In this connection, reference may also be made to the judgment of this Court in Devender Kumar Singla v. Baldev Krishan Singla (2004) 9 SCC 15 and Bishnu Prasad Sinha and another v. State of Assam (2007) 11 SCC 467. The above-mentioned decisions would indicate that the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC for the admission of his guilt or confession as such cannot be made the sole basis for finding the accused guilty, the reason being he is not making the statement on oath, but all the same, the confession or admission of guilt can be taken as a piece of evidence since the same lends credence to the evidence led by the prosecution."
27 The Supreme Court in Premchand v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 5 SCC 522: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 218, has 19 ( 2024:HHC:5179 ) held that it is impermissible to rely upon the inculpatory part without considering the exculpatory part. It was observed:
15. What follows from these authorities may briefly be summarised thus:
15.1. Section 313CrPC [clause (b) of sub-
section (1)] is a valuable safeguard in the trial process for the accused to establish his innocence.
15.2. Section 313, which is intended to ensure a direct dialogue between the court and the accused, casts a mandatory duty on the court to question the accused generally on the case for the purpose of enabling him to personally explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.
15.3. When questioned, the accused may not admit his involvement at all and choose to flatly deny or outrightly repudiate whatever is put to him by the court.
15.4. The accused may even admit or own incriminating circumstances adduced against him to adopt legally recognised defences.
15.5. An accused can make a statement without fear of being cross-examined by the prosecution or the latter having any right to cross-examine him.
15.6. The explanations that an accused may furnish cannot be considered in isolation but have to be considered in conjunction with the evidence adduced by the prosecution and, therefore, no conviction can be premised solely on the basis of the Section 313 statement(s).
15.8. Statement(s) of the accused cannot be dissected to rely on the inculpatory part and ignore the exculpatory part and has/have to be read in the whole, inter alia, to test the authenticity of the exculpatory nature of admission.
15.9. If the accused takes a defence and proffers any alternate version of events or 20 ( 2024:HHC:5179 ) interpretation, the court has to carefully analyse and consider his statements.
15.10. Any failure to consider the accused's explanation of incriminating circumstances, in a given case, may vitiate the trial and/or endanger the conviction.
28 In Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab , (2024) 3 SCC 164: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 17, wherein it was observed:
37. The learned counsel for the respondent State has argued that no specific plea of alibi was taken in the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313CrPC.
In fact, it is submitted that there is an implicit admission as to his presence in the house. It is too well settled that the statement of an accused under Section 313CrPC is no "evidence" because, firstly, it is not on oath and, secondly, the other party i.e. the prosecution does not get an opportunity to cross-examine the accused. [Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1385: AIR 2010 SC 2352] ]
38. It is trite law that the statement recorded under Section 313CrPC cannot form the sole basis of conviction. Therefore, the presence of the appellant cannot be found solely based on his statement, notwithstanding the lack of independent evidence led by the prosecution. Further, this Court has previously considered the consequences when a particular defence plea was not taken by the accused under Section 313CrPC and held that mere omission to take a specific plea by the accused when examined under Section 313CrPC, is not enough to denude him of his right if the same can be made out otherwise. (See: Periasami v. State of T.N. [Periasami v. State of T.N., (1996) 6 SCC 457 :
1997 SCC (Cri) 121] ) 29 In Raja Naykar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2024) 4 SCC 481, the Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"Insofar as the finding of the High Court that the appellant has failed to give any explanation in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. is concerned, we find that the High Court has failed to appreciate the basic principle that it is only after the prosecution discharges its duty of proving the case beyond all reasonable doubt that the false explanation or non-explanation of the accused could be taken into consideration. ... ... ..."
21 ( 2024:HHC:5179 ) 30 Though spot prosecution witnesses, in general, appear to have corroborated each other, however, minute scrutiny of their statements create doubt about prosecution story with respect to manner, place of recovery and presence of official witnesses impeaching veracity of prosecution claim putforth in challan/police report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 31 It is also noticeable that appellant-accused since beginning from the stage of Charge was not pleading guilty, but was for claiming trial, and during the trial, he contested the case, however suddenly at the time of recording statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he admitted entire case of prosecution not only with respect to facts supposed to be in his knowledge, but also about those facts which were not supposed to be in his knowledge in the given facts and circumstances.
32 Taking into consideration settled law, referred supra, with respect to statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the said statement alone cannot be taken as a substantive piece of evidence to convict him, and the same can be taken for consideration to corroborate and substantiate version of prosecution already proved beyond reasonable doubt, by leading cogent and reliable evidence, because it is not a case where the facts and circumstances, put to the appellant in questions framed under Section 313 Cr.P.C., have been admitted with prudence in natural manner. But perusal of statement of appellant-accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. clearly indicates that it is an abnormal and unnatural behaviour on the part of the appellant-accused and, thus, before declaring the appellant- accused guilty for commission of offence, as alleged, in the interest of 22 ( 2024:HHC:5179 ) justice, it would be necessary to assess and evaluate veracity of prosecution case by assessing deposition of prosecution witnesses. 33 First circumstance, arrival and presence of members of SNCC, Kangra, is doubtful. Though all of them i.e. PW.10-HHG Raman Kumar, PW.12-HHC Manohar Lal, PW.13-Constable Sanjay Kumar, PW.17-ASI Kartar Singh, PW.20-HHC Mohd. Aslam, have stated that they reached Tunnuhatti Barrier on 18.09.2018 at about 10.00 a.m., however, none of them has stated that before leaving Kangra departure report was recorded in Rojnamcha, daily diary or somewhere else. PW.12-Manohar Lal and PW.17-Kartar Singh have categorically admitted that no Rapat was entered in the Rojnamcha. Same is the case with respect to departure of second Investigating Officer PW.19-SI Madan Lal, who has also admitted that at the time of leaving Kangra, no Rapat was entered in the Rojnamcha. This fact alone creates doubt, about claim of prosecution because for any police official and police party, it is mandatory to record report in the Daily Diary before proceeding to any place with respect to purpose like investigation, inquiry or patrolling etc. and on return also. 34 Whether police party had actually started at 7.00 a.m. on 18.09.2018 from Kangra or not and arrived at Tunnuhatti or not, is doubtful, because according to PW.17-Kartar Singh, PW.20-Mohd. Aslam and PW.13-Sanjay Kumar, for having tea they had stopped for 15-20 minutes at Dunera. Whereas, according to PW.12-Manohar Lal, they did not stop anywhere. PW.17-Kartar Singh, in examination-in- chief, has stated that they were on routine patrolling duty. However, in cross-examination, he has stated that he laid Naka Bandi at Tunnuhatti Barrier on the instructions of Dy.SP Surinder Sharma. PW.13-Sanjay Kumar has deposed that Naka was laid on the 23 ( 2024:HHC:5179 ) instructions of PW.17-Kartar Singh. According to PW.12-Manohar Lal, they had informed the higher authorities regarding laying of Naka Bandi at Tunnuhatti Barrier. PW.20-Mohd.Aslam has also stated that he was not asked by the Investigating Officer to lay Naka Bandi at a particular place.
35 According to all spot witnesses, except PW.11-Ranjeet Singh, vehicles coming only from Chamba to Pathankot side were checked. Whereas, PW.11-Ranjeet Singh expressed his ignorance by saying that he was not knowing that vehicles coming from both sides were stopped.
36 Presence of PW.11-Ranjeet Singh has been claimed on the spot since 10.40 a.m. till 5-6 p.m. However, how he happened to be present on the spot, has been narrated by different witnesses differently. According to him, on 19.09.2018 he was coming on his Scooty from Nainikhad to Tunnuhatti and he noticed that 4-5 police officials, including Home Guard official, on the spot, were checking the vehicles. It is version of police official witnesses alleged to be present on the spot that they were in civil dress. Therefore, how PW.11- Ranjeet Singh came to know that persons alongwith Home Guard official, who only was in uniform, were police officials is a mystery. 37 According to PW.10-Raman Kumar, PW.11 Ranjeet Singh appeared on the spot himself and remained with the police till 5.00 p.m. PW.12-Manohar Lal stated that Ranjeet Singh appeared on the spot on foot and PW.17-Kartar Singh asked him to remain associated with the police party. PW.13-Sanjay Kumar, in his examination-in-chief, has not stated anything about the mode and manner in which PW.11- Ranjeet Singh reached on the spot. In fact PW.13, in the beginning does not say anything about presence and associating PW.11-Ranjeet 24 ( 2024:HHC:5179 ) Singh as well as regarding manners of alleged recovery of contraband from the car, but in later part he has only stated that contraband was recovered in presence of witnesses and police officials and sample seal was handed over to PW.11-Ranjeet Singh after use. According to PW.17-Kartar Singh, PW.11-Ranjeet Singh was with the police party and he had appeared on the Naka, but mode of his arrival or Naka is not known to him. According to PW.20-Mohd.Aslam, PW.11-Ranjeet Singh came on the spot on foot and he was with the police party since beginning. According to PW.17-Kartar Singh, PW.11-Ranjeet Singh was present on the spot from 10.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. Whereas, according to PW.11-Ranjeet Singh, he was crossing the spot when car, being driven by appellant-accused, was intercepted by the police at 10.40 a.m. According to PW.10-Raman Kumar, PW.11-Ranjeet Singh appeared on the spot himself, who was crossing the spot at the time of checking of vehicle of appellant-accused. 38 PW.17-Kartar Singh, stated that no one was performing duty of PW.10-Raman Kumar after he was associated with police party for stopping vehicles. Whereas, according to PW.19-SI Madan Lal, someone in place of PW.10-Raman Kumar was performing his duty. PW.13-Sanjay Kumar has expressed his ignorance by saying that he did not know the time till when Raman Kumar was present with the police party. PW.11-Ranjeet Singh has stated that he had lost sample seal which was handed over to him, but he was also not knowing as to whether seal was of metal or not.
39 According to PW.11-Ranjeet Singh, he had signed the documents i.e. seizure memo etc. at 4.30 to 4.45 p.m. Whereas, case of the prosecution is that recovery was effected before 12.40 p.m., as Rukka was prepared at 12.40 p.m. after recovery, preparation of 25 ( 2024:HHC:5179 ) seizure memo and filling up of NCB form etc. In Rukka itself, it has been stated that after seizure of contraband through memo, seal was handed over to Ranjeet Singh and car was taken into possession through separate memos, meaning thereby that memos were prepared before 12.40 p.m. Therefore, it is highly improbable and unbelievable that memos alleged to be prepared before 12.40 p.m. were signed by the witnesses at 4.30 p.m., particularly when second Investigating Officer PW.19-Madan Lal had arrived at the spot and taken over investigation at 4.00-4.30 p.m. In these circumstances, what was the reason for not signing the documents/memos at the time of preparation thereof before preparation of Rukka or even thereafter from 12.40 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. Absence of valid reason for it renders the entire proceedings doubtful. Either Rukka was not prepared at 12.40 p.m. on the spot and was manufactured in Police Station or somewhere else or documents stated to have been prepared before 12.40 p.m. were manufactured in the evening or entire case was prepared by concocting a false story withholding truth from the Court, because as per prosecution case formalities of investigation by first Investigating Officer were almost complete by 12.40 p.m. 40 According to prosecution case, as also stated by spot witnesses, Rukka was prepared at 12.40 p.m. and PW.12-Manohar Lal left the place thereafter to Police Station Chowari. According to PW.12- Manohar Lal, he left the spot at 12.40 p.m. and reached the Police Station at 2.15 p.m. and came back on the spot after registration of FIR at 6.15 p.m. PW.8-HC Rakesh Kumar was MHC, in Police Station Chowari at that time. According to him, PW.12-Manohar Lal arrived in the Police Station with Rukka at 10.00 a.m., and thereafter, within 35- 40 minutes FIR was registered and PW.12-Manohar Lal left Police 26 ( 2024:HHC:5179 ) Station at 12.30 p.m. Prosecution evidence, on this fact is irreconcilable because of long gap between time stated by two witnesses. It is not a case of minor discrepancy or slight variation in the timing stated by the witnesses.
41 Second Investigating Officer PW.10-Madan Lal has claimed that he started from Kangra after receiving information from the DSP at 12.40 p.m. about recovery of charas from the appellant. According to PW.19-Madan Lal, he started from Kangra immediately thereafter, but without making any entry in Rojnamcha. He travelled in a bus up till Nurpur and, thereafter, took lift in a private vehicle. According to PW.20-Mohd. Aslam, PW.19-Madan Lal reached on the spot in a bus and he was alone. PW.10-Raman Kumar stated that PW.19-Madan Lal reached on the spot alongwith police officials in his vehicle at 4.00-4.30 p.m. Whereas, PW.11-Ranjeet Singh stated that second Investigating Officer came from Police Station Chowari to the spot at 1.00-1.30 p.m., but he did not know whether he came in official or private vehicle. PW.12-Manohar Lal stated that he came back from the Police Station at 6.15 p.m. and second Investigating Officer PW.19- Madan Lal alongwith Rockey (police official) was present on the spot. PW.13-Sanjay Kumar stated that second Investigating Officer reached on the spot at 4.00 p.m. alongwith ASI Rockey. According to PW.17- Kartar Singh, PW.19-Madan Lal reached on the spot alone in a private vehicle at 4.00 p.m. All these discrepancies and variations create doubt about prosecution story.
42 According to PW.17-Kartar Singh, police party alongwith second Investigating Officer and appellant-accused left Tunnuhatti at 6.15 p.m. and reached Police Station Chowari at 10.30 p.m. According to PW.19-Madan Lal, they left Tunnuhatti at 6.15 p.m. and reached 27 ( 2024:HHC:5179 ) Chowari at 9.40 p.m. He has further stated that distance from Tunnuhatti to Chowari is 30-35 kms. Police party, according to PW.17- Kartar Singh, took 4 hours to cover 30-35 kms in a car, whereas, according to PW.19-Madan Lal, it took about 3 ½ hours to cover the said distance.
43 It is also noticeable that according to PW.5-Atul Kumar, PW.19-SI Madan Lal had submitted parcel of contraband for resealing by SHO Mukul at 9.42 p.m. on 18.09.2018. In case version of PW.17- Kartar Singh is true that police party reached in Police Station at 10.30 p.m. then, it was not possible for PW.19-SI Madan Lal to place the parcel for resealing at 9.42 p.m. before SHO in Police Station. According to PW.5-Atul Kumar, 40-45 minutes were taken in resealing process and seal was handed over to him, but he lost the same. Whereas, according to PW.9-Inspector Mukul Sharma, resealing was done within 15-20 minutes. It is also noticeable that PW.5-Atul Kumar claimed that his statement was recorded by SHO Mukul Sharma on 18.09.2018 whereas on 18.09.2018, investigation was with PW.19- Madan Lal. Therefore, it is also unbelievable that SHO Mukul Sharma recorded statement of PW.5-Atul Kumar on 18.09.2018. 44 According to PW.20-Mohd. Aslam, PW.12-Manohar Lal came to the spot alongwith case file from Police Station after 2 hours, meaning thereby PW.12-Manohar Lal came back on the spot at about 2.40-3.00 p.m. Whereas, according to other witnesses including Manohar Lal, he came back at about 6.00 p.m. PW.17-Kartar Singh has stated that PW.12-Manohar Lal had not come back in his presence. Whereas, according to PW.19-Madan Lal, PW.12-Manohar Lal handed over the file to him at about 6.15 p.m. As per PW.17-Kartar Singh, he left Tunnuhatti alongwith police party, PW.19-Madan Lal and appellant-
28 ( 2024:HHC:5179 ) accused at 6.30 p.m. together and PW.12-Manohar Lal had not reached the spot till his departure from the spot. Therefore, it is also not possible to reconcile that before leaving the spot by PW.17-Kartar Singh, PW.12-Manohar Lal had not come back, but at the same time, he handed over the case file to PW.19-Madan Lal at 6.00-6.15 p.m. i.e. before leaving the spot by the police party and PW.19-Madan Lal. 45 Non-production and loss of seals handed over to the prosecution witnesses, in normal circumstances, without proving and causing any prejudice to the accused, may not be fatal to the prosecution case, but for contradictions, discrepancies, referred supra, this fact has also become an important factor creating doubt on the prosecution story.
46 According to spot witnesses and PW.19-Madan Lal, they were in civil dress and only Home Guard PW.10-Raman Kumar was in uniform. PW.10-Raman Kumar did not accompany the police party to Police Station Chowari. Therefore, all police officials, who went to Police Station Chowari, were in civil dress. Whereas, according to PW.5-Atul Kumar, some were in uniform and some were in civil dress, meaning thereby that either he was not present in Police Station at the time of arrival of police party or story of the police party has been concocted to frame the appellant-accused. 47 In cross-examination of PW.1-Vikas Kumar, it was suggested on behalf of the appellant-accused that he was engaged as a driver in the vehicle by father of PW.1-Vikas Kumar for carrying passengers which was denied by PW.1-Vikas Kumar. At the time of recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., appellant-accused claimed that charas belonged to Mangal Singh resident of Amritsar and out of greed he was carrying the charas for Mangal Singh for 29 ( 2024:HHC:5179 ) consideration of `14,000/-. Therefore, either suggestion to PW.1-Vikas Kumar or version stated in statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., is incorrect, and there is nothing on record to corroborate the version stated in statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 48 It would be apt to discuss the statement and admission of the appellant-accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.:-
(a) It is case of prosecution that appellant-
accused reached on the spot at 10.40 a.m. In answer to question Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5, appellant- accused has admitted the presence of police party at Tunnuhatti at about 10.00 a.m. alongwith PW.10- Raman Kumar, PW.11-Ranjeet Singh, and request made by police to HHG Raman Kumar to stop the vehicles enrouting from Chamba to Pathankot and police party was checking those vehicles.
(b) How appellant-accused came to know about the fact and occurrence taken place before his arrival on the spot;
(c) In question No.7, it was not put to the appellant-accused that he was driver of the vehicle, but it has been put that driver was the only person found sitting in the car, who got staggered and could not give satisfactory reply;
(d) In question No.23, appellant-accused has admitted factum of registration of FIR on the basis of Rukka and in question No.24, appellant-accused had admitted the fact about telephonic information given to Dy.S.P and sending of second Investigation Officer by Dy.S.P to the spot and these facts are ought not to be supposed in the knowledge of the appellant-accused.
(e) In answer to question Nos.30 to 36, appellant has admitted sending of parcel to FSL for analysis, handing over two agreements by PW.1-Vikas Kumar to the police, translation of those agreements by 30 ( 2024:HHC:5179 ) police, developing of photographs by Sher Khan and issuance of certificate under Section 65(b) of Indian Evidence Act, sending and receipt of special report and issuance of CCTNS certificate by MHC Rakesh Kumar, whereas these facts and circumstances could never be in the knowledge of the appellant-accused. He also admitted obtaining of certificate under Section 52(A) of the NDPS Act and destruction of case property and preparation of certificate of destruction in answer to question Nos.41 to 44;
(f) In question No.45 he has admitted recording of various Daily Diary Reports in the police record which also could never come in the knowledge of the appellant-accused;
(g) In answer to question No.46, appellant- accused has admitted recording of evidence by Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Considering version of prosecution witnesses, it appears to be highly improbable and unbelievable that appellant-accused was having knowledge of the said fact admitted by the appellant-accused; and
(h) In answer to question No.48, appellant- accused admitted preparation of challan, receipt of FSL report and presentation of challan for trial. It is unusual.
49 From the above discussed answers by the appellant- accused to the questions put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that appellant-accused was either under pressure or was allured by someone to admit the case of prosecution despite the fact that he had been contested the trial throughout through Advocate by cross-examining the witnesses.
31 ( 2024:HHC:5179 ) 50 It is also relevant to notice that if appellant had accepted the guilt voluntarily, then there was no reason or occasion of preferring present appeal by appellant-convict.
51 In view of above noticed facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that prosecution has not been able to establish its case, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading cogent, reliable and convincing evidence on record and, therefore, admissions of the appellant- accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., cannot be and could not have been used against the appellant-accused for want of corroboration in reliable prosecution evidence. Thus, Trial Court has committed an error in relying statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. alongwith prosecution evidence for convicting and sentencing the appellant-accused.
52 In view of above referred discrepancies and contradictions, prosecution story, as placed before the Court, is not true and veracity of prosecution case is doubtful. 53 As the version of spot witnesses has not been found trustworthy, their deposition of other link witnesses is of no help to the prosecution.
54 It is settled law that in case of slightest doubt, benefit is to be extended to the accused and accordingly by extending benefit of doubt, appellant-accused is acquitted of the Charge, by setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court. 55 In view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure the appellant is directed to furnish his personal bond within four weeks in the sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, which shall be effective for six months with stipulation that in the event of Special 32 ( 2024:HHC:5179 ) Leave Petition being filed against this judgment, or on grant of the leave, the appellant on receipt of notice(s) thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
56 Appellant-accused is ordered to be released in case not warranted in any other case.
57 Records be sent back forthwith.
58 Appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms and pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.
(Virender Singh), Judge.
July 16, 2024 (Purohit) SUBHASH Digitally signed by SUBHASH CHAND DHIMAN DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, OU= HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone= 3418061207364d8c002725dfc58ff116f678c3d39289db29b992cc e875905119, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, CHAND SERIALNUMBER= 5ce240fac0e1267843f29509683d09a9912af10edc4e6cd2ed5d4 a8c30134c1b, CN=SUBHASH CHAND DHIMAN Reason: I am the author of this document DHIMAN Location:
Date: 2024.07.16 10:53:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.1.0