Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nand Ram vs State & Ors on 11 July, 2017
Author: Gopal Krishan Vyas
Bench: Gopal Krishan Vyas, Manoj Kumar Garg
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 640 / 2010
Jeet Ram S/o Shri Kani Ram, by caste Jat, resident of village
Charanwasi, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh
[at present lodged at District Jail, Hanumangarh]
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 34 / 2011
Nand Ram S/o Sh. Rawa Rawata Ram, by caste Jat, resident of
Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil Haumangarh, District Hanumangarh,
----Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Rajji Ram S/o Sh. Kani Ram, by caste Jat, Resident of
Charanwasi,
3. Mst. Samesta W/o Sh. Rajji Ram, by caste Jat, resident of
Charanwasi, Tehsil Nohar, District Haumangarh
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
Mr. Sunil Beniwal for appellant (Cr. Appeal No.640/2010)
Mr. Kulwant Singh for appellant/complainant (Cr. Appeal
No.34/2011)
Mr. Vishnu Kachhawa, PP
Mr. HSS Kharlia, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Bhawani Singh, for the respondents (Cr. Appeal No.34/2011)
(2 of 18)
[CRLA-640/2010]
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG Judgment Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gopal Krishan Vyas :
Date of Judgment :: 11th July, 2017 DB Cr. Appeal No.640/2010 has been filed by the accused appellant Jeet Ram under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against him on 15.1.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FT) NO.2, Hanumangarh, Headquarter Nohar in Sessions Case No.96/2007 (6/2007) whereby the accused appellant, Jeet Ram was convicted for offence under Section 304 B and 498A of IPC and following sentence was passed against him:
For offence u/s 304B IPC Life imprisonment. For offence u/s 498A IPC Three years RI with fine of Rs.500/-
and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month RI.
[both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently].
The D.B. Cr. Appeal No.34/2011 has been filed by the complainant Nand Ram under Section 372 Cr.P.C. against the same judgment dated 15.12.2010 passed in Cr. Case No.96/2007 (6/2007) by which the learned trial court acquitted the respondents, Rajji Ram and Mst. Samesta W/o Rajji Ram from the charge levelled against them under Section 498A and 304B IPC.
(3 of 18) [CRLA-640/2010] Both the appeals are arising out from the judgment dated 15.12.2010 passed in Cr. Appeal No.96/2007 (6/2007), therefore, we are deciding both the appeals filed by the accused appellant and complainant by this common judgment.
As per facts of the case, the complainant Nand Ram (PW--1) submitted a written repot on 7.7.2006 at 11.00 am before the SHO Police Station Nohar, District Hanumangarh alleging therein that marriage of his daughter Suman was solemnized in the year 2001 with Jeet Ram S/o Kani Ram, resident of Charanwasi as per hindu rites. At the time of marriage, ornaments and other articles were given by the complainant-father as per his capacity but after marriage, the behavior of her husband Jeet Ram and his elder brother Rajiji Ram and his wife Samesta became bad and they repeatedly made demand for cash and dowry articles and harassed the deceased Suman. In the FIR, it is reported that Suman (deceased) informed all happenings to her uncle Dilip Chand and aunt Smt. Kamla and other relatives and ousted from the house twice or thrice. The deceased gave birth to Rita (daughter) and son. The brother-in-law Brijlal and Krishan Kumar tried to settle the matrimonial life of them but after some time, husband Jeet Ram and his brother and brother's wife again started demand of dowry.
Before 20 days of alleged incident, the brother of the deceased Balveer visited the house of Suman where she informed that she is being harassed and beaten for demand of Rs.10,000/- otherwise you will be ousted from the house.
(4 of 18) [CRLA-640/2010] The complainant after borrowing Rs.5,000/- from one Madan Lal gave to the deceased Suman to satisfy the demand of money. In the FIR it is specifically stated that on 7.7.2006 telephonic call received from Suman by the father in which it is informed that since her brother gave less amount, therefore, her in-laws are not happy and they might have killed me. Upon receiving such information, the complainant went to the house of deceased, but he was not permitted to meet his daughter. On the other day, in-laws of the deceased Suman informed that your daughter has suffered heart attack then complainant rushed to the in-laws house of his daughter and found that husband and his elder brother and wife of elder brother were present and his daughter Suman was lying dead in the house.
As per complainant, there were injuries on her face and neck, therefore he informed the incident to his relatives. Upon aforesaid report submitted by the complainant, FIR no.338 was registered at Police Station Nohar on 7.7.2006 for the offences under Section 304B and 498A read with Section 34 IPC against the accused appellant Jeet Singh, brother Rajji Ram and his wife Smt. Samesta and investigation was commenced. During investigation, post mortem of the dead body was conducted and after arrest of the accused appellant as well his brother Rajji Ram and his wife Smt. Samesta, investigation was conducted from them and after completing investigation charge-sheet was filed against the accused appellant Jeet Ram and his brother Rajji Rama and Smt. Samesta wife of Rajji Ram in the court of Chief (5 of 18) [CRLA-640/2010] Judicial Magistrate, Nohar. The offence committed by the accused appellant was triable by Sessions Judge, therefore, the learned Magistrate Committed the case to the Sessions Court, Hanumangarh for trial, but it was transferred for trial in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge (FT) No.2, Hanumangarh Headquarter Nohar.
The learned trial court after providing an opportunity of hearing framed charge against the accused appellant Jeet Ram and his brother Rajji Ram and his wife Smt. Samesta under Section 498A and 304 IPC and commenced the trial.
To prove the prosecution case following witnesses were examined:
PW--1 Nand Ram, complainant father PW--2 Madan Lal, cousin brother of the deceased Suman PW--3 Krishan Chand, real maternal uncle of deceased Suman PW--4 Suresh Kumar, owner of the STD PCO situated near the house of complainant Nand Lal at Haumangarh Town. PW--5 Balveer, brother of the deceased PW--6 Narendra Ola, CEO, Nohar who commenced the investigation.
PW--7 Vimla Devi, mother of the deceased PW--8 Saroj, real sister of the deceased Suman PW--9 Dr. Vinod Chomwal, who has conducted the post mortem of the deceased at Government Hospital, Nohar PW--10 Ram Kishan Songara, CEO (ST/SC Cell), Hanumangarh (6 of 18) [CRLA-640/2010] No other witness is produced in support of prosecution case. Although in the charge-sheet list of 27 witnesses was given but out of 27 witness 17 witnesses were not produced before the court in support of prosecution case.
After recording evidence of prosecution, the learned trial court recorded statement of all the three accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., but they denied all the allegations of witnesses and gave specific reply by Rajji Ram, brother of Jeet Ram and Smt. Samesta that they are not residing with the appellant Jeet Ram, they are living separately and submits that all the allegations levelled by the prosecution witnesses with regard to dowry are false.
In defence, following six witnesses were examine from defence side:
DW-1 Ram Jas DW-2 Jeet Ram DW-3 Raja Ram DW-4 Pratap Singh DW-5 Ladu Ram DW-6 Pratap
After recording evidence of prosecution as well as defence, the learned trial court heard final arguments of the case and convicted the accused appellant Jeet Ram husband of the deceased for committing offence under Section 304B and 498A IPC but acquitted the accused Rajji Ram S/o Kani Ram and his (7 of 18) [CRLA-640/2010] wife Smt. Samesta from the charge levelled against them for offence under Section 304B and 498A IPC vide judgment dated 15.10.2010 in Sessions Case No.96/2007 (6/2007).
DB Cr. Appeal No.640/2010 has been filed by accused appellant Jeet Ram against the conviction and sentence passed against him vide judgment dated 15.12.2010 whereas DB Cr. Appeal No.34/2011 has been filed by the complainant Nand Ram against finding of acquittal of Rajji Ram and Smt. Samesta wife of Rajji Ram.
Learned counsel for the appellant Jeet Ram restricted his arguments to the extent of quantum and submits that although all the allegations levelled by the prosecution for demand of dowry are false but appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 304B IPC on the ground that Suman died in her in-laws house within seven years upon presumption and passed the sentence for life imprisonment, but it is not a rarest of rare case in which maximum punishment provided in the IPC for offence under Section 304B IPC could be imposed. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during trial, the appellant Jeet Ram was on bail and after conviction vide judgment dated 15.12.2010 he is behind the bars.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that under Section 304B IPC the trial court has jurisdiction to pass maximum sentence upto life imprisonment and minimum sentence of 7 years is to be passed upon the seriousness of the case, but here in this case, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused appellant (8 of 18) [CRLA-640/2010] and his brother and brother's wife on the basis of statement of 27 witnesses, but only ten close relative witness of the deceased Suman were produced in the court out of 27 witness and 17 witnesses were not produced to support the prosecution case though their names were included in the list. Further, it is submitted that for inflicting maximum punishment, the court was required to consider surrounding circumstances and seriousness of the fact as per the evidence on record. Admittedly, the deceased died due to hanging as per prosecution case. The marriage of accused appellant was solemnized in the year 2000 and incident took place in the year 2006 and as per statement of PW--9 Dr. Vinod Chomwal the cause of death was asphyxia, recorded in post mortem report Ex.P/13. In the cross-examination it is specifically stated by the doctor that there was no external ante mortem injury and it is a case of hanging, therefore, obviously, there is no allegation of causing any injury before death to the deceased, but the learned trial court passed sentence for life imprisonment which is maximum sentence provided in the IPC in Section 304B IPC. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that as per evidence on record the conduct of the accused appellant was bad with the deceased but there is no evidence of any incident for causing injuries to the deceased, more so, from the wedlock of accused appellant and deceased Suman, two issues were born, who are alive. Therefore, it is submitted that on the basis of surrounding circumstances the sentence of life imprisonment for the offence under Section 304B (9 of 18) [CRLA-640/2010] IPC passed upon presumption may be reduced from life imprisonment to already undergone. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants invited our attention towards the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Dutt Sharma Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2014) 4 SCC 375 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that at the time of inflicting punishment, the surrounding circumstances are required to be seen to pass maximum sentence and in this case, there is no evidence of regular quarrel or beating and demand of dowry, therefore, sentence of life imprisonment passed against the accused appellant Jeet Ram may kindly be reduced from life imprisonment to already undergone because it is not rarest of rare case in which maximum sentence can be passed.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the grounds raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant to reduce the sentence and submits that it is a case in which a young girl was murdered in her husband's house due to hanging and there is ample evidence on record to prove the allegation of demand of dowry. While inviting attention towards the statement of complainant PW--1 and other relatives it is vehemently argued that conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court against the accused appellant for offence under Section 304B and 498A IPC does not require any interference.
(10 of 18) [CRLA-640/2010] Learned counsel for the complainant submits that a grave error has been committed by the learned trial court so as to acquit the elder brother Rajji Ram and his wife Samesta of the accused appellant Jeet Ram because both these persons were residing in the same house where Jeet Ram and deceased Suman were residing and in the FIR itself allegations were levelled by the complainant against them also for demand of dowry, so also, cruelty was committed by them with deceased Suman right from marriage, therefore, the learned trial court ought to have considered the evidence to convict Rajji Ram and his wife Smt. Samesta alongwith main accused Jeet Ram, husband of Suman. The learned trial court committed a grave error to acquit Rajji Ram, brother of the accused appellant Jeet Ram and his wife Samesta while giving erroneous finding, therefore, the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court for Rajji Ram and Samesta may kindly be set aside and they may also be convicted for offence under Section 498A and 304B IPC.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant while arguing the appeal against the acquittal of Rajji Ram and Smt. Samesta submits that all the prosecution witnesses categorically made allegations for demand of dowry against Rajji Ram and his wife Smt. Samesta and proved the fact that they are liable to be punished under Section 304B IPC while drawing presumption against them because they were residing with the accused appellant in the same house where hanging took place. According to the prosecution, the death of Suman was unnatural, (11 of 18) [CRLA-640/2010] therefore, there is no reason to disturb the finding of the learned trial court of conviction against the husband Jeet Ram and further to quash the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court for acquittal against Rajji Ram and his wife Smt. Samesta, therefore, while dismissing the appeal filed by the accused appellant, the appeal filed by complainant Nand Lal against finding of acquittal of Rajji Ram and Smt. Samesta, brother and brother's wife of accused appellant Jeet Ram kindly be allowed and they may also be convicted for offence under Section 304B and 498A IPC.
The learned Senior Advocate Sh. HHS Kharilia, assisted by learned counsel Bhawani Singh appearing in D.B. Cr. Appeal No.34/2011 filed by the complainant Nand Lal argued that no error has been committed by the learned trial court so as to acquit Rajji Ram and his wife Smt. Samesta. The learned senior counsel vehemently argued that Rajji Ram is residing separately which is evident from the site plan (Ex.P/4) and investigating officer has accepted in his statement that Rajji Ram and Smt. Samesta were not living with the accused appellant Jeet Ram and deceased Suman, therefore, on the aforesaid fact no presumption can be drawn against them to hold them guilty for offence under Section 304B IPC or 498A. Learned Senior Advocate further argued that it is a case in which all the prosecution witnesses are close relatives of the deceased Suman and independent witnesses though arrayed in the list of witnesses but not produced before the court, in the defence six witnesses were produced from accused side and (12 of 18) [CRLA-640/2010] they categorically proved that there was no demand of dowry and deceased committed suicide, therefore, no presumption can be drawn to convict Rajji Ram and Samesta for the offence under Section 304B and 498A IPC, therefore, prayed that the appeal filed by the complainant Nand Ram against the judgment of acquittal of Rajji Ram and Smt. Samesta may kindly be dismissed.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, first of all we are considering the arguments of learned counsel Mr. Sunil Beniwal, appearing on behalf of accused appellant, Jeetram, (DB Cri. Appeal No.640/2010) field against the judgment dated 15.10.2010 by the trial Court for the offence under Sections 304B and 498A of IPC. There is no dispute that marriage of accused appellant, Jeetram was solemnized with deceased, Smt. Suman in the year 2001. It is also not in dispute that out of their wedlock, two issues (Rita and son) were born and they are still alive. It is also admitted position of the case that out of 27 witnesses mentioned in the list of witnesses filed along with charge sheet, but only 10 witnesses were produced before the trial court to prove the case. Out of 10 witnesses, PW.1- Nandram (father of deceased), PW.2- Madanlal (cousin brother of deceased), PW.3- Krishan Chand (real maternal uncle of deceased), PW.7- Smt. Vimla Devi (mother of deceased) and PW.8 Mst. Saroj (real sister of deceased) and no other independent witness is produced before the court to prove the allegations of cruelty, harassment and demand of dowry. Admittedly, all these witnesses are not residing in the village where deceased and appellants were residing.
(13 of 18) [CRLA-640/2010] Upon perusal of the statement of PW.9- Dr. Vinod Chomwal, it is also obvious that no external injury was found upon the body of deceased, Smt. Suman. In the examination in chief, Dr. Vinod Chomwal (PW.9) categorically stated that, "gk;kM s Z ckusa LoLFk Fkh o vius LFkku ij FkhA oVhcZ j dkWye eas dkbs Z QzsDpj ugha ik;k x;kA ¼ljokbZdy½A "kjhj ij dkbs Z ckgjh pkVs ugha FkhA e`R;q i"pkr dh tdMu+ ekStnw FkhA" and in the cross examination said witness said that, ";g lgh gS fd e`Rrdk ds "kjhj ij ckMs Z us ckgjh rkSj ij dkbs Z e`R;q&iow Z dh pkVs ugha ik;hA ;fn dkbs Z O;fDr thfor voLFkk eas Qkl a h [kkrk gS rks mlds eqga ds dkus s ls ykj vkrh gSA gk;kMs ckus dk n:
q Lr gkus k lkekU;r;k vkRegR;k dks nf"kZr djrk gSA"
Meaning thereby, the allegations of beating or causing injury has not been proved by the prosecution. More so, as per opinion of the doctor symptoms loudly speak that it was a case of suicide. In defence, six witnesses were produced by the accused appellants. Most of the witnesses stated on oath that relationship of the deceased and appellant was cordial and they never saw any quarrel in between the couple. Accused appellant Jeet Ram himself appeared before the court as DW.2, and narrated the story with regard to other dispute in between his father-in-law, Nandram and him. He has explained as to why deceased committed suicide. Admittedly, the counsel for appellant has not challenge the finding of conviction recorded against the accused appellant, Jeetram, under Section 304B of IPC and restricted his prayer only to reduce the sentence of life imprisonment to the period already undergone which is more than seven years. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has (14 of 18) [CRLA-640/2010] invited our attention towards judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunil Dutt Sharma Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2014) 4 SCC 375. In the aforesaid judgment while considering the identical case, the Hon'ble Apex Court reduced the sentence of life imprisonment to ten years and laid down parameters for passing sentence for offence u/s 304B IPC, which reads as infra:
"16. Applying the above parameters to the facts of the present case it transpires that the death of the wife of the accused-appellant occurred within two years of marriage. There was, of course, a demand for dowry and there is evidence of cruelty or harassment. The autopsy report of the deceased showed external marks of injuries but the cause of death of deceased was stated to be due to asphyxia resulting from strangulation. In view of the aforesaid finding of Dr. L.T. Ramani (PW-16) who had conducted the postmortem, the learned Trial Judge thought it proper to acquit the accused of the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code on the benefit of doubt as there was no evidence that the accused was, in any way, involved with the strangulation of the deceased. The proved facts on the basis of which offence under Section 304-B of the Penal Code was held to be established, while acquitting the accused-appellant of the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code, does not disclose any extraordinary, perverse or diabolic act on the part of the accused-appellant to take an extreme view of the matter. Coupled with the above, at the time of commission of the offence, the accused-appellant was about 21 years old and as on date he is about 42 years. The accused- appellant also has a son who was an infant at the time of the occurrence. He has no previous record of crime. On a cumulative application of the principles that would be relevant to adjudge the crime and the criminal test, we are of the view (15 of 18) [CRLA-640/2010] that the present is not a case where the maximum punishment of life imprisonment ought to have been awarded to the accused- appellant. At the same time, from the order of the learned Trial Court, it is clear that some of the injuries on the deceased, though obviously not the fatal injuries, are attributable to the accused-appellant. In fact, the finding of the learned Trial Court is that the injuries No. 1 (Laceration 1" x ½" skin deep on the side of forehead near hair margin) and 2 (Laceration 1 ½" x 1" scalp deep over the frontal area) on the deceased had been caused by the accused-appellant with a pestle. The said part of the order of the learned Trial Court has not been challenged in the appeal before the High Court. Taking into account the said fact, we are of the view that in the present case the minimum sentence prescribed i.e. seven years would also not meet the ends of justice. Rather we are of the view that a sentence of ten years RI would be appropriate.
17. Consequently, we modify the impugned order dated 4.4.2011 passed by the High Court of Delhi and impose the punishment of ten years RI on the accused-appellant for the commission of the offence under Section 304-B of the Penal Code. The sentence of fine is maintained. The accused-appellant who is presently in custody shall serve out the remaining part of the sentence in terms of the present order."
In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court reduced the sentence of life imprisonment passed against the accused (appellant therein) under Section 304-B of IPC to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment on the ground that at the time of incident, accused appellant of that case was 21 years of age and now he is 42 years of age, and further the appellant is having son who was infant at the time of occurrence; and there is no previous record of crime. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that some of (16 of 18) [CRLA-640/2010] injuries were found upon the body of the deceased and those injuries were not fatal in nature, therefore, reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to ten years' RI.
In the instant case, as per opinion of the doctor, there was no external injury upon the body of the deceased, accused appellant have two issues one daughter and a son and as per statement of doctor it is a case of suicide, therefore, we are inclined to accept the prayer of the accused appellant that is not rarest of rare case, in which maximum punishment i.e. life imprisonment for offence u/s 304B of IPC could be imposed. It is also one of important fact that there is no finding of cruelty on record because no incident is reported by the prosecution with regard to cruel attitude of the accused appellant and his family member. Thus, in view of above discussion, the prayer of the accused appellant- Jeetram to reduce the sentence deserves acceptance.
Now, we are considering the appeal filed by the complaint, Nandram (DB Cri. Appeal No.34/2011) assailing the judgment impugned dated 15.12.2010 whereby, respondents No.2 Rajji Ram (brother-in-law of deceased) and Mst. Samesta (Bhabhi of deceased) were acquitted from the charges under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC. Admittedly, Rajji Ram is the brother of Jeetram and as per site plan Ex.P/4) he was not residing with the accused, Jeetram. It is also worthwhile to observe that on the basis of evidence on record, no presumption can be drawn under Section 304B of IPC against Rajji Ram and Mst. Samesta for the allegation (17 of 18) [CRLA-640/2010] of demand of dowry. Admittedly, out of 27 witnesses (whose names were mentioned in the list of witnesses at the time of filing the charge sheet) only 10 witnesses were produced before the court and out of 10 witnesses, six witnesses are close relatives of the deceased.
Upon perusal of statements of complainant, Nandram, and his other relatives, we are of the opinion that their allegations for demand of dowry are general in nature against Rajji Ram and Mst. Samesta because they are brother and brother's wife of main accused, Jeetram. In our opinion, no presumption can be drawn against them under Section 304B of IPC because neither they were residing in the house of Jeetram, nor any trustworthy and reliable evidence is on record so as to prove their implication to commit cruelty against deceased Smt. Suman. It is true that certain allegations are levelled by the complainant in the FIR for demand of dowry with regard to behaviour of Rajji Ram and his wife, acquitted by the trial court, but in our opinion, the trial court has rightly assessed the entire evidence to acquit them from the charges levelled against them. We have also considered the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that, it is beyond imagination that elder brother (Rajji Ram) will demand ten thousand rupees from the younger brother's wife and in-laws of his brother and participate to commit offence of murder of his younger brother's wife.
The entire evidence loudly speaks that statements of all the prosecution witnesses cannot be treated reliable or trustworthy so (18 of 18) [CRLA-640/2010] as to hold accused, Rajji Ram and Mst. Samesta for offence under Sections 304B and 498A of IPC because they were residing separately and there is no specific allegation or any incident reported in the statement of the prosecution witnesses for their participation, upon general allegations no finding of cruelty can be recorded against the respondents No.2 and 3, therefore, the D.B. Criminal Appeal No.34/2011 filed by the complainant, Nandram, lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.
In view of above discussion, the D.B. Criminal Appeal No.640/2010 filed by the appellant- Jeet Ram is hereby partly allowed and while maintaining the conviction against the accused appellant Jeet Ram under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, the sentence of life imprisonment imposed against him for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC, is hereby reduced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment but conviction and sentence for the offence u/s 498A of IPC is hereby maintained. The judgment impugned dated 15.12.2010 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FT) No.2, Hanumangarh HQ- Nohar, in Session Case No.96/2007 (6/2007) is, modified accordingly.
The D.B. Criminal Appeal No.34/2011 filed by complainant against the acquittal of Rajji Ram and Smt. Samesta is hereby dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG)J. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS)J. cpgoyal/ps