Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Chandra Gupta vs State Of U.P. on 28 March, 2019
Bench: Bala Krishna Narayana, Ghandikota Sri Devi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 4 A. F. R. Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2189 of 1987 Appellant :- Ramesh Chandra Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Prabha Kant Singh,Arun Kumar Singh,Prabha Kant Singh,Shahabuddin,V K Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A. with Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1895 of 1987 Revisionist :- Shiv Adhar Misra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajiv Shamra Counsel for Opposite Party :- O.P. Singh,B.N. Singh,D.N. Singh,N.C. Rastogi,N.K. Rastogi with Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2184 of 1987 Appellant :- Ashok @ Pappu Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- A.N. Srivastava,A.D. Saunders,Amar Nath Sinha,Jagat Narain Mishra,Prateek Sinha,Vinod Kumat Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A. with Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2188 of 1987 Appellant :- Uttam Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- O.P. Singh,D.P.Singh,Dharmendra Pratap Singh,J.P. Singh,Rahul Misra Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A. Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
Hon'ble Ghandikota Sri Devi,J.
The arguments of this case concluded on 28.03.2019. We then passed the following order :-
"Heard Sri P. K. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 2189 of 1987, Sri Jagat Narain Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 2184 of 1987, Sri Rahul Misra and Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 2188 of 1987 and Sri H. M. B. Sinha, learned A.G.A.-I on behalf of the State in all the appeals.
None has appeared on behalf of the applicant in Criminal Revision No. 1895 of 1987.
We are making the operative order here and now. We will give reasons later.
Criminal Appeal No. 2189 of 1987 is dismissed. The appellant, Ramesh Chandra Gupta is on bail. He shall be arrested forthwith and sent to jail for serving out the remaining part of his sentence.
Criminal Revision No. 1895 of 1987 is dismissed.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2184 of 1987 and 2188 of 1987 are allowed. The appellants, Ashok @ Pappu in Criminal Appeal No. 2184 of 1987 and Uttam Singh in Criminal Appeal No. 2188 of 1987 who are on bail, need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and their sureties discharged. However, they shall comply with the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C.
The impugned judgement and order dated 25.08.1987 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in S.T. No. 393 of 1983 stands modified to the extent indicated hereinabove.
There shall however, be no order as to costs."
Here are the reasons :-
(1) These three criminal appeals have been preferred by Ramesh Chandra Gupta, appellant in criminal appeal no. 2189 of 1987, Ashok @ Pappu, appellant in criminal appeal no. 2184 of 1987 and Uttam Singh, appellant in criminal appeal no. 2188 of 1987 by which appellant-Ramesh Chandra Gupta and appellants-Uttam Singh, Raj Bahadur Singh and Ashok @ Pappu were convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life while criminal revision no. 1895 of 1987 has been preferred by complainant-Shiv Adhar Misra for enhancement of sentence to the accused-appellants.
(2) The prosecution story is that the accused-Ramesh Chandra Gupta was the tenant of Shiv Adhar Mishra, father of the deceased-Vinod Mishra. All the accused were friends and sat and moved together. Vinod Misra was aged about 30 years at the time of occurrence. He was the only son of Shiv Adhar Mishra. P. W. 10 Km. Kamal was the daughter of Shiv Ahdar Mishra and was aged about 16-17 years. All the above mentioned accused, Uttam Singh, Ashok @ Pappu and Rja Bahadur Singh used to pass filthy remarks at P. W. 10 Km. Kamal whenever she went outside her house. Ramesh Chandra Gupta had his clinic in the same locality in front of the house of the deceased. On 17.6.1983, it was about 11:30 A.M. when P. W. 10 Km. Kamal was going to purchase some articles; the accused misbehaved with her and passed filthy remarks. When objection was raised by Vinod Misra, the accused became angry and became ready to cause injuries to Vinod Misra. Besides they threatened to kill him.
(3) On the same day i.e. 17.6.1983 at about 5 P.M. Vinod Misra was lying on a cot near his house. Ramesh Chandra Gupta armed with his licensed gun came alongwith accused-Uttam Singh, Raj Bahadur Singh and Ashok @ Pappu and started abusing him. When Vinod Misra tried to get up, on the exhortation of accused-Uttam Singh accused-appellant Ramesh Chandra Gupta fired at him. Raj Bahadur Singh exhorted Ramesh Chandra Gupta to fire again. At that time Shiv Adhar Misra and his wife Smt. Shakuntala were sitting under the neem tree. On their alarm, witnesses Bal Bhaddar Singh and Jamuna Prasad Dixit came there. The accused were successful in running away from the spot. Thereafter Shailendra Kumar, a relative of the deceased came there. He had come there in connection with marriage of his daughter. F.I.R. was written by Shailendra Kumar on the dictation of Shiv Adhar Misra. Vinod Misra was brought at P.S. F.I.R. was lodged there. After report was lodged Vinod Misra was brought to U.H.M. Hospital. After Vinod Misra was admitted, the doctor declared him dead. According to the prosecution the deceased was wearing Baniyan and underwear at the time of the occurrence.
(4) Chik F.I.R. was written by H.C. Ganesh Bahadur Singh on 17.6.1983 at 5:45 P.M. and its G.D. and prepared by him on the same day at about 8:05 P.M. Accused-appellant-Ramesh Chandra Gupta armed with his gun and along with accused-appellant-Ashok @ Pappu were lodged at the police station by P. W. 7 S.I. Munni Lal Tiwari. The postmortem examination was done by Dr. Sushil Kumar on 18.6.1983 at 5 P.M. On external examination, the doctor found the body of the deceased of average built; eyes were partly open; mouth was also partly open; blood was coming out from nose. Rigor mortis had passed away from upper limbs. On internal examination, the following antemortem injuries were found :-
Gunshot wound of entry 2 cm x 2 cm, circular in shape, inverted margin, on left side of the shoulder at joint of neck on front. Scorching and tattooing present around the wound 8 cm outer and above medial end end of clavicle, 6 cm downward from left angle of lower jaw, 10 cm downward from left ear, 10 cm medial to the top of left shoulder.
Five pellets were recovered from posterior chest wall of right side. Two big pellets were recovered 32 cm away; one pellet 38 cm away; total five pellets were recovered. 5th and 6th right ribs of back were fractured. 3rd and 4th ribs were also fractured and left clavicle was fractured on middle 1/3rd.
(5) Undigested food material 8 ounces was present in the stomach. Sealed bundle of clothes containing Baniyan and underwear and Tahmat and an envelope containing five big pellets were produced by the constable before the doctor at the time of postmortem examination.
(6) In the opinion of the doctor, at the time of postmortem examination, the injuries were found about one day old, death did took place due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of gunshot injury.
(7) The inquest report was prepared by S.I. Munni Lal Tiwari on 18.6.1983. He started investigation. He recorded the statement of the scribe on 17.6.1983. He also recorded the statement of other witnesses of the occurrence, went on the spot, prepared site plan, took bloodstained and plain earth and string of cot and sealed them. He alongwith S.I. D.D. Dixit arrested accused-Ashok @ Pappu. S.I. D.D. Dixit arrested accused-Ramesh Chandra Gupta alongwith gun and cartridges. First gun and cartridges under sealed cover were sent to Ballistic expert on 29.8.1983 but they were returned because crime number mentioned on the Fard and gun did not tally. Again on 1.9.1983, they were sent to Ballastic expert who gave his report that the empty cartridge found inside the gun was used and gun was fired. Previously the F.I.R. was lodged under Section 307 I.P.C. on 17.6.1983 but when the victim died, the offence was converted under Section 302 I.P.C.
(8) After all the accused were arrested and the investigating officer had completed the investigation, he filed charge-sheet against all the accused before C.M.M. Kanpur Nagar.
(9) Since the offence mentioned in the charge-sheet were triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions Judge, C.M.M. Kanpur Nagar committed the accused for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar where case crime no. 211 of 1983 was registered as S.T. No. 393 of 1983 (State Vs. Ramesh Chandra and others) and made over for trial from there to the Court of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar who on the basis of the material on record and after affording opportunity of hearing to the prosecution as well as the accused, framed charge under Section 302 I.P.C. against appellant-Ramesh Chandra Gupta while appellants-Ashok @ Pappu, Uttam Singh and co-accused Raj Bahadur Singh was charged under Section 302/34 I.P.C. The accused abjured the charge and claimed trial.
(10) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 12 witnesses out of whom P. W. 1 Shiv Adhar Misra, P. W. 2 Balbhadra Singh and P. W. 10 Km. Kamal were examined as witnesses of fact while P. W. 3 Ganesh Bahadur Singh who had prepared the chek report Ext. Ka1 and the relevant G.D. entry, P. W. 4 Constable Lalmani who had brought the corpse of Vinod Misra along with papers to mortuary for postmortem examination, P. W. 5 Dr. Sushil Kumar who had conducted postmortem on the body of deceased and prepared his postmortem report Ext. Ka7, P. W. 6 S.I. R.N. Tiwari, the second investigating officer of the case who after completing the investigation had filed charge-sheet against the accused, P. W. 7 Munni Lal Tiwari, the first investigating officer of the case, P. W. 8 O.P.M. Tripathi, the ballistic expert, P. W. 9 S.I. D.D. Dixit who had arrested appellant-Ramesh Chandra Gupta along with a gun, P. W. 11 Constable Durga Prasad who had delivered the gun used in the commission of the murder to the ballistic expert, were produced as formal witnesses.
(11) The accused-appellants in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied their participation in the crime. According to appellant-Ramesh Chandra Gupta, he was a tenant in a shop of which P. W. 1 Shiv Adhar Misra was the owner. Shiv Ahdar Misra wanted to evict him and with that object in mind he was falsely implicated by him in this case. The licensed gun which was alleged to have been used in committing the crime in question was recovered from his house.
(12) The accused-appellants Uttam Singh and Raj Bahadur Singh were real brothers. They stated that they had also been falsely implicated due to enmity. They also stated that although an order was passed for the investigation by C.B.C.I.D. but the charge-sheet was submitted earlier before C.M.M. Kanpur Nagar. Ashok @ Pappu further stated that Shiv Adhar Misra was inimical towards him as he was the Member of Youth Congress Committee and on noticing his growing importance in the district level politics, Shiv Adhar Misra had started harboring ill feelings towards him and had falsely implicated him in the instant case.
(13) The accused-appellant examined one Dr. H.L. Bani, a ballistic expert as D. W. 1 who gave evidence that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were not caused by the gun of appellant-Ramesh Chandra Gupta. Only five pellets were recovered from the body of the deceased and no wad or foreign material was found in his corpse and according to him such injury could be caused only by a country made pistol.
(14) Learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar after considering the submissions advanced before him by the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the evidence on record both oral as well as documentary, convicted all the accused and awarded aforesaid sentences to them.
(15) Hence this appeal.
(16) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that out of three eye-witnesses of the incident produced by the prosecution during the trial, P. W. 2 Balbhadra Singh having failed to support the prosecution story and declared hostile, the recorded conviction of the appellants on the basis of the evidence of P. W. 1 Shiv Adhar Misra and P. W. 10 Km. Kamal who being the father and real sister of the deceased being inimical towards the accused-appellants were highly interested witnesses, without seeking corroboration from the evidence of any other independent witness cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
(17) He next submitted that it is evident from the prosecution story that appellants-Ashok @ Pappu and Uttam Singh neither had any motive to commit the murder of the deceased nor they had caused any injury to the deceased and hence their conviction recorded by the learned trial judge by invoking aid of Section 34 of the I.P.C. is per se illegal. It is apparent that they were falsely implicated because of the political rivalry between the first informant-Shiv Adhar Misra and appellant-Ashok @ Pappu and appellant-Uttam Singh being a close friend of appellant-Ashok @ Pappu. The medical evidence on record does not corroborate the ocular version. Such being the state of evidence, neither the recorded conviction of the appellants nor the sentence awarded to them can be sustained and are liable to be set aside.
(18) Per contra Sri H.M.B. Sinha, learned A.G.A. I submitted that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the motive for as well as complicity of the appellants in committing the murder of Vinod Misra. It being settled law that conviction can be based on the testimony of the witnesses who are related to the deceased without seeking corroboration from any other circumstances, if the court finds such witnesses to be a wholly reliable. There is nothing in the statements of P. W. 1 Shiv Adhar Misra and P. W. 10 Km. Kamal which may even remotely indicate that they are not wholly trustworthy. There is no material conflict between the medical evidence and the eye-witnesses account. This appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
(19) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire lower court record.
(20) As already noted, the prosecution in order to prove its case, examined P. W. 1 Shiv Adhar Misra, P. W. 2 Balbhadra Singh and P. W. 10 Km. Kamal as witnesses of fact.
(21) P. W. 1 Shiv Adhar Misra in his statement recorded during the trial had stated that his son-Vinod Misra on the date of incident was aged about 30 years. P. W. 10 Km. Kamal was his daughter and at the time of the occurrence, she was aged about 16-17 years. Appellant-Ramesh Chandra Gupta was his tenant. He had his clinic in front of his house. He along with three other accused-Uttam Singh, Raj Bahadur Singh and Ashok @ Pappu used to pass filthy remark about his daughter-P. W. 10 Km. Kamal to which he and his son objected many time. Even though Raj Bahadur Singh and Uttam Singh were the real brothers but they were vagabonds and they did not care upon the reputation of others. On the date of incident, all the four accused had tried to misbehave with his daughter, heated arguments took place between deceased-Vinod Misra and the accused who had threatened to kill him but their threat was not taken by the deceased seriously. On 17.6.1983, during summers while Vinod Misra was lying on a cot in front of the door of his house near the neem tree. At about 5:30 P.M., appellant-Ramesh Chandra Gupta armed with a gun and other accused who were empty handed came there and made exhortation and opened fire causing injuries to Vinod Misra. The accused-appellants thereafter ran away from the place of incident which was witnessed by P. W. 2 Balbhadra Singh, Jamuna Prasad Dixit and many others. The written report of the incident was scribed by Shailendra Kumar who lived in the same locality and was a relative of the informant on the dictation of P. W. 1 Shiv Adhar Misra, and lodged at police station which was at a distance of about 5-6 furlongs from the place of occurrence. At About 5:30 P.M. a car was arranged and the victim was taken to the Ursala Hospital where he was declared brought dead. Thereafter postmortem was conducted on the dead body.
(22) P. W. 2 Balbhadra Singh in his statement recorded during the trial stated that on the date of incident at about 5:30 P.M., he was standing under the neem tree. Vinod Misra son of Shiv Adhar Misra was lying on a cot. Appellant-Ramesh Chandra Gupta armed came there with a gun but he did not see him opening fire at Vinod Misra or causing injuries to him. P. W. 2 Balbhadra Singh was declared hostile on the request of the D.G.C. (Criminal) and was cross-examined by him. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had not seen the three other accused at the place of incident.
(23) P. W. 3 Ganesh Bahadur Singh stated that he was Head Moharrir at P.S. Babupurwa on 17.6.1983. At about 5:45 P.M., the F.I.R. Ext. Ka1 was lodged at P.S. on the basis of which he prepared chik report Ext. Ka2 and made entries in the G.D. (24) P. W. 4 Constable Lalmani stated that he was posted at P.S. Babupurwa on 18.6.1983. He brought the corpse of Vinod Misra along with papers to mortuary for postmortem examination.
(25) P. W. 5 Dr. Sushil Kumar stated that on 18.6.1983 at 5 P.M. he conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. He found some ribs fractured. Five pellets were recovered from the body of the deceased. There was no exit wound. Undigested food was found in the stomach of the deceased. No wad or foreign material was fond on the body of the deceased.
(26) P. W. 6 S.I. R.N. Tiwari stated that on 5.7.1983, he started investigation. He recorded the statement of P. W. 2 Balbhadra Singh and submitted charge-sheet because earlier part of the investigation was conducted by P. W. 7 S.I. Munni Lal Tiwari.
(27) P. W. 7 S.I. Munni Lal Tiwari stated that he was posted as S.I. at P.S. Babupurwa. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and prepared the site plan and took bloodstained and plain earth from the spot and rest of the investigation was done by P. W. 6 S.I. R.N. Tiwari.
(28) P. W. 8 Om Prakah Mani Tripathi, Ballistic expert, stated that on 1.9.1983 Constable Durga Prasad Srivastava brought before him one sealed envelope and one sealed bundle. There were five big cartridges which were recovered from the bundle. In another bundle there was one S.B.B.L. gun bearing number 16432. In cross-examination, he has stated that first these articles were sent to him on 29.8.1983 but they were returned because seals of the bundle in which gun was brought were not intact, though this fact has not been written in the report. Later on, it was sent on 1.9.1983 and report was submitted by him.
(29) P. W. 9 S.I. D.D. Dixit stated that he heard some noise near the post office of Munshipurwa on 17.6.1983. He went there and was told that someone had fired at Vinod Misra and was running towards Azad Nagar. He along with different persons chased the accused and in front of country made liquor shop in Bagahi. Azad Nagar Kanpur Nagar, he arrested the accused-Ramesh Chandra Gupta alongwith gun. Search was made in the presence of witnesses-Shri Krishna, Sheo Prasad and Laxman Singh and gun and cartridges were recovered.
(30) P. W. 11 Constable Durga Prasad has stated that he had carried gun on 29.8.1983 and 1.9.1983 to the Ballistic Expert.
(31) P. W. 10 Km. Kamal whose evidence is on the point of motive and occurrence deposed that the accused used to chase her and tried to misbehave with her. She also stated that when shot was fired, she was at her door and saw the occurrence.
(32) On the point of motive, P. W. 10 Km. Kamal further deposed that the accused used to follow her and tried to misbehave with her about since before 3-4 months of the incident and although her father and brother-deceased-Vinod Misra had objected but they did not pay any heed. On the date of incident, at about 11:30 A.M. when she had gone to buy some articles from the market, all the four accused-appellants had misbehaved with her on which Vinod Misra, her brother had come out of the house and had asked them not to misbehave with his sister on which they started abusing him. On the intervention of the residents of the locality, they went away threatening Vinod Misra with dire consequences. On the same day, at about 5:00 P.M. when she was in her home, all the three accused-appellants, Ramesh Chandra Gupta, Uttam Singh and Ashok @ Pappu and non-appellant-Raj Bahadur Singh came in front of her house where her brother-Vinod Misra was lying on a cot. Appellant-Ramesh Chandra Gupta who was armed with a gun while the other accused were empty handed and on the exhortation of appellant-Uttam Singh, appellant-Ramesh Chandra Gupta had fired at her brother.
(33) Thus, from the evidence of P. W. 1 Shiv Prasad Misra and P. W. 10 Km. Kamal, we find that the role of causing firearm injuries to the deceased has been attributed to appellant-Ramesh Chandra Gupta alone. As far as the other two appellants are concerned, the role of exhortation has been attributed to appellant-Uttam Singh and no specific role has been assigned to appellant-Ashok @ Pappu. P. W. 2 Balbhadra Singh was declared hostile as he in his evidence had proved the presence of Ramesh Chandra Gupta armed with a gun alone at the place of incident and the fact that at that time the deceased was lying on a cot but denied having seen appellant-Ramesh Chandra Gupta firing at the deceased. As regards the other accused-appellants, he had categorically deposed that he had not seen any of them at the place of occurrence. The law is settled that even the evidence of a hostile witness can be relied upon by the Court to the extent it supports the case of the prosecution or defence.
(34) Thus, upon a wholesome consideration of the facts of the case, attending circumstances and the evidence on record, we find that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Ramesh Chandra Gupta, appellant in criminal appeal no. 2189 of 1987 had committed the murder of Vinod Misra on 17.6.1983 at 5:30 P.M. in front of his house of 132/693 Munshi Purwa, P.S. Babupurwar, district Kanpur. The evidence of P. W. 1 Shiv Adhar Misra and P. W. 10 Km. Kamal on the point of complicity of appellant-Ramesh Chandra Gupta in committing the deceased's murder is throughout consistent and clinching. But the prosecution version and the evidence on record qua Ashok @ Pappu and Uttam Singh, appellants in criminal appeal nos. 2184 and 2188 of 1987 respectively neither inspires confidence nor appears to be probable. The evidence of D. W. 1 Dr. H.L. Bani, ballistic expert produced on behalf of the accused-appellants is in the nature of opinion and not binding upon the Court especially when there is direct evidence of two eye-witnesses conclusively proving that it was appellant-Ramesh Chandra Gupta who had shot at the deceased with his licensed gun which we have already found to be wholly reliable and trustworthy qua involvement of appellant-Ramesh Chandra Gupta in the occurrence. While Uttam Singh, appellant in criminal appeal no. 2188 of 1987 has been assigned the role of exhortation by P. W. 1 Shiv Ahdar Misra and P. W. 10 Km. Kamal but P. W. 2 Balbhadra Singh has denied his presence at the place of occurrence in his cross-examination by the D.G.C. (Criminal) after he was declared hostile. Moreover, Ashok @ Pappu, appellant in criminal appeal no. 2184 of 1987 has not been assigned even the role of exhortation by any of the two eye-witnesses of the occurrence and his presence at the place of occurrence has also been denied by P. W. 2 Balbhadra Singh.
(35) It is noteworthy that there is absolutely no evidence on record indicating that there was any prior concert and a common meeting of minds before the attack which is the most essential ingredient of Section 34 I.P.C. Hence the learned trial judge was not at all legally justified in convicting appellants-Uttam Singh and Ashok @ Pappu under Section 302 I.P.C. by invoking the aid of Section 34 I.P.C.
(36) Thus, in view of the above, the possibility of Uttam Singh, appellant in criminal appeal no. 2188 of 1987 and Ashok @ Pappu, appellant in criminal appeal no. 2184 of 1987 being falsely implicated in the present case by P. W. 1 Shiv Ahdar Misra and P. W. 10 Km. Kamal on account of their being close friends of Ramesh Chandra Gupta, appellant in criminal appeal no. 2189 of 1987 cannot be ruled out. Even if it is presumed for the sake of arguments that they were present at the place of incident, admittedly they were neither armed nor any overt act of any kind has been attributed to them nor they had any motive to participate in the crime, hence in our opinion they are entitled to benefit of doubt.
(37) In view of the foregoing discussion, the conviction of Ramesh Chandra Gupta, appellant in criminal appeal no. 2189 of 1987, recorded by the trial court and awarded sentence of life imprisonment to him, are liable to be confirmed while Ashok @ Pappu and Uttam Singh, appellants in criminal appeal nos. 2184 of 1987 and 2188 of 1987 are liable to be acquitted.
(38) We have perused the memorandum of criminal revision no. 1895 of 1987 as well as the impugned judgment and order. We do not find any reason to interfere with the sentence awarded by the learned trial court to accused-respondent Ramesh Chandra Gupta upon his conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. As regards the other accused-respondents, since they have already been acquitted by us, the plea of complainant-Shiv Adhar Misra for enhancement of their sentence does not require any consideration by us.
(39) These are the reasons upon which we dismissed the criminal appeal no. 2189 of 1987 as well as criminal revision no. 1895 of 1987 and allowed the criminal appeal nos. 2184 of 1987 and 2188 of 1987.
Order Date :- 28.3.2019 SA