Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ahemad @ Nisar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 July, 2022
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
1
Cr.A. No.1003/2016 & Cr. A. No.1316/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 7TH OF JULY, 2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1003 of 2016
Between:-
AHEMAD @ NISAR S/O ABDUL GAFFAR
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
OCCUPATION: LABOUR
R/O NOORI COLONY, MANASA
DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SARANSH JAIN, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
STATION HOUSE OFFICER
THROUHG P.S. MANASA
DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI A. S. SISODIA, G.A. FOR STATE)
&
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1316 of 2016
Between:-
2
Cr.A. No.1003/2016 & Cr. A. No.1316/2016
SHANTILAL S/O KHIMA BHIL RAWAT
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/O TALAB KE PAAS JHUGGI JHOPADI
MANASA DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY MS. SHARMILA SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
STATION HOUSE OFFICER
THROUGHT P.S. MANASA
DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI A. S. SISODIA, G.A. FOR STATE)
Reserved on : 07.02.2022
Delivered on : 07.07.2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal coming on for judgement this day, Hon'ble Shri
Justice Satyendra Kumar Singh passed the following:
JUDGEMENT
The appellants have preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) [in short "Cr.P.C."] against the judgement dated 30.06.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Manasa, District Neemuch (M.P.) in S.T. No.24/2010, whereby both the appellants have been convicted under Sections 460, 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") and sentenced them as under :- 3
Cr.A. No.1003/2016 & Cr. A. No.1316/2016 S. Conviction Sentence No. Imprisonment Fine Additional amount imprisonment in default of payment of fine 1 460 of IPC Life Rs.5,000/- 1 year RI imprisonment 2 302 of IPC Life Rs.5,000/- 1 year RI imprisonment 3 394 of IPC Life Rs.5,000/- 1 year RI imprisonment
2. Prosecution story, in brief is as follows :-
(i) Appellants - Ahemad @ Nisar and Shantilal alongwith other co-accused persons namely, Vardichand @ Kalu, Kanhaiyalal @ Kanha and Bablu formed an unlawful assembly having common object to commit murder and dacoity at deceased Banshilal Moondada's house, entered into his house in the intervening night of 29-30.07.2007, committed his murder by strangulation and looted one gold chain, two gold rings and one gold bracelet worn by him alongwith cash amount of Rs.30,000-
Rs.35,000/- and promissory notes.
(ii) On 30.07.2007, at about 7.30 AM, when complainant Ramgopal was going towards temple, people of vicinity met him in front of deceased's house and told him that some unknown 4 Cr.A. No.1003/2016 & Cr. A. No.1316/2016 persons took his valuables after assaulting him. Complainant immediately took Dr. Kothari there, who declared the deceased as dead. Thereafter, complainant at about 8.30 AM informed Police Station Manasa, District Neemuch about the incident on which merg intimation report (Exhibit-P/9) was registered. SHO, Angad Singh Rathore went to the spot, called witnesses issuing safina form (Exhibit-P/10), prepared naksha panchayatnama (Exhibit- P/11) of the body of deceased and vide letter dated 30.07.2007 sent dead-body of the deceased to Community Health Centre, Manasa for medical examination.
(iii) On the same day, at about 12.15 PM, Dr. Dinesh Bansal conducted post-mortem of the body of deceased wherein he observed as follows :-
Dead-body of a male age about 75 years, rigor mortise present, face cyanosed, face towards left side of body, pupil dilated, nail cyanosed, both hands are clenched, bleeding from nose, face puffy. Abrasion (knot impression) measuring 7cm x 3cm on right side of neck 4 cm below the right ear lobule depressed then ligature mark path back side in circle and 12cm below the occipital protuberance, backward then towards left side of back then end 4cm below the left ear lobule. Abrasions are 18cm x 1/2 cm long then contusion started at the end of abrasion (4cm below the left ear lobule then pass safra thyroid region (hyoid region) 5cm below the chin then towards right side of neck and meet with abrasion (knot compression). Contusions are reddish colour, dry, hard, parchment like on cut section. Extravasation of 5 Cr.A. No.1003/2016 & Cr. A. No.1316/2016 blood into the safe artaneoul tissue. Abrasion 7x1 cm on right side of mid region of back,oblique knot impression and ligature mark is well defined and slightly depressed mark, ecchymosed margin. Base of abrasion are hard, parchment, dry. Knot impression and ligature mark are anti-mortem in nature.
(iv) Dr. Dinesh Bansal prepared his post-mortem report (Exhibit-P/18) and opined that cause of death of deceased was asphyxia due to strangulation within 12 hours from the time of post-mortem examination. On the next day i.e. on 31.07.2007, at about 9.10 AM, SHO Angad Singh Rathore, after completion of enquiry under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. registered FIR (Exhibit-
P/20) against unknown persons for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. As accused persons and looted properties were not traced out therefore, on 07.08.2008, final report bearing No.22/2008 was filed.
(v) On 05.01.2010, SHO K. K. Sharma received secret information that appellant Shantilal, in intoxicated condition, is revealing the facts of the case then, he after getting permission vide letter (Exhibit-P/35), reopened the investigation of this case and went to the place of incident, prepared spot map (Exhibit- P/36). On 06.01.2010, he arrested appellant Shantilal, as per arrest memo (Exhibit-P/37), recorded his memorandum statements (Exhibit-P/1) and on the basis of which, on his 6 Cr.A. No.1003/2016 & Cr. A. No.1316/2016 instance seized the looted one gold chain (Article A-2) and two gold rings (Article A-3 & A-4) from the possession of Sunderlal alongwith his diary entries (Exhibit-P-14 & P-15), wherein entry with regard to pledging of the aforesaid articles by the appellant was made, as per seizure memo (Exhibit-P/13). He vide application (Exhibit-P/41) dated 12.01.2010 obtained permission from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Neemuch for making formal arrest of appellant Ahemad @ Nisar, as he was already in custody in some other crime. Thereafter, on 09.02.2010, Head Constable Ghanshyam made formal arrest of appellant Ahemad @ Nisar at sub-jail Neemuch, as per arrest memo (Exhibit-P/42). On 11.03.2010, SHO K. K. Sharma recorded appellant Ahemad @ Nisar's memorandum statement (Exhibit-P/12) on the basis of which, on his instance, one gold bracelet (Article-1) was seized from the possession of Pradeep alongwith his register entry (Exhibit-P/16), as per seizure memo (Exhibit-P/17). SHO K. K. Sharma also arrested other co-accused persons Vardichand @ Kalu and Kanhaiyalal @ Kanha, as per arrest memo (Exhibit- P/38 & P/39) respectively, recorded their memorandum statements (Exhibit-P/2 & P/6) and on the basis of which, on their instance, seized two promissory notes (Exhibit-P/4 & P/5) from 7 Cr.A. No.1003/2016 & Cr. A. No.1316/2016 the possession of Vardichand @ Kalu and one promissory note (Exhibit-P/8) from the possession of Kanhaiyalal @ Kanha, as per seizure memo Exhibit-P/3 & P/7 respectively.
(vi) Executive Magistrate Isarar Khan conducted identification proceedings wherein deceased's son Shivchand Moondada identified the aforesaid seized articles as that of his deceased father, as per identification memo (Exhibit-P/19). After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Executive Magistrate, Neemuch who committed the same to the Court of Sessions Judge, Neemuch.
3. Learned Trial Court considering the material prima-facie available on record, framed the charges under Sections 142, 460, 302 and in alternative 302/149 and 396 of IPC against the appellants and co-accused persons, who abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. In their statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., appellants pleaded their false implication in the matter but they did not examine any witness in their defense.
4. Learned Trial Court after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, recorded the findings that prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 460, 302 and 394 instead of 396 of IPC and sentenced them, as mentioned in para-1 of this judgement, while acquitted co- 8
Cr.A. No.1003/2016 & Cr. A. No.1316/2016 accused persons namely, Vardichand @ Kalu, Kanhaiyalal @ Kanha and Bablu from the charges framed against them. Being aggrieved with the said judgement of conviction and order of sentence, appellants have preferred the instant appeals for setting aside the impugned judgement and discharging them from the charges framed against them.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant Ahemad @ Nisar submits that gold bracelet said to be seized on the instance of the appellant, has been seized after about 2-1/2 years and witnesses of memorandum statement as well as seizure have not supported the prosecution case. It has also not been proved that deceased had worn the said article at the time of incident even then, only on the basis of suspicious evidence of Pradeep, it has been inferred that gold bracelet (Article-1), seized from the possession of Pradeep was given by the appellant Ahemad @ Nisar to him. Deceased's son Shivchand Moondada does not inspire confidence and his conduct was found suspicious even then, his statement has been relied upon. Material witnesses have not been examined. Learned Trial Court has mis-appreciated the prosecution evidence produced on record therefore, impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence is not sustainable.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant Shantilal has also submitted that there was inordinate delay in recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses, without any reasonable cause. Gold chain and rings said to be seized on the 9 Cr.A. No.1003/2016 & Cr. A. No.1316/2016 instance of appellant, have been seized after a very long period. It has also been not proved that the aforesaid articles were worn by the deceased at the time of incident. Independent witnesses of seizure have not supported the prosecution case even then, it has been found proved that the said gold chain (Article-2) and two gold rings (Article-3 & 4) were seized at the instance of appellant. The whole prosecution story is doubtful and thus, by setting aside the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence, appellants may be acquitted from the charges framed against them. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgement rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Bhai & another vs. State of Rajasthan delivered on 24.04.2009 in Criminal Appeal Nos.868-869/2004.
7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State, while supporting the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence submits that the judgement was passed by the Trial Court after proper appreciation of evidence available on record. Same is well reasoned establishing the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The looted jewelleries have been seized on the instance of the appellants and have been identified by deceased's son Shivchand Moondada. Sunderlal and Pradeep, from whose possession jewelleries were seized, have supported the prosecution case alongwith other prosecution witnesses therefore, confirming the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence, appeals filed by 10 Cr.A. No.1003/2016 & Cr. A. No.1316/2016 the appellants deserve to be dismissed.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
9. Prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution in this case are as follows :-
(i) On the date of incident, deceased Banshilal Moondada was murdered and his belongings i.e. one gold chain, two gold rings and one gold bracelet was found missing from his dead body.
(ii) After the incident, missing gold chain and rings were pledged by the appellant Shantilal at Sunderlal's shop and were seized on his instance from the possession of Sunderlal.
(iii) After the incident, missing bracelet was sold by the appellant Ahmed @ Nisar to Pradeep and was seized on his instance from the possession of Pradeep.
10. Deceased's daughter-in-law Leela Moondada (PW-15) deposed that in the intervening night of 29-30.07.2007, she was sleeping with her husband Shivchand Moondada, her son Arpit and daughter Kirti at her house, while her father-in-law deceased Banshilal Moondada was sleeping alone in his house, which is one house next to her neighbour. She deposed that next day morning when her husband Shivchand Moondada and son Arpit went to deceased's house to bring Arpit's cycle, they found deceased lying in a pool of blood. 11
Cr.A. No.1003/2016 & Cr. A. No.1316/2016 Arpit (PW-4) and Shivchand Moondada (PW-16) also deposed that next day morning, when they went to deceased's house to bring Arpit's cycle, they found him dead lying in a pool of blood. Complainant Ramgopal (PW-5) deposed that on 30.07.2007, at about 7.30 AM, when he was going towards the temple, people of vicinity met him in front of deceased's house and told him to bring the doctor, then he took Dr. Kothari who after checking the deceased's body, declared him dead. He further deposed that thereafter he reported the matter to Police Station Manasa, Neemuch on the basis of which merg intimation report (Exhibit-P/9) was registered.
11. SHO Angad Singh Rathore (PW-18) deposed that on 30.07.2007, at about 8.30 AM, on the basis of information given by the complainant Ramgopal, merg intimation report bearing No.24/2007 (Exhibit-P/9) under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. was registered at Police Station Manasa. He further deposed that during merg enquiry, he went to the place of incident, called the witnesses issuing safina form (Exhibit-P/10) and prepared naksha panchayatnama (Exhibit-P/11) of the deceased's body in front of them and thereafter, sent deceased's dead-body to the Community Health Centre, Manasa for post-mortem examination.
12. Dr. Dinesh Bansal (PW-13) deposed that on the same day, at about 12.15 Noon, he alongwith Dr. Kothari conducted the post-mortem of the deceased's body and observed as follows :-
12
Cr.A. No.1003/2016 & Cr. A. No.1316/2016 Dead-body of a male age about 75 years, rigor mortise present, face cyanosed, face towards left side of body, pupil dilated, nail cyanosed, both hands are clenched, bleeding from nose, face puffy. Abrasion (knot impression) measuring 7cm x 3cm on right side of neck 4 cm below the right ear lobule depressed then ligature mark path back side in circle and 12cm below the occipital protuberance, backward then towards left side of back then end 4cm below the left ear lobule. Abrasions are 18cm x 1/2 cm long then contusion started at the end of abrasion (4cm below the left ear lobule then pass safra thyroid region (hyoid region) 5cm below the chin then towards right side of neck and meet with abrasion (knot compression). Contusions are reddish colour, dry, hard, parchment like on cut section. Extravasation of blood into the safe artaneoul tissue. Abrasion 7x1 cm on right side of mid region of back,oblique knot impression and ligature mark is well defined and slightly depressed mark, ecchymosed margin. Base of abrasion are hard, parchment, dry. Knot impression and ligature mark are anti-mortem in nature.
13. Dr. Dinesh Bansal (PW-13) further deposed that after post-mortem examination, he opined that cause of death of deceased was asphyxia due to strangulation. He thereafter prepared his post-mortem report (Exhibit-P/18) and preserved and sealed his blood stained clothes alongwith specimen of skin and handed over the same to the police constable who brought him for medical examination.
14. The aforesaid facts have not been seriously challenged on behalf of the appellants therefore, this fact is established that in the intervening night of 29- 30.07.2007, deceased Banshilal Moondada was assaulted and strangulated due 13 Cr.A. No.1003/2016 & Cr. A. No.1316/2016 to which he died on the spot and his death was homicidal in nature, as opined by Dr. Dinesh Bansal in his post-mortem report (Exhibit-P/18).
15. Complainant Ramgopal (PW-5) deposed that on the date of incident, when people of the vicinity told him that some unknown persons took deceased's valuables after assaulting him, then after bringing the doctor, he informed the police about the incident. SI Mohd. Ali (PW-19) deposed that on the basis of aforesaid information given by the complainant, he registered the merg intimation report (Exhibit-P/9) at Police Station Manasa, wherein it is specifically stated that complainant was informed by the people of the vicinity that unknown persons took deceased's valuables after assaulting him.
16. Deceased's son Shivchand Moondada (PW-16) deposed that his father always wore gold chain, rings and bracelet. Leela Moondada (PW-15) deposed that after the incident, she did not find above articles on the body of her father-in-law i.e. deceased Banshilal Moondada. SHO K. K. Sharma (PW-
21) deposed that on 06.01.2010, he arrested the appellant Shantilal and recorded his disclosure memo (Exhibit-P/1), wherein he disclosed in the presence of independent witnesses Lalashankar and Omprakash that gold chain have been kept at jewellery shop near Ghantaghar, Neemuch. Lalashankar (PW-1) and Omprakash (PW-2) both have supported his above statement. SHO K.K. Sharma (PW-21) further deposed that on the same day, on the instance of appellant, he alongwith appellant went to Suganchandra 14 Cr.A. No.1003/2016 & Cr. A. No.1316/2016 Rameshwar jewellery shop near Ghantaghar, Neemuch and seized one gold chain (Article-2) and two gold rings (Article-3 & 4) total weighing 18 gms. 20 mgs. from Sunderlal alongwith copy of his ledger entries (Exhibit-P/14 & P/15) in front of independent witnesses Jitendra and Prakash, as per seizure memo (Exhibit-P/13). Sunderlal (PW-8) has supported his aforesaid statement and deposed that he knew the appellant Shantilal as he came to his shop for pledging jewelleries. He specifically deposed that appellant first pledged two gold rings (Article-3 & 4) at his shop about which he made entry (Exhibit- P/14) in his register, while second time appellant pledged one gold chain alongwith pendant (Article-2) for an amount of Rs.6,000/- about which he made entry (Exhibit-P/15) in his register. Jitendra Soni (PW-7) has also supported the aforesaid facts while Prakash Garg (PW-14) admitted his signature on the aforesaid seizure memo.
17. SHO K. K. Sharma (PW-21) further deposed that during investigation, it was found that appellant Ahemad @ Nisar was already in jail in connection with Crime No.261/2007 registered at Police Station Manasa, District Neemuch for the offence punishable under Section 407 of IPC therefore, after getting the required permission from the Court, he was formally arrested, as per seizure memo dated 09.02.2010 (Exhibit-P/42). Thereafter, he recorded his disclosure memo (Exhibit-P/12), wherein he disclosed in the presence of independent witnesses Pankaj Jaat and Pramod Choudhary that the gold 15 Cr.A. No.1003/2016 & Cr. A. No.1316/2016 bracelet was given to the jeweller namely, Payal Brothers at Jawad. Pankaj Jaat (PW-6) has denied the aforesaid fact but Pramod Choudhary (PW-9) has neither admitted nor denied the fact. Both of them have turned hostile but they have admitted their signatures on appellant Ahemad @ Nisar's disclosure memo (Exhibit-P/12). SHO K. K. Sharma (PW-21) deposed that on the same day i.e. on 11.03.2010, on the instance of appellant Ahemad @ Nisar, he alongwith appellant Ahemad @ Nisar went to Pradeep Soni's jewellery shop, Payal Brothers, Kanthal Square, Jawad and seized one gold bracelet (Article-
1) weighing 28 gms, as per seizure memo (Exhibit-P/17) from the possession of Pradeep Soni alongwith his diary entry (Exhibit-P/16). Seizure witnesses Ratan Soni (PW-12) and Gopal (PW-17) have not supported the prosecution story and have turned hostile but Pradeep Soni (PW-10) has specifically stated that on 12.10.2007, appellant Ahemad @ Nisar alongwith Radheshyam came to his shop for selling a gold bracelet (pochi) (Article-1) weighing 28 gms. He further deposed that as he knew Radheshyam therefore, he purchased the gold bracelet from appellant Ahemad @ Nisar for an amount of Rs.13,524/-. He further deposed that SHO K. K Sharma seized the aforesaid gold bracelet alongwith copy of his diary entry from him, as per seizure memo (Exhibit- P/17).
18. Statements of SHO K. K. Sharma (PW-21) with regard to disclosure statements of appellants Shantilal and Ahemad @ Nisar as also with regard to 16 Cr.A. No.1003/2016 & Cr. A. No.1316/2016 seizure of gold chain (Article-2), rings (Article-3 & 4) from the possession of appellant Shantilal, as per seizure memo (Exhibit-P/13) and gold bracelet (Article-1) from the possession of appellant Ahemad @ Nisar, as per seizure memo (Exhibit-P/17) are supported by the statements of independent witnesses as well as statements of Sunderlal (PW-8) and Pradeep Soni (PW-
10) from whose possession, the aforesaid jewelleries were seized and also from the diary entries (Exhibit-P/14, P/15 & P/16) made by them in their ledger/register maintained during their business transactions. Nothing has been extracted during their cross-examination on the basis of which their aforesaid statements can be doubted or disbelieved.
19. The Executive Magistrate Isarar Khan (PW-20) deposed that on 23.03.2007, he conducted the identification proceedings of the seized gold chain, gold rings and gold bracelet at his Tehsil office, Manasa, Neemuch, wherein Shivchand Moondada identified the aforesaid jewelleries as that of his deceased father Banshilal Moondada, as per identification memo (Exhibit- P/19). Shivchand Moondada (PW-16) deposed that during identification proceedings, he identified the gold chain (Article-2), gold rings (Article-3 &
4) and gold bracelet (Article-1) among other jewelleries as the jewelleries worn by his father at the time of incident. Statements of the aforesaid witnesses are consistent and nothing has been extracted during their cross- examination on the basis of which their aforesaid statements can be doubted or 17 Cr.A. No.1003/2016 & Cr. A. No.1316/2016 disbelieved therefore, learned Trial Court has not committed any error in finding this fact as proved that the aforesaid jewelleries were worn by the deceased Banshilal Moondada at the time of incident and the same have been seized on the instance of the appellants. Appellants have no where explained as to how and when the aforesaid jewelleries came into their possession hence, learned Trial Court has also not committed any error in finding this fact as proved that the same were taken by the appellants on the date of incident from the possession of deceased Banshilal Moondada after assaulting and strangulating him.
20. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the appellants that as per prosecution case itself, all the aforesaid jewelleries were seized after about 2- 1/2 years of incident therefore, presumption drawn against them that they took the same after committing the murder of deceased is totally wrong. At the most, appellants can be held liable for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC. It is true that the jewelleries said to be seized on the instance of the appellants were seized after about 2-1/2 years of incident, but from the evidence of Sunderlal and his diary entries (Exhibit-P/14 & P/15) and also from the statement of Pradeep Soni and his diary entry (Exhibit-P/16), it is apparent that the aforesaid jewelleries were pledged/sold by the appellants just after the incident therefore, it does not make any difference that when they were seized. Facts in the case of Ramesh Bhai & another (supra) cited by 18 Cr.A. No.1003/2016 & Cr. A. No.1316/2016 learned counsel for the appellants are entirely different, wherein injections were recovered from a lane near the house of the accused and it was not found proved that cause of death of the deceased was Organo-Phosphorous, which was alleged to be administered by the accused.
21. From the evidence produced on record, the prosecution has very well proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants entered into the house of the deceased and took the aforesaid jewelleries after assaulting and committed his murder.
22. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any illegality, perversity and arbitrariness in the findings recorded by learned Trial Court while convicting the appellants under Sections 460, 302 and 394 of IPC hence, the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court is hereby affirmed. Accordingly, both these appeals filed on behalf of the appellants Shantilal and Ahemad @ Nisar are hereby dismissed.
23. The Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court record forthwith alongwith copy of this judgement.
(Subodh Abhyankar) (Satyendra Kumar Singh)
Judge Judge
gp
GEETA
Digitally signed by GEETA PRAMOD
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
INDORE, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
INDORE, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=1dc3d93a178bbacd0e9485f9f6e99335499bddb3 2501850a4984b5b63f6d7a38, PRAMOD pseudonym=12F09B7BC77D4D3D96B764E8FA34B6FE387 4D434, serialNumber=41554F8E701AEEB833278B4FDD900CBED7 2CCF299EA61E33BBE6175289BA0390, cn=GEETA PRAMOD Date: 2022.07.09 11:28:52 +05'30'