Jharkhand High Court
Ramjee Sah vs State Of Jharkhand on 8 May, 2014
Equivalent citations: 2014 (3) AJR 69
Author: D.N. Patel
Bench: Amitav K. Gupta, D.N. Patel
1 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.218 of 2005
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 218 of 2005
(Against the judgment of conviction dated and order of sentence both dated
31st January, 2005 delivered by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track
Court No.2, Godda in Sessions Case No.76 of 2003 )
------
Ramjee Sah ... ... ... ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... ... ... ... Respondent
------
For the Appellant: M/s. Ritu Kumar, Vikash Kumar
For the Respondent: Mr. M.B. Lal, A.P.P.
------
PRESENT: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
-----
Dated, the 8th day of May, 2014
Per D.N. Patel, J.
1) The present appeal has been preferred by this appellant, who is original accused No.4 in the Sessions Case, against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 31st January, 2005 delivered by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Godda in Sessions Case No.76 of 2003 whereby this appellant has been convicted for an offence under Section 302 to be read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/-, and in default of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. This appellant has also been convicted under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for life imprisonment. This appellant has also been convicted for an offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigourous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of Fine, to further undergo 3 months' simple imprisonment. However, the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently and rest of the accused i.e. accused Nos.1, 2 and 3, have been acquitted. Against this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present appeal has been preferred.
2) It is the case of the prosecution that PW.8 informed the police on 13th February, 2003 at 8.00 p.m. at Boarijor Police Station, District Godda, that on previous day i.e. on 12th February, 2003 at about 6.00 o'clock, when she and her husband (deceased Amik Yadav) were returning from Godda Court, Pramod Yadav, Kailash Yadav, Dilip Das, Ramjee Sah, 2 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.218 of 2005 Gopal Das, Jawahar Sah, Kailu Das, Vijay Sah and Temha Yadav surrounded her husband and they were having cleaver and other weapons in their hands and they started beating her husband. Pramod Yasdav chased her also and that is why she had to run away. Thereafter, she went to her house and informed PW.4 and thereafter, PW.4, PW.5 and PW.6 along with the informant came at the place of occurrence and there were bloodstains, but, the dead body could not be found out by them. The incident had taken place in the evening hours of 6.00 p.m. in the month of February, 2003. Again the informant as well as PW.4, PW.5 and PW.6 came at the place of occurrence, but, at that time, the police had found out the dead body from nearby railway track. PW.8 identified the dead body and she gave fardbeyan to the police of Boarijore Police Station which was reduced in writing which is Ext.2. On the basis of this fardbeyan, F.I.R. was lodged, investigation was carried out, statement of several witnesses were recorded and charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions being Sessions Case No.76 of 2003. The learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidences given by PW.1 to PW.9 as well as on the basis of the documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant for an offence under Section 302 to be read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/-, and in default of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. This appellant has also been punished under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for life imprisonment. This appellant has also been convicted for an offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo 5 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine to the tune of Rs.1000/- and in default of fine, to further undergo 3 months' simple imprisonment. However, the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No.76 of 2003 is dated 31st January, 2005. Against this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present appeal has been preferred.
3) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant who has mainly submitted that there are major omissions, contradictions and improvements in the deposition of prosecution witnesses. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial 3 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.218 of 2005 Court and, hence, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Godda deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the so-called sole eyewitness, as alleged by the prosecution, is PW.8, but, looking to her fardbeyan given to Boarijore Police Station, District - Godda and looking to her deposition as PW.8, there are major omissions and contradictions in her deposition. Several persons, who were named accused in the F.I.R., have been omitted in her deposition and they are;
i) Kailash Das
ii) Dilip Das
iii) Gopal Das
iv) Kailu Das
The aforesaid four persons' names have been omitted in her deposition, whereas, these names were given in the fardbeyan by the same witness. This is a major omission as per Explanation to Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that not only there is major omission, but, there is also major improvement in the deposition given by so-called sole eyewitness PW.8. This witness has added names of four accused persons in her deposition which were never given to the police in her fardbeyan and they are;
i) Arbind
ii) Rajkumar
iii) Indu Yadav
iv) Kamleshwari Yadav
Thus, these four names have been added in the deposition as accused, whereas these names were never mentioned in the fardbeyan by the same witness. Because she is the informant, this tantamounts to major improvements in her deposition. This affects the very root of the prosecution case. This also tantamounts to contradiction as per Explanation to Section 162 Cr.P.C.
4) It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that in paragraph 1 of her deposition it is stated by this witness PW.8 that she is not knowing Ramjee Sah who is the present appellant. Thus, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that there are major 4 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.218 of 2005 omissions, contradictions and improvements in the deposition of the so-called sole eyewitness PW.8. Even this appellant is not known to this so-called eyewitness. It has also been stated by this witness in her deposition in paragraph 1 that she had run away from the place of occurrence and informed PW.4 the whole incident. This PW.4 in his deposition has never referred any role played by this appellant, nor even PW.4 has mentioned the name of this appellant in his deposition in causing murder of the deceased. Thus, before PW.4 the name of this appellant was never given by so-called eyewitness. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court. Moreover, PW.4 is a hearsay witness. This PW.4 was informed by PW.8. There are also several defects in the information given by PW.8 to PW.4 about the name of the so-called assailants. Looking to paragraph 1 of the deposition of PW.4, there are several accused persons referred by PW.4 in his deposition as murderers of the deceased, but, these names were never mentioned in the F.I.R. at all by the eyewitness PW.8. Moreover, looking to cross-examination of this PW.4, especially paragraph 3 it has been mentioned that the so-called eyewitness PW.8, who is referring herself as a wife of the deceased, but, this close relative of the deceased, PW.4, is referring somebody else as wife of the deceased. Thus, PW.8 is even not a wife of the deceased, but somebody Most. Devi who has been referred in paragraph 3 of the deposition of PW.4, as the wife of the deceased. Thus, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that PW.8 is not an eyewitness at all and whatever she has narrated before PW.4 is also not tallying with the F.I.R. which is written and signed by this PW.8. Similarly, PW.4 is also a close relative before whom PW.8 had narrated the incident immediately after the incident had taken place. PW.5 is narrating altogether another story of the incident and as per PW.5 Arbind Yadav had caused injury to th deceased. This Arbind Yadav's name was given by PW.8 (informant) to the PW.5, but, this Arbind Yadav's name is not mentioned as an accused in the F.I.R. Thus, PW.8 has narrated one story in the F.I.R., another story in her deposition, 3rd story before PW.4 and 4th story before PW.5. Every witness of the prosecution is giving different versions about the murder. This aspect of the matter has also not been appreciated by the learned trial Court.
5 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.218 of 2005 PW.6 is a hearsay witness, because he was also informed by PW.8. Thus, PW.4, PW.5 and PW.6 are the hearsay witnesses and they were informed only by PW.8. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that PW.1, PW.3 and PW.7 have turned hostile. PW.9 is an universal witness. Though, he has nothing to do with the accused, though he has no connection with the victim and this bye-passer going on a road is giving deposition in the Court as PW.9 and he is peon of the Advocate. Examination of PW.9 sheer reflects non-application of mind by the trial Court. Such type of omnipresent witness ought not to have been examined by the Court. Never such witness proves anything in the Court. It is wastage of precious time of the trial Court as well as this Court. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the offence committed by this appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. Three accused have been enlarged by the trial Court. If looked at the F.I.R. and the deposition given by PW.8 in, the sole eyewitness, in totality, there are more than one dozen persons who have committed murder. Some names are mentioned in the F.I.R., some names have been omitted in the deposition of PW.8 and 4-5 persons' names as an accused have been added in the deposition given by sole eyewitness PW.8. Thus, out of bundle of one dozen accused, only this appellant has been convicted by the trial Court without any evidence on record. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the trial Court and hence, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5) We have also heard the learned counsel for the State-A.P.P. who has submitted that no error has been committed by the trial Court in appreciating the evidence on record. The case of prosecution is based upon evidence of eyewitness PW.8. The murder has taken place on 12th February, 2003 and immediate is the F.I.R. on 13th February, 2003. this appellant has been named in the F.I.R. The prosecution has examined several witnesses from PW.1 to PW.9 and PW.8 is the informant wife of the deceased, namely Amik Yadav. Looking to her deposition, she has clearly narrated the role played by this appellant-accused. When she was returning with her husband from the Court at Godda at about 6.00 p.m. on 12th February, 2003, this appellant along with several other accused in connivance with each other and sharing common intention 6 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.218 of 2005 with rest of the accused, committed murder of the deceased. She has further stated in her deposition that one sharp-cutting instrument as well as with other weapons including cleaver, this appellant and other accused caused serious injuries to Amik Yadav and the other accused had also chased PW.8, the informant. The informant had run away from the place of occurrence and rushed to her house. She immediately informed PW.4, who is a close relative and PW.4 along with PW.5, PW.6 and informant PW.8 returned to the place of occurrence. There were bloodstains but no dead body was found out because of late night and darkness, they were unable to find out the dead body of the deceased. They returned home and on the next day morning they again came to the place of occurrence where there was a police and the police has found out the dead body which was found near Railway Track where she gave her fardbeyan which is Ext.2, in which there are several names of the accused have been given. Four were tried in the Session Case No.76 of 2003 and others were absconding. Looking to the deposition of PW.8 to be read with PW.4, PW.5 and PW.6, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the present appellant for causing murder of the deceased in connivance with other accused and in furtherance of their common intention with rest of the accused and they had also thrown away the dead body on railway track and thereby caused disappearance of the offence. Therefore, they have been rightly punished for an offence under Sections 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment as well as for an offence under Section 120- B of the Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment and also this appellant has rightly been punished for an offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code for five years' rigorous imprisonment. Hence, this appeal may not be entertained by this Court. Moreover, the medical evidence is also corroborative to the deposition of PW.8, eyewitness, to be read with deposition given by PW.4, PW.5 and PW.6. Moreover, Clerk of the Advocate PW.9 has also proved several documents, though, he was not cited as a witness in the charge-sheet. This universal witness has proved F.I.R. and inquest report, though he has no concern with the whole case. These types of witnesses are easily available in the lower Courts and because of their easy availability and as they are very handy, they are normally examined in the trial Courts in the State of 7 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.218 of 2005 Jharkhand.
6) Having heard both sides and looking to the evidence on record, we hereby quash and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in Sessions Case No.76 of 2003 dated 31st January, 2005 mainly for the following facts, reasons and evidence on record:
i) It is the case of the prosecution that PW.8 is the informant and wife of the deceased Amik Yadav. She gave her fardbeyan before the Boarijore Police Station, District - Godda on 13th February, 2003 that on 12th February, 2003, at about 6.00 p.m. when she was returning from Godda Court with her husband, Pramod Yadav, Kailash Das, Dilip Das, Ramjee Sah (present appellant), Gopal das, Jawahar Sah, Kailu Das, Vijay Sah and Temha Yadav, they rushed and caught hold of Amik Yadav. These accused persons having several weapons including Gupti and cleaver, they started beating him.
Permanand Yadav chased this informant PW.8, who is wife of Amik Yadav. Therefore, she ran way from the place of occurrence, shem came to her house and informed PW.4. Thereafter, PW.4 along with PW.5 and PW.6 as well as eyewitness informant PW.8 returned to the place of occurrence. Because of dark night hours, they could see only bloodstains, but, they were not in a position to find out the dead body. They returned home and on next day, they returned to the place of occurrence. There was a police with a dead body. This dead body was recovered from a nearby railway track. The dead body was identified by PW.8 to be her husband. Fardbeyan was recorded by Boarijore Police of PW.8 wherein she had given names of several accused, as stated herein above. On the basis of this fardbeyan, F.I.R. was lodged, statement of several witnesses were recorded, charge-sheet was filed before the competent trial Court and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions as Session Case No.76 of 2003 and on the basis of the evidence of PW.1 to PW.9, 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Godda convicted this appellant (accused No.4 in the Sessions Case) and acquitted rest of the 8 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.218 of 2005 three accused. This appellant has been convicted for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment and fine. Further this appellant has been punished for an offence under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment. Further, this appellant has been convicted for an offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and he has been punished for rigorous imprisonment for five years vide order dated 31st January, 2005. Against this judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal who is original accused No.4 of Session Case No.76 of 2003, as the rest of the accused, namely accused nos.1, 2 and 3 of the same Sessions Case, have been acquitted. Other accused persons have been absconding as submitted by the A.P.P.
ii) Thus, looking to the F.I.R., PW.8 is the wife of the deceased. She was with her husband when they were returning from Godda Court. She is an informant and sole eyewitness of the incident. As she is a close relative of the deceased, we shall examine her deposition with all circumspection. Looking to her deposition from paragraph 1, there are major omissions, improvements and contradictions in her deposition. She has omitted following accused in her deposition:-
a) Kailash Das
b) Dilip Das
c) Gopal Das
d) Kailu Das
iii) These four names have been mentioned in the F.I.R. as murderers of the deceased and they were omitted in her deposition. This is a major omission and it tantamounts to contradiction as per explanation of section 162 of the Cr.P.C.
iv) Similarly, looking to her deposition as PW.8, there are major improvements in her deposition. She has added several names as an accused or as a murderer. They are as under: -
i) Arbind
ii) Rajkumar
iii) Indu Yadav
9 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.218 of 2005
iv) Kamleshwari Yadav
v) These four witnesses were never mentioned in the fardbeyan,
nor in the F.I.R. given by PW.8 and the said document is also signed by this witness as required under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C.
vi) Thus, the aforesaid names have been added in the deposition which tantamounts to major improvement and, therefore, this also tantamounts a major contradiction as explanation to Section 162 of the Cr.P.C.
Vii) Moreover, this witness PW.8, sole eyewitness of the incident, in paragraph 1 of her deposition has stated that she is not knowing the present appellant. She has also stated in her cross-examination that there are several cases pending against the husband of the informant including murder case. Looking to the major omissions and improvements in her deposition and also looking to the fact that there was no light at the place of occurrence when the incident had taken place, as it was after 6.00 p.m. on 12th February, 2003, it appears that this witness is untrustworthy and unreliable. Moreover, particularly when she has narrated the whole incident before the PW.4, but, looking to the deposition given by PW.4, who is again a close relative of the deceased, he has not given name of this appellant as well as other accused at all. Moreover, PW.4 has never stated before the Court that this appellant has committed murder of the deceased. This makes PW.8 untrustworthy and unreliable. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court.
viii) Looking to the deposition given by PW.4 it appears that he is a hearsay witness. He has been informed by PW.8 asout the whole incident on 12th February, 2003. Looking to paragraph 1 of the deposition given by PW.4, several names of the accused have been given by this witness, but, they were never mentioned in the F.I.R. by the eyewitness. Thus, several accused names have been first time mentioned in the deposition given by PW.4. Moreover, PW.4 was never informed by PW.8 that this appellant was also present at the place of occurrence and this appellant has committed murder of the deceased. In para.1 of the deposition of this PW.4, appellant's name has not been referred at all, nor the role played by this appellant has been referred at all by PW.4. Meaning thereby that the so-called eyewitness PW.8 10 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.218 of 2005 might not have stated before PW.4 about the presence of this appellant at the place of occurrence, nor, PW.8 might have stated about any role played by this appellant before PW.4. Thus, PW.4 is not useful to the prosecution for conviction to the appellant. Further, looking to paragraph 3 of the deposition of PW.4, i.e. the cross-examination, he has stated that one Most. Devi is the wife of the deceased, whereas, PW.8 is also claiming to be wife of the deceased. Nobody has mentioned in the F.I.R., nor any body deposed that there are two wives of the deceased. Thus, it is also doubtful whether PW.8 is wife or not of the deceased. This makes PW.8 untrustworthy and unreliable from this angle also.
ix) PW.1, PW.3 and PW.7 are the hostile witnesses. PW.4, PW.5 & PW.6 are hearsay witnesses. PW.5 has come out with a new story about one Shri Arbind who has been referred as an accused in paragraph 1, whereas name of this Arbind is never referred in the fardbeyan. Thus, F.I.R. gives several names of the accused. PW.8 is the informant and in her deposition she has omitted four accused and she has given names of four more accused in her deposition. She has also stated in paragraph 1 of her deposition that she does not know who is this appellant. PW.4 is also giving names of several accused who are never mentioned in the F.I.R. PW.4 is not giving the name of this appellant in her deposition at all as an assailant. PW.5 is giving one more name of one Arbind as an accused, who is also not referred in the F.I.R. Thus, there are more than one story of the prosecution about the murder of the deceased.
x) PW.9 is a universal witness. Though, he has got no concern with the murder of the deceased, though he has nothing to do with the incident of the case, though he is not mentioned in the charge-sheet as a prosecution witness, though he is not named by any police or anyone and he is a peon of the Advocate and though he is a bye-passer on a road, he has been examined as PW.9. This has become fashion in the State of Jharkhand, especially in the subordinate judiciary to examine such type of universal witness who are easily available on roads. It ought to have been kept in mind that anyone and everyone cannot be a witness in the murder case or in any trial. This type of witness ought not to have been examined by the trial Courts. We, hereby, direct the 11 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.218 of 2005 trial Courts of the State of Jharkhand not to examine such type of universal witness or omnipresent witnesses or bye-passers on the road, may be, they are clerks of the Advocates, having no concern with the incident. Every now & then, we are coming across such type of grossest error committed by the trial Courts. Though, he is not knowing the police officer, he is proving the F.I.R. and though they are not knowing anything about the Inquest Panchanama, they are proving the Inquest Panchnama and the learned trial Courts, without any application of mind, are also giving exhibit numbers to those documents being proven by such type of universal or omnipresent witnesses. Examination of such type of witnesses reflects total non-application of mind of the trial Courts. In the case where the Investigating Officer has expired, then any other witness, who is knowing the handwriting of that police officer, should have been permitted to be examined to prove the F.I.R. or inquest panchnama, but, if the police officer is alive and, even though he is transferred or retired, as stated in our judgment, reported in (2013)4 JLJR 157 : (2013) 3 East Cr. C. 213 (State of Jharkhand Vs. Sanjay Mondal), police ought to have been called by the trial Court initially by issuing summons; thereafter if the police is not coming to the Court as a prosecution witness, then by issuing bailable warrant they shall be called; thereafter also, if he is not coming, then non- bailable warrant should also be issued against them for securing their appearance in the trial as a prosecution witness. We have also given direction in our decision, reported in (2013)4 JLJR 157 : (2013) 3 East Cr. C. 213 (State of Jharkhand Vs. Sanjay Mondal), that the learned trial Courts can also stop salary and pension of those police officers who are ont attending the trial Court, for their examination as a prosecution witness. Once their salary or pension is stopped, immediately they will come to depose in the Courts. It is one of the tactics with which the trial Court must be well known to bring official witnesses in the Court. It is high time for the subordinate judiciary to take steps for stopping salary or pension of the Government officials who are deliberately not coming to the Courts for their deposition. Unnecessary the trial Courts have developed a novice method or a novice fashion to examine peon of the Advocate to prove F.I.R. and Inquest Panchnama, etc. How this type of witnesses are examined that 12 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.218 of 2005 is not known to anyone. This type of practice must be brought to an end forthwith. Henceforth, no trial Court of the State of Jharkhand shall examine such type of alien to the cases unless they know the fact of that case or unless they are witnesses of the F.I.R., or Inquest Panchnama and if they are not witnesses of the incident, otherwise, merely because they are easily available in the Court premises or in the corridors of the Courts, that does not mean that they should be examined as a prosecution witness. Peon of the Advocate is not better than a bye-passers on a road. This type of universal witness or omnipresent witness henceforth shall not be examined by the trial Courts in the State of Jharkhand. Examination of such type of witnesses is sheer wastage of precious time of subordinate judiciary as well as of this Court. Time & again, we have referred such instances and given directions not to examine such universal and omnipresent witnesses by the trial Courts and non-compliance of such directions reflects grossest ignorance on the part of the trial Courts of the State of Jharkhand. This ignorance must be shaded by the trial Court henceforth. It is one thing to commit such error by the trial Courts and it is altogether another thing to continue with such type of error again and again. We, therefore, direct the Registrar General of this Court to send a copy of this judgment to,
i) Judicial Commissioner of district- Ranchi so that he percolates this judgment to his subordinate judicial officers in the district of Ranchi.
ii) All Principal District Judges of the State of Jharkhand and thereafter, they will give the copies of this judgment to their subordinate judicial officers in their respective judgships.
iii) Secretary, Home Department, Government of Jharkhand, so that he shall issue circular for the benefit of Additional Public Prosecutors/Assistant Public Prosecutors of the trial Courts so as to bring to an end the examination of such universal and omnipresent witnesses who are Advocates' peons.
iv) Director General of Police, State of Jharkhand.
v) All the Superintendents of Police of the districts within the State of Jharkhand, so that they should have given a proper 13 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.218 of 2005 guidance to the Investigating Officers as well as Additional/Assistant Public Prosecutors not to examine peon of the Advocates as a prosecution witnesses, who have no knowledge of the incident of the case at all and they are proving F.I.R., Inquest Panchnama, etc. We have also come across several post mortem reports which have been proved by the peon of the Advocates. This is an error not only being committed by the Additional Public Prosecutors in the trial Courts, but this is also an overlapping error being committed by the trial Court also.
vi) The Principal, Police Training Centre, Hazaribagh, so that this aspect will be taught to police during their training about investigation and for court matters.
7) In view of the evidence given by PW.8, who is an untrustworthy and unreliable witness, the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of murder of the the deceased allegedly committed by this appellant, beyond all reasonable doubts.
8) In the facts and circumstances discussed above, this criminal appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 31st January, 2005 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Godda in Sessions Case No.76 of 2003 is quashed and set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Since the appellant, namely, Ramjee Sah, is in judicial custody, he is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
(D. N. Patel, J) (Amitav K. Gupta , J) High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Dated, the 8th day of May, 2014 Manoj/ N.A.F.R.