Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Prabhusinh Barsangbhai Chauhan on 17 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/873/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 873 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PRABHUSINH BARSANGBHAI CHAUHAN & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. CHETNA SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DR BHATT for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 17/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 129 of 2010 on 14-03-2011, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 333, 504 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter referred to as "IPC" for short).
Page 1 of 17 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 04:01:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/873/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined 1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as the accused in
the rank and file as they stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:-
2.1 The complainant Subhashbhai Kadvabhai Kadole was working in the State Reserve Police (SRP) and was posted with the SRP, Group - 15, Mehsana. On 10-12-2009, the complainant - Subhashbhai Kadvabhai Kadole along with Jogendrabhai Samantsinh Vaghela and Ajitbhai Dodiya had gone to give the tiffin to Police Constable -
Rajendrabhai Rana, who had his duty at the well near GGS-1, Navagam and after giving him the tiffin, while they were returning to their place of work, the accused, who were going on two motorcycles, had a verbal altercation with them and pushed the complainant and caused a fracture on the finger of the left hand of the complainant. The complainant filed the complaint under Section 333, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 IPC at the Kheda Town Police Station, which came to be registered at Kheda Town Police Station I-.C.RNo.148 of 2009. 2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed before the Page 2 of 17 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 04:01:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/873/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kheda and as the said offences against the accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Kheda at Nadiad as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered Sessions Case No. 129 of 2010.
2.3 The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court, and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge at Exh. 3 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 4 to 7, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. 2.4 The prosecution produced fourteen oral and ten documentary evidences to bring home charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh. 35, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on their behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against them. After the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused Page 3 of 17 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 04:01:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/873/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined were heard, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from all the charges leveled against them.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and during cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of the respondents. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondents and the judgment and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal and without any basis in the eyes of law and the reasons stated while acquitting the respondents are improper, perverse and bad in law. Hence the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Ms. Chetna Shah for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. D.R.Bhatt for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
Page 4 of 17 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 04:01:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/873/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined
5. Learned APP Ms. Chetna Shah for the appellant-State has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned trial Court has not appreciated the direct and indirect evidence in the case. That the complainant has supported the case of the prosecution and the witnesses have identified the accused before the learned trial Court. The prosecution has fully proved the case beyond reasonable doubts but the learned trial Court has relied on minor contradictions and has given undue weightage with regard to the place of incident. That the order passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, improper and perverse and is required to be quashed and set aside and the appeal of the appellant must be allowed.
6. Learned advocate Mr. D.R.Bhatt for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submits that the judgments and order has been passed after appreciation of all the evidence and the learned Court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and hence, the appeal of the appellant-State must be rejected.
7. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) Page 5 of 17 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 04:01:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/873/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined SCC 415, wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu v. State of M.P., (2006) 10 SCC 313 : AIR 2006 SC 831, this Court stated; "While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court". (emphasis supplied) From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;
(1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law;
(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused.
Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the Page 6 of 17 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 04:01:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/873/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
8. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in acquittal appeals, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and it has finally culminated when a case ends in an acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and when the learned Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets strengthened. There is no inhibition to re appreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after re appreciation, the view taken by the learned Trial Court was a possible view, there is no reason for the Appellate Court to interfere in the same..
9. In light on the above settled principles of law and considering the evidence on the prosecution, to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No.1 - Subhashbhai Kadvabhai Kadole at Exh. 10 and the witness is the complainant, who has narrated the facts as stated in the complaint, which is produced at Exh.11.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the distance from the place, where they had gone to give the tiffin, was about half a kilometer away, he was Page 7 of 17 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 04:01:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/873/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined on duty as an emergency driver and would have to go on duty whenever he was called for. He did not get any written order that he was assigned the duty of giving tiffin to Rajendrasinh Rana and till he did not receive the call for his duty, he could not leave the headquarter. No oral order was given to him for giving the tiffin and whenever he was on duty, he had to be with his uniform and the persons, who were with him were not in uniform. As per the duty given to him, he would have to take the vehicle allotted to him to go along with the officers for checking at the well and he was called for the test identification parade in April, which is almost 4 months after the incident.
9.1 Prosecution Witness No. 2 - Jogendrasinh Samsinh Vagela examined at Exh. 12 is an eyewitness to the incident and the witness was along with the complainant and had gone to give the tiffin to Rajendrasinh Rana.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that at the time of the incident, his place of posting was at Nayka, as a runner and it was his duty as a runner to give the tiffin and he alone had to do the duty of giving the tiffin. As per his duty, he had to give the tiffin wherever the point was and he would not get any vehicle for 4 to 5 kilometer and he himself had to go. No written order was given to him, but the Company Commander had orally Page 8 of 17 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 04:01:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/873/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined instructed him to do so. Ajitsinh Constable was in the night patrolling and Subhashbhai was the emergency driver. He was called by the Kheda Police Control Room for the test identification parade. 9.2 Prosecution Witness No. 3 Dr. Santoshkumar Kesikumar Singh examined at Exh. 13 is the Medical Officer, who was on duty at General Hospital, Kheda on 10-12-2009. The witness has stated that Subhashbhai Kardvabhai Kadole had come with a police yadi, which is produced at Exh. 14 for treatment at 11.20 hours and on examination, he had given a history of assault with opposition due to accident on 10-12- 2009 at about 6.30 pm. He had swelling on the ring finger of his left hand and on taking an x-ray, a fracture of the proximal phalanx of the ring finger was found. He was admitted as an indoor patient and was discharged on 12-12-2009. The injury was grievous and could be sustained by a hard and blunt substance and could also be sustained if a person was pushed and thrown down on the ground. The witness has produced the medical certificate at Exh. 15.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has admitted that if there was a motorcycle accident and the driver's side was dashed, the injury as sustained by the patient could be sustained.
Page 9 of 17 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 04:01:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/873/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined 9.3 Prosecution Witness No.-4 Ajitsinh Bhagwansinh Dodia
examined at Exh.16 is the eyewitness, who was along with the complainant and Prosecution Witness No.-2 Jogindersinh Samantsinh Vaghela at the time of the incident. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution and during the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that it was his duty to give the tiffin and at the time of the incident he did not know the accused 9.4 Prosecution Witness No.-5 Rinkesh Praveenbhai Patel examined at Exh. 17 is the Executive Magistrate, who has conducted the Test Identification Parade on 09-04-2010 at 13.45 hours. The witness has narrated the entire procedure and has produced the Yadi for Test Identification Parade at Exhibit 18 and the panchnama of the Test Identification Parade at Exhibit 20.
9.5 Prosecution Witness No. 6 - Prosecution Witness No.-6 Rajendrabhai Mahendrabhai Thakkar examined at Exh. 21 is the panchwitness of the panchnama of the place of offence, which is produced at Exh.22. On perusal of the panchnama of the place of offence at Exh. 22, the place is opposite the Navagam Government Hospital on the road going towards GGS No. 1, a cement electric pole was found at the place and the grocery shop of Laghraji Bhathaji Rawal was on the west side and on the north side was the Government Hospital and Page 10 of 17 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 04:01:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/873/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined construction of the Government Hospital was going on. On the south side was a tea stall of Rameshbhai Ramabhai Solanki and other shops were also existing at the place of incident.
9.6 Prosecution Witness No. 7 - Gopalbhai Natubhai Zala examined at Exh. 23 is the panchwitness, by which, Hero Honda Motorcycle No. GJ-7-AQ-1399 was seized by the police. The panchnama is produced at Exhibit 24, but the witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile.
9.7 Prosecution Witness No.-8 Gulabbhai Bhalabhai Chauhan examined at Exh.25 is the panchwitness, by which, Motorcycle No. GJ-7- AQ-1399 seized by the police. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution.
9.8 Prosecution Witness No.-9 Alkeshbhai Govindbhai Parmar examined at Exh. 26 is the panchwitness, by which, Bajaj City 100 Motorcycle No. GJ-7 AL-4136 was seized by the police by the panchnama produced at Exh. 27. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution.
9.9 Prosecution Witness No.-10 Ramzanhussain Akbarmiya Malik examined at Exh.29 is the panchwitness of the panchnama of the Test Identification Parade, which is produced at Exh.20. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution but during the cross examination, he Page 11 of 17 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 04:01:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/873/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined has stated that the police had called him for the Test Identification Parade and there were three accused and the police had identified the accused. He does not know with whom the dummy and the accused exchanged clothes and after the entire procedure was concluded, the Executive Magistrate had asked him to affix his signature and he had done so. 9.10 Prosecution Witness No.-11 Gulabsinh Ranchhodbhai Dangi examined at Exh.30 is the PSO, who has recorded the complaint of the complainant and registered the complaint and has produced the extract of the Station Diary at Exhibit 31.
9.11 Prosecution Witness No.-12 Nawalsinh Narubhai Jadhav examined at Exh.32, Prosecution Witness No.-13 Sahdevsinh Bahadursinh Vaghela examined at Exh. 33 and Prosecution Witness No.- 14 Ashokkumar Mangaldas Sarang examined at Exh. 34 are the Investigating Officers who have narrated the procedure undertaken by them during investigation. In the cross- examination Prosecution Witness No.-13 Sahdevsinh Bahadursinh Vaghela has stated that during investigation, it was found that the complainant was an emergency driver in the SRP and he had to take the officers to the different wells of the O.N.G.C. at Nayka and at the dam for checking. The job of giving the tiffin was not in his duty and at the time of the incident Ajitsinh and Jogendrasinh were with him. It was also found that the complainant and Page 12 of 17 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 04:01:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/873/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined two others had gone on the motorcycle to give the tiffin to Rajendrasinh Rana but he did not record the statement of Rajendrasinh Rana. Prosecution Witness No.-14 Ashokkumar Mangaldas Sarang, in the cross examination, has admitted that for the Test Identification Parade, he had kept the three suspects present and he along with the beat-guard and others had gone and the complainant was an emergency driver on duty at the O.N.G.C. but at the time of the incident, there were no O.N.G.C. employees with him. As per the complainant, he had gone to the point to give the tiffin to Rajendrasinh Rana and Ajitsinh and Jogendrasinh were with him and they had gone to give only one tiffin to Rajendrasinh Rana. The job of giving the tiffin was of runner Ajitsinh but no order was given to the complainant to give the tiffin to Rajendrasinh Rana. There was no evidence collected that the emergency driver had to leave his work as an emergency driver to give the tiffin. Moreover, at the place of incident, there were many pan shops, a tea stall and other shops but he did not record the statement of any persons except the S.R.P. and O.N.G.C. employees. He did not record the statement of Rajendrasinh Rana.
10. The accused have been charged with the offence under Section 333 of the IPC and at this juncture, it is appropriate to reproduce Section 333 of the IPC which reads as under;
Page 13 of 17 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 04:01:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/873/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined
333. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty.--
Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
To prove the offence of Section 333 of the IPC, the prosecution has to prove that, at the time of the incident, the complainant was a public servant and was on duty and was prevented or detered from discharging from duty. As per the evidence on record, the complainant was emergency driver and had to go with the O.N.G.C. employees to check the various wells of the O.N.G.C. but there is no iota of evidence to show that, at the time of the incident, the complainant was on duty as a public servant and had gone in the official vehicle to check the wells of ONGC. There is no document seized by the Investigating Officer to show that the complainant was on duty and he was given the duty of handing over the tiffin of Rajendrasinh Rana at the point situated at the GGS No.1 well Navagam. Moreover, it is the case of the prosecution that Jogendrasinh Samatsinh Vaghela and Ajitsinh Bhagwansinh Dodiya were along with the complainant and all three had gone on one motorcycle but the number Page 14 of 17 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 04:01:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/873/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined of the motorcycle, on which, the three of them had gone has not emerged on record. Moreover, as per the duty of the complainant, he was an emergency driver and he could be called at any time and he could not leave his headquarter but still he had left his headquarter and had gone taking two pillion-riders on the motorcycle to give the tiffin to Rajendrasinh Rana. The tiffin had to be given to Rajendrasinh Rana but none of the Investigating Officers have recorded the statement of Rajendrasinh Rana and he has not been examined before the learned Trial Court. The incident has occurred, while the complainant and others had given the tiffin to Rajendrasinh Rana and they were returning and if the panchnama of the place of offence produced at Exh. 22 and the deposition of Prosecution Witness No. 14 - Ashokkumar Mangaldas Sarang - the Investigating Officer is perused, it has emerged that there were many pan-shops and other shops nearby including also the tea stall of Rameshbhai Ramabhai Solanki, the grocery shop of Laghraji Bhathaji Raval and the construction of the government hospital was going on and there would be other workers present at these places but the evidence of any independent witness has not come on record. The Test Identification Parade was held on 09-04-2010 i.e. almost 4 months after the incident and the complainant and witnesses have admitted that they did not know the accused at the time of the incident and if the Test Identification Page 15 of 17 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 04:01:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/873/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined Parade panchnama is perused, the complainant and witnesses have not properly identified the accused. Moreover, as per the say of Prosecution Witness No. 3 - Dr. Santoshkumar Kesikumar Singh and the medical certificate produced at Exh.15, the history as given by the complainant - Subhashbhai Kadole was history of "Assault by opposition due to accident on 10-12-009 at 6.30 pm" and he had come for treatment on 10- 12-2009 at 11.20 pm. Hence, it appears that, an accident had taken place and as there is no iota of evidence that the complainant was on duty as a public servant and it was in his duty to go to give the tiffin and that he was prevented or detered from discharging his duty at the time of the incident, the ingredients of Section 333 of IPC are not attracted.
11. In view of the settled position of law, the learned trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order Page 16 of 17 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 04:01:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/873/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed.
12. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad in Sessions Case No. 129 of 2010 on 14-03-2011, is hereby confirmed.
13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) VVM Page 17 of 17 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 04:01:34 IST 2025