Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sunder Lal vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 1 July, 2024
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Sushil Kukreja
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:4228 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 477 of 2022.
Reserved on: 27.06.2024.
Date of decision: 01.07.2024.
Sunder Lal .....Appellant.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh .....Respondent.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant : Mr. Sunil Kumar Banyal, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Yashwardhan Chauhan, Senior Additional Advocate General with Ms. Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocate General, Mr. J.S.Guleria and Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate Generals.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge It is on the basis of the testimonies of mother (PW-1) of the child-victim, child-victim (PW-2), her father (PW-8), Doctor Suresh Sankhiyan (PW-16) and doctor Neha Sharma (PW-22) and the presumption as contained in Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, (for short "POCSO Act") that the learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:
1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 2 Offence Imprisonment Fine In default Under Section Rigorous Rs. 2,000/- To further 363 of IPC imprisonment for undergo RI for 5 years two months Under Section Rigorous Rs. 2,000/- To further 366 of IPC imprisonment for undergo RI for 5 years two months Under Section Rigorous Rs.20,000/- To further 376 (AB) of IPC imprisonment for undergo RI for 20 years six months Under Section 6 Rigorous Rs.5,000/- To further of POCSO Act imprisonment for undergo RI for 10 years six months
2. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The period of detention already undergone by the appellant during inquiry, investigation and trial of the case was ordered to be set off from the substantive sentence of imprisonment as provided under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.
4. It is vehemently argued by Shri Sunil Kumar Banyal, learned counsel for the appellant that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are totally perverse and contrary to the evidence that has come on record and, therefore, deserve to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, Shri Yashwardhan Chauhan, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, would argue that looking to the nature of the seriousness of the offence and the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court on the 3 basis of the evidence on record, no interference whatsoever is warranted and the appeal be dismissed.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material placed on record.
7. In order to appreciate the evidence, it will firstly be necessary to set out the case of the prosecution as made in the complaint by mother of the child-victim. She stated that she is a resident of village Kataula and a housewife by profession. She is having three children, two sons and one daughter and is currently residing at Rahala in the house of one Manu.
8. The charge framed against the appellant is also that on 07.07.2018 at about 2.00 p.m., at place Rahala, the appellant had kidnapped the child-victim, who was below the age of 12 years from the lawful guardianship of her parents without their consent and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC. Secondly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, he enticed the child-victim with intent that she may be seduced to illicit sexual intercourse with him and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 366 of IPC and thirdly that he had committed carnal sexual intercourse with the child-victim and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 376 (A &B) of IPC and lastly, he committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon the child 4 victim and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
9. However, when mother(PW-1) of the child-victim, who was examined on 25.10.2019, appeared in the witness box, she stated that the appellant had visited their house at Kataula about a year back and had returned back after sometime. Her daughter was playing near the house at that time and thereafter she went to the temple to play. The child-victim did not return for a long time and then she went in search of the child-victim. The child-victim was found near the Anganwari at about 11.00 p.m. in an unconscious state. The child-victim was brought to the house and she regained her conscious in the next morning. When they enquired from the child-victim as to what had happened with her, then she told her that the appellant had taken her to the place at Rahala. The appellant gave her chewing-gum and toffee and brought her to the Anganwari Centre. The child-victim further disclosed that the appellant had smoked 'bidi' at the Anganwari Centre. The child-victim also told her that thereafter the appellant had removed her clothes and committed wrong act with her. The child-victim also told her that the appellant had committed un-natural anal act with her. PW-1 also stated that the child-victim was of 6 years age at that time and complete penetration was not possible. The child-victim also disclosed to her(PW-1) that due to the wrong act committed by the 5 appellant, she became unconscious. PW-1 accordingly reported the matter to the police vide Ext. PW1/A. The police visited the spot, conducted spot investigation and clicked the spot photographs. The child-victim had also told PW-1 that the appellant had gagged her mouth. The child-victim had also shown the place in the presence of the police where the appellant had committed un-natural and sexual intercourse with her.
10. On being cross-examined, the mother of the child- victim stated that when the appellant had visited their house at Kataula, she along with her husband was present there. However, she denied the suggestion that she along with appellant and her husband had consumed liquor during the day time on that day. She further denied the suggestion that when liquor exhausted, the appellant brought two full bottles and one half bottle from liquor vend on their request. She further denied that thereafter they all consumed those liquor bottles till 11-12 p.m. in the night. She further denied that the child-victim was at home during that period. She also denied that the child-victim had returned back to home of her own after playing. She further denied the suggestion that her husband and she herself had a quarrel with the appellant under the influence of alcohol that night and the appellant thereafter was ousted from the house after giving beatings to him under the influence of liquor. She denied that on the next morning both of 6 them apprehended that the appellant might have reported the matter to the police, who, in turn may take legal action against them and before this could be done, a false case was foisted against the appellant. She further stated that the child-victim had sustained injuries on her anus and knees and these injuries were told to the Medical Officer. Volunteered to state that the Medical Officer had stated that there was no internal injury in the anus. PW-1 further deposed that she had seen injury outside the anus and she had also seen blood oozing out of the anus of the child-victim at the time of passing stool. She admitted that the appellant used to visit their house earlier also but denied the suggestion that the child-victim had been tutored.
11. The child-victim appeared as PW-2 and stated that the appellant was her 'Mama' and about a year ago, the appellant had visited their house at Kataula and she had gone to play near the temple. She played there till the evening. The other children had gone by then. The appellant came there and took her to Rahala from where he purchased alcohol and also purchased chewing-gum and toffee for her and thereafter the appellant brought her to Anganwari Centre where he consumed alcohol and smoked 'biri'. Thereafter, the appellant removed her clothes and his clothes too and then caught-hold the child-victim from her hair and committed wrong act with her. The appellant committed wrong act from anus 7 side. The appellant had also bitten her and thereafter she became unconscious. She did not know by whom and when she was brought back home. The police had visited the spot and she had shown the place where the appellant had committed wrong act with her. The police also got her medically examined and her statement Ext. PW2/A was also recorded in Mandi Court.
12. On being cross-examined, PW-2 stated that the appellant had come at 2.00 p.m. and left at 3.00 p.m. She further stated that her father was not present in the house on the day when the appellant had visited their house and volunteered to state that he had gone to his work during the day time and came back to the house in the evening. PW-2 deposed that she did not know whether her father consumed alcohol or not. She admitted that her mother and the appellant had consumed alcohol on that day in their house. She denied that the appellant had brought two full and half bottles of alcohol at the instance of her mother when alcohol ran out. She denied that the appellant, her father and mother had consumed alcohol together during that night till 10-11 p.m. However, PW-2 admitted that she was sleeping at that time in her room and was not sleeping in Anganwari Centre. She denied the suggestion that her father and mother had a quarrel with the appellant on that night and the appellant was ousted from the house by her parents that too under the influence of liquor. She denied that her parents got afraid 8 that the appellant might report the matter to the police as they had beaten him. PW-2 further denied that she was tutored for two days to state that the appellant had taken her to the Anganwari Centre. PW-2 stated that she had sustained injury only on her cheek. PW-2 admitted that she had gone to the school on the next day and had performed her normal daily routine. PW-2 admitted that she was instructed outside the Court on the day of examination and volunteered to state that she was instructed to tell the truth before the Court. PW-2 denied the suggestion that she had been instructed to depose against the appellant. PW-2 admitted that she was not remembering the entire occurrence. PW-2 denied the suggestion that the appellant had not taken her to Anganwari Centre. She denied that the appellant had not done any wrong act with her and that her statement was not recorded before the learned Magistrate.
13. PW-8 is the father of the victim, who stated that in the year 2018 he was living with his wife and children in a 'khokha' of one Manu at Rahala. On 07.07.2018, he had gone to do some labour work and when he returned at about 8.00 p.m. in the night, he asked his wife about the whereabouts of child-victim and son, who were not in the house. His wife disclosed that they may be playing outside. After about half an hour, his son came back but the child- victim did not return. On this, he and his wife went in search of the child-victim. They searched the child-victim in the houses of Mangli 9 Devi, Sushma, Nathu and other places. The child-victim was ultimately found in the courtyard of the Anganwari Centre in an unconscious condition. The child-victim was brought by them to their house. She regained her conscious on the next day in the morning. On inquiry, the child-victim disclosed that the appellant had committed "ganda kaam" with her. He asked her wife to check the child victim. Her wife disclosed that the child-victim was not in a good condition. Thereafter, they went to the police station, Aut and moved a complaint against the appellant on the next day of the incident.
14. On being cross-examined, PW-8 stated that he knew the appellant one and half years before the above said occurrence as the appellant was doing labour work with him. The appellant was living in village Batheri which is at a distance of 32-33 kilometers from village Rahala. He further stated that they were not at work together on that day. He did not know where the appellant was on that day as they had not seen the appellant in village Rahala either in the morning or in the night. He also stated that all the persons working with him did not know my family and children and volunteered to state that one or two of them knew my family and wife. Mangli Devi, Nathu and Sushma knew his family and children. He further stated that his wife and children did not know the appellant. He also deposed that his wife told him that her religion 10 brother Sunder-appellant from Manali had come in the day to their house. He admitted that Manali is at a distance of 100 kilometers from village Batheri but could not state the time period the appellant stayed in their house. He again stated that the appellant stayed there for 1½ -2 hours. PW-8 denied the suggestion that he was under the influence of liquor on that day and had slept under the influence of the liquor. He further feigned ignorance regarding his wife being under the influence of liquor in the day time on that day. PW-8 denied the suggestion that when he reached the house, the child-victim was already present there. He denied that nothing had happened to the child-victim.
15. Adverting to the testimony of PW-16 doctor Suresh Sankhiyan. PW-16 stated that he was posted as Professor and Head of the Forensic and Medicine Department at Ner Chowk Hospital, Mandi, since February, 2017. On 22.11.2018, he had given opinion on the MLC of the child-victim produced along with the reports of RFSL and SFSL before him by the SHO, Police Station, Aut, District Mandi as the child victim had been examined by one doctor Neha Sharma, who by that time had shifted to Canada. He further deposed that after going through the MLC Mark-N of the child victim and the reports Mark-N1 produced before him, he had given the final opinion in portion 'A' to 'A' of Ext. P-1/PW16 along with the history on the basis of the record produced before him i.e. MLC, 11 SFSL, RFSL and other test reports. The history was Ext. P-2/PW16 through letter Ext. P-3/PW16 and all these documents bore his signatures. He was not cross-examined by the appellant.
16. The final opinion ('A' to 'A') on Ext. P-1/PW16 reads as under:
"After going through the given history, general physical examination, local genital and anal examination, laboratory reports for certain blood tests (all negative), report of FSL for the samples sent for analysis (all negative), it is concluded that there is not a single finding suggestive of sexual intercourse (genital or anal). Even there is no finding suggestive of forceful attempt to penetrate either female genitalia or anal aperture. However, mere landing of the male organ in the female genitalia or anal aperture cannot be ruled out. This finding may be viewed in the light of circumstantial evidences and statement given by the victim"
17. Doctor Neha Sharma, who had shifted to Canada was examined by the prosecution as PW-22 and her testimony was recored through V.C. PW-22 stated that she remained posted as Medical Officer in Zonal Hospital, Mandi, in the year 2018. On 09.07.2018, the child-victim was brought in the hospital by the police along with her mother for medical examination with request application Ext. PW4/A. The child-victim was brought with the alleged history of sexual assault and anal penetration of penis by assailant as mentioned in the MLC of the child victim. She had 12 issued MLC Ext. P-1/PW22. On examination, she had observed as under:
"The patient is conscious, cooperative and well oriented with time, place and person.
On examination, I noticed two bruises present on left cheek of victim and her nostrils were bleeding. On examination of local genital no external injury or bleeding was found.
The following samples of child victim were taken, packed, sealed and handed over to the Police along with sample seal and forwarding letter:
(1) Vaginal swab and smear.
(2) Anal swabs and smear.
(3) Blood sample on FTA card.
(4) Clothes worn at the time of assault.
(5) Blood sample.
As per my initial examination of the child victim, my opinion is that the possibility of sexual assault cannot be ruled out, however, I reserved my final opinion till the receipt of chemical examination report. In the meantime, I left my job and shifted to Newyork. Due to this reason, I could not give final opinion."
18. On being cross-examined, the witness stated that she had noticed no signs of sexual assault in genital and anus examination of the child-victim.
19. At the outset, it needs to be noticed that conviction undoubtedly can be recorded on the sole evidence of a victim of crime, however, it must undergo a strict scrutiny. If any doubt arises in the Court's mind regarding the veracity of the victim's version, the 13 Court may, at its discretion, seek corroboration from other witnesses who directly observed the incident or from other attending circumstances to unearth the truth.
20. It also needs to be remembered that when considering the evidence of a victim subjected to sexual offence, the Court does not necessarily demand an almost accurate account of the incident. Instead, the emphasis is on allowing the victim to provide her version based on her recollection of events to the extent reasonably possible for her to recollect. If the Court deems such evidence credible and free from doubt, there is hardly any insistence on corroboration of that version. However, an alleged offence of sexual harassment in a public place, as opposed to one committed within the confines of a room or a house or even in a public place but away from the view of the public, stands on somewhat different premise. (Refer: Nirmal Prem Kumar and another vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police 2024 (3) Scale 632).
21. However, before adverting to the merits of the case, we consider it appropriate to revisit the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the weight to be attached to the testimony of the victim in matters involving sexual offences where the prosecution's case hinges on the victim's evidence-a scenario central to the present case.
14
22. Our task has been made easy by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in view of the observations made in a very recent decision in Nirmal Prem Kumar's case (supra) wherein it was observed as under:
"11. Law is well settled that generally speaking, oral testimony may be classified into three categories, viz.: (i) wholly reliable; (ii) wholly unreliable; (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. The first two category of cases may not pose serious difficulty for the Court in arriving at its conclusion(s). However, in the third category of cases, the Court has to be circumspect and look for corroboration of any material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, as a requirement of the rule of prudence.
12. In Ganesan v. State (2020) 10 SCC 573, this Court held that the sole testimony of the victim, if found reliable and trustworthy, requires no corroboration and may be sufficient to invite conviction of the accused.
13. This Court was tasked to adjudicate a matter involving gang rape allegations under section 376(2)(g), I.P.C in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi)(2012) 8 SCC 21. The Court found totally conflicting versions of the prosecutrix, from what was stated in the complaint and what was deposed before Court, resulting in material inconsistencies. Reversing the conviction and holding that the prosecutrix cannot be held to be a 'sterling witness', the Court opined as under:
"22. In our considered opinion, the 'sterling witness' should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness 15 of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a 'sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged." (underlining ours, for emphasis)
14. In Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 130, this Court laid down that although the victim's solitary evidence in matters related to sexual offences is generally deemed sufficient to hold an accused guilty, the 16 conviction cannot be sustained if the prosecutrix's testimony is found unreliable and insufficient due to identified flaws and lacunae. It was held thus:
"31. No doubt, it is true that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality. But, in the case in hand, the evidence of the prosecutrix, showing several lacunae, which have already been projected hereinabove, would go to show that her evidence does not fall in that category and cannot be relied upon to hold the appellant guilty of the said offences.
32. Indeed there are several significant variations in material facts in her Section 164 statement, Section 161 statement (CrPC), FIR and deposition in court. Thus, it was necessary to get her evidence corroborated independently, which they could have done either by examination of Ritu, her sister or Bimla Devi, who were present in the house at the time of her alleged abduction. The record shows that Bimla Devi though cited as a witness was not examined and later given up by the public prosecutor on the ground that she has been won over by the appellant."
15. What flows from the aforesaid decisions is that in cases where witnesses are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, the Court should strive to find out the true genesis of the incident. The Court can rely on the victim as a "sterling witness" without further corroboration, but the quality and credibility must be exceptionally high. The statement of the prosecutrix ought to be consistent from the beginning to the end (minor inconsistences excepted), from the initial statement to the oral testimony, without creating any doubt qua the prosecution's case. While a victim's testimony is usually enough for sexual offence cases, an unreliable or insufficient account from the 17 prosecutrix, marked by identified flaws and gaps, could make it difficult for a conviction to be recorded."
23. Guided by the law as aforesaid, we have also examined evidence threadbare and noticed manifest contradictions and discrepancies in the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses. To our mind, these have the effect of casting a serious doubt with regard to the veracity of the prosecution case and also the contrary medical evidence that has come on record. These may be summarized as under:
(i) In the FIR and challan, the complainant and her family members have been stated to be the residents of village Kataula. The child-victim is stated to have been residing in village Kataula at the time of the incident. So is the testimony of PW-1, mother of the victim to this effect that the appellant visited their home at Kataula, whereas, the father (PW-8) of child-victim has specifically stated that in the year 2018, he along with his wife and children were residing in a 'khokha' of one Manu at Rahala and not Kataula. Thus, the place of incident is not proved.
(ii) The child-victim as also her mother has stated that the appellant after consuming liquor had 18 committed un-natural anus wrong act with the child-victim, whereas, the same is clearly belied by the medical opinion given by doctor PW-16 Suresh Sankhiyan and PW-22 doctor Neha Sharma;
(iii) The child-victim deposed that the appellant had bitten her cheek and even the learned Trial Court held the allegation to be proved. This is contrary to the record as it has come in the medical opinion that only two bruises were found on the cheek of the child-victim and no marks of teeth bite.
There is a marked difference between the nature of injury caused by teeth bite as against bruises.
(iv) The mother of the child-victim had deposed that she had seen injuries on the anus and knees of the child-victim and had also seen injuries outside anus and blood oozing out of the anus of the child-victim at the time of passing stool, but, none of these allegations is supported by the medical evidence;
(v) The specific case of the prosecution is that the appellant as per the final report had consumed liquor and thereafter smoked 'biri' containing 19 'charas' and thereafter committed the alleged act and as per the statement of mother of the child- victim, the appellant first smoked 'biri' and then committed wrong act. Whereas, according to the child-victim, the appellant consumed alcohol and then smoked 'biri' and thereafter removed his clothes and her clothes also and then committed alleged act. However, no effort has been made by the prosecution to recover the butt of the 'biri' and also the bottle of alcohol which is alleged to be consumed by the appellant on the said date which could at best establish the presence of the appellant at the so-called scene of occurrence on the said date;
(vi) As observed above, it is the case of the prosecution that the child-victim had sustained serious injuries on her anus and knees, but then the child-victim herself deposed that she had gone to the school on the next day and performed her daily routine.
(vii) Additionally, no injury has been found on the organ of the appellant.
20
24. Upon perusing the records, we have no other choice, but to hold that the circumstances, on which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, are not fully established in the present case.
25. No doubt, Section 29 of the Act contains a legislative mandate that the Court shall presume the commission of an offence by the accused only the contrary is proved. Section 29 of the Act states that where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the Act, the Special Court shall presume that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be, unless the contrary is proved. However, the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the Act does not mean that the prosecution version has to be accepted as a gospel truth in every case. The presumption does not mean that the Court cannot take into consideration the special features of a particular case. Patent absurdities or inherent infirmities or improbabilities in the prosecution version may lead to an irresistible inference of falsehood in the prosecution case. The presumption would come into play only when the prosecution is able to bring on record facts that would form the foundation for the presumption. Otherwise, all that the prosecution would be required to do is to 21 raise some allegations against the accused and to claim that the case projected by it is true. The Court must be on guard to see that the application of the presumption without adverting to essential facts does not lead to any injustice.
26. The presumption under Section 29 of the Act is not absolute. The statutory presumption would get activated or triggered only if the prosecution proves the essential basic facts. If the accused is able to create serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case or the accused brings the material on record which would render the prosecution version highly improbable, the presumption would get weakened.
27. On a reappraisal of the entire evidence that has come on record, we find patent absurdities or inherent infirmities or improbabilities in the prosecution version which lead to an irresistible inference of falsehood in the prosecution case. The prosecution has not been able to bring on record the evidence that would form the foundation for the presumption attached to Section 29. The prosecution has also failed to prove the essential basic facts and, therefore, the learned Trial Court was in error in invoking this presumption and solely relying on this presumption without adverting to the evidence on record.
22
28. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons as stated above, we find merit in this appeal and accordingly the same is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge convicting and sentencing the appellant on 22.11.2022 and 25.11.2022 are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. Consequently, the appellant, in the instant case, is ordered to be released immediately, if not required in any other case.
29. The Registry is directed to prepare release warrants of the appellant.
30. In view of the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C., the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court which shall be effective for a period of six months with a stipulation that in an event of an SLP being filed against this judgment or on grant of the leave, the appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
31. Records be sent back forthwith.
Digitally signed by KHEM RAJ THAKUR DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF
KHEM HIMACHAL PRADESH, OU=HIGH
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA,
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Judge
Phone=b3bb0330a36091c417dc6aa42212
RAJ
c14caec7825ba4158459325bd600d273f5
8b, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal
Pradesh,
SERIALNUMBER=6aa9db3b3e85e60838
7fb6f0fa0bb2ddacd2e1b82f232ca3c0adea THAKUR 331da33983, CN=KHEM RAJ THAKUR Reason: I am approving this document Location:
Date: 2024-07-01 16:24:56 (Sushil Kukreja) Judge July 1st ,2024.(krt)