Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On 10.09.2025 vs Raghubir Singh on 22 September, 2025
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur, Sushil Kukreja
1 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:32952-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 400 of 2015 Reserved on 10.09.2025 Decided on: 22.09.2025 _____________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh .....Appellant.
.
Versus
Raghubir Singh ......Respondent.
_____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
1Whether approved for reporting?
_____________________________________________________ For the appellant/State: Mr. Y.W. Chauhan, Senior Additional Advocate General.
For the respondent: Ms. Salochna Rana, Advocate.
Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against judgment dated 16.02.2015, passed by learned Special Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 26-S/7 of 2014, whereby the accused (respondent herein) was acquitted from the charges under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO Act').
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution story, can be summarized as under:
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2025 21:30:08 :::CIS
2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:32952-DB ) 2(a). On 13.04.2014, the prosecutrix (name withheld) alongwith her brother and sister-in-law (Bhabhi) came to Police Post Kupvi and moved an application before the police, wherein she stated that her age was about 17 years and when she was in .
8th class, in the year 2011, she left her studies. She further stated that wife of the accused-Raghubir Singh was from her village and the accused, in the month of January, 2014, came to her village and due to snowfall he could not return. The accused also used to visit the house of the prosecutrix and on one day (the date she could not remember), around 07:30 p.m., when she went to the field to attend call of nature, the accused came there. He gagged her mouth, dragged her, and threatened to kill her in case she screamed. Thereafter, the accused committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. As per the prosecutrix, she did not disclose the incident to anyone due to fear of the accused.
The prosecutrix stated in her application that she got pregnant and she was carrying the child of the accused. Upon the application, so moved by the prosecutrix, police registered the FIR under the apt Sections and the investigation commenced. During the course of the investigation, the prosecutrix was got medically examined by the police and the doctor opined that she was carrying pregnancy of 13 weeks and two days. On 09.05.2014, on humanitarian ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2025 21:30:08 :::CIS 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:32952-DB ) ground, MTP (Medical Termination of Pregnancy) of the prosecutrix was done and the products of conception were sealed after packing in a jar and the blood of the victim was also taken.
Prosecutrix got identified the place, where she was sexually .
assaulted by the accused, whereupon the police prepared the spot map. During the course of the investigation, police recorded the statements of the witnesses, obtained the record qua the date of birth of the prosecutrix and completed all the codal formalities. On 18.05.2014 the accused surrendered before the police and he was also medically examined and his blood samples were taken on FTA card for DNA profiling. Statement of the prosecutrix, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., was recorded. After completion of the investigation, police presented the charge-sheet before the learned Trial Court.
3. The learned Trial Court took cognizance against the accused and charges under Section 376 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act were framed against him. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined fourteen witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
was recorded, wherein he stated that he was falsely implicated in the instant case. However, he did not examine any witness in his defence.
::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2025 21:30:08 :::CIS4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:32952-DB )
4. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 16.02.2015 acquitted the accused, hence the instant appeal preferred by the appellant/State.
.
5. We have heard the learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State, learned counsel for the accused/respondent and carefully examined the entire records.
6. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State contended that the learned Trial Court has ignored the relevant material and not appreciated the statements of the witnesses in its right perspective. The learned Trial Court took a hyper technical view and the impugned judgment is based on surmises and conjectures, thus liable to be quashed and set-aside.
7. Conversely, the learned counsel for the accused/ respondent contended that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is the result of proper appreciation of the material on record and the same was passed after appreciating the evidence and law in its right and true perspective. She further contended that there are major contradictions not only in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, but even in the statement of the prosecutrix also and the instant appeal, being devoid of merits, deserves to be ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2025 21:30:08 :::CIS 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:32952-DB ) dismissed.
8. It is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions that an Appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of .
acquittal is founded. However, Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is 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.
Further, if two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.
9. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as fourteen witnesses, however, its case mainly rests upon the statements of PW-1 (prosecutrix), PW-2 Shri Sarwan Kumar, PW-3 Shri Ram Lal and PW-10 Dr. Amritinderpaul Kaur.
10. PW-1 (prosecutrix) deposed that she completed her studies up to 8th class. The accused, who was married in her village, was known to her. She further deposed that during the ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2025 21:30:08 :::CIS 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:32952-DB ) month of February, 2014 (she did not remember the exact date), around 07:30 p.m., when she went to attend the call of nature, the accused came there. He gagged her mouth and lifted her to a nearby field. He threatened to kill her, in case she screamed.
.
Thereafter, the accused forcibly committed rape upon her. As per the prosecutrix, she did not disclose the incident to anyone due to shame, but when she became pregnant, she disclosed the incident and she, alongwith her brother and sister-in-law went to the police station. She also deposed that she moved application, Ex. PW-
1/A, thereafter, the police brought her to IGMC, Shimla, where she was medically examined. Her statement was recorded before the Magistrate. Foetus was aborted at the hospital. The prosecutrix stated that her date of birth was 13.04.1994, but in the school record, her date of birth was got wrongly recorded by her grand-
father as 13.04.1997. She had turned hostile and was cross examined by the ld.PP. In her cross-examination, she deposed that in the school register as well as in the pariwar register, her date of birth was wrongly recorded as 13.04.1997. She denied that the accused had forcibly ravished her. She further deposed that she called the accused in the field, where the alleged incident took place. She also deposed that application, Ex. PW-1/A, was written by the police.
::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2025 21:30:08 :::CIS7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:32952-DB )
11. In order to establish the age of the prosecutrix, the prosecution examined PW-2 Shri Sarwan Kumar and PW-3 Shri Ram Lal. PW-2 the Language Teacher of the concerned school who prepared certificate, Ex. PW-2/B deposed that as per the .
aforesaid certificate, the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 13.04.1997. PW-3 Panchayat Secretary of concerned Gram Panchayat deposed that on application, Ex. PW-3/A, which was moved by the police, he prepared copy of pariwar register and as per the pariwar register, the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 13.04.1997.
12. Dr. Amritinderpaul Kaur, who medically examined the prosecutrix, appeared in the witness-box as PW-10 and she deposed that on 14.04.2014 the prosecutrix was brought to her by the police with a request to conduct her medico legal examination and at that time her sister-in-law was with her. She found the prosecutrix conscious, cooperative and well oriented to time, place and person and on her general physical examination, no sign of any external injury was found. On local examination, no laceration, no bruises were found on the inner side of thighs or vulva. Per speculum examination, no redness or edema in vagina was found. Hymen was found ruptured. Well healed tags of ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2025 21:30:08 :::CIS 8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:32952-DB ) hymen found. As per her opinion possibility of sexual intercourse could not be ruled out.
13. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on .
record & after close scrutiny of the entire prosecution evidence, it has become clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
14. Rape or an attempt to rape is a crime not against an individual but a crime which destroys the basic equilibrium of the social atmosphere. In Jugendra Singh Vs. State of UP, (2012) 6 SCC 297, Hon'ble Apex Court has held:-
"49. Rape or an attempt to rape is a crime not against an individual but a crime which destroys the basic equilibrium of the social atmosphere. The consequential death is more horrendous. It is to be kept in mind that an offence against the body of a woman lowers her dignity and mars her reputation. It is said that one's physical frame is his or her temple. No one has any right of encroachment. An attempt for the momentary pleasure of the accused has caused the death of a child and had a devastating effect on her family and, in the ultimate eventuate, on the collective at large. When a family suffers in such a manner, the society as a whole is compelled to suffer as it creates an incurable dent in the fabric of the social milieu. The cry of the collective has to be answered and respected and that is what exactly the High Court has done by converting the decision of acquittal to that of conviction and imposed the sentence as per law."
15. It is a settled principle of law that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the victim of sexual assault without corroboration from any other evidence unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the court for corroboration of her ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2025 21:30:08 :::CIS 9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:32952-DB ) statement. The prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not accomplice of the crime and there is, no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration on material particulars. Her testimony has to be .
appreciated on the principles of probabilities just as the testimony of any other witness. The deposition of the prosecutrix by itself is sufficient to record conviction for the offence of rape if that testimony inspires confidence and has complete link of truth, however, if the Court finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence direct or circumstantial which would lend assurance to her testimony.
Corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix as the condition for judicial reliance is not requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under the given facts and circumstances.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in a catena of decisions that the Court should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If the statement of the prosecutrix is of sterling quality and inspires confidence, then corroboration from other evidence need not be sought, but where the statement of the ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2025 21:30:08 :::CIS 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:32952-DB ) prosecutrix is shaky and does not inspire confidence then corroboration should be sought from other evidence collected during investigation.
.
17. In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Gian Chand, (2001) 6 SCC 71, it was held that conviction for an offence of rape can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix corroborated by medical evidence and other circumstances such as the report of chemical examination etc. if the same is found to be natural,
18.
r to trustworthy and worth being relied on.
In the case of Vijay @ Chinee Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 8 SCC 191, it was held that the statement of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The Court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. Paras- 9 to 14 of the judgment are reproduced as under:-
"9. In State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain AIR 1990 SC 658, this Court held that a woman, who is the victim of sexual assault, is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and, therefore, her evidence need not be tested with the same amount of suspicion as that of an accomplice. The Court observed as under:-
"16. A prosecutrix of a sex-offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2025 21:30:08 :::CIS 11 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:32952-DB ) injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the Court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of .
law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.
10. In State of U.P. v. Pappu @ Yunus and Anr. AIR 2005 SC 1248, this Court held that even in a case where it is shown that the girl is a girl of easy virtue or a girl habituated to sexual intercourse, it may not be a ground to absolve the accused from the charge of rape. It has to be established that there was consent by her for that particular occasion. Absence of injury on the prosecutrix may not be a factor that leads the court to absolve the accused. This Court further held that there can be conviction on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and in case, the court is not satisfied with the version of the prosecutrix, it can seek other evidence, direct or circumstantial, by which it may get assurance of her testimony. The Court held as under:-
12. It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former it is both physical as well as psychological and emotional. However, if the court of facts finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of an accomplice, would do.::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2025 21:30:08 :::CIS
12 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:32952-DB )
11. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Ors.: AIR 1996 SC 1393, this Court held that in cases involving sexual harassment, molestation etc. the court is duty bound to deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. Minor contradictions or insignificant .
discrepancies in the statement of a prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case.
Evidence of the victim of sexual assault is enough for conviction and it does not require any corroboration unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The court may look for some assurances of her statement to satisfy judicial conscience. The statement of the prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness as she is not an accomplice. The Court further held that the delay in filing FIR for sexual offence may not be even properly explained, but if found natural, the accused cannot be given any benefit thereof. The Court observed as under:
"8...The court overlooked the situation in which a poor helpless minor girl had found herself in the company of three desperate young men who were threatening her and preventing her from raising any alarm. Again, if the investigating officer did not conduct the investigation properly or was negligent in not being able to trace out the driver or the car, how can that become a ground to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix? The prosecutrix had no control over the investigating agency and the negligence of an investigating officer could not affect the credibility of the statement of the prosecutrix.... The courts must, while evaluating evidence remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self- respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case.... Seeking corroboration of her statement before replying upon the same as a rule, in such cases, amounts to adding insult to injury.... Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances...
** ** ** **
::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2025 21:30:08 :::CIS
13 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:32952-DB )
21....The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to .
place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations.
12. In State of Orissa v. Thakara Besra and Anr. AIR 2002 SC 1963, this Court held that rape is not mere a physical assault, rather it often distracts the whole personality of the victim. The rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female and, therefore, the testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and in such cases, non- examination even of other witnesses may not be a serious infirmity in the prosecution case, particularly where the witnesses had not seen the commission of the offence.
13. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raghubir Singh (1993) 2 SCC 622, this Court held that there is no legal compulsion to look for any other evidence to corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix before recording an order of conviction. Evidence has to be weighed and not counted. Conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if her evidence inspires confidence and there is absence of circumstances which militate against her veracity. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Wahid Khan v. State of M.P. placing reliance on an earlier judgment in Rameshswar v. State of Rajasthan.
14. Thus, the law that emerges on the issue is to the effect that the statement of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix"
19. There cannot be any dispute with the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of pronouncements that in case of rape, evidence of prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration, and finding of guilt in case of rape can ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2025 21:30:08 :::CIS 14 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:32952-DB ) be based upon the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix, but apart from above, Hon'ble Apex court has also held that if the story put forth by the prosecutrix is improbable and belies logic, placing sole reliance upon her statement would be violence to the very .
principles which govern the appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter. In this regard, reliance is placed on judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tameezduddin alias Tammu v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2009) 15 SCC 566, wherein it has been held as under:-
"9.It is true that in a case of rape the evidence of the prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration, but to hold that this evidence has to be accepted even if the story is improbable and belies logic, would be doing violence to the very principles which govern the appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter. We are of the opinion that story is indeed improbable."
20. Keeping in mind the judgments as cited above, the testimony of prosecutrix has to be consistent and natural in line with the case of the prosecution and free from infirmities which inspire confidence in the Court. It cannot be presumed that the statement of the prosecutrix would always be true or without any embellishment.
21. In the instant case, after the perusal of the entire evidence, we are of the considered view that if the statement of the prosecutrix is read and considered in totality of the circumstances ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2025 21:30:08 :::CIS 15 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:32952-DB ) along with other evidence on record, her deposition does not inspire confidence. As per the statement of prosecutrix, during the month of February, 2014 around 07:30 p.m., when she went to attend the call of nature, the accused came there, gagged her .
mouth and lifted her to a nearby field and also threatened to kill her, in case she screamed. Thereafter, the accused forcibly committed rape upon her. As per the prosecutrix, she did not disclose the incident to anyone due to shame, but when she became pregnant, she disclosed the incident and she alongwith her brother and sister-in-law went to the police station and moved application, Ex. PW-1/A. She categorically deposed that her date of birth was13.04.1994 and her date of birth in the school record was got wrongly recorded by her grand-father as 13.04.1997. She was declared hostile and in her cross-examination, she moved a step ahead by deposing that she herself called the accused in the field, whereby the alleged incident took place, and as per her version, application, Ex.PW-1/A, was written by the police. Thus, the prosecutrix herself destroyed the case of the prosecution, as she questioned her age and disputed her date of birth, as recorded in the School Admission and Withdrawal register and pariwar register. She specifically deposed that her grand-father got wrongly recorded her date of birth as 13.04.1997, in the school ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2025 21:30:08 :::CIS 16 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:32952-DB ) record as well as in the pariwar register, whereas her date of birth was 13.04.1994.
22. Now, in the wake of the testimony of the prosecutrix, .
documents, Ex. PW-2/B (date of birth certificate issued by PW-2) and Ex. PW-3/B (copy of pariwar register issued by PW-3), wherein date of birth of the prosecutrix was shown as 13.04.1997, lose their credibility and the same can neither be relied upon nor can be trusted. Moreover, PW-2 himself admitted that whatever was recorded in the admission and withdrawal register was entered on the basis of admission of the prosecutrix in her previous school and he could not disclose as to how the admission was made in the previous school. The prosecution did not bother to prove how the entries, qua the date of birth of the prosecutrix, were made in the previous school and no evidence to this effect was led. Similarly, PW-3 also specifically deposed, in his cross-
examination that neither the relevant entry was made by him in the pariwar register nor he was posted in the Gram Panchayat when the relevant entry was made. He further admitted that entries in the pariwar register were made on the basis of the birth register maintained in the Panchayat. He neither produced birth register nor the same was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer. The prosecution did not produce birth certificate of the ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2025 21:30:08 :::CIS 17 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:32952-DB ) prosecutrix and also did not bother to prove that who made entry in the pariwar register and on whose information the birth entry of the prosecutrix was entered. Considering the fact that prosecutrix herself specifically stated that her date of birth (13.04.1997), had .
been wrongly entered both in the school record and in the pariwar register, and in the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence qua her correct date of birth, documents Ex. PW-2/B and Ex. PW-3/B cannot be relied upon.
23. On a careful analysis of the testimony of the prosecutrix, we find major contradictions, inconsistencies and embellishments in the prosecution evidence, which cast a shadow of doubt and led us to find it difficult to rely upon her testimony.
Therefore, we are left with no other option but to accept that at the time of the alleged incident the prosecutrix was 20 years old, as she herself stated on oath that her date of birth was 13.04.1994, as such there was no question of commission of offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Further as per the own version of the prosecutrix, she herself called the accused to the field, where the alleged incident took place, thus it would not be proper to hold the accused guilty for the alleged offence under Section 376 IPC.
::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2025 21:30:08 :::CIS18 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:32952-DB )
24. Therefore, keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt as such no interference in the judgment .
of acquittal dated 16.02.2015, passed by the learned Special Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 26-S/7 of 2014, is required, as the same is the result of proper appreciation of evidence and law. The appeal, which is devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds are discharged.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of.
( Vivek Singh Thakur ) Judge ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge 22nd September, 2025 (virender) ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2025 21:30:08 :::CIS