Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jai Pal Son Of Ram Mehar vs State Of Haryana on 26 November, 2012
Author: S.S. Saron
Bench: S.S. Saron
CRA No. D-546-DB of 2007 - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. D-546-DB of 2007
Decided on: November 26, 2012
Jai Pal son of Ram Mehar, resident of village Bichpari, District Sonepat.
.....Appellant.
Versus
State of Haryana
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SARON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. BANGARH
*****
Present: Ms. Aditi Girdhar, Advocate (amicus curiae) & Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. H.S. Sran, Addl. AG, Haryana for the respondent.
***** S.P. BANGARH, J The appellant has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.03.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, in Sessions Case No. 50 of 2004/2006, emanating from FIR No. 95 dated 05.09.2004, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Sadar Gohana, whereby, he was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `5000/- and in default, thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 01 month.
It is the case of the prosecution that on 05.09.2004 at about 5.00 p.m., Jasbir Singh (complainant) along with Azad Singh had gone to the Dera of Baba Parbha Nath in village Bichpari, in order to offer milk to the deity. When they reached near the Dera, Jai Pal (appellant) was seen giving blows of iron dumble on the head of Baba Rajesh Shami CRA No. D-546-DB of 2007 - 2- (deceased), who used to look after the affairs of the Dera. When, Jasbir Singh (complainant) and Azad Singh tried to rescue Baba Rajesh Shami (deceased), Jai Pal (appellant) ran away after throwing the dumble at the site. Baba Rajesh Shami (deceased) succumbed to the injuries received by him from the appellant. The left side of his face had been crushed.
After leaving Azad Singh near the corpse of Baba Rajesh Shami (deceased), Jasbir Singh (complainant) went to the police station to lodge the FIR and on the way to the police station, Randhir Singh ASI along with other police officials met the complainant (Jasbir Singh) at bus stand of village Khandrai, where, the complainant (Jasbir Singh) made statement Ex.PO before Randhir Singh ASI and the latter, made his endorsement Ex.PK on Ex.PO and sent the same to the police station for registration of FIR. Therafter, Randhir Singh ASI along with complainant (Jasbir Singh) and other police officials went to the place of occurrence and lifted the blood stained earth, iron dumble, ropes of cot stained with blood, blood stained bed sheet and blood stained mat. These articles were converted into separate five parcels, which were sealed by Randhir Singh ASI with his seal bearing impression "RS", who later seized those parcels vide recovery memo Ex.PF. He also prepared rough site plan of place of occurrence Ex.PK/1 and also recorded the statements of witnesses. He also conducted the inquest proceedings on the corpse of the deceased (Baba Rajesh Shami) and prepared the inquest report Ex.PK/2, which bears his signature and sent the corpse of the deceased (Baba Rajesh Shami) to the mortuary of Primary Health Centre, Gohana for autopsy.
Dr. Dinesh Malik (PW-12) conducted the autopsy on the corpse of the deceased (Baba Rajesh Shami). PW-13 Bharat Bhushan, SI on 05.09.2004 arrested the appellant, who was interrogated and during interrogation on 06.09.2004, he suffered disclosure statement Ex.PG and CRA No. D-546-DB of 2007 - 3- pursuant, thereto, he got recovered his clothes, which were seized vide recovery memo Ex.PG/11. Rough site plan Ex.PL of the place of recovery of the clothes of the appellant was also prepared by (PW-13) Bharat Bhushan, SI, who also demarcated the place of occurrence vide memo Ex.PL/1. On the same day, the constable handed over to him autopsy report along with one sealed parcel containing clothes of the deceased (Baba Rajesh Shami). On 21.09.2004, photographs along with negatives were handed over by the photographer, which were seized vide memo Ex.PL/2. The sealed parcels were handed over to the MHC of the police station. After completion of investigation, Station House Officer of Police Station Sadar Gohana instituted police report under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C-for short) before the learned Illaqa Magistrate to the effect that it appeared that the appellant had committed an offence punishable under Sections 302 IPC.
On presentation of police report, copies of documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were furnished to the appellant and the case was later committed to the Court of Session, which was entrusted to the trial Court, where charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant, whereto, the latter pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Consequently, prosecution evidence was summoned.
At the trial, the prosecution examined Surender Singh HC as PW-1, Rajbir Singh Constable as PW-2, Bijender Singh as PW-3, Ishwar Singh Constable as PW-4, Suresh Pal Constable as PW-5, Parvesh Kumar ASI as PW-6, Rajesh Kumar Constable as PW-7, Azad as PW-8, Duli Chand as PW-9, Dharambir as PW-10, Manoj as PW-11, Dr. Dinesh Malik as PW-12, Randhir Singh ASI as PW-12/1, Bharat Bhushan SI as PW-13, Jasbir Singh as PW-14 and closed the evidence later.
After the close of prosecution evidence, the appellant (Jai Pal) CRA No. D-546-DB of 2007 - 4- was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein, he denied the allegations of the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication in this case.
Appellant-Jai Pal was called upon to enter in defence, but he closed the same without examining any witness in defence.
After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as described in the first paragraph of this judgment. Aggrieved, thereagainst, the appellant, who was accused before the learned trial Court has come up in this appeal with prayer for acceptance, thereof, and for his acquittal of the charge framed against him for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent and perused the record of the learned trial Court with their assistance.
First of all it is to be seen, as to what the PWs deposed in this case.
PW-1 Surender Singh tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PA. PW-2 Rajbir Singh Constable also tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PB.
PW-3 Rajender Singh, Photographer proved the photographs Ex.P1 to P5 and their negatives Ex.P6 to P10. He testified that he developed the photographs without any addition or deletion and handed over those to the Investigating Officer.
PW-4 Ishwar Singh Constable got conducted the autopsy on the corpse of the deceased (Baba Rajesh Shami). He testified that after the autopsy, the doctor handed over to him one sealed parcel of clothes of the deceased, one copy of the autopsy report, which he handed over to CRA No. D-546-DB of 2007 - 5- Randhir Singh ASI, who seized those vide memo Ex.PC.
PW-5 Suresh Pal Constable testified that he delivered the special report to the Illaqa Magistrate and other police officers without any delay on 05.09.2004.
PW-6 Parvesh Kumar ASI testified that on 05.09.2004, he received a ruqa Ex.PD, through Ishwar Singh Constabled and on the basis, thereof, he recorded the FIR Ex.PD/1, whereon, he made his endorsement Ex.PD/2. He further testified that he sent the special reports to the Illaqa Magistrate and other police officers through Suresh Pal Constable.
PW-7 Rajesh Kumar Constable testified that he prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PE on the demarcation of Jasbir Singh (complainant).
PW-8 Azad testified that on 24.09.2004, he along with Jassa @ Jasbir (complainant) had gone to the Dera of Baba Prabha Nath for offering milk and when they reached in the Dera, they saw that the appellant was causing injury on the person of Baba with an iron dumble on his head and on seeing them, the appellant after throwing the dumble ran away and Baba succumbed to the injuries caused by the appellant to him. He also testified that the right side of the skull of the deceased (Baba Rajesh Shami) was fully crushed and several villagers had also gathered there. He also testified that police came at the spot and collected one dumble, one mat, chadder, clothes etc from the spot, which were stained with blood and those were seized vide memo Ex. PF, after preparing parcels, thereof.
PW-9 Duli Chand testified that his son Rajesh was unmarried and had become a Saint and he used to reside in the Dera of village Bichpari known as Nath ka Dera and after receipt of message of his death, he went to the Deara with other villagers and identified the corpse of his son in the village Bichpari and on the next day, after getting conducted CRA No. D-546-DB of 2007 - 6- autopsy on the corpse, the same was taken to village Noltha for cremation.
PW-10 Dharambir testified that on 06.09.2004, the Investigating Officer interrogated the appellant in his presence and during interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement Ex.PG and pursuant, thereto, he got recovered blood stained clothes from the place disclosed in the disclosure statement ibid, which were seized vide memo Ex.PG/1, (shirt Ex.P1 and trouser Ex.P2 of the appellant, which were taken into possession by police at his instance were produced during deposition of this witness). PW-10 Dharambir also identified his signatures on the recovery memo Ex.PG/1. He also testified that Investigating Officer also recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
PW-11 Manoj testified that on 05.09.2004, he along with Khushi Ram was coming from the side of fields towards village and when they reached near the house of Chandi, they heard some voice that they have apprehended the appellant who had committed the murder of Baba and the appellant confessed this crime and police came there in the meantime and the appellant was handed over to the police. He also testified that the appellant disclosed before them that he also committed the murder of his father and he wants to commit the murder of 19 more persons to get spiritual perfection (siddhi in the local parlance).
PW-12 Dr. Dinesh Malik conducted the autopsy on the corpse of the deceased (Baba Rajesh Shami). He testified that there was laceration of brain matter with intranial bleeding (blood clotted). He also testified that subdural haemotoma was present, (3 x 2 cm) clot was present. He also testified that on thorax examination; no fracture was seen in the ribs and other organs were pale and healthy. He testified that on abdominal examination; stomach, intestines were pale and containing chyle, other organs were pale and healthy. He further testified that small amount of CRA No. D-546-DB of 2007 - 7- urine was present in the bladder. He testified that in his opinion, cause of death in this case was combined effect of hypovolumic and neurogenic shock due to above-mentioned injuries, which were ante mortem in nature and sufficient enough to explain the cause of death in its ordinary course of nature. He also testified that he handed over to the police; a well stitched body, copy of postmortem report, duly signed police papers, parcel having six seals and a sample seal. He also testified that time between injury to death was 10 minutes. He also testified that Ex.PJ is the true carbon copy of the original autopsy report and police papers Ex.PJ/1 to 17 pages were initially signed by him.
PW-12/1 Randhir Singh ASI testified that on 05.09.2004, he was posted as ASI in Police Station Sadar Gohana, on which date, he along with other police officials was present at Bus Stand, Village Khandrai, where, Jasbir Singh (complainant) made his statement Ex.PO, whereon, he put his endorsement Ex.PK and he sent the same to the Police Station Sadar, Gohana for registration of the case and, thereafter, he along with Jasbir Singh (complainant) and other police officials went to the place of occurrence and lifted blood stained earth, iron dumble, ropes of cot stained with blood, blood stained bed sheet and blood stained mat and these articles were converted by him into five separate parcels, which were sealed by him with his seal bearing impression 'RS' and those parcels were seized vide recovery memo Ex.PF. He also testified that he prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.PK/1 and also recorded the statements of witnesses. He also testified that he conducted the inquest proceedings and prepared the inquest report Ex. PK/2, which bears his signature.
PW-13 Bharat Bhushan SI testified that on 05.09.2004, he arrested the appellant, who during investigation on 06.09.2004, suffered CRA No. D-546-DB of 2007 - 8- disclosure statement Ex.PG and pursuant, thereto, he got recovered his clothes, which were sealed into a parcel and that parcel was seized vide memo Ex.PG/1. He also testified that he prepared the rough site plan of the place of recovery Ex.PL and the appellant also demarcated the place of occurrence vide demarcation memo Ex.PL/1 and on the same day, constable handed over to him the autopsy report along with one sealed parcel containing clothes of the deceased. He also testified that on 21.09.2004, photographs along with negatives were handed over by the photographer to him, which were seized vide memo Ex.PL/2. He also testified that he recorded the statements of witnesses and handed over the sealed parcels to MHC of the police station.
PW-14 Jasbir (complainant) testified that on 05.09.2004, he was present in the village and when he reached at the Dera of Baba Rajesh Shami, he found Baba Rajesh Shami lying dead and the appellant was caught hold by some villagers and when he was going to inform the matter to the police, at bus stand Khandrai, the police met him and he got recorded his statement Ex.PO, which was signed by him. He further testified that the police came at the spot and lifted blood stained earth, iron dumble and one bed sheet, which were seized vide memo Ex.PF and that was signed by him.
Learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent contended that the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court on the basis of evidence supra of the prosecution witnesses which could not be disbelieved. So, he contended that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence may be upheld and affirmed, as these do not suffer from any illegality or impropriety.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant contended CRA No. D-546-DB of 2007 - 9- that the testimony of Jasbir (PW-14) is contradictory; in his statement Ex.PO, he stated that he saw the appellant causing injury with dumble to the deceased (Baba Rajesh Shami), while during his deposition in Court as PW-14, he testified that when he reached at the Dera of Baba Rajesh Shami, on 05.09.2004, he found Baba Rajesh Shami lying dead and the appellant having been caught hold by some villagers. So, it was contended that the evidence of PW-14 (Jasbir) being repugnant to his statement Ex.PO, was wrongly relied upon by the learned trial Court and, therefore, the same may be repelled and the appellant may be granted benefit of doubt by holding that it is a case of no evidence, as PW-14 (Jasbir) had not seen the appellant causing injury with iron dumble to the deceased.
Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the latter is suffering from mental ailment and, therefore, his trial should have been deferred in terms of Section 329 Cr.P.C. and at the first instance, learned trial Court should have ascertained, as to whether the appellant was capable of making his defence and after recording satisfaction that he was capable of defending himself only then, the trial should have begun. So, it was contended that the entire proceedings have vitiated and it is a case where de novo trial should be held.
Reliance has been placed upon "Kuldeep Singh v. State of Haryana, CRA No. D-540-DB of 2005, passed by this Court on 14.09.2012, wherein, the appellant/accused was acquitted, as he was mentally ill.
Reliance has also been placed upon "Yogesh Kumar v. State and another, 1996 (2) Crimes 569, wherein, Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the word 'appears' surely imports a lesser degree of probability than 'proof'. It was further held that this would not mean that the Magistrate or Court must proceed to 'try' the question on mere asking. CRA No. D-546-DB of 2007 - 10- There must be something either in the form of medical record or other material to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Magistrate or Court that the accused is of unsound mind. Even the demeanour of the accused may sufficiently lead to such a doubt. It is only on the crossing of this hurdle that it becomes obligatory on the Magistrate or Court to 'try' the fact of such unsoundness of mind and incapacity of the accused.
We have examined both the judgments and we are of the view that both these judgments are inconsequential to the appellant as at no point of time during trial, he claimed himself to be mentally ill person. Even during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the appellant did not take a stand that he was mentally unsound and incapable to make his defence. The benefit of this ruling could be taken by the appellant, if he had taken stand during trial that he was of unsound mind and consequently, incapable of making his defence and in these circumstances, Section 329 Cr.P.C. could be brought in vogue by the learned trial Court. There should have been some form of medical record or other material to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the learned trial Court that he (appellant) was of unsound mind.
Only at the time of filing this appeal, two photocopies of Annexures P-1 and P-2 regarding treatment of the appellant have been placed on record. These are only photocopies of the prescription slips. No permission was sought and obtained by the appellant under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to prove these documents by examining the author, thereof. Even in these annexures, the appellant has not been diagnosed as a patient of mental illness.
Even, if the appellant established unsoundness of mind, Section 84 of the IPC could not come to his rescue, in case, it is found that the appellant knew that what he was doing was wrong or that it was contrary to CRA No. D-546-DB of 2007 - 11- law. In order to ascertain that, it is imperative to take into consideration the circumstances and the behaviour preceding, attending and following the crime as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of "Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, 2011 AIR (SC) 627.
In this case, even the accused had taken plea of unsoundness of mind and that was rejected by holding that immediately after the accused shot dead the deceased, he ran away from the place of occurrence and threw the country made pistol, the weapon of crime, in the well in order to conceal himself from the crime. It was held that aforesaid conduct of the accused goes to suggest that he knew that, whatever, he had done was wrong and illegal.
This ruling fully supports the case of the respondent, as first of all the appellant had never taken the plea of unsoundness of mind and secondly, there is no medical evidence to show his unsoundness of mind. This plea of unsoundness of mind of the appellant is being taken, for the first time, during hearing of the appeal. Even after committing murder, appellant run away which indicates that, whatever, he had done was wrong and illegal.
As already held during the hearing of this appeal, no effort was made by the appellant to seek permission to lead evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to prove the medical record pertaining to his unsoundness of mind. So, it is a case of no evidence of unsoundness of mind of appellant and, therefore, there was no occasion for the learned trial Court to accord him benefit of Section 329 Cr.P.C.
Such question also came for examination before Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of "Mohan Lal @ Ranjan Mohan Bhatnagar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2011 (7) AD (Delhi) 65. Question posited was whether at the time of commission of offence, appellant was suffering from CRA No. D-546-DB of 2007 - 12- paranoid schizophrenia/unsound mind and as such was entitled to the benefit of the general exception contained in Section 84 of IPC. In this case, appellant had committed murder of his minor son and caused grievous injuries to his wife. Only plea raised, was that at the time of commission of offence, appellant was a person of unsound mind and he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. In the FIR, nothing was stated about mental condition of appellant. Appellant's sister who was an educated lady also did not state anything in this regard at the time of investigation.
It was also not the stand of defence that in remand proceedings before Metropolitan Magistrate, wherein, accused was produced, such a stand was taken. Over all defence evidence shows that appellant had been examined for mental condition only after filing of charge sheet and nothing was placed on the record by the defence to show that he was a man of unsound mind at the time of occurrence or prior, thereto, had undergone some treatment in this regard. No treatment papers for unsoundness of mind were there prior to the occurrence or at the time of occurrence. So, it was held that defence has failed to discharge the burden in order to avail the benefit of Section 84 of IPC. It was not established that the accused was insane at the time of occurrence nor was the evidence sufficient to throw a reasonable doubt that the act might have been committed when the appellant was in a fit of insanity and the appeal, was dismissed.
If, the case of appellant is examined in the light of the judgment (supra), it follows that the benefit of alleged unsoundness of mind cannot be taken by him, as he nowhere took a stand that he was suffering from mental disorder and was entitled to benefit of general exception contained in Section 84 of the IPC.
CRA No. D-546-DB of 2007 - 13-
Even, no plea was raised by the appellant in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or in reply to the charge sheet that he was a person of unsound mind. Even, during remand proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate, where, he was produced, no such stand was taken by the appellant. So, no evidence on the record has come to prove that the appellant was suffering from mental disorder at the time of commission of offence. Indeed, he ran away from the place of occurrence after throwing the iron dumble and later got recovered his blood stained clothes, pursuant to his disclosure statement, which would show that he knew the consequences of the act done by him.
So, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the latter, was suffering from mental disorder is devoid of merit and is, hereby, repelled.
Regarding variation between the statement Ex.PO of Jasbir Singh (PW-14) and his deposition, suffice, it to say that this contradiction is not suffice for rejection of the case of the prosecution, as presence of Jasbir Singh (PW-14) at the place of occurrence does not become doubtful in any maner. Even, if it assumed for the sake of argument, he did not see the appellant killing the deceased (Baba Rajesh Shami), the other persons were heard by him saying that the appellant had committed the murder of the deceased (Baba Rajesh Shami).
No doubt, Jasbir Singh (PW-14) was not declared hostile to the prosecution, but one thing is certain that he found the appellant at the place of occurrence having been caught by the villagers. At that time, he knew fully well that it was the appellant who had committed the murder of the deceased (Baba Rajesh Shami) and when he was very sure about this act, he went to inform the police.
So, Jasbir Singh (PW-14) himself opted to inform the police CRA No. D-546-DB of 2007 - 14- regarding the occurrence and he made statement Ex.PO in this regard. Even, he admitted during cross-examination that Azad (PW-8) was present before his arrival and he was not with him.
This statement of Jasbir Singh (PW-14) during cross-examination must bind the appellant and it must follow that Azad (PW-8) was not with Jasbir Singh (PW-14) when the, latter reached at the place of occurrence and Azad (PW-8) was already present before his arrival. So, the testimony of Jasbir Singh (PW-14) affirms the presence of Azad (PW-8) at the place of occurrence and, that being so, the evidence of Azad (PW-8) must be believed, who in candid words testified that, he and Jasbir Singh (PW-14) saw the appellant causing injuries to the deceased (Baba Rajesh Shami) with an iron dumble on his head and on seeing them, the appellant threw the dumble and ran away and Baba Rajesh Shami (deceased) succumbed to his injuries received at the hands of the appellant. During cross- examination, testimony of Azad (PW-8) could not be shattered. He testified that he and Jasbir Singh (PW-14) had gone to offer milk at the Dera and he had seen the occurrence from a distance of about 10-15 feet. During, cross-examination, Azad (PW-8) further testified that the appellant after seeing them escaped from the spot.
So, the evidence of Azad (PW-8) must bind the appellant and it must follow from his cross-examination that he had seen the occurrence from a distance of 10-15 feet and he saw the appellant causing injuries with iron dumble to the deceased (Baba Rajesh Shami) and after seeing them, the appellant escaped from the spot.
It is no doubt true that Azad (PW-8) testified that after the death of his father, the appellant became mentally disturbed and was got admitted in the hospital, but no such medical record has come and this testimony, is not suffice for rejection of the case of the respondent as also CRA No. D-546-DB of 2007 - 15- on the basis of this testimony it is arduous to hold that the appellant was mentally disturbed, as Azad (PW-8) is not expert witness in this field and this witness could be believed only, if during examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., appellant had taken a stand that he was mentally disturbed and in order to affirm this plea, he should have brought medical evidence, but the same has not been brought and in the absence of such medical evidence, the benefit of acquittal could not be accorded to the appellant.
The fact remains that Azad (PW-8) saw the appellant committing the murder of the deceased (Baba Rajesh Shami). Ocular evidence of Azad (PW-8) having been corroborated as it is by the testimony of Dr. Dinesh Malik (PW-4) must be accepted to be veritable and on the basis, thereof, it must follow that it was the appellant who had committed the murder of Baba Rajesh Shami (deceased). So, even the sole testimony of Azad (PW-8) who had seen the occurrence was suffice for holding appellant guilty of commission of murder of Baba Rajesh Shami (deceased).
Iron dumble, ropes of cot, blood stained bed sheet, blood stained mat, shirt, paijama and chadder were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and these were found to be stained with human blood, as can be seen from the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.PH. These blood stained articles also corroborate the ocular evidence and medical evidence of this case. These articles were kept in an intact condition till deposit, thereof, with the Forensic Science Laboratory by Surender Singh HC (PW-1), Rajbir Singh Constable (PW-2), Randhir Singh ASI (PW-12/1), Bharat Bhushan SI (PW-13), whose testimonies during cross-examination could not be shattered.
So, it follows that the blood stained articles, so long as, remained in the possession of prosecution witnesses (supra), no one tampered CRA No. D-546-DB of 2007 - 16- therewith. So, the link evidence in this case is complete. Appellant wanted to attain spiritual perfection and that was his motive to kill Baba Rajesh Shami (deceased), as can be seen from the testimony of Manoj (PW-11), which could not be shattered during cross-examination.
There is, thus, no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which are, hereby, upheld and affirmed.
Resultantly, appeal fails and is, hereby, dismissed.
(S.P. BANGARH) (S.S. SARON)
JUDGE JUDGE
November 26, 2012
sham