Karnataka High Court
Syed Asadulla @ Syed Asad vs State Of Karnataka on 23 January, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:2917
CRL.P No. 2445 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 5494 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2445 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) /
528(BNSS))
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5494 OF 2022
IN CRL.P No. 2445/2024:
BETWEEN:
1. SYED ASADULLA @ SYED ASAD
S/O. SYED AMANULLA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT NO.8, ARAB LANE, B STREET,
RICHMOND TOWN, MUSEUM ROAD,
BANGALORE-560025.
2. BHANU PRATHAP HEGADE
S/O. B. PANDU HEGADE
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RA/T NO.301, MEMPHIS APARTMENT,
LANGFORD ROAD, LANGFORD TOWN,
Digitally
signed by OPP. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK
SUMA SHANTHINAGAR
Location: BANGALORE NORTH
HIGH
COURT BANGALORE-560 025.
KARNATAKA
3. RUDRESHAIAH @ RUDRESH
S/O. CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT: PURALAGUNTE, BELLAVI HOBLI,
SOREKUNTE, TUMKUR TQ.,
TUMAKURU-572128.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. KUMARA K.G., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:2917
CRL.P No. 2445 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 5494 of 2022
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HASSAN EXTENSION POLICE STATION
HASSAN-573201
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001)
2. HAJIRA KHATOON
W/O. LATE BASHEER AHMED KHAN
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
RESIDING AT:NO.24, 3RD FLOOR,
ARAB LANE, B STREET,
RICHMOND TOWN,
BENGALURU CITY-560109
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1;
SMT. JANAKI. K.H., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.30/2023 ON THE FILE OF
HON'BLE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
HASSAN, WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.4/2017 OF
HASSAN EXTENSION POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306 READ WITH 149 OF IPC AS
AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW.
IN CRL.P NO. 5494/2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. LAKSHMIPATHI
S/O. GOPALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:2917
CRL.P No. 2445 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 5494 of 2022
RESIDING AT NO.464,
1ST STAGE, 4TH BLOCK,
5TH MAIN, HBR LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-560043.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VENKATESH S. ARBATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
HASSAN EXTENSION POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE.
SPP, HIGH COURT,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. SMT. HAJIRA KHATOON
WIFE OF BASHEER AHMED KHAN
DOOR NO.24, 3RD FLOOR,
ARAB LANE, B STREET,
RICHMOND TOWN,
BENGALURU-560025.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. JAVEED S., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.5705/2021
(ANNEXURE-A) REGISTERED BY THE HASSAN EXTENSION
POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306 READ WITH 149 OF IPC
WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IV ACJM AND
JMFC, HASSAN.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:2917
CRL.P No. 2445 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 5494 of 2022
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
Crl.P.No.5494/2022 is filed by the accused No.5 in C.C.No.5705/2021 pending before the IV Chief Judicial Magistrate and JMFC, Hassan arising out of Cr.No.4/2017 and Crl.P.No.2445/2024 accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.30/2023 pending before III Additional District Judge, Hassan arising out of Cr.No.4/2017 seeks quashing of the impugned proceedings for offences punishable under Sections 306 read with 107 of Indian Penal Code (for short referred to as 'IPC').
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record in both the petitions.
3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the 2nd respondent is the wife of late Basheer Ahmed Khan who expired on 09.01.2017, pursuant to which, the 2nd respondent filed a complaint in Cr.No.4/2017 inter alia alleging that the petitioner/accused No.5 and other accused had lent -5- NC: 2025:KHC:2917 CRL.P No. 2445 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5494 of 2022 money to her husband and in view of their continuous harassment, the aforesaid Basheer Ahmed Khan had committed suicide and that the petitioner and another accused were guilty of abatement of suicide as indicated in the death note which was left behind by the deceased. After investigation, 1st respondent filed a charge sheet, pursuant to which, the impugned proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners who are before this Court by way of the present petitions.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would invite my attention to the material on record in order to point out that even according to the investigation officer, the veracity and validity of death note is doubtful as clear from Col No.17 of the charge sheet. It is also pointed out that even assuming that the death note is taken into consideration, in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohit Singhal and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others -
(2024) 1 SCC 417 mere demanding of money by the lender from the deceased would amount to abetment of suicide especially in the absence of any material to establish that there was close proximity and nexus between actions/acts of the -6- NC: 2025:KHC:2917 CRL.P No. 2445 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5494 of 2022 accused persons and the suicide committed by the husband of respondent No.2. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of this Court in the case of V.S. Suresh and others Vs. State of Karnataka and another - Crl.P.No.5821/2024 dated 03.09.2024.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. A perusal of the material on record comprising of complaint, charge sheet, statement of witnesses and documents will indicate that no proximity or nexus is made out between the suicide committed by the husband of respondent No.2 and acts/actions of the petitioners/accused.
7. Under identical circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohit Singhlal referred supra held as under:
"The appellants were shown as accused in the first information report registered at the instance of the third respondent for an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC (for short "IPC").-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:2917 CRL.P No. 2445 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5494 of 2022
2. It is an admitted position that the third respondent, who is the widow of deceased Ashok Kumar, had borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000 from one Sandeep Bansal Alias Sandeep Lala. The first appellant is the son of the said Sandeep Bansal. The third respondent, in her complaint to the police, stated that subsequently, she borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/- from Sandeep. While paying the said amount, Sandeep deducted a sum of Rs.15,000 towards interest.
3. The third respondent in her complaint stated that on 8-6-2017 she received a call from Sandeep. He abused her for not repaying the loan. The third respondent sought time of two months to repay the loan. On 15-6-2017, the first appellant came to the shop of the third respondent where her husband was sitting. The first appellant demanded money, and the deceased husband of the third respondent pleaded with him to give him some time within which he could arrange for the money. It is alleged that the first appellant abused the deceased and assaulted the deceased with a belt. He also assaulted the third respondent and the mother of the deceased. It is alleged that -8- NC: 2025:KHC:2917 CRL.P No. 2445 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5494 of 2022 the first appellant threatened the third respondent to abduct her daughter.
4. The third respondent alleges that Sandeep had taken 10 to 12 cheques from her. One cheque was dishonoured, so Sandeep issued a legal notice dated 27-6- 2017 to the deceased. The third respondent alleges that her husband was under tension due to these events and, therefore, he was very upset. She alleges that due to the acts of the appellant of threatening him, the deceased took recourse to the extreme step of committing suicide. The prosecution is also relying upon the alleged suicide note written by the deceased on 30-6-2017. The deceased ended his life on 4-7-2017. By the impugned judgment, the High Court rejected the prayer of quashing the offence.
Submissions
5. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that even going by the case made out by the third respondent, the deceased was under tension as he could not repay the amount borrowed by the third respondent and had received a notice from Sandeep, as cheque issued to Sandeep was dishonoured. The learned -9- NC: 2025:KHC:2917 CRL.P No. 2445 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5494 of 2022 counsel submitted that taking the suicide note and complaint of the third respondent as correct, by no stretch of imagination, an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is made out.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned judgment. Their submission is that the allegations in the suicide note are sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the appellants. Their submission is that the issue of whether the offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out can be decided only after evidence is adduced.
Our view
7. The suicide note records that the third respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs 60,000. According to the deceased, he had paid more than half of the amount to Sandeep. The suicide note records that as he could not pay the rest of the money, the first appellant came to his house and started abusing him. He stated that the first appellant had assaulted him, and therefore, he complained to the police. He further noted that the business of giving money on
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2917 CRL.P No. 2445 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5494 of 2022 interest was prospering. He stated that the third respondent is not a prudent woman, and due to her habit of intoxication and due to her conduct, she got trapped in this. In the suicide note, it is further stated that the first appellant has made his life a hell.
8. According to the complaint of the third respondent, the incident in her shop of the first appellant threatening and assaulting her and her husband was on 15-6-2017. After that, notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was issued by Sandeep to the deceased on 27-6- 2017. The suicide note was written three days after that, on 30-6-2017. The deceased committed suicide three days thereafter. Neither in the complaint of the third respondent nor in the suicide note, it is alleged that after 15-6-2017, the appellants or Sandeep either met or spoke to the third respondent and her deceased husband.
9. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment to commit suicide as an offence. Section 107 IPC, which defines the "abetment of a thing", reads thus:
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2917 CRL.P No. 2445 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5494 of 2022 "107.Abetment of a thing.- A persona abets the doing of a thing, who -
First.-Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.-Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.- A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing."
10. In the facts of the case, Secondly and Thirdly in Section 107, will have no application. Hence, the question is whether the appellants instigated the deceased to
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2917 CRL.P No. 2445 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5494 of 2022 commit suicide. To attract the first clause, there must be instigation in some form on the part of the accused to cause the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the accused must have mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The act of instigation must be of such intensity that it is intended to push the deceased to such a position under which he or she has no choice but to commit suicide. Such instigation must be in close proximity to the act of committing suicide.
11. In the present case, taking the complaint of the third respondent and the contents of the suicide note as correct, it is impossible to conclude that the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide by demanding the payment of the amount borrowed by the third respondent from her husband by using abusive language and by assaulting him by a belt for that purpose. The said incident allegedly happened more than two weeks before the date of suicide. There is no allegation that any act was done by the appellants in close proximity to the date of suicide. By no stretch of imagination, the alleged acts of the appellants can amount to instigation to commit suicide. The deceased
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2917 CRL.P No. 2445 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5494 of 2022 has blamed the third respondent for landing in trouble due to her bad habits.
12. Therefore, in our considered view, the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC was not made out against the appellants. Therefore, the continuation of their prosecution will be nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
13. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and quash the summoning order dated 23-1-2019 in Criminal Case No.454 of 2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist, Dehradun, District Dehradun. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed."
So also in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Awase Vs. The State of Madhyapradesh - Crl.A.No.221/2025 (2025 INSC 76), it is held as under:
"11. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:-
"306. Abetment of suicide. If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2917 CRL.P No. 2445 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5494 of 2022
12. Section 107 of the IPC reads as under:- "107. Abetment of a thing.-A person abets the doing of a thing, whoFirst. - Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly. - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly. - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing."
As is clear from the plain language of the Sections to attract the ingredient of Section 306, the accused should have abetted the commission of a suicide. A person abets the doing of a thing who Firstly - instigates any person to do that thing or Secondly - engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing or 9 Thirdly - intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
13. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, [1995 Supp (3) SCC 438], the appellant remarked to the deceased that 'go and die' and the deceased thereafter,
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2917 CRL.P No. 2445 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5494 of 2022 committed suicide. This Court held that:- "3. ...Those words are casual nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite 'mens rea' on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events. ..."
14. In Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8 SCC 628, this Court held that in order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It was further held that the intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306.
15. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, this Court held as under:- "12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2917 CRL.P No. 2445 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5494 of 2022 the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
[Emphasis supplied]
16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be 11 convicted under Section 306 IPC.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2917 CRL.P No. 2445 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5494 of 2022
17. M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 followed Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, wherein it was held as under:- 41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar has examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation". Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629) "20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation." In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available on record wherefrom an
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2917 CRL.P No. 2445 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5494 of 2022 inference of the appellantaccused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant's wife therein) may necessarily be drawn." 12 Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:- 45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide." [Emphasis supplied]
18. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the requirement of instigation the accused by his act or omission or by a continued course of conduct should have created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. It was also held that a word uttered in a fit of anger and emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2917 CRL.P No. 2445 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5494 of 2022
19. Applying the above principle to the facts of the present case, we are convinced that there are no grounds to frame charges under Section 306 IPC against the appellant. This is so even if we take the prosecution's case on a demurrer and at its highest. A reading of the suicide note reveals that the appellant was asking the deceased to 13 repay the loan guaranteed by the deceased and advanced to Ritesh Malakar. It could not be said that the appellant by performing his duty of realising outstanding loans at the behest of his employer can be said to have instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Equally so, with the transcripts, including the portions emphasised hereinabove. Even taken literally, it could not be said that the appellant intended to instigate the commission of suicide. It could certainly not be said that the appellant by his acts created circumstances which left the deceased with no other option except to commit suicide. Viewed from the armchair of the appellant, the exchanges with the deceased, albeit heated, are not with intent to leave the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide. This is the conclusion we draw taking a realistic approach, keeping the context and the situation in mind. Strangely,
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2917 CRL.P No. 2445 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5494 of 2022 the FIR has also been lodged after a delay of two months and twenty days.
20. This Court has, over the last several decades, repeatedly reiterated the higher threshold, mandated by law for Section 306 IPC [Now Section 108 read with Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023] to be attracted. They however seem to have followed 14 more in the breach. Section 306 IPC appears to be casually and too readily resorted to by the police. While the persons involved in genuine cases where the threshold is met should not be spared, the provision should not be deployed against individuals, only to assuage the immediate feelings of the distraught family of the deceased. The conduct of the proposed accused and the deceased, their interactions and conversations preceding the unfortunate death of the deceased should be approached from a practical point of view and not divorced from day-to-day realities of life. Hyperboles employed in exchanges should not, without anything more, be glorified as an instigation to commit suicide. It is time the investigating agencies are sensitised to the law laid down by this Court under Section 306 so that persons are not
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2917 CRL.P No. 2445 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5494 of 2022 subjected to the abuse of process of a totally untenable prosecution. The trial courts also should exercise great caution and circumspection and should not adopt a play it safe syndrome by mechanically framing charges, even if the investigating agencies in a given case have shown utter disregard for the ingredients of Section 306.
21. For the above reasons, we hold that the case against the appellant is groundless for framing of a charge under Section 306. Hence, we discharge the appellant from proceedings in Sessions Case No. 19 of 2023 pending on the file of First Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone District, Mandleshwar and quash and set aside the said proceedings. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1142 of 2023 is set aside."
8. As is clear from the aforesaid judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken into account the contents of the complaint and the alleged suicide note, in order to come to the conclusion that the said documents would not be sufficient to incriminate the accused persons for the offence of abetment of suicide. In fact the Honb'le Apex Court has also noticed that the
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2917 CRL.P No. 2445 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5494 of 2022 accused must have mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide and that act of instigation must be of such intensity that it intended to push the deceased to such a position, under which he or she has no choice but to commit suicide and such instigation must be in close proximity to the act of committing suicide, by interpreting Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC.
9. In the instance case, a perusal of the complaint and the alleged suicide note which has in fact been doubted by the investigating officer is sufficient to come to the conclusion that necessary ingredients constituting offences punishable under Sections 306 read with Section 107 IPC have not been made out by the respondents.
10. Consequently, the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed and in the light of aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, the continuation of impugned proceeding qua the petitioners deserves to be quashed.
11. In the result, I pass the following:
(i) The petition is allowed.
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2917 CRL.P No. 2445 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5494 of 2022
(ii) The continuation of impugned proceedings qua the petitioner/accused No.5 in C.C.No.5705/2021 pending before the IV Chief Judicial Magistrate and JMFC, Hassan arising out of Cr.No.4/2017 and petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.30/2023 pending before III Additional District Judge, Hassan arising out of Cr.No.4/2017 are quashed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21