Patna High Court
Pappu Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 3 December, 2024
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1915 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-244 Year-2018 Thana- HASANPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
Pappu Kumar, son of Vinod Mahto @ Binod Kumar, resident of village-
Chandrapur Hasanpur, P.S.-Hasanpur, District-Samastipur.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2070 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-244 Year-2018 Thana- HASANPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Mahto @ Pankaj Kumar Mahto, son of Ram Pravesh
Mahto, resident of village-Chandrapur, P.S.-Hasanpur, District-Samastipur.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1915 of 2023)
For the Appellant : Mr. Surya Narayan Roy, Advocate
For the Respondent-State: Ms. Abha Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocate
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2070 of 2023)
For the Appellant : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Senior Advocate
Ms. Kumari Anupam, Advocate
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Zeyaul Hoda, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 03-12-2024
Both these appeals have been preferred by the
respective appellants/convicts under Section 374(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Cr.P.C.') challenging the impugned judgment of conviction
dated 28.02.2023 and order of sentence dated 16.03.2023
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024
2/71
respectively passed by learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge, POCSO Act,
Samastipur in S.T. No.456 of 2019 arising out of Hassanpur
P.S. Case No.244 of 2018, whereby the concerned Trial
Court has convicted the appellants/convicts for the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341/149, 323,
324/149 and 326-A/149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short
'IPC'), and sentenced them to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.20,000/- and in
default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six months under Section 326-A/149 of
the IPC. However, all the sentences have been ordered to
run concurrently.
2. In brief, case of prosecution, as per written
report of informant/PW-1 namely, Rajesh Kumar given to
the Officer Incharge of Hassanpur Police Station, inter alia
that on 18.11.2018 at about 9:30 A.M., his niece namely,
Nibha Kumar aged about 17 years was going towards
darwaja (courtyard) from the house and when she reached
near to darwaja, Pappu Kumar and Pankaj Kumar
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024
3/71
(appellants) started teasing her. The niece of informant
raised alarm and on so, Rakesh Kumar, Raghvendra Kumar,
Sobhakant Mahto, Arvind Mahto, Priti Kumari, Swati Kumar,
Kanchan Mala, AmeriKa Devi, Parmila Devi arrived there. In
the meantime, co-accused Binod Mahto, Ram Pravesh
Mahto, Ram Jiwan Mahto, Darshan Kumar, Prem Shila Devi,
Rekha Devi, Soni Kumari, Vandana Kumari, Darshaniya Devi
and 3-4 unknown persons armed with lathi, danda, pistol and
acid in their hands arrived there. The co-accused Binod
Mahto, Pappu (appellant), Darshan and Pankaj (appellant)
brought acid and started abusing and assaulting them,
whereafter Binod Mahto, Pappu (appellant), Darshan Kumar
and Pankaj Kumar (appellant) poured acid on them, as a
result of which, Raghvendra Kumar, the victim Nibha Kumar,
Rakesh Kumar became badly injured and, thereafter, several
persons came there and brought injured for treatment at
Primary Health Centre, Hasanpur and from there, Rakesh
Kumar, Raghvendra Kumar and N.K. were referred to Sadar
Hospital, Samastipur for better and specialized treatment.
3. On the basis of aforesaid written information, a
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024
4/71
formal FIR, being Hasanpur P.S. Case No.244 of 2018 was
registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149,
323, 324, 326-A, 326-B 307, 341, 354, 504 and 506 of the
IPC as to investigate the crime in question.
4. After completion of investigation, on the basis
of materials collected thereof, the Investigating Officer of
this case has submitted charge-sheet No.81 of 2019 dated
31.05.2019against the appellants and other accused persons for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 326-A, 326-B, 341, 354, 504 and 506 of the IPC. Thereafter, the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate has committed the case to the court court of Sessions under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C., after compliance of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., whereafter it was transferred to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Rosera, for its trial and disposal.
5. The learned trial court after going through materials collected during investigation, framed charges on 19.08.2019 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324/149, 341/149, 307/149, 326-A/149, 504 and 354/149 of the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 5/71 IPC and additional charges were framed on 14.10.2022 under Sections 17 and 12 of the POCSO Act and Section 354 of the IPC against the appellants and other co-accused persons, which were explained to the appellants/convicts, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined altogether twelve (12) witnesses. They are:- (i) PW-1 uncle of the victim (the informant); (ii) PW-2 the victim; (iii) PW-3 Arvind Mahto; (iv) PW-4 Parmila Devi, (v) PW-5 Raghvendra Kumar @ Munna Kumar; (vi) PW-6 Priti Kumari; (vii) PW-7 Shobha Kant Mahto; (viii) PW-8 Dr. Vimal Rai; (ix) PW-9 Dr. Arvind Kumar; (x) PW-10 Dr. Nagmani Rai; (xi) PW- 11 Tuna Nand Singh (Investigating Officer of this case); and (xii) PW-12 Ajit Kumar (another Investigating Officer of the case).
7. Apart from the oral evidence, the prosecution has also relied upon following exhibits/documentary evidences, which are as under:-
Sl.No. Exhibit Nos. Documents exhibited
1. Exhibit-PX/X1 Signature of the informant on Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 6/71 Written application (xerox copy).
2. Exhibit-P1/1/P8 to Signature of Dr. Vimal Rai on the P1/3/PW-8 medical report.
3. Exhibit-P2/PW-9 Signature of Dr. Arvind Kumar to P2/PW-5/PW-9 on the medical report.
4. Exhibit-P3/1/PW- Signatures of Dr. Hemant 10 to Exhibit No. Kumar, Dr. A.N. Sahi, Dr. Jai P3/4/PW-10 Kant Paswan on the medical report.
5. Exhibit-P3/5/PW- Signature of injured person on 10 the medical requisition.
6. Exhibit-P3/6/PW- Signature of I.O., Ajit Kumar on 10 the medical report.
7. Exhibit-P4/PW-11 Signature of SHO on the FIR.
8. Exhibit-P5/PW-11 Signature of the SHO on the to P5/1/PW-11 formal FIR.
9. Exhibit-P6/1/PW- The supplementary charge-
12 to P6/2/PW-12 sheet.
8. On the basis of evidences/circumstances as surfaced during the trial, the learned trial court has examined the appellants/accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., where they completely denied all the evidences surfaced during the trial and claimed their complete innocence.
9. The appellants/convicts in order to prove their innocence, examined two defence witnesses, who are DW-1 Anandi Das and DW-2 Narayan Paswan.
10. Taking note of the evidences as surfaced during the trial and after considering the arguments as Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 7/71 advanced by both the parties, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellants/convicts/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341/149, 323/149, 324/149 and 326-A/149 of the IPC and sentenced them in the manner indicated above.
11. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellants/convict have preferred both these appeals.
12. Hence, both these appeals.
Argument on behalf of the
appellants/convicts:
13. It is submitted by Mr. Y.C. Verma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/convicts that the learned Trial Court while recording the judgment of conviction overlooked the vital contradictions and omissions of witnesses on the point of occurrence and on this ground alone, the impugned judgment is fit to be quashed/set aside. It is submitted that only inimical and partisan witnesses were examined in support of case of the prosecution and, as such, non-examination of independent witnesses despite of being Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 8/71 its availability makes a serious doubt regarding the occurrence. It is further submitted that injured were examined medically after lapse of substantial period of time, which creates a doubt in itself regarding the said injury caused due to present crime. It is pointed out that considering the delay part, the accidental injury out of unknown occurrence cannot be ignored, which was made instrumental to implicate the appellants falsely with present case being an afterthought.
13.1. It is further submitted by Mr. Verma that "corrosive substance" is different with acid and, therefore, until and unless it is not proved by chemical examination that the substance used in attack was acid, the learned Trial Court cannot convict the appellants for the specific offence, which are available under Sections 326-A and 326-B of the IPC. It is submitted that the evidence available on record suggest that the said liquid was battery water. In this context, it is submitted that injured was running a garage having lot of batteries under their use and possession, where he received injuries out of accident while carrying such Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 9/71 batteries on head while working in garage. It is submitted that the injury report was given after about one year and such delay is sufficient to gather that appellants were falsely implicated, who are none but the agnates of the informant and having land dispute since long, for which, a title suit is also pending. It is also pointed out that the injury of injured are simple in nature and on this score also, the conviction under Section 326-A is bad in the eyes of law.
13.2. While concluding argument, Mr. Verma submitted that the prosecution has suppressed its earlier version. It is also pointed out that no vessel or container, containing acid was seized from the place of occurrence. There is no any seizure of burnt clothes. Neither any material or soil or clothes were sent for Forensic Science Laboratory (for short 'FSL') for its examination, which may ascertain that the substance, which was used to cause injury was acid.
13.3. Having all such facts as available on record makes the balance of appeal in favour of appellants and considering the same, this appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 10/71 Argument on behalf of the State/Informant:-
14. It is submitted by Mr. A.M.P. Mehta, learned APP for the State duly assisted by Mr. Vijay Anand, learned counsel for the informant while arguing qua crime in question that the injured persons and several eye-witnesses have supported the occurrence. It is submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve the version of injured who received acid injury during the occurrence and the plea of receiving injury out of unknown is accident only a manipulative argument without having any basis. It is submitted that the delay for medical examination is well-explained and it was only on the interference of Hon'ble High Court, the injured was examined medically when he lost his external pinna (external ear) completely due to acid attack. It was a brutal attack when the injured was caught hold by accused persons and the acid was poured on his head. Learned APP further submitted that injuries are in full corroboration with the manner of occurrence. The alleged land dispute may be one of the reasons for present occurrence but, same cannot mitigate the criminal responsibility of appellants arising out Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 11/71 of present crime in question i.e. of acid attack.
14.1. Learned APP further submitted that every acid is corrosive in nature. It is pointed out that strength of acid i.e. degree of corrosiveness depends upon its "PH" value and, therefore, it is not necessary to establish substance as an acid through any particular chemical test, as submitted. In this context, learned APP further submitted that the doctor, who examined the injured persons, categorically stated through medical examination report that injury was caused due to acid and it appears in full corroboration with the manner in which it was poured on the body of the injured. It is also pointed out that non-seizure of burnt clothes and non-recovery of vessel, container of acid may be due to faulty investigation, but it does not lead to conclusion ipso facto that occurrence was not of acid attack particularly, in view of medical examination report of the injured. The oral evidence of injured and medical examination report in itself appears conclusive in nature to establish the crime in question beyond any reasonable doubt qua appellants and, therefore, same cannot require to be interfered with at Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 12/71 appellate stage. In support of his submission, learned APP referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court as available through Khema alias Khem Chandra and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [ (2023) 10 SCC 451].
15. I have perused the trial court records carefully and gone through the evidences available on record as also considered the rival submissions canvassed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
16. After hearing the arguments and upon perusal of records, it appears to this Court that the evidence as surfaced during the trial is required to be discussed for the purpose of its re-appreciation, which appears essential for the just and proper disposal of the present appeal.
17. PW-1 is Rajesh Kumar, who is the uncle of the victim and informant of this case. He deposed that occurrence took place on 18.11.2018, Sunday at about 9:30 A.M. It appears from his deposition that initially co-accused Pappu and Pankaj outraged the modesty of her niece Nibha Kumari, which was objected by him and thereafter, on alarm of Nibha Kumari (PW-2), other family members arrived Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 13/71 whereafter, Pappu and Pankaj also joined by other co- accused persons forming a group of total eleven persons. It was deposed that Binod, Pappu, Pankaj and Darshan were equipped with acid bottle and other co-accused persons were equipped with stick. It was stated that upon order of co- accused Ram Jiwan Mahto as to kill injured persons by pouring acid, co-accused Binod Mahto, Pankaj, Pappu and Darshan Kumar poured acid on Raghvendra and also on Rakesh Kumar resultantly, they received severe burn injury upon their face, back, stomach, ear etc. Subsequently, Nibha Kumari was also attacked by acid due to which, her face got disfigured. Amerika Devi also received injury on her hand thereafter, accused persons fled away with empty bottles. It was deposed that initially all injured persons were referred to Hassanpur Primary Health Center from where, Raghvendra Kumar, Rakesh Kumar and Nibha Kumari were referred to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur. Considering serious condition, Raghvendra Kumar was referred to PMCH, Patna. A written information regarding occurrence was given by him to Hassanpur Police, Station, which was written by his nephew Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 14/71 Mintu Kumar and after reading the contents and finding its correct, he put his signature there. He identified his hand- writing and signature on written information dated 18.11.2018, which upon his identification was exhibited as Exhibit No. X/X-1.
17.1. Upon cross-examination, it was stated by him that the occurrence took place due to outraging of modesty of injured Nibha Kumari. It was stated that as Arvind Kumar was not available and he was in Samastipur for treatment, he became the informant of the occurrence. He stated to run a tent house business in village in the name and style of M/s. Deluxe Tent House. He denied any pending land dispute with accused persons. It was stated that the complain of outraging the modesty was made by Nibha Kumari herself. He did not receive any acid injury during the occurrence but, he was assaulted by lathi, for which he was not treated. It was stated by him that the colour of acid was red. Amerika Devi received acid injury on her right hand. Kanchan Mala did not receive any acid injury. It was co- accused Ram Jiwan Mahto, who ordered to pour acid. The Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 15/71 acid was also not found upon Preeti Kumari. It was stated that Rakesh Kumar is running a garage. He shown place of occurrence to the police. It was stated by him that some drops of acid were also found fallen on the ground. It was categorically stated by him that the cause of present occurrence was outraging the modesty of Nibha Kumari. It was stated that he made statement to police that Raghvendra received injury on his back and ear. Nibha Kumari also received injury on her face out of said acid attack. Amerika Devi received injury on her hand. He denied the suggestion that as he was not available at place of occurrence, therefore, he did not receive any acid injury. He also denied the suggestion that modesty of Nibha Kumari was not outraged by accused persons. He denied the suggestion that PW-7 after taking of acid from his scrap shop, made an attempt to throw it upon accused/appellants but, themselves received injury due to accident. He denied the suggestion that due to pending Title Suit No.126 of 2016, present false criminal case was lodged.
18. PW-2 is the victim, Bnibha Kumari. She is Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 16/71 also one of the injured, who received acid injury during the occurrence and deposed that occurrence took shape of present acid attack, which initiated from her outraging the modesty. It was deposed by her that occurrence took place on 18.11.2018, on Sunday at about 9:30 A.M. when Pappu and Pankaj collectively started to outrage her modesty and when she raised an alarm, the nearby people rushed to place of occurrence, whereafter, they left and subsequently, returned with family members having lathi, danda and acid bottles in their hand. She categorically stated that Binod Mahto, Pappu Kumar, Darshan Kumar and Pankaj Kumar were equipped with acid bottles. Ram Jiwan Mahto was equipped with lathi. After arriving at place of occurrence firstly, they started to abuse and subsequently, they started to assault with lathi, where in course of occurrence, Ram Jiwan Mahto ordered to kill by throwing acid whereafter, all four accused persons, namely, Binod Mahto, Darshan Kumar, Pankaj Kumar and Pappu Kumar caught hold Raghvendra Kumar (PW-5) and poured acid on his head as a result of which, his head, ear, neck from both sides back, Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 17/71 chest, right hand were burnt completely. It was deposed that to save Raghvendra, she along with Rakesh Kumar, Parmila Devi (PW-4), Shobha Kant Mahto (PW-7) went upto him but, acid was thrown upon them. Her clothes was burnt due to acid attack and she received injury also on her face and leg. She shown burnt leg to court having burn scar marks. It was deposed by her that Rakesh received injury on his neck, face etc. It was further deposed that Amerika Devi also received injury of acid on her right hand and, thereafter, all injured were brought to Government Sub-divisional Hospital, Hassanpur from where, she along with Raghvendra Kumar (PW-5) and Rakesh Kumar referred to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur from where injured Raghvendra Kumar further referred to PMCH, Patna.
18.1. Upon cross-examination, it was stated by her that she has not stated before police that there was land dispute between the parties. She further deposed that she has no knowledge that her father has lost Title Suit No.133 of 2013, which was pending before D.C.L.R. and now-a- days, Title Suit No. 126 of 2016 is pending before Sub- Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 18/71 Judge-III, Rosera. It was stated by her that she has no knowledge that whether her father and accused persons belongs from the same family or different family. She further stated that the distance of her house from the darwaja (courtyard) is about five feet. She further deposed that occurrence took place at her door. She deposed that distance of place of occurrence from the house of co-accused Pankaj and Pappu Kumar is 5-6 lagga. She further stated that she has no knowledge about length of one lagga. She further deposed that the accused Pappu and Pankaj had never teased earlier before this occurrence. She further deposed that she cannot disclose about the filthy word used by accused in the court. She further stated that they teased from word and did not touch her body. She stated that she cannot disclose the word to which the accused were used while teasing her in court. She further stated that when she shouted, the accused, Pappu and Pankaj fled away. There were six persons, who assaulted with lathi. She further deposed that Preeti Kumari and Parmila Devi were assaulted by six persons. She further stated that co-accused Ram Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 19/71 Jiwan Mahto, Rekha Devi, Bandana Devi Premshila Devi, Darshania Devi and Soni Kumari were assaulted with lathi. It was stated that she along with all injured were taken to Primary Health Centre, Hassanpur for treatment. She also went there. The family members of injured went there also. She along with her father, Arbind Mahto, mother Parmila Devi, Preeti Kumari, Swati Kumari and Shobha Kant Mahto were also admitted in Primary Health Center. She deposed that she has given her statement before the police after three days of occurrence at his door in conscious state of mind. She further deposed that she does not remember that earlier what she had stated in the court. It was stated by her that she shouted only when co-accused Pappu and Pankaj touched her body. It was stated by her that she handed over her clothes to police, which she was wearing at the time of occurrence. She further deposed that police has not made any seizure list and she did not make any signature. She denied the suggestion that she has not stated before the police that Kanchan Mala, Urmila Devi, Swati Kumari were assaulted by accused persons. She further deposed that she Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 20/71 has not stated to the police that ear of both sides, back, chest and left hand of Raghvendra Kumar was completely burnt, who was wearing T-shirt and half paint during the occurrence. She further deposed that on the date of occurrence, she worn frock and paijama. She denied the suggestion that she did not tell the police that Pankaj and Pappu had molested her and no such incident had taken place, as she had stated and at the instance of her family, she had deposed falsely. She denied the suggestion that she tell a lie that her uncle does not do garage work, which involves acid work.
19. PW-3 is Arvind Mahto. It was deposed by him that occurrence is of 18.11.2018, which was Sunday and it took place at about 9:30 A.M. At that time, he was in his courtyard and his daughter namely, Nibha Kumari was going to cattle house by crossing courtyard. In the meantime, accused Pappu Kumar and Pankaj Kumar came there and started to tease and abused her. On her alarm, he along with Sobha Kant Mahto, Rajesh Kumar, Rakesh Kumar, Amerika Devi, Preeti Kumari, Swati Kumari and his Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 21/71 mother went there. His mother, his son Raghvendra @ Munna and his wife Parmila Devi went there. It was deposed that the moment they arrived, Pankaj and Pappu rushed to their home, whereafter, Pappu, Pankaj, Binod, Ram Pravesh Mahto, Darshan Mahto, Ramjiwan Mahto, Soni Devi, Premshila Devi, Rekha Devi and Bandana Devi all eleven named persons and four unknown returned together to his cattle house. Out of them, Pankaj, Pappu, Binod and Darshan were came with acid bottles in their hands and others were equipped with lathi and danda. They all came there and started to assault Parmila Devi, Kanchanmala Devi and Preeti Devi physically and also attacked with acid. It was stated by him that accused caught hold his son Raghvendra and acid was poured by Darshan, Pappu, Pankaj and Binod. They poured acid on Raghvendra @ Munna, Rakesh, Amerika Devi and Nibha Kumari. It was deposed that head, neck, back side, right hand, chest, stomach, leg and left external pinna of Raghvendra was completely burnt during occurrence. Nibha Kumari received injury on her face and leg. Amerika Devi received injury on her hand and Rakesh Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 22/71 also received injury on his face, shirt etc. The acid also burnt their clothes. It was deposed that Preeti Kumari, Swati Kumari, his mother and his wife becomes injured due to lathi assault. After the occurrence, accused persons including the appellants fled away to their home. The injured persons were brought to Hassanpur Primary Health Center with help of co- villagers, where they were treated but, by taking note of serious medical condition of injured, Raghvendra, Nibha and Rakesh, they were referred to Samastipur Sadar Hospital, from where, injured Raghvendra Kumar was further referred to Patna Medical College and Hospital, (for short 'PMCH') at Patna. It was deposed that injured Raghvendra was still under treatment at PMCH. He further stated that he has filed Title Suit No.126 of 2016 against the accused Rajesh, Arjan, Vivek, Kishore, Priyalal, Ramjiwan and Rampravesh Mahto. The aforesaid case relates to land dispute. He further deposed that the occurrence was witnessed by Shobha Kant Mahto, Ashok Kumar, Lakshmi Mahto, Krishna Kumar Bhardwaj, Mantun Mahto. They were also threatened by the accused persons after the occurrence.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 23/71 19.1. Upon cross-examination, it was stated by him that his statement was recorded by police. He denied the suggestion that he has made statement before the police that her daughter Nibha Kumari went to cattle house for feeding the cattle. He further stated that he did not remember that he stated before the police whether Pappu and Pankaj molest her daughter or not. He denied the suggestion that he has not stated before the police that when we came from house, then Pappu and Pankaj fled away. He denied the suggestion that he has not stated before the police that Raghvendra was caught hold and acid was poured on his head, neck, right hand, ear, back etc. He denied the suggestion that he did not tell to the police that he along with Nibha, Preeti, Kanchanmala and Swati and Rakesh went there and threw acid on Rakesh due to which, he received injury on stomach. Amerika Devi also received injury on her hand and Nibha Kumari received injury on her stomach and leg. He further stated that occurrence took place at his door. He further deposed that clothes were burnt due to acid and his ganji was also burnt, to which he worn. It was stated that Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 24/71 paijama of Nibha was burnt upto knee. Her face was also burnt. It was stated that at the time of occurrence, injured Raghvendra was wearing ganji and paint. His T-shirt and paint were burnt during the occurrence. Injured Raghvendra is his son and injured Nibha Kumari is his daughter. He deposed that he did not remember that any drops of acid was on paint or not. The police had taken the clothes of all injured except the clothes of Rakesh. He deposed that he was handed over clothes after returning from hospital. It was deposed that police did not seize anything from the place of occurrence except clothes. He deposed that he remember that before this, he had earlier deposed in the court. He further deposed that Pankaj and Pappu are not his agnate. He further deposed that the acid was not thrown but, it was poured on Raghvendra by holding him. He further deposed that on rest of the people, acid was thrown, who were at the distance of one deg (steps). He denied the suggestion that he has stated before the police that acid was thrown upon Raghvendra. He deposed that total five accused persons were surrounded Raghvendra. He further deposed that Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 25/71 Raghvendra was at the distance of about one lagga from the accused person. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the place of occurrence and his brother keep the acid in his scrap shop.
20. PW-4 is Parmila Devi. She also supported the occurrence and deposed that it took place before three years on Sunday at 9:30 A.M. She also witnessed the acid bottles in hand of Pappu Kumar, Pankaj Kumar, Binod Mahto and Darshan Kumar and other co-accused were armed with lathi, danda. She deposed that on order of Ram Jiwan Mahto, acid was thrown. It was stated that co-accused Pappu, Pankaj, Binod and Darshan poured acid on Raghvendra Kumar, Rakesh Kumar, Nibha Kumari and Amerika Devi, resultantly, his head, ear, back, neck, stomach, left hand were burnt and left ear was completely corroded. He further stated that frock and paijama of Nibha Kumari also burnt. She received drops of acid on her leg. He further stated that cheek, neck and shirt of Rakesh Kumar was also burnt. Amerika Devi received burn injury on her hand. She further stated that shirt and paint of Raghvendra Kumar was burnt. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 26/71 She also supported the manner of occurrence and hospitalization of injured persons as it was deposed earlier by other prosecution witnesses and same not requires to be repeated for the sake of brevity.
20.1. Upon cross-examination, it was deposed by her that police has recorded her statement. It was also stated that she does not remember whether she said this fact to the police or not that Ramjiwan ordered to throw acid and kill everyone with sticks and lathi. She further stated that she does not remember whether she told the police or not that all four together threw acid on Raghvendra, Rakesh and Amerika. She further deposed that she does not remember whether she told to the police or not that nose, neck, stomach, back, right hand were burnt and left ear of Raghvendra was completely corroded. She further deposed that she does not remember whether she told the police or not that frock and pyjama of Nibha Kumari were burnt and cheek, neck and shirt of Rakesh Kumar were also burnt. She further deposed that her husband did not say anything regarding this occurrence and there was no discussion with Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 27/71 him about the incident. She further deposed that she did not have any conversation with anyone else about this incident except the police. She further deposed that she deposed in this case for the second time in court today. She further deposed that when she first deposed in this case she does not remember that she said that she had a conversation with her husband and others regarding the incident. She is a witness of outraging the modesty of her daughter by accused persons. She further deposed that when Raghvendra Kumar came, he said that Nibha was caught by Pappu and Pankaj. At that time, they did not pour acid. Both ran away at that time. She further deposed that after the incident, we all became unconscious. She further deposed that she regain consciousness after 4-5 days. She further deposed the Raghvendra and Nibha were referred to Samastipur in unconscious condition. She denied any previous enmity with accused persons. She categorically stated that the acid was not thrown rather it was poured. It was stated that when she arrived at the place of occurrence, the accused person were outraging the modesty of Nibha Kumari. She made her Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 28/71 statement regarding outraging the modesty of her daughter to the police. It was stated that when she saw acid in hand of co-accused persons, they started to ran away from the place of occurrence but, in that course only, the injured were assaulted by lathi and also acid was poured upon. She did not saw the colour of acid. She also received injury during occurrence. She denied the suggestion that she did not saw any incident and no such incident had taken place as she had stated.
21. PW-5 is Raghvendra Kumar @ Munna. He also supported the date, day and time of occurrence as 18.11.2018 being Sunday, when occurrence took place at about 9:30 A.M. It was stated by him that when Nibha Kumari (PW-2) was going to cattle house for feeding cattle, co-accused Pappu and Pankaj outraged her modesty, upon which, her sister shouted for help, he went there on alarm. He was followed by his father, uncle Rakesh Kumar, Amerika Devi, Shobha Kant Mahto, Preeti Kumar, Swati Kumari, Parmila Devi and Kanchanmala etc. They collectively opposed it, whereafter, Pappu and Pankaj fled away to their Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 29/71 house and immediately returned along with all family members, total of eleven persons including Binod Mahto, Pappu Kumar, Darshan Kumar and Pankaj Kumar, who were equipped with acid bottles. Binod was also equipped with pistols and acid bottle. Ram Jiwan Mahto, Soni Kumari, Bandana Kumari, Premshila Kumari, Rampravesh Mahto, Rekha Kumari and Darshaniya Devi were equipped with lathi. After arriving at place of occurrence, initially, they abused and, thereafter, started to assault indiscriminately with lathi and injured them. During the course of occurrence itself, Ram Jiwan Mahto ordered to kill all of us by pouring acid, whereafter, Binod Mahto caught hold by his neck and pushed him down whereafter Pappu Kumar, Pankaj Kumar and Darshan Kumar poured acid upon his head due to which, his head, neck received burn injuries and he lost his left ear completely. He also received injury in his eye and on face, cheek, chest, stomach, both hands and leg. The right hand was completely burnt and was not working. To save him, Rakesh, Nibha, Amerika Devi came there but, they also thrown acid on them, resultantly, these three persons also Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 30/71 becomes injured. Injured Rakesh Mahto received injuries on his cheek and neck. Nibha Kumari received injures on her face and leg and her clothes was also burnt and Amerika Devi received injuries on her hand. After the occurrence, accused persons fled away with empty acid bottles from place of occurrence. All injured persons including him were brought first to Primary Health Center, Hasanpur, from where he, Nibha (PW-2) and Rakesh Kumar (not examined) were referred to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur from where he was further referred to PMCH considering his serious condition, where still he is under treatment. He found difficulty in talking. His neck was also not working due to injury as he could not raise it properly. He stated that the mark of injuries caused to the injured witnesses due to acid attack were available on various parts of their body, which was shown by them in the court.
21.1. Upon cross-examination, it was stated by him that before this occurrence, he was a student and was preparing for competitive examination. It was stated by him that police has recorded his statement. Ramjiwan had a stick Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 31/71 in his hand. He further deposed that when he reached there, all accused came and starting assault. He further deposed that he was hit by lathi on his back, forehead and waist. He deposed that he did not faint, he was conscious. None of the injured, who were assaulted fell unconscious. All the injured were taken to hospital. He further deposed that apart from him, Preeti Kumari, Swati Kumari, Parmila Devi, Kanchanmala Devi were also injured from said assault, who were taken to hospital, where he was admitted. Total eleven persons attacked together. He further deposed that he had told in his earlier statement that 20-25 people had come after shouting the girl. He deposed that apart from his family members, Shobha Kant Mahto, Rakesh Kumar, Amerika Devi are witnesses. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by the police about five months after the incident. He further deposed that he had said in his previous testimony that he does not remember that his treatment is continuing at PMCH for 10-11 months. He further deposed that his treatment is still going on. He further deposed that when he returned home after treatment, he gave the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 32/71 statement. He further deposed that when the accused were pouring acid on him then, Binod Mahto was holding his body. He further deposed that he does not remember that in his previous testimony, he said that four persons, namely, Binod, Darshan Kumar, Pappu Kumar and Pankaj Kumar by holding his neck bent down. He denied the suggestion that no such incident has taken place as he deposed and a civil suit, being Title Suit No. 125 of 2016 is pending and before that, his father has lost a case relating to land dispute being Case No. 133 of 2013, and due to that reason, a false case has been lodged against the accused persons.
22. PW-6 is Preeti Kumari. She also supported the date, day and time of occurrence and also the manner of assault as well as acid attack specifically caused by co- accused Pankaj, Pappu, Binod and Darshan. She also stated that Ramjiwan Mahto poured acid resultantly, ear of Raghvendra corroded completly and he received acid burn injury throughout on his body upto leg. She also deposed in same manner regarding hospitalization and treatment of injured person, as deposed by earlier prosecution witnesses. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 33/71 She further stated that she was treated at Hassanpur. She stated that she has made statement before the police regarding the incident. She further stated that she will recognize the accused persons. She also identified the accused Pankaj Kumar and Pappu Kumar, who were present in the court.
22.1. Upon cross-examination, she deposed that when she arrived at the place of occurrence, she found Raghvendra Kumar, Nibha Kumari, Rakesh Mahto, Amerika Kumari in burnt condition. She did not made any statement before police. The occurrence of outraging the modesty was first time. They were not on talking terms with family of accused persons. She denied land dispute between the parties. From her deposition, it can be gathered safely that she is not the actual eye-witness of the occurrence of acid attack, as the injured already received injuries before her arrival at the place of occurrence. She also appears to depose regarding occurrence first time during the trial, as she has not made statement before police during investigation.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 34/71
23. PW-7 is Shobha Kant Mahto, who also supported the date, day and time of occurrence and deposed that on alarm of Nibha Kumari, he arrived at place of occurrence, where co-accused Pappu and Pankaj were already available, who rushed to their house and called all family members, who were equipped with lathi, danda and acid. He named some of the co-accused persons accompanied Pappu and Pankaj, namely, Darshan, Binod Mahto, Rekha Devi, Ramjiwan Mahto along with 14-15 persons. He categorically stated that out of them, Pankaj, Darshan, Pappu and Binod were equipped with acid in their hand. It was deposed that initially assault was made by lathi but, upon the order of co-accused Ramjiwan Mahto to kill them by pouring acid, co-accused Pankaj, Pappu, Darshan and Binod poured acid on Raghvendra, resultantly, his whole body starting from head to legs burnt. The clothes was also burnt during the occurrence and in order to save injured Raghvendra (PW-5), Rakesh (not examined) went there. They also poured acid on him resultantly, his stomach and cheek burnt. Injured Nibha Kumari (PW-2) received injury Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 35/71 on her leg and knee. Others also received acid injuries, who have tried to save them, namely Kanchan Mala etc. All injured were brought on Bolero to Primary Health Center, Hasanpur from where, Reghvendra, Rakesh and Nibha were referred to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur, from where observing the condition of Raghvendra, he was referred to PMCH, Patna. It was stated by him that he recognized the accused persons, namely, Pankaj and Pappu in the court.
23.1. In cross-examination, he also affirmed the manner of injuries as he had stated in his examination-in- chief. It was stated that the police has recorded his statement. It was deposed by him that this case was filed by Rajesh Kumar. The house of Rajesh Kumar was 150 meters away in the north-east but, again said, north east side from the place of noise. It was stated that Raghvendra was also assaulted on his head by Ramjiwan Mahto by lathi but, he did not receive any injury and soon thereafter, the acid attack was made. He could not made any attempt to save the victim for the reason that as at that point of time, his hand was fractured due to road accident. He returned home from Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 36/71 Samastipur after sending Raghvendra to PMCH. He deposed that entire occurrence took place at teen batiya road from where all injured came at the door on their feet and from there all injured were being taken to hospital on Bolero. He further deposed that he was watching the occurrence from distance of 50 meter away from the place of occurrence.
24. PW-8 Dr. Vimal Rai, who was posted as Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre, Hassanpur on 19.11.2018. On that day, he examined injured Preeti Kumari and found the following injuries:-
"1. Injury no-1 Bruise 1 ½" x 3/4" over posterior part of right arm.
2. Injury No.2 Bruise 1 ½" x 3/4" over posterior part of right arm about 3" apart from the injury no.1.
3. Injury No.3 Tenderness back.
4. Mark of Identification-one mole on left side of face.
5. Age of injury- within 36 hours.
6. Time of examination - 04:15 PM
7. Nature of injury - Injury Nos.1, 2 and 3 are simple caused by hard and blunt substance".
He has stated that he has prepared injury report of injured Preeti Kumari in his handwriting and signature, Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 37/71 upon his identification, it was exhibited as Exhibit No.9.
He further stated that on the same day, he examined the injured Kanchan Mala Devi, who were taken to Primary Health Center and upon her examination, found the following injuries:-
"1. Injury no-1 - Tenderness back.
2. Mark of identification - one mole below right eye.
3. Age of injury - within six hours.
4. Time of examination - 4:18 PM
5. Nature of injury is simple, caused by hard and blunt substances".
He stated that the injury report was prepared in his handwriting and signature, which upon identification, was exhibited as Exhibit No.1/1.
On the same day, he also examined injured Pramila Devi, who came to Primary Health Centre for treatment and upon her examination, found the following injuries:-
"1. Injury no-1 - Tenderness on neck.
2. Mark of identification - cut mark over right eyebrow.
3. Age of injury - within six hours.
4. Time of examination - 4:20 PM
5. Nature of injury is simple, caused by hard Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 38/71 and blunt substance".
He stated that injury report of injured Pramila Devi was prepared in his handwriting and signature, which upon his identification, was exhibited as Exhibit No.1/2.
He further stated that he examined Amerika Devi on 19.11.2018 at Primary Health Center, Hasanpur, who came for treatment and upon his examination, found the following injuries:-
"1.Injury no.-1 swelling with right forearm with blackening of skin.
2. Mark of Identification- One mole on left side of face.
3. Age of injury- within six hours.
4. Time of examination - 04:05 PM
5. Nature of injury - simple, caused by hard and blunt substance. Suspicion of some corrosive substance contact. It may be acid."
He has stated that the injury report of injured Amerika Devi was before him, which was in his handwriting and signature, upon his identification, was exhibited as Exhibit No.1/3.
24.1. During cross-examination, it was deposed by him that he has treated all the injured on the same day. He has further stated that he has examined all injured on Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 39/71 19.11.2018. He has examined the first injured at 4:05 P.M. He stated that the interval of time was ten minutes. He further stated that he has examined the injured Kanchanmala at 4:18 P.M., injured Parmila Devi at 4:20 P.M. and injured Preeti Kumari at 4:15 P.M. He further stated that he has made over-writing on the date of treatment of injured Preeti Kumari. He further stated that the tenderness means "pain on pressure". He found tenderness on whole neck of Kanchan Mala but, he did not find any visible injuries on her body. He has further stated that he has mentioned the age of injury on the request of all injured but, stated that it was applicable on the injured, who has received injury of tenderness. He further stated that he has mentioned the age of injury regarding injured Amerika Devi was within six hours on the basis of colour change of skin. He further deposed that he suspected that the injury found on the injured Amerika Devi was due to corrosive substance. He has not specifically mentioned the word 'burn'. It was stated by him that since the injury was simple therefore, he has not referred the injured. He has denied the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 40/71 suggestion that he has not found burn injury. He has stated that injury was caused due to hard and blunt substance or due to fall. He has further stated that he was deposed earlier in this case also. It was stated by him that he has deposed in his examination-in-chief that he has written the name of injured without examining his identity but, written his mark. He has stated that he has not taken any identity proof of any injured. He has further stated that he found swelling on the body of injured Amerika Devi but, he did not mentioned it the dimension. He has denied the suggestion that injury report prepared by him was not scientific and it was incorrect.
25. PW-9 is Dr. Arvind Kumar, who was posted as Medical Officer at Primary Health Center, Hassanpur on 18.11.2018. On that day, at about 11.15 A.M., he has treated the injured Raghvendra Kumar and upon his examination, found the following injuries on his person:-
" (1) Lacerated wound on occipital part of skull 1/4" x 1/4".
(2) Abrasion on occipital part of scalp-1¼" x 1/4" x 1/4" .
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 41/71 (3) Burn scar, scattered on middle of chest to lower part of abdomen, (4) Burn scar on posterior part of right shoulder- 1½" x 1/2" x 1/2"
(5) Burn scar mark on right lower-1/3rd of right forearm 1/4" x 1/4" x 1/4"
(6) Burn scar mark of left side of neck-1/2" x 1/4"
x 1/4"
(7) Burn scattered on right side of neck- 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4'."
He stated that patient was referred to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur, burn unit for treatment. He opined that the age of injury was within six hours. He opined that the nature of injury nos.-2,3,4,5,6,7 caused by corrosive substances such as, acid. Rest all are by hard and blunt substances. He further stated that the injury report was prepared by him in his handwriting and put his signature over the same, upon his identification, it was exhibited as Exhibit No.2.
It was stated by him that he has received supplementary injury report dated 05.01.2019 of Raghvendra Kumar @ Munna Kumar, who was treated by him on 18.11.2018 and was referred to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 42/71 It was stated by him that he found in supplementary injury report, total burn surface is 22%, which shows the nature of injury No. 1 is simple in nature, attached copy of report given by PMCH, Patna. Supplementary injury report dt.- 05.01.2019 was prepared by him and he identified it. On identification of witness Medical Officer, supplementary Injury report of Raghavendra Kumar dt.- 05.01.2019 was marked as Exhibit No.-2/1.
He further stated that on same day, at 11:30 AM, he examined injured Rakesh Kumar and upon his examination, found the following injuries:-
"(1) Scattered burn mark on lateral aspect of right side of neck-1 ½" x 1/2" x 1/2".
(2) Burn scar mark on left side of face- 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4".
(3) Burn scar mark on right side of face - 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4".
(4) Scattered burn on posterior aspect of dorsal aspect of left hand-1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4".
(5) Burn scar mark on posterior aspect of right arm - 1/2"'x 1/4' x 1/4'."
He stated that patient was referred to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur for treatment. It was stated by him Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 43/71 that age of injury was within six hours. He opined that the nature of injury nos.1,2,3,4 and 5 caused by corrosive substances. He kept his opinion reserved regarding injury no.1. for final opinion and rest of Injury no. 2,3,4 and 5 were found simple in nature.
It was stated by him that he has prepared injury report of injured Rakesh Kumar in his handwriting and also put signature over it. He identified his signature on aforesaid injury report of Rakesh Kumar, which upon his identification was exhibited as Exhibit No.2/2.
He further stated that on the basis of supplementary injury report of injured Rakesh Kumar prepared by Dr. P.D. Sharma, he prepared supplementary injury report of Rakesh Kumar and mentioned in the report regarding injury no.1 as simple in nature. He further stated that the supplementary injury report of injured Rakesh Kumar was also prepared by him in his handwriting and put signature over it, which upon his identification was exhibited as Exhibit No.2/3.
He further stated that on same day, at 11.15 AM, Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 44/71 he examined injured victim (N.K.) and found the following injuries on her person, which are as under:-
"(1) Scattered burn scar mark on middle 1/3rd of left leg -1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4".
(2) Scattered burn scar mark on lower 1/3rd of right arm 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4".
(3) Burn scar mark on posterior aspect of right elbow 1/4" x 1/4" x 1/4"."
It was stated by him that age of injury was within six hours. He found a wound scar mark on lateral aspect of right elbow. He opined that the nature of Injury Nos.-1,2 and 3 were caused due to corrosive substances such as acid. He found all injuries are simple in nature.
It was stated by him that injury report of victim (N.K.) was prepared by him in his handwriting and put signature over it, which upon his identification was exhibited as Exhibit No.2/4.
It was further stated by him that he has received supplementary injury report dated 05.01.2019 of the victim (N.K.), who was examined and referred to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur by him. He further stated that on demand, he also submitted supplementary injury report of aforesaid Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 45/71 injured N.K. and he had mentioned in this report that he had already given injury report of this injured. Supplementary injury report of Nibha Kumari dt.-05.01.2019 is prepared in his handwriting bearing his signature on it, which upon his identification, was exhibited as Exhibit No-2/5.
25.1. Upon cross-examination, he deposed that any healed injury are called "scar". He further deposed that he mentioned in report regarding burn scar of injury nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6, which means mark of burn. He further deposed that the meaning of "abrasion" is scratch and "laceration" means "cut" and "incised" means "a cut wound", which is deep caused by hard and blunt substance. He further deposed that he has not written dimension of Injury No.3 on body of Raghvendra and injury Nos. 1 and 2 may be caused due to acid pouring and injury Nos. 3 and 7 may be caused due to hard and blunt substance. He further stated that injury found on the body of Rakesh may be caused due to acid and injury Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 may not be caused due to hard and blunt substance but, it caused due to corrosive substance. He further deposed that petrol and kerosene do Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 46/71 not come under the category of corrosive substance and also the acid used in battery does not come under the category of corrosive substance. He further stated that the injuries caused by corrosive substance on the body of injured may be caused by throwing acid, in which the clothes may burn. He further deposed that when he treated injured Raghvendra, he was wearing paint and shirt. He further deposed that he does not remember that which part of his paint and shirt were burnt and he did not mention it in the injury report. He further stated that the colour of skin changes due to acid injury. He further stated that he has not mentioned it in the injury report of any of the injured. He further stated that he did not mention in injury report that skin will shrink due to acid injury. He further stated that he wrote whatever, the injured persons told him. He further deposed that when acid is thrown upward, it will move downward and wherever the acid spreads, there will be injuries. He further deposed that he did not find any other injuries on the entire body of the injured person. He further deposed that he found the injury on specific place, which he has mentioned. In cross- Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 47/71 examination, he further deposed that injury No.1 scattered burn scar found on the body of victim (N.K.)/PW-2 was written on the basis of mark of old burn injury. He further stated that it was not old but, it was written on the basis of mark of scattered burn injury. He further stated that he did not mention about the nature of injury in the injury report of any of the injured to be fatal. He has denied the suggestion that he has not found any burn injuries on any part of the injured and injury report was unscientific and it was fabricated.
26. PW-10 is Dr. Nagmani Raj, who stated in his examination-in-chief that on 13.07.2019, he was posted as Specialist Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Samastipur. He further stated that injured Raghvendra Kumar was brought by Ajit Kumar, A.S.I. of Hasanpur Police Station for examination. He further stated that in the light of Letter No.1774 dated 08.07.2019 issued under the signature of Civil Surgeon, Samastipur and Letter No.842 dated 04.07.2019 issued under the signature of Superintendent of Police, Samastipur, a Medical Board was constituted under Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 48/71 the Chairmanship of Dr. A.N. Shahi comprising Dr. Hemant Kumar, Dr. Jaykant Paswan and Dr. Nagmani Raj (himself) and upon examination of injured Raghvendra Kumar, the Medical Board has found the following injuries, which are as follows:-
"(1) Healed wound with hypertrophic scar over right forearm and right upper arm measuring size- 15" x 4".
(2) Healed wound with hypertrophic scar over right shoulder of size 5" x 3"
(3) Healed wound with hypertrophic scar extending from front of neck to the suprapubic region of size-22" x 4" with contracture of the neck muscles. He is unable to move his head completely.
(4) Healed wound with hypertrophic scar over left occipito parietal region of size- 6" x 4" with complete loss of left ear pinna.
(5) There is contracture of left angle of mouth with disfigurement of face.
(6) Healed wound with hypertrophic scar extending from back of neck to right scapular region of size 15" x 5".
(7) Healed wound of left side of forehead of size 4" x 3".
(8) Healed wound right calf 4" x 2"."
He stated that the injury was grievous in nature. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 49/71 He stated in his examination-in-chief that entire injury report was prepared by Dr. Hemant Kumar Singh in presence of Chairman and members of the Medical Board on which Dr. Hemant Kumar Singh has put his signature. He has also identified the signature of Ajit Kumar, A.S.I., who has brought the injured Raghvendra Kumar. He further stated that the entire report of the Medical Board is before him and he identified the handwriting and signature of Dr. Hemant Kumar Singh and also identified the signatures of Dr. A.N. Shahi and Dr. Jaikant Paswan, which upon his identification was exhibited as Exhibit No.-3 and signature of Dr. Hemant Kumar Singh, Dr. A.N. Shahi, Dr. Jaykant Paswan on injury report were identified as Exhibit Nos. 3/1, 3/2, 3/3 and 3/4 respectively. He further stated that the injured Raghvendra Kumar has put his signature before him, which upon his identification, was exhibited as Exhibit No. 3/5 and upon identification, the signature of Ajit Kumar, A.S.I. Hasanpur Police Station was exhibited as Exhibit No.3/6. He further stated that he identified the injured on the basis of his injury report to whom he has Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 50/71 treated.
26.1. In cross-examination, it was deposed by him that patient was brought by Ajit Kumar, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Hassanpur Police Station. He further stated that he has not mentioned in the medical report that who has again referred the patient for further examination. He further stated that under the direction of Civil Surgeon and the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur, he has examined the injured Raghvendra Kumar. He further stated that apart from injury on the body of injured Raghvendra Kumar, there were multiple head injury on his body. There was no movement of head. Pinna (external ear) was missing. He further deposed that the meaning of 'heal' is 'healing of injury'. Injury was healed. He further deposed that 'scar' means 'mark of injury'. He has further deposed that he has not mentioned in the injury report of Medical Board that injured was treated. He further deposed that every injury contains three dimension and no dimension was found in any of injuries. He voluntarily stated that three dimension is not found in healed injury. He further deposed Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 51/71 that after observation of injured Raghvendra Kumar, injury No.4 was written. He further deposed that all the injuries mentioned in the report are based on clinical examination. He further deposed that on the basis of clinical examination, can he tell whether his ears and eyes are fine or not? He further stated that he can tell the condition of the ear by performing a clinical examination of the ear. He further deposed that he did not mention in the report as to how the injury caused on the body of Raghvendra Kumar but, it was caused due to acid attack. He further deposed that he mentioned in the injury report about the date of alleged acid injury, which is of 18.11.2018. He further deposed that he has not mentioned in the injury report that healed injury was 'burn injury'. He further stated that he has said about the nature of injury as "grievous" on the basis of loss of pinna, disfigurement of face, restricted movement of neck, multiple healed wound and did not opined it only on the basis of scar mark. He denied the suggestion that he has prepared the medical report in collusion with prosecution and it is unscientific. He further deposed that the Medical Board did Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 52/71 not require report of Ultra sound and x-ray.
27. PW-11 is Tunanand Singh, who is Investigating Officer of this case and was posted as A.S.I. Hasanpur Police Station. On 18.11.2018, he received charge of investigation of present case after lodging of Hasanpur P.S. Case No.244 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 326-A, 326-B, 307, 354, 504 and 506 of the IPC through the then S.H.O. Mahadav Kamat. It was stated by him that he has perused the written report submitted by informant Rajesh Kumar (PW-1). He stated that from perusal of written report, it appears that informant has named the accused persons, namely, Pappu Kumar (appellant), Pankaj Kumar (appellant), Binod Mahto, Rampravesh Mahto, Ramjiwan Mahto, Darshan Kumar, Preshila Devi, Rekha Devi, Soni Kumari, Bandana Kumari and Darshaniya Devi in the FIR. The allegation against them in the FIR is that they have assaulted and poured acid upon the victim. It was stated that he has received the written information from S.H.O. of Hassanpur Police Station. He has identified the pagination Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 53/71 which was written by the then S.H.O. regarding police case. He has also identified the handwriting and signature of the then S.H.O. Mahadev Kamat, which upon his identification, was exhibited as Exhibit No.4. He further stated that the FIR was prepared through computerized process on which on page no.3, there is seal along with signature of Mahadev Kamat. Upon his identification, the formal FIR was exhibited as Exhibit No.5 and signature of the then S.H.O. namely, Mahadev Kamat was exhibited as Exhibit No.5/1. He further stated that during course of investigation, he has recorded the statement of informant Rajesh Kumar in which he has supported the case. He visited the place of occurrence. He further stated that he has recorded the statement of witnesses, namely, Arbind Mahto and Parmila Devi, who were present at the place of occurrence, who has also supported the occurrence. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of available witnesses, as Arbind Mahto, Parmila Devi, who supported the occurrence. Thereafter, he raided at different places for arresting the accused persons. He arrested accused/appellant Darshan Kumar and Ram Jiwan Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 54/71 Mahto. He also arrested accused Binod Mahto. He also recorded the statement of witnesses, namely, Nibha Kumari/victim, daughter of Arbind Mahto, Rakesh Kumar (not examined), Amerika Devi (not examined), wife of Shobha Kant Mahto, Preeti Kumar (PW-6), daughter of Arbind Mahto and Shobha Kant Mahto, who supported the occurrence, being an eye-witness of the occurrence. He received the injury report of Raghvendra Kumar @ Munna Kumar, Nibha Kumari (PW-2), Rakesh Kumar, Kanchanmala, Preeti Kumari (PW-6), Parmila Devi (PW-4) and Amerika Devi. He has also recorded the statement of Ramakant Mahto, Ramsewak Mahto, Raj Kumar and Abhishek Bharti, who also supported the occurrence and after completion of investigation, he submitted charge-sheet No. 205 of 2018 dated 30.12.2018 registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 326-A, 326-B, 341, 354, 504 and 506 of the IPC against accused Binod Mahto, Darshan Kumar and Ram Jiwan Mahto, Pappu Kumar (appellant) and Pankaj Kumar (appellant) and supplementary investigation was under progress against rest Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 55/71 of the accused persons on different points. He further stated that he has handed over charge of this case to the then S.H.O., namely, Chandrakant Gauri on 31.12.2018.
27.1. Upon cross-examination, it was stated by him that he along with Chaukidar, namely, Arun Mahto went to the house of Umakant Mahto for investigation. Umakant Mahto has forwarded the application to the senior police officer. He stated that he has not mentioned in the case diary regarding the aforesaid application. He further stated that he has not mentioned in the case diary regarding the direction given by senior officer. He has recorded the statement of Umakant. He further stated that Umakant is not the witness of the occurrence. He further stated that Umakant has not co-operated in the occurrence to the accused persons. It was stated by him that he has not written about the injury report of any injured in the case diary. He has not mentioned in the case diary that all injured were conscious or unconscious. He further stated that he did not find any sign of acid on clothes and soil and he did not recorded the aforesaid things in the case diary. He further stated that niece of informant, Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 56/71 namely, Mintu Kumar has not come along with any application before him. He further stated that he has no knowledge that niece of informant, namely, Mintu Kumar has given any application in the police station or not. He further stated that he has not recorded the statement of any doctor in this case. He has not seized the clothes of any injured on which acid was sprinkled and no one has handed over their clothes voluntarily. He further stated that apart from the statement of informant he also recorded the statement of Shobha Kant Mahto. He further stated that the occurrence was of 9:30 A.M. in the morning. The information in this regard was received by S.H.O. He further stated that FIR was registered at 11:15 A.M. as it appears from perusal of FIR. He further stated that it was mentioned in the FIR that the injured were referred to Samastipur till information regarding lodging of FIR was received. He further stated that he did not investigate on the point that injured were referred to Samastipur Hospital before lodging of FIR, where as per the injury report, the injured Raghvendra Kumar was under
treatment in the Primary Health Center, Hassanpur till 11.30 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 57/71 hours. He denied the suggestion that his investigation was defective and not scientific and was not in accordance with police manuals. It was deposed that he did not make any sketch map of the place of occurrence.
28. PW-12 is Ajit Kumar. He stated in his examination-in-chief that on 20.01.2019, he was posted as A.S.I. at Hasanpur Police Station. On that day, he has taken charge of supplementary investigation of Hasanpur P.S. Case No.244 of 2018 dated 18.11.2018 registered u/s 147, 148 149, 341, 323, 324, 326-A, 326-B, 307, 354, 504 and 506 of the IPC from the then S.H.O. namely, Chandrakant Gauri. After taking charge, he perused the case diary, which was prepared by the then A.S.I., Tunanand Singh during the investigation. He received the supplementary injury report of injured, Raghvendra Kumar @ Munna, Nibha Kumari and Rakesh Kumar from Primary Health Center and mentioned in the case diary. It was stated by him that he has received second supplementary injury report of injured Rakesh Kumar from Sadar Hospital, Samastipur and mentioned in the case diary. It was stated by him that during investigation, he has Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 58/71 recorded the statement of injured Raghvendra Kumar @ Munna in which he has supported the occurrence. It was stated by him that during the course of supplementary investigation, he found the allegation true under the different sections against named co-accused, namely, Pappu Kumar (appellant), Pankaj Kumar (appellant), Premshila Devi, Rekha Devi, Bandana Devi and Darshania Devi and submitted supplementary charge-sheet No.81 of 2019 dated 31.05.2019 and closed the investigation of this case, which was in his handwriting and signature and which was before him on which signature of the then forwarding officer, namely, Chandrakant Gauri was available, which he identified. Upon his identification, the same was exhibited as Exhibit No. 6 and signature of witness was exhibited as Exhibit No. 6/1 and signature of forwarding officer was exhibited as Exhibit No. 6/2.
28.1. In cross-examination, he deposed that he has not recorded statements of accused persons against whom he has submitted charge-sheet. It was deposed by him that he has seen the case diary, which was prepared by Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 59/71 earlier Investigating Officer. It was deposed by him that Raghvendra has not stated before him that he is a student of medical science and also read both Hindi and English. It was stated by him that injured Raghvendra has stated before him that on hulla of Nibha, he along with his family reached there. He has stated that he told him about hulla and not shouting. He has not made further investigation at place of occurrence. He further deposed that no sketch map of place of occurrence was prepared by the earlier Investigating Officer and he also not tried to prepare any sketch map of place of occurrence. It was deposed that none of the injured persons have given their clothes to him. It was deposed that injured Raghvendra has told him regarding land dispute and title suit, which was going between the parties. It was deposed that on demand, he has not received any documents relating to land dispute and title suit going on between the parties from witness. He deposed that he has recorded the statement of Raghvendra Kumar after four months from taking charge of investigation, because he was under treatment, he has not given his statement. He denied Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 60/71 the suggestion that his investigation was defective and not scientific and was not in accordance with police manuals.
29. It transpires from the aforesaid discussion of oral evidence that three prosecution witnesses have received the injuries during the occurrence, who are Rakesh Kumar (not examined), PW-2 Nibha Kumari and PW-5 Raghvendra Kumar. PW-2 Nibha Kumari, who is also one of the injured out of acid attack, stated same version that Binod Mahto, Darshan Kumar, Pappu Kumar and Pankaj Kumar were equipped with acid bottle. All these four persons after holding Raghvendra Kumar (PW-5) poured acid upon him as a result of which, his head, neck from both sides, chest and right hand were burnt completely. PW-5 is Raghvendra Kumar, who received more serious injuries during the occurrence stated that upon instigation of Ram Jiwan Mahto, Binod Mahto bent him by neck and, thereafter, Pappu Kumar, Pankaj Kumar and Darshan Kumar poured acid upon him as a result of which, he received burn injury on his head, neck and on ear, where he lost external ear completely. He also received injury in his eye. His chest, back, neck area and Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 61/71 stomach also received acid burn injuries out of said acid attack.
30. The informant (PW-1) also supported the occurrence in the same manner that Binod Mahto, Darshan, Pappu and Pankaj were equipped with acid bottles in their hands. Upon the instigation of Ram Jiwan Mahto, they thrown acid upon Raghvendra (PW-5), Rakesh Kumar (not examined) and Nibha Kumari (PW-2). As per his testimony, Amerika Devi also received injuries on her head but, she not appears to be examined during the course of trial. It appears from his testimony that out of acid attack, injured Raghvendra received more serious injuries.
31. It is settled principle of law that until and unless there is no any other compelling circumstances, the testimony of injured witnesses ordinarily not to be disbelieved, as there is no any apparent reason for roping the innocent persons with crime in question.
32. It would be apposite to re-produce para-25 and 26 of the legal report of Hon'ble Supreme Court as available through Nand Lal and Others vs. State of Chhatisgarh Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 62/71 [(2023) 10 SCC 470], which is as under:-
"25. We will first consider the issue with regard to non-explanation of injuries sustained by Accused 11 Naresh Kumar. In Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar (1976) 4 SCC 394 :
1976 SCC (Cri) 671], which case also arose out of a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, this Court had an occasion to consider the issue of non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused. This Court, after referring to the earlier judgments on the issue, observed thus:
"12. ... It seems to us that in a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the court can draw the following inferences:(1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version;
(2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable;
(3) that in case there is a defence Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 63/71 version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case.
The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one. In the instant case, when it is held, as it must be, that the appellant Dasrath Singh received serious injuries which have not been explained by the prosecution, then it will be difficult for the court to rely on the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and 6, more particularly, when some of these witnesses have lied by stating that they did not see any injuries on the person of the accused.
Thus neither the Sessions Judge nor the High Court appears to have given due consideration to this important lacuna or infirmity appearing in the prosecution case. We must hasten to add that as held by this Court in State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima [(1975) 2 SCC 7] there may be cases where the non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not affect the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 64/71 prosecution case. This principle would obviously apply to cases where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and creditworthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. The present, however, is certainly not such a case, and the High Court was, therefore, in error in brushing aside this serious infirmity in the prosecution case on unconvincing premises.
26. A similar view with regard to non-
explanation of injuries has been taken by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Madho [1991 Supp (2) SCC 396], State of M.P. v. Mishrilal, [(2003) 9 SCC 426] and Nagarathinam v. State, [(2006) 9 SCC 57]."
33. One of the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that all witnesses are interested witnesses and, therefore, their testimony should not be accepted but, as the version of injured witnesses who are related to each other are so clear, cogent and credible that there is no reason to discard the same.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 65/71
34. In this context, it would be apposite to re- produce para-30 of the legal report of Hon'ble Supreme Court as available through Balraje @ Trimbak vs. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 6 SCC 673], which is as under:-
"30. In law, testimony of an injured witness is given importance. When the eyewitnesses are stated to be interested and inimically disposed towards the accused, it has to be noted that it would not be proper to conclude that they would shield the real culprit and rope in innocent persons. The truth or otherwise of the evidence has to be weighed pragmatically. The court would be required to analyse the evidence of related witnesses and those witnesses who are inimically disposed towards the accused. But if after careful analysis and scrutiny of their evidence, the version given by the witnesses appears to be clear, cogent and credible, there is no reason to discard the same. Conviction can be made on the basis of such evidence."
35. This Court further finds that any faulty investigation or delay in medical examination in present case is not helping the convicts/appellants in view of clear-cut, cogent and consistent testimony of injured witnesses i.e. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 66/71 PW-2 and PW-5. To discard their testimony solely on the ground that the investigation was faulty would amount to only adding insult to the injury received by the injured.
36. In this context, it would further be apposite to re-produce para-13 of the legal report of Hon'ble Supreme Court as available through Ram Bihari Yadav vs. State of Bihar and Ors. [(1998) 4 SCC 517], as cited by learned counsel for the informant, which is as under:-
"13. Before parting with this case we consider it appropriate to observe that though the prosecution has to prove the case against the accused in the manner stated by it and that any act or omission on the part of the prosecution giving rise to any reasonable doubt would go in favour of the accused, yet in a case like the present one where the record shows that investigating officers created a mess by bringing on record Exh. 5/4 and GD Entry 517 and have exhibited remiss and/or deliberately omitted to do what they ought to have done to bail out the appellant who was a member of the police force or for any extraneous reason, the interest of justice demands that such acts or omissions of the officers of the prosecution should not be taken in favour of the accused, for that would amount to giving premium for Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 67/71 the wrongs of the prosecution designedly committed to favour the appellant. In such cases, the story of the prosecution will have to be examined dehors such omissions and contaminated conduct of the officials otherwise the mischief which was deliberately done would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party and this would obviously shake the confidence of the people not merely in the law-enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice."
37. It would be also apposite to re-produce para-6 of the legal report of Hon'ble Supreme Court as passed in the matter of Karnel Singh vs. State of M.P. [(1995) 5 SCC 518], cited by learned counsel for the informant, which is as under:-
"6. We must admit that the defective investigation gave us some anxious moments and we were at first blush inclined to think that the accused was prejudiced. But on closer scrutiny we have reason to think that the loopholes in the investigation were left to help the accused at the cost of the poor prosecutrix, a labourer. To acquit solely on that ground would be adding insult to Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 68/71 injury."
38. One of the important submission was raised during the argument that the medical examination upon the most serious injured, who is PW-5 Raghvendra Kumar was done after about one year and three months, where no injury was found except the scar mark.
39. In this context, it would be apposite to reproduce the order of this Court dated 15.05.2019, which was passed when the appellant Darshan Kumar, Binod Mahto and also Pappu Kumar approached this Court for their bail. The relevant part of Criminal Misc. No.14945 of 2019 dated 15.05.2019 is required to be reproduced hereinbelow that how after interference of this Court injured PW-5 was examined medically, which is as under:-
"On physical look at Raghvendra Kumar in open Court, it is imperative on this Court to exercise power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and to direct the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna to constitute a committee of Three Specialized Doctors for burn injuries to immediately examine the injuries on the person of the victim aforesaid and to submit a report within four weeks from Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 69/71 today and this Court as well as to the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur in connection with the aforesaid police case and the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur is directed to submit the said report to the trial Court, according to law.
Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Abahy Kumar Roy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for needful."
40. Considering the aforesaid order, the prayer of bail of Pappu Kumar was also rejected by this Court through Cr. Misc. No.59553 of 2019 dated 21.10.2019, wherein the Hon'ble Court has been pleased to direct the Principal Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna to constitute a committee of three specialized doctors of burn injury to immediately examine the injuries on the person of the aforesaid victim and submit a report within four weeks.
41. After aforesaid interference of Hon'ble High Court in judicial side, the exact injuries of injured was brought on record. From the facts, it appears that initially injury report was not prepared by the concerned doctor correctly and it was only after the interference of the High Court, looking the physical condition of the injured (PW-5), a Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 70/71 special team was constituted, which was the only reason for delaying the medical report, showing scar mark only. Any benefit if be given out of such delay to accused persons would only amount to continue such wrong practice as to win over witnesses. People must realize that the rule of law must stand above, which cannot be managed by means of money or influence, as it happened in present case in collusion with concerned persons like doctor and police, who are otherwise duty bound to place correct evidences before the court as to assist in imparting justice to persons, who are the victim of crime.
42. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, this Court did not find any force in the submission of learned counsel appearing for appellants qua delayed medical examination of injured persons, which was done by specialized team of doctors in furtherance of aforesaid orders of this Court by exercising its extra-ordinary power as available through Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
43. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, both these appeals appear devoid of any merit and, Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1915 of 2023 dt.03-12-2024 71/71 accordingly, the same stands dismissed.
44. Office is directed to send back the Trial Court Records along with a copy of the judgment to the trial Court forthwith.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.) Sanjeet/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 26-09-2024 Uploading Date 04-12-2024 Transmission Date 04-12-2024