Delhi District Court
State vs . Arvind Paswan @ Karan, on 24 December, 2010
: 1 :
IN THE COURT OF SH. N. K. KAUSHIK
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 02
DISTRICT COURTS DWARKA ; NEW DELHI
S. C. No.192/09
Date of Institution: 20.05.09
Date on which Judgment Pronounced: 18.12.2010
Decision: Conviction.
FIR No.38/09
P.S. Kapashera
U/s. 452/323/302 IPC
In the matter of:-
STATE Vs. Arvind Paswan @ Karan,
S/o Sh. Ganesh Paswan,
R/o Village Muhet,
PO Ghariea,
PS Wazirgang,
District Gaya, Bihar.
..... Accused
JUDGMENT
1. The case projected by the prosecution is that on 18.02.09, DD entry no. 28A was recorded in the Police Station Kapashera. The said DD entry was assigned to ASI Surat Singh, who then, accompanied by Constable Anil Kumar went to the spot FIR No. 38/09 State Vs. Arvind Paswan @ Karan page 1 of 28 pages : 2 : and found a child, aged about two years lying dead. The body of the deceased was inspected by them.
2. Thereafter, crime team was called. Subsequently, statement of one Phool Kumari, wife of Lallan Kumar was recorded. On the basis of her statement, rukka was prepared. Case was got registered.
3. After registration of the case, further investigation followed.
The investigation culminated into final report under section 173 Cr.P.C, which was filed before the Illaqa Magistrate.
4. The case, being exclusively triable, by the court of Session, was committed to this court, for trial.
5. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 18.02.2009, at about 4.30pm, at or near plot no. 0688 of Anil Kumar, Gali no. 3, Kapashera, New Delhi, accused committed house trespass having made preparation for causing hurt, assault etc. The accused person, thus, is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under section 452 IPC. FIR No. 38/09 State Vs. Arvind Paswan @ Karan page 2 of 28 pages : 3 :
6. It is further alleged that on the aforesaid date, time and place, accused caused simple hurt on the person of Radha Kumari, daughter of Sh. Lallan Kumar. The accused person, thus, is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under section 323 IPC.
7. It is alleged further that on the above said date, time and place, accused committed murder of Akash, aged about two years, son of Sh. Lallan Kumar. The accused person, thus, is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under section 302 IPC.
8. Prima-facie, offences under section 452, 323 and 302 IPC were made out against the accused person.
9. Charge, accordingly, was framed against the accused person, on 12.08.2009, to which, the accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
10. The prosecution in order to substantiate their claims and contentions, examined as many as nineteen witnesses. FIR No. 38/09 State Vs. Arvind Paswan @ Karan page 3 of 28 pages : 4 :
11. Thereafter, the accused person was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused person preferred not to lead any evidence, in defence.
12. I have carefully gone through the entire relevant material appearing on record and have given considered thought to the rival contentions. My findings are as under:
13. PW-1, Sh. Jai Praksh deposed that on 19.02.09, he saw dead body of deceased, Akash, at DDU Hospital, which he identified. His statement was recorded in this respect, which is Ex.PW1/A, signed by him at point A. The body of deceased was received by his brother in law, Sh. Lallan Kumar, vide receipt, Ex.PW1/B, which also bears his signatures at point A.
14. PW2, Smt. Phool Kumari is the mother of the deceased.
She deposed that in the year 2009, she was residing at Madhu Vihar, Palam Village along with her husband and two daughters, namely, Radha and Anjali.
15. PW2 further deposed that at that time, her husband was FIR No. 38/09 State Vs. Arvind Paswan @ Karan page 4 of 28 pages : 5 : working in Kailash Ltd. Company, Phase-3, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon and that for about two years before, accused was known to her husband as he belongs to their native village.
16. This witness further deposed that the accused requested her husband to engage him in some employment. Her husband, accordingly, got him engaged in the same company, where he was working. That the accused was residing in a nearby street. That he was on visiting terms with them. That the accused was not having enough money and even Kiriyana shop refused to give him goods. That thereafter, her husband allowed him to take food at their house. That subsequently, he started coming late when she requested her husband not to allow him to come to their home, any more.
17. PW2 further deposed that on 17.02.09, the accused threatened her to teach a lesson as he was refused food at their house.
18. This witness deposed further that on 18.02.07, her husband did not return after his duty. That at about 4.00pm, on that FIR No. 38/09 State Vs. Arvind Paswan @ Karan page 5 of 28 pages : 6 : day, after making her son sleep, she asked her daughter to take care of his son and that she went on the top of their house to fetch the dried clothes. That when she came back, her daughter, Radha informed her that accused person 'Karan Mama' visited their house and went inside the room, where her son was sleeping and that thereafter, he locked the door from outside and went away.
19. PW2 further deposed that soon after, she went inside the room and found that some froth and blood was coming out from the mouth of her son, who was lying on the floor. That she had come from the top floor of her house after 15 minutes. That no other person except accused had visited their house. Her husband was informed, who came at about 5.00pm. Someone informed the police and then police recorded her statement, Ex.PW2/A, bearing her thumb impressions at point A, which she identified. She specifically deposed that her deceased son was smothered by hands by the accused person.
20. This witness denied the suggestion that in the year 2005, she FIR No. 38/09 State Vs. Arvind Paswan @ Karan page 6 of 28 pages : 7 : was working along with the accused in an export firm. She also denied the suggestion that accused had intimate relations with her and that the deceased was born to her from the accused person.
21. PW2 has specifically deposed that on 17.02.09, she told her husband to tell the accused not to take food with them any more. That on the same day, her husband had asked the accused to discontinue. She has categorically deposed that except the accused person, nobody entered the room, where the deceased was sleeping, indicating thereby, that no one else other than accused had an access to the room, where the deceased was murdered. There has not been any deviation on this aspect, in her cross examination, by the defence.
22. PW3, Ms. Radha is another material witness. She deposed that the deceased, her brother Akash, on the day of occurrence, was sleeping inside the room and she was sitting outside while taking the food. That at that time, her mother had gone upstairs for bringing dried clothes and her father FIR No. 38/09 State Vs. Arvind Paswan @ Karan page 7 of 28 pages : 8 : had already left for his job. That when her mother was away, accused 'Karan Mama' (as he was known to her), came and asked for water. That thereafter, he went inside the room, where her brother was sleeping and locked the door. That after some time, he came out, gave her a slap and left the house. That when her mother came down, she found that her brother in the room was done to death. That no other person came when accused Karan came there. She identified the accused as Karan Mama. She further deposed that her statement was also recorded in the court.
23. Nothing appeared in her cross examination, which could discredit this witness, in as much as, the visit of the accused person to the house of the deceased and his entry to the room where from deceased was found dead is concerned. This is a strong evidence implicating the accused person connecting him with the alleged offenes.
24. PW3 has specifically deposed in her cross examination that she saw before the accused person came that her brother was sleeping inside the room and that when the accused had FIR No. 38/09 State Vs. Arvind Paswan @ Karan page 8 of 28 pages : 9 : killed him and went away, she told the same to her mother. She further deposed that when her mother came back and found that her brother was dead, she came to know that he had been killed by the accused. She has specifically deposed that her mother had not tutored her. That at the time of occurrence, her sister was in the village and her father had gone to do his work. She denied the suggestion that she was not present at the time of occurrence.
25. PW3 has, therefore, fully corroborated the version of the prosecution, as projected in this case.
26. PW4, Sh. Lallan Kumar is the father of the deceased. He also corroborated the version given by PW2. That the accused approached them in search of a job and that he was engaged in the same company, where he was working. He deposed further that he allowed the accused to take food in their house.
27. PW4 deposed further that on 17.02.09, his wife requested him to tell the accused not to come to their house for food and FIR No. 38/09 State Vs. Arvind Paswan @ Karan page 9 of 28 pages : 10 : the same was conveyed to the accused. That upon this, accused became angry and uttered that he will teach them a lesson and then went away.
28. This witness deposed further that he received a telephonic call from his daughter, Radha and when he returned from his work, he found that his son was murdered. He identified the body of deceased, vide memo, Ex.PW4/A and received the same, vide memo, Ex.PW1/B. On both these memos, he has proved his signatures at point B.
29. Nothing appeared in his cross examination, which could discredit this witness in any manner, whatsoever, qua the case of the prosecution.
30. PW5, Mohd. Salman deposed that on 19.02.09, at about 9.30pm, one boy named Nasir made a call from their STD, which he stated to the police on 22.02.09.
31. PW6, ASI Ramesh Chand Malik has proved the DD entry no.
28A, recorded in the Police Station Kapashera. Copy of the FIR No. 38/09 State Vs. Arvind Paswan @ Karan page 10 of 28 pages : 11 : same is Ex.PW6/A. He has also proved DD entry no. 26-A and 31A, copies of which are Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW6/C, respectively. He recorded the FIR on the basis of rukka, presented by ASI Surat Singh, copy of FIR proved by him is Ex.PW6/D, having his signatures at point A. He further deposed that copy of FIR was sent to senior officers of the Police and the area Magistrate through Special Messenger.
32. PW7, Constable Rajbir Singh deposed that on 18.02.09, he reached the spot, where he found ASI Surat Singh and Constable Akileshwar, who were already present at the spot. One dead body of a boy, aged about 2 years was found at the spot. On the instructions of ASI Surat Singh, he took the dead body to DDU Hospital.
33. PW7 further deposed that on 19.02.09, after postmortem, the doctor handed over a sealed pullanda to ASI Surat Singh, which was seized, by him. He deposed that till the body remained in his custody, it was not tampered with.
34. PW8, Head Constable Govind has proved the seizure memo FIR No. 38/09 State Vs. Arvind Paswan @ Karan page 11 of 28 pages : 12 : of accused, which is Ex.PW8/A, the personal search memo of accused was conducted, vide memo, Ex.PW8/B. The accused was arrested on 22.02.09 from Village Sarol, District Gurgaon on identification of Lallan Kumar.
35. PW9, Constable Dharamvir Singh deposed that on 22.02.09, he joined the investigation of this case with the IO. That during investigation, accused was arrested by the IO and he was identified by Lallan Kumar.
36. PW Constable Dharmender was dropped by the prosecution.
37. PW10 Woman Constable Sushil Yadav is a formal witness, who recorded the information in the prescribed proforma in the control room, copy of the same is Ex.PW10/A.
38. PW11 Head Constable Charan Singh is also a formal witness, who has proved the extract of entries in register no. 19 as Ex.PW11/A, vide which, the case property in this case was deposited in Police Station Kapashera. FIR No. 38/09 State Vs. Arvind Paswan @ Karan page 12 of 28 pages : 13 :
39. PW12, Dr. Komal Singh has proved the postmortem report as Ex.PW12/A, bearing his signatures at point A. He conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased on 19.02.09. Cause of death given by him is smothering due to manual compression of mouth and nostrils, which was sufficient for causing death in the ordinary course of nature. That the manner of death was homicidal. Time since death at the time of postmortem was given by him as 18.00 hours.
40. PW12 further deposed that the blood and clothes of the deceased were sealed and handed over to the IO. He has, thus, corroborated the version of the prosecution as to the manner in which the deceased was murdered in this case.
41. PW13, Sh. Hardeep Singh has proved the scaled site plan, which is Ex.PW13/A, having his signatures at point A. Scaled site plan depicts the position at the spot.
42. PW14, Constable Praveen Kumar, is a member of crime team, who took six photographs on 18.02.2009, at the spot FIR No. 38/09 State Vs. Arvind Paswan @ Karan page 13 of 28 pages : 14 : from different angles, the same are Ex.PW14/A1 to Ex.PW14/A6. He also proved the negatives of these photographs as Ex.PW14/B1 to Ex.PW14/B6.
43. PW15, Ravinder Singh deposed that during the investigation of this case, police came to their office and he handed over the personal data form and attendance sheet of their office/company from the period 17.02.09 to 19.02.09. The attested copy of the personal data form of accused has been proved as Ex.PW15/A and attested copies of attendance sheet, consisting of three pages, have been collectively proved as Ex.PW15/B. According to this witness, the accused was not present at that time at the place of his employment.
44. PW16, Sh. Rajesh Malik, recorded the statement of PW Radha, under section 164 Cr.P.C. The application, vide which, a request was made has been proved as Ex.PW16/B. The application, vide which, IO was allowed to take the copy of the application is Ex.PW16/A. The statement of Kumari Radha, recorded on 02.03.09 has been proved as Ex.PW16/C. The certificate, which was appended to the said statement is FIR No. 38/09 State Vs. Arvind Paswan @ Karan page 14 of 28 pages : 15 : Ex.PW16/D. The statement made by Kumari Radha, under section 164 Cr.P.C, exactly corroborates with what she has deposed in the court. The statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C, therefore, gave true and credible description of the actual facts and circumstances.
45. PW17, ASI Surat Singh deposed that on 18.02.2009, on receipt of DD entry no. 28-A, which is Ex.PW6/A, he along with Constable Akhileshwar, reached the house of one Anil Kumar, where they found the dead body of a male child, aged about two years. He recorded the statement of Phool Kumari, mother of the deceased, which is Ex.PW2/A.
46. PW17 further deposed that on 19.02.09, he made a request for postmortem, which is Ex.PW17/A. The application for postmortem moved by him is Ex.PW17/B. The brief facts of the case are contained in Ex.PW17/C and form no. 25.35(1) (B) has been proved by him is Ex.PW17/D. All these documents contain his signatures at point A. He has further reiterated the memos Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW4/A, already proved by the other witnesses.
FIR No. 38/09 State Vs. Arvind Paswan @ Karan page 15 of 28 pages : 16 :
47. This witness further deposed that he prepared rukka, Ex.PW17/E, having his signatures at point A and then handed over the same to Duty Officer for registration of the case.
48. In cross examination, he deposed that the doctor, who conducted postmortem on the body of deceased gave samples, which were seized by this witness, vide memo, Ex.PW17/DA. He deposited the same in the maalkhana of the concerned police station.
49. PW18, SI Harender Singh deposed that on 18.02.09, he was posted in Crime Mobile Team as its Incharge. That on that day, photographer took the photographs and he prepared his report, which is Ex.PW18/A, having his signatures at point A.
50. PW19, Inspector Sukhdev Meena is the IO of the case. He deposed that on 20.02.09, after registration of the case, the investigation was handed over to him. He prepared site plan, Ex.PW19/A, at the instance of ASI Surat Singh. FIR No. 38/09 State Vs. Arvind Paswan @ Karan page 16 of 28 pages : 17 :
51. PW19 further deposed that on 22.02.09, he along with Head Constable Govind and Constable Dharamvir went in search of the accused. That one Nasim led them to the street Kavaria in Village Sarol, Gurgaon, where from, accused Arvind was arrested, vide memo, Ex.PW8/A. The personal search of the accused was conducted, vide memo, Ex.PW8/B.
52. He further deposed that the accused made disclosure statement voluntarily, which was recorded , vide memo, Ex.PW19/B, having his signatures at point A and that of accused at point B. He also got the accused medically examined, vide MLC, Ex.PW19/C.
53. He further deposed that he moved the application, Ex.PW19/D before the Magistrate, who recorded the statement of the witness, Radha. The said application has been proved as Ex.PW19/D. This witness has reiterated the memos, Ex. PW14/A1 to Ex.PW14/A6, Ex.PW16/B, Ex.PW16/C, Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW10/A, Ex.PW15/A and EX.PW15/B, already proved by other witnesses. FIR No. 38/09 State Vs. Arvind Paswan @ Karan page 17 of 28 pages : 18 :
54. In cross examination, a formal suggestion was given to him that he did not carry out the investigation of this case in fair and impartial manner, which, however, could not be established, on record, by the accused person.
55. From the evidence that has been led by the prosecution, it is evident that the accused person alone has committed the murder of the deceased in this case. PW2 and PW3 have clearly proved the case of the prosecution. There is no reason available on record to discredit the truthfulness of PW2, Phool Kumari and PW3, Radha. PW2 is the mother of the deceased and PW3 is the sister of the deceased.
56. Every witness including a child witness is a competent witness. Evidence of such witness can be relied upon to convict the accused if otherwise his evidence is reliable and trustworthy and corroborates in material particulars with other evidence on record [2006 (13) SCALE 600 S.C. is relied upon].
57. In case law reported as Dhanraj Vs. State (2002) 7 SCC FIR No. 38/09 State Vs. Arvind Paswan @ Karan page 18 of 28 pages : 19 : page 425, conviction of accused persons relying on testimony of a child witness was held legally sustainable by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
58. The guilt of the accused person thus stands proved on record in the testimony of PW2 and PW3. It is further supported by the postmortem report wherein, it has been proved that the cause of death was due to smothering by hands and that death was homicidal in nature.
59. The accused person, it has been established on record, entered the room where, the deceased was sleeping. It has come on record that he locked the door and thereafter, left the room while slapping PW Radha and caused simple hurt on the person of PW Radha.
60. A defence has been taken, on behalf of accused, that he has been falsely implicated as he had illicit relations with the mother of the deceased. The defence, however, has failed to substantiate this. It appears that this defence was enacted on behalf of accused person just for the sake of enacting a false FIR No. 38/09 State Vs. Arvind Paswan @ Karan page 19 of 28 pages : 20 : defence.
61. In any case, the accused person has failed to establish on record that this could be the motive of his implication falsely in the present case.
62. There is overwhelming prosecution evidence on record as against the accused person. There is no reason available on record to show as to why the testimony of PW2 and PW3, who are natural witnesses should be discarded. It is unlikely that PW2 and PW3 would have spared the actual culprit and would have falsely implicated the accused person, in this case.
63. No manner of doubt can, therefore, be entertained regarding the commission of the offence by the accused person in this case.
64. The prosecution has, therefore, successfully established beyond any pale of doubt that the accused person alone committed the murder of the deceased in this case. FIR No. 38/09 State Vs. Arvind Paswan @ Karan page 20 of 28 pages : 21 :
65. I, accordingly, hold the accused person guilty of the offence of murder under section 302 IPC.
66. The accused is also held guilty of other offences under section 452 and 323 IPC as he committed the offence of murder after committing house trespass with intent to cause hurt, assault, etc, where the deceased was sleeping in his room. He had also assaulted PW Radha by slapping her and therefore, caused simple hurt upon her person.
67. The accused person, accordingly, is held guilty of the offences punishable under section 452, 323 and 302 IPC.
68. Let the convict be heard on the point of sentence on 22.12.2010.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 18th Day of December, 2010 (N. K. KAUSHIK) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 02 DWARKA DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI/18.12.2010 FIR No. 38/09 State Vs. Arvind Paswan @ Karan page 21 of 28 pages : 22 : IN THE COURT OF SH. N. K. KAUSHIK ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 02 DISTRICT COURTS DWARKA ; NEW DELHI S. C. No.192/09 Date of Institution: 20.05.09 Date on which Judgment Pronounced: 18.12.2010 Decision: Conviction.
FIR No.38/09
P.S. Kapashera U/s. 452, 323, 302 IPC In the matter of:-
STATE Vs. Arvind Paswan @ Karan,
S/o Sh. Ganesh Paswan,
R/o Village Muhet,
PO Ghariea,
PS Wazirgang,
District Gaya, Bihar.
..... Convict
ORDER ON POINT OF SENTENCE
24.12.2010
1. By this order, I shall dispose off the contentions raised on behalf of parties on the point of sentence.
2. In this case, the convict has been found guilty of the offence of murder of a small male child as well as caused simple hurt to FIR No. 38/09 State Vs. Arvind Paswan @ Karan page 22 of 28 pages : 23 : a girl child by trespassing their house.
3. It is contended on the part of the defence that the convict is a young person. That he is not previously involved in crime. That he belongs to a poor section of the society. That he is the sole bread earner for his family. That the murder was not committed with extreme brutality and in a cruel manner and, therefore, a lenient view be taken while awarding the punishment to the convict.
4. These contentions were not contested on the part of the State, except that it was contended that, under the circumstances, suitable punishment be awarded to the convict.
5. I have perused the relevant material appearing on record and have gone through the rival contentions as stated herein above.
6. By now, it is very well settled that the capital punishment is required to be imposed in the 'rarest of rare cases' only. The question for determination, therefore, in this case is as to FIR No. 38/09 State Vs. Arvind Paswan @ Karan page 23 of 28 pages : 24 : whether the present case falls in the category of rarest of rare cases.
7. At the very outset, the convict committed murder of a small child. The death, in this case, was caused due to smothering due to manual compression of mouth and nostrils, which was sufficient for causing death in the ordinary course of nature. It, therefore, appears that the murder in this case was caused in the moment of emotional disturbances prompted by the utter sense of frustration and disappointment in the mind of the convict. The convict belong to the poor section of the society. There is no reported record of his previous involvement in any other crime.
8. It was observed in Bachan Singh's case (AIR 1980 Supreme Court 898) that a real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking life through laws instrumentality. That ought not to be done save in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative as above is unquestionably foreclosed.
FIR No. 38/09 State Vs. Arvind Paswan @ Karan page 24 of 28 pages : 25 :
9. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bachan Singh Vs. State AIR 1980 Supreme Court 898 that where the accused committed the murder in the moments of emotional disturbance, prompted by the sense of frustration and disappointment, having lost the litigation, the death sentence to one of life imprisonment, on the ground that it was not rarest of rare cases, was not appropriate.
10. In another case of 'Jai Prakash Vs. State', 2006 Criminal Law Journal 235 Allahabad High Court, where the accused suspected the chastity of his wife and there were frequent quarrels on that ground and on the day of occurrence he had gone to the village of his wife, and killed his wife and daughter with an axe, it was held that the case did not fall in the category of 'rarest of rare case', where death sentence should be imposed. To this effect was another case reported as AIR 1983 Supreme Court Page 629.
11. Further, in the case reported as State Vs. Rajendran, 1999 Criminal Law Journal Page 4552 Supreme Court, where wife and two children of the accused were burnt in the hut, the FIR No. 38/09 State Vs. Arvind Paswan @ Karan page 25 of 28 pages : 26 : penalty of death sentence imposed upon the convict was commuted to imprisonment for life, considering that the case did not represent one of the 'rarest of rare cases'.
12. In yet another case reported as 2001 Criminal Law Journal Page 2925 Supreme Court Sri Bhagwan Vs. State, where a case of murder of an old man, his wife and three daughters by a young man, who was given an opportunity to learn gold- smithery, was held to be not a 'rare of rarest case' warranting the death sentence. Further in the case of Brij Bhushan Verma (2001 Criminal Law Journal Page 1384 Allahabad High Court) where the murder of wife and two female children was committed by the husband, though committed in a cruel and planned manner by giving them electric shock, in the absence of motive and cause of this murder being not established, the court held that it could not be held as one of the 'rarest of rare case', where death sentence alone should be awarded.
13. Now, coming to the case in hand, as stated above, the convict had killed the deceased due to his frustration. He is not FIR No. 38/09 State Vs. Arvind Paswan @ Karan page 26 of 28 pages : 27 : previously known to have committed any crime. The convict belong to poor section of the society. That under the circumstances, available on record, the case does not fall in the category of 'rarest of rare case'. I am of the opinion, therefore, that imposition of imprisonment for life with some fine would meet the ends of justice.
14. I, accordingly, award the punishment of sentence for life for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC to the convict and the convict is also liable to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, six months simple imprisonment.
15. For the offence punishable under section 452 IPC, the convict is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and the convict is also liable to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand only), in default two months' simple imprisonment.
16. For the offence punishable under section 323 IPC, the convict is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
FIR No. 38/09 State Vs. Arvind Paswan @ Karan page 27 of 28 pages : 28 :
17. All the sentences shall run concurrently.
18. A copy of judgment alongwith order on sentence be given to the convicts, free of cost.
19. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 24th of December, 2010 (N. K. KAUSHIK) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 02 DWARKA DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI/24.12.2010 FIR No. 38/09 State Vs. Arvind Paswan @ Karan page 28 of 28 pages