Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Vikas Bharti @ Vikky @ Kaliya on 31 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF ARUN SUKHIJA: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE-03: EAST DISTRICT: KKD. COURTS: DELHI.
SC No. 517/2019
State Vs. 1. Vikas Bharti @ Vikky @ Kaliya
S/o Sh. Ram Chander
R/o T-347, Gali No.9, Gautampuri,
Seelampur, Delhi.
2. Ved Prakash
S/o Sh. Mansa Ram
R/o 131, Rani Garden, Delhi.
3. Subhash Kumar @ Sonu
S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Lal
R/o X-66, Gal No. 1, Raghubarpura,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi.
FIR No. : 315/2018
Under Sections : 394/397/411/120-B/34 IPC
Police Station : Geeta Colony
Chargesheet Filed on : 07.01.2019
Chargesheet Allocated on : 05.02.2019
Presided Over this Court on : 22.07.2021
Judgment Reserved on : 24.01.2023
Judgment Announced on : 31.01.2023
::- J U D G M E N T -::
1.Filtered facts, necessary for disposal of the present case, are that DD No. 15-A dated 17.10.2018 was lodged with PS Geeta Colony, wherein, it is mentioned that caller has informed that near Sai Baba Memorial School, someone is informing that he has sustained bullet injury. On it, police party reached that place and it came to notice that injured has already been rushed to hospital. At that place, live cartridge, used empty cartridge and even blood was seen there and meanwhile, it was also informed vide DD No. SC No. 517/2019 State Vs. Vikas Bharti & Ors. Page - 1 of 17 36-A that his family member has sustained bullet injury and robbery has been committed and it was also reported that injured has been admitted to Max Hospital. On it, SI Rajender Singh, after leaving HC Naresh at that place to safeguard the same, reached Max Hospital and obtained the MLC of the injured. Crime Team was summoned at the spot and place of incident was got photographed and exhibits were seized. When police party again reached the hospital, patient was found unfit to make statement. Son of the injured informed that his father (injured) had informed that he (injured) had been robbed and caused bullet injuries at the hands of two culprits.
2. From the facts and circumstances, case under Sections 394/397/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") and 27/25 of Arms Act was registered. Formal proceedings were also conducted.
3. Sh. Shiv Kumar Gupta, the victim, made statement to the police inter alia alleging therein that on 17.10.2018 at about 10.30 p.m., while he was on his scooty bearing registration no. DL-5SBD-6757 with his bag and reached near ahead to Shamshan Ghat, at that time, two persons who were present on motorcycle bearing registration no. xx 5866 pushed him and the pillion rider tried to snatch his bag and on his resistance, bullet injury was caused to him (injured/complainant) and left away that place with his bag. This complainant further mentioned that his bag was containing cash amount of Rupees 13-14 lac and he further suspect that he was being chased by one more motorcycle and further stated that he could identify those culprits.
SC No. 517/2019 State Vs. Vikas Bharti & Ors. Page - 2 of 17
4. During the investigations of this case, one DD bearing no.
12-A dated 07.11.2018 was got lodged by SI Abodh and accused persons namely Vikas Bharti; Ved Prakash and Subhash @ Sonu were arrested and recovery of some of the robbed amount was also effected. It is also case of the prosecution that one more person Rizwan was also arrested as responsible for causing injury but on account of failure of TIP, he got released. On investigations of the case and on concluding the investigations of this case, present chargesheet was filed before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 394/397/411/120-B/34 IPC and 27/25 Arms Act.
5. After compliance of the provisions of Sec. 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "CrPC") by the Court of ld. MM, case was committed to the Court of Sessions as Section-397 IPC, involved in the present matter, is exclusively triable by it.
6. Vide order dated 21.02.2019 passed by ld. predecessor of this Court, charge under Section-120-B IPC r/w 395 IPC and Sections 395/394/397 IPC read with 120-B IPC was framed against all these accused persons. Vide same order, separate charges under Sec. 412 IPC against accused Vikas Bharti; Ved Prakash and Subhash Kumar were also framed. To the said charges, all these accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed their trial.
7. Prosecution took help of sixteen witnesses in order to prove its case. These witnesses are PW-1 Shiv Kumar Gupta, who is complainant/victim; PW-2 is Smt. Sukhbiri;
SC No. 517/2019 State Vs. Vikas Bharti & Ors. Page - 3 of 17 PW-3 Sh. Satish Kumar; PW-4 Sh. Ratan Singh; PW-5 HC Narender; PW-6 Dr. Neelesh Kumar; PW-7 Const. Vikas; PW-8 Sh. Sanjay; PW-9 HC Naresh Chand; PW-10 Const. Rajbir; PW-11 Const. Arvind; PW-12 SI Surajbhan; PW-13 SI Abodh; PW-14 Dr. V.K. Jain; PW-15 SI (Retd.) Rajender Singh and PW-16 ASI Sanjeev Kumar.
8. During prosecution evidence, accused persons made statement under Sec. 294 CrPC admitting documents of TIP proceedings as Ex.C1 and FIR Ex.C2.
9. All the incriminating evidence which has come on record has been put to the accused persons under Section-313 CrPC. All these accused persons denied all the incriminating evidence put to them.
10. Accused Vikas Bharti further pleaded that about three months of his arrest, an altercation took place between him and one SI Kulwinder at Petrol pump and at that said SI was in civil dress and even manhandling also taken place. Accused further pleaded that at that time two more officials of BSES were also present with him (accused) and then all of them were taken to PS and were relieved only after taking an amount of Rs.50,000/- and on account of this, he went into depression and left his house. His mother called him and when he came back to his house, he was implicated falsely in this case. He further pleaded that SI Abodh was in constant touch with said SI Kulwinder and even stated said SI Kulwinder that he should not take tension as he has arrested him. He further pleaded that police obtained his signatures on end number of papers forcibly and same were later on used against him.
SC No. 517/2019 State Vs. Vikas Bharti & Ors. Page - 4 of 17
11. While accused persons Subhash and Ved Prakash pleaded that they were implicated in the present matter for the reasons best known to the police. Both of them also pleaded that police obtained their signatures on end number of papers forcibly and same were later on used against them.
12. All three accused persons opted to lead Defence Evidence.
The accused Vikas Bharti in defence examined DW-1 HC Devender Pal to prove record of DD NO. 42B dated 28.08.2018, vide which a complaint was received vide entry no. 106 made in register and proved the said record as Ex.DW1/A & B.
13. I have heard the submissions of ld. Addl. PP for the State and ld. defence counsel. I have also perused the material available on record with the law on the issues in question.
14. Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts by examining the prosecution witnesses who in clear and unequivocal terms supported the prosecution case and established the link. It was also submitted by ld. Addl. PP that the accused persons got effected recoveries is a clear indication about their involvement in the present matter. Ld. Addl. PP prayed for conviction to the accused persons, for the offences for which they have been charged with.
15. Per contra, ld. defence counsels submitted that the first of all nothing has been brought on record qua the offence punishable under Sec. 120-B IPC and as such, all these accused persons are entitled for acquittal for the said offence.
SC No. 517/2019 State Vs. Vikas Bharti & Ors. Page - 5 of 17
16. Besides the above, ld. counsels for the accused persons submitted that the recoveries are planted upon the accused persons and very interestingly, nothing has come on record during the evidence before the court to the effect that the accused persons are responsible for the crime and all this shows the casual approach of the prosecution and demolishes the prosecution case.
17. The Ld. Counsel for the accused Vikas Bharti has assiduously argued that as per the case of the prosecution the offence under Sections-395 and 412 IPC are not at attracted as the minimum number is less than five persons and even in the complaint, the complainant has mentioned about two persons and not the five persons. It is also argued that there is nothing on record to show that there were five persons who had committed robbery on the complainant and furthermore, there is nothing on the record which can connect that all the accused persons are even known to each other and the prosecution has failed to prove on record ingredients of conspiracy by any cogent, convincing and authentic evidence or even by any inferential evidence which could remotely suggest that the all the accused persons were in touch with each other or they were in league and connivance with each other in order to commit the offence against the complainant. It is also argued that it is well settled law that the offence under Section-397 IPC is attracted against the accused person who had used the deadly weapon during the commission of robbery or dacoity, however, from bare look of the evidence of the complainant it is clear that the accused SC No. 517/2019 State Vs. Vikas Bharti & Ors. Page - 6 of 17 Vikas Bharti has not used any weapon of offence, what to speak of deadly weapon, in order to attract the ingredients for the offence under Section-397 IPC said accused person. It is argued that for the offence under Section-394 IPC, it was mandatory for the prosecution to prove the ingredients of theft and until and unless the same is proved the aggravated form of theft i.e. robbery cannot be proved. It is also argued that the cross examination of IO clearly reveals that recovery was planted one. It is also argued mere identifying the said accused during the TIP would not entail his conviction as neither the theft nor robbery was proved by the prosecution against any of the accused persons. In order to buttress his arguments, ld. counsel for accused Vikas Bharti has relied upon the Judgments of Iqbal & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Criminal Appeal No.1663 of 2012 decided on 06.05.2015 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Nagaraj Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Salem Town, Tamil Nadu Criminal Appeal No. 1311 of 2006 decided on 10.03.2015 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
18. It is also argued that there are contradictions/omissions and improvements in the statements of the witnesses and besides the above, no independent witness was joined during those proceedings despite their availability and all this smells fishy and creates doubt about the proceedings conducted, as alleged and all this shows that prosecution case has been built on sand.
19. Apart from that, it was argued on behalf of the accused Vikas Bharti that DW-1 HC Devender, who was produced SC No. 517/2019 State Vs. Vikas Bharti & Ors. Page - 7 of 17 as defence witness, clearly proved the record Ex.DW1/A & B and this all supported the defence of the accused Vikas Bharti further stating that Ex.DW1/A & B are of much prior to the date of incident allegedly committed by accused persons and this all itself shows that prosecution case is only pack of cards and this shows that prosecution case is liable to be disregarded at the outset.
20. Ld. defence counsels prayed for acquittal of the accused persons as prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts, which is its primary duty.
21. Now, firstly Court will deal with the defence evidence. In the case reported as State of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh 2002 (1) JCC 385 (Supreme Court of India), it was clearly observed as "......that the evidence tendered by defence cannot always be termed to be a tainted one and they are entitled to equal treatment and equal respect as that of the prosecution .....the issue of credibility and the trustworthiness ought also to be attributed to be at par with that of the prosecution witnesses...". This view was also reiterated in cases reported as Anil Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand [2004 (3) RCR (Cri) 774], Ajay Goswami V. State 2011 (2) 1279 and Dudh Nath Pandey V. State of UP, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 911 - wherein, it was observed that "...defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with those of the prosecution. And courts ought to overcome their traditional, instinctive disbelief in defence witnesses. Quite often they tell lies but so do the prosecution witnesses...".
22. It is admitted position that Ex.DW1/A & Ex.DW1/B are SC No. 517/2019 State Vs. Vikas Bharti & Ors. Page - 8 of 17 much prior to the date of incident. The said complaint was lodged by Sh. Ram Chander Bharti, father of accused Vikas. As per Ex.DW1/B, it was informed by the father of accused Vikas Bharti that on 10th, two persons came at his house in civil dress at about 7-7.30 in the evening in order to inquire about Vikas, on which, he (father of accused) has inquired from them that from where they have come, then, they told that they are staff of P.S. Seelampur. The father of accused Vikas Bharti had told them that he had already thrown Vikas out of the house and disclosed the reason that on 25-26.07.2018, at about 2 a.m. in the night, his daughter-in-law was shouting "Papa Bachao Papa Bachao" and for this reason, he has thrown his son Vikas from the house. It is also mentioned in the said complaint that they have taken copy of photo of accused Vikas. However, without discussing further on this issue, Court will deal with the merits of the prosecution case.
23. Coming to the issue of Section-120-B IPC, though, it is well settled that conspiracy always hatched within four walls and it is very difficult to have evidence for the same, but now-a-days, technology is there in the form of electronic evidence and also in the form of call details records etc. The complainant during his cross-examination himself had admitted that there were CCTV cameras at and near the place of his shop, at the time of incident, but the IO during his cross-examination has conveniently denied the same. The IO of the case has not tried to collect any evidence which could link any connection between the accused persons inter-se. In the present matter, there is SC No. 517/2019 State Vs. Vikas Bharti & Ors. Page - 9 of 17 neither ocular evidence nor documentary/electronic evidence/CDR etc. produced to support on this issue i.e. conspiracy, as required under Section-120B IPC, which may even remotely suggest that accused persons are known to each other or they have hatched any criminal conspiracy for the commission of this offence. It is well settled law that confessions made to the police officials or in the police custody by the accused persons are inadmissible in the eyes of law in the teeth of Sections-25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. There is no iota or scintilla of evidence to disseminate conspiracy amongst the accused persons. As such, this Court is of the view that all these accused persons are entitled for acquittal for the offence punishable under Sec.120-B IPC r/w Sec. 395/394 IPC and as such, accused persons Vikas Bharti; Subhash @ Sonu and Ved Prakash are hereby acquitted for the said offence.
24. Qua offence punishable under Sections 395/394/397 IPC read with Section-120-B IPC, it is admitted position that only star and key witness to the said aspect is PW-1 Shiv Kumar Gupta. It is also to be kept in mind that nothing has been brought before the Court through evidence of PW-1 or any other witness that this case falls under the ambit of Sec. 395 IPC. The PW-1, at no stage, deposed that there were five persons, who had committed robbery on him. The charges against the accused persons Subhash @ Sonu and Ved Prakash were basically under Section-120-B IPC. As discussed hereinabove, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charge of conspiracy. The prosecution SC No. 517/2019 State Vs. Vikas Bharti & Ors. Page - 10 of 17 has not brought any ocular/documentary/electronic evidence to show that there were five persons, who had committed the robbery upon the complainant. Thus, the charge under Section-395 IPC falls flat against any of the accused persons.
25. Now, coming to the charge under Section-397 IPC, even if, the testimony of PW-1 is taken as gospel truth, then also, no offence under Section-397 IPC is committed by accused Vikas Bharti as this witness has deposed that accused Vikas Bharti was driving the vehicle i.e. motor cycle and the pillion rider has used the deadly weapon of offence at the time of commission of robbery. As per this witness, role attributed to the accused was only under Section-34 IPC read with Section-394 IPC. As per prosecution case, Rizwan was the person responsible for causing injury to complainant and he was the pillion rider, however, he was released from his case on account of failure of his TIP. Therefore, the ingredients of Section-397 IPC are also not satisfied against this accused. This Court is of the view that case may now be treated only for robbery under Section-394 IPC read with Section- 34 IPC and that too, against the accused Vikas Bharti.
26. Qua contention of ld. defence counsels that testimonies of material witnesses are full of contradictions and improvements. At this juncture, it would be helpful to look at the observations made in the case titled as S. Govindaraju Vs. State of Karnataka, 2013 (10) SCALE 454:-
"....It is well settled legal proposition that while SC No. 517/2019 State Vs. Vikas Bharti & Ors. Page - 11 of 17 appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions were of such magnitude so as to materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements in relation to trivial matters, which do not effect the core of the case of the prosecution, must not be made a ground for rejection of evidence in its entirety. The trial Court, after going through the entire evidence available, must from an opinion about the credibility of the witness, and the appellate court in the normal course of action, would not be justified in reviewing the same, without providing justifiable reasons for doing so. Where the omission(s)amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt regarding the truthfulness of a witness, and the other witnesses also make material improvements before the court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it would not be safe to rely upon such evidence. The discrepancies in the evidence of eye witnesses, if found not to be minor in nature, may be a ground for disbelieving and discrediting their evidence. In such circumstances, the witnesses may not inspire confidence and if their evidence is found to be in conflict and contradiction with other evidence available or with a statement that has already been recorded, then in such a case, it cannot be held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt"..."
27. Further, in Harijana Thirupala and Ors. Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, (2002)6 SCC 470, following has been observed: -
"....In cases where the court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused the benefit of such doubt should go in favour of the accused. At the same time, the court must not reject the evidence or the prosecution taking it as false, untrustworthy or unreliable on fanciful grounds or on the basis of conjectures and surmises. The case of the prosecution must be judged as a whole having regard to the totality of the evidence. In appreciating the evidence the approach of the court must be integrated not truncated or isolated. In other words, the impact of evidence in totality on the prosecution case or innocence of accused has to be kept in mind in coming to the conclusion as to the guilt or otherwise of the accused. In reaching a conclusion about the guilt of the accused, the court has to appreciate, analyse and access the evidence placed before it by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic value and the animus of witnesses. It must be added that ultimately and finally the SC No. 517/2019 State Vs. Vikas Bharti & Ors. Page - 12 of 17 decision in every case depends upon the facts or each case..."
28. Qua next contention of ld. defence counsel that non-
citation of the public witnesses at the time of recovery proceedings/arrest of accused is of no value to the prosecution. Firstly, in the case reported as Bahadur Singh & Ors Vs. State, 2013 IV AD (Delhi) 506, Hon'ble Apex Court, it has observed as under:-
"...As regards non association of the public witnesses at the time of the recovery, nothing has been shown that the evidence of police witnesses is unreliable and not trustworthy. There is no reason why they should falsely implicate the appellants. As held in Karamjit Singh Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) 2003 III AD (SC) 353 the presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds. There is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon..."
29. Apart from that, in Ajmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana [(2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases 746], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
"....We cannot forget that it may not be possible to find independent witness at all places, at all times. The obligation to take public witnesses is not absolute. If after making efforts which the court considered in the circumstances of the case reasonable, the police officer is not able to get public witnesses to associate with the raid or arrest of the culprit, the arrest and the recovery made would not be necessarily vitiated. The Court will have to appreciate the relevant evidence and will have to determine whether the evidence of the police officer was believable after taking due care and caution in evaluating their evidence...."
30. Qua recovery from accused Subhash @ Sonu, witness PW-2 Smt. Sukhbiri stated that accused returned the amount and there was no recovery of the amount in her SC No. 517/2019 State Vs. Vikas Bharti & Ors. Page - 13 of 17 presence. PW-3 Satish Kumar, Manager of Muthoot Finance, who is only a witness to the production/seizure of record but in clear words, this witness stated that he did not remember that whether accused came himself alone or with any other person on the day of deposit of amount and PW-8 Sanjay stated that accused Subhash @ Sonu returned the amount of Rs.30,000/-. The Ld. MM, in the order dated 29.11.2018, has categorically held that there is nothing on the record to suggest that amount recovered in the present case belongs to the complainant.
31. Qua accused Vikas Bharti, public witness is PW-4 Ratan Singh, from whom, said accused allegedly purchased car for Rupees One Lakh. Very interestingly, no date or even month is there when the said car was purchased by the said accused. No documents were collected, which shows that any car was purchased from the said witness.
32. On behalf of accused Vikas Bharti, ld. defence counsel also drew the attention of the Court towards cross- examination of PW-15 SI (Retd.) Rajender Singh conducted on 20.10.2022, wherein, he confronted with portion "X" in Ex.P1/A1 and admitted that said portion mentions as - "100894084 663 32/32/ 23/10/2018 7250.00 chq 00033 naresh_ku.". Submission of ld. defence counsel is that it is beyond imagination that if any article was robbed only on 17.10.2018, then, the same contains the endorsement of the electricity department about the payment on 23.10.2018 and this all shows the falsity of the present case and only on that count, accused Vikas Bharti is entitled for his acquittal.
SC No. 517/2019 State Vs. Vikas Bharti & Ors. Page - 14 of 17
33. It is very interesting to note that PW-15 SI Rajinder Singh-IO of the case, appeared before this Court on 20.10.2022 and during cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused Vikas Bharti, this witness was confronted with portion-X in Ex.P1/A1 and admitted the encircled portion. Perusal of the same clearly shows that the said document is an electricity bill and as per the endorsement, said bill was paid vide cheque dated 23.10.2018. Even, PW1 has also admitted the said fact during his cross-examination. It is beyond imagination that an article i.e. bag, which was robbed on 17.10.2018 and was recovered from the possession of accused only on 16.11.2018 i.e. after one month, was containing the document dated 23.10.2018 and this itself creates a major blow on the prosecution story. It is also highly unbelievable that the robber would keep the visiting cards, electricity bill and income tax papers etc. in his custody and that too, in Almirah in the room after robbing them. The said papers were totally useless for any robber. Further, it cannot be said with surety that the cash amount, which was also got recovered by accused persons, surely belonged to the complainant. The complainant, during cross-examination on 12.10.2021, has admitted that he has not disclosed the denomination of the currency notes and also source of cash amount robbed from him. The order dated 29.11.2018 passed by Ld. MM is also relevant as ld. MM came to the opinion that there is nothing to suggest that the cash amount belongs to the complainant. There is also serious dispute regarding the registration number of SC No. 517/2019 State Vs. Vikas Bharti & Ors. Page - 15 of 17 the bike, on which robbers came. First of all, the complainant had not disclosed the complete registration number of the bike and complainant had disclosed four numerical numbers "5866", secondly, the bike, which was got recovered from open place, is accessible to the public at large, thirdly, the said bike does not belong to any of the accused persons and lastly, even the numerical number of the bike, which was got recovered is "8866" and numerical number disclosed by complainant does not match with the same. The complainant, during cross- examination conducted on 25.11.2019, deposed that he cannot tell the make/colour of said motor cycle, on which, the assailants/robbers came there.
34. Besides the above, only police officials are witnesses for the recovery effected from these accused persons. Non- joining of public independent witnesses, despite their availability, creates a doubt on the prosecution case in view of the total facts and circumstances of the present case. As per the prosecution case, accused Vikas Bharti was arrested only on 08.11.2018 only on the disclosure made by the remaining accused persons and remaining accused persons were arrested only on 07.11.2018 primarily on the ground that they were the persons who had passed the information regarding movement of the complainant. Cumulatively, after analyzing and thrashing the entire evidence coupled with record Ex.DW1/A & Ex.DW1/B, it creates reasonable doubt on the prosecution case.
35. It is the primary duty of prosecution to prove its case SC No. 517/2019 State Vs. Vikas Bharti & Ors. Page - 16 of 17 beyond all reasonable doubts and this Court is of the view that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against any of these accused persons. As such, accused persons are also entitled for their acquittal under Sections-394/34 IPC, for which, they have been charged with.
36. Gist of the above observations and discussion is as under:-
(a) accused persons Vikas Bharti; Ved Prakash and Subhash @ Sonu are acquitted of the offences punishable under Section-120-B IPC read with Section-395 IPC;
(b) accused persons Vikas Bharti; Ved Prakash and Subhash @ Sonu are also acquitted of the offences punishable under Secs. 395/394/397 IPC read with Section-120-B IPC; and
(c) accused persons Vikas Bharti; Ved Prakash and Subhash @ Sonu are also acquitted of the offence punishable under Section-412 IPC, for which they have been charged individually.
37. Accused Vikas Bharti be released from jail immediately, if not wanted in any other case.
38. Superdari of case property, if any, stands cancelled and other case property be confiscated to the State, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.
File be consigned to RR after due compliance. Announced in the open Court on this 31st day of January, 2023 (ARUN SUKHIJA) Addl. Sessions Judge-03 (East) Karkardooma Courts: Delhi SC No. 517/2019 State Vs. Vikas Bharti & Ors. Page - 17 of 17