Madras High Court
K.Ramesh vs State Represented By on 5 July, 2019
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.07.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.A.No.614 of 2009
K.Ramesh ... Appellant/A1
Vs
State represented by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Kancheepuram Sub Division,
Baluchetty Chathiram Police Station,
Kancheepuram.
(Crime No.224 of 2007) ... Respondent
Prayer:- This Criminal Appeal is filed, under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the
judgement of conviction and sentence, dated 10.09.2009, made in SC.No.9 of
2008, by the learned Mahila Court, Chengalpattu.
For Appellant : Mr.Mohamed Ismail,
Legal Aid Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.K.Prabakaran, APP
JUDGEMENT
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant/ A1, against the judgement of conviction and sentence, dated 10.09.2009, made in SC.No.9 of 2008, by the Mahila Court, Chengalpattu, finding the Appellant/A1 guilty for the offence under Section 498A and convicting and sentencing him to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months and acquitting the Appellant/A1 for the offence under Sections 304B and 306 of IPC and acquitting A2 for the offences under Sections 304B, 306 and 498A of IPC http://www.judis.nic.in 2
2. The brief facts of the Prosecution are as follows:-
a) The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District had filed a final report, against the Appellant/A1 and one Parameshwari/A2, for the offences under Sections 304B, 306 and 498A of IPC, alleging that the marriage between the Appellant/A1 and the deceased Dhanalakshmi, took place on 24.05.2007 and at the time of marriage, as against the demand of 15 sovereigns of jewels and a motorcycle made by the family of the Appellant/A1, 10 sovereigns of jewels and Rs.28,000/- worth of household articles were given to the Appellant/A1. After 10 days of marriage, during post marriage ceremony (jhyp gphpj;J nfhh;f;Fk; tpHh) Rs.10,000/- worth of golden beads were given to the Appellant/A1. After the marriage, deceased Dhanalakshmi was living in a joint family along with the Appellant/A1 in the North Mada Lane, Govindavadhi Agaram and till the post marriage ceremoney (jhyp gphpj;J nfhh;f;Fk; tpHh), the Appellant/A1 and the deceased were living happily together. Thereafter, within one month Appellant/A1 is stated to have harassed the deceased, by demanding the balance jewels and motorcycle.
b) It is further alleged in the final report that the Appellant/A1 was having illicit intimacy with one Parameshwari/A2, which was questioned by the deceased, stating that the Appellant/A1 should not go to the house of A2 and should not bring the children of A2 to their house. Four days prior to the occurrence, the Appellant/A1 and A2-Parameshwari had assaulted the deceased and again on 25.06.2007, Appellant/A1 had brought the http://www.judis.nic.in 3 children of A2 and had given food to them, which act was questioned and warned by the deceased. Again on 26.06.2007, at about 8.30.a.m., the deceased saw the Appellant/A1 and A2 talking with each other near Throuwbadhi Amman Temple and that the deceased asked her husband/A1 to come to the house immediately by pulling his hands and saying that if he would not come to the residence, she would commit suicide by hanging, to which, the Appellant/A1 had told her to do so in a lethargic manner. Unable to bear the illicit relationship of her husband with A2 and harassment by demanding dowry and due to mental agony, the deceased committed suicide by hanging.
3. The final report was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Kancheepuram and the learned Magistrate, finding that the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, had forwarded the case to the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, made over to the Mahila Court, Chengalpattu.
4. The case was taken on file in SC.No.9 of 2008, by the Mahila Court, Chengalpattu and necessary charges were framed. The accused had denied the charges and sought for trial. In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.12 and also marked Exs.P1 to P11 and marked Mos.1 and 2. No evidence was let in on the side of the defence.
5. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the Appellant/A1 was questioned under Section 313 Cr.PC as to the http://www.judis.nic.in 4 incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the Appellant/A1 has come with the version of total denial and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case.
6. The court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also looking into the materials available on record, while acquitting the Appellant/A1 for the offences under Sections 304B and 306 of IPC, found the Appellant/A1 guilty for the offence under Section 498A of IPC and awarded punishments, as referred to above, which is challenged in this Criminal Appeal, by the Appellant/A1. In and by the impugned judgement, A2 was acquitted for the offences under Sections 304B, 306 and 498A of IPC.
7. This court heard the learned counsel on either side.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence on the following grounds:-
a) The Trial Court, having found the Appellant/A1 not guilty for the offences under Sections 304B and 306 of IPC, ought not have convicted the Appellant/A1 for the offence under Section 498A of IPC on the same set of facts and evidence.
b) The prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the Appellant/A1 for the offence under Section 498A of IPC, by letting in evidence to satisfy the ingredients of Section 498A. The Trial Court had convicted the Appellant/A1 on presumptions, when no legal evidence has been let in by the prosecution to prove that there was an illicit affair between the Appellant/A1 and A-2. Admittedly, even as per the evidence, there was false notion and suspicion by the deceased with regard to the relation http://www.judis.nic.in 5 ship between the Appellant/A1 and A2. Though according to the Prosecution, the deceased was aggrieved over the Appellant/A1, feeding the children of A2, but no evidence was let in by the prosecution in this regard.
c) No legal evidence had been let in by the prosecution to prove that there was an illicit relationship between the Appellant/A1 and A2 and that the deceased committed suicide due to such illicit relationship.
d) The independent witnesses have not supported the case of Prosecution.
PW.4 - Ramu, who has been examined from the Village has also not supported the case of the prosecution.
e) Though, the incident had happened within one month after marriage, it is the admitted case that there was no demand of dowry. Further, the evidence of P.W.4 is categoric that they were living happily even few days prior to the occurrence. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 cannot be believed, as it is nothing but exaggeration and none of the villagers have supported the case of the prosecution.
9. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the Appellant/A1 would rely on the judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2015) 11 SCC 753 (Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya and others Vs. State of Gujarat) and 2017 11 SCC 176 (K.V.Prakash Babu Vs. State of Karnataka),, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relying on its earlier Judgements has acquitted the Appellant/A1, finding that the Prosecution has not proved the ingredients of Section 498A.
10.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent http://www.judis.nic.in 6 would submit that P.W.1-Father, P.W.2-Brother, P.W.3- Friend of P.W.2 have spoken about the victim, being subjected to cruelty by the Appellant/A1 and that the Prosecution has proved its case, by adducing clear and cogent evidence and that considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, in a proper perspective, the Trial Court had, rightly convicted and sentenced the Appellant/accused, by the impugned judgement, which warrants no interference by this Court. He would rely on the recent judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (2018) 9 SCC 621 (Siddaling Vs. State, Through Kalagi Police Station).
11.I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and thoroughly scanned through the entire evidence available on record and also perused the impugned judgement of conviction.
12.In this case, there are two accused, namely, the Appellant/A1 and one Parameshwari/A2. The charges against both the accused are under Sections 304B, 306 and 498A of IPC. The second accused was acquitted of all the charges levelled against her. The Trial Court, while acquitting the Appellant/A1 for the offences under Sections 304B of 306 of IPC, had convicted and sentenced the Appellant/A1 only for the offence under Section 498A of IPC.
13.Now, the point that arises consideration is as to whether the Trial Court was right in convicting the Appellant/ A1 for the offence under section 498A IPC, on the same set of facts and evidence, while acquitting him for the offences under Sections 304B and 306 of IPC, relying on the same evidence. http://www.judis.nic.in 7
14.Though an acquittal under Sections 304B and 306 of IPC itself is not a ground for acquittal under section 498A IPC, there must be a cogent material and evidence in the case of the Prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 498A of IPC. The evidence of the witnesses on the side of the Prosecution runs as under.
15.PW.1-Gopal, who is the father of the deceased had deposed that the Appellant/A1 is his son in law and A2 is Aunt of A1 and that his daughter Dhanalakshmi was married to A1 and that at the time of marriage, they had given jewels and that 28 days after the marriage, he had received a phone call, informing that the Appellant/A1 had beaten her daughter and killed her and immediately he along with his sons had gone to Govindavadhi Agaram and found that her daughter had died. He had further deposed that he had seen rope marks in the neck of his daughter and that he had given a complaint to Baluchetty Chatiram Police Station. Further, he had deposed that the Appellant/A1 had demanded motorcycle from him and that his deceased daughter had informed him that there was a quarrel between her and her husband Appellant/A1 since he was having illicit relationship with A- 2 and that the complaint was marked as Ex.P1.
16.P.W.2-Arul, who is the elder brother of the deceased had deposed that the marriage between his sister and the Appellant/A1 took place on 24.05.2007, and that after 25 days of marriage, he had gone to her house to visit his sister along with his friend at 5.00 p.m. and that his sister had informed him that since the deceased questioned the Appellant/A1 about his illicit intimacy with A2, there was a quarrel between them and that the Appellant/A1 http://www.judis.nic.in 8 quarrelled with her, saying that she has not given the jewels and motorcycle. He had deposed that he had gone to his sister's house after hearing news and he had seen the body of the deceased let on the cot outside the house.
17.P.W.3-Raja, who is the friend of P.W.2 had deposed that 15 days after the marriage, he along with P.W.2 had gone to the house of the Appellant/A1 to visit the deceased and that the Appellant/A1 and the mother of the Appellant/A1 were not at home and she had gone out to buy milk and that the deceased had informed him that the Appellant/A1 had assaulted her, as a result of which her ear ring was broken and that he had questioned her and she had informed him about the reason for quarrel between her and Appellant/A1 that since she questioned the relationship between the Appellant/A1 and A-2, the Appellant/A1 had beaten her. He had further deposed that he had taken her to a nearby Temple and asked her to come to his place and that on 26.06.2007, P.W.2 had informed about the death of his sister and both of them went to the house of the Appellant/A1.
18.P.W4-Ramu, is a witness to speak about the quarrel between the Appellant/A1 and the deceased, due to illicit intimacy between the Appellant/A1 and A-2 and he had not supported the case of prosecution and thereby he had been treated as hostile.
19.P.W.5-Ravi is the witness for the Observation Mahazar- Ex.P2 and the Seizer Mahazar Ex.P3, based on which M.O.1– rope and M.O.2 – ashes of the burnt rope were collected. P.W.6-Karunakaran, who is the step brother of the deceased, had corroborated the evidence of P.W.2. .P.W.7-Siva Babu, is the photographer.
http://www.judis.nic.in 9
20.P.W.8 – Balakrishnan, who is a Head Constable of the respondent Police Station, had deposed that after receiving First Information Report, he handed over it to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram and thereafter, on the request made by the DSP, gave a letter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram to conduct an enquiry and that he had assisted the RDO during the inquest and that thereafter, he had taken a requisition letter from the RDO along with body of the deceased to Kancheepuram Hospital for post mortem. He had further deposed that the post mortem was conducted on 27.06.2007 at 11.10. a.m. and he identified the body of the deceased and assisted the Government Doctor to conduct Post mortem and thereafter, received the body of the deceased and recovered the other articles under Form 95, viz., dresses worn by the deceased and that saree was marked as M.O.1, and skirt was marked as M.O.5 and the blouse was marked as M.O.6.
21.P.W.9 – Dr.Saravanan, who conducted the post mortem, had deposed that while he was on duty at Kancheepuram Government Hospital, he received the body of the deceased and after conducting post mortem, he had issued Post mortem report Ex.P.4. As per Ex.P4, he had opined that the death of deceased would appear to have occurred due to mechanical asphyxia due to hanging and he had found a ligature marks at 2.5 cm, present below the lateral portions of mandible. He had not found any external injuries on the victim.
22.P.W.10 – Ashok Metha, who is the Inspector of Police, had deposed that while he was on duty as Inspector of Police at Baluchetty Chatiram Police http://www.judis.nic.in 10 Station, on 26.06.2007, P.W.1 had appeared before the Police Station and given a complaint. Based on that, he had registered a case in Crime No.224 of 2007 under Section174(3) of Cr.PC and the FIR was marked as Ex.P.5. Thereafter, he had forwarded the copy of the file to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram and also to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram.
23.PW.11 – R.Seethalakshmi, Revenue Divisional Officer had deposed that while she was on duty as RDO, Kancheepuram, she received a report from the respondent police station and went to the scene of occurrence at 05.30 p.m. and she had seen the body of the deceased laid on the cot outside of the house. She had further deposed that she had noted that the ligature marks near front side of neck and that she had not noticed any other injuries. She had examined the Panchayatdars and the Appellant/A1, the mother of the Appellant/A1 and the parents of the deceased and she had given a report, stating that the death was not due to dowry demand. The report was marked as Ex.P7 and the statement of the witness during Revenue Divisional Officer enquiry was marked as Ex.P8.
24.P.W.12 – Muniappa, who is the Investigating Officer, had stated that on 26.06.2007, while he was working as DSP of Kancheepuram Sub Division, he had received FIR in C.No.224 of 2007, from the Inspector of Police, Baluchetty Chatiram Police Station and that thereafter, he had intimated the RDO to conduct enquiry and he had gone to the place of occurrence at 3.00 p.m. and in the presence of witnesses Ravi and Santhanam prepared the Observation Mahazar Ex.P2 and thereafter, prepared a rough sketch Ex.P9 http://www.judis.nic.in 11 and seized the rope, which was used by the deceased for hanging and the ashes were recovered in the presence of witnesses and athachi was marked as Ex.P3 and at 5.30 p.m. the Revenue Divisional Officer had come to the place of occurrence and conducted an enquiry in his presence and after inquest, the body was sent for post mortem. He had further deposed that he had examined the witnesses and recorded their statements on 27.06.2007 and examined the Inspector, who had registered the case and examined the photographer and seized the photo negatives and that thereafter, he had examined Dr.Saravanan and Dr.Vijayalakshmi who conducted the post mortem and on the same day recovered the clothes worn by the deceased under Form 95 on 30.06.2007. He had further deposed that the accused/A1 had appeared before the Revenue Divisional Officer on 01.07.2007 at 12.00 noon and after that he had arrested the Appellant/A1 and recorded a statement from his mother and thereafter, he altered the case to one under Section 306 of IPC by a special report and the special report was marked as Ex.P.11 and the recovered articles were sent to the court. He had further deposed that once again on 20.08.2007, he examined the Doctors who conducted the post-mortem and thereafter on 26.08.2007, the Revenue Divisional Officer had obtained the opinion from the Deputy Director and filed a final report against the accused for the offence under Sections 304 (b), 498A and 306 IPC. He had further deposed that during his enquiry, he examined P.W.4 – Ramu, who had stated that the deceased had come to know about the illicit relationship between the Appellant/A1 & A-2 due to which, there was a quarrel between the http://www.judis.nic.in 12 Appellant/A1 and the deceased and that there was a quarrel between the Appellant/A1 and the deceased, since, the appellant/A1 had given food to the children of the A-2.
25.Section 498A of IPC reads as follows:-
“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty — Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation —For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means— (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”
26.In the case on hand, the fact that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging is not disputed. In order to attract the provisions of Section 498A of IPC, the cruelty or harassment meted out to the wife by her husband or relatives of her husband should be to the extent that it became unbearable. Thus, the essential ingredients of Section 498A of IPC are (1) a woman must be married, (2) she must be subjected to cruelty and (3) cruelty must be of any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life and (4) the nature of harassment of such woman, with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand for property or valuable security.
27.As per the evidence of PW.1, father of the deceased, since the Appellant was having illicit intimacy, with his Aunt, A2 and he had given food to the http://www.judis.nic.in 13 children of A2, there was a quarrel between the Appellant/A2 and the deceased and that they were living happily till the post marriage ceremony. PW.2, brother of the deceased and PW.3, friend of PW.2 and PW.4, a resident of the Village, had also deposed in similar lines. PW.6 is a hearsay witness.
28.PW.11, Revenue Divisional Officer had deposed that the death of the deceased was not on account of dowry demand. In Ex.P7, inquest report, PW.11 had opined that it came to light, from his enquiry with the witnesses that the death of the deceased did not occur due to dowry demand and that the Panchayatars, in their statements, had told that the deceased would appear to have died due to depression and due to poverty of the appellant and that there was a quarrel arisen between the Appellant/A1 and the deceased since she suspected illicit intimacy between Appellant/A1 and A2 and due to such quarrel and due to mental agony, the deceased committed suicide by hanging and that there were no injuries on her body, except the rope marks on her neck due to hanging.
29.It is seen from the analysis of the entire evidence that the deceased committed suicide, by hanging, due to mental agony caused by the alleged illicit intimacy, the Appellant/A1 had with A2 and due to the act of the Appellant/A1 in giving food to the children of his Aunt/A2.
30. The mere fact that the husband has developed some intimacy with another woman, during the subsistence of marriage and failed to discharge his marital obligations, would not amount to cruelty, but it must be of such a nature as is likely to drive the spouse to commit suicide to fall with the http://www.judis.nic.in 14 explanation to Section 498A of IPC. The alleged extra-marital relationship is not of such a nature as to drive the wife to commit suicide. Even assuming that there is illicit relationship, unless some other acceptable evidence is let in to establish such high degree of mental cruelty, the explanation (a) to Section 498A of IPC, which includes cruelty to drive the woman to commit suicide, would not be attracted. But, in the case on hand, there is no material to prove that such an illicit intimacy existed between the Appellant/A1 and A2.
31.In 2015 11 SCC 753 (Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya Vs. State of Gujarat), it was held as under:-
“21. ..... True it is, there is some evidence about the illicit relationship and even if the same is proven, we are of the considered opinion that cruelty, as envisaged under the first limb of Section 498A IPC would not get attracted. It would be difficult to hold that the mental cruelty was of such a degree that it would drive the wife to commit suicide. Mere extra-marital relationship, even if proved, would be illegal and immoral, as has been said in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal [Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 10 SCC 48 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 616 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 801] , but it would take a different character if the prosecution brings some evidence on record to show that the accused had conducted in such a manner to drive the wife to commit suicide. In the instant case, the accused may have been involved in an illicit relationship with Appellant 4, but in the absence of some other acceptable evidence on record that can establish such high degree of mental cruelty, the Explanation to Section 498A IPC which includes cruelty to drive a woman to commit suicide, would not be attracted.
32.In 2017 11 SCC 176 (K.V.Prakash Babu Vs. State of Karnataka), wherein the wife had committed suicide on suspicion of her husband having an extra- marital affair and it was held that if the husband gets involved in an extra- marital affair, that may not in all circumstances invite conviction under http://www.judis.nic.in Section 498A or 306 of IPC, but definitely that can be a ground for divorce or 15 other reliefs in a matrimonial dispute under other enactments.
33.Though an acquittal under Section 306 of IPC itself is not a ground for acquittal under section 498A IPC, there must be a cogent material in the case of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 498A IPC. Further, the wilful act or conduct ought to be the proximate cause in order to bring home the charge under section 498A IPC.
34.Mere fact that the Appellant/A1 was alleged to have some intimacy A2 would not amount to cruelty and the cruelty must be of such a nature as likely to the spouse to commit suicide. In the opinion of this Court, the Prosecution has even failed to prove, by legal evidence that there was an illicit intimacy between the Appellant/A1 and A-2. When such being so, the evidence was let in by the prosecution falls short of the ingredients to bring the Act of the appellant within the explanation to Section 498A and the Prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts.
35.On perusal of the entire records and evidence in consonance with the above provisions, this Court is of the view that the Prosecution has not let in sufficient evidence to show that the Appellant/A1 had subjected the deceased/victim-his wife to cruelty, which was of such a nature as was likely to drive the victim to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, thereby satisfying the requirements of section 498A IPC.
36.Further, in the case on hand, the Trial Court, having found that there was no evidence for demand of dowry and the Appellant/A1 having abetted the victim to commit suicide, had acquitted the appellant/accused for the charges under sections 304(B) and 306 of IPC. However, strangely, on the same set http://www.judis.nic.in 16 of facts, the Trial Court had found the Appellant/A1 guilty of the offence under Section 498A of IPC without there being any evidence that the Appellant/A1 by any wilful conduct committed cruelty which was of such a nature which had driven the victim to commit suicide and thereby, such a finding of guilty under Section 498A of IPC, in the opinion of this Court, is erroneous.
37.In view of the above findings,discussions and in the light of the decisions cited supra,, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned judgement of the Trial Court warrants interference and has to be set aside.
38.In so far as the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, reported in 2018 9 SCC 621 (Siddaling Vs. State, Through Kalagi Police Station), relied by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is concerned, since the facts of the said decision are different from that of the case on hand, it cannot be made applicable to the case on hand. In 2018 9 SCC 621 (Siddaling Vs. State, Through Kalagi Police Station), cited supra, the fact remains that the prosecution had led in evidence to prove the illicit relationship wherein the accused had admitted the illicit relationship whereas in this case, when the Prosecution has failed to prove that there was an illicit intimacy between the Appellant/A1 and A2 (acquitted accused), he cannot be convicted on mere presumptions and assumptions, without any legal evidence on record.
39. In the result, this criminal appeal is allowed. The impugned judgement of conviction and sentence is set aside. The Appellant/A1 is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The bail bond if any executed by the Appellant/A1 shall stand cancelled and the fine amount if any paid by the http://www.judis.nic.in 17 Appellant/A1 shall be refunded to him. This Court had earlier issued Non Bailable Warrant, to the Appellant/A1 and in view of the appeal is being allowed, the Non Bailable Warrant has been recalled. This Court places on record its appreciation for the active participation and assistance rendered by interns Mr.P.K.Suriya, Ms.Arumina Das, Ms.P.Elakkiya and Mr.Mohamed Ismail, Advocate is entitled to remuneration from the Tamil Nadu State Legal Service Authority as per norms.
05.07.2019 Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking ssi/Srcm To:
1. The Mahila Court, Chengalpattu.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram Sub Division, Baluchetty Chathiram Police Station, Kancheepuram.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in 18 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
ssi/Srcm Crl.A.No.614 of 2009 05.07.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in