Allahabad High Court
Ramji Sharan Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 6 Ors. on 26 February, 2020
Bench: Sunita Agarwal, Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A. F. R. Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 372 CR.P.C (LEAVE TO APPEAL) No. - 318 of 2019 Applicant :- Ramji Sharan Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others. Counsel for Applicant :- Nipun Singh, Vivek Chaubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
(Per Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak, J.)
1. Heard Shri Vivek Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant on the question of admission.
2. The instant appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by informant-Ramji Sharan Sharma challenging the judgment and order dated 28.05.2019 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi in Special Case No. 155 of 2007 (CNR No. UPJS01-000160-2007), State vs. Briju @ Brijesh Sharma and 07 others, acquitting six accused-respondents namely Suresh (respondent no.2), Sunil (respondent no.3), Raju (respondent no.4), Smt. Genda (respondent no. 5), Smt. Sandhya (respondent no.6) and Smt. Sheela (respondent no.7), for the alleged commission of offences under sections 147, 452, 354, 294, 270, 341, 342, 323, 395 and 412 IPC.
3. The trial commenced against eight (08) accused persons, out of them case of Satish son of Suresh Sharma was separated being juvenile and he had been tried separately by the Juvenile Justice Board. By the impugned judgment only one accused Briju was convicted and the remaining six accused have been acquitted, who are arrayed as respondents in the present appeal.
4. As per the version of the First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as "FIR"), co-villager Briju @ Brijesh Sharma barged into the house of Ramji Sharan Sharma (informant) on 08.09.2007 at about 9:00 a.m. and molested his wife, while she was alone in the house. His daughter (PW-3), went outside to take water from the hand pump. She had immediately rushed to the house hearing screams of her mother and tried to save her. The accused had flailed her daughter as well and fled away. While his wife and daughter were going to the Police Station, BHEL to get the occurrence registered, Briju @ Brijesh Sharma and his accomplices namely Suresh, Sunil, Raju and Satish had surrounded and flogged them on the periphery of the village. The accused then brought them naked in the village, paraded them and filled their mouths with cow-dung and forced them to drink sewage water and hit their private parts as well. His wife and daughter had narrated all these facts to him. The informant, along with his daughter, went to the police station and described the incident to the Police Inspector who, in turn, reached the village. Taking the Maxi (dress) of his wife, the informant also went to the village and again came back to the police station along with his wife. From there, police personnel had sent his wife and daughter for medical examination. He admitted his wife in the District Government Hospital.
5. Describing all these facts, initially, the informant had moved an application dated 09.09.2007 (which is treated as written report marked as Ext. Ka-1) before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi. He had passed the order on the said application to register a case and to take legal action against the accused persons. In compliance thereof, concerned police station had lodged the F.I.R. On 09.09.2007 registered as Case Crime No. 133 of 2007 (Ext. Ka-2) under Sections 147, 452, 354, 294, 270, 341, 342 & 323 IPC, against five (05) persons namely Briju @ Brijesh Sharma, Suresh, Sunil, Satish and Raju.
6. In further development, on 11.09.2007 at about 21:10 hours, police had arrested Sunil and Satish in connection with another Case Crime No. 591 of 2007 under Sections 147, 452, 454, 494, 270, 341, 342, 323 & 395 IPC, Police Station Babina, District Jhansi and recovered mobile phone looted from the present prosecutrix and two currency notes of Rs.500/- and Rs.100/- (one each) from the possession of Satish.
7. After investigation, the Investigating Officer had prepared the site map (Ext. Ka-5) and filed the charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-7) against eight (08) persons namely Briju @ Brijesh Sharma, Suresh, Sunil, Raju, Satish, Smt. Genda, Smt. Sandhya and Smt. Sheela respectively under Sections 147, 452, 354, 294, 270, 341, 342, 323, 395 and 412 IPC.
8. On their appearance, accused had been served with the police report and other documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Court had framed charges against seven (07) accused persons (including Briju and respondents herein), vide order dated 10.04.2009 under Sections 147, 452, 354, 294, 270, 341, 342, 323, 395 and 412 IPC. Prosecutrix (PW-1) and her daughter (PW-3) had been taken to the hospital by the police and were medically examined by Dr. Ajay Saxena (PW-6) who had prepared and signed the injury report of the prosecutrix (Ext. Ka-9) and the medical/injury report of her daughter (Ext. Ka-8). In the medical report of the daughter (Ext. Ka-8), only one injury had been shown as contusion on the upper portion of the shoulder but in the injury report of the prosecutrix, 06 injuries had been shown. The doctor has opined that these injuries were inflicted prior 6 to 8 hours and could have been caused by blunt object. The injuries shown in the medical report of PW-1 is noted below :-
"१.छाती के पीछे बांयी ओर नीलगू सूजन ६सेमी०X २ सेमी० रीढ़ की हड्डी से ३ सेमी० दूरी पर थी।
२. छाती के बांयी ओर नीलगू सूज १ सेमी०X२ सेमी० जो कि चोट सं०-१ के ३ सेमी० नीचे थी।
३. एब्डोमन पर नीचे की तरफ एवं पीछे की तरफ नीलगू निशान ४ सेमी०X२सेमी० बीचे में,
४. बांये Buttock पर नीलगू सूजन १९ सेमी०X १८ सेमी० जो कि जांघ के पिछले हिस्से तक गई थी।
५. दाहिने Buttock पर नीलगू सूजन १७ सेमी०X१२ सेमी० पर मिली।
६. बांयी टांग के पीछे की ओर नीलगू सूजन १० सेमी०X३ सेमी० एवं घुटने से ६ सेमी० नीचे।"
9. So as to hold the accused guilty, prosecution had examined as many as 07 witnesses, out of them 03 are the witnesses of fact and remaining are formal witnesses.
10. (PW-1) Prosecutrix (wife of Informant) has stated that the incident took place on 08.07.2007 at 9:00 a.m. Her daughter went to fetch water from the government hand pump installed in front of the house and at the same time Briju @ Brijesh Sharma barged into the house and started molesting her. While she raised alarm, her daughter immediately rushed into the house and tried to save her. Accused Briju @ Brijesh Sharma had kicked, punched and flailed them and went away from the house. While she and her daughter were going to the Police Station, BHEL, to get the occurrence reported, Briju @ Brijesh Sharma and his accomplices namely Suresh, Sunil, Raju, Satish, Genda, Sandhya & Sheela had surrounded and flogged them on the periphery of the village. Accused had made them naked, filled their mouths with cow-dung, forced them to drink sewage water, hit their private parts as well and while beating them up paraded them to their home. She further stated that during this incident, they had looted her mobile phone and currency notes of Rs.500/- and Rs.100/- (one each). At the time of incident her husband was not present in the home. She further stated that due to fear, she could not tell her husband about the event of looting mobile phone and Rs.600/-, as well as the involvement of Genda, Sandhya and Sheela in the crime scene. After getting back to normal, she told these facts to her husband, who took her and her daughter by taxi, to the Police Station BHEL, where-from the Police Inspector had sent them to the hospital at Babina for medical examination. On that day police did not register the occurrence. Therefore, on the following day, her husband had moved an application dated 09.09.2007 before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi for a direction to register a criminal case concerning the incident in question. On the direction of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi, a criminal case was registered. Next day, she was admitted in the District Hospital, Jhansi for medical treatment.
11. (PW-2), Ramji Sharan Sharma (informant) has narrated the same story as mentioned in the F.I.R. According to his statement, he was not present at the time of incident and when he came to the house, he had been informed by his wife and daughter qua the incident. In his statement he has supported the version of his wife (PW-1) qua looting of mobile phone and Rs.600/- from the prosecutrix and participation of 03 ladies in the crime, whose names are mentioned in the charge-sheet. He has proved his application (written report) as Ext. Ka-1.
12. PW-3 is the daughter of PW-1 & PW-2. She has repeated the sequence of occurrence as narrated by her parents. She has also narrated the event of looting mobile phone and Rs.600/- from her mother and involvement of 03 ladies in the crime.
13. (PW-4) Vidya Dhar, (Constable Clerk) has proved the Chik F.I.R. as Ext. Ka-2. He has also stated that he had endorsed the occurrence in G.D. at Rapat No. 14 at 16:20 hours, dated 09.09.2007. He has stated that original G.D. had been weeded out as per the rules and he had produced the weeding out certificate issued from the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi and proved the same as Ext. 'Ka-3'.
14. (PW-5), J.P.Shahi (S.H.O.) has stated that initially investigation was conducted by the earlier Inspector Rajesh Chowdhary and after his sad demise, he has taken the charge for further investigation. He has verified the signature and hand writing of earlier Investigating Officer, Rajesh Chowdhary and proved the site map as Ext. 'Ka-5' and the recovery map as Ext. 'Ka-6'. He has also proved the charge-sheet, which has been submitted by him as Ext. 'Ka-7'.
15. (PW-6), Dr. Ajay Saxena, deposed that on 08.09.2007 he was posted as Medical Officer, C.H.C., Babina and had medically examined PW-1 & PW-3. He has proved the medical report of PW-3 as Ext. 'Ka-8' and also proved the medical report of PW-1 as Ext. 'Ka-9'.
16. (PW-7), Constable, has verified the signature and writing of the earlier Investigating Officer late Rajesh Chowdhary.
17. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused persons had denied all the allegations made against them and stated that prosecution story is totally false and baseless. No such incident took place on the spot. They had never commissioned such crime as alleged by the prosecution. They had been falsely roped in the present criminal case because of election antipathy and claimed for trial on merits. In their support, accused persons produced two (02) defence witnesses.
18. (DW-1), Brij Mohan, had stated in his cross-examination that neither any scuffle took place with the prosecutrix in the village on 08.09.2007 nor Briju @ Brijesh Sharma barged into her house. He further stated that Brijesh Sharma, Raju, Satish, Smt. Genda, Smt. Sandhya & Smt. Sheela are well known to him and they are neighbour in the village. House of Ramji Sharan Sharma is situated in front of his well. Neither any scuffle took place with Ramji Sharan Sharma or his wife and daughter in the village, nor anyone had been molested or beaten them up.
19. (DW-2), Ashok, in his cross-examination had stated that no scuffle took place with the prosecutrix on 08.09.2007 and all the accused persons are well known to him who are co-villagers. House of Ramji Sharan Sharma is situated after 5-6 houses from his house. No scuffling or incident of molestation occurred with the prosecutrix and her daughter.
20. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence (documentary as well as oral), the trial court had acquitted all the accused except one Briju @ Brijesh Sharma who has been convicted under Section 354, 242, 323 I.P.C. Feeling aggrieved by the acquittal of the present opposite parties/accused, the informant has preferred the instant appeal challenging the impugned judgement dated 28.5.2019.
21. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial court has failed to appreciate the evidene available on record and the facts and circumstances of the present case. He has further submitted that the trial court has decided the matter in a cursory manner, only on the basis of conjectures and surmises. The statements of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are fully corroborating the prosecution case but the same have been misread and misinterpreted. The court below has miserably failed to consider the injuries sustained by P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 who are victims of the incident. He has also submitted that the prosecution story is based on true facts but the trial court has illegally acquitted the accused opposite party nos. 2 to 7 without any rhyme and reason.
22. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgement passed by the trial court and also perused the record of the Court below, summoned in compliance of order dated 06.08.2019 passed by this Court.
23. The FIR, as per the version therein, consists of two incidents happened at two different locations at different point of time on the same day. The first incident took place at the residence of the prosecutrix, while she was alone at home and her daughter was out to fetch water from a government hand pump, the accused entered the house and subjected her to molestation and violence. On hearing her screaming, her daughter immediately rushed to the house and tried to save her mother but the accused had beaten up her as well. The second incident took place on the periphery of the village where accused Briju @ Brijesh Sharma, Suresh, Sunil, Raju, Satish, Smt. Genda, Smt. Sheela and Smt. Sandhya had grabbed the prosecutrix and her daughter and thrashed them while they were going to the police station to register a criminal case concerning the earlier incident. After that, accused paraded them naked in the village, filled their mouths with cow-dung, forced them to drink sewage water and hit on their private parts as well while leaving the victims at their house.
24. Treating both the incidents as a chain of one crime, a holistic FIR had been registered in compliance of the order passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police indicting five persons. The FIR evinced the central involvement of accused Briju @ Brijesh Sharma in the accomplishment of both the incidents. Whereas, participation of remaining four accused had been shown only at the second stage of occurrence. Later on, after investigation, the names of three ladies were also included namely, Smt. Genda, Smt. Sheela and Smt. Sandhya. Consequently, the trial had been concluded against eight accused persons.
25. The trial court had convicted Briju @ Brijesh Sharma for the commission of crime under Section 354, 452, 323 I.P.C., whereas acquitted remaining accused, excluding the juvenile Satish, for the alleged commission of a crime under Section 147, 452, 294, 270, 341, 342, 323, 395 and 412 I.P.C.
26. No independent witness had been produced on behalf of prosecution to corroborate the version of the FIR. The statements of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 evince the presence of several persons at the time of occurrence but it is astonishing that no villager could be brought in the witness box to support the case of the prosecution.
27. P.W. 1 (prosecutrix) has deposed at page (7) that her 'Jethh' Hari Sharma (elder brother of her husband) was sitting at the doorstep of their house at the time of occurrence. At page (8), she has deposed that her house is situated at the central part of the village and in front of her house, there is a public road which starts with commuting activities from dawn and on the other side of the road, there is house of Kishori Lal Ahirwar. There is traffic for the whole day on the road. At the time of incident i.e. 9:00 a.m. commuters were passing through the said road but no one had heard her screams. She was alone in the house. As per deposition made by P.W. 3, several persons were present at the place of the hand pump from where she was fetching water and when her mother screamed she alone rushed to the house and no other person followed her. She has further deposed that at the time of occurrence, no other family member was present there. In this view of the matter, the statement of P.W. 3 is in contradiction to the statement of the P.W. 1 who has stated that her brother-in-law (Jethh) was sitting at the doorstep of the house. It is astonishing and ridiculous that Hari Sharma (elder brother of the husband of prosecutrix), who was present at the time of occurrence, had not been brought in the witness box though he could be an important/ocular witness to corroborate the prosecution case. There is no whisper in the statement of PW-1 that her Jeth had come to their rescue or he had entered the house hearing her screams. In the light of the defence taken by the accused, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, probability of election enmity cannot be ruled out. After considering the statement of P.W. 1 and the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the trial court came to the conclusion that at the relevant time one daughter-in-law of the family of the accused was village Pradhan.
28. In the FIR, all three ladies (opposite party nos. 5 to 7) were not named. Indicting them at belated stage, creates doubt with regard to the factum of occurrence as mentioned in the written report (Ext. Ka-1). The prosecutrix (P.W. 1) has given an excuse that initially she could not take the names of three ladies (accused) but later on, after recovering from the shock, she had mentioned their involvement. The aforesaid excuse given by the prosecutrix is ridiculous, inasmuch as, the incident took place at 9 a.m. on 8.9.2007 and, thereafter, for the whole day she, along with her husband, was wandering on way to the police station, village and hospital. On the next day i.e. on 09.09.2007, her husband moved an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi for getting the criminal case registered. It is astonishing that after even lapse of more than 24 hours, she did not mention the name of three ladies in the F.I.R. registered on the directions of the Senior Superintendent of Police, who were allegedly involved in her harassment and beating her daughter. The aforesaid conduct of P.W.1 creates serious doubt with respect to the truthfulness of the second incident in which three ladies were said to be participated.
29. That apart, in the scene of second incident, five male persons were already present with blunt objects to beat P.W. 1 and P.W. 3. In that situation, probability of the presence of three ladies with intention to participate in the aforesaid incident, becomes very less. It appears that name of three ladies had been indicted to exaggerate the severity of the crime, as put forth by the prosecution.
30. Dr. Ajay Saxena (P.W. 6) opined that injuries inflicted on the persons of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 could be caused by blunt objects. The prosecution came forward with the case that prosecutrix and her daughter had been badly thrashed twice. For the first time, they had been beaten up by Briju @ Brijesh Sharma inside their house and second time they had been beaten up by Briju @ Brijesh Sharma and his accomplices (accused opposite parties (including juvenile Satish) on the periphery of the village while duo were going to lodge the FIR. As per the medical report, P.W. 3 had sustained one injury on the upper portion of her shoulder which is contusion, whereas P.W. 1 had sustained six injuries and all are contusions. Seeing the nature of injuries, all general in nature, it would be difficult to believe that duo had been beaten up by the accused twice with stick and other blunt objects. Dr. Saxena opined that injury on the body of P.W. 3 could be caused because of falling down. In the X-ray report of the prosecutrix, no grave injury has been shown.
31. In light of aforesaid surrounding circumstances, it is difficult to believe that eight persons had jointly beaten up the prosecutrix and her daughter, and that too, with the help of sticks, rods and other blunt objects, but only minor injuries of contusion had occurred and no fracture, cut or abrasion had been caused on the body of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3.
32. The whole facts and the surrounding circumstances are, thus, not supporting the case of the prosecution with respect to participation of the opposite parties/accused in the crime which occurred at second stage on the same day i.e. 8.9.2007. In criminal law, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts while the defence has to prove its case on the touch stone of preponderance of probability. In the present matter, no independent witness had been adduced to corroborate the prosecution version. Injuries inflicted on the prosecutrix and her daughter, as shown in the medical report are not proportionate to the severity of violence which took place at two stages of the incident as portrayed by the prosecution. In the written report five persons have been indicted. But later on, number of accused has been increased up to eight on the basis of the statement made by P.W. 1 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. No evidence had been adduced to prove the incident of loot of mobile and cash from P.W. 1. Defence witnesses Brijmohan (D.W. 1) and Ashok (D.W. 2), who are co-villagers, have clearly denied the incident. The statement of the accused given under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with respect to the election enmity between the parties appears to be credible. Hari Sharma, elder brother of her husband who could be an important witness being present at the time of occurrence has not been brought in the witness box.
33. While considering the scope of interference in an appeal or revision against acquittal, it is noted that the Supreme Court has held that if two views on appreciation of the evidence are reasonably possible, one supporting the acquittal and other indicating conviction, the High Court should not, in such a situation, reverse the order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. In the matter of State of Karnataka vs. K. Gopalkrishna reported in (2005) 9 SCC 291, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, observed as under:
"In such an appeal the Appellate Court does not lightly disturb the findings of fact recorded by the Court below. If on the basis of the same evidence, two views are reasonably possible, and the view favouring the accused is accepted by the Court below, that is sufficient for upholding the order of acquittal. However, if the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the findings of the Court below are wholly unreasonable or perverse and not based on the evnidence on record, or suffers from serious illegality including ignorance or misreading of evidence on record, the Appellate Court will be justified in setting aside such an order of acquittal."
34. In Sudershan Kumar v. State of Himachal reported in (2014) 15 SCC 666, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus:-
"31. It has been stated and restated that a cardinal principle in criminal jurisprudence that presumption of innocence of the accused is reinforced by an order of the acquittal. The appellate court, in such a case, would interfere only for very substantial and compelling reason. There is plethora of case laws on this proposition and we need not burden this judgment by referring to those decisions. Our purpose would be served by referring to one reasoned pronouncement entitled Dhanapal v. State which is the judgment where most of the earlier decisions laying down the aforesaid principle are referred to. In para 37, propositions laid down in an earlier case are taken note of as under:
"37. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka reported in (2005) 9 SCC 291, this Court held:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."
32. Thereafter, in para 39, the Court curled out five principles and we would like to reproduce the said para hereunder:
"39. The following principles emerge from the cases above:
(1) The accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent.
(2) The power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can re-appreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law, but the Appellate Court must give due weight and consideration to the decision of the trial court.
(3) The appellate court should always keep in mind that the trial court had the distinct advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses. The trial court is in a better position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.
(4) The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so.
(5) If two reasonable or possible views can be reached - one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction - the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused."
35. In Dilawar Singh v State of Haryana, (2015) 1 SCC 737, the Supreme Court reiterated the same in paragraphs 36 and 37 as under:
"36. The court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach is vitiated by manifest illegality. In an appeal against acquittal, this Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because on the evaluation of the evidence, a different plausible view may arise and views taken by the courts below is not correct. In other words, this Court must come to the conclusion that the views taken by the learned courts below, while acquitting, cannot be the views of a reasonable person on the material on record."
36. We are of the considered view, after analyzing the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case and perusal of record, that the trial court has rightly acquitted the opposite parties no. 2 to 7 who had been shown to have participated in the second stage of crime on the periphery of the village as the deposition of prosecution witnesses in that regard do not inspires confidence of the Court. No unimpeachable evidence had been adduced by the prosecution to prove its accusations. In such a situation of fact, accused opposite parties are entitled to get benefit of doubt and their innocence could easily be inferred. Apart from that, prosecution itself has failed to prove its accusations beyond all reasonable doubts. The presence of ladies in the commission of crime at the second stage is also doubtful. All the statutory elements, as required in the commission of crime under sections 147, 452, 344, 294, 341, 342, 323, 315 and 412 I.P.C. are lacking. There is no substantial and compelling reason to reverse the order of acquittal passed by the trial court. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or discrepancies in the impugned judgement passed by the trial court.
37. Resultantly, the present appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. The impugned judgement dated 28.05.2019 passed by the trial court in Special Case No. 155 of 2007 (CNR No. UPJS01-000160-2007), State vs. Briju @ Brijesh Sharma and other is hereby affirmed.
Order date :26.02.2020 VR/nd/-
(Dinesh Pathak, J.) (Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.)