Allahabad High Court
Chhotu @ Ajay vs State on 18 April, 2013
Bench: Amar Saran, Bachchoo Lal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 46 Case :- CAPITAL CASES No. - 863 of 2011 Petitioner :- Chhotu @ Ajay Respondent :- State Petitioner Counsel :- From Jail,B.P. Singh,Sameer Jain Amicus Curiea Respondent Counsel :- A.G.A.,Ujjawal Pratap Singh Hon'ble Amar Saran,J.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Amar Saran, J) This criminal capital appeal from jail along with connected Reference No. 2 of 2011 has been preferred against the judgement of the Additional Sessions Judge (Court no.1), Meerut dated 5.1.2011 awarding death sentence to the appellant under section 302 I.P.C and a sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/ under section 376 I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has to further undergo six months additional sentence in this provision. He has also been sentenced to imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 2000/ under section 201 I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, he has to undergo three months additional imprisonment. All the sentences were to run concurrently.
We have heard Sri Sameer Jain, learned Amicus Curie for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate Sri Akhilesh Singh for the State and have perused the trial court judgement and record.
A report was lodged by Yogesh Kumar on 17.5.2008 at 7.20 A.M at P.S. Parikshitgarh, district Meerut alleging that his seven year old daughter Km. Renu had gone to ease herself in an empty plot in village Poothi on 16.5.2008 at about 7.30 P.M. When she did not return for sometime, the wife of the informant Smt. Geeta made enquiries in the village regarding the whereabouts of her daughter, but the girl was not found. On 17.5.2008 at about 6.00 A.M, the corpse of Km Renu was found in the empty plot in which some refuse had been collected and there were some bushes and undergrowth. The deceased had injury marks on her neck and her private parts. The FIR was scribed by PW-1 Ram Niwas. PW-5 HC. Roop Chand had prepared the check FIR of this offence in his hand writing and made the necessary G.D. entry and registered the case under section 302/201 /376 I.P.C. On that basis, PW-7 SI V.K. Sharma started investigation of the case. He made note of the report and relevant contents of the G.D in the case diary. He also recorded the statement of HC Roop Chand and prepared the site plan. An underwear of the deceased which was lying near her corpse near the bushes was taken into possession by this witness. He conducted the inquest on the corpse of the deceased Km. Renu (Ext. Ka-9), wrote out a letter to the C.M.O for conducting post mortem, prepared a letter for R.I., and prepared the photo lash and completed other formalities. Subsequently on arrival of PW-8, Rajesh Kumar Bharti, who was the S.O. of the concerned Police Station, the investigation was handed over to him and he assumed it on 11.30 A.M on 17.5.2008. He recorded the statements of PW-1 Ram Niwas and PW-2 Shri Krishna and other witnesses. The accused-appellant was arrested at 4.30 P.M from the sugar cane field of Rakesh Tyagi. The police officer also took into possession the underwear worn by the appellant after sealing it. There were some seminal stains on the underwear.
On 17.5.2008 at 3.35 P.M, PW-3 Dr. N.P. Sharma conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Km. Renu aged seven years. Rigor mortis was present all over the body. He opined that the death had taken place 12-24 hours earlier. He found the following ante-mortem injuries.
1.Contusion 2 cm x 1 cm on right side neck 5 cm below right ear.
2.Contusion 1 cm x 0.75 cm on left side of neck 4 cm below from left ear.
3.Lacerated wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on lower part of vagina ( lower corner). Bleeding from vagina present, hymen ruptured.
The cause of death was Asphyxia due to strangulation.
PW-4 Dr. Vikram Singh, the Consultant Pyarey Lal Sharma Hospital, Meerut did not find any dead or alive spermatozoa on the vaginal smear slides forwarded to him.
Apart from the aforesaid formal witnesses, there are two witnesses of fact viz. PW-1 Ram Niwas and PW-2 Shri Krishna.
PW-1 Ram Niwas was the scribe of the FIR. He has mentioned that Yogesh had died one year ago and his daughter Km. Renu had been raped and murdered and her corpse was thrown on an empty plot of the village. The dead body has been found in the bushes and undergrowth in the plot. He claims to have seen the deceased going along with the appellant on the date in question at about 6.30 P.M when he was going towards his house. As the appellant was a regular visitor to Yogesh's house, hence he did not pay much heed to the appellant and Km. Renu going together. He claims to have made some disclosure to some persons of having seen the appellant and deceased going together after that he head talks in the village regarding her disappearance, but he admits in his cross examination that he did not give any report prior to the lodging of the FIR and that he knows the meaning of report. He gave his statement in Court on 8.9.2009.
PW-2 Sri Krishna also claims to know the appellant as he was a servant of Rakesh Tyagi on the date of incident. When he was returning to his village he had seen the the appellant going along with the deceased Km. Renu to the shop of Mahendra in the village which was run by Mahendra's wife. The appellant then took Renu along with him on the path-way which led outside the village. Shiv Kumar's plot where the corpse was found also fell in the same direction. He had seen the appellant going away at 7.30 P.M but as the appellant was a regular visitor to Yogesh's house, hence he had said nothing to them. On the next day, Renu's dead body was found in a naked condition in the plot near a sugarcane field. There was some marks on her neck and private parts which suggested that she had been raped and then murdered . The police had filled up the inquest papers. He had signed as a panch on the same. The police had recorded his statement on the same day when he has disclosed that Renu and the appellant had gone together. He searched the appellant after the dead body of Km. Renu was found but he could not find him in the village. The police had taken the underwear of Renu which was lying in the nearby bushes in his custody. He saw that the appellant had got some purchases made for Renu from the shop of Mahendra in front of his house. After seeing them going together, he had gone outside the village and by then there was talk in the village about Renu's disappearance. Then he had returned home. Till then, he had not disclosed that he has seen the appellant with the deceased. Next day, he had learnt regarding the murder of Renu. He had gone to the spot, where 50-60 persons were gathered.
In his 313 Cr.P.C statement, the accused-appellant has denied committing the murder of deceased Renu at any time between 7.30 P.M on 16.5.2008 and prior to 6.30 A.M on 17.5.2008 and all the other allegations. He claims to have been falsely implicated. The police personnel had beaten him and then completed their formalities.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was no reliable evidence to connect the appellant with this crime. The last seen evidence in this case was not reliable and in any case, only on the basis of last seen evidence, the appellant could not be convicted in this case of circumstantial evidence. He has also cited some case law on the point. So far as PW-1 Ram Niwas was concerned, admittedly he was the scribe of FIR, but he chose not to disclose to anyone that he had last seen the appellant with the deceased the previous evening, i.e. on 16.5.2008 at about 7.30 P.M. and this fact was not mentioned in the FIR. This casts a doubt on the reliability of this witness. In his cross examination, he denied giving any statement to the police and in fact he claimed that he did not know whether any case was registered on the basis of his FIR. His first statement about this crime was given in Court. According to Dr. N.P. Sharma PW-3, the incident could have taken place latest at 3.30 P.M on 16.5.2008 and according to his assessment Renu's death was caused 24 hours prior to his post-mortem examination. The mere presence of spermatozoa on the underwear and T-shirt could not establish that the appellant had committed rape as the appellant was hardly about 18-19 years of age and mere presence of spermatozoa, in the absence of DNA comparison of the spermatozoa on the underwear of the deceased and the spermatozoa on the appellant's underwear could not give rise to the inference that the sperm present on the underwear of the deceased Renu was that of the appellant. So far as PW-2 Sri Krishna was concerned, he did not disclose this fact, although he claims to have seen the appellant with the deceased at Mahendra's shop buying some things. The shop- keeper, Mahendra and his wife who were the witnesses from whose shop the appellant is said to have got some items purchased for the deceased Renu were not examined and hence there was no witness for unfolding the prosecution case, which could have corroborated the last seen version of PW 1 and PW 2.
Learned Government Advocate on the other hand argued that as the witnesses were not eye witnesses and they had merely seen the appellant who was a regular visitor to the house of the deceased going along with her. Hence there non-protest or delayed disclosure would not adversely affect their deposition. It was admitted that the clinching evidence would have been the D.N.A examination of the spermatozoa which was found on the panty of the deceased and the underwear and T shirt of the appellant and if they had been sent for D.N.A analysis it could have confirmed whether the spermatozoa found on the underwear of the deceased was that of the appellant. However the witnesses have stated that the deceased and the appellant were seen going together in the outside direction of the village where the dead body was found in the field of Shiv Kumar. According to the I.O the interrogation of PW-1 and 2 had taken place on the same day. PW-1 may have forgotten that he had been examined by the I.O. But the I.O. had stated in his cross examination that PW 1 had mentioned the last seen evidence before him. There was no reason for the spermatozoa to be present on the underwear of the appellant, if he had not tried to violate the deceased. The witnesses are independent and have no good reason to falsely implicate the appellant.
This being a case of circumstantial evidence, the court must reach a conclusion that the chain of circumstances against the accused are of conclusive nature and unerringly point to the complicity of the accused, none other than the appellant could have committed the crime, and that the gap between "may have" and "must have" committed the crime is filled up. We have also to keep in mind that death sentence has been awarded in this case in which a seven year old girl has been raped and murdered and that a very high degree of certainty is required for affirming the order convicting the accused person and irreversibly sentencing him to death.
The 5 golden principles (the panchsheel) relating to the law on circumstantial evidence has been aptly enunciated in paragraph 152 in Sharad Birdichand Sarda v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 as follows:
"152 ?....(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 : (AIR 1973 SC 2622) where the following observations were made :
"certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions."
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
In this case, we have seen that no one was named in the FIR. The dead body of the deceased was found lying in the empty plot of Shiv Kumar in the village with injury marks on Renu's neck and private parts.
One of the two witnesses of last seen together, PW-1 Ram Niwas was also the scribe who had proved the FIR in view of the death of the informant Yogesh Kumar prior to his examination. However PW-1 Ram Niwas has not made any disclosure in the FIR of having seen the deceased going along with the appellant. In his evidence, however, he has disclosed that it was evening time when the weather was stormy when he had seen the appellant going along with the deceased when he was coming towards his house. Though he further stated that as the appellant was a regular visitor to the house of the deceased, he did not take much notice of this fact. In our view as a seven year old girl had disappeared in the evening and her mother was looking for her all over the place, if this witness, who was even the scribe of the FIR, which shows his closeness to the informant, then his failure to make any disclosure of this having seen the two together to the villagers in the evening, and non-mention of this fact in the FIR casts a serious doubt on the credibility of the last seen evidence given by this witness. In this background, we are not impressed with the argument of learned Government Advocate that as he was not an eye witness to the murder, his non-disclosure regarding the deceased and the appellant going together was not important. This witness has further admitted in his cross examination, contrary to what he has stated in the examination-in-chief that as there was some talk in the village regarding disappearance of Km. Renu, and the theories that the villagers were spinning regarding the disappearance, he had made a disclosure regarding the circumstances of Renu's disappearance. But in his cross examination, he has clearly admitted that until his evidence in Court, he has not given any statement to any one including the Investigating Officer regarding his having seen the appellant and the deceased going together. He was even unable to state the colour of the pant that the appellant was wearing and we have reasons to think that this scribe of the FIR who did not make disclosure at the initial stage appears to be a witness, who has been got up by the prosecution on the basis of suspicion, after the girl was found lying with injury on her neck and private part and the appellant was arrested and on his pant and underwear and T-shirt, some spermatozoa stains were seen, and he has not in fact seen the appellant going together with the deceased on the evening when the deceased disappeared.
So far as the other witness of last seen PW-2 Shri Krishna is concerned, he also mentioned that there was a storm in the evening when he had seen the appellant going together with the deceased when he was going to his house. He also saw the appellant buying something for the deceased at the shop of Mahendra in the village and then the appellant is said to have taken away the deceased in the direction of Shiv Kumar's plot, where her nude corpse was found the next morning with an injury mark on her neck and there was some blood on her private parts.
No doubt, the witness claims that he had given a statement to the police when it arrived the next day in the village. However, this witness made no disclosure in the night of the incident regarding having seen the deceased and the appellant going together, although his house was 100 metres from the house of the deceased and there was a lot of talk in the village regarding the disappearance of the deceased Renu. According to this witness, the appellant was standing near the deceased at the shop of Mahendra which is run by his wife, but the appellant was not holding her hands. Also some corroboration that the deceased was present along with the appellant would have been available, if Mahendra or his wife had been examined in Court but the prosecution has not cared to produce either of these witnesses who were essential witnesses for unfolding of the prosecution case. In Sahaj Ram v. State of U.P., (1973) 1 SCC 490, relying on Habeeb Mohammed v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1954 SC 51 and the Privy Council in Stephen Seneviratne v. King, AIR 1936 PC 289 it has been held that though the prosecution is not bound to call all available witnesses irrespective of considerations of number or reliability, witnesses essential to the unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution is based must be called by the prosecution, whether in the result the effect of their testimony is for or against the case of the prosecution.
Learned Government Advocate had mentioned that this witness claims to have seen the appellant and deceased going outside the village in the direction of Shiv Kumar's plot, where the corpse of the deceased was found, but there is conflict on this point also as in his examination-in-chief the PW-2 has stated that after the storm he was going to his house. Then he had seen the appellant buying something at the shop of Mahendra in the village for the deceased. In his cross examination, however he stated that he was going towards the jungle which was was 1 km from his house and at that time, his face was towards the north whereas the appellant was facing towards the south which was contrary to his version given in his examination-in-chief that at that time he was returning to his house. The I.O has also not made any note about these directions in his evidence or in the site plan vis-a-vis the house of the witnesses or the deceased.
Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to some case law, where the evidence of the deceased being last seen together with the appellant along with the other circumstances in those cases was held not sufficient to connect the accused with the crime. There are a catena of decisions on this point. In some cases where the evidence of last seen is found to be completely reliable, or of sterling quality, and the corpse of the deceased has been discovered very soon after the accused and deceased were seen together, the Courts have acted on last seen evidence, sometimes even without looking for corroboration. In other cases, where the last seen evidence was not of such inspiring quality, the Courts have looked for corroborative evidence, and have recorded an acquittal or conviction on the basis of the totality of the evidence adduced. As held in "Sayarabano v State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC (Suppl) 398, there are no precedents in criminal law, and "criminal cases are decided on facts and on evidence rather than on case law and precedents."
The appellant was allegedly caught by the police on 17.5.2008 from the field of Rakesh when he was wearing a T-shirt and nickers. The police officer PW-8 SI Rajesh Kumar had taken the underwear of the appellant in possession and sealed it. The doctor who examined the appellant forwarded the appellant's T-shirt and nickers. According to the report of the Medico-legal Laboratory dated 24.7.2008, there was human semen on the underwear and T-shirt of the appellant and on the underwear of the deceased. On the frock of the deceased some human blood was found. We think that there is merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that from the mere presence of semen on the underwear and T-shirt of the appellant, who was an 18-19 year old boy at the time of incident, could not by itself conclusively establish that the semen had been discharged on his underwear or T-shirt when he had tried to rape the deceased. Such spermatozoa could easily be present on the underwear or T-shirt of a young person in many circumstances due to masturbation or by natural discharge. It is noteworthy that PW-4 V.K. Singh did not find any dead or alive spermatozoa on the vaginal smear slides of the deceased on 23.5.2008 though there was plenty of red blood cells present which indicates that she had some injury on her vagina. That however would not imply that there was no rape or attempted rape of the victim. But the crucial question regarding who had committed the actual or attempted rape of the victim, and caused her homicidal death would still remain.
It is also noteworthy that the appellant was also medically examined on 17.5.2008 at 9.50 P.M and there is a medical report of the Emergency Medical Officer, P.L. Sharma District Hospital, Meerut which has been admitted by the counsel for the accused which shows that there was no external mark of recent injury over the body and external genitalia. No fresh or clotted blood or any stain were seen on pubic hairs or penis. Smegma absent. Neither does it appear from a plain reading of the report nor was any doctor produced for proving that the medical report was indicative of recent forcible intercourse by the appellant.
The Investigating officer seems to have shown significant negligence in failing to collect any corroborative evidence in this offence, where there was no other material except the last seen evidence of two witnesses, PW 1 and PW 2, whose reliability we have reasons to question as mentioned above. He has not even cared to question and produce the shop keepers Mahendra or his wife to confirm that the appellant and the deceased had visited their shop the previous evening, which could have lent some support to the evidence of PW 1 Ram Niwas and PW 2 Sri Krishna of having seen the two together prior to the crime. More significantly, he failed to send the deceased and the appellant's underwear and T-shirt which were found to contain seminal stains for D.N.A analysis, which alone could have established positively or negatively, the appellant's complicity in this crime. A serious doubt is raised about the fairness of the investigation. Perhaps the I.O. felt that these two pieces of evidence would go against the prosecution version. Likewise some doubts are raised about the fairness of the investigation by the I.O., because we find that although PW-1 has himself not stated that he had given any statement under section 161 Cr.P.C to the I.O. and that his first statement was given in Court, but the I.O. claims to have recorded his statement. We also find that pages in the case diary appear to have been interpolated as the case diary numbers do not run sequentially. No doubt as the appellant was represented by an Amicus Curie in this case, who has put no question to the I.O. on this point, we are constrained to leave this observation here, and to make it clear that this observation is not the basis for reaching our conclusions in this judgement.
In this view of the evidence, it cannot satisfactorily be held that the prosecution has been able to establish in a clinching manner, with the necessary degree of certainty that in all human probability it was the appellant to the exclusion of anyone else who could had committed the rape and murder of the deceased, which is required in a case of circumstantial evidence, particularly where an irreversible sentence of death has been awarded.
One legitimate query which arises in this case was as to why the witnesses PW-1 and 2 who were not inimical towards the appellant would have falsely implicated him, if he was not involved in this crime.
This question was considered by the Apex Court in Shankarala Gyarasilal Dixit v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 765. That was a case where apart from the other witnesses even the mother and brother of the appellant had blamed him for the crime. The appellant was also said to be sleeping in the court yard of his house when the witnesses who were looking for the missing deceased girl entered the house, after a neighbour, the witness Srinarayan Sharma had climbed on to the roof of the adjoining house and jumped into the appellant's court yard and opened the door. They had found the corpse of the deceased in the bathroom. The evidence of the appellant being present in the house at that time was disbelieved because the appellant was arrested later by the police. The witness Srinarayan Sharma had also not told the police that when he had called out the appellant said that he would not open the door, and none of the large number of witnesses had disclosed that the appellant was lying in the court yard when the corpse of the deceased was recovered from the bathroom. The appellant had blamed his mother, brother and neighbour Srinarayan Sharma for falsely implicating him. In paragraphs 33 to 35 of its judgement the Apex Court has shown how when faced with a grave crime, it was human nature for people to spin out stories implicating someone for the crime out of strong suspicion. This is how the apex Court dealt with the matter:
33. Our judgment will raise a legitimate query : If the appellant was not present in his house at the material time, why then did so many people conspire to involve him falsely? The answer to such questions is not always easy to give in criminal cases. Different motives operate on the minds of different persons in the making of unfounded accusations. Besides, human nature is too willing, when faced with brutal crimes, to spin stories out of strong suspicions. In the instant case, the dead body of a tender girl, raped and throttled, was found in the appellant's house and, instinctively, everyone drew the inference that the appellant must have committed the crime. No one would pause to consider why the appellant would throw the dead body in his own house, why would he continue to sleep a few feet away from it and whether his house was not easily accessible to all and sundry, as shown by the resourceful Shrinarayan Sharma. No one would even care to consider why the appellants name was not mentioned to the police until quite late. These are questions for the Court to consider.
34. The folks of Karanja had a grouse against the appellant. He had made a nuisance of himself to his family and friends, neighbours and tenants. The small world of Karanja was up in arms against him. He had assaulted his mother and brother a few days before the incident. He had a quarrel with Shilabai, his tenant, on the very day of the incident. He was an idler and had no means of livelihood. The description of his clothes at the time of his arrest is an eloquent commentary on the way of his life. He was wearing two full pants, one on top of another, not because he had one too many to wear but because, one of the two pants was torn at awkward places and he had to hide his shame. It was torn on both the hips as well as the centre. The left leg of the pant was torn over two feet and the right leg over half a foot. The shirt on his person was torn all over. The right arm of the shirt was hanging precariously by the rest of the torn portion of his shirt. The Karanja community must have heaved a sigh of relief that a person who was so good-for-nothing was ultimately in the hands of law. Such people have no partisans. But that does not mean that justice can be denied to them.
35. We may mention in passing, though in the view which we are taking it is not relevant, that while confirming the sentence of death imposed on the appellant by the Sessions Court, the High Court even took into consideration the appellant's relations with the members of his family. After mentioning that he had beaten his mother and brother and that his wife was living separately from him, the High Court concluded :
"In our opinion, such a person could neither be an asset to his wife and children nor entitled to live in the society."
Unfaithful husbands, unchaste wives and unruly children are not for that reason to be sentenced to death if they commit murders unconnected with the state of their equation with their family and friends. The passing of the sentence of death must elicit the greatest concern and solicitude of the Judge because, that is one sentence which cannot be recalled.
For all these reasons, we think that the prosecution has not established the guilt against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the judgement of trial court convicting the appellant is set aside and he is acquitted. The appellant is in custody. He is directed to be released forthwith, if he is not wanted in any other case.
Before parting we would like to add, that in an earlier Capital Criminal Appeal (Jail) No. 2531 of 2010, Bhairo v State of U.P. decided on 6.9.11 where a little girl had similarly been raped and murdered, no one had been named in the FIR, although the appellant had been last seen together with the deceased and subsequently her dead body was found, this Court had directed that the underwear of the appellant and the vaginal smear slides and swab of the deceased which indicated the presence of spermatozoa be sent for DNA Test. But unfortunately the Forensic Science Laboratory reported that after the passage of three years the test had proved unfruitful as D.N.A could not be extracted from the smear slides and swab. This Court had deplored the negligence of the investigating agency and prosecution for failing to get the D.N.A test done at the earliest, causing such valuable evidence to be lost. This Court had also expressed regret on the non-utilization of modern forensic techniques after such significant advances in forensic techniques have been made all over the world. The bench had called for forensic science laboratories in each district with DNA development facilities/ techniques and mobile forensic squads which could rush to the scene of crime soon after the incident and collect various samples, which could give clues regarding the identity of the the culprits. We reiterate those directions again. We would also like the prosecuting and investigating agencies to develop a protocol, as to what should be the criteria for selecting what samples need to be sent for DNA test, what precautions are needed for collecting the samples to prevent contamination, also in what classes of cases and in what manner advanced forensic techniques be made available by mobile forensic units or otherwise on a priority basis, till such time that such facilities are made universally available in all districts, which could help solve the crime and identify the culprit. Let copies of this judgement be sent to the Principal Secretary (Home), U.P., Principal Secretary, Judicial and L.R., U.P. and Director General Police, U.P. for compliance at their end. The copy of this judgment be also placed on the record of Mohd. Qasim v State of U.P., Criminal Writ ? PIL No. 1797 of 2011 which is an on-going Public Interest Litigation where this Court is issuing directions for improving the investigation machinery and forensic techniques. The aforesaid Principal Secretaries and DGP, U.P. are directed to submit their compliance reports in the aforesaid PIL within a period of one month.
The appeal is allowed and the death reference is rejected.
Order Date :- 18.4.2013 sfa/