Allahabad High Court
Lakhan Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. on 22 February, 2024
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:30275-DB Reserved On:-30.01.2024 Delivered On:-22.02.2024 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2710 of 1986 Appellant :- Lakhan Singh And Others Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Rabindra Bahadur Singh,K.S.Chahar,Mahesh Kumar Kuntal Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.,Abhitab Kumar Tiwari,Santosh Mani Shukla Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddharth J.,)
1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mahesh Kumar Kuntal, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned A.G.A. for the State. Later Sri Abhitab Kumar Tiwari and Santosh Mani Shukla also appeared on behalf of informant and submitted their arguments.
2. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of Sri VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Agra dated 30.09.1986 in Sessions Trial No. 529 of 1984 convicting and sentencing the appellants under section 148 I.P.C. to one year's R.I.; under section 325 I.P.C. to five years' R.I.; under section 302 I.P.C. to life imprisonment and under Section 307 I.P.C. to ten years' R.I. All sentences shall run concurrently.
3. During pendency of this appeal appellants nos. 5 and 6 namely, Ghure Lal and Brijendra, have died and the appeal has been dismissed as abated against them on 10.07.2019. This appeal is being pressed only on behalf of appellants nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, namely, Lakhan Singh, Rambir, Ram Prakash and Prahalad.
4. As per the FIR lodged by Hukum Singh son of Param Sukh, on 03.06.1983 at 11:00 am at 10:00 am on same day, the informant, Hukum Singh and his family members were present at their agricultural field which was being measured in consolidation proceedings. After measurement the informant was fixing Mundis (marks) according to measurements in his fields when the accused persons, namely, Brijendra, Ghure Lal, Ram Veer Singh, Prahalad, Ram Prakash and Lakhan Singh attacked the informant and his family members with sticks, farsa(axe), ballam(spear) and fawda (spade). The brother of the informant, Darshan Singh, suffered grievous injuries in his head. His mother and father also sustained grievous injuries caused by sticks. On hearing the alarm witnesses, Phool Singh, Shiv Charan and Radhe Shaym Lekhpal, who were involved in measuring the fields, reached on the spot and saved them. All the accused persons threatend them of life and ran away. The accused persons also lodged an FIR on the same day at 9:40 pm alleging that at 10:00 am accused, Ram Veer Singh, was present in his field and patwari was measuring the same. After measurement when Ram Veer Singh started fixing Mundis, all the accused persons namely, Param Sukh, Darshan Singh, Hari Singh, Hukum Singh, Shanti, Hazari, Shiv Charan and Phool Singh armed with ballam, bhala, lathi and farsa started assaulting accused- informant and his family members. Smt. Bhu Devi and Ghure Lal sustained grievous injuries on their skulls. The assault was made with intention to kill. The occurrence was witnessed by Bacchu, Prem Singh and Lekhpal, Rade Shaym. Subsequently, injured, Darshan Singh, brother of the informant died. The medical examination of Darshan Singh was conducted and following injuries were found on his person:-
(i) Lacerated wound ¾''x1/6'' scalp deep on the left side of the skull 4 above the left ear was advised.
(ii) Traumatic swelling 2''x1'' blueish in colour on the left upper eye lid.
(iii) Contusion reddish in colour on the left side of back in scapula region.
(iv) Contusion 6''x 3/4'' reddish in colour on the back in the middle.
(v) Abrasion 1-1/2'' x 1'' on the right knee joint.
5. Except injury no. (i) all the other injuries were found to be simple, and could have been inflicted by some blunt object. Injury no. (i) was kept under observation.
6. Darshan Singh lateron died on the next day at 3:35 pm. According to the postmortem report it was also found in the internal examination that left and right parietal bone of the deceased were fractured. Clotted blood was found in the brain and membranes were found congested. In his internal examination one rib was also found fractured.
7. Before trial court, Hukum Singh, the informant was examined as P.W.-1 who proved the incident. He stated that after the measurements of the field had taken place and boundary marks were being fixed by him, the accused persons came. Brijendra was having fawda and other co-accused were having lathi. Lakhan caused injury by lathi on the head of his brother, Darshan and Brijendra caused him injuries by reverse side of spade and he became unconscious. When his mother tried to save his brother, Darshan, she was also beaten by lathi. His father was also beaten when he tried to save his brother, Darshan, by lathi and the reverse side of axe. P.W.-2 also stated that the patwari had got the boundary measured and, thereafter soil was put as sign of demarcation, but nobody agreed to the demarcation. Where the demarcation marks were fixed by the informant side, the accused were objecting. P.W.-2 stated that when the accused persons went to bring lathi and fawda, he did not informed the police nor he fought with them. P.W.-3, consolidation lekhpal, only stated before the court that with regard to fixing of boundary marks, both the parties started fighting at about 10-11:00 am and he stated that he does not know who caused injuries to whom. He was declared hostile by the trial court. P.W.-4, proved that in the incident, Brijendra, the deceased-appellant no. 6, was only having fawda(spade) in his hand. No other person was holding fawda. P.W.-5, the radiologist stated that in the X-ray report, he found parietal bone of the deceased broken and callus missing. Right ulna bone was also broken and callus was missing. P.W.-6, the doctor, who examined the injuries of the deceased proved the injury report of the deceased and the injured, Smt. Shanti and Param Sukh. In the injury report of Smt. Shant and her husband Param Sukh, grievous injuries were found on the person of Param Sukh. The injuries were stated to have been caused by lathi and by reverse side of fawda. The injury no. (i) suffered by deceased was only found to be fatal for the deceased. In his suggestions the doctor stated that the injury no. (i) on the head of the deceased could have been caused by stone, hit hard on his head or by some blunt weapon or by falling on stone. He also admitted that the deceased, Darshan Singh, had suffered only one grievous injury on his head which proved fatal and could have been caused by some blunt object. P.W.-7, the investigating officer proved his investigating record. P.W.-8, the head clerk of the police station- Fatehpur Sikri, proved the report made to the police station and the entry in general claim, etc. P.W.-9, the medical officer, who conducted the postmortem of the deceased stated that in the internal medical examination of the deceased his parietal bone was found to be fractured. The cause of his death was certified as the head injury only and the other six injuries were not found fatal for his life. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and they denied all the allegations or expressed ignorance.
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that during trial all the witnesses of fact admitted that the dispute took place all of sudden. There was no motive nor any intention nor any premeditation preceding the alleged incident. The only cause of dispute was the disputed demarcation of the agricultural land. In village lathi is normally carried by villagers and since the boundary was being fixed the fawda was there in the field and only these implements were used in commission of the alleged offence of murder of Darshan Singh. The first informant did not explained the injuries suffered by the four injured persons on the accused side, namely, Ghure Lal, Bhu Devi, Ram Prakash and Lakhan singh. Therefore, the prosecution did not correctly disclose the manner of incident in the FIR. In the FIR further false allegation was made that farsa and ballam were used in causing injuries, but during trial none of the witnesses of fact assigned ballam and farsa to any of the accused. He has further submitted that the role of causing injuries by fawda was assigned clearly to co-accused, Brijendra, the deceased-appellant no.-6. Regarding the other appellants. They exercised their right to self defence as four persons from the side of the appellants have also received injuries. Cross case, being Case Crime No. 67-A of 1983, under Section 147, 148, 307, 323 IPC was got registered by the appellants side wherein the accused persons were acquitted, but from the evidence on record, it does not appears that appellants were the aggressors. P.W.-9, Senior Health Officer, did not ruled out the possibility of deceased, Darshan Singh, suffering only fatal injury on his head by falling on stone or being hit hard by stone. He has finally submitted that none of the surviving appellants have any previous criminal history nor they have been assigned any specific role in the alleged incident. No recovery of any incriminating article has been made from them.
9. Reliance has been placed by Learned Senior Counsel for appellants upon the judgement of Apex Court in the cases of Taijuddin Vs, State of Assam & Ors( Criminal Appeal No. 1526 of 2021), Mohar Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P., Mannu/UP/1900/2018 and State of Punjab Vs. Sanjeev Kumar and Ors, Mannu/SC/7797/2007.
10. Learned AGA and learned counsel for informant have vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. They have submitted that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts by producing reliable oral and documentary evidence before trial court. The plea of self defence was rightly turned down by the court below since the accused persons failed to prove the same. Sentence cannot be converted to any other section since the case does not falls in any of the exceptions given in section 300 IPC. The deceased suffered injuries on vital part of his body and appellants had knowledge that injury being caused can result in death and they also had intention to kill the deceased, Darshan Singh. They repeatedly caused injuries to Darshan Singh even after he fell down. The cross version got registered by the appellants side was not believed by the Court and it resulted in acquittal. Apart from the deceased two other persons sustained grievous injuries including fractures and hence the appellants were also convicted under Sections 325 and 307 IPC. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Apex court in the cases of Arun Nivalaji More Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2006 Supreme Court 2886; State of Rajasthan Vs. Islam AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2317 and Bhagwan Munjaji Pawade Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1979 Supreme Court 133.
11. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that all the appellants are convicted and sentenced under Section 148 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year; rigorous imprisonment for five years under Sections 325 IPC and life imprisonment under section 302 IPC. They have been further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 307 IPC. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
12. This Court finds that apart from deceased, two injured, namely, Smt. Shanti Devi and Param Sukh suffered following injuries:-
1. Contusion reddish in colour 2-1/2'' x3/4'' on left shoulder.
2. Contusion reddish in colour 5'' x ¾'' on left side of back in scapula region.
3. Contusion reddish in colour 2'' x1/2'' on the right side of back 1'' above the iliac crest.
4. Lacerated wound ¾'' x 1/6'' muscle deep on right arm towards back side 1'' above the right elbow.
5. Abrasion 1'' x ¼'' on right forearm above the right wrist.
6. Traumatic swelling 2'' around the right forearm above 1-1/2 '' above the right wrist.
Injuries suffered by Param Sukh Ram:-
1. Lacerated wound 1-1/2'' x 1/6'' scalp deep on the left side of skull about 2-1/2' above the eye brow. There was swelling above the eye brow in the area of 2-1/2'' x2-1/2''. This injury was advised for X-ray.
2. Traumatic swelling 2-1/2'' 1-1/2'' on the left side of the forehead just above the left eye brow. This injury was also advised for X-ray.
3. Abrasion 1/2''x1/2 on the left shoulder.
4. Lacerated wound 1/2x 1/6'' x muscle deep on the right forearm towards back side 4'' below the right elbow joint having swelling in the area of 2/1/2''. This injury was also advised for X-ray.
5. Traumatic swelling 1-1/2'' x1-1/2'' on the back of the right hand.
6. Abrasion 1'' x1/2'' on the right leg 2'' below the knee joint.
13. The aforesaid injuries show that injured, Param Sukh, sustained one fracture on parietal bone and the other on alna bone of his hand. Both injured suffered six injuries each, but except the two injuries noted above all were found to be simple. In the opinion of doctor, P.W.-6, all the injuries could have been caused by lathi, some hard and blunt object like reverse side of spade. P.W.-2 has clearly stated before the court that fawda was only in the hands of deceased-appellant no.6, Brijendra and the other accused were having lathis. The doctor has opined that the grievous injuries to injured Param Sukh, could have been caused by lathi. Therefore, it appears that the implication of the surviving appellants under Section 325 IPC is justified.
14. Regarding conviction and sentence awarded to the surviving appellants under Sections 307 IPC, this Court finds that the alleged offence was allegedly committed by six persons at the spur of the moment, when they did not agreed to the boundary determined by the consolidation lekhpal in favour of the informant side. The informant side had also caused injuries to the appellant side and the following injuries were noted by the doctor on the persons of the side of appellants:-
A. According to the medical injury report filed by the accused persons Ghurey Lal was examined on 3.6.1983 at 7:15 pm and following injuries were found on his person:-
(i). Lacerated wound 2'' x1/6" scalp deep 3''-1/2'' above the top of left external ear. It was advised for X-ray.
(ii). Traumatic swelling 2'' x ¾'' on the left upper lid blueish in colour.
(iii). The right upper eye lid was found blueish in colour Injuries were half day old and were caused by same blunt object.
B. According to Ex. Kha 2 injury report of Smt. Bhu Devi, she was medically examined on 03.06.1983 at 7:40 pm and following injuries were found on her person:-
(i). Lacerated wound 2''x 1/6'' scalp deep on the right side of skull 5'' above the top of right external ear. It was advised for X-ray.
(ii). Contusion reddish in the colour 2'' x ½'' on the top of right shoulder.
C. Sri Ram Prakash was medically examined on 3.6.1983 at 8:00 pm and following injuries were found on his person:-
(i). Abrasion 2'' x 1/4'' on the right side of chest 2'' below right nipple.
D. According to the injury report of Sri Lakhan Singh following injuries were found on his person;-
(i) Contusion reddish in colour 3-1/2'' x1/2'' on the left forearm towards back 3'' below the elbow joint.
(ii) Contusion reddish in colour 3" x1/2'' on the right forearm towards back 2'' below the right elbow.
15. This Court finds that both the parties attacked each other and both the sides suffered injuries. The injuries of the appellants side was not explained and the Apex Court in the cases of Lakshmi Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar (1976) 4 Supreme Court Cases 394, Babu Ram and Others Vs. State of Punjab 2008 CRI. L.J. 1651 Supreme Court and Amarjit Singh Vs. State of Haryana[2010(2)JIC 61(SC] has held that non explanation of injuries on defence side is fatal for prosecution. The Apex Court has held in the aforesaid judgment that when the injuries of the accused side is not explained by the prosecution, it is clear that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence and not presented the true version. The prosecution witnesses are not truthful and the prosecution case is doubtful. The Apex Court has also held in the case of Babu Ram (supra) that where the witnesses are interested or inimical non explanation of injuries on the accused side assumes more importance. This Court finds that the ingredients for constituting offence under Section 307 IPC are not made from the evidence on record. Therefore, the implication of the surviving appellants under Section 307 IPC cannot be justified and is hereby set aside.
16. The court below has turned down the plea of private defence raised on behalf of appellants. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that the injury suffered by the appellant side and from the statements of the witnesses of fact it was clear that both the sides attacked each other and the appellant side also suffered injuries. The Apex Court in the case of Ex. Captain Mahadev Vs. The Director General Border Security Force and Others(Civil Appeal No. 2606 of 2012) has held in this regard as follows:-
"9. The singular question that requires to be examined in the present appeal is whether the appellant was entitled to exercise the right of private defence in the given facts and circumstances of the case.
10. We may commence the discussion by first observing that the instinct of selfpreservation is embedded in the DNA of every person. The doctrine of the right to private defence is founded on the very same instinct of self-preservation that has been duly enshrined in the criminal law. The provisions that deal with the right of private defence have been enumerated in Sections 96 to 106 of the IPC and fall under Chapter IV that deals with General Exceptions. Section 96 IPC states that nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Whether a person has legitimately acted in exercise of the right of defence given a particular set of facts and circumstances, would depend on the nuance of each case. For arriving at any conclusion, the Court would be required to examine all the surrounding circumstances. If the Court finds that the circumstances did warrant a person to exercise the right of private defence, then such a plea can be considered. Section 97 IPC states that every person has a right of defence of person as well as of property. Section 99 IPC refers to the acts against which there is no right of private defence and the extent to which the said right can be exercised. On a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is apparent that the rights vested under Sections 96 to 98 and 100 to 106 IPC are broadly governed by Section 99 IPC.
11. Section 100 IPC throws light on the circumstances in which the right of private defence of body can be stretched to the extent of voluntarily causing death. To claim such a right, the accused must be able to demonstrate that the circumstances were such that there existed a reasonable ground to apprehend that he would suffer grievous hurt that would even cause death. The necessity of averting an impending danger is the core criteria for exercising such a right. Both Sections 100 and 101 IPC define the circumstances in which the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death or causing any harm other than death. Provisions of Sections 102 and 105 IPC stipulate the stage of commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of the body and property respectively and state that the said right commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence, though such an offence may not have been committed. The provisions state that it continues as long as such an apprehension or danger to the body continues.
12. In Rizan and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh through the Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, this Court has observed that the accused need not prove the existence of private self-defence beyond reasonable doubt and that it would suffice if he could show that the preponderance of probabilities is in favour of his plea, just as in a civil case.
13. In State of M.P. v. Ramesh, it was observed that :
"11. ............A plea of right of private defence cannot be based on surmises and speculation. While considering whether the right of private defence is available to an accused, it is not relevant whether he may have a chance to inflict severe and mortal injury on the aggressor. In order to find whether the right of private defence is available to an accused, the entire incident must be examined with care and viewed in its proper setting........ To claim a right of private defence extending to voluntary causing of death, the accused must show that there were circumstances giving rise to reasonable grounds for apprehending that either death or grievous hurt would be caused to him. The burden is on the accused to show that he had a right of private defence which extended to causing of death. Sections 100 and 101 IPC define the limit and extent of right of private defence."
14. Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that the burden of proof rests with the accused who takes up the plea of self defence. In the absence of proof, the Court will not be in a position to assume that there is any truth in the plea of self defence. Thus, it would be for the accused to adduce positive evidence or extract necessary information from the witnesses produced by the prosecution and place any other material on record to establish his plea of private defence. In James Martin v. State of Kerala, it has been observed by this Court as under :
"13. .........An accused taking the plea of the right of private defence is not necessarily required to call evidence; he can establish his plea by reference to circumstances transpiring from the prosecution evidence itself. The question in such a case would be a question of assessing the true effect of the prosecution evidence, and not a question of the accused discharging any burden. Where the right of private defence is pleaded, the defence must be a reasonable and probable version satisfying the court that the harm caused by the accused was necessary for either warding off the attack or for forestalling the further reasonable apprehension from the side of the accused. The burden of establishing the plea of self-defence is on the accused and the burden stands discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities in favour of that plea on the basis of the material on record. (See Munshi Ram v. Delhi Admn.7 , State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima8 , State of U.P. v. Mohd. Musheer Khan9 and Mohinder Pal Jolly v. State of Punjab10.... .... The accused need not prove the existence of the right of private defence beyond reasonable doubt. It is enough for him to show as in a civil case that the preponderance of probabilities is in favour of his plea."
15. In the captioned decision, reliance has been placed on the observations made by this Court in Salim Zia v. State of Uttar Pradesh, wherein it has been held as under :
"9. .......It is true that the burden on an accused person to establish the plea of self-defence is not as onerous as the one which lies on the prosecution and that while the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the accused need not establish the plea to the hilt and may discharge his onus by establishing a mere preponderance of probabilities either by laying basis for that plea in the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses or by adducing defence evidence."
16. In Dharam and Others v. State of Haryana, this Court had the occasion to examine the scope of the right of private defence and had made the following pertinent observations:
"18. Thus, the basic principle underlying the doctrine of the right of private defence is that when an individual or his property is faced with a danger and immediate aid from the State machinery is not readily available, that individual is entitled to protect himself and his property. That being so, the necessary corollary is that the violence which the citizen defending himself or his property is entitled to use must not be unduly disproportionate to the injury which is sought to be averted or which is reasonably apprehended and should not exceed its legitimate purpose. We may, however, hasten to add that the means and the force a threatened person adopts at the spur of the moment to ward off the danger and to save himself or his property cannot be weighed in golden scales. It is neither possible nor prudent to lay down abstract parameters which can be applied to determine as to whether the means and force adopted by the threatened person was proper or not. Answer to such a question depends upon a host of factors like the prevailing circumstances at the spot, his feelings at the relevant time, the confusion and the excitement depending on the nature of assault on him, etc. Nonetheless, the exercise of the right of private defence can never be vindictive or malicious. It would be repugnant to the very concept of private defence."
16. The case law relied upon from the side of AGA and learned counsel for informant are not relevant for deciding this appeal. In the case of Arun Nivalaji More (supra) there was clear prior motive of crime established unlike the present case. In the case of Islam (supra) , after minor scuffles accused went to his home and came back armed with deadly weapon and stuck the deceased repeatedly on head. In present case, P.W.-1, has alleged cause of single fatal blow, appellant no. 6, on the head of the deceased at the spur of the moment with the spade present in the field. Fact of the case of Bhagwan Munjaji Pawade(supra) are also different which has lastly been relied by prosecution side. It was a case of three fatal injuries by axe. In the present case there is solitary injury that too from severe side of spade caused by deceased-appellant no. 5
17. Now coming back to the facts of present case, this Court finds that the informant has only stated that the appellant side tried to demolish the boundary marks earmarked by the consolidation lekhpal which was fixed by the informant. However, the FIR is silent as to how and why the injuries were caused to the persons of the appellant side. This proves that both the sides resorted to violence against each other. In the process, it is possible that the injuries suffered by Darshan Singh proved fatal for his life. The Apex Court in the case of Darshan Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2010 Lawsuit (SC)12 has held that where there is real apprehension that aggressor might cause death or grievous hurt, the right of private defense extends to killing the aggressor. If the entire facts and circumstances of the case are seen in the light of the fact that genesis of the incident was not truly disclosed in FIR lodged by informant and the injuries were caused to the three persons on the appellant side also which was not explained, plea of private defense setup by the appellants appears to have been wrongly negativated by the court below. None of the parties are able to inform as to what happened after acquittal of co-accused in the cross case.
18. Now coming to the conviction for life under Section 302 IPC, this Court finds that it is clear from the record that the quarrel between the parties took place when the demarcation of the agricultural fields was done by the consolidation lekhpal.
19. There is no evidence that there was any prior enmity between the parties or there was any premeditation and intention to cause the offence of murder. The main role of causing the fatal injury by spade(fawda) was assigned to the deceased-appellant no.6, Brijendra) by P.W.-1. The role of causing injury by lathi has also been assigned the appellant no.1 Lakhan, but there is only solitary injury on parietal bone of deceased which proved fatal for his life. The doctor opined that it could have been caused by some hard and blunt object or by falling on a hard and blunt object or by falling on a hard surface like stone. Therefore, it appears that the injury was caused by either backside of the fawda or by hitting by tone or by falling on some hard surface, but it appears improbable that it was caused by lathi which was assigned to appellant no. 1, Lakhan. In the present case surviving appellants nos. 1 to 4 have been sentenced and convicted under Section 302 IPC simplicitor and the court below has not found application or section 149 IPC to the present case. Therefore, in view of the clear allegation against deceased- appellant no.6, Brijendra, of causing injury by reverse side of spade on the head of the deceased, the conviction and sentence of appellant nos. 1 to 4 under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.
20. Hence the conviction of surviving appellants under Sections 307 and 302 IPC are set aside and they are acquitted in these sections. However, their conviction under section 148 and 325 IPC are upheld.
21. Now the question of appropriate sentence for appellants is before us.
22. It is clear that with regard to incident dated 03.06.1983, the appellants are facing trial. They have already been acquitted in major sections of 302 and 307 IPC. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, while maintaining conviction of surviving appellant nos. 1 to 4 under sections 148 and 325 IPC, their substantive sentence are modified to period already undergone.
23. Appeal stands allowed partly accordingly.
24. Let record of court's below sent back and copy of this judgment be notified to the court below.
Order Date :-22.02.2024.
Abhishek
Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. Siddharth,J.