Delhi District Court
State vs . Naveen Kumar @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 1 Of 21 on 31 March, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SATISH KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 03, NORTH DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
Case No. 58089/2016
State V. 1. Naveen Kumar @ Lala
S/o Sh. Angad,
R/o I-4/84-85, Second Floor,
Sector-16, Rohini,
Delhi-110085.
2. Manoj,
S/o Sh. Chaman Lal,
R/o H. No.513, Jatav Mohalla,
Village Badli,
Delhi
3. Vishnu Kant @ Vishnu,
S/o Manta Ram,
R/o C-79, Gali No.9,
Shalimar Village,
Delhi.
FIR No. 668/2015
U/s 302/201/34 IPC
Police Station Samaypur Badli
Assigned to Sessions 28.09.2015
Charges framed on 16.07.2016
Arguments heard on 31.03.2023
Judgement pronounced on 31.03.2023
Decision Acquittal
SC No.58089/2016
State Vs. Naveen Kumar @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 1 of 21
Appearance : Sh. P.K. Ranga, ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. Jitender Tyagi, ld. Counsel for the accused
Naveen Kumar @ Lala.
Sh. Harish Kumar, ld. Counsel for the accused
Manoj and Vishnu.
JUDGMENT
1. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE :
The case of the prosecution in brief is that a complaint was made by Sh. Irshad Miyan S/o Mohhabat Ali, R/o L-1/55, Lacky Chowk, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi whereby it has been stated that he ply the battery rikshaw and there are four brothers and four sisters in his family and his younger brother Phool Miyan because of bad company started to consume 'GANJA'. They tried their level best but his brother did not stop to take Ganja and they want to get his treatment and for that purpose and at the instance of one boy Sonu who was known to his father told his father that his known person Naveen Bhardwaj is running a de-addiction centre in the name of Lovely Life Foundation and Rehabilitation Centre and his brother was got admitted in that de-addiction centre on dated 21.05.2015 and for that they charges Rs.3000/- per month and his father was agreed. They were assured by Naveen Bhardwaj that Phool Miyan will leave the drugs. His father with his neighbour Deepak Bidhudhi visited his younger brother in de-addiction centre on dated SC No.58089/2016 State Vs. Naveen Kumar @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 2 of 21 31.05.2015. His brother Phool Miyan was not happy in that de-
addiction centre but they want to get improve his condition and because of that reason, his father left him in the centre.
That on dated 03.06.2015 at about 10.30 pm in the night, Naveen made a phone call that Phool Miyan is not feeling well and thereafter, the complainant with his parents reached the de- addiction centre and found that his brother Phool Miyan was lying on the floor and was told to them that Phool Miyan run away from his centre and was found in the same condition on the bank of a river which was near the de-addiction centre and relying upon the statement of Naveen as truthful, they came to their house with the dead body of Phool Miyan and after reaching their house, they have noticed that there were injury marks on both the hands, chest, foot and hips on the body of Phool Miyan and they made the 100 number call. Police reached their house and taken the dead body to DDU Hospital where the doctors of DDU declared his brother as dead. Thereafter, the FIR was registered. Investigation was carried out. During the course of the investigation, the IO came to the conclusion that the deceased was alleged to have assaulted by all the accused with a plastic danda (pipe) after tied their hand with a wooden danda. All the three accused persons were arrested and chargesheet was filed against all the three accused u/s 302/201/34 IPC.
SC No.58089/2016State Vs. Naveen Kumar @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 3 of 21
2. CHARGE:
After hearing the submissions made by Ld. counsel for all the three accused at length, my ld. Predecessor vide order dated 16.07.2016 framed the charge against the accused persons u/s 302/34 IPC and all the three accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. PROSECUTION WITNESSES:
That, in order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 24 witnesses namely PWS Name of the Nature of the Documents proved witness witness PW1 Sh. Irshad Brother of the Complaint statement Miyan deceased upon which FIR has been registered.
PW2 ASI Rajpal Police Witness DD no.6A and handed
over to SI Baljeet to take
appropriate necessary
action.
PW3 Dr. Pallavi S.R. (Casualty), MLC no.4736 of
DDU Hospital, deceased.
Delhi
PW4 Sh. Jatin Patient, in Lovely Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
Chopra Life Foundation
and Rehabilitation
Centre
SC No.58089/2016
State Vs. Naveen Kumar @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 4 of 21
PW5 Sh. Kishan Patient, in Lovely Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
Life Foundation
and Rehabilitation
Centre
PW6 Sh. Pradeep Attesting witness Signed the Trust Deed
Rawat Ex.PW6/A at the time of
registration of Nasha
Mukti Kendra Trust Deed
PW7 Sh. Narender Patient, in Lovely Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
Kumar Life Foundation
and Rehabilitation
Centre
PW8 Ct. Abhishek Police Witness 7 photographs of the
alleged place of incident
PW9 Sh. Neeraj Patient, in Lovely Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
Kumar Life Foundation
and Rehabilitation
Centre
PW10 Sh. Devender Patient, in Lovely Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
Life Foundation
and Rehabilitation
Centre
PW11 Sh. Nitin Patient, in Lovely Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
Vanshi Life Foundation
and Rehabilitation
Centre
PW12 Sh. Shanti Patient, in Lovely Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
Prasad Life Foundation
and Rehabilitation
Centre
PW13 Ct. Praveen Police Witness PCR call Ex.PW13/A
Kumar and Ex.PW13/B.
SC No.58089/2016
State Vs. Naveen Kumar @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 5 of 21
PW14 Smt. Nanhi Mother of Dead body identified.
Begum deceased
PW15 Sh. Sandeep Patient, in Lovely Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
Kumar Life Foundation
and Rehabilitation
Centre
PW16 Inspector Police Witness Rough site plan of the
Ramesh Kumar place of the incident.
PW17 Sh. Jitender Senior Scientific Sample/Exhibits
Kumar Officer, Chemistry, Ex.PW17/A
FSL, Rohini, Delhi
PW18 Dr. Anurag Specialist Postmortem report
Thapar Department of Ex.PW18/A
Forensic
Medicine, Indira
Gandhi Hospital,
Dwarka
PW19 Dr. N.P.S. General Physician, Doctor working in NGO
Bhatti Dr. Bhatti Clinic Sarvsukh Foundation,
Tikona Park, Badli
Village.
4. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CR.P.C:
All the incriminating evidence available on record recorded by the prosecution have been put to the all three accused and all three accused denied the same.
5. ARGUMENTS:
It has been argued by Sh. Jitender Tyagi, ld. Counsel for accused SC No.58089/2016 State Vs. Naveen Kumar @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 6 of 21 Naveen Kumar @ Lala and Sh. Arun Sehrawat, Ld. counsel for accused Vishnu Kant @ Vishnu and Manoj that all the three accused has nothing to do with the alleged offence and all the three accused have been falsely implicated.
Ld. counsel for all the three accused have also argued that the deceased was addict of taking 'Ganja' and was got admitted by the complainant as well as the parents of the deceased voluntarily in Lovely Life Foundation and Rehabilitation Centre for his treatment and for his rehabilitation. Ld. Counsel for all three accused have also argued that the deceased run away from the de-addiction centre and he was found on the bank of a canal situated near that Lovely Life Foundation and Rehabilitation Centre and his condition was not good and he was taken back to the rehabilitation centre for his treatment and in the meantime, he died. The owner of the de-addiction centre Naveen @ Lala have informed to the parents of the deceased to come to the de- addiction centre and to take the dead body of their son and at the time of taking the dead body from the de-addiction centre, there was no complaint by any of the parents of the deceased in respect of assault alleged to have been caused by any of the accused upon the person of the deceased and they had taken the dead body to their home and after reaching their home, they made the 100 number call to the police mentioning that there are SC No.58089/2016 State Vs. Naveen Kumar @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 7 of 21 injury marks on the entire body of the deceased and he was taken to DDU Hospital by the police and he was declared brought dead and in the postmortem report, it has nowhere been mentioned that the cause of injury was because of their assault alleged to have been caused by all the three accused in the de- addiction centre on the person of the deceased.
It has also been submitted by ld. Counsel for all the three accused that prosecution has not been able to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt and all three accused may kindly be acquitted from the charges u/s 302/34 of IPC.
Ld. APP for the State has argued that the prosecution has proved their case against all the three accused persons and all three accused may kindly be convicted u/s 302/34 of IPC.
6. PERUSAL OF RECORD:
The court has gone through the entire case file as well as the evidence led by the prosecution and the postmortem report and also heard the argument advanced by ld. Counsel for all the three accused at length on different dates.
7. FINDINGS OF THIS COURT:
Having heard the submissions made by ld. Counsel for all the SC No.58089/2016 State Vs. Naveen Kumar @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 8 of 21 three accused as well as ld. APP for the State and after gone through the chargesheet as well as the evidence led by the prosecution, this court is of the considered view that the case of the prosecution is that the deceased was got admitted in the Lovely Life Foundation and Rehabiliation Centre for his treatment to get rid the habit of taking Ganja and he alleged to have been mercilessly beaten by all the three accused in that centre which was run by Naveen @ Lala and because of those injuries, Phool Miyan died.
It has been mentioned by the IO in the chargesheet that when the deceased was taking the treatment in Lovely Life Foundation and Rehabilitation Centre and at the same time, there were other fourteen persons who were admitted in the same de-addiction centre and he had recorded the statement u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. of all the persons who were the witness of mercilessly beaten alleged to have been caused by all the three persons but unfortunately, all those witnesses turned hostile and has not support the case of the prosecution in any manner, rather, they have deposed that upon heard the noise in the night on dated 03.06.2015 that Phool Miyan run away from the de-addiction centre. It has also been deposed by all these witnesses that all the three accused persons Naveen, Manoj and Vishnu have not given beatings to Phool Miyan in their presence.SC No.58089/2016
State Vs. Naveen Kumar @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 9 of 21 PW4 Sh. Jatin Chopra S/o Sh. Balwant Rai, PW5 Sh. Kishan S/o Sh. Prem Lal, PW7 Sh. Narender Kumar S/o Suresh Chand, PW10 Sh. Devender S/o Sh. Nanak Chand, PW11 Sh. Nitin Banshi S/o Late Sh. Rakesh Banshi, PW12 Sh. Shanti Prasad S/o Late Sh. Sheesh Pal, who were cited by the IO in the chargesheet as eyewitnesses but all these witnesses depose on the similar line and depose that they all had been admitted at Lovely Life Foundation Nasha Mukti Kendra (de-addiction centre), C-23, First Floor, Dhani Ram Colony, Badli Village as they all were having habit of having intoxicant. The owner of this centre was Naveen Kumar. One Phool Miyan was admitted in the said centre 12/14 days before the incident dated 03.06.2015. On 03.06.2015, after taking medicine, they all were sleeping in their room. They all woke up on hearing the noise that Phool Miyan had fled away from the centre. They all again slept. In the night, when they woke up on hearing the noise. The dead body of the Phool Miyan was lying on the floor of the centre. Police reached there and they did not know what police had done at the spot.
Police made inquiries from them and they told the said facts to the police. Their statement was not recorded by the police. Accused Naveen, Manoj and Vishnu had not given beatings to Phool Miyan in their presence. All these witnesses were turned hostile and cross-examined by ld. APP for the State and the SC No.58089/2016 State Vs. Naveen Kumar @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 10 of 21 statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C., recorded by the IO at the time of the investigation were put to all these witnesses and even in the cross-examination made by the ld. APP for the State, none of these witness support the case of the prosecution in any manner rather they have deposed that 'nothing was recovered or seized by the police in their presence and they cannot identify the aforesaid articles even if shown to them'.
PW1 Sh. Irshad Miyan at whose complaint, the present FIR was lodged has deposed in his examination-in-chief that the exact date is not remember to him but on some day his younger brother Phool Miyan was got admitted in Lovely Life Foundation and Rehabilitation Centre as his younger brother was having the habit to consume Ganja and they made many efforts so that his brother Phool Miyan to leave said bad habit of consuming Ganja and for that purpose and at the instance of Sonu, his younger brother started to take treatment from the said de-addiction centre. The fee of the de-addiction centre was Rs.3500/- per month for the treatment of his brother.
Thereafter, at about after 13 days, his father alongwith one person whose name is not remember to him went to the said de- addiction centre and when his father returned back home from the de-addiction centre, he stated to him that he had met his SC No.58089/2016 State Vs. Naveen Kumar @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 11 of 21 brother Phool Miyan but Phool Miyan was looking sad. Though, I do not remember the exact date but on one day at about 10.30 pm, his mother had received a phone call from the de-addiction centre and over the said phone call, it was informed to his mother that Phool Miyan was not feeling well. Upon the said call, he alongwith his father and mother went to the said de- addiction centre. Upon reaching there, they found his brother Phool Miyan lying on the floor and was covered with a white sheet. His mother tried to inquire from the officials of the said de-addiction centre but no positive reply was received and they had brought the dead body of Phool Miyan to their house and when they reached their house, noticed many injuries on the body of his brother. One of his family member made a 100 number call. PCR van reached at the spot and took the body of Phool Miyan to DDU Hospital but he was declared brought dead. His postmortem was carried out. In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that 'it is correct that I had never talked to any of the accused or any of the officials of de- addiction centre either at the time of admission of my brother Phool Miyan in the said de-addiction centre or till the time he remained admitted in the said de-addiction centre.' PW1 who is the real brother of the deceased has deposed that 'it is correct that my brother Phool Miyan was in the habit of consuming excessive Ganja. Voluntarily. He used SC No.58089/2016 State Vs. Naveen Kumar @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 12 of 21 to consume liquor occasionally. Ld. Counsel for the accused has put a suggestion to this witness and he had replied that it is wrong to suggest that when we had reached de-addiction centre on receipt of call, his brother Phool Miyan was alive or that one doctor from the near by area was also called to examine him in his presence. Voluntarily, the said doctor was called prior to their reaching there. He had not stated to the IO in his statement Ex.PW1/A that when they had reached the de-addiction centre, Naveen had stated to them that Phool Miyan managed to run away from the de-addiction centre or he was found near the patri of a river in the same condition. Confronted with portion A to A-1 of Statement Ex.PW1/A where it is found so recorded.
PW14 Smt. Nanhi Begum W/o Mohammad Ali, who is the mother of the deceased has also deposed on the similar line in respect of the addiction of consuming Ganja by her son and he was got admitted in the Lovely Life Foundation and Rehabilitation Centre with the purpose to leave the habit of consuming Ganja and she has also deposed that they had taken the dead body of their son to their house and after reaching their house, when they check the dead body of their son, injury marks were found on his hands, legs, hips and other parts of the body.
PW1 who is the brother and PW14 who is mother of the SC No.58089/2016 State Vs. Naveen Kumar @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 13 of 21 deceased had visited the de-addiction centre upon calling on telephone by the owner of that centre namely Naveen and when they reached there and saw that the body of their son was lying on the floor and was covered with a white cloth and they must have seen the body of their son immediately when they reached at the de-addiction centre but they did not notice any of the injury on the any part of the body of their son and even they did not call a PCR on 100 number and how they are been able to notice that there are injury mark on the body of their son when they reached at their home with a dead body.
PW14, mother of deceased has admitted in the cross- examination 'it is correct that on 04.06.2015, when on receiving the call from Nasha Mukti Kendra, when we went there, accused Naveen and Manoj met us and they told us that my son had run away from Nasha Mukti Kendra and on searching, he was found near Nehar and was brought to Nasha Mukti Kendra'. The testimony of the PW1, brother of the deceased as well as the testimony of PW14, mother of the deceased is not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt that their son Phool Miyan was beaten mercilessly at the de-addiction centre and because of that beatings, Phool Miyan died.
SC No.58089/2016State Vs. Naveen Kumar @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 14 of 21 It is worth mentioning that PW10 namely Devender was made as a eyewitness by the IO and who has been examined by the prosecution and he also turned hostile and has not support the case of the prosecution in any manner even after cross- examination by ld. APP for the State. The prosecution has not been able to prove their case against any of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts on the ground that PW16 Inspector Ramesh Kumar, who is the IO of this case has deposed that he prepared site plan at the instance of eyewitness Devender as Ex.PW16/A bearing his signature at Point A but perusal of the site plan Ex.PW16/A reveal that it does not bear the signature of eyewitness Devender. It has also been deposed by the PW16 IO of this case that on his request, FSL team came at the spot and lifted exhibits from the spot on the direction of the FSL team vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/B bearing his signature at point A and seizure memo already Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B both bear his signature at point B. Exhibits pertaining to seizure memo Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B were lifted by him at the instance of eyewitness Devender. He recorded statement of eyewitness Devender at the spot but perusal of seizure memo Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B reveal that it does not bear the signature of eyewitness Devender. It is pertinent to mention herein that PW10 eyewitness Devender has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on dated 04.06.2015, he was called at Police Station S.P. SC No.58089/2016 State Vs. Naveen Kumar @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 15 of 21 Badli and was made to sign number of plane papers. He has also deposed that nothing was recovered from the centre or its terrace in his presence. His statement was not recorded by the police. Therefore, the testimony of PW16, IO of this case also does not inspire any confidence and his testimony is also not sufficient to establish and to prove the case of the prosecution against all the three accused person beyond all reasonable doubt. It is the duty of the IO to record the statement u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. at the spot of the incident and it has been deposed by the IO who is PW16 herein that he recorded statement of eyewitness Devender at the spot whereas PW10 Devender has deposed in his examination- in-chief that his statement was not recorded by the police and he was called at the Police Station Samaypur Badli next day of the incident i.e. 04.06.2015 and he was made to sign number of plane papers and some proformas. Therefore, there is a material contradiction in respect of the recording of the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of eyewitness Devender.
The IO of this case who has been examined as PW16 has also deposed that one yellow colour plastic danda and one wooden danda, blanket and towel containing the blood stain of the deceased has been recovered and the recovery memo for the same was signed by the witness Suresh Kumar, Om Prakash and Joginder and to prove the same, the prosecution has only SC No.58089/2016 State Vs. Naveen Kumar @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 16 of 21 examined Devender as PW10 and who has denied to made any signature on the said memo of recovery of the said articles and the independent witness Suresh Kumar and Om Prakash have not been examined by the prosecution to prove the same.
PW16, IO of this case has also deposed that during investigation, he obtained the postmortem report Ex.PW16/S. All the exhibits and viscera were sent to the FSL. He collected the FSL report alongwith exhibits and viscera. He also obtained the subsequent opinion from DDU Hospital which is Ex.PW16/W. FSL report and viscera report were filed in the report with supplementary chargesheet.
PW17, Sh. Jitender Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer, Chemistry, FSL Rohini has deposed that on dated 20.07.2015, one seal parcel sealed with the seal of PM DD UH, with forwarding letter was received in the office of Director, FSL Rohini and assigned to him for examination. He tallied the seal on the exhibits with forwarding letter and found the same to be correct. He examined the exhibits and gave result vide report Ex.PW17/A running in two pages bearing his signature at point A. After the examination, the remnants of the exhibits were sealed with his seal i.e. JK FSL, Delhi and in the cross-examination, this witness has admitted 'it is correct that Ex.IC i.e. blood sample was SC No.58089/2016 State Vs. Naveen Kumar @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 17 of 21 found to contain 'Ethyl Alcohol' 24.7 mg/100 ml of blood. He cannot comment about the effect of Ethyl Alcohol on the body of a person.' PW18 Dr. Anurag Thapar, Specialist, Department of Forenseic Medicine, Indra Gandhi Hospital, Dwarka has deposed that on dated 04.06.2015, he was posted as Senior Resident Department of Forensic Medicine, DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, Delhi and on that he conducted the postmortem examination on the body of the deceased Phool Miyan, aged about 25 years after receiving the request from Inspector Ramesh Kumar of PS Samaypur Badli and his detailed postmortem report running into four pages Ex.PW16/S bears his signature on each page and in his opinion, the cause of death was hemorrhage shock consequent upon multiple repetitive blunt force trauma all over the body. All external injuries were fresh and antemortem in nature. On dated 04.02.2016, he received an application from IO concerned seeking subsequent opinion whether the injury found on the person of the deceased as mentioned in the postmortem report are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. His opinion is Ex.PW18/A bears his signature at point A. In his opinion, injuries mentioned in the postmortem report cumulatively are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature but in the cross-examination, this witness has admitted SC No.58089/2016 State Vs. Naveen Kumar @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 18 of 21 that 'it is correct that I had not mentioned in postmortem report that the injuries on the body of the deceased were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. It is correct that all the external injuries mentioned in his postmortem report are bruise and none of them is any other type of injury. It is correct that none of the injuries sustained by the deceased was open injury and blood was not oozing from them and he had given subsequent opinion Ex.18/A only on the basis of his previous finding mentioned in the postmortem report and no fresh material was placed before him while giving the said opinion by him'.
Perusal of the examination-in-chief of PW17 Sh. Jitender Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer, Chemistry, FSL Rohini as well as his cross-examination, it has been proved that on the day of the incident, the deceased Phool Miyan was admitted in a de- addiction centre and the owner as well as the other persons who are working in that de-addiction centre are not supposed to give alcohol to any of the person who are admitted there for their leaving the bad habit of tobacco, ganja and alcohol. It is an admitted fact that the deceased Phool Miyan was addict to take the ganja and PW1 who is his brother has also admitted that sometimes, he used to take the liquor also and therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that he might have run away SC No.58089/2016 State Vs. Naveen Kumar @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 19 of 21 from the de-addiction centre and after going to outside from the said de-addiction centre, he must have taken the liquor which has been proved in the postmortem report and at the same time, he might have been beaten by some other persons outside the de- addiction centre.
This court is also of the considered opinion that PW18 who had conducted the postmortem report on the body of the deceased Phool Miyan has admitted in his cross-examination that he had not mentioned in his postmortem report that the injuries on the body of the deceased were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and all the injuries were external in nature and none of the injuries sustained by the deceased was open injury and blood was not oozing from them and IO has also admitted in his cross-examination that no injury sustained by the deceased was open injury and therefore, no blood was found upon the cloth of the deceased when he received the dead body of deceased Phool Miyan. The deceased had liver problem and he used to do vomiting with blood while he was admitted in the centre and all these circumstances proved that the cause of death of the deceased was to running out from the Lovely Life Foundation and Rehabilitation Centre and taking Ethyl Alcohol.
Therefore, considering all the above stated observation made by SC No.58089/2016 State Vs. Naveen Kumar @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 20 of 21 this court, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to establish their case and to prove the case against any of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and therefore, all the accused Naveen Kumar @ Lala, Manoj and Vishnu Kant @ Vishnu are hereby acquitted from the charges.
8. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31.03.2023 (SATISH KUMAR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-03, (NORTH) ROHINI COURTS, DELHI SC No.58089/2016 State Vs. Naveen Kumar @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 21 of 21