Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Kirankumar Shrikrishna Pandya on 6 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/967/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 967 of 1999
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
KIRANKUMAR SHRIKRISHNA PANDYA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK SONI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s) No. 1
HL PATEL ADVOCATES(2034) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 06/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA)
1. The present Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against judgment and order dated 24.6.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha Camp at Modasa in Sessions Case No.154 of 1993, by which, the learned Additional Page 1 of 17 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Fri Jun 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 23:57:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/967/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the accused for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 337, 427 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell can be stated by way of free translation of the complaint dated 4.10.1992, as under :
"I, C.S. Nayak, P.S.I., Meghraj Police Station, state the fact of my complaint for the State that, in pursuance of the Navratri festival, bandobast of Police, S.R.P., H.G. and G.R.D. personnel was arranged at different places in Meghraj city from 27/09/1992. Navratri festival celebration is held by the Mai Mandal, at the Ambaji Temple, opposite to Meghraj Police Station, permission for the same was granted till 23:45 hours at night.
Yesterday on 03/10/1992, police bandobast was arranged accordingly and I and other police personnel (1) Head Constable Lakhmaji Surji (2) P.C. Shantulal Babulal (3) P.C. Mirukhan Musekhan (4) Head Constable Kodarbhai Vashrambhai (5) P.C. Dhirendrasinh Laxmansinh etc. and personnel from S.R.P., H.G. and G.R.D. were engaged in Navratri bandobast at the Navratri Garbi opposite to the Meghraj Police Station. Meanwhile, at around twelve o'clock at night, instruction was given to stop the garba. However, as the crowd requested to continue the garba, respecting the public sentiment, graba was continued for half an hour.Page 2 of 17 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Fri Jun 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 23:57:38 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/967/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined Meanwhile, at around half past twelve o'clock, altercation happened between Jignesh alias Lalo Shrikrishna Pandya from Meghraj and Sanatkumar Pravinchandra Pandya regarding playing garba. Therefore, when I and the police personnel on duty told them not to quarrel and to stop the garba, Jignesh Pandya provoked the persons in the mob saying that, we want to play garba and as to why the police is stopping it and why you are interfering in the Navratri festival, you are Kafir and suddenly at around one o'clock started pelting stones at the police and at the Police Station. Therefore, the persons who came to play garaba started stampede. As the persons in the mob were pelting stones, we asked them to stop and gave warning that force will be used if the they do not stop. Despite that, as they continued the stone pelting, some police personnel on duty and I sustained injury and as stone pelting was done at the officer's room in the Police Station, effort was made to disperse the mob by making the gasman fire four shells. However, the persons in this mob turned more violent and started moving towards the bazaar continuing the stone pelting. At that time, as stones were also pelted on our Government Bungalow, damage was caused by breaking the windowpanes. As the mob turned violent and as it was ordered to disperse it by using force and carrying out lathi charge, the Police and S.R.P. present with me carried out lathi-charge. Therefore, the persons in the mob started fleeing. Some of them went straight into the bazaar, some went into Ganpati Chowk Khancha. The mob was dispersed using force so that it cannot create communal riot or disturbance in the bazaar and near old bus-stand. Meanwhile, Page 3 of 17 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Fri Jun 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 23:57:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/967/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined the mob that went into Ganesh Chowk Khancha, went to the house of Police Constable Becharji Vitthalji of Meghraj Police Station and entered the locked house by breaking the door handle and vandalized house hold goods and thereby caused damages of more than fifty thousand rupees. The main persons in this mob identified by me and the police personnel were, Kiran Shrikrishna Pandya, who is the brother of Jignesh, Manish Purohit, Pankajkumar Kalidas Upadhyay, Atul Wire- man, Trivedi Pankajkumar Dayashankar, Bhavesh Pravinchandra Pandya, Suresh Harivallabh Gandhi, Dipen Keshabhai Sheth and Jignesh alias Lalo and other hundred to one hundred and fifty persons were there.
Therefore, the above persons and hundred to one hundred and fifty persons of the mob, got aggravated against the police when I and the police personnel on duty asked them to stop playing garba as the time limit for night garaba was over. They formed the unlawful assembly and as they pelted stones, it caused injury in my right leg and caused injury to five police personnel and three S.R.P. personnel and they caused damage by entering locked house of the Police Constable Becharji Vitthalji by breaking the door handle and vandalizing the house hold goods. It is my complaint to conduct an investigation regarding the same. My witnesses are the injured police, S.R.P. personnel and persons who come out in the investigation.
These are the facts of my complaint."Page 4 of 17 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Fri Jun 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 23:57:38 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/967/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined 2.1 Thereafter, the investigation was undertaken by the Investigating Agency and the charge-sheet was filed before the competent court. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the same was sent to the Sessions Court for committal and accordingly, Sessions Case No.154 of 1993 was registered in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Modasa.
2.2 The trial court vide its order dated 11.12.1994 framed the charge against the present respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 337, 427 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
2.3 The prosecution thereafter led oral evidence of the following witnesses :
Sr. Witness Exh. No.
No.
1. Dr.Jinabhai Amthabhai Yadav 33
2. Lakhmaji Surji 37
3. Taraben Becharsinh 38
4. Becharji Vitthalsinh Chauhan 39
5. Dashrathsinh Indrasinh 40
6. Shantaram Banda Bhamre 41
7. Gidhaji Hiraji 42
8. Hiraji Ranchhodji 43
9. Ramsinh Kesarsinh 44
10. Kodarbhai Vashrambhai 45
11. Bhikhabhai Hirabhai 46
Page 5 of 17
Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Fri Jun 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 23:57:38 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/967/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025
undefined
12. Dr.Rameshchandra Kalidas Sheth 50
13. Kohyabhai Ratnabhai Vankar 58
14. Chimanlala Sakalchand Naik 59
15. Prabhudas Mohanlal Mistri 61
2.4 The trial court, thereafter, considering the
evidence on record in its totality, vide its judgment and order dated 24.6.1999, acquitted the accused persons from the charges, holding inter alia that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 24.6.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, the State has approached this Court by way of present Appeal under Section 378 of the Code, 1973.
4. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Hardik Soni for the appellant - State.
4.1 It was contended by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant that the judgment and order of acquittal is against the provisions of law. It was contended that the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence produced on record in its true perspective and that has resulted into serious miscarriage of justice. It was further contended that the ingredients of all the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 337, 427 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act Page 6 of 17 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Fri Jun 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 23:57:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/967/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined were proved, however, the learned trial court had miserably failed in construing the same that too by ignoring overwhelming evidence against the accused and that has resulted into perversity. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also taken this Court through entire oral as well as documentary evidence and submitted that the charges against the accused person stands proved and thereby, the impugned order of acquittal be quashed and set aside by recording conviction against the accused person in the interest of justice.
5. Having heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and having considered the material on record, a short question that falls for consideration of this Court is, whether the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge recording acquittal of the accused from the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 337, 427 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act is legal and justified?
6. Before deciding the aforesaid question, at the outset, it is required to be noted that the present Appeal is against the judgment and order of acquittal. Thus, in our view, the law laid down by the Apex Court with regard to the principles governing acquittal appeals deserves to be taken note of.
6.1 The Apex Court has very succinctly explained in catena of decisions the principles which are required to be Page 7 of 17 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Fri Jun 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 23:57:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/967/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined kept in mind while deciding the acquittal appeals. In the case of M.S. Narayan Menon @ Mani v. State of Kerala [(2006) 6 SCC 39], the Apex Court has discussed the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. Relevant observations in para-54 of the decision is reproduced hereinbelow.
"54. In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the well settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the Court below."
6.2 Further, in the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [(2007) 4 SCC 415], the Apex Court laid down the following principles.
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;
[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.Page 8 of 17 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Fri Jun 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 23:57:38 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/967/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined [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 curtain extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasis 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."
6.3 In case of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran [(2007) 3 SCC 75], the Apex Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In para-16 of the said decision, the Apex Court has observed as under.
"16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal Page 9 of 17 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Fri Jun 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 23:57:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/967/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate Court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate Court, in such circumstances, to reappreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with."
6.4 Yet in another decision, the law has been reiterated by the Apex Court in case of State of U.P. v. Ram Veer Singh [2007 AIR SCW 5553] and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by L.R.s v. State of M.P. [2007 AIR SCW 5589].
6.5 Thus, it is a settled principle that while exercising appellate powers, even if two reasonable views/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.
6.6 In case of Luna Ram v. Bhupat Singh [(2009) SCC 749], the Apex Court in paras-10 and 11 has held as under.
Page 10 of 17 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Fri Jun 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 23:57:38 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/967/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined "10. The High Court has noted that the prosecution version was not clearly believable. Some of the so called eye witnesses stated that the deceased died because his ankle was twisted by an accused. Others said that he was strangulated. It was the case of the prosecution that the injured witnesses were thrown out of the bus. The doctor who conducted the postmortem and examined the witnesses had categorically stated that it was not possible that somebody would throw a person out of the bus when it was in running condition.
11. Considering the parameters of appeal against the judgment of acquittal, we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal. The view of the High Court cannot be termed to be perverse and is a possible view on the evidence."
6.7 Yet in an another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mookkiah v. State. Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu [AIR 2013 SC 321], the Apex Court in para-4 has held as under:
"4. It is not in dispute that the trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence led in by the prosecution and defence, acquitted the accused in respect of the charges leveled against them. On appeal by the State, the High Court, by impugned order, reversed the said decision and convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and awarded RI for life. Since counsel for the appellants very much emphasized that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in upsetting the order of acquittal into conviction, let us analyze the scope and power of the High Court in an appeal filed against the order of acquittal. This Court in a series of decisions has repeatedly laid down that as the first appellate court the High Court, even while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, was also entitled, and obliged as well, to Page 11 of 17 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Fri Jun 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 23:57:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/967/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined scan through and if need be reappreciate the entire evidence, though while choosing to interfere only the court should find an absolute assurance of the guilt on the basis of the evidence on record and not merely because the High Court could take one more possible or a different view only. Except the above, where the matter of the extent and depth of consideration of the appeal is concerned, no distinctions or differences in approach are envisaged in dealing with an appeal as such merely because one was against conviction or the other against an acquittal. [Vide State of Rajasthan vs. Sohan Lal and Others, (2004) 5 SCC 573]"
6.8 It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeals, the appellate Court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy [AIR 1981 SC 1417], wherein it is held as under:
"... This Court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Choudhary (1967) 1 SCR 93:
(AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the Appellate Court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial Court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice."
6.9 Thus, in case the appellate Court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower Court, then the discussion of evidence is not necessary.
Page 12 of 17 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Fri Jun 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 23:57:38 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/967/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined 6.10 The Apex Court in Shivasharanappa v. State of Karnataka [JT 2013 (7) SC 66] has held as under.
"That appellate Court is empowered to reappreciate the entire evidence, though, certain other principles are also to be adhered to and it has to be kept in mind that acquittal results into double presumption of innocence."
6.11 In a very recent decision in case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka [2024 SCC OnLine SC 561], the Apex Court has reiterated the principles governing the appeal against acquittal recorded by the trial court, which can be quoted as under:
"(a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;
(b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record;
(c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record."
7. Keeping in mind the aforesaid proposition of law with regard to acquittal appeals, now, we would like to evaluate the judgment and order passed by the trial court in the context of the evidence brought on record.
8. In our view, on overall scrutiny of the oral evidence, this Court has noticed that despite the entire alleged incident Page 13 of 17 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Fri Jun 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 23:57:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/967/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined occurred in presence of huge public, no independent witnesses from public at large were examined nor their statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer. It appears that during the investigation, the Investigating Agency has only recorded the statements of police officers. It is a case of rioting and robbery. It is the case of the prosecution that there was a mob of 150 to 200 persons including the male and female members. However, only 8 persons were charge-sheeted and sent for trial. It also appears from the record that there is a case of cross- complaint against the complainant, namely, Chimanbhai Sakalchand Naik, Police Sub-Inspector by the accused persons. It further appears that, although the family members of the Police Sub-Inspector, on whose house attack was made, were present in the house but, the Investigating Agency has not recorded their statements. From the evidence of doctor, namely, Jinabhai Amthabhai Yadav (PW-1) has, in his cross- examination, stated that the police officers have not given any history about the incident. It appears that one of the police officers, namely, Lakhmanji Surajji (PW-2), in his cross- examination, admitted that the accused Atul and Jignesh have not come to see Garba. Meaning thereby, the presence of accused - Atul and Jignesh at the spot of incident is doubtful. We say so because the other witnesses have stated that these two accused have had altercation with the police with regard to Garba. So far as the evidence of Taraben (PW-3), who happened to be the wife of the police officers, whose house has been ransacked, in her cross-examination, she has admitted that her golden chain and earring were not lost.
Page 14 of 17 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Fri Jun 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 23:57:38 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/967/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined Accordingly, the allegation with regard to Section 395 of the IPC also not substantiated.
9. Moreover, on the overall consideration of evidence of all the witnesses, it would reveal that none of the witnesses have categorically alleged and/or described any particular role of any of the accused at the time of commission of offence. Additionally, one of the witnesses, namely, Becharji Vitthalji Chauhan, Police Head Constable (PW-4), in his examination- in-chief, has clearly stated that because of night hours, he could not identify the accused persons those were pelting the stones. Thus, in absence of any specific role alleged by any of the witnesses against any of the accused persons as well as the presence of Atul and Jignesh being doubtful and in the event of non-identification by one of the witnesses due to night hours, creates doubt in favour of accused with regard to their alleged involvement in the offence.
10. The Panchnama (Exh.47) was also not proved beyond the doubt because the panchas have not supported the case of prosecution. There is no recovery and/or discovery of any weapons from the accused nor any recovery or discovery of so called looted goods from the accused persons. Thus, the presence of the accused persons; in absence of any direct evidence of involvement of the accused persons and non- identification by one of the witnesses, the charges levelled against the accused persons appears to have not been proved beyond the reasonable doubt and thus, the acquittal recorded by the trial court appears to be just and reasonable.
Page 15 of 17 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Fri Jun 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 23:57:38 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/967/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined
11. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion, that the findings of fact recorded by the learned trial court cannot be faltered. We did not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge so as to interfere in this case. The judgment and order of acquittal, acquitting the present respondents - original accused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha Camp at Modasa is just and proper. The evidence on record will not permit this Court to take a different view than that of taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Even looking to the present Appeal, nothing is produced or pointed out to rebut the conclusion of the trial court. Even looking to the evidence on record, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor could not persuade this Court to take a different view than that of taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
12. In above view of the matter, We are of the considered opinion that the trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondents herein - original accused. We find that the findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. We are, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the court below, and hence, find no reasons to interfere with the same.
We answer the question accordingly.
Page 16 of 17 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Fri Jun 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 23:57:38 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/967/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined
13. In the result, the present Appeal is hereby dismissed.
14. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 24.6.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha Camp at Modasa in Sessions Case No.154 of 1993, is hereby confirmed.
15. Record and Proceedings to be sent back to the trial Court.
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J) (P. M. RAVAL, J) V.J. SATWARA Page 17 of 17 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Fri Jun 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 23:57:38 IST 2025