Gujarat High Court
The State Of Gujarat vs Maherali Yakubali Saiyed on 23 September, 2025
Author: Umesh A. Trivedi
Bench: Umesh A. Trivedi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1930/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1930 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI Sd/-
======================================
Approved for Reporting No Yes
No
======================================
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MAHERALI YAKUBALI SAIYED & ORS.
======================================
Appearance:
MR. BHARGAV V. PANDYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR JM BUDDHBHATTI(1239) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
No. 1,2,3
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 5
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 4
======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
Date : 23/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") by the State of Gujarat challenging the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge (7th Fast Track Judge), Anand dated 14.12.2005 in Special Page 1 of 20 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:29:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1930/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined Atrocity Sessions Case No. 53 of 2004, whereby respondents - accused came to be acquitted of the charge for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") as also under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 09.07.2003, when the first-informant - Ishwarbhai Kanjibhai Rohit was in the field, which he hired from one Khatunbibi on crop-sharing basis, respondent - accused were already there in the field and on seeing the first-informant, they got enraged when first- informant asked them why they are plowing the field as he has already kept the said land on crop-sharing basis from Khatunbibi. Pursuant thereto, accused got enraged and abused first-informant. He was given 2-3 slaps as well. It is alleged that accused uttered insulting words in respect of caste of the first- informant. He was also threatened of dire consequences.
3. As coming out from the record, on the date of incident, first-informant gave application to the concerned Police station through an advocate, as coming out from Page 2 of 20 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:29:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1930/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined Exhibit-33, which is FIR given to the Police station by the first- informant. It is further coming out from the Exhibit-33 that he went out of town thereafter. As such, application Exhibit-22, which is stated to be given by the advocate to the Police station on the same day i.e. 09.07.2003, is treated as an FIR by the learned Judge, as reflected from the judgment. Be that as it may, on registration of an FIR given to the Police station, which is at Exhibit-33, an investigation was carried out. Statements of witnesses were recorded, panchnamas were drawn and as sufficient evidence was found against the accused, they came to be charge-sheeted before the Court. Since the case was triable by the Special Court i.e. Court of Sessions, it came to be committed to the Court of Sessions.
3.1 Thereafter, a charge at Exhibit-2 came to be framed against the accused. Since accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried, prosecution examined 6 witnesses, produced and proved nearly 8 documents to prove case against the respondents - accused.
3.2 As coming out from the endorsement in the cause- list, respondent No. 4 - Yakubali Ashrafali Saiyed is unserved as expired and his death certificate is also attached with the Page 3 of 20 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:29:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1930/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined documents of process serving agency. Hence, this appeal stands abated for respondent No. 4 - Yakubali Ashrafali Saiyed 3.3 Respondent No. 5 i.e. original first-informant is also joined as respondent in this appeal and notice came to be served upon him. However, he has chosen not to appear personally or through an advocate. Therefore, this appeal being of the year 2006, it is taken up for hearing.
4. Mr. Bhargav V. Pandya, learned APP, took me to the impugned judgement and order of acquittal as also the evidence led before the Court, including the documents produced and proved. He submitted that since evidence of first-informant is corroborated by the PW-2 - Kirtisinh Mansinh Chauhan with respect to utterances insulting to the caste of the first-informant, attracting provisions of "the Act" as also the assault on the first-informant, the case against the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, learned Judge could not have acquitted the accused. 4.1 He has further submitted that so far as presence of the first-informant in the field where he claimed to have sown sesame crop is corroborated by the deposition of Khatunbibi Page 4 of 20 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:29:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1930/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined Husenali Saiyed, there appears no reason to discard the testimony of first-informant or corroboration to his testimony by witness PW-2 - Kirtisinh Mansinh Chauhan. Therefore, he has submitted that, on reappreciation of evidence, case requires reconsideration and judgment and order of acquittal be quashed and set aside and accused be convicted for the offences charged against them and they be suitably punished.
5. As against that, Mr. J.M. Buddhbhatti, learned advocate for the respondents - accused, submitted that there are three different versions of the first-informant in different written documents, including deposition before the Court, and therefore, no reliance can be placed on his deposition. PW-2 - Kirtisinh Mansinh Chauhan is also closely associated with the first-informant as he is serving as Homeguard and witness - PW-2 - Kirtisinh Mansinh Chauhan appears to be his superior. As such, his presence, as claimed by the first-informant, in the field, was not expected or required. Therefore, his presence is a got up one with a view to corroborate the testimony of the first-informant. At any rate, according to the submission of learned advocate for the respondents, in an application given through advocate on the date of incident i.e. 09.07.2003, to Page 5 of 20 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:29:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1930/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined the concerned Police station, all accused have been assigned different deadly weapons. Accused No.1 shown in the judgment that Maherali is attributed Spade, accused No.2 - Mazarali is attributed Iron Fork (Pitchfork), whereas accused No.3 - Varishali is attributed stick, whereas accused No.4 - Yakubali is attributed Dhariya in his hand shown in the judgment, whereas they have been referred to as Yakubali to be accused No.1 and his sons as accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 being Maherali, Mazar and Varishali, respectively. However, neither in the FIR, Exhibit-33, nor in the deposition any weapons are attributed to any of the accused, which is most important deliberate omission by the first-informant. 5.1 Considering the documentary evidence offered by the accused in an explanation to the case appearing against him, village people have sent through registered post an application to Thasra PSI against the first-informant as he is in habit of filing false complaint under "the Act" against so many persons. Even a complaint is also claimed to have been given by Rustampura village people that the family of first-informant is in habit of filing false complaints against them. The 7/12 abstract of Revenue Survey No. 62 of the field in question Page 6 of 20 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:29:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1930/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined being certified copy thereof is also produced. The affidavit filed by one Saiyedali, who is the son of Khatunbibi, showing that on accepting consideration, his father i.e. husband of Khatunbibi, waived his right in the disputed field. The disputed property is being plowed by accused, as reflected from the certificate issued by Talati-cum-Mantri of Village Malvan. Therefore, he has submitted that considering the nature of evidence led before the Court, temperament of the first-informant, as reflected from the different applications made to the Police by the village people, it is clear that prosecution case doesn't inspire any confidence.
5.2 Therefore, he has submitted that since Court has very well appreciated the evidence led before it and recorded an order of acquittal, which is a well-reasoned one, in view of decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Chandrappa and others v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 and in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2024 SC 2252, while exercising appellate jurisdiction in the acquittal appeal, unless Court finds that finding recorded by the learned Judge is perverse and dehors the evidence Page 7 of 20 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:29:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1930/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined brought on record, normally the appellate Court should not interfere in the order of acquittal.
5.3 He has submitted that, in the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, principles have been enumerated for exercise of appellate jurisdiction in the case of acquittal appeal, which may kindly be considered and appeal being without any merit, it be dismissed.
6. Having heard learned APP as also learned advocate for the respondents - accused, on reappreciation of evidence, let me examine whether this appeal requires any interference by this Court, that too, while exercising appellate jurisdiction in an acquittal appeal, keeping in mind well established principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court as also the High Court.
6.1 Before reappreciating the evidence, facts established on record with respect to relations of Khatunbibi, who claimed to have ownership of the disputed field, which is claimed to be given to the first-informant on crop-sharing basis for the purpose of plowing it. Accused No.4 shown in the judgment is real brother of husband of Khatunbibi. As Page 8 of 20 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:29:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1930/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined document produced by the accused in explanation of the evidence appeared against him, his brother had during his lifetime given up the right in the disputed field on accepting consideration thereof, as coming out from the affidavit filed by the son of Khatunbibi. The accused Nos. 1 to 3 shown in the judgment are sons of accused No.4 - Yakubali. Thus, accused are brother in law and nephews of Khatunbibi. The relations between Khatunbibi and the accused are not on good terms on the death of her husband i.e. brother of accused No.4 shown in the judgment. As claimed by the accused, Khatunbibi had already sold out the land, which had come in her share and out of temptation, having more share in the land, she has, through the first-informant, filed a false case against the accused. 6.2 Keeping in mind the facts stated hereinabove about the relations of prosecution witness - Khatunbibi and the accused, let me examine and reappreciate the evidence led before the Court. First of all, examining the evidence of first- informant - PW-4 - Ishwarbhai Kanjibhai. In his evidence, he claimed that, in the year 2003, Khatunbibi had given him the disputed field for a year to plow it on crop-sharing basis. He claimed to have sown sesame crop. However, when he went to Page 9 of 20 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:29:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1930/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined the field on 09.07.2003 at about 9 to 10 p.m. of sesame crop, accused No.4 and some persons there were plowing the field, to which first-informant informed that, as possession kept by him on crop-sharing basis for plowing, why they are entering and plowing the field. According to the deposition of the first- informant, to the same, accused No.4 - Yakubali abused first- informant and insulted of his caste. Though, he has generalized in his deposition that all accused started beating him and uttering insulting words. However, such generalized statement is missing in an application given through an advocate on 09.07.2003 before the Police. As such, Exhibit-22, which is an application, claimed to be given by the first- informant through advocate and he straight away went out of town, reflected that all the accused were armed with different weapons in their hand and attempted to assault him. 6.3 It is further claimed in that application that, accused No.4 abused and insulted him of his caste by uttering words mentioned thereof. As such, so far as assaulting the first- informant and uttering certain words insulting the caste of the first-informant is not at all attributed against rest of the accused, except Yakubali. Considering Exhibit-33, which is Page 10 of 20 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:29:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1930/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined claimed to be an FIR filed pursuant to the application dated 09.07.2003, pertinently those weapons attributed to the accused in application Exhibit-22 is missing in Exhibit-33. In that FIR, a generalized statement against all the accused is made that they got enraged and abused him as also insulted him of his caste by their utterances. However, accused No.4 is attributed slaps twice to the first-informant. He was also given a push by him. Again, in the said written complaint Exhibit-33 filed pursuant to application dated 09.07.2003, assault on the accused exhibiting an offence under the "IPC" is missing in it. Thus, it is clear that at difference places, at difference stages or different dates, first-informant has come with different stories against the accused. Considering his conduct, exhibited from the applications made against him by the village people, his deposition does not inspire any confidence. 6.4 Not only that, for generalized statement about insult to his caste against accused Nos.1 to 3 is contradictory to his own first available version by way of an application dated 09.07.2003, which is given through an advocate. Since a person, who insulted first-informant of his caste, i.e. accused No.4, is no more, case against him would abate, whereas Page 11 of 20 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:29:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1930/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined remaining accused, there appears contradictory evidence and generalized statement made against them. Therefore, to attract provisions of "the Act", no reliance can be placed on the deposition of the first-informant. At the same time, so far as assault on first-informant is concerned, that is also too generalized a statement and more particularly, again it is contradictory and it is attributed against accused No.4 alone. Since he has died, even "IPC" offences cannot be invoked against rest of the accused.
6.5 Moreover, no documentary evidence is produced by the prosecution to show that Khatunbibi was the owner or occupier of the field so as to give it on crop-sharing basis for plowing it to the first-informant. Not only that, the first- informant is ignorant of even the Survey Number of the disputed field. He has admitted that, for the disputed field, before he accepted offer of Khatunbibi, he had not ascertained two documentary evidence, like Village Form No. 7/12 or 8A so as to ownership as also possession of Khatunbibi of the disputed field. He had also pleaded ignorance that in whose names those fields are at that relevant time. Even he is not aware about the children of Khatunbibi, from whom he has Page 12 of 20 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:29:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1930/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined kept that field for plowing on the basis of crop-sharing. Though he is knowing that Khatunbibi is staying separately from her in- laws at village Sevaliya. He is also aware that for the field in dispute, there were quarrel, rough and tumble and dispute with regard to the ownership of the same. He is also aware that between accused and Khatunbibi, there appears no relations of even talking.
6.6 As such, in his cross-examination, he claimed that after giving application Exhibit-22 on 09.07.2003, he went to Vadodara to see his ailing father in law. He has further claimed that his wife was knowing about the same. The said assertion is also exactly contradictory to the deposition of Police Officer, who pursuant to an application Exhibit-22 dated 09.07.2003 visited the house of first-informant and his neighbors. As documents produced by the PW-5 - Babulal Lotan Patil, who initially investigated the case, reflected that Police went to the house of first-informant and recorded statement of the wife at Exhibit-31 and of one neighbor - Lalji Babuji Vanzara and both have pleaded ignorance about the whereabouts of the first- informant. This appears to be exactly contrary to the deposition of the first-informant, as he claimed that his wife Page 13 of 20 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:29:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1930/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined was knowing that he has gone to Vadodara to see his ailing father in law. Though, in his deposition, he claimed that he returned back from Vadodara on 30.09.2003. Thus, it is clear that the first-informant as also even his family members are not telling the truth before the Court.
6.7 Over and above that, his FIR, Exhibit-33 given on 25.07.2003, asserts that he had given that application dated 09.07.2003, Exhibit-22, through his advocate and he had not even gone to give that application to the Police station. On the contrary, he claimed that he went away out of town. Even in that FIR, Exhibit-33 dated 25.07.2003, despite he had come from Vadodara from the house of his father in law, he has mentioned that, after getting his application Exhibit-22 given through advocate to the Police station, he went out of town. When he was to go to see his ailing father in law at Vadodara, even he could have been specific in that FIR where he had gone. So at each and every place, the deposition of the complainant and his assertion is inspiring no confidence. 6.8 Over and above that, in the first version of the first- informant by way of an application dated 09.07.2003, Exhibit- 22, exaggerated version about attributing deadly weapons to Page 14 of 20 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:29:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1930/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined each of the accused went missing in the FIR, Exhibit-33, as also in his deposition before the Court, as the investigation concluded, no such weapons were found to have been carried by the accused at the time of incident, as claimed by the first- informant.
6.9 Even through which advocate that application was given is also not mentioned by the first-informant in his FIR Exhibit-33, otherwise, the statement could have been recorded by the Investigating Officer and his claim and assertion made in it could have been either corroborated or contradicted. 6.10 With a view to give very serious nature of offence to an application dated 09.07.2003, first-informant appears to have attributed deadly weapons to the accused in his first version, which he claimed to have given through an advocate, even without naming him.
6.11 Even if that first version is the correct one, person carrying deadly weapons will never slap anyone instead of wielding their weapons if they have got enraged. That is also when slaps were given by only accused No.4 and by none other person. Therefore, during the course of deposition before Page 15 of 20 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:29:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1930/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined the Court, he generalized his deposition that all accused started beating him. However, that evidence is also not supported by any contemporaneous record. Over and above that, for the said assault or an injury, as claimed by him in his deposition, no treatment is taken by him, on the contrary, he straightaway went out of town to see his ailing father in law. If at all the crime was so serious and he was so assaulted, he would have immediately personally gone to the Police station and given the FIR when an offence under "the Act" as also the "IPC" is made out and got treatment before the Doctor on that very day.
Considering all these aspects, the deposition of the first- informant is not inspiring any confidence.
7. Now, let us consider the deposition of PW-2 - Kirtisinh Mansinh Chauhan, who claims to have given the said uniform of Homeguard as first-informant is also working as Homeguard, as deposed to by him before the Court. It is most important that, if first-informant is working as Homeguard, he is also very well aware of all the ingredients of all the offences and seriousness of law and order situation as also commission of a crime. If such a serious offence is committed, that too, Page 16 of 20 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:29:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1930/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined upon himself, he would have immediately gone to the Police instead of choosing to go to see his ailing father in law for days together entrusting the work of giving application to an advocate of the incident. It is nothing but a creation of evidence, which can be concluded from his conduct, against the accused. Since first available version attracts offence under "the Act" as also offence under the "IPC" against accused No.4 only and case against him abated, as such there is no offence committed by rest of the accused. So far as not making out a case under "the Act" is concerned, learned Judge has also given sufficient reasons that it is not made out. Over and above which I supplement those reasons by the present judgment.
7.1 Now, coming back to the deposition of PW-2 - Kirtisinh Mansinh Chauhan, who is serving as an Office In- charge in the Homeguard since last 2 years. He claimed that on 09.07.2003 at about 7:00 am, uniforms and articles were to be distributed amongst homeguards at Sevaliya rest house. He claimed that about 70% of the homeguard were present and he distributed uniforms to them. While returning back from Sevaliya to Anandpura at his home, since first-informant did Page 17 of 20 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:29:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1930/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined not come to have the uniform, the village Rustampura where first-informant is staying is falling on the way of Anandpura, he went to his house. Since first-informant was not at home, he inquired from his wife and he was told that he was at the disputed field. As such, the said witness having no relations with first-informant, despite that, he went to the house of the first-informant and even knows the field, which is kept on crop- sharing basis for plowing, to meet him so as to become witness against the accused. Looking to his cross-examination, the claim made by him that village of the first-informant is falling on way to his home village is proved to be incorrect. 7.2 He claimed that disputed field is known as 'Hadiyavala field' and is known to him even prior to the incident as informed by the first-informant. That shows the relation of the first-informant and the witness. As such, making enquiry from his wife as to where first-informant is, to which she replied that, he is at the disputed field is not stated in his statement before the Police, as admitted by the witness in his deposition. Though he has denied that he has not stated about presence of the accused and the first-informant in the disputed field and there was hot exchange of words between them, it is Page 18 of 20 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:29:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1930/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined proved to be a contradiction on record. As such, his presence at the place of incident is also creating doubt if at all he has to deliver the uniform to the first-informant as he had not come to Sevaliya, he could have delivered the same to him on that day. However, as coming out from his deposition, he had informed the first-informant to have his uniform on the next day from him. As coming out from the cross-examination of said witness, there appears to be political rivalry in between accused and even witness as they both belong to different parties and there appears to be some issues with regard to election in between them. Therefore, a possibility cannot be ruled out that he is also created witness so as to corroborate the deposition of first-informant. Even if it is presumed that he corroborates the deposition of the first-informant, he has also generalized the statement, whereas first-informant is very specific about utterances with respect to the insult to the caste of him attributed to accused No.4 alone, except his deposition, where he generalized the same in contradiction with his earlier two written versions.
8. On overall reappreciation of evidence, it appears that reasons assigned by the learned Judge passing the Page 19 of 20 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:29:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1930/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined judgment and order of acquittal are in accordance with the evidence led before the Court. There appears no perversity in the judgment, which calls for interference in the well-reasoned judgement and order of acquittal recorded by the learned Judge. On reappreciation of the said evidence, as stated hereinabove, along with the fact that investigation into the offence is not carried out by the Officer of the Rank as per the provisions of the Rules, which is again not permissible, as competent Officer has only effected the arrest and charge- sheeted the accused.
9. Hence, I see no reason to interfere in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed.
Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J.) Raj Page 20 of 20 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:29:40 IST 2025