Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Baba @ Pratapsing Savji Rajput on 17 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 886 of 1998
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BABA @ PRATAPSING SAVJI RAJPUT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 4
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4,5
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 17/04/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER)
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 20.05.1998, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur, in Sessions Case No.18 of 1992, for the offences Page 1 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:29:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined punishable under Sections 302, 323, 426, 452, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal as provided under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code") inter alia challenging the judgment and order of acquittal in favour of the respondents - accused.
2. The present appeal is heard only with respect to the offence against respondent no.4 in view of the fact that by an order dated 10.04.2026, this Court has disposed of the appeal qua respondent nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 as infructuous, in view of the fact that considering the report submitted by the police officers Suigam Police Station, the certificate issued by Sarpanch Rampura, Gram Panchayat, Taluka-Vav District- Banaskantha and the report of Bhuraji Nagjiji-ASI which states that respondent nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 have expired. Therefore, the present appeal is heard only considering the role of respondent no.4.
3. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial before the trial Court is that on 24.10.1990, in the village of Rampura, Taluka Vav, a violent incident occurred involving the complainant, Sarabhai Mahadevbhai Patni, and his brother Punjabhai Narana. According to the testimony, the witness's brother was sleeping at the fields when he was Page 2 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:29:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined confronted by a group of armed men, including Rajput Pabubhai (alias Pratap Singh) and Savji, who arrived on a tractor. The situation escalated quickly as the accused, armed with a gun, an axe, a dhariyu (sharp blade), and sticks, assaulted Punjabhai Narana; Pratap Singh reportedly struck him with a gun butt while Savji hit him on the leg with a heavy stick, causing him to collapse. The group, which also included Rabari Guga Jaha and Rabari Nakha Choma, proceeded to loot grocery sacks and property from the premises, loading the stolen goods onto their tractor before fleeing the scene. Following the arrival of concerned villagers and the identification of the attackers. Therefore, the complaint was filed against the respondent/s-accused.
4. After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence was found against the accused person/s and therefore charge- sheet was filed in the competent criminal Court. Since the offence alleged against the accused person/s was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court where it came to be registered as Sessions Case No.18 of 1992. The charge was framed against the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.
5. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution Page 3 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:29:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined has examined 11 witnesses and also produced 21 documentary evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment as under:
ORAL EVIDENCE Witness Exhibit Name of Witness Designation / Role No. No. Karamshibhai (1) Prosecution Witness 10 Mahadevbhai Thakariya Pradhanji Kanji (2) Prosecution Witness 11 Brahman (3) Ramabhai Jivabhai Prosecution Witness 12 Panch Witness (Seizure (4) Danaji Punjaji 13 of Muddamal) Panch Witness (Seizure (5) Rupsinh Vastabhai 15 of Muddamal) Panch Witness (Recovery (6) Jemasinh Chamansinh 16 of Muddamal) Panch Witness (Recovery (7) Rajaji Viraji 18 of Muddamal) (8) Dr. Arunbhai Harjibhai Medical Officer 25 P.S.O. (Police Station (9) Chhogsinh Kalyansinh 29 Officer) Page 4 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:29:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined Witness Exhibit Name of Witness Designation / Role No. No. Ghanshyamsinh P.S.I. (Investigating (10) 36 Chandansinh Gohil Officer) Circle Inspector (Drafted (11) Tejanji Rataji the Map of the Scene) 55 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Description of Document Exhibit No. No. (1) Original Complaint (Fariyad) 37 (2) List of Documents/Inventory (Suchipatara) 38 (3) Panchnama regarding seizure of weapons 14, 17 (4) Panchnama of the scene of the offense 20 Panchnama of the incident at witness (5) 21 Pradhanji Dhanji's flour mill (6) Inquest Panchnama 22 Panchnama regarding seizure of clothes from (7) 23 the deceased's body Page 5 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:29:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined Description of Document Exhibit No. No. (8) Post-Mortem Note 26 Death Certificate / Certificate of Cause of (9) 27 Death Medical Certificate of witness Pradhanji (10) 28 Khanji Requisition/Note to the Executive Magistrate (11) 39 for Inquest Copy of the requisition sent to the Medical (12) 40 Officer for Post-Mortem Police Yadi (official note) for medical (13) 41 treatment (14) Dispatch Note (Ravanagi Nodh) 42 Receipt of Muddamal (evidence items) sent to (15) 43 F.S.L. F.S.L. (Forensic Science Laboratory) analysis (16) 44 report (17) Copy of the Notification prohibiting weapons 45 (18) Receipt of handing over the dead body 46 Page 6 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:29:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined Description of Document Exhibit No. No. Letter written to the Mamlatdar for preparing (19) 47 a map of the scene of offence Original Map of the scene of the offense (20) 56 prepared by Circle Inspector (21) Map of the scene and its detailed explanation 57
6. After hearing the learned advocate for the appellant and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused for the offences for which the charge was framed, by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
7. Learned APP for the appellant - State has pointed out the facts of the case and having taken this Court through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true sense and perspective; and that the trial Court has committed error in acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the contradictions and/or omissions appearing in the evidence and Page 7 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:29:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined ought to have given weightage to the dots that connect the accused with the offence in question. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. It is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the evidence produced on record is reliable and believable and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed an offence in question. It is, therefore, submitted that this Court may allow this appeal by appreciating the evidence led before the learned trial Court.
8. Though served none appeared for the respondent no.4.
9. In the aforesaid background, considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, independently and dispassionately and considering the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court, the following aspects weighed with the Court :
9.1. If the complaint produced vide Exhibit-37 is taken into consideration, the said complaint states that the nephew of the complainant Punja Narana was sleeping in the house of the complainant at around 12.00 a.m., Kanji Pradhanji who Page 8 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:29:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined was the owner of the flourmill started shouting and at that time, the complainant was sleeping on first floor of his premises and his nephew Punja Narana was sleeping in the osri, at that time, the complainant told the deceased Punja Narana to check as to what was the commotion near the flour mill. Thereafter Punja Narana gets up from his sleep and goes and opens the door and the complainant sees from the window of the first floor that accused no.1 holding a gun caught hold of Punja Narana from his chest and asked him the whereabouts of the complainant and so saying started assaulting the Punja Narana with fist at the chest of deceased Punja Narana and at that time Punja Narana states that he did not know where complainant was and asked him as to why they were assaulting him. At that time, the accused no.2- Savji Khemaji had a stick in his hand came running from the tractor and hit deceased Punja Narana on the head with the said stick and Punja Narana fell down as he was hit by stick on his head at that time.
Accused no.3 had an axe in his hand and accused no.4 Guga Jahan had a stick and an iron scissor and accused no.5 had a dhariya and a wooden stick in his hand and all started assaulting the deceased Punja Narana and accused no.4 stated that Punja Narana has died and thereafter all the five accused ran away in their tractor and hearing the entire commotion Rama Jiva Patel came and was informed about Page 9 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:29:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined the incident and on the next date the complaint was filed. The prosecution has examined Parambhai Mahadevbhai the complainant and the alleged eye witness to the offence vide exhibit 10 as P.W.1. In his deposition he has stated that there was a commotion near the flour mill of Pradhanji Kanaji and Pradhanji Kanaji was shouting and at paragraph no.12 of his cross-examination he has stated that accused no.1 had not used the gun, with respect to the offense against respondent no.4, he has stated that after accused no.1 was hit by a stick, he fell down and it is only after Punja Narana fell down, that accused nos.3, 4 and 5 had come and thereafter all the five started assaulting the deceased Punja Narana. At paragraph no.14, the said witness states that accused no.4 had assaulted the deceased Punja Narana with stick on the right side of the body of the deceased and accused no.4 had not used the scissor which was brought by him.
9.2. The prosecution has thereafter examined P.W.2 vide Exhibit 11, Pradhanji Kanji who was owner of the flour mill who has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. The case of the complainant was that as the said witness Pradhanji Kanji started shouting, the complainant informed the deceased Punja Narana to go and check what the commotion was but if the evidence of the Page 10 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:29:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined said witness, Kanji Pradhanji is taken into consideration, he states that when he was sleeping at his flour mill, somebody had come and slept him and thereafter he fell unconscious, therefore the question of him shouting and the complainant's informing Punja Narana to check as to what the commotion was has not been proved by the prosecution. 9.3. The prosecution has thereafter examined Ramabhai Jivabhai as P.W.3 vide Exhibit 12. He was not present at the time of the incident and the said incident was informed to him by the complainant.
9.4. The prosecution has thereafter examined Punjaji at Exhibit 13 as P.W.4, who was the panch witness of the panchnama of the recovery of Muddamal which is produced vide exhibit 14 and the other witness of the Muddamal recovery panchnama Rupsinhji Vastabhai has been examined as P.W.15. Both have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has thereafter examined Jemalsinh Chamansinh vide exhibit-16, who was the panch witness to the panchnama of the recovery of the muddamal which is produced vide exhibit-17. The said witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile. 9.5. The other witness of the said panchnama Rajaji Virji Page 11 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:29:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined has been examined as P.W.7 vide exhibit 18 who is the panch witness of the stick that was recovered from accused no.2.
9.6. The Panchnama of the place of offence is produced vide Exhibit 20, wherein it has been stated that the blood stains were found outside the house of the complainant. The prosecution has also produced the inquest panchnama vide Exhibit 21. The prosecution has examined Dr. Arunbhai Harjibhai as PW-8 vide Exh-25, he was the Medical Officer at Suigam Preliminary Health Centre, who had conducted the post-mortem of the deceased Punjabhai Narana, and the post-mortem report is produced vide Exhibit 26, and as per said post-mortem report, the cause of death was due to brain haemorrhage due to head injury homicide by heavy-edged weapons.
9.7. The prosecution has examined the Police Sub-Inspector Chhog Singh Kalyan Singh as PW-9 vide Exhibit 29. The prosecution has examined ASI, the Investigating Officer Ghanshyambhai Chandan Singh vide Exhibit 36. The map showing the place of offence is produced by the witness vide Exhibit 55, Tej Singh Ratarji.
9.8. If the entire case of the prosecution is considered with respect to the offence and respondent no.4, the evidence on record states that the deceased had died because of brain Page 12 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:29:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined haemorrhage due to head injury homicide by heavy-edged weapons and even in the oral evidence, the complainant himself has stated that after the deceased was hit on the head by Accused no. 1 and 2, Accused no. 3, 4 and 5 came at the place of alleged offence, and the deceased was hit by Accused no. 4 on the right-hand side of his body, and the Accused no.4 had not used a scissor, which was alleged to have been brought by the said accused. The prosecution has also not been able to prove the place of offence where the deceased was assaulted in view of the fact that as per Exhibit 20, the blood stains were found outside the house of the complainant, and therefore, the only eyewitness to the incident which was the complainant himself has stated that he had seen that the accused were assaulting the deceased from the first floor portion of window, and if the blood stains were found outside the house, it transpires that the incident had taken place outside the house, and the prosecution has not been able to prove as to the exact place where the offence had taken place.
9.9. Moreover, the prosecution has also not been able to prove the motive in view of the fact that the complainant himself states that the deceased was asked the whereabouts of the complainant, and there was no enmity which has been proved by the prosecution between the Page 13 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:29:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined accused and the complainant. Moreover, the entire incident as stated by the complainant is because of commotion at the flourmill and the owner of the flourmill, Karsan Karamsinh has himself stated that after being hit on his face, he was unconscious and therefore, there was no question of any commotion at the flourmill, and therefore, the question of complainant sending the deceased to check what the commotion was has not been proved by the prosecution. Moreover, it also transpires from the medical evidence that the cause of death because of heavy edged weapon, and the prosecution has not been able to prove as to which of the accused had assaulted the complainant on the head.
9.10. In view of the fact that the complainant himself also does not state that Accused No. 4 had assaulted the complainant by hitting the stick on his head.
10. Further, learned advocate for the appellant is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Court below has ignored the material evidence on record. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Court below was completely justified in passing impugned judgment and order. Page 14 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:29:10 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined
11. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that in an acquittal appeal if other view is possible, then also, the appellate Court cannot substitute its own view by reversing the acquittal into conviction, unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse, contrary to the material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. (Ramesh Babulal Doshi V. State of Gujarat - (1996) 9 SCC 225). In the instant case, the learned APP has not been able to point out to us as to how the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are perverse, contrary to material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable.
12. In the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1995 SC 280, Supreme Court has held as under:
"The powers of the High Court in an appeal from order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions under Sections 378 and 379, Cr.P.C. are as extensive as in any appeal against the order of conviction. But as a rule of prudence, it is desirable that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the Page 15 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:29:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined view of the Trial Court with regard to the credibility of the witness, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and the slowness of appellate Court in justifying a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witness. It is settled law that if the main grounds on which the lower Court has based its order acquitting the accused are reasonable and plausible, and the same cannot entirely and effectively be dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal."
13. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394, while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the trial Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset. It is further observed that High Court's interference in such appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by the trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the Page 16 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:29:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have taken a different view.
14. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"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, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 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.
(3) Various expressions, such as,
"substantial and compelling reasons",
Page 17 of 20
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:29:10 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026
undefined
"good and sufficient grounds", "very
strong circumstances", "distorted
conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise 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 Page 18 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:29:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined 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."
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in a recent decision, in the case of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and Another V/s State of Uttarakhand reported in (2025) 5 SCC 433, has held in paragraph 24 as under:
"24. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and 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."
16. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances Page 19 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:29:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. Further, on our careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, we found that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the findings of fact recorded by learned trial Court and under the circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent/s - accused for the elaborate reasons stated in the impugned judgment and we also endorse the view/finding of the learned trial Court leading to the acquittal.
17. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Criminal Appeal fails to prove its case and the same deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed, accordingly. Record & Proceedings be remitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) Sd/-
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) URIL RANA Page 20 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:29:10 IST 2026