Bombay High Court
Santosh Kisan Wafare vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 January, 2024
Author: R.G.Avachat
Bench: R.G.Avachat
2024:BHC-AUG:1503-DB
Cri. Appeal No.360 of 2017 and others.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.360 OF 2017
1. Balshiram Bhagaji Wafare,
Age : 43 years,
2. Bhagaji Shivram Wafare, - (abated)
Age : 84 years,
(Appeal abated against appellant no.2
vide order dated 19.12.2023)
3. Dnyandeo Sonyabapu Wafare, - (deleted)
Age : 37 years,
4. Santosh Kisan Wafare - (deleted)
Age : 33 years,
(Names of appellant nos.3 andto 4 deleted
as per court's order dated 16.03.2023)
5. Nandabai Balshiram Wafare,
Age : 40 years,
Both r/o. Wafarewadi,
Post Karjule Harya, Tq. Parner,
Dist. Ahmednagar ..Appellants
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Parner Police Station,
Tq.Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar ..Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.16 OF 2024
Dnyandev s/o. Sonyabapu Wafare,
Age : 42 years, Occ. Nil,
r/o. Wafarewadi, Post Karjule Hariya,
Tq. Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar ..Appellant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
2 Cri. Appeal No.360 of 2017 and others
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.256 OF 2023
Santosh s/o. Kisan Wafare,
Age : 38 years, Occ. Agri.,
r/o. Wafarewadi, Post KarjuleHarya,
Tq. Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar ..Appellant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Parner Police Station,
Tq. Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar ..Respondent
----
Mr.Nilesh S. Ghanekar, Advocate for appellants in Cri. Appeal No.360
of 2017
Mr.N.B.Narwade, Advocate for appellant in Cri. Appeal No.16 of 2024
Mr.S.R.Sapkal, Advocate for appellant in Cri. Appeal No.256 of 2023
Mr.S.D.Ghayal, APP for respondent - State in all appeals
----
CORAM : R.G.AVACHAT AND
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : JANUARY 08, 2024
PRONOUNCED ON : JANUARY 18, 2024
JUDGMENT (PER R.G.AVACHAT, J.) :
-
These are appeals from conviction. The appellants have
been convicted for various offences and consequently, sentenced to
suffer terms of imprisonments, vide judgment and order dated
01.08.2017, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in
Sessions Case No.26 of 2007.
Appellant no.2 - Bhagaji (original accused no.2) in
Criminal Appeal No.360 of 2017 expired during pendency of the
appeal. Hence, the appeal stood abated as against him. The details
of sentence imposed against appellants - Balshiram, Dnyandeo,
Santosh and Nandabai are given in the tabular form below:-
Sections Punishment
R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in
302 r.w. 149 of I.P.C.
default, to suffer R.I. for three months,
R.I. for 03 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-
143 r.w. 149 I.P.C.
each, in default, to suffer S.I. for one month
R.I. for 03 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-
147 r.w. 149 I.P.C.
each, in default, to suffer S.I. for one month
R.I. for 03 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-
148 r.w. 149 I.P.C.
each, in default, to suffer S.I. for one month
S.I. for 03 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-
323 r.w. 149 I.P.C.
each, in default, to suffer S.I. for one month
R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-
504 r.w. 149 I.P.C.
each, in default, to suffer S.I. for two month
The substantive sentences are to run concurrently.
2. The facts giving rise to these appeals are as follows:-
PW 2 - Jijabai is widow of Babaji, who hailed from village
Wafarewadi, Tq.Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar. The deceased had
agricultural land at the village. He was serving as Clearing Agent in
Mumbai. He along with his wife and three children would, therefore,
reside in Mumbai. Three years before the incident dated 31.10.2006,
his family members shifted to the village. The First Information
Report (F.I.R., Exh.93) was lodged by PW 2 - Jijabai. It is her case
that she has two brothers-in-law and four sisters-in-law as well. Her
parents-in-law are alive. Her husband, deceased Babaji, would
provide money for maintenance of all his brothers, sisters and
parents. He had purchased agricultural land in the name of his
brothers and their wives as well. Since, with the passage of time, his
expenditure increased, he stopped providing financial assistance to
them. His brothers, therefore, started troubling the informant and
her children.
03. On 14/15.10.2006, Bajirao, brother of the deceased -
Babaji, had assaulted Satish (son of Babaji). About eight days after
the said incident, Babaji had come to the village for Diwali festival. It
was 02.00 p.m. of 31.10.2006, Babaji (deceased), his wife PW 2 -
Jijabai and their children namely, Mangal (Vishakha) and Satish were
in their house on the field. The appellants came together. They told
the informant that they propose to hold a meeting of family
members on account of the incident of beating by Bajirao (since
acquitted) to Satish. PW 2 - Jijabai inquired with them, what purpose
would be served by holding such meeting since it was her son, who
had been beaten up. Thereupon, the appellants stared abusing her.
The appellant - Balshiram gave her threats. Babaji (deceased)
inquired with him, whether all of them were going to beat them. The
appellants, except Nandabai, therefore, went back to their Vasti and
returned armed with sticks. The appellants - Balshiram and
Dnyandev gave sticks blows on the head of Babaji. Babaji fell down.
He was dragged along for some distance. While he was being
dragged, the appellants - Santosh and co-accused Bhagaji beat him
up with sticks. Jijabai intervened to save her husband. The
appellant - Nandabai beat her up. All the appellants beat up Satish
and PW 1 - Mangal as well.
04. Babaji was first rushed to Primary Health Centre (P.H.C.)
at Takli-Dhokeshwar. Then, he was shifted to Dr.Veer's Hospital at
Ahmednagar. The police had come to the hospital on the
intervening night of 31.10.2006 and 01.11.2006. Jijabai lodged the
FIR of the incident (Exh.93).
05. The Crime, vide C.R. No.259 of 2006, came to be
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 143, 147,
148, 323 and 504 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.
Babaji succumbed to the head injury on 02.11.2006. Section 302 of
I.P.C., therefore, came to be invoked. Investigation of crime had
already commenced. Scene of offence panchnama (Exh.98) was
drawn. Statements of the persons acquainted with the case were
recorded. The appellants were arrested. The parents of the
deceased and his brothers had also been arrested. Pursuant to the
disclosure statement given by appellant - Balshiram, sticks (Articles
14 to 17) came to be seized. Medico-legal certificates of the injured
were collected. On completion of the investigation, the appellants
and others were proceeded against by filing charge sheet.
06. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar (trial court)
framed Charge (Exh.29). The appellants and others pleaded not
guilty. Their defence was of false implication. According to them,
the deceased suffered injuries due to fall at his residence first and
again, while being taken to the hospital on motor-bike.
07. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses and
produced in evidence number of documents. The trial court, on
appreciation of evidence, acquitted the original accused nos.6 to 10.
The appellants came to be convicted and consequently, sentenced to
various terms of imprisonment, as stated in the tabular form above.
08. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
09. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that no
independent witness has been examined. The trial court convicted
the appellants based on the testimony of interested witnesses
namely, daughter and widow of the deceased. Genesis of the
prosecution case has been suppressed. Had the appellant really
rained stick blows, there would have been number of injuries on the
person of the deceased. The deceased died of single head injury.
According to them, even if we accept the case of the prosecution as
it is, it could only be inferred that the appellants had intended or the
common object of the so called unlawful assembly, was to cause hurt
and nothing more. Our attention has been adverted to the injury
certificates. According to them, PW 1 and PW 2 suffered simple and
superficial injuries. They got themselves medically examined three
days after the incident. The appellant - Nandabai was sister of
deceased. No overt-act has been attributed her against. According
to learned counsel, the appellants have been in jail since the date of
pronouncement of conviction. They were also behind the bars during
enquiry and investigation of the crime. Learned counsel, ultimately,
urged for allowing the appeals.
10. Learned APP would, on the other hand, submit that it is
an offence committed in furtherance of the common object of
unlawful assembly formed by the appellants. Each one of them
would be criminally liable for the offence of murder of Babaji, in view
of Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. According to learned APP, the
deceased and his family members suffered injuries. The deceased
was dragged for some distance. The scene of offence panchnama
(Exh.98) indicates marks of struggle and dragging as well. The
M.L.C. of the deceased and his family members have also been
adverted to. According to learned APP, unlawful assembly can be
formed on the spot as well. One who is not member thereof at the
beginning, may join the same and share its common object.
According to learned APP, no interference with the impugned
judgment and order is, therefore, warranted. He relied on the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Naresh @ Nehru Vs.
State of Haryana, (2023)10 SCC 134.
11. Considered the submissions advanced. Let us advert to
the evidence on record. The case is based on the eye-witness
account of PW 1 and PW 2, daughter and widow of the deceased.
The evidence, which would be relevant in deciding the present
appeal, would only be referred to.
12. PW 2 - Jijabai is widow of the deceased. The couple was
blessed with three children, Sandeep, Satish and Mangal @ Vishakha.
All of them would reside in Mumbai. The deceased Babaji was
working as Clearing Agent. About three years before the incident, the
widow and two children, i.e. Mangal and Satish migrated back to the
village. The deceased had ancestral as well as self-acquired land at
village Wafarewadi. His two brothers, parents and one of the sisters
(Nandabai) were also residing at Wafarewadi. Houses of all of them
were in the nearby of each others. Although it is the case of the
informant that it was the deceased who would support his parents,
brothers and sister financially, there is no much evidence in that
regard. Same has, however, no much relevance. On 14/15.10.2006,
Bajirao (brother of deceased) had beaten up Satish (son of
deceased). The deceased had come to the village eight days
thereafter, for Diwali festival. It was 02.00 p.m. of 31.10.2006, the
deceased and all his family members were home. The appellants
came their home. Appellant - Nandabai is real sister of deceased
Babaji. Appellant - Balshiram is her husband. Bhagaji is Balshiram's
father. Appellants - Dnyandev and Santosh are nephews of
appellants - Nandabai and Balshiram. These appellants were noway
concerned with the incident wherein, Bajirao had assaulted Satish.
There is nothing in the evidence nor in the FIR to indicate the
appellants to have ever been on inimical terms with the deceased or
his family members. Even, they had no motive. The appellants had
come to the residence of the deceased to tell him that a meeting of
the family members would be convened on account of the incident of
beating Satish. Admittedly, the appellants were not armed when
they first came to the residence of the deceased. PW 2 - Jijabai
(informant) told them, `what purpose would be served by holding a
meeting since her son had been beaten up'. An oral wrangle,
therefore, ensued between her and appellants - Balshiram and
Dnyandev. It is in her evidence that these appellants told her that
they would see (beat up) her and her family members. The
deceased, thereupon, questioned both of them, whether they
wanted to beat him up. Thereupon, the appellants, except
Nandabai, went back to their Vasti and returned armed with sticks. It
is in the evidence of both PW 2 - Jijabai and PW 1 - Mangal @
Vishakha, that both the appellants - Balshiram and Dnyandev gave
stick blows one after another on the head of Babaji.
13. PW 1 - Vishakha (Mangal) testified the appellants, except
Nandabai, to have said them "तुमचे आज आम्ही कामच करतो" (we will kill them
today). She was confronted with the statement to the police, which
is silent to record this matter (sentence). As such, the evidence of
Vishakha @ Mangal that the appellants told them that they would
finish them, was an improvement over her statement to police. It
appears to have been made with a view to attribute the appellants
with "intention to kill". The evidence of both these witnesses
indicate that Babaji was dragged to some distance. The appellants,
except Nandabai, gave him stick blows. When both PW 1, PW 2
and Satish intervened, they were also beaten up.
14. There is evidence to indicate that Babaji was first rushed
to P.H.C. of village Wafarewadi. Then, he was shifted to the hospital
of Dr.Veer at Ahmednagar. He died of head injury. Although, both
PW 1 and PW 2 were subjected to searching and lengthy cross-
examination, nothing fruitful has come on record in support of the
defence. The question is, whether based on the evidence of these
two witnesses, coupled with the medical evidence, it could be said to
be an offence of murder committed by the appellants in furtherance
of common object of their unlawful assembly.
15. The post mortem report (Exh.132) indicates the
deceased died due to head injury. PW 7 - Dr.Bapusaheb conducted
post mortem. He noticed following two injuries on the person of the
deceased:-
1) Sutured CLW over left parietal region over the left
ear with "C" shape, "C" facing towards the ear with
drain in place with signs of burr hole operation.
2) Fracture supra condylar left elbow.
Although the deceased was allegedly dragged on rough surface in
the field, no other injury was noticed on his person. The scene of
offence panchnama (Exh.98) indicate the soil at some distance from
the scene of offence to have been not in order. Same could not be
termed to be the marks suggesting the deceased to have been
dragged, being relevant under Section 7 of Evidence Act.
16. So far as injuries of PW 1 and PW 2 and Satish are
concerned, those are simple and superficial. After 3-4 days of the
incident, they approached the civil hospital and obtained their injury
certificates.
17. The injury certificates issued by P.H.C, Takli-Dhokeshwar
indicates the following injuries to have been noticed on the person of
the deceased:-
1. C.L.W. over right temporoparietal region of
scalp 4 x 2 x 1 cm.
2. Contusion over left temporoparietal region.
3. Contusion over left elbow joint.
4. Right periorbital edema
Injury No.2 is said to be contusion occurred as a result of injury no.1.
As such, the medical evidence on record indicates the deceased to
have suffered a head injury and fracture over left elbow. Admittedly,
there was no enmity between the appellants on one hand and the
deceased and his family members, on the other. The appellants had
been to the residence of the deceased with a view to convene a
meeting of all the family members. It appears that Some quarrel
ensued between them and the deceased and his widow. The
appellants, except Nandabai, returned to their Vasti, which is located
nearby of the house of the deceased. Admittedly, all of them are
agriculturists. Their Vasti (houses) were on the field itself. Being
agriculturists, the articles like axe, sickle and scythe, etc., are
presumed to be readily available with them at their residences.
None of them came with such an article. Same suggests that none
of them had an intention to do away with Babaji. The appellants,
except Nandabai, were armed with sticks. What kind of sticks those
were, has not been proved. Although, pursuant to the disclosure
statement made by appellant - Balshiram, four articles (Articles 14 to
17) came to be seized, the C.A. report thereof indicates none of the
sticks bears blood stains. There is also nothing to suggest the
deceased to have been assaulted with the very sticks.
18. For ascertaining, whether it is an offence of
murder/culpable homicide not amounting to murder, reference to
Sections 299, 300 and 304 of Indian Penal Code is a must. We
propose to reproduce the same for better appreciation.
299. Culpable homicide - Whoever causes death by
doing an act with the intention of causing death, or
with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is
likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence
of culpable homicide.
300. Murder - Except in the cases hereinafter
excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by
which the death is caused is done with the intention of
causing death, or --
2ndly. -- If it is done with the intention of causing
such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely
to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is
caused, or--
3rdly. -- If it is done with the intention of causing
bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury
intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death, or--
4thly. -- If the person committing the act knows that
it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all
probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death, and commits such act without
any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or
such injury as aforesaid.
304. Punishment for culpable homicide not
amounting to murder -- Whoever commits culpable
homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished
with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years,
and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the
death is caused is done with the intention of causing
death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to
cause death, or with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years,
or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the
knowledge that it is likely to cause death , but without
any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death.
Moreover, Sections 141 and 149 of Indian Penal Code also need to be
adverted to.
141. Unlawful assembly -- An assembly of five or
more persons is designated an "unlawful assembly", if
the common object of the persons composing that
assembly is--
..............
..............
Third. - To commit any mischief or criminal
tresspass, or other offence; or
..............
..............
..............
149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of
offence committed in prosecution of common
object -- If an offence is committed by any member
of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the
common object of that assembly, or such as the
members of that assembly knew to be likely to be
committed in prosecution of that object, every person
who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a
member of the same assembly, is guilty of that
offence.
Explanation to Section 141 of Indian Penal Code indicates that an
assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may
subsequently become an unlawful assembly.
19. The evidence on record indicates that the appellants,
who were five in number, had come to the house of the deceased
only with a view to tell that a meeting was proposed to be convened.
It was not an unlawful assembly when they first came to the house of
the deceased. After an oral wrangle, the appellants (four in number),
except Nandabai, went back to their Vasti and returned armed with
sticks. Same suggests that it was not an act of unlawful assembly.
Their coming back to Vasti and returning with sticks, would lead to
infer that it was their common intention to assault the deceased,
meaning thereby, to cause him hurt. There is, however, evidence to
indicate the appellant - Nandabai to have joined them and even
participated in assaulting PW 2 - Jijabai. Thus, the unlawful
assembly of the appellants got formed.
20. The sticks, seized pursuant to the disclosure statement
made by appellant - Balshiram, could not be said to have been used
in committing the offence. As such, there is no evidence to suggest
what kind/nature of sticks were used. There was, no premeditation
and no prior enmity as well. True, a single blow of stick was proved
to be fatal. It is reiterated that had the appellants really intended
to kill Babaji, they would have come with sharp weapon. Their
coming together armed with sticks indicates that they had
intended/or a common object of their assembly, which was formed
instantaneously was to cause grievous hurt. The injury to elbow was
grievous in nature since it caused fracture. The appellants are,
however, to be presumed to have knowledge that anyone of them
may inflict a forceful blow on the vital body part of Babaji. As such,
the knowledge that anyone of them would make fatal assault, has to
be attributed to one and all of them. Had the appellants really
intended to kill the deceased, all of them would have rained stick
blows either on his head, face or any other vital part of his body. Two
injuries were noticed on his person. One is head injury and other
being fracture to left elbow.
21. In our considered view, the appellants could be said to
have formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of
causing grievous hurts. At the same time, they are to be presumed
to have knowledge that anyone of them may assault on the vital part
of the body of deceased, which may prove fatal. The second limb of
Section 149 of Indian Penal Code speaks about knowledge of any of
the members of unlawful assembly as to nature of offence likely to
be committed in prosecution of the common object. To be precise,
Section 149 of Indian Penal Code is ".............or such as the
members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in
prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the
committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is
guilty of that offence". As such, in our view, it would be an offence
punishable under Section 304 Part II of Indian Penal Code.
22. Since nothing further has been argued by any of learned
counsel for the appellants, we are inclined to allow the appeals by
simply converting the conviction for offence under Section 302 read
with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code into the offence under Section
304 Part II read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. We are not
inclined to interfere with the order of conviction for rest of the
offences.
23. It is reiterated that the deceased died of head injury,
which was caused by a single blow of stick given by appellant -
Balshiram. Another injury in the nature of fracture of elbow of the
deceased was there. It is, however, not clear from the evidence, as
a result of whose assault, the said injury has been caused. As such,
appellant - Balshiram is being held guilty for offence under Section
304 Part II of Indian Penal Code and other appellants are being held
guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of Indian
Penal Code, based on the principle of constructive criminal liability
(Section 149 of IPC).
24. The Apex Court in the case of Dalip Singh and others
Vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364, has observed :-
40. ...............................In cases where the facts
are more fully known and it is possible to determine who
inflicted blows which were fatal and who took a lesser
part, it is a sound exercise of judicial discretion to
discriminate in the matter of punishment. It is an equally
sound exercise of judicial discretion to refrain from
sentencing all to death when it is evident that some would
not have been if the facts had been more fully known and
it had been possible to determine for example, who hit on
the head or who only on a thumb or an ankle; and when
there are no means of determining who dealt the fatal
blow, a judicial mind can legitimately decide to award the
lesser penalty in all the cases. We make it plain that a
Judge is not bound to do so, for he has much right to
exercise his discretion one way as the other. It is
impossible to lay down a hard and fast rule for each case
much depend on its own facts. But if a Judge does do so
for reasons such as those indicated above, then it is
impossible to hold that there has not been a proper
exercise of judicial discretion."
The Apex Court in the case of Hiralal Mallick vs. The State of
Bihar, (1977)4 SCC 44, has observed :-
6. When a crime is committed by the concerted
action of a plurality of persons constructive liability
implicates each participant, but the degree of criminality
may vary depending not only on the injurious sequel but
also on the part played and the circumstances present,
making a personalised approach with reference to each.
Merely because of the fatal outcome, even those whose
intention, otherwise made out to be far less than
homicidal, cannot, by hindsight reading, be meant to have
had a murderous or kindred mens rea. We have, therefore,
to consider in an individualised manner the circumstances
of the involvement of the appellant, his nonage and
expectation of consequences.................
25. The facts of the present case indicate that appellant -
Nandabai did not assault her deceased brother. Although, other
appellants (four in number), allegedly, assaulted the deceased with
stick blows, two injuries were noticed on his person. One is head
injury caused by appellant - Balshiram. The prosecution could not
make out the case as to who was author of the other injury (fracture
of elbow). In our view, therefore, we would be justified in exercise of
judicial discretion to discriminate in punishment/quantum of
sentence.
26. In the result, the appeals partly succeed. Hence, the
following order:-
(i) The appeals are partly allowed.
(ii) The judgment and order dated 01.08.2017 passed by
learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Sessions Case No.26
of 2007, to the extent of convicting and sentencing the appellants for
the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of
Indian Penal Code, is set aside.
Instead, the appellants are convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 of Indian
Penal Code.
(iii) The appellant - Balshiram Bhagaji Wafare is sentenced to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for nine years and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three
months, for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II read
with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The appellants - Dnyandev s/o. Sonyabapu Wafare and
Santosh s/o. Kisan Wafare are sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in
default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months, for the
offence punishable under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 of
Indian Penal Code.
(v) The appellant - Nandabai is directed to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for the period, which she has already undergone, and
to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment
for three months, for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II
read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.
(vi) The appellant - Nandabai need not surrender back to jail.
(vii) The appellants - Dnyandev s/o. Sonyabapu Wafare and
Santosh s/o. Kisan Wafare be released forthwith, if not required in
any other case.
(viii) Rest of the judgment and order dated 01.08.2017 passed
by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Sessions Case
No.26 of 2007, to stand unaltered.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [R.G. AVACHAT, J.]
KBP
