[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Rahul S/O. Devidas Mahapure vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 December, 2025
Author: Anil L. Pansare
Bench: Anil L. Pansare
2025:BHC-NAG:14363-DB
J Cri. Appeals-456-2021 & 528-2021.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.456 OF 2021
APPELLANT : Rahul S/o. Devidas Mahapure,
(Ori. Accused no.1) Aged about 35 years, Occu: Agriculturist,
R/o. Amdapur, Tq. Chikhali, District
Buldana (Presently in Jail)
..VERSUS..
RESPONDENT : State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer, P. S.
Amdapur, District Buldana.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.528 OF 2021
APPELLANT Vitthal S/o Ramkisan Dhanwate,
Accused No.2 Aged about 27 Years, Occupation : Driver,
(IN Jail)
R/o, Isoli Tahsil Chikhali, District
Buldhana.
..VERSUS..
RESPONDENT State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer, P. S.
Amdapur, District Buldhana.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri. R. M. Daga, Advocate for Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.456/2021.
Shri. A. M. Kukday, Advocate for Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.528 of 2021
(Appointed).
Shri. K. R. Lule, Addl. P. P. for Respondent/State in both appeals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND
RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 18th NOVEMBER, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 17th DECEMBER, 2025.
J Cri. Appeals-456-2021 & 528-2021.odt 2
JUDGMENT :
(PER : RAJ D. WAKODE, J.)
. Both these appeals arise out of the judgment dated
04.10.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Buldana in
Sessions Case No.83 of 2016. The appellants in both the present
appeals were original accused No.1 and accused No.2 in First
Information Report No.0134 of 2016 registered by the respondent -
Police Station, Amdapur, District Buldana, for the offence punishable
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (hereinafter referred to as, "the IPC").
2. Both the accused are convicted by the learned Sessions
Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section
34 of the IPC and are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in-default to further undergo
simple imprisonment of one year. Thus, both the present appeals are
being decided by the common judgment.
3. The appellants herein were prosecuted and charged by
the learned Sessions Court for committing murder of one Vinod @
Bablu Sadashiv Mahapure on 31.03.2016 between 01:00 and 01:30
hours in the premises of Cotton Market of Amdapur, Taluka Chikhli,
District Buldana. The case of the prosecution was that deceased Vinod
Sadashiv Mahapure was paid Rs.8 lakh by the appellant - Rahul
Devidas Mahapure in Criminal Appeal No.456 of 2021 (hereinafter
referred to as, "the accused No.1") for selling the property. However,
deceased Vinod did not execute the conveyance in favour of the
accused No.1 and hence, the accused No.1 with the help of appellant
- Vitthal Ramkisan Dhanwate (hereinafter referred to as, "the accused
No.2") in Criminal Appeal No.528 of 2021 committed the murder of
Vinod Sadashiv Mahapure by hanging him.
4. The prosecution case was based upon the direct
evidence i.e. on the basis of two eyewitnesses namely Gajanan Sonaji
Chopade - PW-6 and Ravindra @ Amol Ambadas Pakhare - PW-10.
These two eyewitnesses had deposed before the learned Sessions
Court that they had seen the present appellants i.e. accused Nos.1 and
2 committing murder of deceased Vinod. The learned Sessions Court
also held that the aforesaid evidence was supported by the medical
evidence so also by the oral evidence of PW-5, Sima Vinod Mahapure,
PW-7, Bharat Sugdeo Khandalkar, PW-8, Parmeshwar Madhukar
Deulkar, PW-21, Milind Shivajirao Pathak and PW-22, Nishant
Shankarrao Meshram and other witnesses. Thus, the learned Sessions
Court has convicted the accused Nos.1 and 2 relying upon the
aforesaid evidence and has sentenced them to suffer life
imprisonment.
5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and
punishment, the accused Nos.1 and 2 have approached this Court
assailing the impugned judgment dated 04.10.2021 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Buldana in Sessions Case No.83 of 2016.
6. We have heard Shri. R. M. Daga, learned counsel for
appellant in Criminal Appeal No.456 of 2021, Shri. Amit Kukday,
learned counsel appointed for appellant in Criminal Appeal No.528 of
2021 and Shri. K. R. Lule, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent/State in both the appeals.
7. We have gone through the evidence, the documents on
record and the impugned judgment dated 04.10.2021. We will refer
to the same to the extent if necessary to decide the following points
arise for our consideration. We have recorded our findings thereon for
the reasons to follow :
Sr. Points Finding
No.
i) Does the prosecution prove that In the affirmative
deceased Vinod Sadashiv Mahapure
died homicidal death?
ii) Does the prosecution prove that the In the negative
accused Nos.1 and 2 in furtherance
of common intention, did commit
murder by intentionally or
knowingly causing death of Vinod
Sadashiv Mahapure and thereby
committed an offence punishable
under Section 302 read with
Section 34 of the IPC ?
iii) Whether inference is called for in In the affirmative
the impugned judgment?
iv) What order ? Appeals allowed.
8. REASONS :
As to point Nos.(i) to (iii):
Deceased Vinod Sadashiv Mahapure was found hanging
from the tree near Cotton Market Godown on 31.03.2016 at about
06:00 a.m. Accordingly, PW-1, Prashant Jagnnath Pathare, had lodged
an oral report below Exhibit - 52 at page No.22 informing the
respondent - Police Station Amdapur, District Buldana that Vinod
Sadashiv Mahapure had committed suicide. The respondent - Police
Station Amdapur, District Buldana registered A.D. Case No.14 of
2016. The respondent had conducted the inquest panchanama of
deceased Vinod and so also the postmortem examination. The doctor
who conducted the postmortem examination was examined by the
prosecution as PW-18, Dr. Mina Dilip Kasare, who deposed that the
postmortem examination revealed that the injuries were ante-mortem
in nature and were mentioned in column No.17 as below :
"(i) Ligature mark reddish brown in colour, 18 Inch in length
and ½ Inch in width, running between nose and upper lip
anteriorly and running slightly obliquely upward and backward
upto behind right ear,
(ii) Slight abrasion to lips with haemorrhage,
(iii) Abrasion on abdomen right side of lateral aspect, just
below lower rib of size 4 cm. X 2 cm.,
(iv) Abrasion on back right scapular area of size 2 cm. X 2 cm."
9. The aforesaid injuries mentioned in column No.17 were
corroborated by the corresponding findings relating to the internal
injuries noted in column No.19 and the doctor opined that the cause
of death was asphyxia due to hanging. The learned Sessions Court
had observed that nothing fruitful was elicited in the cross-
examination so as to disbelieve the testimony of PW-18, Dr. Mina
Dilip Kasare, and her opinion that the death was homicidal. Even
otherwise, the ligature mark on the body of the deceased was
described by PW-18 as running in between the nose and the upper lip
and such a ligature mark would not be possible if a person hangs
himself while committing suicide. There was no ligature mark on the
neck of deceased Vinod. This fact clearly proves that the death of
deceased Vinod was neither suicidal nor accidental, but homicidal.
Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered in affirmative.
10. Once it is held that the death of deceased was
homicidal, the next question arises as to who has committed the
murder of deceased Vinod Sadashiv Mahapure. The learned Sessions
Court, relying upon the prosecution's evidence, has come to the
conclusion that accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed the murder of
deceased Vinod and accordingly has convicted them for the offence of
murder. However, we will examine the aforesaid evidence on the basis
of which such conclusion was drawn by the learned Sessions Court,
and accordingly, address the issue No. 2.
11. Deceased Vinod Sadashiv Mahapure was found hanging
from the tree on 31.03.2016 at around 06:00 a.m. in the morning.
PW-1, Prashant Jagnnath Pathare, has deposed before the learned
Sessions Court that he had lodged an oral report (Exhibit - 52) on
31.03.2016 with respondent. The aforesaid report was of suicide and
accordingly, the respondent has initially investigated the matter from
the point of view of suicide. The inquest panchanama at Exhibit - 57
at record page No.33 also clearly mentions that the dead body was
hanging from the tree and the snare was between the nose and upper
lip. There were no substantial injuries on the body of deceased Vinod
except two abrasions. The postmortem report at Exhibit-99, record
page No.118, also indicates that the cause of death was asphyxia due
to hanging. From 31.03.2016 to 09.06.2016, when the second oral
complaint was lodged by PW-3, Rameshwar Gangadhar Jaybhaye, the
respondent treated the aforesaid case as a case of suicide. On
09.06.2016, the First Information Report No.0134 of 2016 came to be
registered against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for committing
homicide of the deceased and accordingly, the respondent started
investigation from the point of view of homicide.
12. Immediately, on the same day i.e. on 09.06.2016, the
present accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested. On 15.06.2016, the
memorandum panchanama under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872, was drawn which is at Exhibit-69, record page No.62,
wherein the accused No.1, Rahul Devidas Mahapure, confessed to his
offence and informed as to how, with the help of accused No.2,
Vitthal Ramkisan Dhanwate, he committed murder of deceased Vinod
Sadashiv Mahapure. He also pointed out the spot of tin shade where
he had kept a rope and the tablet which he used for sedating the
deceased. On the basis of aforesaid memorandum panchanama, a
seizure panchanama was also conducted which is at Exhibit - 71, at
record page No.64.
13. Thus, the fact remains that it was only after 09.06.2016
that the respondent started investigating the matter from a homicidal
angle. The present case connects accused Nos.1 and 2 to the crime on
the basis of the testimony of two eyewitnesses i.e. PW-6 and PW-10,
apart from the aforesaid memorandum panchanama, seizure reports
and other witnesses. The learned Sessions Court, in para No.33 of the
impugned judgment, has itself recorded that the statements of the
aforesaid eyewitnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure were recorded for the first time on 09.06.2016, and
supplementary statements on 04.10.2016. The eyewitnesses, being
residents of the said village, were personally knowing deceased Vinod
so also the accused persons and still they took almost three months
time to inform the aforesaid incident to the respondent Police Station.
14. The second eyewitness i.e. PW-10, Ravindra @ Amol
Ambadas Pakhare, has deposed in his examination in-chief that on
31.03.2016, he went to the alleged spot at 07:00 to 07:30 a.m.
wherein the mob and police officials were gathered. He also attended
the funeral of the deceased and in the funeral, relatives of the
deceased were present. However, he has not informed about the
incident to either to the relatives or to the police. The aforesaid
conduct of PW-10 is unnatural. Similar is the case with PW-6 Gajanan
Sonaji Chopade. The prosecution's witness PW-21, Milind Shivajirao
Pathak, in his evidence, has admitted in his cross-examination that
prior to recording of the statements of the aforesaid two witnesses by
him, the statements of the aforesaid witnesses were recorded four
months earlier by Shri. Meshram. He further admitted the fact that
the aforesaid incident which was narrated by the witnesses to him
were not stated by the aforesaid witnesses in their earlier statements.
15. Thus, the fact remains that both eyewitnesses had an
occasion from 31.03.2016 to 09.06.2016 to inform the police about
the aforesaid incident, but neither they on their own nor after
interrogation by the respondent, had informed the aforesaid fact to
the authorities of having witnessed the crime. Such conduct by the
aforesaid eyewitnesses, i.e., PW-6 and PW-10, raises serious doubts
regarding their veracity. The aforesaid doubt is further increased by
the fact that they did not inform the aforesaid incident to the police
on 09.06.2016 also but on 04.10.2016 for the first time and thus, in
our opinion, the aforesaid two eyewitnesses lose their veracity for the
inordinate delay in informing the aforesaid incident to the police. In
our opinion, such delay is extremely detrimental to the prosecution's
case.
16. The fact further remains that the sequence of evidence
as narrated by the aforesaid eyewitnesses as to how the murder of
deceased Vinod was committed by the present accused Nos.1 and 2
also varies. PW-6, in his examination-in-chief, has narrated the
sequence as below :
"Thereafter Vitthal climbed on the Neem tree; he tied the rope
on the branch of tree. Thereafter both of them removed one
person from the vehicle. Thereafter all the three persons
climbed on the bonnet and Rahul and Vitthal put the snare
(फास) in the neck of that person. After that, both of them
alighted from the bonnet. Thereafter Rahul moved the vehicle
ahead and stopped at some distance and came back and Rahul
pulled the legs of person hung on the Neem tree."
17. Whereas, the another eyewitness i.e. PW-10, Ravindra
@ Amol Ambadas Pakhare, has deposed the aforesaid sequence in his
examination-in-chief as below :
"Around 12-00 to 12-30 night, we were coming from hotel.
On Amdapur - Undri road, on left side there is a shed of
Rahul Mahapure. Near that shed, one white colour Tavera
vehicle was stationed. The lights of vehicle were on. On
driver's seat, Rahul Mahapure was there. On middle seat,
somebody was there. We moved our motor cycle ahead. We
stopped at a some distance for urination. After some time,
that Tavera vehicle went and stopped near to the Neem tree
in Cotton Market. The lights of the vehicle were on. Rahul
was on driver seat; one person was beside him. Both the
persons alighted from the vehicle. The doors of vehicle were
opened. The person on the middle seat was removed from
the vehicle. That person was caused to stand near the
vehicle. We felt that the said person was Bablu Mahapure.
Firstly, Bablu Mahapure was pulled on the vehicle; thereafter
he was hanged on the Neem tree. Thereafter those two
persons jumped from the vehicle. The vehicle was moved
ahead. The lights of the vehicle were off. Thereafter both the
persons came and pulled the hands and legs of Bablu. We
saw Bablu Mahapure was hanged."
18. Thus, there is a serious variance in the aforesaid
sequence of events. Apart from the omissions brought on record by
the defence, such improvements raise serious doubts about the
credibility of the aforesaid alleged eyewitnesses. The presence of the
aforesaid two eyewitnesses in the midnight at around 01:30 a.m.
appears, in our view, to be unnatural. PW-6, Gajanan Chopade, and
PW-10, Ravindra Pakhare, both deposed that they had been to one
hotel named Yash Hotel on Undri Road for dinner. They had dinner
until approximately 12:15 a.m. in the night and then they started
returning back to their residence from the said hotel and in that span
of period, they saw the incident. It is worth to mention here that the
prosecution has not examined the owner of Yash Hotel to prove the
aforesaid fact. Both witnesses, on a specific question put to them
during cross-examination, admitted that they have neither submitted
the bill of their visit to the hotel to the police nor produced it on the
day of their deposition. Thus, the aforesaid failure of the prosecution
to substantiate the reason for the presence of the aforesaid two
eyewitnesses in the midnight at the spot of incidence makes their
presence unnatural and raises doubt about their testimony.
19. PW-6, Gajanan Chopade, in his examination-in-chief,
himself deposed that he saw the incident from a distance of
approximately 1200 meters, which is highly improbable in the
midgnight at the spot of incident, where there was no source of light.
The alleged source of light, as claimed by the witnesses, was the
headlights of the Tavera vehicle, which were allegedly on. However,
the investigating officer, PW-22, Nishant Meshram, during his cross-
examination, specifically admitted that he had not prepared a
separate panchanama regarding the vehicle's lamp or verified that it
was in working condition. Thus, both the source of light so also the
presence of the eyewitnesses at the time of the incident comes under
cloud.
20. PW-6, Gajanan Chopade, in his cross-examination, had
specifically admitted that his first statement was recorded by the
police after two to three days of the incident. The fact remains that, at
the very first instance, he has not stated anything about witnessing
the murder of deceased Vinod at the hands of the present appellants.
Therefore, it would not be justified to rely upon the evidence of such
eyewitnesses for convicting the present appellants. A similar situation
arises with PW-10, Ravindra Pakhare, who deposed in his
examination-in-chief that he was present at the spot of incident the
next morning at around 7:00 a.m., along with other people and police
officials gathered there and still he did not inform anyone about the
incident at that time. He has specifically admitted in his cross-
examination that he had told the incident to the police for the first
time on 10.06.2016. He has also admitted in his cross-examination
that he has not obtained any bill from the hotel where he had been
with PW-6, Gajanan Chopade. Thus, in our considered opinion, the
learned Sessions Court has committed a grave error in law in relying
upon the evidence of these two eyewitnesses, whose conduct,
presence, and depositions were unnatural and contradictory. Hence,
the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside on this
ground alone.
21. The learned Sessions Court has also relied upon the
evidence of PW-5, Sima Vinod Mahapure, the wife of deceased Vinod,
who deposed that her husband had received a telephone call on
30.03.2016 at around 7:00 p.m. When she enquired as to who had
called, he initially stated that it was Vitthal Dhanwate, i.e., accused
No.2, and thereafter stated that it was Rahul Mahapure, i.e., accused
No.1. The learned Sessions Court has also relied upon the oral
complaint lodged by her on 02.04.2016 with the respondent police
station, alleging the homicide of her husband. The aforesaid
complaint dated 02.04.2016 is at Exhibit-74. While accepting the
evidence of PW-5 regarding the alleged telephone call made by the
present appellants to her husband on 30.03.2016, the learned
Sessions Court completely ignored the fact that she failed to disclose
this material fact to the police in her complaint at Exhibit-74. Further,
the fact remains that if the deceased had indeed received the last
phone call from the present appellants in the presence of PW-5, she
would have, in the normal course of human conduct, raised suspicion
against the present appellants in the said oral complaint. However,
Exhibit-74 clearly alleges that some unknown person had committed
the murder of her husband, which materially contradicts her
subsequent deposition.
22. The learned Sessions Court has relied upon the
prosecution theory as to the motive about dispute between accused
No.1 and deceased Vinod. In paragraph 46 of the impugned
judgment, the learned Sessions Court specifically observed that the
deceased had received an amount of Rs.8 lakh from accused No.1,
Rahul Mahapure, towards sale of property, but deceased had not
conveyed the property to accused No.1 and therefore, held that the
motive for eliminating the deceased appeared to be probable.
However, PW-5, Sima Vinod Mahapure, in her cross-examination, has
specifically admitted that for the last eighteen years, accused No.1,
Rahul Mahapure and her husband were not on talking terms. This
admission speaks volumes and renders the alleged motive highly
improbable, if not impossible. The learned Sessions Court also
ignored the fact that the investigating officer, PW-22, Nishant
Meshram, specifically admitted in his cross-examination that he had
not seized any document relating to the said transaction. He further
admitted that he neither collected any evidence nor placed before the
Court any material to show in whose presence the alleged transaction
was conducted. Thus, the learned Sessions Court was not justified in
relying upon the aforesaid alleged motive for convicting the present
appellants.
23. Another piece of evidence on which the learned Sessions
Court has relied in accepting the prosecution theory about the guilt of
the accused is the testimony of PW-7, Bharat Sugdeo Khandalkar.
PW-7 deposed that on 30.03.2016, he was present at his egg-snack
cart and that at around 7:00 p.m., accused No.1 purchased three
omelettes from him. He further deposed that accused No.2 added
'eating acid' ([kk.;kpk lksMk) to one of the omelettes. According to the
prosecution case, accused No.1 had prepared powder from one tablet
and mixed it in the omelette of the deceased, and the said tablet
allegedly acted as a sedative, as a result of which deceased Vinod, fell
asleep during the commission of the offence. The aforesaid evidence
of PW-7 was, according to the learned Sessions Court, corroborated
by the memorandum panchanama of accused No.1 at Exhibit-69, as
well as the seizure panchanama at Exhibit-72, under which one tablet
was seized from the tin shed of accused No.1. The CA report at
Exhibit-100 also confirms that the said tablet was Lorazepam, a
tranquilizer. However, the learned Sessions Court completely ignored
the evidence of PW-18, Dr. Mina Dilip Kasare, who conducted the
postmortem examination and who, after referring to column No.21,
admitted that at the time of postmortem, she had not felt any smell of
Lorazepam or any antibacterial or tranquilizing substance. The
postmortem report at Exhibit-29, particularly column No.21,
corroborates this opinion and does not record the presence of any
such chemical substance.
24. In view of the above, the evidence of PW-7, so also the
memorandum panchanama, seizure panchanama and chemical
analyzer report, in our considered view, lose their significance and did
not connect the present appellants with the offence. Thus, in our
considered opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As regards the remaining
witnesses, their evidence does not materially advance the prosecution
case and is merely formal in nature.
25. The evidence of PW-11, Dhananjay Mohite, is of no use.
PW-13, Rameshwar Sawle, is a formal witness, who has drawn spot
map (Exh.86).
26. Thereafter the prosecution has examined PW-14, Sachin
Dedhe, who has asseverated that he was administered a tablet in the
omelet; he felt the test was bitterish; thereafter he felt giddiness; and
on the next day, he was taken by accused No.1 to his house. What
exactly the prosecution wanted to show, cannot be ascertained from
the evidence of this witness. Hence, much weight-age cannot be given
to the evidence of this witness.
27. Thereafter, prosecution has examined PW-15, Khurshid
Jafarbaig, who is owner of the Tavera vehicle. She asseverated that
deceased was serving as driver with her, on Tavera vehicle since last 5
to 6 years. She has asseverated that lastly the deceased had taken the
vehicle from her custody and did not return till the news of hanging
was heard by them on the next day.
28. Thereafter, prosecution has examined PW-16,
Dnyaneshwar Mahale at Exh.91, through whom the panchanamas of
seizure of mobiles were proved vide Exhibits - 92, 93 and 94. The
panchanamas of mobiles, seizure of the vehicle of the accused were
prepared vide Exhibits - 92, 93 and 94.
29. PW-19, Sawairam Rathod, is the carrier of muddemal
vide letter Exhibits - 105, 106 and 107. The report of Forensic Science
Laboratory is received at Exhibit - 100, wherein it was found the
tablets which were seized and sent for examination was found be
drowsy tablets, "Lorazepam, tranquilizer and Ceftriaxone (an
antibacterial injection) was detected.
30. In our considered opinion, the conviction was based on
evidence that did not establish the involvement of the appellants in
the crime beyond reasonable doubt. We find that the learned Sessions
Court convicted the present appellants on the basis of strong
suspicion created against them by the prosecution from the evidence
collected; however, it is a long-standing principle settled by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that suspicion, however strong, cannot take
the place of proof. Accordingly, the point No.(i) is answered in the
affirmative. The point No.(ii) is answered in the negative and point
No.(iii) is answered in the affirmative. The appeals are allowed in
answer to point No.(iv).
31. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence on
record, both documentary and oral, the impugned judgment and
order dated 04.10.2021 is liale to be quashed and set aside. We,
therefore, proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
i) The present criminal appeals are allowed.
ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 04.10.2021
passed in Sessions Case No.83 of 2016 by the learned Sessions
Judge, Buldana, is hereby quashed and set aside.
iii) The appellants namely "Rahul Devidas Mahapure" in
Criminal Appeal No.456 of 2021 and "Vitthal Ramkisan
Dhanwate" in Criminal Appeal No.528 of 2021, are hereby
acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read
with Section 34 of the IPC.
iv) The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.528 of 2021 viz.
Vitthal Ramkisan Dhanwate shall be released forthwith, if not
required in any other case.
v) The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.456 of 2021 viz.
Rahul Devidas Mahapure was released on bail by suspending
his sentence by this Court vide order dated 16.04.2024 in
Criminal Application No.910 of 2023. The bail bond furnished
by him shall stand cancelled.
32. The fees of the appointed learned counsel
Shri. Amit M. Kukday appearing in Criminal Appeal No.528 of 2021
be quantified and paid as per Rules.
(RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (ANIL L. PANSARE, J.)
TAMBE
Signed by: Mr. Ashish Tambe
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 17/12/2025 15:40:51
