Pukar @ Rampukar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7003 Chatt

                                                                            Cr.A.No.439/2013

                                          Page 1 of 19

                                                                                              AFR

               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                          Criminal Appeal No.439 of 2013

      {Arising out of judgment dated 12-3-2013 in Sessions Trial
    No.73/2012 of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazaar}

Pukar @ Rampukar, S/o Bechan Yadav, age 45 years, R/o Vill. Kasdol,
Thana Kasdol, Distt. Baloudabazar (C.G.)
                                                     ---- Appellant

                                             Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Kasdol, Tahsil Bilaigarh, Distt. Raipur
(C.G.)
                                                           ---- Respondent

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant:                  Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate.
For Respondent/State: Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Deputy Govt. Advocate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and
                       Hon'ble Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey, JJ.

Judgment On Board (22/11/2022)

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC filed by the

appellant herein is directed against the impugned judgment dated

12-3-2013, by which he has been convicted under Sections 302

read with Section 34, 364 & 201 of the IPC and sentenced to

undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of ₹ 1,000/-, in

default of payment of fine to further undergo additional rigorous

imprisonment for six months; rigorous imprisonment for ten years Cr.A.No.439/2013

and pay a fine of ₹ 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further

undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for six months; and

rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of ₹ 200/-, in

default of payment of fine to further undergo additional rigorous

imprisonment for six months, respectively.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16-2-2011 at about

10.30 p.m. from the country made liquor shop at Village Moipar,

the appellant herein and four other co-accused persons (now

declared absconded) abducted one Shyam Gupta / deceased and in

furtherance of common intention, caused his death and in

furtherance of their criminal conspiracy, in order to screen

themselves from the offence, they concealed the dead body of the

deceased and thereby committed the above stated offences.

Further case of the prosecution, in brief, is that deceased Shyam

Gupta, the appellant herein and other co-accused persons were

working in the liquor shop managed by Subhash Gupta and owned

by Shrawan Gupta Thakur. From 16-2-2011, 10.45 p.m.,

deceased Shyam Gupta went missing from the country made liquor

shop of Mudipar which was reported by the brother of the

deceased to Police Station Kasdol as missing report Ex.P-3

suspecting the appellant and other co-accused persons of the

offence pursuant to which FIR for offence punishable under Section

365 read with Section 34 of the IPC was registered against the Cr.A.No.439/2013

appellant and other accused persons (absconded) vide Ex.P-23.

Thereafter, on the report of Kotwar Mohandas Manikpuri (PW-

17), morgue vide Ex.P-24 was registered and thereafter, dehati

morgue intimation Ex.P-25 was registered in which it was informed

that near Balamdehi Stop-dam at Turturiya pahadi, in between the

stones, dead body of an unknown person is lying and a muffler and

one blue pant were also lying there. Dead body was recovered on

1-5-2011. Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-9 and dead body

was identified to be of Shyam Gupta vide Exs.P-4 & P-5 and it was

sent for postmortem which was conducted by Dr. S.K. Bagh (PW-

26) vide Ex.P-44 and cause of death was stated to be due to head

injuries and death was homicidal in nature. Thereafter, on 30-10-

2011, memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded vide

Ex.P-12 pursuant to which lathi was seized from Turturiya Pahadi

vide Ex.P-13, it was sent for inviting medical opinion of the doctor

as to whether the injuries found on the body of the deceased have

been caused by the said weapon of offence lathi to which Dr. S.K.

Bagh (PW-26) submitted query report Ex.P-30 that the injuries

found on the body of the deceased could have been caused by the

lathi seized. Seized articles were sent for forensic examination to

the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, vide Ex.P-35 and

acknowledgment receipt of the same was also received from the

FSL, Raipur, vide Ex.P-34, but the FSL report was not brought on

record. Bones of the deceased were also sent for DNA test, but no Cr.A.No.439/2013

such report was brought on record.

3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of

the CrPC.. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was

filed against the appellant before the jurisdictional criminal court

which was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial and hearing

and disposal in accordance with law.

4. The trial Court has framed charge against the appellant for offences

under Sections 364, 302 read with Section 34, in alternative,

Section 302 read with Section 120B and Section 201 of the IPC

and proceeded on trial. The appellant abjured guilt and entered

into defence stating that he has not committed the offence and he

has been falsely implicated.

5. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence examined as

many as 26 witnesses and exhibited 44 documents Exhibits P-1 to

P-44 and also Article A - X-Ray report. Two documents Exhibits

D-1 & D-2 - statements of Ram Sundar Gupta & Smt. Nandani

Gupta recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, have been

exhibited on behalf of the defence, but no witness has been

examined. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section

313 of the CrPC in which he abjured guilt and pleaded innocence.

6. The trial Court after completion of trial and after appreciating oral

and documentary evidence available on record, convicted and

sentenced the appellant in the manner mentioned in the opening Cr.A.No.439/2013

paragraph of this judgment against which this appeal under Section

374(2) of the CrPC has been preferred by him calling in question

the impugned judgment.

7. Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant,

would submit that only on the basis of motive allegedly found

proved against the appellant and furthermore, subsequent conduct

of the appellant absconding from the liquor shop and on the basis

of alleged last seen together theory, the appellant has been

convicted, whereas, the appellant and the deceased were last seen

together on 16-2-2011 and dead body of the deceased was found

on 1-5-2011, as such, there is long gap between last seen together

of the appellant & the deceased and recovery of the dead body of

the deceased and on that basis, conviction cannot be rested, and

moreover, in order to rely upon last seen evidence, corroboration

is required. He would further submit that subsequent conduct may

be relevant, but conviction cannot rest on the basis of subsequent

conduct in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter

of Subramanya v. State of Karnataka1 and as such, the impugned

judgment deserves to be set aside and the appeal deserves to be

allowed by acquitting the appellant of the charges levelled against

him.

8. Ms. Ruchi Nagar, learned State counsel, would support the

impugned judgment and submit that the trial Court has found 1 AIR 2022 SC 5110 Cr.A.No.439/2013

proved the motive for the offence and the appellant & the

deceased were last seen together on 16-2-2011 and immediately

thereafter, the appellant remained absconded from the liquor shop

in which he was working, this being the subsequent conduct which

is related under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the

trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and therefore

conviction cannot be competently questioned by the appellant

herein and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their

rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the

record with utmost circumspection.

10. The appellant has been convicted for abducting Shyam Gupta, aged

about 35 years, and for murdering him along with four other co-

accused persons namely, Subhash Gupta, Mithlesh @ Shriram,

Manoj Kumar & Ramlal (now absconding). It is the case of the

prosecution that all five were working in the liquor shop situated at

Village Mudipar owned by Shrawan Gupta Thakur and it was being

managed by one of the accused Subhash Gupta. It is the further

case of the prosecution that on 16-2-2011, said Shyam Gupta

(deceased) collected the daily sale of liquor from the other shop

run by Arvind Prasad Gupta (PW-8) and thereafter, went missing

upon which Ram Sundar (PW-3) - brother of the deceased,

reported to the police station vide his missing report Ex.P-3 Cr.A.No.439/2013

suspecting upon the appellant and four other absconded accused

persons that they may have committed the murder of his brother

and concealed his body pursuant to which report was lodged and

the wheels of investigation started running.

11. On 1-5-2011, pursuant to the report of Kotwar Mohandas

Manikpuri (PW-17), morgue was registered vide Ex.P-24 and

thereafter, on that basis, dehati morgue intimation was registered

Ex.P-25. Dead body was recovered on 1-5-2011, after more than

two months from the date of missing, and was identified by the

brother of the deceased - Ram Sundar (PW-3) as the body of

deceased Shyam Gupta and panchnama was conducted and the

dead body was sent for postmortem in which cause of death was

found to be head injuries and death was found to be homicidal in

nature. Thereafter, pursuant to the memorandum statement of the

appellant recorded on 30-10-2011, after five months of recovery

of the dead body, vide Ex.P-12, seizure of lathi was made vide

Ex.P-13 and it was sent for inviting medical opinion of doctor

whereupon Dr. S.K. Bagh (PW-26) in his query report Ex.P-30 has

opined that the injuries found on the body of the deceased could

have been caused by the lathi which was seized pursuant to the

memorandum statement of the appellant. However, though the

said lathi was sent to the FSL for chemical analysis, but the FSL

report was not brought on record to hold that the said lathi was Cr.A.No.439/2013

used as the weapon of offence.

12. The trial Court has held the death of the deceased to be homicidal

in nature which is a finding of fact based on the evidence available

on record, though it was specifically not recorded by the trial

Court that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, but

we hold the death of the deceased to be homicidal in nature in

view of the postmortem report Ex.P-44 proved by Dr. S.K. Bagh

(PW-26).

13. The trial Court in order to hold the appellant guilty for the

aforesaid offences though reached to the conclusion in paragraph

40 of the judgment that the appellant assaulted the deceased, but

no express finding / reasoning has been recorded in the entire

judgment to hold him guilty for offence under Section 364 of the

IPC and further recorded finding in paragraphs 35 to 37 that on

16-2-2011 up to 8.00 p.m., the deceased was alive and also held

that deceased Shyam Gupta and the appellant were seen together

last time up to 8.00 p.m. and thereafter, the appellant has

absconded which is relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence

Act, 1872. In sum and substance, basis of the trial Court for

conviction of the appellant is the subsequent conduct of the

appellant that he was last seen together with the deceased and

further conduct of the appellant that false explanation has been

offered by the appellant with regard to deceased Shyam Gupta that Cr.A.No.439/2013

he absconded along with ₹ 20,000/- which he has collected from

Arvind Prasad Gupta (PW-8), on behalf of owner.

14. Now, we will deal with the circumstances found proved by the trial

Court, one by one.

15. The first finding which the trial Court has recorded is that the

appellant was last seen together along with deceased Shyam Gupta

on 16-2-2011 and thereafter the deceased went missing.

Admittedly, in the instant case, the appellant and the deceased

were last seen alive on 16-2-2011 up to 8.00 p.m., whereas dead

body of the deceased was recovered on 1-5-2011, after more than

2½ months, and there is considerable time gap between last seen

together of the appellant & the deceased and recovery of the dead

body of the deceased.

16.In the matter of Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar2, it has been held by

their Lordships of the Supreme Court that conviction cannot be

made solely on the basis of theory of 'last seen together' and

observed in paragraph 31 as under :-

"31. Thus the evidence that the appellant had gone to Sitaram in the evening of 19-7-1985 and had stayed in the night at the house of deceased Sitaram is very shaky and inconclusive. Even if it is accepted that they were there it would at best amount tothough a number of witnesses have been examined be the evidence of the appellants having been seen last together with the deceased. But it is settled law that the only circumstance of last seen will not complete the chain of circumstances 2 1994 Supp (2) SCC 372 Cr.A.No.439/2013

to record the finding that it is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and, therefore, no conviction on that basis alone can be founded."

17.Likewise, in the matter of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran3, the

Supreme Court has held that the circumstance of last seen together

would be a relevant circumstance in a case where there was no

possibility of any other person meeting or approaching the

deceased at the place of incident or before the commission of

crime in the intervening period. It was observed in paragraph 34

as under :-

"34. From the principle laid down by this Court, the circumstance of last-seen together would normally be taken into consideration for finding the accused guilty of the offence charged with when it is established by the prosecution that the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were found together alive and when the deceased was found dead is so small that possibility of any other person being with the deceased could completely be ruled out. The time gap between the accused persons seen in the company of the deceased and the detection of the crime would be a material consideration for appreciation of the evidence and placing reliance on it as a circumstance against the accused. But, in all cases, it cannot be said that the evidence of last seen together is to be rejected merely because the time gap between the accused persons and the deceased last seen together and the crime coming to light is after a considerable long duration. There can be no fixed or straight jacket formula for the duration of time gap in this regard and it would depend upon the evidence led by the prosecution to remove the possibility of any other person meeting the deceased in the intervening period, that is to say, if the prosecution is

3 (2007) 3 SCC 755 Cr.A.No.439/2013

able to lead such an evidence that likelihood of any person other than the accused, being the author the crime, becomes impossible, then the evidence of circumstance of last seen together, although there is long duration of time, can be considered as one of the circumstances in the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt against such accused persons. Hence, if the prosecution proves that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no possibility of any other person meeting or approaching the deceased at the place of incident or before the commission of the crime, in the intervening period, the proof of last seen together would be relevant evidence. For instance, if it can be demonstrated by showing that the accused persons were in exclusive possession of the place where the incident occurred or where they were last seen together with the deceased, and there was no possibility of any intrusion to that place by any third party, then a relatively wider time gap would not affect the prosecution case. "

18. Similarly, in the matter of Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan4, their

Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that the

circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily

lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the

crime and there must be something more establishing connectivity

between the accused and the crime. Mere non-explanation on the

part of the appellant in our considered opinion, by itself cannot

lead to proof of guilt against the appellant. It has been held in

paragraphs 15 and 16 as under :-

"15. The theory of last seen - the appellant having gone with the deceased in the manner noticed hereinbefore, is the singular piece of circumstantial evidence available against him. The conviction of the appellant cannot be

4 (2014) 4 SCC 715 Cr.A.No.439/2013

maintained merely on suspicion, however strong it may be, or on his conduct. These facts assume further importance on account of absence of proof of motive particularly when it is proved that there was cordial relationship between the accused and the deceased for a long time. The fact situation bears great similarity to that in Madho Singh v. State of Rajasthan1.

16. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it is not possible to sustain the impugned judgment and sentence. This appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant-accused Kanhaiya Lal are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge by giving benefit of doubt. He is directed to be released from the custody forthwith unless required otherwise."

19. In the matter of Anjan Kumar Sarma v. State of Assam5, their

Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that in a case

where other links have been satisfactorily made out and

circumstances point to guilt of accused, circumstance of last seen

together and absence of explanation would provide an additional

link which completes the chain. In absence of proof of other

circumstances the only circumstance of last seen together and

absence of satisfactory explanation, cannot be made basis of

conviction.

20. In the matter of Navaneethakrishnan v. State by Inspector of

Police6, the Supreme Court has held that though the evidence of

last seen together could point to the guilt of the accused, but this

evidence alone cannot discharge the burden of establishing the guilt

5 (2017) 14 SCC 359 6 (2018) 16 SCC 161 Cr.A.No.439/2013

of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and requires

corroboration, and observed in paragraph 22 as under: -

"22. PW 11 was able to identify all the three accused in the court itself by recapitulating his memory as those persons who came at the time when he was washing his car along with John Bosco and further that he had last seen all of them sitting in the Omni van on that day and his testimony to that effect remains intact even during the cross-examination in the light of the fact that the said witness has no enmity whatsoever against the appellants herein and he is an independent witness. Once the testimony of PW 11 is established and inspires full confidence, it is well established that it is the accused who were last seen with the deceased specially in the circumstances when there is nothing on record to show that they parted from the accused and since then no activity of the deceased can be traced and their dead bodies were recovered later on. It is a settled legal position that the law presumes that it is the person, who was last seen with the deceased, would have killed the deceased and the burden to rebut the same lies on the accused to prove that they had departed. Undoubtedly, the last seen theory is an important event in the chain of circumstances that would completely establish and/or could point to the guilt of the accused with some certainty. However, this evidence alone cannot discharge the burden of establishing the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and requires corroboration."

21. In Sanjay Thakran's case (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme

Court found that there was considerable time gap of approximately

8½ hours when the deceased was last seen alive with the accused

persons and their Lordships held that there being a considerable

time gap between the persons seen together and the proximate

time of crime, the circumstance of last seen together, even if Cr.A.No.439/2013

proved, cannot clinchingly fasten the guilt on the accused.

22. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the principles

of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the

aforesaid decisions particularly, in light of Sanjay Thakran's case

(supra), there was considerable time gap of 73 days between the

deceased was last seen together with the appellant and recovery of

the dead body of the deceased. Since there was considerable time

gap between last seen together of the deceased with the appellant

and recovery of the dead body of the deceased, the circumstances

of last seen together, even if proved, cannot point to the guilt of

the accused in absence of any corroboration as held by the

Supreme Court in Navaneethakrishnan (supra). In absence of

proof of other circumstances or chain of circumstances, only the

theory of 'last seen together' cannot be made the sole basis for

conviction of the appellant as it would be unsafe to rest conviction

only on the theory of 'last seen together'.

23. The next circumstance pointed out by the prosecution found

proved by the trial Court is subsequent conduct of the appellant, as

immediately after the incident, the deceased went missing on 16-2-

2011 after 8.00 p.m. and next day, the appellant and other co-

accused persons also went missing which is relevant conduct under

Section 8 of the Evidence Act.

24. Section 8 of the Evidence Act states as under: -

Cr.A.No.439/2013

"8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct.--Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.

The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.

Explanation 1. The word 'conduct' in this section does not include statements, unless those statements accompany and explain acts other than statements; but this explanation is not to affect the relevancy of statements under any other section of this Act.

Explanation 2. When the conduct of any person is relevant, any statement made to him or in his presence and hearing, which affects such conduct, is relevant."

25. Conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act is admissible only, if

it influences or is influenced by any fact in issue, or relevant fact

(see Anant Chintaman Lagu v. State of Bombay7). The conduct of

the accused is relevant only for the purpose of proving his guilt.

The piece of conduct can be held to be incriminatory, which has

no reasonable explanation, except on the hypothesis that he is

guilty. That is to say, conduct, which destroys the presumption of

innocence, can alone be considered as material.

26. Mere absconding by itself does not necessarily lead to a firm

conclusion of guilty mind. The act is a relevant piece of evidence 7 AIR 1960 SC 500 Cr.A.No.439/2013

to be considered along with other evidence, but its value would

depend upon the circumstances of each case. Normally, evidence

for sustaining a conviction can scarcely be held as a determining

link in completing the chain of circumstantial evidence, which must

admit of no other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused.

(See Matru v. State of Uttar Pradesh8.)

27. The absconding by itself is not conclusive of either guilt or guilty

conscience (see Rahman v. State of Uttar Pradesh9). Absconding

may lend weight to other evidence establishing the guilt of an

accused, but by itself, is hardly any evidence of guilt. Absconding

is a weak link in the chain of circumstances and is not conclusive

either of the guilt or guilty conscience.

28. Mere abscondence of an accused is a very weak circumstance and

cannot form the basis of conviction (see Krishna Sewak v. State10).

Mere absconding should not form the basis of a conviction. It

comes in as a very useful piece of corroborative evidence, if there

is other evidence to connect the accused with the crime, but per se

absconding is not enough to bring home the charge to the person

who has absconded.

29. In a murder case, where the accused absconded from the village

after the incident, it was held by the Supreme Court that mere

abscondence cannot form the fulcrum of a guilty mind but it is a 8 AIR 1971 SC 1050 9 AIR 1972 SC 110 10 1988 MPLJ 481 Cr.A.No.439/2013

relevant piece of evidence to be considered along with other

evidence and its value would always depend upon the

circumstances of each case (see Mritunjoy Biswas v. Pranab11).

30. Very recently, the Supreme Court in Subramanya (supra) has

clearly held that conduct of an accused may be relevant under

Section 8 of the Evidence Act, but cannot form basis for

conviction that too for an offence of murder and observed in

paragraph 89 as under: -

"89. In the aforesaid context, we would like to sound a note of caution. Although the conduct of an accused may be a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, yet the same, by itself, cannot be a ground to convict him or hold him guilty and that too, for a serious offence like murder. Like any other piece of evidence, the conduct of an accused is also one of the circumstances which the court may take into consideration along with the other evidence on record, direct or indirect. What we are trying to convey is that the conduct of the accused alone, though may be relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, cannot form the basis of conviction."

31. The last circumstance that has been found proved by the trial Court

is, the appellant has given false explanation with regard to the

deceased stating that he has absconded along with ₹ 20,000/-

which was collected from the shop of Arvind Prasad Gupta (PW-

8), though the appellant has not lodged report pursuant to the fact

that deceased Shyam Gupta absconded with ₹ 20,000/-.

32. The fact remains that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond 11 (2013) 12 SCC 796 Cr.A.No.439/2013

reasonable doubt by leading direct or circumstantial evidence. In

case of circumstantial evidence, the five golden principles which

constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on

circumstantial evidence laid down by the Supreme Court in the

matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 12 for

proving an offence against the accused person in a case based on

circumstantial evidence have to be proved by the prosecution

beyond reasonable doubt. Merely giving false explanation may be

an additional circumstance to connect the appellant with the

offence in question, but that cannot be the sole basis for passing

the judgment of conviction.

33. In sum and substance, the theory of last seen together of the

appellant with the deceased is of no help to the prosecution,

because the deceased went missing on 16-2-2011 and dead body

was recovered on 1-5-2011, after lapse of 73 days from the date

of missing. Thus, the time gap is considerably so long when the

deceased was last seen alive with the appellant, as such, the

circumstance of last seen together cannot be made basis to hold the

appellant guilty in absence of corroboration. Therefore, it cannot

be held that the appellant is the perpetrator of the crime that too

in absence of corroboration. Furthermore, subsequent conduct of

the appellant being absconding from the village may be relevant

under Section 8 of the Evidence Act as held by the Supreme Court

12 AIR 1984 SC 1622 Cr.A.No.439/2013

in the judgments noticed herein-above including Subramanya

(supra). Conduct of the accused though relevant under Section 8

of the Evidence Act cannot be the ground to convict him guilty for

offence like murder. Giving false explanation about the deceased

would not be a ground to convict the appellant under Section 302

of the IPC.

34. Accordingly, we set aside the conviction so recorded and the

sentences so awarded by the trial Court to the appellant vide the

impugned judgment dated 12-3-2013. The appellant is acquitted

of the charges under Sections 302 read with Section 34, 364 &

201 of the IPC. He is on bail. He need not surrender. However,

his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in

view of the provision contained in Section 437A of the CrPC.

35. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above.

36. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion about

the other accused persons who are absconding and their cases will

be examined on the basis of the evidence available on record on its

own merit without being influenced by the observations made by

this Court in this judgment. The observations made in this

judgment are only for the purpose of deciding this appeal.

                  Sd/-                                         Sd/-
           (Sanjay K. Agrawal)                      (Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
                 Judge                                        Judge
Soma