Delhi High Court
Ct.Narender Kumar vs Uoi & Ors. on 8 August, 2011
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved On: 5th July, 2011
Judgment Delivered On: 8th August, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 2029/1998
CT.NARENDER KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.R.M.Tewari and Mr.Jayant
Tewari, Advocates
versus
UOI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Senior Advocate
with Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate
and Mr.Bhupinder Sharma,
Deputy Commandant, BSF
W.P.(C) 2030/1998
CONST.KAPTAN SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.R.M.Tewari and Mr.Jayant
Tewari, Advocates
versus
UOI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Senior Advocate
with Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate
and Mr.Bhupinder Sharma,
Deputy Commandant, BSF
W.P.(C) 2370/1998
EX.NK OM PRAKASH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Bishram Singh, Advocate
versus
UOI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Senior Advocate
with Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate
and Mr.Bhupinder Sharma,
Deputy Commandant, BSF
W.P.(C) No.2029/1998 & Connected Matters Page 1 of 36
W.P.(C) 2434/1998
EX.CONST.RAJ BAHADUR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: None
versus
UOI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Senior Advocate
with Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate
and Mr.Bhupinder Sharma,
Deputy Commandant, BSF
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. Briefly put the facts leading to the filing of the above-
captioned petitions are that petitioners Narender Kumar,
Kaptan Singh and Raj Bahadur Singh were employed as
Constables and petitioner Om Prakash was employed as a
Naik with the Border Security Force (hereinafter referred to
as the „BSF‟) and were attached to the 88th Bn. deployed at
village Chhaturgul in District Srinagar on 23.12.1996.
2. On 24.12.1996, the prosecutrix complained to Subedar
Ajit Singh PW-1, that the petitioners had raped her in the
night of 23.12.1996.
3. In view of the serious allegations leveled by the
prosecutrix, Mr.Shailesh Kumar, 2-IC was detailed to
conduct a preliminary inquiry. Conducting an inquiry he
found a prima-facie case in favour of the complainant and
taking cognizance of the report the Commandant framed
following charge against the petitioners:-
"BSF ACT COMMITTING A CIVIL OFFENCE, THAT
IS
SEC 46 TO SAY, RAPE PUNISHABLE u/s 376 IPC
In that they,
At Chack (Chhaturgul) on 23/12/96 at
1830 Hrs onward committed rape on
prosecutrix of Village - Chack
(Chhaturgul), Teh. Kangan
Distt. Srinagar (J&K)."
4. Complying with the provisions of Rule 45 of the Border
Security Force Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the
„BSF‟ Rules), the Commandant conducted hearing of the
charge and forming an opinion that Record of Evidence
need to be drawn out detailed Shailesh Kumar, Assistant
Commandant (Tech), to conduct the proceedings pertaining
to the Record of Evidence.
5. Record of Evidence proceedings being completed and
Record of Evidence submitted and considering the same
Inspector General, BSF Srinagar Frontier, directed that a
General Security Force Court (hereinafter referred to as the
„GFSC‟) be convened to jointly try the petitioners and at the
trial the prosecution examined 16 witnesses.
6. Noting the testimony of the material witnesses, we
highlight that the prosecutrix PW-6, deposed that she is a
married woman and had 6 children. On 22.12.1996, which
was a Sunday, at about 10.00 AM the petitioners came to
her house and enquired about her husband and she told
them that her husband was not present in the house having
gone to Jammu for treatment. Thereafter the petitioners
conducted a search of her house and left after about 15-20
minutes. On the same day, at about 07.30 P.M., when she
and her children were about to take dinner, someone
knocked at the main door of her house. The door was
knocked 3-4 times as a result whereof the middle portion of
the door broke; the latch of the door got uprooted and the
door opened by itself. She saw the petitioners standing
there. She took an oil lamp in her hand and informed her
daughter that the petitioners had again come to the house.
Petitioner Om Prakash took the lamp from her hand, broke
the same and told her that he was going to conduct a
search of her house, upon which she told him that he had
already conducted a search of her house in the morning.
Petitioner Om Prakash told her that his superior officer had
directed him to search her house, upon which she relented
and permitted her house to be searched. Om Prakash told
her to open the door of the cattle shed. Thereafter Om
Prakash caught hold of her hand and forcibly took her inside
the cattle shed. Om Prakash asked her to remove her
clothes upon which she requested him to leave and upon
her refusal to remove her clothes Om Prakash pulled her
hair and manhandled her, as a result whereof, she sustained
an injury in her left knee and forehead. Her wrist watch
broke during the scuffle between her and Om Prakash who
tore her clothes and raped her. Thereafter, petitioner
Kaptan Singh came and raped her. As she was being raped
by Kaptan Singh she raised her voice and told her daughters
that in case someone makes enquiries about her, they
should tell them that she has been killed by the force
personnel who had visited their house in the morning upon
which petitioner Om Prakash said that they should take her
in the forest and kill all of them. Thereafter petitioner
Narender Kumar and Raj Bahadur also raped her. Before
leaving her house, Om Prakash threatened to kill her and
her children in case she reported the incident to anyone.
After about five minutes her daughters Nazma and Zamila
came to her and helped her to move to the adjoining room.
On the next day, at about 11.00 A.M. her eldest daughter
Naseema came to her house and she informed her that she
was raped by the force personnel the previous night. She
also told her that the force personnel had threatened her
children. At that time Naseema saw some force personnel
carrying food outside their house. She and her daughter
rushed to them and informed them that 4 force personnel
had raped her the previous night and that she could identify
the said persons. At about 04.00 P.M. the force personnel,
along with their superior officer, came to her house. The
petitioners were mixed up with other force personnel and
she was asked to identify the culprits. She correctly
identified the petitioners from amongst the group of the
force personnel. On 27.12.1996 the superior officer came to
her house and conducted an inspection of the place of
occurrence and also gave her `200/-. She identified the
petitioners on three occasions, firstly on the day after the
incident, secondly on 27.12.1996 and thirdly on 29.12.1996.
On being questioned about petitioner Raj Bahadur raping
her she said: (Quote) „The accused No.4 did not penetrate
his penis inside my vagina and I could not feel when the
semen was ejaculated. Now the witness says that the penis
was penetrated inside her vagina by all the accused persons
and the accused No.2,3 and 4 did as the accused No.1 had
done with her. I could feel the semen being discharged
inside me. After the ejaculation by the accused, I also got
discharged. The accused No.4 did not penetrate inside.
Whereas, the accused No.2 and 3 had penetrated and
discharged inside....The three accused persons i.e. 1,2 and
3 raped me ruthlessly. However, the accused No.4 raped me
without any ruthlessness in one position. All the four
accused persons penetrated their penis in my vagina,
however, the accused No.4 kept it inside for a very less
time. I felt the ejaculation inside my vagina by the accused
no.1,2 and 4, however, the accused No.4 did not ejaculate
inside.‟
7. The prosecutrix was cross-examined with respect to a
statement made by her during Record of Evidence when she
was examined, the statement being indicating finger
towards NK Om Prakash and Const. Kaptan Singh, the
prosecutrix further stated that after breaking into my house
through door NK Om Prakash came first and then Const.
Kaptan Singh, due to darkness I am unable to say that after
them who came on third and fourth but four persons came
that I am sure‟, she stated (Quote) „The witness explains
that at the time of recording my statement, the recording
officer had asked about four persons to which I identifies the
accused persons. It was not asked to specify the serial
number in which the accused persons committed rape. I had
seen the accused persons committing rape, at Sl.No.3 and 4
in the torch light with the accused person was showing. I do
not know as to how the words, „due to darkness‟ has been
written in the ROE. I never stated about it‟.
8. Nazma PW-7, the daughter of the prosecutrix, deposed
that the petitioners had visited her house and searched the
house. At that time petitioner Om Prakash enquired from
her mother about her father. On the same day, in the
evening, someone knocked at the main door and after four-
five knocks the door broke. As the door opened petitioner
Om Prakash came inside the house and took the lamp from
the hand of her mother and broke the lamp. Thereafter he
told her mother that he wanted to search their house and
her mother told him that he had already searched their
house in the morning. Petitioner Om Prakash told her
mother that he had orders from the superior officer to
search their house. Thereafter petitioner Om Prakash
directed her mother to go inside the cattle shed and
simultaneously petitioner Kaptan Singh also went inside the
cattle shed. When she and her brother started weeping
petitioner Narender Kumar put the gun in his mouth and
petitioner Raj Bahadur put an axe on the neck of her
brother. Her mother shouted from the cattle shed that in
case of her death they should tell people that force
personnel who had come to their house in the morning had
visited in the evening. As she tried to go out to get some
help, petitioner Narender Kumar stopped her from doing so.
Thereafter petitioners Om Prakash and Kaptan Singh came
out of the cattle shed and petitioners Narender Kumar and
Raj Bahadur went there. After sometime the petitioners left
their house. When she went inside the cattle shed she saw
the salwar of her mother lying near her ankles. The next
morning her elder sister came to their house and she and
her mother informed her elder sister about the incident
which took place the previous night. When her mother was
present inside the cattle shed she heard Om Prakash
directing her mother to open the string of her salwar. That
she does not remember the date on which the petitioners
had visited their house.
9. Zamila PW-8, the daughter of the prosecutrix, deposed
in harmony with the testimony of her sister Nazma.
10. Subedar Ajit Singh PW-1, deposed that on 21.12.1996
he was performing the duties of Coy Commander of the 88th
Bn. when he received a message from the Battalion
Headquarters that he should keep ready one party,
consisting of 1 senior officer and 18 junior officers for an
operation. Accordingly, he prepared a party and the
petitioners were detailed by him in the said party. On
22.12.1996, Rajinder Singh Adjutant, came to Coy
Headquarters at village Chattergaul and briefed the party.
He directed the party to lay a Naka to apprehend a militant
Bahadur Khan who had absconded and was expected to
move in the area surrounding village Chattergaul. The party
was divided into 2 groups and was deployed near a place
called Humilnar. One group was headed by SI B.D.Shahi and
consisted of 9 junior officers, and the other group was
headed by HC Ashok Kumar and consisted of 8 junior
officers, including the petitioners. Some officers from the 2
groups used to come to a place situated between the Coy
Headquarters and the place where the 2 groups were
deployed for collecting meals prepared at the Coy
Headquarters for the 2 groups. On 23.12.1996 HC Chaman
Lal was detailed by him to carry meals for lunch for the 2
groups and deliver the same at the meeting point. On return
HC Chaman Lal informed him that on the way to deliver the
meals a lady and her daughter had stopped him and told
him that 4 BSF personnel had committed a misdeed on her
on the night of 23.12.1996. On hearing the same from HC
Chaman Lal, he i.e. Subedar Ajit Singh decided to carry the
dinner for the 2 groups so that he could himself enquire into
the matter. Before leaving, he directed the leader of the 2
groups to send the men who had come to the meeting point
in the evening on 23.12.1996. On 24.12.1996 at about
04.15 P.M. he reached the meeting point and the men
detailed in the 2 groups were already present there. At that
time the prosecutrix came there and told him that 4
personnel had committed a misdeed with her on the night of
23.12.1996. When he made enquiries from the prosecutrix,
if any of the said 4 personnel who had committed misdeed
with her were present there, she pointed towards the
petitioners. Shailesh Kumar who was detailed by Rajinder
Singh Adjutant, to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the
matter conducted an identification parade of the petitioners.
The prosecutrix correctly identified the petitioners at the
said identification parade. Some entries were made in the
General Diary Register regarding the incident in question.
11. SI B.D.Shahi PW-2, deposed that he was leader of one
of the groups which was deployed at Humilnar to apprehend
militant Bahadur Khan. On 24.12.1996 he received a
message from the Coy Headquarters to bring the men who
had gone to the meeting point for collecting the meals on
the evening of 23.12.1996. Accordingly, he along with the 4
persons who had gone to the meeting point for collecting
meals on the evening of 23.12.1996 went to the meeting
point. The members of the group of HC Ashok Kumar were
also present there. The prosecutrix along with her daughter
were present at the meeting point at that time. The 2
groups were segregated and Subedar Ajit Singh asked the
prosecutrix to identify some persons upon which she
pointed towards the group consisting of petitioner Om
Prakash and started weeping and murmured that she would
kill herself.
12. HC Ashok Kumar PW-3, deposed that he was leader of
one of the groups which was deployed at Humilnar to
apprehend militant Bahadur Khan. On 23.12.1996 at about
08.00 A.M. he detailed petitioners Om Prakash, Kaptan
Singh and Narender Kumar and Const.Yashpal to fetch water
from a drain flowing near Humilnar and the said persons
returned to the place of deployment at about 09.00 A.M. On
the same day i.e. 23.12.1996 at about 04.45 P.M. he
detailed the petitioners to collect evening meals from the
meeting point. The petitioners did not return to the place of
their deployment in time. When he made enquiries from the
petitioners about their delayed return to the place of their
deployment, they informed him that petitioner Om Prakash
had gone to purchase biddi etc. On 24.12.1996 at about
04.00 P.M. he received a message from the Coy
Headquarters to bring the men who had gone to the
meeting point for collecting the meals on the evening of
23.12.1996, accordingly he sent the petitioners to the
meeting point. Subedar Ajit Singh had directed him and
petitioners Kaptan Singh, Narender Kumar and Raj Bahadur
to give in writing that petitioner Om Prakash had committed
rape upon the prosecutrix.
13. HC Chaman Lal PW-4, deposed that on 24.12.1996 at
about 11.30 A.M. when he was coming back from the
meeting point after delivering meals to the men from the 2
groups, he was stopped by the prosecutrix and her daughter
and they informed him that 4 BSF personnel had visited
their house on 23.12.1996 and manhandled the prosecutrix.
He reported the said conversation to Subedar Ajit Singh.
After sometime the men from the 2 groups who had
collected the meals from the meeting point in the evening of
23.12.1996 came at the meeting point and the prosecutrix
identified the petitioners as the persons who had visited her
house on 23.12.1996. He accepted that a portion of an entry
in the General Diary Register regarding the incident had
been interpolated.
14. Lance Naik Mohinder Singh PW-5, deposed that he
was detailed as a member of a party entrusted with the task
of apprehending militant Bahadur Khan. He was assigned to
the group headed by SI B.D.Shahi and had gone to the
meeting point in the evening of 23.12.1996 to collect meals.
On receipt of message from Coy Headquarters he had gone
to the meeting point on 24.12.1996. The prosecutrix had
identified the petitioners as the persons who had visited her
house on 23.12.1996 and had given beatings to her in his
presence.
15. Dr.Abdul Qayum PW-9, deposed that on 30.12.1996
the police had brought the prosecutrix to him for being
medically examined but the prosecutrix did not allow him to
medically examine her. However, he noticed that there were
some scratches on the forehead and knee of the
prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was complaining that 4 persons
had raped her in the evening of 23.12.1996.
16. Shri Gulam Mohidin Lone PW-10, the Lambardar of
village Chattergaul, deposed that as per the custom
followed in village Chattergaul the setting of the sun marked
the dawn of a new day. Be it noted here that the aforesaid
deposition of the witness was not controverted by the
petitioners.
17. Const.Yash Pal Singh PW-11, deposed he was detailed
as a member of a party entrusted with the task of
apprehending a militant Bahadur Khan and he was assigned
to the group headed by HC Ashok Kumar. On 23.12.1996, at
about 08.00 A.M. along with petitioners Om Prakash,
Narender Kumar and Kaptan Singh he had gone to fetch
water from a drain flowing near Humilnar and had returned
to the place of their deployment at about 09.30 A.M. On
25.12.1996 he had seen Subedar Ajit Singh slapping
petitioner Kaptan Singh.
18. SI Mohd.Elyas Pandit PW-13, deposed that on
29.12.1996 FIR No.169/1996 under Sections 376/451 IPC
was registered by the police in connection with the incident
of rape of the prosecutrix. He had conducted investigation in
the case. He seized the clothes worn by the prosecutrix at
the time of the incident and noted that the clothes were
torn. When he questioned Rajinder Singh, Deputy
Commandant, regarding the delay in registering the FIR he
was told that the delay has been caused since the Unit was
investigating the matter at its level.
19. Dr.Rizwana PW-14, deposed that she conducted the
medical examination of the prosecutrix on 31.12.1996 and
found that vagina of the prosecutrix admitted two fingers;
there were old tears in the hymen of the prosecutrix; no
spermatozoa was found in the vagina of the prosecutrix and
there were no marks of any violence on any part of the body
of the prosecutrix. Since the prosecutrix was brought for
medical examination after about 8 days of alleged incident
of rape it was difficult to opine whether the prosecutrix was
raped as she was a married woman.
20. The petitioners denied all incriminating circumstances
appearing against them and claimed innocence and false
implication. The petitioners submitted a written statement
before the GFSC wherein they denied that they had gone to
the house of the prosecutrix on the morning of 23.12.1996.
They, however, admitted of going to the house of the
prosecutrix in the evening of 23.12.1996 and claimed that
the purpose was to enquire whether bidis and cigarettes
could be purchased and stated that only Om Prakash went
up to the main door of the house and that the others
remained outside.
21. In defence, the petitioners examined 6 witnesses.
22. Const.Anil Shinde DW-1, deposed that he had seen
Sub.Ajit Singh slap petitioner Narender Kumar in the
afternoon of 27.12.1996. Const.Ravi Shankar DW-2,
deposed that petitioner Raj Bahadur had not gone to fetch
water on the morning of 23.12.1996 and that he had seen
Sub.Ajit Singh slapping petitioners Narender Kumar, Kaptan
Singh and Raj Bahadur in the afternoon of 27.12.1996.
Const.Rajesh Kumar DW-3, stated that petitioner Raj
Bahadur had not gone to fetch water in the morning of
23.12.1996 and that on 27.12.1996 he was informed by
petitioner Narender Kumar that he was beaten by Sub.Ajit
Singh, which fact was confirmed by Const.Yash Pal, Naik
Mohinder Singh and other persons. Const.Satyanarayan
Singh DW-4, deposed that on 27.12.1996 he had seen
Sub.Ajit Singh threatening petitioner Om Prakash to give in
writing that he had committed the offence of rape. Naik
Mohinder Singh DW-5, deposed that he had seen Sub.Ajit
Singh beating petitioners Narender Kumar, Kaptan Singh
and Raj Bahadur in the afternoon of 27.12.1996. Const
Puran Singh DW-5, deposed that Sub.Ajit Singh compelled
the prosecutrix to make a statement against the petitioners
on 26.12.1996 and he gave a sum of `200/- to the
prosecutrix on 27.12.1996 to identify petitioners Narender
Kumar, Kaptan Singh and Raj Bahadur as the persons who
had visited her house on 23.12.1996 and raped her.
23. After the conclusion of defence evidence, Shailesh
Kumar CW-1 was examined as a court witness. He deposed
that he had conducted a preliminary enquiry and had
prepared a report. On 27.12.1996 he got conducted the test
identification parade of the petitioners and that the
prosecutrix correctly identified the petitioners as the
persons who had visited her house on 23.12.1996 and raped
her. He stated that he had mingled the petitioners with
other force personnel at the time of conduct of their test
identification parade. He further stated that he had
prepared the Record of Evidence.
24. After considering the evidence led by the prosecution
and the defence, the opening and closing address of the
prosecutor and the defending officer and summing up by
the law officer, vide order dated 21.07.1997, the GFSC
convicted the petitioners and sentenced them to undergo
imprisonment for 10 years and inflicted the penalty of
dismissal from service which finding and sentence was
confirmed by Inspector General vide order dated 16.9.1997.
25. Aggrieved by the finding and sentence awarded by the
General Security Force Court which stood confirmed by the
Inspector General, the petitioners preferred petition(s)
under Section 117(2) of Border Security Force Act, 1969 to
the Directorate General Border Security Force, Ministry of
Home Affairs, Government of India, which petition(s) were
rejected vide order dated 16/17.04.1998.
26. The petitioners have preferred the above captioned
writ petitions challenging they being convicted and
sentence to undergo RI for 10 years and needless to state,
challenge they being dismissed from service. At the hearing
of the writ petitions following 12 submissions were
advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners:-
(i) That as per the charge the petitioners had raped the
prosecutrix on 23.12.1996 but the prosecutrix deposed that
the petitioners had raped her on 22.12.1996. Counsel
argued that the lie of the prosescutrix got exposed when
she deposed that she was raped by the petitioners on
22.12.1996 at the time when they visited her house
forgetting that the petitioners had visited her house on
23.12.1996 and not 22.12.1996. As per the counsel, the
aforesaid major discrepancy in the evidence of the
prosecutrix renders her evidence most untrustworthy.
(ii) That there is a major discrepancy in the evidence of
the prosecutrix vis-à-vis petitioner Raj Bahadur which
renders her evidence untrustworthy particularly with regard
to petitioner Raj Bahadur. The discrepancy pointed out by
the counsel was that as per the prosecutrix the petitioners
had visited her house in the morning of 23.12.1996 whereas
the evidence on record sufficiently establishes that
petitioner Raj Bahadur could not have visited the house of
the prosecutrix on the morning of 23.12.1996 as he was not
a member of the party which had gone towards the village
to fetch water in the morning of 23.12.1996.
(iii) The fact that the certain entries recorded in the
General Diary Register relating to the incident in question
were manipulated as evident from the testimony of HC
Chaman Lal PW-4, and that Sub.Ajit Singh had given a sum
of `200/- to the prosecutrix, when seen in the light of the
evidence of the witnesses of the defence lend very strong
credence to the defence of the petitioners that the
prosecutrix has falsely implicated them at the instance of
Sub.Ajit Singh.
(iv) That there are major loopholes in the testimony of the
prosecutrix which renders her testimony most
untrustworthy. The first loophole pointed out was that the
prosecutrix stated in her statement recorded in the Record
of Evidence that due to darkness she cannot say who raped
her after petitioners Om Prakash and Narender Kumar had
raped her; whereas in her testimony before the GFSC she
deposed that petitioners Kaptan Singh and Raj Bahadur had
raped her after she was raped by petitioners Om Prakash
and Narender Kumar. The second loophole pointed out was
that the testimony of the prosecutrix is most ipsi-dixit on the
point of penetration of the male organ of petitioner Raj
Bahadur in the vagina of the prosecutrix. The third loophole
pointed out was that it was not possible for petitioner Raj
Kumar to have raped the prosecutrix in the position alleged
by the prosecutrix for the reason sexual intercourse in such
position is possible only in case of a consensual intercourse.
(v) That the GFSC committed an illegality in placing
reliance upon the uncorroborated testimony of the
prosecutrix in convicting the petitioners particularly when
the medical evidence did not support the case of the
prosecution. Counsel further argued that instead of
supporting the case of the prosecution the medical evidence
particularly the evidence of Dr.Rizwana PW-14, the doctor
who examined the prosecutrix, that she did not find any
injury on any part of the body of the prosecutrix is a strong
pointer to the fact that no rape was committed upon the
prosecutrix.
(vii) That there was an inordinate delay of seven days in
registration of the FIR in the present case which is fatal to
the case of the prosecution.
(vii) That the identification parade of the petitioners was
not conducted in a proper manner and thus in such
circumstances the identification of the petitioners by the
prosecutrix in the court is of no value.
(viii) That Rule 45 of BSF Rules, 1969 envisages application
of mind by the Commandant in coming to the conclusion
whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused
persons or not. In the instant case, no material whatsoever
had surfaced against the petitioner at the stage of hearing
of the charge framed against the petitioner envisaged under
Rule 45 of the BSF Rules, 1969. When there was no material
before the Commandant pointing towards the guilt of the
petitioners he was not justified in directing the preparation
of the Record of Evidence and ought to have dismissed the
charge framed against the petitioner.
(ix) That the trial of the petitioners stands vitiated for the
reason the task of preparation of Record of Evidence was
assigned to an officer who was prejudiced against the
petitioners inasmuch as he had prepared a report indicting
the petitioners of having committed rape upon the
prosecutrix prior to his detailment as the Recording Officer
and the same has resulted in denial of fair trial to the
petitioners.
(x) That Rule 93 of the BSF Rules requires the Court to put
all incriminating circumstances appearing against an
accused to the accused, which was not done in the instant
case as the circumstance that the petitioners had visited the
house of the prosecutrix on 22.12.1996 and raped her was
not put to the petitioners.
(xi) That the trial of the petitioners stands vitiated for the
provisions of Rule 68 of BSF Rules were not followed while
appointing Const. Manjit Singh as an interpreter in the trial
of the petitioners.
(xii) That the order dated 16.09.1997 passed by the
Inspector General confirming the finding and sentence of
the GFSC and the order dated 16/17.04.1998 passed by the
Directorate General Border Security Force dismissing the
appeal under Section 117(2) filed by the petitioners are
nullity and deserve to be quashed as they are non-reasoned
orders and thus show complete non-application of mind by
the authorities which had passed the said orders.
27. Before dealing with the aforesaid submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, let us
first proceed to note the parameters of the jurisdiction of
the High Court while examining the correctness of the
finding and sentence of the Security Force Courts in
exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
28. Deciding W.P.(Crl.) No.93/1980 R.S.Ghalwat Vs. UOI &
Ors. decided on 4.6.1981, a Division Bench of this Court laid
down the parameters of the jurisdiction of the High Court
while examining the correctness of the finding and sentence
of the Court Martial in exercise of its power under Article
226 of the Constitution of India in the following terms:-
"16. Effort was then made to go through the record
of court martial (and we did go into it) and
persuade us to hold that the finding of court martial
was vitiated because of various alleged illegalities
in the matter of confession, admissibility of
evidence and other irregularities. Now if the writ
petition was to be treated as a Habeas Corpus
petition the only jurisdiction the court has would be
to see whether the return shows that the detenu is
held lawfully. Once it is shown, as in the present
case that court martial, properly convened and
constituted has passed an order in pursuance of
which the petitioner is being held no relief would be
possible as this court cannot go into the question of
sufficiency of evidence, and the conviction by
competent court would be a sufficient answer to the
petition under Section 491, Criminal P.C. vide AIR
1946 Lah 103 : 47 Cri LJ 1022, Kartar Singh v.
Imperator. The court is entitled to go into the
regularity of steps taken by the court martial in the
course of trial or by the confirming authority in the
finding and the sentence which do not go to their
jurisdiction and confirming. Interference is possible
only where the irregularity or illegality affects the
jurisdiction of the court martial or the confirming
authority......
17. We, however, do not propose to dispose of this
matter on this short point and heard the matter on
the footing that the writ petitioner was also asking a
writ of certiorari, against the finding of a statutory
tribunal, i.e. General Court Martial constituted
under the Act. But even then the jurisdiction of this
court is limited to only finding out whether there is
error of jurisdiction or it is a case of total lack of
evidence. We do not sit as a court of appeal. If
there was legal evidence available on which a
finding could be given, the sufficiency or otherwise
is for the authority to decide and this court cannot
substitute its opinion for that of Court martial.
19. Thus where the court martial acts within
jurisdiction, habeas corpus would not issue to
interfere with its decision on the ground of mere
insufficiency of evidence or irregularity of
procedure except where there has been no hearing
at all or the rules of natural justice have not been
followed. In the Canadian case of Ex parte Forgan, it
was recognized that, where a court martial has
acted within its jurisdiction neither the merits of the
conviction not the propriety of the sentence could
be reviewed by the Supreme Court upon an
application for either certiorari or habeas corpus.
(See Military Law in India by Sharma P. 202, Notes
68 and 69).
20. "Where a quasi judicial authority has jurisdiction
to decide a matter, it does not lose its jurisdiction
by coming to a wrong conclusion, whether it is
wrong in law or in fact .... A tribunal may lack
jurisdiction if it is improperly constituted, or if it fails
to observe certain essential preliminaries to the
inquiry. But it does not exceed its jurisdiction by
basing it decision upon an incorrect determination
of any question that it is empowered or required
(i.e. had jurisdiction) to determine."
See AIR 1962 SC 1621 Ujjam Bai v. State of Uttar
Pradesh. A writ of certiorari under Art. 226 of the
Constitution can be issued for the purpose of
examining the record and proceedings of a court-
martial if the complaint is that the court-martial was
not duly constituted, that it had no jurisdiction over
the person or over the subject matter of the charge
or that there is an error of law apparent on the face
of the record or that the principles of natural justice
were violated so as to result in miscarriage of
justice. Where a court martial has acted within its
jurisdiction neither the merits of the conviction nor
the propriety of the sentence can be reviewed by
this court, upon an application for certiorari. The
courts-martial are in fact a specialised form of
administrative courts and the scope of review
traditionally afforded by the civil courts over their
judgments has been very limited. This is evident
from the fact that Article 136 of the Constitution
expressly excluded the power of judicial review in
respect of any judgment, determination sentence
order passed or made by any court or tribunal
constituted by or under any law relating to the
armed forces though the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court and High Courts under Article 32
and Article 226 of the Constitution respectively to
issue writs to any person or authority has been
preserved. See (2nd (1976) 2 Del 691, Ram Murti
Wadhwa v. Union of India. It is true that general
power to issue writs of Habeas Corpus and certiorari
given to this court under Article 226 does not make
the finding of the court-martial totally immune from
scrutiny by this court. But as said by (1952) 346 US
137 : 97 L Ed 1508, Burns v. Wilson "the statute
which vests federal courts with jurisdiction over
applications for habeas corpus from persons
confined by the Military Courts is the same statute
which vests them with jurisdiction over the
applications of persons confined by the civil court.
But in military habeas corpus the inquiry, the scope
of matters open for review, has always been more
narrow than in civil cases. Thus the law which
governs a civil in the exercise of its jurisdiction over
military habeas corpus applications cannot simply
be assimilated to the law which governs the
exercise of that power in other instances. It is suit
generis; it must be so, because of the peculiar
relationship between the civil and military law.
Military law, like State law, is a jurisprudence which
exists separate and apart from the law which
governs in our federal judicial establishment. We
have held before that this does not displace the
civil courts' jurisdiction over an application of
habeas corpus from the military prisoner. But these
provisions do mean that when a military decision
had dealt fully and fairly with an allegation raised in
the application it is not open to a federal civil court
to grant the writ simply to re-evaluate the
evidence......" (Emphasis Supplied)
29. From the aforesaid observations, it is clear that while
examining the correctness of finding and sentence of the
Court Martial/Security Force Courts in exercise of its power
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the jurisdiction
of the High Court is limited to finding out only whether there
exists an error of jurisdiction or is it a case of total lack of
evidence. It is not open to the High Court to re-evaluate the
evidence on record or whether the evidence on record is
sufficient to sustain the finding of the Court Martial/Security
Force Court or to substitute its opinion for that of the Court
Martial/Security Force Court.
30. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for
the petitioners can be divided into two categories, whereas
submissions „(i)‟ to „(vii)‟ pertain to the veracity of the
evidence of the prosecutrix, submissions „(viii)‟ to „(xii)‟
pertain to the procedural irregularities allegedly committed
by the department at various stages in the present case.
31. Are the learned counsel for the petitioners correct in
contending that the discrepancy in the evidence of the
prosecutrix regarding the date of the incident renders her as
an untrustworthy witness?
32. The prosecutrix is a rustic woman. What should be the
approach of the Court while appreciating ocular evidence of
a rustic witness? The answer to this question lies in the
following observations made by the Supreme Court in the
decision reported as Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v State of
Maharashtra AIR 1993 SC 2622:-
"Now to the facts. The scene of murder is rural, the
witnesses to the case are rustics and so their
behavioral pattern and perceptive habits have to be
judged as such. The too sophisticated approaches
familiar in courts based on unreal assumptions
about human conduct cannot obviously be applied
to those given to the lethargic ways of our villages.
When scanning the evidence of the various
witnesses we have to inform ourselves that
variances on the fringes, discrepancies in details,
contradictions in narrations and embellishments in
inessential parts cannot militate against the
veracity of the core of the testimony provided there
is the impress of truth and conformity to probability
in the substantial fabric of testimony delivered."
33. Sub.Ajit Singh PW-1 and HC Chaman Lal PW-4,
deposed that the prosecutrix met them in the afternoon of
24.12.2006 and informed them that she has been raped by
4 BSF personnel in the previous evening, which would be
the evening of 23.12.2006. The testimony of aforesaid
witnesses was corroborated by SI B.D. Shahi PW-2, that on
24.12.1996 he along with some of the other members of the
group had gone to the meeting point; that the prosecutrix
and the petitioners were present there; that the prosecutrix
had pointed towards the group of petitioner Om Prakash and
that she was weeping and distressed at that time. The fact
that the prosecutrix informed Sub Ajit Singh PW-1 and HC
Chaman Lal PW-4 on 24.12.2006 that she was raped by 4
BSF personnel in the evening of 23.12.2006 assumes great
significance in the light of the fact that 3 out of 4 petitioners
had gone towards the village of the prosecutrix in the
morning of 23.12.2006 to fetch water and all the 4
petitioners had visited the house of the prosecutrix in the
evening of 24.12.2006.
34. Being a rustic woman, it can reasonably be expected
that the prosecutrix would be having problems in
determining the date on a particular day. The problem of
the prosecutrix in determining the date on which she was
raped by the petitioners further gets compounded by the
fact that according to the custom of the village of the
prosecutrix (See deposition of PW-10 noted in para 16
above) at sunset people would say that the next day has
begun, could well be the source of the confusion. It is
apparent that the prosecutrix got confused with the dates
while deposing before the GFSC and thus ended up
deposing that she was raped by the petitioners on
22.12.1996. But the fact of the matter is that the
prosecutrix had informed Sub.Ajit Singh PW-1 and HC
Chaman Lal PW-4, on 24.12.2006 that she was raped by 4
BSF personnel in the previous evening i.e. the evening of
23.12.2006 and that the petitioners had visited the house of
the prosecurtrix in the evening of 23.12.2006.
35. In order to deal with the submission „(ii)‟ advanced by
the learned counsel for the petitioners it is necessary to
recreate the scene on the day of the incident. Petitioners
Om Prakash, Kaptan Singh and Narender Kumar and Const
Yesh Pal Singh visited the house of the prosecutrix on the
morning of 23.12.1996. At that time said persons merely
searched the house of the prosecutrix but did not do
anything evil to the prosecutrix. Since the persons who had
visited the house of the prosecutrix in the morning of
23.12.1996 had not done anything evil to the prosecutrix
she would have no reason to remember the faces of the said
persons but would just have a faint recollection of their
faces in her mind. When the petitioners visited the house of
the prosecutrix in the evening of 23.12.1996 they did
something very evil to her. Due to the evil act of rape
committed by the petitioners upon the prosecutrix the faces
of the petitioners would have been imprinted in the mind of
the prosecutrix. In view of the fact that three out of the four
force personnel who had visited her house in the evening of
23.12.1996 and raped her were the force personnel who
had visited her house in the morning of 23.12.1996 and that
the prosecutrix just had a faint recollection of the faces of
the force personnel who had visited her house in the
morning of 23.12.1996, the possibility is writ large that the
prosecutrix assumed that the fourth force personnel who
had visited her house in the evening of 23.12.1996 and
raped her i.e. petitioner Raj Bahadur is the fourth force
personnel who had visited her house in the morning of
23.12.1996 along with petitioners Om Prakash, Kaptan
Singh and Narender Kumar.
36. Whether the learned counsel for the petitioners are
right in contending that Sub Ajit Singh had an animus
against them and thus falsely implicated them in the
present case?
37. The petitioners admitted having visited the house of
the prosecutrix in the evening of 23.12.2006, albeit for a
different reason than the one claimed by the prosecutrix. On
23.12.2006 in the evening the petitioner went to the
meeting point to collect meals for dinner and had returned
late to the place of their deployment and told the leader of
their group HC Ashok Kumar PW-3, that they got late as
petitioner Om Prakash had purchased beedi etc while they
were returning to the place of deployment. On the next day
i.e. 24.12.2006 in the afternoon the prosecutrix informed HC
Chaman Lal PW-4, that she was raped by 4 BSF personnel in
the evening of 23.12.2006 who in turn informed the said
fact to Sub.Ajit Singh. If the claim of the petitioners is
correct Sub.Ajit Singh would have come to know about the
visit of the petitioners to the house of the prosecutrix in the
evening of 23.12.2006 before the afternoon of 24.12.2006.
How did Sub.Ajit Singh come to know that the petitioners
had visited the house of the prosecutrix in the evening of
23.12.2006? Did he have divine powers or was the
prosecutrix aware of the fact that Sub.Ajit Singh is inimically
disposed towards the petitioners and thus she went to him
and told him about the visit of the petitioners to her house
in the evening of 23.12.2006?
38. The matter can also be looked at from another angle.
The first person who came to know about the incident of
rape of the prosecutrix was HC Chaman Lal PW-4. HC
Chaman Lal PW-4, deposed that in the afternoon of
24.12.2006 while he was returning from the meeting point
to the headquarters after delivering meals for lunch he was
met by the prosecutrix who informed him that she was
raped by 4 BSF personnel in the evening of 23.12.2006 and
in turn informed the said fact to Sub.Ajit Singh. If Sub.Ajit
Singh were to falsely implicate the petitioners he could have
easily said that the prosecutrix had met him in the
afternoon of 24.12.2006 and told him that she was raped by
4 BSF personnel in the evening of 23.12.2006. What was the
need for Sub.Ajit Singh to have introduced HC Chaman Lal
to complicate the matter?
39. Petitioners Om Prakash, Kaptan Singh and Narender
Kumar had gone towards the village of the prosecutrix on
the morning of 23.12.2006 to fetch water. On the same day
in the evening all the four petitioners had gone to the
meeting point which was near the village of the prosecutrix
for collecting meals for lunch and had returned late to the
place of their deployment. Faced with such facts, the
petitioners were under a compulsion to admit that they had
visited the house of the prosecutrix in the evening of
23.12.20-06, albeit for a reason different than the one
claimed by the prosecutrix. Their admission of being at the
house of the prosecutrix is important.
40. Thus looked at from any angle, there is no merit in the
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that
they have been falsely implicated in the present at the
instance of Sub.Ajit Singh.
41. The submission (iv) advanced by the learned counsel
for the petitioners require this Court to re-evaluate the
evidence of the prosecutrix. It has already been stated by us
in the foregoing paras that while examining the correctness
of the finding and sentence of the Court Martial/Security
Force Courts in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India the High Court does not act as a court
of appeal and it is not open for the High Court to re-evaluate
the evidence led before the Courts Martial/Security Force
Courts.
42. The submission „(v)‟ advanced by the learned counsel
for the petitioners is most fallacious. Dr.Rizwana PW-14,
deposed that it was difficult for her to opine whether the
prosecutrix was raped as she was a married woman, more
so when she had examined the prosecutrix 8 days after the
incident of rape. Regarding the absence of injury on the
body of the prosecutrix, Dr.Abdul Quayum PW-9, had
deposed that he had noticed scratches on the forehead and
knee of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix had deposed that
she had sustained an injury on her knee and forehead when
petitioner Om Prakash was committing rape upon her. Be
that as it may, absence of injuries on the private parts of a
rape victim especially a married lady cannot, ipso facto,
lead to an inference that no rape has been committed upon
her. (See the decisions of the Supreme Court reported as
Madan Gopal Kakkad v Naval Dubey (1992) 2 SCR 921 and
B.C. Deva @ Dyava v State of Karnataka (2007) 12 SCC 122)
43. It is no doubt true that the FIR has been registered in
the present case six days after the happening of the
incident. Is the said delay unexplainable? The incident in
question happened on 23.12.1996. The prosecutrix informed
HC Chaman Lal PW-4, about the incident in question on
24.12.1996 who in turn informed the same to Sub.Ajit Singh
PW-1, on 24.12.1996 itself. Immediately thereafter Shailesh
Kumar was detailed to conduct a preliminary enquiry in the
matter. On 28.12.1996 Shailesh Kumar gave a report prima
facie finding truth in the allegations leveled by the
prosecutrix. After considering the report of Shailesh Kumar
on 29.12.1996 Commandant M.R.Kadian forwarded an
application to police station Kangan for lodging an FIR
against the petitioners. It is apparent that the superior
officers had first wanted to inquire into the allegations of
rape leveled by the prosecutrix at their level before lodging
an FIR against the petitioners inasmuch the prestige of the
BSF was at stake. Unlike policemen BSF personnel are not
conversant with the criminal law and thus are not aware of
the importance of lodging of an FIR with promptitude.
44. Regarding submission „(vii)‟ it is necessary to note the
deposition of Shailesh Kumar CW-1, that he mingled the
petitioners with other force personnel at the time of conduct
of their identification parade. Be that as it may, the
identification of an accused in a test identification parade is
of great importance in the cases when the victim and
accused are total strangers to each other and due to
happening of the incident in a flash or any other reason the
victim has not been able to have a good look at the
accused, which was not the position in the instant case.
Thus, even if it is assumed for a second that the test
identification parade of the petitioners was not conducted in
a proper manner the same is of no relevance in the present
case.
45. The learned counsel for the petitioners are not correct
in contending that no material has surfaced against the
petitioners at the stage of hearing of the charge framed
against the petitioner envisaged under Rule 45 of the BSF
Rules, 1969 for the reason the prior to framing of charge
against the petitioners Mr.Shailesh Kumar had conducted a
preliminary enquiry and prepared a report finding prima
facie truth in the allegations of the prosecutrix.
46. It is no doubt true that the Recording Officer Shailesh
Kumar had prepared a report indicting the petitioners of
having committed the rape upon the prosecutrix. Is the said
circumstance sufficient to vitiate the trial of the petitioners?
47. As per the scheme of BSF Act, 1968 the Recording
Officer is not the authority who is to adjudicate upon the
innocence of guilt of an accused person with regard to the
offence with which he is charged. The job of the Recording
Officer is merely to record the evidence appearing against
an accused in a given case based on which the
Commandant may dismiss the charges framed against an
accused; or rehear the charge and award one of the
summary punishments to the accused; or try the accused by
a Summary Security Force Court; or apply to a competent
authority or officer to convene a court for the trial of the
accused. In view of the fact that the Recording Officer is not
the adjudicator of the innocence or guilt of the petitioners,
the alleged apprehension of bias of Recording Officer
Shailesh Kumar has no effect whatsoever on the trial of the
petitioners. The detailment of Shailesh Kumar as the
Recording Officer is neither an illegality nor is even an
irregularity but at best is a mere impropriety on the part of
the department which in no way affects the trial of the
petitioners.
48. A somewhat similar situation arose before the
Supreme Court in the decision reported as Major G.S. Sodhi
v Union of India AIR 1991 SC 1617. In the said case, the
petitioner was convicted by the Court Martial constituted
under the Army Act. One of the contentions advanced by
the petitioner before the Supreme Court was that the Officer
who had ordered preparation of Summary of Evidence was
biased against the petitioner. After noting that the said
officer had no role to play in the trial of the petitioner and
had not returned the finding of guilt of the petitioner, it was
held that the allegations of bias leveled against the said
officer do not affect the court-martial proceedings.
49. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that the
detailment of Shailesh Kumar as the Recording Officer was
an irregularity, the same could not affect the trial of the
petitioners particularly when the same has not caused any
prejudice to the petitioners. It is not the case of the
petitioners that Shailesh Kumar had incorrectly recorded the
statements of the witnesses while preparing the Record of
Evidence inasmuch as neither any suggestion nor any
question to the said effect was put to him in his cross-
examination by the petitioners. It is settled legal position
that the irregularities committed by the department at a
stage anterior to the trial of an accused by the Security
Force Court which do not cause any prejudice to the
accused do not vitiate the trial of the accused. In said
regard, it is relevant to note following observations made by
a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported as
Union of India v Ex. Constable Mohinder Singh 91 (2001)
DLT 291:-
"......Indeed an infraction of the Rule or an
irregularity in complying with the Rule 45, which
does not cause any prejudice to the accused, will
not vitiate the subsequent proceedings conducted
at the stage of pre or post convening of the court
and trial of the accused by Summary Security Force
Court. The reason is that the procedure prescribe
by Rule 45 or 48, 49 and 51 are at a stage anterior
to the trial by the Summary Security Force Court. It
is the order of the Summary Security Force Court
which results in the conviction and punishment of
the accused which is material and not
inconsequential, infraction and irregularity in the
procedure prescribed in the Rules at pre-trial stage.
Similar view has been taken by the two Division
Benches of this court in the case of ex-Const. Ashok
Kumar (supra) and Union of India Vs. O.P.Bishnoi
(supra). This view is also fortified by the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Lt.Col.Prithipal Singh (supra) and Major G.S.Sodhi
(supra)....."
50. The submission „j‟ that the circumstance that the
petitioners had visited the house of the prosecutrix on
22.12.1996 was not put to the petitioners is predicated upon
the premise that the evidence of the prosecutrix was to the
effect that the petitioners had raped her on 22.12.1996 is
meritless as we have already held in the foregoing paras
that the prosecutrix got confused with the dates and thus
wrongly deposed that she was raped by the petitioners on
22.12.1996.
51. Rule 68 of the BSF Rules prescribes that an oath is
required to be administered to an Interpreter. Having
perused the record of the General Security Force Court, we
find that an oath was administered to Const.Manjit Singh
who acted as Interpreter in the trial of the petitioners. That
being the position, we fail to understand as to how the
provisions of Rule 68 of the BSF Rules have been violated in
appointing Const.Manjit Singh as an interpreter. In any case,
an opportunity was given to the petitioners during the trial
to object to the appointment of Const.Manjit Singh as an
interpreter but no objection was raised by them. Having
raised no objection to the appointment of Const.Manjit Singh
as an interpreter during the trial, it does not lie in the mouth
of the petitioners to find fault with the said appointment.
52. In dealing with the last submission advanced by the
learned counsel for the petitioners, we note the submission
runs in the teeth of the decision of the Constitution Bench of
the Supreme Court reported as S.N. Mukherjee v Union of
India (1990) 4 SCC 594 and conclude that it is not necessary
for the competent authorities to pass reasoned orders while
confirming the finding and sentence of the General Security
Force Courts or while disposing of the appeals filed by the
force personnel under Section 117(2) of the BSF Act.
53. The prosecutrix had clearly indicted the petitioners as
the persons who had committed rape upon her. The
evidence of the prosecutrix stands corroborated by the
evidence of her daughters Nazma PW-6 and Zalima PW-7,
who deposed that the petitioners had visited their house in
the morning and evening of 23.12.1996; petitioner Om
Prakash had forcibly taken the prosecutrix in the cattle shed
in their house; one by one other petitioners had also gone in
the cattle shed; when petitioner Om Prakash was present in
the cattle shed they had heard him directing the prosecutrix
to open the string of her salwar; the prosecutrix was
weeping and shouting at the time when she and the
petitioners were present in the cattle shed; petitioner
Kaptan Singh had pointed a gun at Nazma and petitioner
Narender Kumar had put an axe on the neck of their brother
and that after the departure of the petitioners from their
house they had seen that the salwar of the prosecutrix was
lying near the ankles of the prosecutrix. Furthermore,
petitioners Om Prakash, Narender Kumar and Kaptan Singh
had visited the house of the prosecutrix on the morning of
23.12.1996 and came to know that the husband of the
prosecutrix was not present in the house. The deposition of
Nazma PW-7 and Zamila PW-8, that the petitioners had
visited their house in the morning of 23.12.1996 has not
been controverted by the petitioners. It has further come in
evidence that the party detailed for apprehension of militant
Bahadur Khan was directed to not go to any house in the
village. Despite such directions the petitioners claim that
they went to the house of the prosecutrix ostensibly to
make enquiries from her regarding the shop where bidis,
cigarettes etc can be purchased by them. The very act of
the petitioners of disobeying the directions of their superior
officers and going to the house of the prosecutrix for a most
flimsy reason when they are fully aware of the fact that no
adult male member is present in the house of the
prosecutrix lends credence to the claim of the proescutrix
that the petitioners had committed rape upon her when
they visited her house in the evening of 23.12.1996.
54. Above being the position, the General Security Force
Court was completely justified in returning the verdict of the
guilt of the petitioners. Accordingly, the above captioned
petitions are hereby dismissed.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 08, 2011
mm / dk
