Arvind Kumar vs State
2014 Latest Caselaw 2000 Del

$~5.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 389/2011


                                     Date of decision: 22nd April, 2014
        ARVIND KUMAR
                                                     ..... Appellant
                          Through Mr. Mohan Tyagi & Ms. Ruchi
                          Kapur, Advocates.


                          Versus


        STATE
                                                      ..... Respondent
                          Through Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP for the State.


        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL

SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)

Arvind Kumar has challenged his conviction under Section 302

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) for having committed

murder of Kusheshwar on 29th April, 2006 by a fire arm injury. The

impugned judgment dated 12th January, 2011, however, acquits the

appellant under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 on the

ground of want of sanction. State has not preferred any appeal against

the said acquittal. By order on sentence dated 27 th January, 2011, the

appellant has been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life and

fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has to

undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months. Benefit of

Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C., for

short) has been granted.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant did not dispute and

challenge before us homicidal death suffered by Kusheshwar as a

result of fire arm injury, but has questioned the reasoning given in the

impugned judgment and the prosecution case on the involvement of the

appellant. Homicidal death suffered by the deceased Kusheshwar is

established from the MLC (Exhibit PW-1/A), which records that the

deceased was brought to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital,

Mangolpuri on 29th April, 2006 at 10.30 P.M. by Head Constable Shiv

Charan, 1093 of PCR van. The patient was declared brought dead.

Blood pressure was not recordable and ECG showed a straight line.

The MLC also mentions about wounds noticed on the deceased, i.e.,

Kusheshwar. The said MLC was proved by Dr. Indermeet Singh (PW-

1), who has deposed that on local examination he had noticed a circular

wound of 4 cm in diameter on the left side of the chest near left axilla

and there was also a circular wound of about 4 cm in diameter on the

right side of the back near right axilla. Overlying skin had black stain.

The post-mortem on the body was conducted by Dr. Manoj Dhingra

(PW-4), who in his report (Exhibit PW-4/A) and in his court deposition

has opined as under:-

"1. Lacerated punctured wound of size 4 cm x 3 cm present over right scapular region 7 cm lateral to midline and 10 cm below shoulder tip with abrasion collar over upper and side margins with inverted margins and tattoing in an area of 5 x 5 cm. Entry wound of fire arm.

2. Lacerated punctured wound present over left axillary region 3 x 2.5 cm 8 cm from shoulder joint, 8 cm from left nipple around anterior axillary line with everted margins.

Track 3

Injury No. 1 after penetrating skin sub cotaneous tissues scapula entering into the chest cavity from back and fracture of 3rd and 4th rib on back. Further penetrating plura and right lung then passing through and penetrating left lung upper lobe and went into the 4th space and came out through injury No. 2. It also piercing the T 2 vertibra right to left. Chest cavity filled with 500 cc of clotted blood. The cause of death of shock as a result of fire arm injury to chest. Time since death is 14 hours."

3. As noticed above, the main plea and contention of the appellant

relates to his involvement and whether he was a perpetrator, who had

fired the fire arm causing the injury. The prosecution version, which

has been accepted by the trial court primarily relies upon the disclosure

statement of the appellant (Exhibit PW-14/H) pursuant to which one

fire arm, i.e., „deshi katta‟ and with one fired cartridge were seized on

4th May, 2006. The prosecution also relies upon empty cartridge, which

was recovered/found at the place of crime, i.e., on the road near G

Block, Nihal Vihar and the CFSL report (Exhibit PW-15/A), which

opines that the said fired cartridge mark EC1 recovered from the place

of crime was fired from the weapon examined. The said report also

opines that the fired cartridge EC2 found in the pistol matched with the

fired cartridge EC1, which was recovered from the spot. As the said

report firing pin mark, breech face marks and chamber marks on EC1

and EC2 matched with the test fired bullet TC1.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has disputed and challenged

the prosecution version primarily on the ground that the seized

cartridge (EC1) found at the place of occurrence as per the seizure

memo (Exhibit PW-13/B) bore number KF 8mm 00, a number which

was also mentioned in the sketch of the said cartridge marked Exhibit

PW-13/A, but as per the court depositions of Constable Ashok Kumar

(PW-13), Inspector Ramesh Singh (PW-14) and ACP Harpal Singh

(PW-18), who was also the Investigating Officer, the said cartridge

produced in the court bore the number KF 8 mm 86. It is also

highlighted that ACP Harpal Singh (PW-18) had stated that the

cartridge found from the spot bore the number KM 8 MM 00, which is

not the number of the cartridge recovered from the spot, as per the

prosecution case. Other related arguments raised will be noticed in the

later portion of this judgment.

5. The FIR in question (Exhibit PW-9/A) was recorded on 29th

April, 2006 at about 11.35 P.M. at Police Station Nangloi, Delhi.

Before that, DD entry No. 27 (Exhibit PW-14/A) was recorded at 9.35

P.M. The said DD entry does not mention the name of the culprit or the

suspect, who had committed the said offence, but records that one

person had suffered injury and Constable Raj Kumar, 2243 PCR had

informed the police station through the control room. The tehrir

thereafter records that the DD entry No. 27 was marked to Constable

Ashok Kumar (PW-13) and Inspector Ramesh Singh (PW-14), who

went to the spot near lakkad factory, Nangloi, Nihal Vihar Road and

were able to ascertain that the dead body was that of Kusheshwar.

Blood was lying near the injured and was oozing from left side of his

chest and right side of his back. On search, one pocket diary, Rs.290/-

and a ball pen from pocket were found. The deceased was wearing a

watch, and a black colour bag of Reebok make and one polythene bag

containing vegetables and fruits was lying nearby. The said factum was

deposed to and affirmed by both PWs-13 and 14 in their court

depositions.

6. After some time, the crime team and SHO Inspector Harpal

Singh (PW-18) reached the spot. Photographs of the site of the incident

were taken on the instructions of Inspector Harpal Singh. The

photographs were proved by Head Constable Vijay Kumar (PW-17),

attached to the mobile crime team. He proved the negatives and the

positives of the said photographs, which were marked Exhibit PW-

17/A1 to A4 and Exhibit PW-17/B1 to B4 respectively. Similarly, SI

Lalit Kumar (PW-10) has deposed that on 29th April, 2006, he was

posted as Incharge Mobile Crime Team and had reached the spot. On

instructions SI Ramesh, PW-17 had taken photographs of the spot from

different angles. He also proved the crime report prepared by him

marked Exhibit PW-10/A.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant is right in his contention that

the report (Exhibit PW-10/A) does not mention about recovery of any

empty cartridge from the place of occurrence. The Crime Team as per

report Exhibit PW-10/A had remained at the spot from 10.45 P.M. to

11.15 P.M., They had noticed blood and had asked the IO to seize the

blood earth control, black plastic bag and a packet of biscuit. In

another column, the IO was directed to do the needful. It has come on

record in the statement of Constable Ashok Kumar (PW-13) and

Inspector Ramesh Singh (PW-14) that an empty cartridge was

recovered from the spot in question. The place of recovery of the

empty cartridge is also indicated in the site plans, with and without

scale marked Exhibits PW-18/A and 18/B. Examination of the site

plans indicates that the empty cartridge was found on the opposite side

of the road, when we compare and notice the place where the dead

body of Kusheshwar was found lying. On the said aspect, we have

deposition of ACP Harpal Singh (PW-18), who in his cross-

examination had accepted that the empty cartridge at the spot was

recovered after the crime team had left. This is the true and correct

position as is also apparent from the seizure memo of the empty

cartridge (Exhibit PW-13/B), which was recorded on 30th April, 2006,

after the crime team had left the spot at 11.15 P.M. on 29th April, 2006.

Similarly, the sketch of the empty cartridge (Exhibit PW-13/A) was

prepared by PW-18 on 30th April, 2006. Both the Exhibits PW-13/A

and 13/B were witnessed by PW-13 Constable Ashok Kumar and PW-

14 Inspector Ramesh Singh respectively. The empty cartridge, which

was recovered from the spot was deposited in malkhana on 30 th April,

2006 as deposed by Head Constable Tarif Singh (CW-1), who has

stated that on 30th April, 2006 Inspector Harpal Singh (PW-18) had

deposited one sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of HSY containing

one empty cartridge having the number/alphabet KF 8mm 00, along

with other articles. He had received the said articles and made entry

No. 5160 in register No. 19.

8. Head Constable Tarif Singh (CW-1) has also proved the entry

No. 5173 in register No. 19, which was made on 4 th May, 2006 after

Inspector Harpal Singh (PW-18) has deposited one sealed parcel

containing „deshi katta‟ with one cartridge duly sealed with the seal of

HSY. The articles were recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement

of the appellant, after his arrest.

9. The appellant was apprehended and arrested on 3rd May, 2006 at

about 9.30 P.M. as per arrest memo (Exhibit PW-14/F), which has been

proved by both, Inspector Ramesh Singh (PW-14) and ACP Harpal

Singh (PW-18). We will discuss the reason and cause why the police

suspected involvement of the appellant, later on. Suffice it is to notice

that after the arrest of the appellant on 3rd May, 2006 at 9.30 P.M. vide

arrest memo Exhibit PW-14/F, he had made a disclosure statement

(Exhibit PW-14/H). As per the said disclosure statement, the appellant

had thrown the „deshi katta‟ in aam ka bagh at Nihal Vihar in the

bushes. The said disclosure statement is dated 4th May, 2006. The

recovery, as mentioned, has been supported and proved by ACP Harpal

Singh (PW-18) and Inspector Ramesh Singh (PW-14). In addition to

these two police witnesses, we have testimony of two independent or

public witnesses, namely, Kushwant Singh (PW-3) and Shiv Karan

(PW-12). Kushwant Singh (PW-3) has stated that on 4th May, 2006 at

about 11.30 A.M. he was going on his motorcycle from factory at

Vishnu Garden to Nihal Vihar, when in front of Hanuman Mandir he

was stopped by some police officers. He joined investigation along

with the police officers and the appellant Arvind was present. Arvind

took them inside the park and got recovered one country made pistol

from the bushes. The pistol had one fired cartridge in it. The

Investigating Officer had prepared sketch of the country made pistol

and the cartridge, which were marked Exhibit PW-3/A and signed by

PW-3 at point „A‟. PW-3 gave the total length of the pistol and

admitted the seizure memo (Exhibit PW-3/B) signed by him at point

„A‟. Shiv Karan (PW-12) has similarly deposed that on 4 th May, 2006

he was going towards F Block on scooter and he had reached Hanuman

Balaji Mandir at about 11.30A.M., when he was asked by the police

officers to join investigation with Inspector Harpal Singh and others.

The appellant took them in the park and got recovered one country

made pistol from the bushes. The said pistol was measured and on

checking one fired cartridge was found in the pistol. Sketch of the

pistol and the fired cartridge was prepared, which was marked Exhibit

PW-3/A and was signed by him at point „B‟. The said articles were

sealed with the seal of HSY and the seizure memo (Exhibit PW-3/B)

was signed by him at point „B‟.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant challenged testimony of

Kushwant Singh (PW-3) and Shiv Karan (PW-12) on the ground that

they are not natural witnesses and have been introduced or were tutored

witnesses. It was submitted that there was no cause or reason for

Kushwant Singh (PW-3) and Shiv Karan (PW-12) to join the

investigation, when the police could have asked the nearby shopkeepers

to act as public witnesses. The argument does not impress us and has to

be rejected. It is open to the police officers to ask anyone from the

public to join and witness the recovery proceedings. Normally, public

is hesitant but in the present case keeping in view the facts, the

Investigating Officer took care and had stopped two persons, who were

travelling near the place of recovery. He had asked them to join the

proceedings. Kushwant Singh (PW-3) and Shiv Karan (PW-12)

accordingly joined the proceedings and have witnessed recovery of the

pistol and one cartridge on the pointing out of the appellant. It was not

suggested or alleged that the said public witnesses were stock

witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Kushwant

Singh (PW-3) had stated that the entire procedure took three minutes,

whereas Shiv Karan (PW-12) had claimed that the procedure might

have taken more than an hour to be completed, as PW-12 had deposed

that he left the spot at about 12.30/1 P.M. We are not impressed by the

said argument. Kushwant Singh (PW-3) has given detailed version of

what had happened at the spot and has also stated that he remained at

the spot till the seizure memo was prepared after recovery and

measurements were taken of the pistol and the cartridge. The sketch

was prepared. Kushwant Singh (PW-3) in his cross-examination has

stated that he remained at the spot for about three minutes, but we do

not think that the time stated is correct or plausible. The said sentence

in the testimony of PW-3 does not merit complete disregard or rejection

of the entire statement by Kushwant Singh (PW-3). It is obvious that

the measurements, sketch etc. would have taken some time to be

completed, as is reflected and apparent from the statement of Shiv

Karan (PW-12). We also reject the contention of the counsel for the

appellant that Kushwant Singh (PW-3) and Shiv Karan (PW-12) had

not given the number inscribed on the fired cartridge in their court

deposition and, therefore, their testimonies should be disbelieved.

PWs-3 and 12 had identified the cartridge, which was shown to them in

the court and have deposed that the said fired cartridge was recovered

and found inside the pistol. Mere fact that PWs-3 and 12 had not

mentioned the cartridge number, which possibly they may not have

remembered because of passage of time, is immaterial. The cartridge

number was specifically mentioned in the sketch (Exhibit PW-3/A).

11. This brings us to the main issue and contention of the appellant.

As noticed above, the CFSL report (Exhibit PW-15/A) opines that the

two cartridges EC1; (which was found at the place of occurrence) and

EC2; (which was found in the pistol) were fired from the pistol in

question, which was recovered at the behest and upon the disclosure of

the appellant. The said report states that the two cartridges were empty

fired cartridges and had been fired through the said country made

pistol. The said opinion was given after examining individual

characteristics of firing pin marks, breech face marks and the chamber

marks present on the two fired cartridges as well as test fired cartridge,

which were examined and compared under microscope. The marks

were found to be identical. The FSL report was proved by Punit Puri

(PW-15), who had conducted the said examination and had made a

similar deposition in the court. The empty cartridge EC1 was marked

Exhibit P-3 and the empty cartridge EC2 found in the country made

pistol was marked Exhibit P-2. The pistol itself was marked Exhibit P-

1.

12. Inspector Ramesh Singh (PW-14) was the first person, who had

identified Exhibit P-3. In his examination on 9th October, 2009 one

parcel sealed with the seal of FSL was opened and the empty cartridge

was shown to him and identified by him. This cartridge Exhibit P-3, as

noticed above, was seized at the place of occurrence and as per the

seizure memo the cartridge number was KF 8 mm 00. However, in the

court deposition Inspector Ramesh Singh (PW-14) has stated that at the

bottom of the empty cartridge, number KF 8 mm 86 was inscribed, i.e.,

the number, which was mentioned on the empty cartridge EC2 found in

the pistol as per the sketch (Exhibit PW-3/A). Similarly, Constable

Ashok Kumar (PW-13) in his court deposition recorded on 18th

February, 2010 had identified the dead cartridge EC1 found at the spot

and had stated that on the bottom the number KM 8 mm 86 was

inscribed.

13. In view of the aforesaid position, the contention raised by the

appellant was that there has been interpolation or change of the

cartridge, which was allegedly recovered from the spot, i.e., cartridge

Exhibit P-3 or EC1 and, therefore, the FSL report cannot be accepted

and cannot be a ground to convict the appellant.

14. At the outset, we notice that this ground was not raised and

argued before the trial court. Before the trial court, the appellant had

filed written arguments but no such contention or argument was raised

in the written arguments. The judgment of the trial court does not

record and refer to any such argument. However, in view of the plea

raised, we directed the Additional Public Prosecutor to call for the

original exhibits from the malkhana today itself. The original exhibits

have been produced before us and seals were broken and the exhibits

examined by us and the counsels. The empty cartridge EC1 or P3 at the

bottom has the alphabet KF 8 mm 00 inscribed thereon. The empty

cartridge EC2 or P2 has the alphabet KF 8 mm 86 inscribed thereon.

Thus, there is no discrepancy and the prosecution version is correct. It

is apparent that during the court depositions, errors were made and this

may have happened because the Public Prosecutor did not take care and

caution to examine the documents and articles and the witnesses

possibly got confused. None of the witnesses, i.e., Constable Ashok

Kumar (PW-13), Inspector Ramesh Singh (PW-14) and ACP Harpal

Singh (PW-18) were not cross-examined on the said discrepancy and,

therefore, no occasion or cause arose for them to clarify. As already

noticed above, no such argument was raised before the trial court and,

therefore, this aspect was not clarified or examined by the trial court

also. Statement of ACP Harpal Singh (PW-18) and Constable Ashok

Kumar (PW-13) were recorded on the same day, i.e., 18th February,

2010.

15. There cannot be any dispute as to the empty cartridge (Exhibit P-

3/EC1), which was found at the spot in view of the seizure memo

(Exhibit PW-13/B) and the sketch of the empty cartridge (Exhibit PW-

13/A), which specifically mention the number/alphabet inscribed on the

empty cartridge as KF 8 mm 00. The said number is also mentioned in

the malkhana register (Exhibits CW-1/A and 1/B) (at page No. 74 of

the compilation). The deposit of the cartridge Exhibit P-2/EC2 found

in the pistol is recorded in the malkhana register, i.e., register No. 19 (at

page No. 76 of the compilation). The sketch of the empty cartridge

Exhibit P-2 recovered and found in the country made pistol as per the

sketch (Exhibit PW-3/A) had the alphabet/numbers KF 8 mm 86

inscribed on it.

16. We also reject the contention that the recovery should be

disbelieved because ACP Harpal Singh (PW-18) and Constable Ashok

Kumar (PW-13) had incorrectly stated that the cartridge found from the

spot had the alphabet/number KM 8mm 00 instead of KF 8 mm 86

inscribed thereon. This is a mere and small error in their court

depositions. The court deposition to this extent will not override the

contemporaneous documents, which were prepared at the time of the

seizure, which specifically refer to the number inscribed on the

cartridge as KF 8 mm 00.

17. We record that the CFSL expert had specifically mentioned and

described the two cartridges as EC1 and EC2 and, therefore, there

cannot be any confusion or doubt or debate regarding cartridge found at

the spot Exhibit P-3 and the cartridge, which was found in the pistol

Exhibit P-2. The words "EC1" and "EC2" have been written with hand

on the two catridges. Thus, the number/alphabet inscribed on the two

cartridges tally with the seizure memos/sketch plan in which

alphabet/numbers are mentioned. Thus, the contention of the appellant

has to be rejected.

18. At this stage, it would be now appropriate to notice the manner in

which the investigation had proceeded. The prosecution version is that

the deceased Kusheshwar was married to Urmila (PW-5). This is

accepted. The deceased Kusheshwar used to work in a factory at Noida

as a Supervisor and used to come back home at Nangloi on Saturday

and remained there till Sunday. He used to go back for work on

Monday morning. The prosecution had alleged that the appellant-

Arvind Kumar had illicit relations with Urmila (PW-5). Urmila (PW-5)

in her court deposition had accepted that the appellant belonged to the

native village of her husband but claimed that the appellant never

visited their house and she did not know where he lived. She had stated

that the appellant used to live in the village of her husband and,

therefore, she knew that the appellant was related to him, being from

the same village. It is, however, noticeable that the appellant was

arrested on 3rd May, 2006 vide (Exhibit PW-14/F) from Delhi. Urmila

(PW-5) was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the Additional

Public Prosecutor but she did not accept that she had illicit relations

with the appellant or was deposing falsely to help the appellant. Vinod

Kumar Bhardwaj (PW-2) in his court deposition had stated that he

knew the deceased and he had a wife and two children. The deceased

was working at Noida in a private company and he used to come and

stay in his home on Saturday and Sunday. He used to leave for work

on Monday morning. Children of PW-5 and the deceased were young.

He accepted that appellant-Arvind had a confectionery shop at Nihal

Vihar and Kusheshwar had suspicion on Arvind. He also accepted that

there was some quarrel between Arvind and the deceased. PW-2,

however, claimed that the quarrel had taken place three-four months

before the death of Kusheshwar as they had a little argument and

nothing happened in his presence. He did not know if the appellant had

made any specific statement in his presence. PW-2 claimed that he did

not know date of death of Kusheshwar or seen the appellant-Arvind in

the area of Nihal Vihar. PW-2 was also declared hostile and was cross-

examined by the Public Prosecutor but did not change his position on

several aspects and claimed that he did not know why appellant-Arvind

used to visit the house of Kusheshwar. He denied suggestions given to

him by the Public Prosecutor. PW-2 was cross-examined on behalf of

the appellant and in the cross-examination, he went to the extent of

stating that he did not know Kusheshwar personally and had come to

know his name only at the time of death, though he was his neighbour.

PW-2 denied that he had never spoken to him or had stated that the

deceased had suspicion on the appellant. The last assertion was

contrary to what PW2 had stated in his examination in chief in some

detail.

19. Having considered the statement of PWs-2 and 5, we are clearly

of the opinion that their depositions in the court have to be read with

care and caution. It can be derived and inferred from the deposition of

PW-2 that there was something amiss between the appellant and the

deceased. There was quarrel and reason and cause for dispute between

them. The two witnesses have, however, not supported the prosecution

version on the nature of the said dispute. The appellant certainly knew

the deceased. It is also clear that the deceased used to work in a factory

at Noida and used to come to Delhi and stay with his family at Nihal

Vihar on Saturday and Sundays.

20. The present case is of a deliberate and pre-meditated criminal

action to eliminate Kusheshwar by killing him with a fire arm. The

occurrence in question had taken place on Friday late evening at about

9.30 P.M., when the deceased was coming to his residence. The

person, who had committed the said offence, had specifically targeted

the appellant for personal reasons and animosity. It is not a case of

robbery or a mistaken identity, which resulted in death of Kusheshwar.

It is on the basis of the said clues that the Investigating Officer

proceeded and consequent upon the detention/arrest of the appellant,

disclosure statement was recorded and then weapon of offence was

recovered. The empty cartridge recovered from the place of occurrence

as per FSL report was fired from the said weapon of offence. The

aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution clearly proves that the

appellant alone was the perpetrator of the crime in question and no third

person was involved. The chain is complete and rules out any other

person being the perpetrator of the offence in question.

21. We have also examined the statement made by the appellant

under Section 313 Cr.P.C., but do not find explanation/reason in the

answers given by the appellant to exonerate or otherwise dent the

prosecution version. In response to question No. 10, the appellant has

stated that he was arrested from his house in Durga Park and he was

forced to sign some blank papers. In question No. 10, it was suggested

that he was apprehended on 3rd May, 2006. In his statement under

Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant claimed that he did not know the

deceased Kusheshwar, he was innocent and had been falsely

implicated. He also claimed that there was no quarrel between him

and the deceased Kusheshwar and he had never threatened the

deceased. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. recorded on 25th

October, 2010, the appellant had stated that the „katta‟ had been planted

on him and at the time of his arrest on 3rd May, 2006, the police officers

at Police Station were discussing that they had placed the „katta‟ at aam

wala bagh and they had recovered the same from the place of incident

and the same could be shown as recovered at his instance. As noted

above, there is ample and reliable evidence in form of statements of

Constable Ashok Kumar (PW-13), Inspector Ramesh Singh (PW-14)

and ACP Harpal Singh (PW-18). They have not stated that any pistol

or „deshi katta‟ was recovered at the spot. Similar are statements by SI

Lalit Kumar (PW-10) and Head Constable Vijay Kumar (PW-17) from

the crime team. In fact, they were never confronted and it was not

suggested that a pistol or „deshi katta‟ was recovered from the spot.

22. In view of the aforesaid position, we do not find any merit in the

present appeal and the same is dismissed. We affirm the conviction of

the appellant and also affirm the order on sentence imposing life

imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of which, the

appellant has to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six

months. The appeal is dismissed.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

G.P. MITTAL, J.

APRIL 22, 2014 VKR/NA