Delhi High Court
Neeraj vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 24 February, 2015
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
$~Part-A (R-13 to 18)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 503/2013
Date of decision: 24th February, 2015
NEERAJ ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Deepak Vohra, Advocate.
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Varun Goswami, APP along with
Inspector Ajay Kumar Singh, PTC.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 406/2013
RAJEEV ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Anurag Jain, Mr. Rohit Chauhan &
Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocates.
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Varun Goswami, APP along with
Inspector Ajay Kumar Singh, PTC.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 529/2013
KANHAIYA ..... Appellant
Through Mr. R.K. Anand & Ms. Payal Juneja,
Advocates.
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Varun Goswami, APP along with
Inspector Ajay Kumar Singh, PTC.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 551/2013
MANOJ ..... Appellant
Through Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, Advocate.
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Varun Goswami, APP along with
Inspector Ajay Kumar Singh, PTC.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 552/2013
SONU @ MUCHMUNDA ..... Appellant
Through Mr. R.K. Anand & Ms. Payal Juneja,
Advocates.
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Varun Goswami, APP along with
Inspector Ajay Kumar Singh, PTC.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 506/2013
UMESH ..... Appellant
Through Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate.
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP along with
Inspector Ajay Kumar Singh, PTC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):
This common judgment will dispose of these six appeals impugning
judgment dated 23rd November, 2012, arising out of charge sheet filed in
FIR No.13/2008, Police Station New Usmanpur. By the impugned
judgment, the appellants have been convicted under Section 302 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short). By the order
on sentence dated 30th November, 2012, the appellants have been
sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 read
with Section 34, IPC and fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment of
fine, they have to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year each.
2. As per the police version, one Akash was also involved in the said
occurrence, but he is absconding. The said Akash has been declared a
Proclaimed Offender (PO, for short). Three others, whose names are
withheld, were tried under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2000.
3. DD No. 2A (Exhibit PW-16/A) was recorded at 8.20 A.M. on 13th
January, 2008 to the effect that an unknown dead body was lying near
Shastri Park ground near hospital where fairs were held. This DD entry
was marked to SI Sharif Ahmad (PW-16) and Constable Khubi Ram (PW-
4) for investigation. Both of them reached Sabhagar Bhawan (auditorium),
DDA Building, Shastri Park, where they found a dead body of a boy whose
face was smeared with blood. The deceased had injuries on his left eye
and the left ear. There were also injuries on the right side of the stomach
and on the back side. Blood was also found lying near the dead body and
one stone was lying at some distance with leather belt in addition to two
monograms of belt having blood-stain mark and a blood stained jeans. The
deceased was not wearing any shirt but was wearing black pants with
striped black socks. The deceased also had about Rs.830/- in cash in his
pocket. The identity of the deceased could not be ascertained. No eye
witness was available. However, the chowkidar, namely, Babu Ram, who
deposed as PW-12 in the trial court, was found at the spot. We shall be
referring to the site plan of the spot, which is material and relevant,
subsequently.
4. The aforesaid dead body, as per the testimony of Constable Khubi
Ram (PW-4) and SI Sharif Ahmad (PW-16), was taken to the GTB
Hospital Mortuary and deposited.
5. SI Sharif Ahmad (PW-16), who was also the first Investigating
Officer, has deposed that on 14th January, 2008 the said dead body was
identified by one Rakesh Kumar, brother-in-law of the deceased in the
GTB hospital in his presence and in the presence of Constable Khubi Ram
(PW-4). Thereupon, they came to know that the deceased was Sanjeev
Kumar. Constable Khubi Ram (PW-4) in his examination-in-chief has
deposed similar lines, accepting that on 14th January, 2008 he along with
SHO Kishan Lal, SI Sharif Ahmad (PW-16) and Rakesh Kumar had gone
to the GTB Hospital Mortuary and the dead body was identified as that of
Sanjeev, s/o Hira Lal by the said Rakesh Kumar. We shall be dealing and
referring to the statement of Rakesh Kumar (PW-2) separately as the said
witness is of some relevance, when we examine the question of
involvement of the appellants as the perpetrators, who had committed the
offence in question.
6. The Post-mortem on the dead body of Sanjeev Kumar was
conducted by Dr. Sumit Tellewar (PW-20). The post-mortem report stands
proved and marked as Ex.PW-20/A. The said report elucidates 39 external
injuries, out of which except for injury No.37, all injuries were caused by
blunt object. Injury No.37 was caused by pointed blunt object like an iron
rod, screw driver, blunt scrap iron or likewise. The details of the 37 injuries
mentioned in the post-mortem report are not being reproduced, but we
would like to reproduce details of injury Nos.6 & 7, which the post-mortem
report opined were sufficient to cause death individually in the ordinary
course of nature. These injuries are as under:-
"6. Lacerated wound measuring 5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep present
obliquely over the left side of forehead, 1.3 cm away from
midline and lower end is 0.2 cm above mid of left eyebrow with
fracture of underneath frontal bone.
7. Lacerated wound measuring 3 cm x 0.3 cm x bone deep
present around the lateral continus of left eye extending on to the
left eyebrow with fracture of underneath orbital bone."
The post-mortem report also opines that injuries Nos.1 to 8, 9, 10, 11, 16 to
22 and 28 to 32 were sufficient to cause death collectively in the ordinary
course of nature.
7. As noticed above, in the present case the First Information Report
does not record or mention the name of the deceased or of the perpetrators.
The deceased, as per the prosecution version, was identified by Rakesh
Kumar (PW-2) on 14th January, 2008 more than 24 hours after the dead
body was discovered. The time of the occurrence was earlier. Rakesh
Kumar (PW-2) also did not name or suspect anyone. Rakesh Kumar (PW-
2) in his court deposition asserted that the deceased-Sanjeev Kumar was
his brother-in-law and on 14th January, 2008, one Mandola (also known as
Manoj), had gone with the deceased and had shown him a newspaper
report regarding murder of Sanjeev Kumar. Prior to that, Rakesh Kumar
(PW-2) was not aware that his brother-in-law had died. After reading the
news, he went to the Police Station, New Usmanpur, where he was shown
a photograph of Sanjeev Kumar which he identified as of his brother-in-
law. The photograph seen by Rakesh Kumar (PW-2) was marked as Ex.P1.
8. It is clear from the testimony of Rakesh Kumar (PW-2) that on 14th
January, 2008 the police was not aware of the suspects. Till 14th January,
2008, Rakesh Kumar (PW-2) was not aware that Sanjeev Kumar had died.
He did not suspect or name any person, who would have committed the
said offence. Mandola (Manoj), who had gone with the deceased, had not
mentioned or reported to him about any occurrence on 13 th January, 2008.
Mandola (Manoj) had also not suggested or revealed the culprits. On the
other hand, Mandola (Manoj) had shown a newspaper clipping that
Sanjeev Kumar had died. Mondola (Manoj) had not claimed or asserted
that he was an eye witness or that he knew who killed Sanjeev Kumar.
9. This brings us to the testimony of Mandola (Manoj), who deposed as
PW-1. In his examination-in-chief, Mandola (Manoj) (PW-1) has testified
that he along with the deceased Sanjeev Kumar, who was also known as
Sandeep, had gone to Bhairon Mandir at about 1:30 AM at night. He knew
the accused, i.e. the appellants herein, prior to the occurrence. The
appellants had forced and made the deceased-Sanjeev Kumar sit in an auto-
rickshaw and had taken the deceased to Shastri Park. After alighting from
the three-wheeler auto-rickshaw, they started beating the deceased-Sanjeev
Kumar with pieces of bricks on his face. He watched the incident from a
distance of about 20-25 yards. Sanjeev Kumar became unconscious and
fell down. Thus, Mandola (Manoj) (PW-1) claims that he was an eye
witness to the said occurrence.
10. The question which arises for consideration is whether this assertion
of Mandola (Manoj) (PW-1) is credible and trustworthy and, therefore, we
should accept that he was an eye witness to the incident, who had seen the
occurrence taking place at the under-constructed auditorium at Shastri
Park.
11. There are several reasons why we feel that the ocular testimony of
Mandola (Manoj) (PW-1) is highly debatable and unreliable. We shall
now be indicating our reasons for disbelieving and not accepting the
prosecution version that Mandola (Manoj) (PW-1) was an eye witness to
the said occurrence. The first fact, which has to be noticed, is that
Mandola (Manoj) (PW-1) had failed and not pointed out about the
occurrence on 13th January, 2008, to the police or even to the family
members of the deceased Sanjeev Kumar. As noticed above, Rakesh
Kumar (PW-2), brother-in-law of the deceased Sanjeev Kumar has stated
that Mandola (Manoj) (PW-1) had come to him on 14th January, 2008 with
a newspaper cutting reporting murder of Sanjeev Kumar. Till 14th January,
2008, Rakesh Kumar (PW-2) was not aware about the death of Sanjeev
Kumar. Rakesh Kumar (PW-2), as already recorded above, did not state or
depose that Mandola (Manoj) (PW-1) had informed him that he was an eye
witness to the incident in which the appellants had beaten up Sanjeev
Kumar and were responsible for his death. Rakesh Kumar (PW-2) has also
not deposed that Mandola (Manoj) (PW-1) had stated that he knew the
culprits. As per the police version, they had interrogated Mandola (Manoj)
(PW-1) only on 15th January, 2008, and then they came to know that he
was an eye witness along with one Bobby (PW-3). It is noticeable that
Rakesh Kumar (PW-2) has not mentioned and referred to Bobby (PW-3) in
his testimony.
12. Mandola (Manoj) (PW-1) in his court deposition has stated that the
appellant-Umesh was a leader of pick-pocketers, who was having an old
enmity with the deceased-Sanjeev Kumar, as the latter had slapped one of
his gang members, namely, Kaka. At Bhairon Mandir, appellant-Umesh
had caught hold of the deceased-Sanjeev Kumar and thereupon, the
deceased-Sanjeev Kumar was surrounded by others, including the
appellants herein. The deceased was compelled to sit in a three wheeler
auto-rickshaw bearing No. DL-1R-K-5121 and driven to Shastri Park. The
said three-wheeler belonged to one of the appellants Rajeev, who was a
friend of Akash (PO). PW-1 followed the said three-wheeler in another
three-wheeler auto-rickshaw to Shastri Park where he had seen the entire
occurrence.
13. It is difficult to accept and believe that Mandola (Manoj) (PW-1) had
followed the three-wheeler auto-rickshaw in which the deceased Sanjeev
Kumar was being taken and had, thereafter, got down and witnessed the
entire occurrence from a distance of 20-25 yards, but would not have
contacted the police or even the family members of the deceased
immediately after the occurrence, and for the entire day on 13th January,
2008. Mandola (Manoj) (PW-1) antithetically claims that he was a close
friend of deceased Sanjeev Kumar and they used to share their feelings
with each other.
14. In the cross-examination, Mandola (Manoj) (PW-1), accepted that he
was also a pick-pocketer like the appellants and he had been taught the said
skills by the appellants. He was then about 10-12 years old. PW-1 claimed
that he had stopped pick-pocketing and had left their company after he was
beaten up by the appellants about a year prior to the incident. He claimed
that he was having barely Rs.50/- in his pocket when he had reached
Bhairon Mandir and out of the said amount he had made offerings of
Rs.21/- while the auto-rickshaw driver had charged him Rs.20/- for the
return journey. In the cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that there was
no traffic when he got down from the auto-rickshaw and there were only
fields and some public persons were passing in the area. However, he did
not notice any police officers from Bhairon Mandir to Shastri Park. It is
accepted position that the distance between Bhairon Mandir and Shastri
Park is about 10 km. Thus, Shastri Park is at a considerable distance from
Bhairon Mandir. However, Shastri Park is near the residence where the
deceased-Sanjeev Kumar and Mandola (Manoj) (PW-1) used to reside.
The said assertions reflect that Mandola (Manoj) (PW-1) did not hesitate or
out of fear did not waver and avoid following the appellants and pry on
them. But conflictingly and discordantly, it is claimed that PW-1 because
of anxiety or trepidation had maintained silence and stupor.
15. Mandola (Manoj) (PW-1), in his cross examination, described that
the occurrence had taken place in fields and he had concealed himself
behind the wall at some distance from the accused, i.e. the appellants.
Residential flats were situated at a distance of 50 to 60 steps from the place
where the occurrence had taken place and the deceased had cried and
raised noise when he was beaten up. At the same time, PW-1 has also
stated that the deceased was beaten inside a confined area, which was
under construction and he was outside the boundary wall. The boundary
wall was about 5-5½ feet high, which was higher than his height. There is,
therefore, an apparent contradiction in the testimony of Mandola (Manoj)
(PW-1) as to the exact location or the place where violence had taken
place. On the said aspect, we would now like to refer to the scaled site
plan relied upon by the prosecution marked as Ex.PW-10/A. The same
was prepared and proved by SI Mukesh Kumar Jain (PW-10), Draftsman,
who had visited the spot on 15th February, 2008 at the request of the
Investigating Officer Inspector A.K. Singh (PW-21). He had taken
measurements and had also prepared rough notes. As per the said site plan
(Ex.PW-10/A), the occurrence had taken place at two different places. The
dead body was found inside the auditorium, which was under construction,
next to the wall at the extreme end. At the said place, wooden planks and
two blood stained bricks were lying. Blood could also be seen on the wall.
The second occurrence had taken place at a substantial distance from the
said place and behind the auditorium building and after another boundary
wall. The site plan (Ex.PW-10/A) indicates the second spot, as behind a
boundary wall constructed after the auditorium building. At the second
spot, blood stained stone, blood stained jeans, blood stained leather belt
and two belt monograms were lying. The site plan (Ex.PW-10/A) would
clearly reflect that the violence had taken place at two different places, and
the entire episode could not have been seen by the same person unless he
had come inside the complex under construction. In view of the
construction, including the boundary walls it was not possible to watch the
occurrence from outside. It is, therefore, difficult to accept that the
Mandola (Manoj) (PW-1) had hidden himself behind the boundary wall of
the main building under construction and yet at the same time, he could
notice what was going on beyond the auditorium and behind the boundary
wall. It is difficult to believe and accept the said version given by Mandola
(Manoj) (PW-1) as to his presence as an eye witness, who had seen the
entire violence happening before his eyes.
16. Mandola (Manoj) (PW-1) had, in his cross-examination, accepted
that he had not made any effort to call the police and inform them about the
occurrence, but claimed that he had informed at the house of the deceased.
As noticed above, it is apparent that the house of the deceased was not
informed on 13th January, 2008. Mandola (Manoj) (PW-1) at another place
in his cross-examination has testified that he did not talk to the police
officers 2-3 days after the incident and had come to know about the
occurrence from some boys, who had gone to play cricket in a park. At
another place, he had stated that police had taken him in custody, the next
day after the incident and he was kept in the police station for 2-3 days and
his signatures were obtained on documents. In the cross-examination, he
also testified to the effect that prior to the arrest of the accused, police was
telling him that he was one of the persons, who had killed the deceased.
He was beaten up by the police and thereafter had disclosed the names of
the appellants.
17. On the question of involvement or the role of appellant-Rajeev,
Mandola (Manoj) (PW-1) has oscillated on 2-3 occasions. As per Mandola
(Manoj) (PW-1), appellant-Rajeev was a friend of Akash (PO) and was a
three-wheeler auto-rickshaw driver. This vehicle driven by the appellant-
Rajeev was used by the appellants and their gang in pick-pocket
operations. In his cross-examination on 19th March, 2009, Mandola
(Manoj) (PW-1) with reference to appellant-Rajeev had stated that Rajeev
was neither named nor was a member of the gang and it was correct that
Rajeev was not involved in beating the deceased. Rajeev was standing at a
distance of 10-15 steps from the place of incident. However, the said
witness was recalled for examination on behalf of the prosecution and in
his deposition on 20th September, 2010, contradicted himself by
ascertaining that Rajeev had also given beating to Sanjeev Kumar @
Sandeep and he had earlier out of fear testified that Rajeev had no role to
play in the murder. He claimed that he was now deposing truthfully and
earlier he had made a wrong statement under fear. On the same day, upon
cross-examination by counsel for Rajeev, Mandola (Manoj) (PW-1)
reciprocated that he was not aware whether Rajeev was an auto driver or
not, and he had not met Rajeev prior to the occurrence. He solemnly
pronounced that the said statement in cross-examination was not out of any
fear or pressure.
18. This brings us to the testimony of Bobby (PW-3), the other eye
witness, who turned hostile and did not effectively support the prosecution
version. Bobby (PW-3) in his court deposition has testified that he along
with Mandola (Manoj) (PW-1), deceased-Sanjeev Kumar and others had
gone to Bhairon Mandir in a three-wheeler auto-rickshaw, after they agreed
to share the fare. They had reached Bhairon Mandir at about 12:30/1:00
A.M. and had paid their respects inside the temple. On coming out, they
had soft drinks and then proceeded to a bhandara where the deceased-
Sanjeev Kumar met some persons, who started quarrelling with him. He
did not know the reason or the cause, why they were quarrelling. Sanjeev
Kumar escaped and ran away towards the park and Mandola (Manoj) (PW-
1) also ran away from there. Thereafter, he hired an auto-rickshaw to
proceed to the Red Fort from where he had hired another three-wheeler
auto-rickshaw to reach his residence. Bobby (PW-3) asserted that he was
not an eye witness and had not seen the appellants beating Sanjeev Kumar.
After about three days, Mandola (Manoj) (PW-1) had come to their house
and PW-3 was taken to the police station at about 3:30 A.M. and
interrogated. Thereafter, at about 10:00 P.M., PW-3 was allowed to go.
The Additional Public Prosecutor had cross-examined Bobby (PW-3) but
the said witness was resolute and reiterated what he had deposed in his
examination-in-chief. Bobby (PW-3) did not recognise the appellants. It is
noticeable that Mandola (Manoj) (PW-1) in his testimony, has also
accepted that Bobby (PW-3) was not with him at the time when he had
seen the occurrence taking place at the under-construction auditorium at
Shastri Park. Therefore, we do not consider that Bobby (PW-3) is an eye
witness to the occurrence.
19. Once we discard the ocular testimony of Mandola (Manoj) (PW-1)
as an eye witness to the actual violence, we are left with the purported
occurrence which had taken place at the Bhairon Mandir. The testimony of
Mandola (Manoj) (PW-1) and Bobby (PW-3) would indicate that the two
witnesses, deceased-Sanjeev Kumar and others had gone to the Bhairon
Mandir in the intervening night between 12th and 13th January, 2008. As
per the deposition of Mandola (Manoj) (PW-1), quarrel and a fight had
ensued between the appellants and the deceased at Bhairon Mandir. Bobby
(PW-3) has, however, stated that he did not know the third party involved
in the said quarrel. As per Mandola (Manoj) (PW-1), the appellants were
involved in the said quarrel. However, we are not inclined to accept and
believe the testimony of Mandola (Manoj) (PW-1) that he had seen the
deceased-Sanjeev Kumar going in a three-wheeler auto-rickshaw with the
appellants from Bhairon Mandir. The reason is obvious and apparent. In
case Mandola (Manoj) (PW-1) had seen the deceased being taken away by
the appellants in a three-wheeler auto-rickshaw, he would have certainly
got in touch with Sanjeev Kumar or his family members on 13th January,
2008 itself, to ascertain his well being and whether anything wrong or
untoward had happened. As per the prosecution version, Mandola (Manoj)
(PW-1) had remained silent and did not get in touch with either the police
or the family members of Sanjeev Kumar on 13th January, 2008. Mandola
(Manoj) (PW-1), it is apparent, had not tried to get in touch with the
deceased-Sanjeev Kumar on 13th January, 2008. It is plausible that
Mandola (Manoj) (PW-1) suspected and believed that the appellants may
be involved in the said offence. It is also possible that the deceased-
Sanjeev Kumar may have left Bhairon Mandir to proceed to his residence
and on the way back, violence had taken place at the under-construction
auditorium at Shastri Park. It is not the case of the prosecution that
Mandola (Manoj) (PW-1) had gone back to New Usmanpur along with the
deceased-Sanjeev Kumar. We have already discarded the version given by
PW-1 to the effect that he had followed the deceased-Sanjeev Kumar along
with the appellants in another hired three-wheeler auto-rickshaw.
20. Where and when a single eye witness account is found to be credible
and trustworthy, a finding of conviction can be recorded, for Section 134 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 affirmatively states that no particular
number of witnesses are required to prove any fact. Proof of fact,
therefore, does not depend upon the number of witnesses. Evidence has to
be weighed and not counted. Thus, we have to examine the quality of the
testimony and assertions made by Mandola (Manoj) (PW-1). In Vadivelu
Thevar versus The State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614, it was observed
that generally oral testimonies can be classified into three categories;
namely, wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, and neither wholly reliable nor
wholly unreliable. The first two categories pose no difficulty but in the
third category, the Court has to be circumspect and look for corroboration
in material particulars by reliable testimony and evidence, direct and
circumstantial. However, while examining the said aspect the Courts
should not insist on plurality of witnesses for proving a fact for they would
be then encouraging subordination of witnesses. We have applied the
aforesaid tests with reference to the deposition of Mandola (Manoj) (PW-
1). In this context, we have found his testimony and assertion that he was
an eye witness who had followed the six appellants and four others in a
three-wheeler auto-rickshaw from Bhairon Mandir, located near Pragati
Maidan, to Shastri Park about 10 km away without being noticed and then
had hidden behind a wall to see the entire occurrence is rather imaginative
and unbelievable. Importantly and significantly, Mandola (Manoj) (PW-1)
did not deem it appropriate and necessary to inform the family members of
the deceased about the occurrence as to the culprits and then evaded and
lied to the family members of the deceased-Sanjeev Kumar. Mandola's
(Manoj) (PW-1) assertions as to how and what he saw are belied and do
not match with the site plan (Ex.PW-10/A) which indicates that the
violence had occurred at two places. One of the places was behind the
second boundary wall which was constructed after the under-constructed
auditorium. No one standing outside the first wall on the other side of the
auditorium could have seen the occurrence at this location. The dead body
of Sanjeev Kumar was found lying at the last end of the auditorium. It
appears that the violence had taken place at two separate locations which
were at a substantial distance. The circumstantial evidence, therefore, does
not corroborate the eye-witness account as stated by Mandola (Manoj)
(PW-1). Thus, to reach to our conclusion as to doubt, we have not only
referred to unnatural and improbable conduct of Mandola (Manoj) (PW-1)
but also the prosecution version as to the place or location where the
offence had occurred and compared it with the eye-witness account as
deposed to by Mandola (Manoj) (PW-1). The site plan (Ex.PW-10/A)
relied upon by the prosecution dents and exposes the weaknesses in the
assertions of the aforesaid eye witness.
21. In these circumstances, the present appeals are allowed and the
appellants are granted the benefit of doubt. Their conviction under Section
302 read with Section 34, IPC for having committed murder of Sanjeev
Kumar in the intervening night between 12th and 13th January, 2008, is
accordingly set aside. The appellant Rajeev and Umesh have been granted
suspension of sentence pending decision of their appeal. The bail bonds
furnished by the said two appellants will be treated as
discharged/cancelled. The other appellants will be released unless required
to be detained in accordance with law in any other case.
22. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. Lower Court Record will
be sent back.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
FEBRUARY 24th, 2015
VKR
