Rajesh Sharma vs State Of M.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 193 MP

                                       -: 1 :-
                                                                 CRA No. 1327/2006


 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
  (DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)

                             CRA No. 1327 OF 2006
Appellant.                         1. Rajesh Sharma S/o. Laxminarayan Sharma,
                                      Aged 29 years, Occ. Milk business.
                                   2. Sunil S/o. Laxminarayan Sharma,
                                      Aged 33 years, Occ. Politician.
                                   3. Laxminarayan S/o. Dariyav Prasad Sharma,
                                      Aged 79 years, Occ. Gaushala.
                                   4. Smt.Munnibai W/o. Laxminarayan Sharma,
                                      Aged 76 years, Occ. Housewife.
                                   5. Ku. Mamta D/o. Laxminarayan Sharma,
                                      Aged 32 years, Occ. Housewife.
                                   All R/o. 11/6, Ashok Nagar, Ujjain.
                     Vs.
Respondent.                        State of M.P. through P.S. Madhav Nagar,
                                   District Ujjain.

                            ***********************
      Shri S.K. Vyas, Sr. Advocate with Shri Harshwardhan Pathak, Advocate for
       the appellants.
      Shri Amit Singh Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

                            ***********************

                                   JUDGMENT

(Heard on 2nd December 2021) (Delivered on 5th January 2022)

Per se Vivek Rusia, J :

The appellants have filed the present appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.11.2006 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Sessions Trial No. 309/2005 whereby they have been convicted u/s. 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC on two counts and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 - 1,000/- each and in default of payment to further undergo 6-6 months additional RI.

The facts of the case, in short, are as under :

2. As per the prosecution story, the marriage of deceased Rajni @ Surekha was solemnized with appellant No.1 - Rajesh S/o. Laxminarayan

CRA No. 1327/2006

(appellant No. 3)and Smt. Munnibai (appellants No. 4) on 12.5.1999 under Hindu rituals and customs. Before marriage, the deceased was residing in the house of her elder sister viz. Smt. Kusum Sharma (P.W.5) and her husband - Ramesh Kumar Sharma (P.W.6) in Ujjain. At the time of her marriage, a sufficient amount of dowry was given as per the capacity of the parents of the deceased. She was kept well by the in-laws for 3-4 months from the date of marriage. Thereafter, appellants have started torturing her for the demand of Rs.1,00,000/- and a motorcycle as a dowery. The deceased used to tell about cruelty and demand of dowry by the appellant to her parents while visiting their house at Sirnoj, District Vidisha. She also told the aforesaid demand of dowry and cruelty to her elder sister and brother-in-law (P.W.5 & P.W.6), but they used to send her back to the matrimonial house without reporting the matter to the police.

2. On 8.8.2005 at 2.15 am., the deceased-Rajni along with her 8 months daughter- Lata were found dead due to the burning inside the bedroom in suspicious circumstances. Appellant No.1 Rajesh and his brother Sunil (appellant No.2) were found extinguishing the fire with the help of other family members. Local inhabitants after noticing the smoke and fire reached the house of appellants and thereafter, the police and employees of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board also reached there. Appellant No.2 - Sunil lodged the report in Aarakshi Kendra Madhav Nagar, Ujjain which was registered Merg No.28-29/2005 on 9.8.2005. The said Merg was recorded by Rajendra Joshi (P.W.8). As per Merg investigation, Manoj Singh, SDOP (P.W.16) reached the spot and prepared Panchnama.Tehsildar - N.N. Pandey (P.W.10) was also called. 'Safina' form vide Exh. P/22 and P/23 were drew in presence of the witnesses. The photographer - Vinod Singh Rathore (P.W.3) reached and took the photographs vide Exh. P/4 to P/20. Naksha Panchayatnama was prepared vide Exh. P/24 and P/25 in the presence of Manoj Pathak (brother of deceased Rajni) and Ramcharan (P.W.12). Prima facie, both the deaths were found homicidal due to burning from kerosene oil. The dead bodies were sent for post-mortem. The autopsy was conducted by three doctors viz. Dr. Achlak Maharaja; Dr. P. Bhargava;

CRA No. 1327/2006

and Dr. O.P. Gupta (P.W.1) gave a joint opinion about the cause of death vide report (Exh. P/1 and P/2). According to them, both the dead bodies were found100% burnt, hence the deaths were found to be homicidal.

3. The investigation carried out so far has led to the registration of the FIR at Crime No. 500/2005 u/s. 304-B and 34 of the IPC against all the appellants. The burnt clothes of both the deceased were collected from Civil Hospital and handed over to H.C.M. Gopal (P.W.11). The Tehsildar prepared 'Najri Naksha' vide Exh. P/27. The SDOP Manoj Singh put the seal on the room from where the dead bodies were found. He recorded the statement of Manoj Pathak (P.W.4); Ramesh Kumar Sharma (P.W.6) and Bhagwatibai Pathak (P.W.9). The appellants/accused were arrested on 21.8.2005 vide arrest memo (Exh. P/33, P/34 and P/37). The seized articles were sent to the FSL vide memo (Exh. P/38) and the report was received vide Exh. P/39. According to the said report, the residues of kerosene oil were found on all the seized articles.

4. After completing the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class from where it was committed to the Court of Sessions. On 3.1.2006, learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges against the appellants u/s. 498A, 304-B and in the alternative, u/s. 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC on two counts. The appellants denied the charges and pleaded for trial. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed the main issues for adjudication (i) Whether the death of deceased Rajni and Lata on 9.3.2005 at 2.15 am is a dowry death, and in the alternative, it is homicidal or not? (ii) Whether the appellants have murdered Rajni and Lata with a common intention? Learned Addl. Sessions Judge has also framed the issue in respect of demand of dowry and cruelty by these appellants for the demand of Rs.1,00,000/- and a motorcycle.

5. In order to prove the above charges, the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses and got exhibited 39 documents. In defence, the appellants did not examine any witness but exhibited the statements of Manoj Pathak (P.W.4); Smt. Kusum (P.W. 5); Ramesh Kumar Sharma (P.W.6); and Bhagwatibai (P.W.9) as Exh. D/1 to D/4. After evaluating the evidence that has come on

CRA No. 1327/2006

record, learned Addl. Sessions Judge has found the following circumstances established against the appellants :

(i) The deceased was married to appellant No.1 - Rajesh and after marriage, she was subjected to cruelty for the demand of dowry;

(ii) The deceased Rajni and her daughter Lata were in the sleeping stage at 2.00 in the night?

(iii) From the evidence of Arjun Singh (P.W.15) it has been established that the husband of the deceased Rajesh was not in the house at 2.00 in the night and later on he was found extinguishing the fire along with appellant No.2 Sunil. The husband of the deceased Rajesh has not given any explanation as to under what circumstances both the deceased died.

(iv) Both the deceased were in a room and mother-in-law and father-in- law were also sleeping in a nearby room of the same house, and they were present at the time of extinguishing of fire.

(v) Both the deceased were found 100% burnt with a smell of kerosene oil which has been established by postmortem report (Exh. P/1 & P/2) and FSL report (Exh. P/39).

(vi) After receiving the information from brother-in-law of the deceased ('Devar'), her brother - Manoj Pathak (P.W.5) and brother-in-law - Ramesh Kumar Sharma (P.W.6) came there and saw the deceased and her daughter died in burnt condition.

(vii) As per 'Naksha Panchayatnama' the residues of kerosene oil were found in the dead bodies and as per the information given by the witnesses which has been confirmed by the FSL report.

(viii) It was not possible for anyone apart from the family members to burn the deceased in sleeping conditions by pouring the kerosene oil.

6. Based on the aforesaid circumstances, learned Additional Session Judge has held that the offence has been committed by all the accused/ appellants in a common intention and in the defence they could not establish that there was the fire accident in the room due to a short circuit, accordingly, learned Additional Session Judge has acquitted the appellants from the charges u/s.304-B and 498A of the IPC, but convicted them u/s.

CRA No. 1327/2006

302 read with section 149 of the IPC and sentenced ( on two counts ) to undergo life imprisonment.

Hence, the present appeal before this Court.

7. During the pendency of this appeal, appellant No.3 - Laxminarayan expired hence the Criminal Appeal is abetted against him. Appellant No.2- Sunil, No.4-Smt. Munnibai and No.5-Ku. Mamta are on bail and only appellant No.1 - Rajesh Sharma is in jail.

8. Shri S.K. Vyas, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, argued that so far as appellant - Rajesh is concerned, he has already undergone more than 17 years of incarceration but so far conviction of other appellants is concerned, they have been implicated in this case because they are closed relatives of husband of the deceased and sharing the house. Otherwise, no evidence has been collected by the prosecution to convict them u/s. 302/149 of the IPC. It is further submitted that once the appellants have been acquitted from charges under Sections 304-B and 498A of the IPC, then there was no motive for them to commit the murder of deceased Rajni and her daughter. Both died due to the fire accident that took place in the house. When the neighbours saw the fire they shouted and reached the house and saw that appellants No.1 - Rajesh and No.2 - Sunil were extinguishing the fire. No other family member was found on the spot. The case is based on circumstantial evidence as no eye-witness has seen the appellants committing the murder offence. Only on the basis of assumption and presumption, learned Addl. Sessions Judge has committed all the appellants, the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the charges against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. In support of his submission, Shri Vyas learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance over the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda V/s. State of Maharashtra : (1984) 4 SCC116.

9. On the other hand, Shri Amit Singh Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent/State, has argued in support of the impugned judgment . he has supported the impugned judgment by submitting that the appellants have been acquitted from Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC

CRA No. 1327/2006

because the death took place beyond the period of 7 years from the date of marriage of appellant No.1 with the deceased and there was no evidence of cruelty soon before the death. But, from the circumstantial evidence, learned Addl. Sessions Judge did find that the deceased Rajni was subjected to cruelty for the demand of dowry soon before her death. She was residing in the same house along with the appellants, hence the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has rightly held that they have failed to explain as to under what circumstances the fire took place and Rajni and her daughter Lata succumbed to it. It is further submitted that as per FSL report and all the 'Panch' witnesses found a smell of kerosene oil from the bodies of the deceased. Both the deaths were homicidal in nature and no one was in a position to enter into the house at 2.00 in the night to put the deceased and her daughter to fire except the appellants. Hence, the appellants have rightly been convicted u/s. 302/149 of the IPC and no interference is called for and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. Facts, which are not in controversies are that, appellant No.1 was husband, appellant No.2 was brother-in-law (Devar), appellant No.3 & appellant No.4 are father-in-law and mother-in-law and appellant No.5 is sister-in-law ( Nanad) of the deceased Rajni. The marriage of appellant No.1 with deceased Rajni took place on 12.5.1999. Rajni and her daughter Lata were found in burnt condition inside the room on 8.8.2005 at 2.15 in the night. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence as no eye-witness has come forward to allege that he saw the appellants committing the offence. It is also not in dispute that deceased Rajni and her daughter Lata died because of 100% burning. As per the post-mortem report, the death was homicidal and there is no challenge to the said finding in this appeal. The appellants have been acquitted from the charge u/s. 498A and 304-B of the IPC and there is no leave to appeal filed by the state. The prosecution has failed to prove any atrocity or demand of dowry soon before the death, hence the appellants have been convicted u/s. 302/149 of the IPC on the

CRA No. 1327/2006

basis of circumstantial evidence.

11. The prosecution has examined Manoj Pathak as P.W.4 who is the elder brother of deceased Rajni. According to him, at the time of marriage, jewellery and cash of Rs.23,000/- were given to the appellants. After 3-4 months of the marriage, the appellants started torturing the deceased Rajni for a demand of Rs.1,00,000/- and a motorcycle. She delivered two-child girls, out of which, one has died along with her and the other is with the appellants. In his entire deposition, there are omnibus allegations against the appellants in respect of demand of dowry, cruelty and harassment. On the date of the incident, he got information about a fire in the house in the house of the appellants from Govind. He reached to the spot along with Ramesh Sharma (P.W.6) and found both the deceased lying dead and there was a smell of kerosene. The police directed them to come to the spot. According to him, the deceased died because the appellants used to torture her. He has not made any allegations that the appellants have burnt his sister and her daughter. Likewise, Smt. Kusum Sharma (P.W.5) and Ramesh Kumar Sharma (P.W.6) have made an allegation regarding torture and taunting in respect of the demand for dowry. Since the appellants have been acquitted from the charges u/s. 498A and 304-B of the IPC and there is no cross- appeal either by the State or by the complainant, therefore, there is no need to re-appreciate the entire evidence on this issue. The only question which requires consideration by us is, whether the appellants have rightly been convicted u/s. 302 with the aid of Section 149 of the IPC and whether the prosecution has established the charges by way of circumstantial evidence?

12. The prosecution has examined Ramcharan (P.W.12) who was residing in the same locality at the time of the incident. According to him, when he was sleeping in his house, he noticed the flames and smock coming from in the house of appellant No.1 Rajesh. He reached there and found that the front door was closed from inside and all local habitants have gathered there. Thereafter, he opened the door with the help of others and entered the house. He broke the door in which Rajesh was residing. He poured the water into the fumes and by that time, police and fire brigade also reached. He entered

CRA No. 1327/2006

the house along with the police and saw with help of the torchlight that the dead bodies are lying in burnt condition. By that time, Ramesh and Manoj also came there. The police locked the door and handed over the keys to Rameshand Manoj. He further stated that he used to visit in the house of appellants and he never noticed any dispute in their family. They used to keep Rajni well and out of three daughters of Rajesh and Rajni one has died and two others are residing with Laxminarayan. This witness has not been declared hostile by the prosecution. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that Rajesh and Rajni were residing separately with their daughters in three rooms in the same house and thereafter there is a house of Laxminarayan. In his cross-examination he has further stated that he did not notice the smell of kerosene and on this point, learned Addl. Sessions Judge has disbelieved him. But, the other evidence of this witness cannot be disbelieved. Apart from him, no other resident has been examined by the prosecution.

13. Arjun Singh, Sub Inspector (P.W.15) who was on usual patrolling in the area on the night of 8th and 9th August 2005 received the information on wireless set and reached to spot and saw the fire. He called the fire brigade and the employees of MPEB to disconnect the electricity supply. They disconnected the electricity line. He found that the door was broken and the room was open. Rajesh and Sunil were extinguishing the fire and thereafter he locked the room and gave the key to Rajesh i.e. brother of the deceased.

14. The circumstances which have been noticed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on the basis of evidence, that the husband of the deceased Rajesh has failed to give any explanation as to in what circumstances the deceased died. It is correct that being a husband he was supposed to know the cause of the fire because he was living with the deceased and the child in the said house. According to him, there was a short circuit but no evidence has been led by him, therefore, in absence of any explanation or evidence, appellant No.1 Rajeshhas rightly been convicted u/s. 302 of the IPC . We find support from the judgement passed by the Apex court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 254

CRA No. 1327/2006

23. It is not necessary to multiply with authorities. The principle is well settled. The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and cat- egoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the court to be prob- able and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special know- ledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evid- ence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Sec- tion 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which com- pletes the chain. The principle has been succinctly stated in Naina Mohd., Re. [AIR 1960 Mad 218 : 1960 Cri LJ 620]

24. There is considerable force in the argument of counsel for the State that in the facts of this case as well it should be held that the respondent having been seen last with the deceased, the burden was upon him to prove what happened thereafter, since those facts were within his special knowledge. Since, the respondent failed to do so, it must be held that he failed to discharge the bur- den cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. This circumstance, there- fore, provides the missing link in the chain of circumstances which prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The false plea of suicide is yet another relevant fact. When the death had occurred in the deceased and her daughter was in the company of appellant No.1 hence he is under an obligation under Section 313 CrPC statement at least to give a plausible explanation for the cause of death. No such attempt was even made except denying the prosecution case. Appellant No. 1 being a husband is a prime accused in the commission of gruesome murder of his wife and daughter. The circumstantial evidence thus discussed is complete and consistent with the only conclusion that appellant No.1 has rightly been convicted for the murder of his wife and daughter.

15. But so far as other appellants Nos. 2 to 4 are concerned, they have been convicted because they were residing in the same house and they did

CRA No. 1327/2006

not notice the fire in the house on a fateful night. Therefore, learned Addl. Sessions Judge has presumed that they are also involved in the offence. The police have prepared the spot map which is reproduced below :

16. According to Ramcharan (P.W.12), appellant No.1 Rajesh, deceased Rajni and their two daughters were residing separately in three rooms of the house which has a separate entrance from the side lane. There is a house marked as 'E' in the spot map, in which, other family members i.e. appellants No. 2 to 5 were residing. The House at 'E' has a separate entry and in front thereof, there is a complete wall, therefore, all the appellants were not residing in the same house and probably, they could not notice the fire in the room where Rajni with her daughter was sleeping. They have been convicted only on the ground that they were also present in the nearby room of the deceased' rooms, but it is not sufficient to convict the other appellants u/s. 302 of the IPC, unless an active role is attributed to each of them, has been alleged and established. Since the cruelty and demands, of dowery has not been established and they have been acquitted hence there is no material collected by the police to establish common intention between appellants. Appellant No.2 Sunil is also a married person, but there is no mention of the presence of his wife in the entire case of the prosecution on the date of the incident. Nothing has been said about the elder daughter of the deceased Rajni and appellant No.1 Rajesh.

CRA No. 1327/2006

In the case of Bija v. State of Haryana, reported in (2008) 11 SCC 242 the Apex court has acquitted the other family member of the husband for want of common intention in the case of death of bride .

"26. There was motive on the part of the accused in doing away with Santro. Though both the courts had not believed the case of demand of dowry and cruelty towards deceased Santro for non-payment of sufficient dowry by the parents of deceased Santro in view of the circumstance that another sister Shero married to one of the brothers of Raghbir Singh had not stated anything as to demand of dowry by the accused persons and she was living at the matrimonial home peacefully, it has come on record that Santro was not a good-looking lady. Moreover, though her marriage was performed with Raghbir Singh in 1988 along with Shero, for about 10 years i.e. up to 1997, she could not conceive and could not bear a child. Raghbir Singh was totally indifferent and abandoned her. So much so that the complaints were made by PW 2 Lakhmi Chand (father of deceased Santro) to the Panchayat and the Panchayat had to intervene. In 1997, finally, the Panchayat practically forced the family members of the accused to accept Santro and keep her in their family and it was because of the compulsion and pressure of the Panchayat that the accused had to agree to marriage between Jagdish and Santro. Thus, there was every reason for the accused to be unhappy with deceased Santro. This is further clear from the fact that on the intervening night of 1-5-1998 and 2-5-1998, she was alone in her room on the ground floor and the dead body of deceased Santro was found in the morning of 2-5-1998 from the house of the accused.

27. But, there is no evidence that the parents of Accused 3 Jagdish i.e. Accused 1 and 4 and former husband of the deceased, Accused 2 Raghbir Singh had common intention to kill deceased Santro and they were parties in killing the deceased. It is no doubt true that Jagdish, who was the present husband, had grievance against Santro. He had to marry Santro who was neither beautiful nor able to bear child. The marriage was subsisting. After Santro married Jagdish in 1997, he was unhappy as she could not conceive. Presumably because of that, he was also indifferent towards her and in the intervening night of 1-5-1998 and 2-5-1998, he was not along with her in the company of his wife in the room where she was sleeping but was on the roof along with other family members. But, in view of the fact that Accused 1, 2 and 4 could not be said to be directly connected with the death of Santro, in absence of clear evidence to that effect, the courts below could not have convicted them by invoking Section 34 IPC. The so-called extra-judicial confession by Smt Sona Devi, Accused 4 before Gaje Singh and Amar Singh has not been proved. Direct, immediate and proximate grievance at the relevant time was for accused Jagdish. Hence, his conviction for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court cannot be said to be contrary to law or otherwise unlawful. But there was no sufficient evidence as to common intention on the part of the other accused in absence of requisite material on record. In our considered opinion, therefore, Section 34 IPC could not have been invoked by the courts below. To that extent, therefore, both the judgments deserve to be set aside.

28. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed as indicated above and is so allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded against Accused 3 Jagdish (husband of deceased Santro) for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is confirmed. Conviction and sentence of Accused 1 Bija, father-in-law, Accused 4 Sona Devi, mother-in-law and Accused 2 Raghbir Singh, former husband of deceased Santro with the aid of Section 34 IPC is set aside and they are ordered to be acquitted."

CRA No. 1327/2006

In the case of circumstantial evidence the Supreme Court of India in the case of State of T.N. v. Rajendran, (1999) 8 SCC 679 has held as under:-

"6. Coming now to the second question, the law is fairly well settled that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the cumulative effect of all the circumstances proved must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and to bring home the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It has been held by a series of decisions of this Court that the circumstances proved must lead to no other inference except that of guilt of the accused. [See Ram Avtar v. State (Delhi Admn.) [1985 Supp SCC 410 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 415] and Prem Thakur v. State of Punjab [(1982) 3 SCC 462 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 88]. The law relating to circumstantial evidence no longer remains res integra and we do not think it necessary to multiply authorities on this point."

17. So far as the involvement of the appellants No. 2 to 4 in this crime is concerned they have been convicted only on the ground that at the time of the incident they were living in the same house with appellant No.1 and the deceased. The ocular evidence that came on record coupled with the house map shows that appellant No.1 was residing in separate 3 rooms with the deceased wife and daughter which has an independent entrance from the side lane. Although the house of appellant No.1 and house of appellants No. 2 to 5 are situated in the same compound but they were living separately.

Appellants No. to 2 to 5 cannot be convicted merely they were living in the common courtyard especially without any evidence to establish sharing of common intention with appellant No. 1 to commit the crime . Therefore, the conviction of appellants No.2 to 5 cannot be sustained.

18. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of appellant No.1 u/s. 302/149 of the IPC is hereby set aside but he is convicted u/s. 302 of the IPC and sentence awarded to him is hereby maintained. The appellants No.2 to 5 stand acquitted from the charge u/s. 302/149 and their bail bonds stand discharged.

Record of the court below be sent forthwith.

         ( VIVEK RUSIA )                                                                (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
             JUDGE.                                                                             JUDGE.
Alok/-

         ALOK               Digitally signed by ALOK GARGAV

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, ou=JUDICIAL, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=eae18b7018e4245a54c74948bb27999d7e052526864065b2 0b27a5804a3e1fea,

GARGAV pseudonym=7CDEDE27CC58A5C0E24DE6046DC50DE017D631F3, serialNumber=9995A79B765CF420033A1CBAAFF5461F718D618BA2 FDCA70E412F27FFE6E8CB0, cn=ALOK GARGAV Date: 2022.01.06 10:43:31 +05'30'