Madhya Pradesh High Court
Babla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 March, 2023
Author: Prakash Chandra Gupta
1
Cr. A. No.1450/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
On 1st of MARCH, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1450 of 2012
BETWEEN:-
BABLA S/O RATNA PALIA PATLIYA, AGED 30 YEARS, R/O VILL. GAVSAR
PATLIYA FALIYA P.S.RANAPUR, DISTRICT JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY MS. SHARMILA SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THRU. P.S. RANAPUR, DISTT.
JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT /STATE
(BY SHRI K. K. TIWARI - GOVT. ADVOCATE)
Reserved on : 13.02.2023
Pronounced on : 01.03.2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgement,
coming on for pronouncement this day, Hon'ble Shri Prakash Chandra
Gupta pronounced the following:
JUDGEMENT
Cr. A. No.1450/2012
The appellant/ accused has filed this appeal U/s 374 of Code
Of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), 1973, being aggrieved by the
judgment dated 09/11/2012, passed by Sessions Judge, Jhabua
(M.P.) in ST No.24/2012, whereby the learned trial court has
convicted the appellant U/s 302 of IPC and sentenced him to
undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default,
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 month.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that the deceased Ratna
was living in village Gavasar Patalia Phalia, O/P Kundanpur, P/S
Ranapur, Distt- Jhabua (M.P.), alongwith his family members. On
01/12/2011 at about 08:00 AM, the deceased was cutting bamboo
near his under-construction house, at that time his son/appellant
Babla came there and told the deceased that he will cut the
bamboos for which he asked for axe, to which Ratna asked Babla
to go, he will cut the bamboos himself. Then the appellant
snatched the axe from the deceased and repeatedly gave blows to
the deceased on his vital parts of the body. Wife of deceased Ratni
Bai started to cry for help then the appellant had fled away. Kalu
(PW-3), Rama (PW-5) and Newala (PW-6) came on the place of
incident. Ratni Bai (PW-4) told them about the incident. They had
searched the appellant, but he was not traced. On the same day at
09:30 AM ASI P.S. Kayat (PW-1) had lodged an FIR (Ex.P/1) at
O/P Kundanpur, against the appellant on the basis of oral
Cr. A. No.1450/2012
information supplied by Kalu (PW-3). He also lodged a Marg
(Ex.P/2). On the basis of FIR (Ex.P/1) and Marg Intimation
(Ex.P/2). An FIR (Ex.P/12) and Marg (Ex.P/13) were also
registered on the same day at P/S Ranapur.
3. During investigation, on 01/12/2011, SHO Rajesh Singh
Baghel (PW-7) proceeded towards place of incident. He called
witnesses by notice (Ex.P/6) and prepared a lash punchnama
(Ex.P/7). He sent body of the deceased for post-mortem with
application (Ex.P/10). On the same day Dr. S.S. Gehlot (PW-9)
conducted the post-mortem and gave post-mortem report
(Ex.P/15). During post-mortem he preserved and sealed a shirt, a
T-shirt, a woolen shawl of the deceased.
4. SHO Rajesh Singh Baghel (PW-7) inspected the place of
incident and prepared spot map (Ex.P/9) at the instance of Kalu
(PW-3). He seized blood stained soil and plain soil from the spot
vide seizure memo (Ex.P/8). On 03/12/2011, he arrested the
appellant vide arrest memo (Ex.P/3). He interrogated the appellant
and prepared disclosure memo (Ex.P/4). He also seized a blood
stained axe at the instance of the appellant, vide seizure memo
(Ex.P/5) on 11/12/2011. HC Mahaveer Verma (PW-8), seized a
sealed packet containing clothes of the deceased produced by
sweeper Dinesh from the CHC Ranapur vide seizure memo
(Ex.P/14). Seized articles were sent for chemical examination to
Cr. A. No.1450/2012
FSL Jhumarghat (Rau), Indore, through letter (Ex.P/11), though
FSL report has not been annexed with the records. Statement u/s
161 of CrPC has been recorded. On completion of investigation,
charge-sheet has been filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Jhabua. The offence is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions.
Hence, the case was committed before the Court of Sessions.
5. Learned trial Court framed charge against the appellant U/s
302 of IPC. The appellant abjured his guilt and sought trial.
6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case has examined 9
witnesses. After completion of prosecution evidence, the appellant
was examined U/s 313 of Cr.P.C. The appellants took defence that
he is innocent. All the prosecution witnesses are related, they are
lying and are tutored witnesses by brother of appellant, Karan.
The appellant has not examined any witness in his defence.
7. Learned trial Court, after hearing the parties convicted and
sentenced the appellant for the offence as mentioned above.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant criticizing the impugned
judgment submits that there is a sole eye-witness of the incident,
Ratni Bai (PW-4), other witnesses Kalu (PW-3), Rama (PW-5)
and Nevala (PW-6) are hear-say witnesses. There are material
contradictions in the statement of Ratni Bai (PW-4), therefore, her
sole statement is not reliable. In alternate, it has also been
Cr. A. No.1450/2012
submitted that the incident has taken place due to sudden quarrel
between the deceased and the appellant. Appellant had no motive
to kill the deceased, therefore, act of the appellant is covered
under Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC and is punishable U/s
304 part-II, but the learned trial Court has committed error by
convicting and sentencing the appellant U/s 302 of IPC. Learned
counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the case of Kunwar
Singh V State Of M.P. [CRA no. 666/2006, date of judgment
31/08/2015] and Ghapoo Yadav And Ors. V State Of M.P.
[(2003) 3 SCC 528].
9. Per contra the learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/ state opposed the submission of the appellant and
supported the impugned judgment.
10. Learned counsel for the parties confined their submissions
to the extent indicated above.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the records.
12. It is apposite to consider first that whether the death of
deceased was homicidal in nature?
13. Dr. S.S. Gehlot (PW-9) deposed that on 01/12/2011, he was
posted as medical officer at CHC Ranapur. Constable Kesar Singh
Cr. A. No.1450/2012
brought the body of the deceased Ratna for post-mortem. He
started post-mortem on the same day at 04:00 PM. He stated that
during post-mortem he had found following injuries on the body
of the deceased:-
1. Incised wound 3.5" x 1" x deep brain cavity over left eye
and left cheek, horizontal in direction, margin of wound was clear
cut and everted, clotted blood in wound, muscles and vessels were
cut.
2. Incised wound 3.5" x 1" x bone deep over chin, left side
and up to front of left ear/ in direction, margin of wound was clear
cut and everted, clotted blood in wound, muscles and vessels were
cut.
3. Incised wound 3.5" x 1" x bone deep over left side of neck
below chin, horizontal in direction, margin of wound was clear
cut and everted, clotted blood in wound muscles and vessels were
cut.
4. Incised wound 3.5" x 1" x bone deep over left side of neck
below the injury No.3, horizontal in direction, margin of wound
was clear cut and everted, clotted blood in wound, muscles and
vessels were cut.
5. Incised wound 2" x 0.5" x bone deep, left side temporal
and neck, vertical in direction, margin of wound was clear cut and
everted, clotted blood in wound, muscles and vessels were cut.
6. Incised wound 3" x 0.5"x bone deep over left side of neck,
direction was horizontal, margin of wound was clear cut and
everted, clotted blood in wound, muscles and vessels were cut.
7. Incised wound 3.5" x 1" x bone deep on left side of neck,
Cr. A. No.1450/2012
direction was horizontal, margin of wound was clear cut and
everted, clotted blood was in wound, muscles and vessels were
cut.
14. Dr. S.S. Gehlot (PW-9) stated that all aforementioned
injuries were caused by sharp object like axe, which appeared to
have been caused within 24 hours of the post-mortem. The
injuries were ante-mortem in nature.
15. This witness has further stated that in internal examination
he found that there were fractures in left orbital bone, zygomatic
bone, temporal bone and left lower jaw bone. He also stated that
he preserved and sealed a blood stained shirt, a blood stained T-
shirt and a woolen shawl of the deceased and handed over to the
concerning constable for further examination.
16. On the basis of aforesaid examination, Dr. S.S. Gehlot (PW-
9) opined that cause of death of the deceased was shock due to
head and neck injuries. Death of deceased was homicidal in nature
and the injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course
of nature. The witness stated that he prepared post-mortem report
(Ex.P/15). Statement of this witness is not disputed in cross-
examination by the appellant. Therefore, there is no reason to
disbelieve the statement of this witness. Hence, statement of this
witness is reliable and it is clear that the death of the deceased was
homicidal in nature.
Cr. A. No.1450/2012
17. The next question arises that whether the appellant Babla
inflicted injuries on the body of the deceased by means of axe to
cause his death?
18. The learned trial Court has relied on the statement of Ratni
Bai (PW-4), Kalu (PW-3), Rama (PW-5) and Newala (PW-6).
Ratni Bai (PW-4) is eye-witness of the incident and she is wife of
the deceased and mother of the appellant. Kalu (PW-3), Rama
(PW-5) and Newala (PW-6) had arrived at the place of incident
after hearing cry of Ratni Bai (PW-4) and they had seen the
deceased in injured state. Kalu (PW-3), Rama (PW-5) and Newala
(PW-6) are nephews of the deceased.
19. Ratni Bai (PW-4) stated that at the time of incident
deceased was cutting bamboo situated near her new house. The
appellant came from behind and asked for axe from the deceased
to cut bamboo himself. Thereafter, the appellant snatched axe
from his father/deceased Ratna and gave blows on neck, cheek
and below eye of the deceased by means of axe, the witness cried
for help that 'the appellant is assaulting the deceased.' Kalu (PW-
3), Rama (PW-5) and Newala (PW-6) came there. Kalu (PW-3),
and Newala (PW-6) have also stated that at the time of incident
they were present in their house. Rama (PW-5) stated that at the
time of the incident, he was irrigating his field. Rama (PW-5) and
Newala (PW-6) have stated that they had heard cry of Ratni Bai
Cr. A. No.1450/2012
(PW/ 4) that appellant is beating the deceased by means of axe.
Kalu (PW-3) also stated that at the time of incident he had heard
cry of Ratni Bai (PW-4), thereafter, aforesaid witnesses went to
the place of incident and had seen that there were several injuries
on the body of the deceased.
20. ASI P.S. Kayat (PW-1) stated that on 01/12/2011, he lodged
an FIR (Ex.P/1) at O/P Kundanpur, P/S Ranapur on the basis of
information given by Kalu (PW-3). He also lodged a Marg
(Ex.P/2). HC Mahaveer Verma (PW-8) stated that on 01/12/2011,
he lodged an FIR (Ex.P/12) and Marg (Ex.P/13) on the basis of
(Ex.P/1) and (Ex.P/2) respectively. On perusal of record, it
appears that within 1.30 hrs. of the incident FIR (Ex.P/1) was
lodged at O/P Kundanpur against the appellant. SHO Rajesh
Singh Baghel (PW-7) stated that on 01/12/2011, he visited the
place of incident and prepared a spot map (Ex.P/9) at the instance
of Kalu (PW-3). Kalu (PW-3) also stated that the police had
prepared spot map (Ex.P/9) at his instance.
21. In Paragraph 5 of cross-examination, Ratni Bai (PW-4) has
admitted that the deceased is lying on ground was told to her by
Rugla, Newala (PW-6) and Kalu (PW-3) but on the basis of
aforesaid admission it cannot be inferred that she had not seen the
incident.
22. In Paragraph 21 of impugned judgment, learned trial Court
Cr. A. No.1450/2012
has found that an axe was recovered by SHO Rajesh Singh Baghel
(PW-7) before Jhitara (PW-2) at the instance of appellant vide
disclosure statement (Ex.P/4) and seizure memo (Ex.P/5). From
the statement of SHO Rajesh Singh Baghel (PW-7) and Jhitara
(PW-2), it appears that SHO Rajesh Singh Baghel (PW-7) had
seized blood stained soil and simple soil from the spot vide
seizure memo (Ex.P/8). From the statement of HC Mahaveer
Verma (PW-8), it also appears that he seized sealed packets of
clothes of the deceased which was produced by sweeper Dipesh
from CHC Ranapur vide seizure memo (Ex.P/14). It further
appears from the letter (Ex.P/11) that seized articles were sent to
FSL Jhumarghat (Rau), Indore for chemical examination, but it
has been mentioned in Paragraph 22 of the impugned judgment
that prosecution has not filed FSL report in the case, therefore,
seizure of aforementioned articles do not support the case of
prosecution. The case of prosecution depends upon the statement
of eye-witness, therefore, non-production of FSL report in the
case does not adversely affect the case of prosecution.
23. On the basis aforesaid discussion, it appears that Ratani Bai
(PW-4) had seen that at the time of the incident the appellant had
repeatedly given blows to the deceased by means of an axe. Kalu
(PW-3), Rama (PW-5) and Newala (PW-6) had reached on the
spot after hearing the cry of Ratni Bai (PW-4) and they had also
seen the deceased in injured state. Statement of Ratni Bai (PW-4)
Cr. A. No.1450/2012
is supported by FIR (Ex.P/1) and statement of Dr. S.S. Gehlot
(PW-9) and post-mortem report (Ex.P/15). There is nothing in
cross-examination of the witnesses to show that they are
interested to falsely implicate the appellant in the case. Therefore,
their statement is reliable and it appears that the appellant Babla
inflicted injuries on the body of the deceased by means of axe to
cause his death.
24. The next question is whether the appellant had intention to
cause death of deceased?
25. In the case of Ghapoo Yadav (Supra), the apex court has
held as under:-
"11. In the case at hand, out of the seven injuries, only
Injury 2 was held to be of grievous nature, which was
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death
of the deceased. The infliction of the injuries and their
nature proves the intention of the accused-appellants, but
causing of such injuries cannot be termed to be either in a
cruel or unusual manner for not availing the benefit of
Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. After the injuries were
inflicted the injured had fallen down, but there is no
material to show that thereafter any injury was inflicted
when he was in a helpless condition. The assaults were
made at random. Even the previous altercations were
verbal and not physical. It is not the case of the
prosecution that the accused-appellants had come
prepared and armed for attacking the deceased. The
previous disputes over land do not appear to have
assumed the characteristics of physical combat. This goes
Cr. A. No.1450/2012
to show that in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel
followed by a fight the accused persons had caused
injuries on the deceased, but had not acted in a cruel or
unusual manner. That being so, Exception 4 to Section 300
IPC is clearly applicable. The fact situation bears great
similarity to that in Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana 1.
The appellants are to be convicted under Section 304 Part
I IPC and custodial sentence of 10 years and fine as was
imposed by the trial court would meet the ends of justice.
The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above."
26. The coordinate bench of this court, in the case of Kunwar
Singh (Supra) has observed as under:-
9. In the case of Surinder Kumar v/s. Union of
Territory, reported as (1989) 2 SCC 217, the Apex Court
on the same issue held that if on a sudden quarrel a person
in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon which is
handy and causes injuries out of which only one proves
fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of the Exception
provided he has not acted cruelly. The Apex Court held
that the number of wounds caused during the occurrence
in such a situation was not the decisive factor. What was
important was that the occurrence had taken place on
account of a sudden and unpremeditated fight and the
offender must have acted in a fit of anger. Dealing with the
provision of Exception 4 to Section 300, Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed:
"7. To invoke this exception four requirements must be
satisfied, namely, (i) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was
no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of
passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue
advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The cause of the
quarrel is not relevant nor is it relevant who offered the
Cr. A. No.1450/2012
provocation or started the assault. The number of
wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive
factor but what is important is that the occurrence must
have been sudden and unpremeditated and the offender
must have acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender
must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a
cruel manner. Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in
the heat of the moment picks up a weapon which is
handy and causes injuries, one of which proves fatal, he
would be entitled to the benefit of this exception
provided he has not acted cruelly......." (Emphasis
supplied)
10. In the case of Ghappo Yadav & Ors. vs. State of
M.P. reported as (2003) 3 SCC 528, the Apex Court held
that in a heat of passion there must be no time for the
passion to cool down and that the parties had in that case
before the Court worked themselves into a fury on account
of the verbal altercation in the beginning. Apart from the
incident being the result of a sudden quarrel without
premeditation, the law requires that the offender should
not have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or
unusual manner to be able to claim the benefit of
Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. Whether or not the fight
was sudden, was declared by the Court to be decided in the
facts and circumstances of each case. The following
passage from the decision is apposite:
"10. .......... The help of Exception 4 can be invoked if
death is caused:
(a) without premeditation; (b) in a sudden fight; (c)
without the offender's having taken undue advantage or
acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight
must have been with the person killed. To bring a case
within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it
must be found. It is to be noted that the "fight" occurring
Cr. A. No.1450/2012
in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not defined in the
Indian Penal Code. It takes two to make a fight. Heat of
passion requires that there must be no time for the
passions to cool down and in this case, the parties have
worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal
altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between
two and more persons whether with or without weapons.
It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to
what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a
question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not
must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each
case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not
sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and
there was no premeditation. It must further be shown
that the offender has not taken undue advantage or
acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The expression
"undue advantage" as used in the provision means
"unfair advantage".
"11...........After the injuries were inflicted the injured
had fallen down, but there is no material to show that
thereafter any injury was inflicted when he was in a
helpless condition. The assaults were made at random.
Even the previous altercations were verbal and not
physical. It is not the case of the prosecution that the
accused-appellants had come prepared and armed for
attacking the deceased. ............. This goes to show that
in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel followed by
a fight the accused persons had caused injuries on the
deceased, but had not acted in a cruel or unusual
manner. That being so, Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC
is clearly applicable. (emphasis supplied).
13. Keeping in view the decisions of the Apex court for
giving benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC in cases
mentioned above and applying the same to the facts of the
case, we are inclined to give benefit to Exception 4 to
Cr. A. No.1450/2012
Section 300 IPC to the appellant by altering his sentence
awarded to the appellant punishable under Section 304
Part II IPC. This we say so in the facts of this case for
more than one reason. Firstly, even according to the
prosecution, there was no premeditation in the commission
of crime. Secondly, there is not even a suggestion or we
may say conclusive evidence that the appellant had any
predetermined motive or enmity to commit the offence
against the deceased leave alone a serious offence like
murder. Thirdly, incident that occurred was due to sudden
quarrel which ensued between the appellant-accused and
the deceased - Bhuribai. Fourthly, no conclusive evidence
was adduced by the prosecution to prove any kind of
constant quarrel ever ensued in so many years between the
couple and that too for a cause know to others which
could lead to killing Bhuribai orwhether any unsuccessful
attempt was ever made by the appellant to kill her in past.
27. The apex court in the case of Chherturam v. State of
Chhattisgarh, [(2022) 9 SCC 571] in para 12 and 13 has held as
under:-
12. On the issue of the nature of offence, the learned
counsel for the State relied upon the judgment in Surain
Singh v. State of Punjab [(2017) 5 SCC 796] to make out
a case under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. Section 300
reads as under:
"300. Murder.--Except in the cases hereinafter excepted,
culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death
is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or--
Secondly.--If it is done with the intention of causing such
bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause
the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or--
Thirdly.--If it is done with the intention of causing bodily
injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be
Cr. A. No.1450/2012
inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death, or--
Fourthly.--If the person committing the act knows that it is
so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability,
cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death, and commits such act without any excuse for
incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as
aforesaid.
***
Exception 4.--Culpable homicide is not murder if it is
committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the
heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the
offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel
or unusual manner.
Explanation.--It is immaterial in such cases which party
offers the provocation or commits the first assault."
13. In order to make out a case under Exception 4
aforesaid, it was pleaded that there were two essential
ingredients:
(i) the accused did not act with premeditation, and
(ii) the accused did not act in a cruel or brutal manner
taking advantage of the situation.
Hence, the nature of injuries is an important factor in
determining whether the death was caused due to a sudden
fight.
28. In the view of principle laid down in the aforementioned
judgment, the main ingredient of Exception 4 of Section 300 of
IPC is the incident being the result of a sudden quarrel, without
premeditation, the law requires that the offender should not have
taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner to be
able to claim the benefit of exception.
Cr. A. No.1450/2012
29. On perusal of statement of Ratni Bai (PW-4), it appears that
the appellant is son of the deceased. There was no old animosity
between the appellant and the deceased, it also appears that at the
time of the incident the appellant had gone on the spot without
carrying any weapon. The deceased was cutting bamboo by an
axe, the appellant asked for axe to cut the bamboo himself to
which the deceased had denied, then the appellant snatched the
axe from the hands of deceased and gave 7 brutal blows on the
upper vital parts of the body of deceased. Due to injuries on vital
part, the deceased died. Therefore, it appears that there was
sudden quarrel between the appellant and the deceased in
furtherance of cutting bamboo and appellant had no premeditation
to cause death of the deceased, but it is clear that the appellant
inflicted injuries on the neck, face and head of the deceased and
muscles and vessels were cut in all the injuries. There were
fractures in left orbital bone, zygomatic bone, temporal bone and
left lower jaw bone, therefore, it is clear that the appellant had
taken undue advantage and acted in a cruel manner. The appellant
had repeatedly given 7 blows on the vital part of the body of the
deceased, hence, it is clear that the appellant caused injuries on
the body of the deceased with an intention to cause his death.
Hence, death of the deceased comes under culpable homicide
amounting to murder and is punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
Therefore, act of the appellant does not come under Exception 4
of Section 300 of IPC.
Cr. A. No.1450/2012
30. In the view of foregoing discussion, it is clear that the
prosecution has succeeded to prove the offence U/s 302 of IPC
against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Learned trial Court
has properly assessed the statement of prosecution witnesses and
has rightly relied on their statement. The learned trial Court has
not committed any error in convicting the appellant for the
offence. The appellant has been given minimum sentence by the
trial Court, hence, conviction and sentence of the appellant
deserves to be maintained.
31. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed and the conviction and
sentence of the appellant is hereby affirmed. The appellant is in
jail, be intimated about the outcome of this appeal through the jail
superintendent concerned. A copy of this order alongwith
record of the case be sent back to the trial Court for intimation and
compliance.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Shruti
SHRU
Digitally signed by SHRUTI JHA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH INDORE, ou=HIGH
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
INDORE,
2.5.4.20=46283ba6a215e3d40573a7f0c
ed0632c8b8e41b29405387437111f0f1c
TI JHA
897b84, postalCode=452001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=975D0201B09C38473541
A4907EE0732D1EA079B8EE35C9E2D19
845AF26B0FBF4, cn=SHRUTI JHA
Date: 2023.03.02 10:27:36 +05'30'
