Ved Prakash Singh vs The State Of Bihar
2024 Latest Caselaw 5232 Patna

Patna High Court

Ved Prakash Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 6 August, 2024

Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha

Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.27 of 2016
       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-128 Year-2012 Thana- AMNAUR District- Saran

======================================================
Ved Prakash Singh, Son of Ganaur Singh, Resident of Village- Paharpur, P.S.-
Amnour, District- Saran at Chapra
                                                          ... ... Appellant/s
                                  Versus

The State Of Bihar
                                          ... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s     :        Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Adv.
                                 Mr. Pranav Kumar, Adv.
                                 Ms. Shrishti Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s    :        Mrs. Anita Kumari Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
 Date : 06-08-2024

               1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf

 of the parties.

               2.      The       present        appeal        preferred          by

 appellant/convict, namely, Ved Prakash Singh under

 section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in

 short Cr.P.C.) against the judgment of conviction dated

 15.12.2015

and order of sentence dated 21.12.2015

rendered by learned 1st Additional District & Sessions

Judge, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial Case No. 381

of 2013, arising out of Amnour P.S. Case No. 128 of

2012, G.R. Case No. 5297 of 2012 by which the learned

trial court has convicted the appellant for the offence Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.27 of 2016 dt.06-08-2024

punishable under Sections 304(B) of the Indian Penal

Code and sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for seven years.

3. As per prosecution case the informant

Sanjay Kumar Singh/P.W.-9 has alleged that his sister

Mamta Kumari (deceased) was married with the

appellant (Ved Prakash Singh) on 20.05.2009. For said

marriage the informant gifted valuable articles according

to his capacity to the deceased and her husband but

after one year of marriage his sister informed to the

informant regarding further demand of motorcycle

alongwith cash of Rs. One Lakh as raised by her in-laws,

and in furtherance of which they started torturing her. It

is further stated that the deceased has given birth of two

children from said wedlock. He has further alleged that

on 24.11.2012 at 07:00 P.M. his sister called his wife

and talked to her wife in length, whereafter his wife

disclosed to him that his sister appears tense/upset while

talking over phone and upon which the informant called Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.27 of 2016 dt.06-08-2024

his sister several times and also on mobile phones of his

in-laws but no one received the phone calls and later on

all the phones found to be switched off. It is further

alleged that about 06:00 A.M., one person from her in-

laws village namely Vasist Narain Singh informed about

the incident that his sister was killed/burnt alive by her

in-laws and her body was taken for cremation. After

receiving said information, the informant reached at

police station and lodged his fardbeyan and proceeded

for cremation place and saw that the dead body of his

sister was already cremated by her in-laws, consequent

upon police arrested the accused Ved Prakash Singh

from the site of cremation itself.

4. One the basis of aforesaid information,

Amnour P.S. Case No. 128 of 2012 was lodged on

25.11.2012 for the offence under Section 304(B),

201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, where after

investigation police submitted charge-sheet accordingly.

5. To established its case before the learned Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.27 of 2016 dt.06-08-2024

trial court, the prosecution altogether examined total of

ten witnesses, namely, PW-1 Uma Nath Singh, PW-2

Updeo Singh, PW-3 Krishna Madhaw Singh, PW-4 Baban

Singh, PW-5 Krishna Singh, PW-6 Randhir Singh and

PW-7 Jitendra Singh, PW-8 Sanjay Singh, PW-9 Sanjay

Kumar Singh (Informant) and PW-10 Suresh Kumar.

6. The prosecution also exhibited following

documents during the trial to substantiate its case which

are as:-

Exhibit 1 -Signature of the informant

on the Fardbeyan

Exhibit 2 - Formal F.I.R.

7. On the basis of evidences, as surfaced

during the trial, the appellant/convict was examined

under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., where he denied all

the evidences as surfaced against him and claimed his

complete innocence and false implication.

8. No witness was examined in defense,

neither any documents were exhibited during trial by Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.27 of 2016 dt.06-08-2024

appellant/convict in his favour.

9. Upon the basis of evidences as surfaced

during the trial and also by taking note of the argument

as advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the parties, the learned trial court convicted

appellant/convict for the offence under Section 304(B)

of the Indian Penal Code, where appellant/convict

sentenced to undergo for rigorous imprisonment of

seven years.

10. Being aggrieved with aforesaid judgment

of conviction and order of sentence, the

appellant/convict preferred the present appeal.

11. Hence the present appeal.

12. Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned senior counsel

while arguing on behalf of the appellant/convict

submitted that from the depositions of prosecution

witnesses itself, who were not declared hostile during the

course of investigation, it can be gathered safely that at

the time of occurrence appellant/convict was at the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.27 of 2016 dt.06-08-2024

house of co-villager, when the sister of the informant

caught fire from the hearth (chulha) and by the time he

came on spot along with other co-villagers she was

found dead. It is submitted that information was given

to informant and his family members, after the

occurrence, only upon which he proceeded for the village

of appellant/convict and as such appellant was very

honest from his side but as a matter of an after thought

false police case was lodged. It is submitted that the

death of the sister of the informant was due to

unfortunate fire accident. Mr. Giri, further submitted that

prosecution failed to established the foundational aspect

of Section 304 (B) of the I.P.C. in this case and

therefore the convictions which appears secured by the

ld. trial court on the exclusive note of importing

presumption as available under Section 113(B) of the

Indian Evidence Act is bad in eyes of law.

13. In support is his submissions learned

senior counsel relied upon the legal report of Sher Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.27 of 2016 dt.06-08-2024

Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2015) 3 SCC 724 :

(2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 422 : 2015 SCC OnLine SC 23.

14. Learned APP while opposing appeal

submitted that the death of the sister of informant/PW-9

took place in her matrimonial home where death appears

unnatural within 7 years of marriage. It is submitted that

the factum of demand of dowry was also supported by

informant in this case during the trial and therefore it

cannot be said that prosecutions failed to established the

foundational aspect of section 304B of IPC and therefore

the import of presumption as available under Section

113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, can not be said

illegal. Hence, there is no occasion to interfere with

impugned judgment.

15. I have perused the trial court records

carefully and gone through the evidences available on

record and also considered the rival submissions as

canvassed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

parties.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.27 of 2016 dt.06-08-2024

16. As to re-appreciate the evidences, while

dealing with present appeal, it would be apposite to

discuss the evidences as available on record, which are

as under :-

17. From the perusal of records, it appears

that, P.W.-1 is Uma Nath Singh, who appears to

support the factum of marriage between the sister of

informant namely Mamta Devi and appellant/convict,

which somewhere took place in the year 2009. It was

stated by him that the death took place out of fire

accident.

18. P.W.-2 is Updeo Singh, who also

supported the factum of marriage of deceased with

appellant/convict, which is stated to be solemnized in the

year 2009, whereupon cross-examination, he said that

on the date of occurrence there was a Tilak ceremony of

son of one Deo Bahadur of same village and due to said

function he along with appellant/convict and others were

present there at the time of occurrence. He further Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.27 of 2016 dt.06-08-2024

stated that out of said wedlock appellant/convict has one

son and one daughter. This witness was not declared

hostile by prosecution.

19. P.W.-3 is Krishna Madhaw Singh, he

stated in his examination-in-chief that the occurrence

took place at about 7 P.M. and by that time he was in

Tilak ceremony. He stated that an alarm was raised that

Mamta Kumari (deceased) caught fire. He went there

and saw that she was lying near the hearth ( chulha). He

upon cross-examination stated that the Tilak ceremony

was of the son of one Deo Bahadur and

appellant/convict by that time was present over there.

He was also not declared hostile by prosecution.

20. P.W.-4 is Baban Singh, who stated

during the examination-in-chief itself that at the time of

occurrence he was at the door of Sheo Bahadur Singh,

participating in Tilak ceremony of his son Deo Bahadur.

He stated that wife of the appellant/convict received

burn injury, while she was cooking, and she died of said Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.27 of 2016 dt.06-08-2024

injury. Upon cross-examination this witness specifically

deposed that the victim died with burnt injury in kitchen.

It was further stated that appellant/convict by that time

was in Tilak ceremony along with them. This witness was

also not declared hostile by prosecution.

21. P.W.-5 is Krishna Singh, who also

supported the factum of marriage of deceased with

appellant/convict and deposed that the sister of the

informant died due to catching of fire.

21.1. Upon cross-examination he deposed

that on the date of occurrence there was Tilak ceremony

of son of one Deo Bahadur in his village.

22. P.W.-6 is Randhir Singh, who deposed

that the deceased sister of informant, Mamta Kumari,

died due to burn injury in her matrimonial house. He

said to visit the place of occurrence but by that time she

was dead and it was stated further that when he arrived,

no one of her matrimonial family was found present

there.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.27 of 2016 dt.06-08-2024

22.1. Upon cross-examination he stated that

on the date of occurrence there was a Tilak ceremony in

house of one Bir Bahadur Singh in his village and he was

also there along with co-villagers and Ved Prakash

(appellant/convict). He was also not declared hostile.

23. P.W.-7 is Jitendra Singh, who also

supported the factum of marriage between appellant and

deceased but deposed that he is not aware about

anything regarding occurrence in issue. He declared

hostile by prosecutions, where nothing surfaced during

his cross-examination on behalf of State which may be

relevant for contradicting or corroborating the evidence

of the prosecution witnesses, who appears to be

supported the case of prosecution.

24. P.W.-8 is Sanjay Singh, it appears that

he came to know regarding occurrence from someone

else. He appears to be a hearsay witness of the

occurrence. It was deposed by him that the family

members of the deceased were demanding Rs. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.27 of 2016 dt.06-08-2024

1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) without specifying

whether it was a demand of dowry.

24.1. Upon cross-examination, it was stated

by him that he did not talked with deceased over phone,

before 2 to 4 days, prior to the occurrence. He deposed

that deceased made complaint to her paternal family

regarding torture committed upon her by her in-laws and

appellant/convict/husband but no formal complaint was

lodged with police out by said complaint. He stated to

visit the matrimonial house of the deceased after

occurrence, where he arrived somewhere between 10

A.M. to 12 A.M. but none of the family members were

found over there. It was stated that the case was lodged

by Sanjay Singh/P.W.-9 and after two to three hours of

lodging of present case they returned to their village. He

made his statement before the police on 25.11.2012,

where he stated that deceased was the sister of the

informant (P.W.-9), was burnt alive and her two twin

children were also killed. On further cross-examination Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.27 of 2016 dt.06-08-2024

he stated that he is not aware about the whereabouts of

the children of the deceased. He declined the suggestion

that both children are with their grandparents. He stated

that the deceased was trained in cooking but denied to

depose falsely out of his relation being cousin brother of

the deceased. He denied the suggestion that the sister of

the informant died out of accidental fire and she was

never subjected to torture.

25. P.W.-9 is Sanjay Kumar Singh, who is

the informant of this case. He stated that occurrence

took place on 12.11.2012 and it was the second

marriage of his sister with appellant/convict which was

solemnized on 20.05.2009. He stated specifically that

his sister was burnt alive by her in-laws. It was deposed

by him that her sister was subjected to torture due to

non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and this fact was

stated by her prior to this occurrence. He identified his

signatures over his written statement given to police and

upon his identification it was exhibited as Exhibit-1. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.27 of 2016 dt.06-08-2024

25.1. Upon cross-examination he stated that

the deceased was his sister and she said prior to this

occurrence that she was tortured by her in-laws and

also about the family quarrels. He stated that he didn't

talked to his sister prior to this occurrence. He stated

that he furnished written information before police on

the basis of information what he received from villagers.

He denied to suggestion that no such occurrence took

place.

26. P.W.-10 is one Suresh Kumar, who is

an advocate clerk. It was deposed by him that formal

FIR of this case was drawn on 25.11.2012 by S.H.O.,

Madan Mohan Prasad, which is in his handwriting, upon

identification it was exhibited as Exhibit no. 2. On cross-

examination he said that the said formal FIR was not

drawn before him and he was not aware about its

contents.

Conclusion

27. First of all, it would be apposite to Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.27 of 2016 dt.06-08-2024

reproduce Section 304(B) of the I.P.C. and Section

113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, which reads as

follows:-

304B. Dowry death.--(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.] 113B. Presumption as to dowry death. ---When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.

Explanation. -- For the purposes Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.27 of 2016 dt.06-08-2024

of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).]

28. No doubt that the death of the sister of

the informant, namely Mamta Devi, took place in her

matrimonial home, within 7 years of her marriage as it

was supported by most of the prosecution witnesses but

from the perusal of evidence it appears that the

prosecution witnesses P.W.(s) -1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 who

were not declared hostile by prosecution, categorically

stated that at the time of occurrence the

appellant/convict was with them in Tilak ceremony which

was solemnized in connection with the marriage of son

of one Deo Bahadur of same village. From the

testimony of all these witnesses who were not declared

hostile it appears that the sister of informant caught fire

while she was cooking. Her dead body was also found

near to hearth (chulha) in the kitchen itself. Admittedly,

there is no post-mortem. Investigating Officer of this

case was also not examined and in such a circumstances Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.27 of 2016 dt.06-08-2024

it can't be said that even the formal FIR or written

statement were proved during the trial. The formal FIR

was proved by ld. trial court through one advocate clerk

having no occasion to work with S.H.O, namely, Madan

Mohan Prasad and he also upon cross-examination

stated that it was not written before him.

29. Written information which is the basis of

formal FIR appears to be proved during the trial by its

author which is none but the informant, namely, Sanjay

Kumar Singh/P.W-9 which was exhibited as Exhibit-1. It

appears from said exhibit that there was demand of one

motorcycle and cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One

Lakh) as dowry which was raised by in-laws of the

deceased without specifying anyone. It appears further

from the narration that on 24.11.2012 at about 7 P.M.

the wife of the informant(P.W.-9) received a call from

the deceased. In the night itself it was informed to the

informant/P.W.-9 by his wife that Mamta Kumari

(deceased) was appearing tense out of her conversation Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.27 of 2016 dt.06-08-2024

and upon said information he called to his sister

repeatedly on her mobile phone and other available

phones of her in-laws which was found switched off. On

very next day, co-villager of matrimonial village of the

deceased namely Vasist Narain Singh called the brother

of the informant namely Aditya Raj Singh (not

examined) and informed that her sister was burnt alive

by her in-laws.

30. From the aforesaid narrations which is

the basis of implication of this case, it appears that the

wife of the informant, Vasist Narain Singh and the

brother of the informant namely Aditya Raj Singh, could

be the best witness of this occurrence but they were not

examined by the prosecution during the trial. The wife of

the informant and Vasist Narain Singh could not even

find place as charge-sheeted witnesses. Despite of

having specific allegations qua demand of dowry as

available through Exhibit-1/written information, it was

suppressed by informant/P.W.-9, while deposing before Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.27 of 2016 dt.06-08-2024

the court. For a moment, if Exhibit-1 be taken into

consideration it nowhere appears that any torture, soon

before the occurrence was committed upon deceased

sister of informant/P.W-9 as no such communications

was made to him through his wife who talked with

deceased in length over phone just before the

occurrence.

31. It would be apposite to reproduce para

nos. 9, 13 and 16 of the Sher Singh (supra),which

reads as under:-

9. The legal regime pertaining to the death of a woman within seven years of her marriage thus has numerous features, inter alia:

(i) The meaning of "dowry" is as placed in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(ii) Dowry death stands defined for all purposes in Section 304-B IPC. It does exclude death in normal circumstances.

(iii) If death is a result of burns or bodily injury, or otherwise than under normal circumstances, and it occurs within seven years of the marriage and, it is "shown" in contradistinction to "proved" that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.27 of 2016 dt.06-08-2024

relatives, and the cruelty or harassment is connected with a demand of dowry, it shall be a dowry death, and the husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

(iv) To borrow from Preventive Detention jurisprudence--there must be a live link between the cruelty emanating from a dowry demand and the death of a young married woman, as is sought to be indicated by the words "soon before her death", to bring Section 304-B into operation; the live link will obviously be broken if the said cruelty does not persist in proximity to the untimely and abnormal death. It cannot be confined in terms of time; the query of this Court in the context of condonation of delay in filing an appeal--why not minutes and second--remains apposite.

(v) The deceased woman's body has to be forwarded for examination by the nearest civil surgeon.

(vi) Once the elements itemised in (iii) above are shown to exist the husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

(vii) The consequences and ramifications of this "deeming" will be that the prosecution does not have to prove anything more, and it is on the husband or his relative concerned that the burden of proof shifts as adumbrated in Section 113-B, which finds place in Chapter VII of the Evidence Act. This Chapter first covers "burden of proof" and then "presumption", both being constant bed-fellows. In the present context the deeming or presumption of responsibility of death are synonymous.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.27 of 2016 dt.06-08-2024

13. In our opinion, it is beyond cavil that where the same word is used in a section and/or in sundry segments of a statute, it should be attributed the same meaning, unless there are compelling reasons to do otherwise. The obverse is where different words are employed in close proximity, or in the same section, or in the same enactment, the assumption must be that the legislature intended them to depict disparate situations, and delineate dissimilar and diverse ramifications. Ergo, ordinarily Parliament could not have proposed to ordain that the prosecution should "prove" the existence of a vital sequence of facts, despite having employed the word "shown" in Section 304-B. The question is whether these two words can be construed as synonymous. It seems to us that if the prosecution is required to prove, which always means beyond reasonable doubt, that a dowry death has been committed, there is a risk that the purpose postulated in the provision may be reduced to a cipher. This method of statutory interpretation has consistently been disapproved and deprecated except in exceptional instances where the syntax permits reading down or reading up of some words of the subject provisions.

16. As is already noted above, Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC were introduced into their respective statutes simultaneously and, therefore, it must ordinarily be assumed that Parliament intentionally used the word "deemed" in Section 304-B to distinguish this provision from the others. In actuality, however, it is well-nigh impossible to give a Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.27 of 2016 dt.06-08-2024

sensible and legally acceptable meaning to these provisions, unless the word "shown" is used as synonymous to "prove" and the word "presume" as freely interchangeable with the word "deemed". In the realm of civil and fiscal law, it is not difficult to import the ordinary meaning of the word "deem" to denote a set of circumstances which call to be construed contrary to what they actually are. In criminal legislation, however, it is unpalatable to adopt this approach by rote. We have the high authority of the Constitution Bench of this Court both in State of Travancore-Cochin v. Shanmugha Vilas Cashewnut Factory [(1953) 1 SCC 826 : AIR 1953 SC 333] and State of T.N. v. Arooran Sugars Ltd. [(1997) 1 SCC 326] , requiring the Court to ascertain the purpose behind the statutory fiction brought about by the use of the word "deemed" so as to give full effect to the legislation and carry it to its logical conclusion. We may add that it is generally posited that there are rebuttable as well as irrebuttable presumptions, the latter oftentimes assuming an artificiality as actuality by means of a deeming provision. It is abhorrent to criminal jurisprudence to adjudicate a person guilty of an offence even though he had neither intention to commit it nor active participation in its commission. It is after deep cogitation that we consider it imperative to construe the word "shown" in Section 304-B IPC as to, in fact, connote "prove". In other words, it is for the prosecution to prove that a "dowry death" has occurred, namely,

(i) that the death of a woman has been caused in abnormal circumstances Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.27 of 2016 dt.06-08-2024

by her having been burned or having been bodily injured,

(ii) within seven years of her marriage,

(iii) and that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband,

(iv) in connection with any demand for dowry, and

(v) that the cruelty or harassment meted out to her continued to have a causal connection or a live link with the demand of dowry.

We are aware that the word "soon" finds place in Section 304-B; but we would prefer to interpret its use not in terms of days or months or years, but as necessarily indicating that the demand for dowry should not be stale or an aberration of the past, but should be the continuing cause for the death under Section 304-B or the suicide under Section 306 IPC. Once the presence of these concomitants is established or shown or proved by the prosecution, even by preponderance of possibility, the initial presumption of innocence is replaced by an assumption of guilt of the accused, thereupon transferring the heavy burden of proof upon him and requiring him to produce evidence dislodging his guilt, beyond reasonable doubt. It seems to us that what Parliament intended by using the word "deemed" was that only preponderance of evidence would be insufficient to discharge the husband or his family members of their guilt. This interpretation provides the accused a chance of proving their innocence. This is also the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.27 of 2016 dt.06-08-2024

postulation of Section 101 of the Evidence Act. The purpose of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC, in our opinion, is to counter what is commonly encountered--the lack or the absence of evidence in the case of suicide or death of a woman within seven years of marriage. If the word "shown" has to be given its ordinary meaning then it would only require the prosecution to merely present its evidence in court, not necessarily through oral deposition, and thereupon make the accused lead detailed evidence to be followed by that of the prosecution. This procedure is unknown to common law systems, and beyond the contemplation of CrPC.

32. It appears from the aforesaid discussion

that the prosecution during the trial failed to establish

the foundational aspect of Section 304(B) of I.P.C for

which the prosecution was duty bound and in absense

thereof the presumption as available under Sections

113(B) of Indian Evidence Act cannot be imported.

33. Accordingly, appeal stands allowed.

34. The impugned judgment of conviction

dated 15.12.2015 and order of sentence dated

21.12.2015 passed by learned 1st Additional District &

Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial Case Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.27 of 2016 dt.06-08-2024

No. 381 of 2013, arising out of Amnour P.S. Case No.

128 of 2012, G.R. Case No. 5297 of 2012 is hereby set

aside/quashed.

35. Accordingly, above named appellant is

acquitted from the charges leveled against him.

36. Appellant is on bail, upon his acquittal,

bailors and sureties stands discharged from their

liabilities.

37. Office is directed to send back the trial

court records along with a copy of this judgment to the

trial court, forthwith.

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)

Sudha/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          21.08.2024
Transmission Date       21.08.2024