Patna High Court
Sushil Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 2 February, 2024
Author: Sunil Dutta Mishra
Bench: Arvind Srivastava, Sunil Dutta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1530 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-1998 Thana- CHHATAPUR District- Supaul
======================================================
1. Subodh Yadav Son of Devnandan Yadav Resident of Village- Hasanpur
Ward No. 2, P.S.- Chhatapur, District- Supaul.
2. Binod Yadav Son of Ram Nandan Yadav Resident of Village- Hasanpur
Ward No. 2, P.S.- Chhatapur, District- Supaul.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1486 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-1998 Thana- CHHATAPUR District- Supaul
======================================================
1. Sushil Yadav Son of Ram Nandan Yadav Resident of Village - Hasanpur
Ward No. 02, P.S.- Chhatapur, Distt - Supual.
2. Devanand Yadav @ Devnandan Yadav Son of Late Mahabir Yadav Resident
of Village - Hasanpur Ward No. 02, P.S.- Chhatapur, Distt - Supual.
3. Surat Lal Yadav Son of Late Raghu Yadav Resident of Village - Hasanpur
Ward No. 02, P.S.- Chhatapur, Distt - Supual.
4. Dhirendra Yadav Son of Late Raghu Yadav Resident of Village - Hasanpur
Ward No. 02, P.S.- Chhatapur, Distt - Supual.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1530 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ansul, Advocate
: Mr. Pranav Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP
(In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1486 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Y.C. Verma, Senior Advocate
: Mr. Pranav Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sinha, APP
======================================================
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1530 of 2019 dt.23-02-2024
2/37
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA)
Date : 23-02-2024
Heard learned senior counsel Sh. Y.C. Verma and
learned counsel Sh. Ansul for the appellants and learned
Additional Public Prosecutors appearing for the State.
2. These appeals have been preferred by the aforesaid
appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure against the judgment of conviction dated 25.11.2019
and order of sentence dated 29.11.2019 passed by learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge III, Supaul in Sessions
Trial No. 35 of 2000 whereby and whereunder appellants,
namely, Sushil Yadav, Devanand Yadav @ Devanandan Yadav,
Surat Lal Yadav and Dhirendra Yadav [in Cr. Appeal (DB)
No.1486 of 2019] have been convicted under Sections 307, 326,
324 and 148 of Indian Penal Code and appellants, namely,
Subodh Yadav and Vinod Yadav [in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1530 of
2019] have been convicted under Sections 302, 307, 326, 324
and 148 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced accordingly as
under:
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1530 of 2019 dt.23-02-2024
3/37
Appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1486 of 2019
Appellants Penal Sentence
Provision
Imprisonment Fine (Rs.) In default of fine
1.Sushil Yadav 307 IPC RI for 10 years 25,000/- S.I. for 1 year
2.Devnandan Yadav
3.Surat Lal Yadav
326 IPC RI for 5 years 15,000/- S.I. for 6 months
4.Dhirendra Yadav
324 IPC RI for 2 years 5,000/- S.I. for 3 months
All the sentences shall run concurrently.
Appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1530 of 2019
Appellants Penal Sentence
Provision
Imprisonment Fine (Rs.) In default of fine
1.Subodh Yadav 302 IPC Life 25,000/- S.I. for 1 year
2.Vinod Yadav Imprisonment
307 IPC RI for 10 years 25,000/- S.I. for 1 year
326 IPC RI for 5 years 5,000/- S.I. for 6 months
324 IPC RI for 2 years 5,000/- RI for 3 months
All the sentences shall run concurrently.
3. Since the above captioned appeals arise out of
common factual matrix and common judgment of conviction
and order of sentence, we are disposing them by this common
judgment.
4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 28.01.1998
at about 5:00 p.m. the informant Ramesh Yadav (PW-4) gave his
fardbeyan recorded by police officer at Rajkiya Hospital,
Chhatapur alleging that his brother Sadanand Yadav about 7 to 8
months ago had given advance money of Rs.21,000/- to Most.
Asiya Devi for purchase of her 3 bigha land. The talk of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1530 of 2019 dt.23-02-2024
4/37
purchase was done through her brother-in-law Baidyanath
Yadav but he was not doing registry and was doing talk with
Dev Nandan Yadav. On that day, Baidyanath Yadav had come to
the house of his sister-in-law Asiya Devi and after sometime
talking with Dev Nandan Yadav, he was returning to his house
and when he reached near the house of Dayanand Yadav (near
Kalmart) then Sadanand Yadav (brother of informant) with
informant (Ramesh Yadav) went there and told Baidyanath
Yadav for settlement with respect to advance money taken and
then to go, on which hot talks were started between Dev Nandan
Yadav and Baidyanath Yadav with Sadanand Yadav. In the
meantime, on the side of the road, son of Dev Nandan Yadav,
namely, Subodh Yadav and Vinod Yadav son of Ram Nandan
Yadav and Surat Lal Yadav, who were cutting soil and spreading
on the road from before, on hearing talk, they came there with
their kudal (spade) in their hands and Dev Nandan Yadav
ordered to kill on which Vinod Yadav and Subodh Yadav from
their spade assaulted on the head of Sadanand Yadav (brother of
informant) causing head injury and he fell down on the earth. In
the meantime, Duli Chand Yadav (died during trial) and Sushil
Yadav also came there. Dev Nandan Yadav taking farsa from the
hand of Sushil Yadav assaulted the informant on his head and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1530 of 2019 dt.23-02-2024
5/37
Duli Chand Yadav (died during trial) also hit kudal on his head
causing head injury and Dhirendra Yadav also assaulted the
informant with lathi. He also fell down and started writhing.
Brother Bikan Yadav (PW-2), nephew Amod Kumar Yadav
(PW-9), Ram Chandra Yadav (PW-3), Shatrughan Yadav, Kailu
Yadav (PW-7) came there and saw the occurrence and then
accused fled away. Thereafter, his family members had taken the
injured to the hospital on bullock cart. Sadanand Yadav died on
about to reach to the hospital. The reason for the occurrence by
the accused persons was due to dispute related to sell/purchase
of land. The informant put his thumb impression on the
fardbeyan (Ext.2) in presence of his brother Bikan Yadav (PW-
2) and relative Bhupendra Mandal.
5. On the basis of the said fardbeyan, Chhatapur P.S.
Case No.05 of 1998 was registered against the accused
persons/appellants. The investigation of the case was carried out
by the Investigating Officer (I.O., hereafter).
6. After completion of investigation, the police
submitted charge sheet against seven accused persons.
Thereafter cognizance was taken against the accused persons
and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on
25.02.2000
and charges were framed on 28.11.2005 against the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1530 of 2019 dt.23-02-2024
accused persons. During trial, co-accused Duli Chand Yadav
died. The accused persons denied the allegations levelled
against them and claimed to be tried.
7. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution
adduced the following oral evidences:
PW-1 Dr. Ghanshyam Singh (conducted
postmortem of the deceased Sadanand Yadav)
PW-2 Bikan Yadav
PW-3 Ram Chandra Yadav
PW-4 Ramesh Yadav (informant)
PW-5 Haldhar Prasad Das (Medical Officer, who
treated the informant)
PW-6 Vishundeo Yadav (Hostile)
PW-7 Kailu Yadav (Hostile)
PW-8 Veena Devi
PW-9 Amod Kumar Yadav
8. The prosecution also adduced the following
documentary evidences:
(i) Exhibit 1 Postmortem Report
(ii) Exhibit 2 Signature of PW-2 on fardbeyan
(iii) Exhibit 2/1 Inquest Report
(iv) Exhibit 3 Injury Report of informant Ramesh
Yadav
(v) Exhibit 4 Signature of Amod Kumar Yadav on
Seizure List
9. After completion of evidence on behalf of the
prosecution, the statements of accused persons under Section
313 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded and they claimed to be
innocent. It is evident from the cross-examination and
suggestions given to prosecution witnesses that the defence took
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1530 of 2019 dt.23-02-2024
the plea that there was previous enmity between the parties due
to land dispute and the said suggestions were denied by the
prosecution witnesses.
10. The defence has not produced any evidence either
oral or documentary in support of its defence that there was
previous enmity or land dispute between the informant and
accused persons due to which they have been falsely implicated
in this case and the prosecution witnesses have deposed falsely
against them.
11. At the conclusion of trial, the Trial Court convicted
the appellants and sentenced them as aforesaid. Being aggrieved
by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the
appellants filed these appeals.
12. It will be most appropriate to note the findings
given by the learned Trial Court for convicting the accused
persons/appellants and sentencing them accordingly.
13. The learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment
has given following findings:-
(i) After careful perusal of the evidence on record,
it is apparent that Ramesh Yadav, who was the
injured of the incident, his brother Sadanand
Yadav and other family members were
interested to purchase the land from Asiya Devi
through her brother-in-law(bahnoi) Baidyanath
Yadav and for that Rs.21,000/- was paid by
Sadanand Yadav. Meanwhile, Baidyanath
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1530 of 2019 dt.23-02-2024
Yadav started talking with another person,
namely, Devnandan Yadav for selling the land.
Neither they were selling the land nor they
were returning the advance money of
Rs.21,000/- to his brother. On the date of
alleged occurrence, Baidyanath Yadav had
come to his sister-in-law (saali) Asiya Devi and
when he was returning to his village along with
Devnandan Yadav, the brother of informant saw
Baidyanath Yadav. On asking by Sadanand
Yadav, the informant went to talk with
Baidyanath Yadav thereafter hot talks were
started between them. Near the place of
occurrence (near Kalmart) Subodh Yadav,
Vinod Yadav and Surat Lal Yadav were cutting
soil and filling the same on the road.
(ii) Accused Dev Nandan Yadav ordered to kill on
which accused Vinod Yadav and Subodh Yadav
assaulted with spade on the head of Sadanand
Yadav who came to rescue the informant
causing injury.
(iii) Devnandan Yadav taking Farsa from the hand
of Subodh Yadav gave Farsa blow on the head
of informant. Duli Chand Yadav also assaulted
the informant with spade. Dhirendra Yadav
had also assaulted with lathi.
(iv) All the accused persons assaulted the
informant Ramesh Yadav and Sadanand
Yadav.
(v) On account of assault, Sadanand Yadav died
and his brother Ramesh Yadav became badly
injured. All prosecution witnesses have
supported the incident. Certainly the spade
was used in the incident which is deadly
weapon. Sadanand Yadav and Ramesh Yadav
were assaulted on their head which shows that
the accused persons had intention to kill them.
(vi) The prosecution has fully proved the charge
against the accused persons/appellants beyond
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1530 of 2019 dt.23-02-2024
shadow of doubt.
14. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted
that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this
case. There are several contradictions in the statements of the
witnesses examined by the prosecution. The informant (PW-4)
in the trial improved the prosecution case to become an eye
witness of the occurrence. He has further submitted that apart
from PW-4 (informant), other witnesses are not the eye
witnesses of the occurrence as they were only hearsay
witnesses, who later on came at the place of occurrence. He has
next submitted that the witnesses belong to the same family
being close relative and their testimonies cannot be relied upon
being the interested witnesses. It has also been submitted that
the I.O., who recorded fardbeyan of informant, prepared inquest
report, investigated the case, inspected the place of occurrence
and took the statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C.,
has not been examined, as such the accused persons have been
deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine him which highly
prejudice the case. He has contended that the injury report and
the postmortem report were not considered by the Trial Court
which prima facie shows that both documents do not support the
prosecution case. It has further been contended that the learned
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1530 of 2019 dt.23-02-2024
Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact by careful scrutiny
of evidence, which is required in a case where there is previous
enmity between the parties. From evidence of witnesses, it can
be concluded that they are wholly unreliable, hence, it may not
be proper for the Court to hold the accused persons/appellants
guilty.
15. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutors for the State have submitted that the prosecution has
been able to prove its case. The injured witness and the eye
witnesses, who are natural witnesses of the incident, cannot be
termed as interested witnesses merely because they are related
to the deceased and there is no reason to disbelieve them and
their deposition cannot be brushed aside. There is no material
contradiction in the deposition of witnesses and minor
discrepancies highlighted by the prosecution would never be
fatal for the prosecution case and such discrepancies are natural.
Non-examination of I.O. has not prejudiced the defence in any
way. He has further submitted that, all the witnesses examined
during the trial have stood the test of cross-examination and
their version is consistent. It is further submitted that there being
no merit in these appeals filed by the accused persons/appellants
and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1530 of 2019 dt.23-02-2024
are in accordance with law, therefore, these appeals are liable to
be dismissed.
16. We have carefully perused the records and
proceedings and considered the submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the parties.
17. The appellate Court is empowered to reappreciate
the entire evidence on record for the purpose of ascertaining as
to whether the accused persons or any of them had committed
any offence or not and if the impugned judgment and order is
ultimately found to be clearly unreasonable and perverse then
such judgment and order can be set aside by the appellate Court.
18. Before we proceed to notice the rival submissions
in order to have a clear understanding of the context in which
the submissions on behalf of the parties have been made, it
would be apposite to notice the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses.
19. PW-1 is Dr. Ghanshyam Singh, who had conducted
the postmortem of the deceased Sadanand Yadav on 29.01.1998,
deposed that all the injured were found ante-mortem. On
external examination, he found following injuries on the dead
body of deceased Sadanand Yadav.
(i) Sharp cutting injury 3''x ½"x deep to brain
substance cutting scalp bone left parietal
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1530 of 2019 dt.23-02-2024
region-caused by sharp cutting substance.
(ii) Sharp cutting injury 2½"x½"x deep to brain
substance cutting occipital bone in occipital
region (left) - caused by sharp cutting
weapon.
(iii) Sharp cutting injury 3½''x ½" x deep to
brain substance cutting scalp bone in mid
part of the scalp, slightly left to mid part-
caused by sharp cutting weapon.
(iv) Sharp cutting injury 2'' x ½" x deep to brain
substance cutting scalp bone of frontal part.
(v) Lacerated wound 3''x 1" x deep to scalp
bone frontal and mid part caused by hard and
blunt substance.
(vi) Abrasion ½" x ¼" left hand dorsal surface.
(vii) Abrasion 1" x ¼" left side chest wall lateral
surface.
(viii) Abrasion 1" x ¼" left side chest wall (back).
20. The cause of death of the deceased was due to
haemorrhage and shock and the time since death was within 24
hours. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that it is not
mentioned that haemorrhage and shock is cumulative effect of
the injury or injuries.
21. It is clear from the medical evidence that injury
nos.1 to 4 were incised wounds and considering the condition of
the dead body and nature of injuries, in our view, it is clear that
the deceased died due to haemorrhage and shock on account of
the injuries caused to him although the doctor (PW-1) has not
categorically stated that the death of deceased Sadanand Yadav
was caused by such injuries. The prosecution has successfully
proved identity, death and cause of death of Sadanand Yadav,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1530 of 2019 dt.23-02-2024
deceased.
22. PW-5 is Dr. Haldhar Prasad Das, who had treated
Ramesh Yadav (PW-4) at Chhatapur Hospital, District Supaul
on 28.01.1998 at 04.45 p.m. and prepared injury report (Ext. 3)
and found eight injuries on the body of the injured, which are as
under:
1. Incised injury 6 cm x ½ cm x bone deep on middle
of frontal scalp extends from middle of forehead to
backward.
2. One incised injury 5 cm x ½ cm x bone deep parallel
to injury no.01, 3 cm away on Rt side.
3. One bruise 4 cm x 3 cm on left wrist.
4. One bruise 10 cm x 5 cm on dorsum of left foot.
5. One bruise 5 cm x 3 cm on lateral side of left ankle.
6. One lacerated injury 3 cm x 1cm on middle Rt. leg.
7. One abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm on left scalp region.
8. One bruise 5 cm x 1 cm on lateral aspect of left arm
in upper part.
23. According to him, injury nos.1 and 2 were caused
by sharp cutting weapons like farsa and kudal etc. and injury
nos.4 to 8 were simple caused by hard and blunt weapon.
Regarding injury no.3, the patient was referred to Sadar Hospital
Supaul. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has not
mentioned the nature of injury in respect of injury nos.1 & 2
whether it was simple or grievous. He clarified that bone deep
means touching the level of the bone. He further deposed that
these injuries may be or may not be fatal for life of a person.
24. Section 320 I.P.C. specifies the kinds of hurt that
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1530 of 2019 dt.23-02-2024
are designated as grievous hurt and Section 326 I.P.C. provides
punishment for causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or
means. Before a conviction for the sentence of grievous hurt can
be passed, one of the injuries defined in Section 320 must be
strictly passed and eighth clause is no exception to the general
rule of law that a penal statute must be construed strictly. The
doctor (PW-5) who examined the injured (PW-4) has not given
clear finding as to whether the incised injuries caused to the
informant are simple or grievous.
25. The star eye witness being Ramesh Yadav (PW-4),
who is brother of the deceased Sadanand Yadav, was himself
injured in the incident. Apart from him, there were other
witnesses claiming eye witness such as PW-2, PW-3, PW-8 &
PW-9 i.e. Bikan Yadav, Ram Chandra Yadav, Veena Devi and
Amod Kumar Yadav, respectively.
26. PW-4 Ramesh Yadav is the informant of this case.
In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that:
(i) On 28.01.1998 at about 3:00 p.m. he along with
his brother Sadanand Yadav (deceased), father
Bachcha Yadav and elder brother Bikan Yadav
(PW-2) were at his door. His brother Sadanand
Yadav sent him to call Baidyanath Yadav.
Devan Yadav was also there with Baidyanath
Yadav. Devan Yadav's nephew Sushil Yadav,
son Subodh Yadav, Surat Lal Yadav all were
cutting soil and throwing it on the road. The
informant went there. He has further stated that
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1530 of 2019 dt.23-02-2024
Baidyanath Yadav had taken Rs.21,000/- as
earnest money for the land and when the
informant asked him to settle the same then
Devan Yadav resisted.
(ii) Devan Yadav ordered to assault the informant,
upon which Vinod Yadav, Subodh Yadav,
Sushil Yadav, Surat Lal Yadav, Duli Yadav and
Devan Yadav started assaulting him with
spade. Vinod Yadav and Subodh Yadav
assaulted him with spade on his head due to
which he got head injury and blood started
coming out.
(iii) By then, Sadanand Yadav (brother of
informant) came at the spot. Then leaving
aside the informant, all accused persons started
assaulting Sadanand Yadav with lathi and
spade. Farsa blow was given to his brother by
Devan Yadav due to which he sustained head
injury and blood started coming out. As a
result of which, Sadanand became
unconscious.
(iv) Thereafter, Kailu Yadav, Shatrughan Yadav,
Bishundeo Yadav came there and brought him
(Sadanand Yadav) on bullock cart to Chhatapur
but near the hospital, Sadanand Yadav died.
The informant was treated at the hospital.
(v) He has further stated that there was a land of
Most. Asiya Devi and her brother-in-law was
the malik, therefore, he had paid Rs.21,000/- to
the brother-in-law of Asiya Devi as earnest
money and dispute arose on the point to return
the earnest money and the incident happened.
He had given his fardbeyan in Chhatapur
Hospital before SHO, Baleshwar Singh. He
identified his thumb impression put on the
fardbeyan. As witness, Bikan Yadav (PW-2)
and Bhupendra Yadav had also put their
signatures on the same.
27. In his cross-examination, PW-4 has stated that he
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1530 of 2019 dt.23-02-2024
had given the statement and re-statement before the police what
he has stated in the Court that Vinod Yadav and Subodh Yadav
had given spade blow on his head causing head injury to him
and Devan @ Devnandan had given farsa blow to his brother
Sadanand who became unconscious. In paragraph 19, he has
stated that when Baidyanath was talking then Subodh, Sushil
and Surat were cutting soil and only they had spade in their
hands and no other accused persons were present there. Other
persons came there when they had already been assaulted. In
paragraph 23, he has stated that Vinod, Devan, Subodh, Sushil,
Surat Lal etc. came there after the occurrence of assault. In
paragraph 25, he has further stated that when accused fled away
from the place of occurrence then all persons, family women,
brother Bikan, father Bachcha Yadav, mother, sister-in-law, wife
of deceased Sadanand Yadav reached there.
28. For analysing the evidence of PW-4, it is useful to
note the statement of PW-4 in the fardbeyan with respect to the
manner of incident. In fardbeyan, the informant (PW-4) has
stated that:
(i) Subodh Yadav, Vinod Yadav and Surat Lal
Yadav were cutting the soil and had spade in
their hands.
(ii) Vinod Yadav and Subodh Yadav had assaulted
Sadanand Yadav with their spade on his head.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1530 of 2019 dt.23-02-2024
(iii) Devnandan Yadav assaulted with farsa (taking
from Sushil Yadav) on the head of informant.
(iv) Duli Chand Yadav (died during trial) hit kudal
on the head of informant.
(v) Dhirendra Yadav assaulted the informant with
lathi.
29. In his deposition before the Court, the informant
(PW-4) has stated that:
(i) Sushil Yadav, Subodh Yadav and Surat Lal
Yadav were cutting the soil. Here, Sushil
Yadav has been added and Vinod Yadav has
been left out.
(ii) Vinod Yadav and Subodh Yadav had assaulted
with spade on the head of informant. Here,
allegation against Vinod Yadav and Subodh
Yadav is that they had given spade blow on
the head of informant not on Sadanand Yadav
(deceased) as stated in fardbeyan.
(iii) Devnandan Yadav had given farsa blow on
Sadanand Yadav whereas in fardbeyan, the
same was on informant not on Sadanand
Yadav.
(iv) Vinod Yadav, Subodh Yadav, Sushil Yadav,
Surat Lal Yadav, Duli Yadav and Devan
Yadav assaulted the informant on his head
with spade. Here, along with Duli Chand
Yadav, the name of other accused persons
also included.
(v) All the accused persons assaulted Sadanand
Yadav with lathi and spade. This was
improvement during the statement before
the Court.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1530 of 2019 dt.23-02-2024
30. It appears from the aforesaid analysis that:
(i) PW-4 has not come with true facts with
respect to the manner of occurrence and
there are material improvements and
contradiction from the fardbeyan which
creates reasonable doubts in the version of
prosecution case.
(ii) PW-4 admitted that Vinod Yadav, Devan
Yadav, Subodh Yadav, Sushil Yadav and
Surat Lal Yadav came after the occurrence,
then there is no question of their
involvement in the crime.
(iii) PW-4 further admitted that when accused
persons fled away from the place of
occurrence, then his brother Bikan Yadav
(PW-2) and other family members came,
which shows that they were not the eye
witnesses.
31. PW-2 Bikan Yadav in his examination-in-chief has
stated that the date of alleged occurrence was of 28.01.1998, at
about 2:00-2:30 p.m., and he was at his door. At that time
Baidyanath Yadav and Devan Yadav were crossing nearby his
house. By that time, Sadanand Yadav told the informant Ramesh
Yadav to call Baidyanath Yadav back. Thereafter, Ramesh
Yadav went there to call Baidyanath Yadav. At that time,
Devan's son Subodh, Surat Lal Yadav and Dhirendra all were
cutting soil at Kalmart and throwing it on the road. They all
assaulted Ramesh. Devan had given order to assault Ramesh.
He has further stated that Surat Lal Yadav, Dhirendra Yadav,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1530 of 2019 dt.23-02-2024
Duli Yadav, Devnandan Yadav, Vinod Yadav and Sushil had
assaulted Ramesh. When Sadanand Yadav came to save him,
Sushil Yadav and Devan assaulted him with farsa. Then, he has
stated that Vinod Yadav had assaulted him with farsa. Then
again he has stated that Sadanand was assaulted with spade due
to which he died and Ramesh became senseless. He has further
stated that Sadanand got injuries on his head and temporal
region. The injured were brought to the Chhatapur hospital on a
bullock cart. Ramesh was referred to Supaul and Sadanand was
sent for postmortem. He has also stated that he had put his
signature on the fardbeyan of Ramesh, which was marked as
Ext.2. He has further stated that he had put his signature on the
inquest report, which was marked as Ext.2/1.
32. In his cross-examination, PW-2 has stated in
paragraph 18 that on hulla of mar-pit, Sadanand Yadav had gone
and thereafter (15-20 minutes later) he had gone there alone,
then family members had run towards the place of occurrence.
He had seen Sadanand Yadav and Ramesh in unconscious
condition. In paragraph 21, he has stated that first of all he went
to the police station. He had signed on F.I.R. and on inquest
report and after that both injured were sent to hospital. In
paragraph 22, he has stated that Sadanand was died in the way
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1530 of 2019 dt.23-02-2024
to hospital, Ramesh was treated and was sent to Supaul in
unconscious condition from where he returned after 5-6 days.
33. PW-3 Ram Chandra Yadav son of PW-2, in his
examination-in-chief, has stated that on the date of alleged
occurrence he was at his door along with his father Bikan Yadav,
uncle Ramesh Yadav and uncle Sadanand Yadav. When
Baidyanath Yadav along with Devan Yadav was going to village
Raghunathpur then his uncle Sadanand Yadav told to Ramesh
Yadav to call Baidyanath Yadav back. Thereafter Ramesh Yadav
went to call Baidyanath Yadav. He has further stated that despite
taking Rs.21,000/-, Baidyanath Yadav was not doing the registry
of land in his favour that is why Baidyanath Yadav was called.
Devan Yadav's son and others were cutting soil there.
Meanwhile, Devnandan Yadav, Vinod Yadav, Subodh Yadav,
Dhirendra Yadav, Surat Lal Yadav and Sushil Yadav surrounded
him (Ramesh Yadav) and started assaulting with spade. When
he, his uncle and Amod Yadav reached there, they saw that
Devan Yadav and Subodh Yadav were assaulting Sadanand
Yadav with spade due to which Sadanand Yadav got injuries on
his hand and head. Surat Lal Yadav also assaulted Sadanand
Yadav with spade. Dhirendra Yadav assaulted Sadanand Yadav
with lathi.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1530 of 2019 dt.23-02-2024
34. In his cross-examination, PW-3 has admitted that
on his father and Sadanand Yadav, accused Vinod Yadav has
lodged Chhatapur P.S. Case No.06 of 1998 but he does not
know its status. He further stated that he reached at the place of
occurrence after reaching of his father (PW-2).
35. It is pertinent to mention here that PW-2 in his
deposition also admitted that he had gone to the place of
occurrence on hulla of mar-pit and had seen the informant and
the deceased in unconscious condition. After him, his family
members reached at the place of occurrence. Thus, deposition of
PW-2 also shows that PWs-3, 8 and 9 are not the eye-witnesses
of the occurrence.
36. PW-6 Vishundeo Yadav was declared hostile. PW-7
is Kailu Yadav who has deposed that on the day of incident
when he was going to Chhatapur Bazar, he reached near
Kalmart where Sadanand Yadav was assaulted on that place,
who died but who had assaulted him, he cannot say. He was
declared hostile. In cross-examination, he has stated that when
he reached at Kalmart, no one was present there and Veena Devi
(PW-8) reached there after him. He cannot say how Sadanand
Yadav and Ramesh Yadav got injury.
37. PW-8 Veena Devi is wife of PW-2, who in her
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1530 of 2019 dt.23-02-2024
examination-in-chief, supported the prosecution case and has
stated that Sadanand Yadav had negotiated with Asiya Devi for
purchase of 3 bigha land six months prior to the occurrence.
Sadanand Yadav had given Rs.21,000/- to Asiya Devi through
her brother-in-law (bahnoi) Baidyanath Yadav. Asiya Devi did
not execute the sale deed in favour of Sadanand and they started
talking with accused Devnandan Yadav, Vinod Yadav and
Subodh Yadav. On the date of occurrence, Baidyanath Yadav
was going through Kalmart. On asking by Sadanand Yadav,
Ramesh Yadav went to call Baidyanath Yadav. Thereafter hot
talks were started between them. Baidyanath Yadav and Devan
Yadav started assaulting Ramesh Yadav. When Sadanand Yadav
saw the incident, he went to save him (Ramesh). The other
accused persons were cutting soil nearby. Vinod Yadav, Subodh
Yadav, Sushil Yadav started assaulting Sadanand with spade due
to which Sadanand Yadav fell down. Dhirendra was armed with
farsa and Surat Lal Yadav was armed with lathi. They also
assaulted Sadanand. Devnandan Yadav ordered to kill Sadanand
Yadav stating that if Sadanand is alive, he will keep quarrelling.
Accused persons fled away assaulting Sadanand. The injured
was brought to the Chhatapur Hosppital by Bachcha Yadav and
Bikan Yadav on a bullock cart. During course of reaching
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1530 of 2019 dt.23-02-2024
hospital, Sadanand died. She has stated that she was also present
on the bullock cart.
38. In her cross-examination, PW-8 has stated that at
the time of incident she was at her house, when she reached at
the place of occurrence, the informant and Sadanand both were
fallen into a ditch.
39. PW-9 Amod Yadav is son of PW-2, who in his
examination-in-chief, has stated that on the alleged date of
occurrence, he was at his home. His father, uncle Ramesh Yadav
and Sadanand Yadav were at their home. He has stated that
Baidyanath Yadav and Devnandan Yadav were crossing nearby
his house. His uncle Sadanand Yadav told his another uncle
Ramesh Yadav to call Baidyanath Yadav. Neither Baidyanath
Yadav returns money nor does the registry of land. When
Ramesh Yadav went to call Baidyanath Yadav then Devnandan
Yadav and Ramesh Yadav were indulged in hot exchange. Upon
which, Vinod Yadav, Subodh Yadav started assaulting Ramesh
Yadav. On seeing the scuffle, Sadanand Yadav went to save
Ramesh Yadav thereafter all accused persons, namely, Vinod
Yadav, Subodh Yadav, Sushil Yadav, Dhirendra Yadav, Surat
Lal Yadav started assaulting. They all were cutting soil on the
side of the road. Ramesh Yadav and Sadanand Yadav both
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1530 of 2019 dt.23-02-2024
sustained injuries assaulted by spade. Sadanand Yadav became
senseless. Blood was started coming out from his head. On
hulla, the accused persons fled away. The injured were brought
to the hospital with the help of villagers. Before reaching the
hospital, Sadanand died on bullock cart. The police collected
blood stained soil from the place of occurrence on the next day
and prepared seizure list on which he had put his signature,
which was marked as Ext.4. He has stated that the reason behind
the occurrence was the negotiation for purchase of 3 bigha land
from Asiya Devi through her brother-in-law Baidyanath Yadav
in which Rs.21,000/- as earnest money was given. Despite that,
Baidyanath Yadav neither got the sale deed executed nor he
returned the money. He has stated that there was a talk for
selling the land from another person.
40. PW-9 in his cross-examination has stated that after
reaching Ramesh Yadav, to save him, Sadanand Yadav reached
firstly. The mar-pit took place for about 5-10 minutes and about
15-20 spade blows might have been given. His father (PW-2)
reached firstly and at that time Sadanand and Ramesh were
unconscious and lying in a ditch. When he and his father
reached, there was no one present.
41. In the fardbeyan and in inquest report Bhupendra
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1530 of 2019 dt.23-02-2024
Mandal is also a witness but he has not been examined by the
prosecution. On perusal of inquest report, it would be evident
that though it is stated that murder has been caused by farsa,
kudal (spade) and lathi, the column meant for noting the
circumstances in which offence was committed has been left
blank despite the circumstances and the manner in which the
offence was committed was known to the I.O., as the inquest
report was prepared by him after 30 minutes of recording of
fardbeyan, not mentioning the same in the relevant column
creates doubt about the bona fide of inquest report. PW-2 Bikan
Yadav in his cross-examination deposed that he had signed on
inquest report in police station. The inquest report was prepared
in hospital.
42. The purpose of preparing inquest report by I.O. is
to find out prima facie the nature of injuries and the possible
weapons used in causing those injuries as also the possible
cause of death. It is concerned with discovering whether in a
given case the death was accidental, suicidal or homicidal and in
what manner or by what weapon or instrument the injury on the
body of the deceased appear to have been inflicted. It would be
apposite to note that in the evidence of PW-3, Ram Chandra
Yadav, it has come that I.O. had collected the blood stained
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1530 of 2019 dt.23-02-2024
earth but the same had not been produced before the Trial Court
nor sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory.
Under the circumstances, the alleged recovery of blood stained
earth from the place of occurrence becomes highly doubtful.
The weapons of assault on injured and deceased Sadanand i.e.
farsa, spade and lathi were not recovered.
43. It is to be ascertained on the basis of the oral and
documentary evidence adduced during trial, as to whether or not
the Trial Court rightly came to the conclusion of guilt of the
appellants. On analysis of the prosecution witnesses, as stated
above, it is clear that except the injured witness (PW-4), no
other witnesses are eye witness to the occurrence. There are
material contradictions in prosecution evidences. Although
informant (PW-4) is the injured witness but in his deposition
before the Court, he has deposed material contradictory from his
previous statement in fardbeyan with respect to the manner of
incident of assault by the appellants on informant and deceased
Sadanand Yadav which gives the reasonable doubt in the
prosecution case and involvement of appellants in the
occurrence. The shadow of doubt arose in prosecution case and
the prosecution failed to bring on record the truth.
44. In the present case, from perusal of the prosecution
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1530 of 2019 dt.23-02-2024
evidence, it appears that Ramesh Yadav (PW-4) is informant and
also injured in the occurrence and is brother of deceased
Sadanand Yadav. Bikan Yadav (PW-2) is brother of Ramesh
Yadav (PW-4) whereas Ram Chandra Yadav (PW-3) and Veena
Devi (PW-8) are the son and the wife of Bikan Yadav (PW-2)
respectively. Thus, the eye-witnesses are family members of
injured and deceased. Admittedly, there was land dispute
between the parties relating to purchase of land of Most. Asiya
Devi.
45. The law is now well settled with respect to
credibility of interested witnesses. In case of State of U.P. vs.
Ballabh Das and others (1985) 3 SCC 703, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court on interested witnesses observed as under:
"The dominant question to be considered in the
instant case is whether the witnesses, despite being
interested, have spoken the truth and are
creditworthy. Once it is found by the court, on an
analysis of the evidence of an interested witness that
there is no reason to disbelieve him then the mere
fact that the witness is interested cannot persuade
the court to reject the prosecution case on that
ground alone."
46. It is well settled that the evidence of interested
witnesses has to be examined with great care and caution to
obviate possibility of false implication or over-implication. In
cases involving group enmities, it is not unusual to rope in
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1530 of 2019 dt.23-02-2024
persons other than who were actually involved. In such a case,
court should guard against the danger of convicting innocent
persons and scrutinize evidence carefully and if doubt arises,
benefit should be given to the accused.
47. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yogesh Singh vs.
Mahabeer Singh, A.I.R. (2016) 5160 on the subject
interested/inimical witnesses in paragraph nos. 24 to 28 held as
under:
"Testimony of Interested/Inimical Witnesses:
24. On the issue of appreciation of evidence of
interested witnesses, Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab,
AIR 1953 SC 364 = 1954 SCR 145, is one of the
earliest cases on the point. In that case, it was held as
follows:
"A witness is normally to be considered
independent unless he or she springs from sources
which are likely to be tainted and that usually
means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity
against the accused, to wish to implicate him
falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last
to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an
innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high
and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is
a tendency to drag in an innocent person against
whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty,
but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and
the mere fact of relationship far from being a
foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth."
25. Similarly, in Piara Singh v. State of Punjab, (1977)
4 SCC 452 : AIR 1977 SC 2274, this Court held:
"It is well settled that the evidence of interested or
inimical witnesses is to be scrutinised with care but
cannot be rejected merely on the ground of being a
partisan evidence. If on a perusal of the evidence
the Court is satisfied that the evidence is
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1530 of 2019 dt.23-02-2024
creditworthy there is no bar in the Court relying on
the said evidence."
26. In Hari Obula Reddy v. The State of Andhra
Pradesh, (1981) 3 SCC 675, a three-judge Bench of this
Court observed:
".. it is well settled that interested evidence is
not necessarily unreliable evidence. Even
partisanship by itself is not a valid ground for
discrediting or rejecting sworn testimony. Nor can
it be laid down as an invariable rule that interested
evidence can never form the basis of conviction
unless corroborated to a material extent in
material particulars by independent evidence. All
that is necessary is that the evidence of interested
witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny
and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny, the
interested testimony is found to be intrinsically
reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be
sufficient, in the circumstances of the particular
case, to base a conviction thereon."
27. Again, in Ramashish Rai v. Jagdish Singh, (2005)
10 SCC 498, the following observations were made by
this Court:
"The requirement of law is that the testimony
of inimical witnesses has to be considered with
caution. If otherwise the witnesses are true and
reliable their testimony cannot be thrown out on
the threshold by branding them as inimical
witnesses. By now, it is well-settled principle of
law that enmity is a double-edged sword. It can be
a ground for false implication. It also can be a
ground for assault. Therefore, a duty is cast upon
the court to examine the testimony of inimical
witnesses with due caution and diligence."
28. A survey of the judicial pronouncements of this
Court on this point leads to the inescapable conclusion
that the evidence of a closely related witnesses is
required to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated
before any conclusion is made to rest upon it,
regarding the convict/accused in a given case. Thus,
the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the
ground that the witnesses are related to each other or
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1530 of 2019 dt.23-02-2024
to the deceased. In case the evidence has a ring of
truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can,
and certainly should, be relied upon. (See Anil Rai v.
State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318; State of U.P. v.
Jagdeo Singh, (2003) 1 SCC 456; Bhagalool Lodh v.
State of U.P., (2011) 13 SCC 206; Dahari v. State of
U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 256; Raju @ Balachandran v.
State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 12 SCC 701;
Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy, (2013) 15
SCC 298; Jodhan v. State of M.P., (2015) 11 SCC 52).
48. In the present case, we find that evidence of
witnesses examined by the prosecution i.e. PW-2, PW-3, PW-4,
PW-8 and PW-9 belong to the same family of informant and
their relations were strained with the appellants on account of
land dispute. PW-7 and PW-8 have been declared hostile who
had not supported the prosecution case. The evidence of the
alleged eye witnesses except the injured raises serious doubts on
the point of their presence at the time of actual occurrence of
assault on informant and deceased Sadanand Yadav. The
evidence of informant (PW-4) also creates serious doubts due to
material contradictions. There were independent witnesses
available but they have been withheld from the Court and the
Court would draw adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the
Evidence Act for non-examination of independent witnesses.
49. The further point arises for consideration, in view
of the submission advanced, is "whether in the present case,
non-examination of the I.O. is fatal to the prosecution case, and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1530 of 2019 dt.23-02-2024
on that count, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside?"
50. It is well settled that statement given to police
during investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C. cannot be read as
an 'evidence'. It has a limited applicability in a court of law as
prescribed under Section 162 Cr.P.C. It is 'previous statement'
under Section 145 of the Evidence Act and, therefore, can be
used to cross-examine a witness for limited purpose to
'contradict' such a witness. The contradiction in two statements
would not always result in totally discredit the witness. Section
145 read with Section 155 of the Evidence Act, have to be
applied carefully in a given case. In Rammi vs. State of M.P.
(1999) 8 SCC 649, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as
under:-
"24. When an eye-witness is examined at length it
is quiet possible to him to make some
discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape
from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an
untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully
make his testimony totally non-discrepant. But
Court should bear in mind that it is only when
discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so
incompatible with the credibility of his version that
the Court is justified in jettisoning his evidence.
But too a serious view to be adopted on mere
variations falling in the narration of an incident
(either as between the evidence of two witnesses or
as between two statements of the same witness) is
an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.
51. If any of the prosecution witnesses give any
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1530 of 2019 dt.23-02-2024
evidence contrary to their previous statement recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. or if there is any omission of certain
material particulars, the previous statement of these witnesses
could be proved only by examining the I.O. who must have
recorded the statement of these witnesses under Section 161
Cr.P.C. A Court has to see whether the evidence of I.O. is
essential for the case of prosecution to succeed or not. It is
contended and pointed out that there is material contradiction in
the statements of the prosecution witnesses before the Court and
recorded by the I.O. and as such, the valuable right of the
accused has been prejudiced.
52. In Tahsildar Singh vs. State of U.P. AIR 1959 SC
1012, it was held that to contradict a witness would mean to
'discredit' a witness. Therefore, unless and until the former
statement of the witness is capable of 'discrediting' a witness, it
would have little relevance. A mere variation in the two
statements would not be enough to discredit a witness. The
purpose of the cross-examination of a witness in terms of
Section 145 and 155 of the Evidence Act is to bring
contradictions in the two statements of the witness.
53. In Ambika Prasad vs. State (Delhi Admn) (2000)
2 SCC 646 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the criminal
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1530 of 2019 dt.23-02-2024
trial is meant for doing justice and not just to the accused but
also to the victim and the society so that law and order is
maintained. It was held that a Judge does not preside over the
criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. It
was held that a Judge presides over criminal trial also to see
that a guilty man does not escape. It was held that both are
public duties which the Judge has to perform. It was held that it
was unfortunate that the I.O. had not stepped into the witness
box without any justifiable ground. It was held that non-
examination of I.O. could not be a ground for disbelieving eye
witnesses.
54. In the case of Bahadur Naik vs. State of Bihar
(2000) 9 SCC 153 it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
that non-examination of I.O. was of no consequence when it
could not be shown as to what prejudice had been caused to the
appellant by such non-examination.
55. In a criminal case, the evidence of the I.O. has its
own importance, but non-examination of the I.O. is not fatal in
all the cases. It is well settled that mere non-examination of I.O.
does not in every case cause prejudice to the accused or affects
the credibility of the prosecution version.
56. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Dev vs. State
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1530 of 2019 dt.23-02-2024
of U.P. [1995 Supp (1) SCC 547] observed that non-
examination of I.O. does not in any way create any dent in the
prosecution case, much less affect the credibility of otherwise
trustworthy testimonies of the eye witnesses. It was, however,
indicated that it is always desirable for the prosecution to
examine the I.O.
57. In Behari Prasad vs. State of Bihar (1996) 2
SCC 317 it was held that a case of prejudice likely to suffer
mostly depends upon facts of each case and no universal
straitjacket formula should be laid down that non-examination
of I.O. per se vitiate the criminal trial.
58. Admittedly, the I.O. has not been examined in this
case. As stated above, it is well settled that non-examination of
I.O. ipso facto does not discredit the prosecution version. The
right of bringing on record the contradictions in the statement
of witnesses made before the I.O. is a very valuable right of the
accused and by showing that, the witness has made
improvements or has given evidence, which contradicts his
earlier statement, the accused is able to satisfy the Court that
the witness is not a reliable witness. It is a valuable right of the
accused.
59. In the present case, the police Sub-Inspector
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1530 of 2019 dt.23-02-2024
Baleshwar Prasad Singh recorded the fardbeyan of the
informant and took up investigation himself, prepared the
inquest report of the deceased Sadanand Yadav. In our view, in
fact and circumstances of the case, I.O. is a material witness
and non-examination of I.O. has definitely prejudiced the
appellants since the appellants lost opportunity to cross-
examine the I.O. on the point of recording of fardbeyan of
informant, visit of I.O. at the place of occurrence, inquest
report, seizure of blood stained soil and contradictions in the
statement of prosecution witnesses before the I.O.
60. Thus, in our opinion, non-examination of I.O., in
the present case, is a serious infirmity resulting in prejudice
being caused to the appellants. Hence, on this score also
conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained.
61. In the light of above discussions and taking into
consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the
evidences available on record, we are of the considered view
that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges
levelled against the accused/appellants beyond all reasonable
doubts thereby entitling the accused/appellants for acquittal.
62. In the result, the instant appeals deserve to be
allowed and are allowed with the following orders:
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1530 of 2019 dt.23-02-2024
I. The appeals are allowed.
II. The impugned judgment of conviction dated
25.11.2019 and order of sentence dated 29.11.2019 passed by
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge III, Supaul in
Sessions Trial No. 35 of 2000 thereby convicting the appellants
and sentencing them, accordingly, is set aside.
III. The appellants are acquitted of the charges
levelled against them and held to be proved against them by the
learned Trial Court.
IV. The appellants, namely, Subodh Yadav, Binod
Yadav [in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1530 of 2019] and Sushil Yadav
[in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1486 of 2019], who are in jail custody,
be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
V. The appellants, namely Devanand Yadav, Surat Lal
Yadav, Dhirendra Yadav [in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1486 of
2019], who are on bail, are discharged from liabilities of their
bail bonds and sureties.
63. The aforesaid appeals, accordingly, stand disposed
of.
64. Let a copy of this judgment be dispatched to the
Superintendent of concerned jail forthwith for compliance and
record.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1530 of 2019 dt.23-02-2024
65. The Trial Court records of the instant appeals be
returned to the Trial Court forthwith.
66. Interlocutory application(s), if any, also stand(s)
disposed off, accordingly.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
I agree
Arvind Srivastava, J
(Arvind Srivastava, J)
Harish/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 01.12.2023
Uploading Date 26.02.2024
Transmission Date 26.02.2024
