State vs Kalu Ram And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 13375 Raj

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
                   D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 18/1992

State of Rajasthan
                                                                    ----Appellant
                                    Versus
1. Kalu Ram S/o Shri Bachna Ram, by caste Kumhar, R/o
Lambiya
2. Puna Ram S/o Shri Bachna Ram, by caste Kumhar, R/o
Lambiya
                                                                 ----Respondents
                              Connected With
               D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 206/1991
1. Kalu Ram        S/o Shri Bachna Ram, by caste Kumhar, R/o
Lambiya
2. Puna Ram S/o Shri Bachna Ram, by caste Kumhar, R/o
Lambiya
                                                                  ----Appellantas
                                    Versus
State of Rajasthan
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, PP
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Tejmal Ranka



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                              JUDGMENT

15/11/2022


BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE MEHTA, J.)

This judgment shall decide the appeal No.18/1992 preferred

by the State of Rajasthan and Appeal No.206/1991 preferred by

the accused for assailing the judgment dated 26.09.1991 passed

by learned Sessions Judge, Pali in Sessions Case No.21/89

(2 of 17) [CRLA-18/1992]

whereby, the accused persons were acquitted from the charges

under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and while

toning down the offence to one under Section 304 Part-II read

with Section 34 of the IPC, both were sentenced to five years' RI

and fine of Rs.500, in default of payment of fine, to further

undergo six months' additional imprisonment. The trial court also

acquitted the accused persons from the charges punishable under

Sections 323 IPC in the alternative 323/34 IPC, 341 in the

alternative 341/34 IPC and Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act.

While the State of Rajasthan has approached this Court through

appeal No.18/1992 for assailing acquittal of the accused from the

charges referred to supra, the accused have filed appeal

No.206/1991 for assailing their conviction and order of sentence

for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC.

Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeals

are noted hereinbelow:-

Ghewar Ram (PW.3) lodged a written report (Ex.P/5) to the

SHO Police Station Anandpur Kalu, District Pali on 05.12.1988 at

11:45 AM alleging inter alia that on the same day at about 11 O'

Clock, the informant and his father Shri Mangilal confined the

cattle owned by the accused persons while the animals were

damaging the crops of the complainant. Both were proceeding to

deposit the cattle in the cattle pond at which point of time, Puna

Ram and Kalu Ram, residents of Lambiya armed with lathis and

axes came around and started assaulting the complainant and his

father. The complainant alleged that his father was inflicted

numerous injuries on the head and right leg by lathis and axes as

(3 of 17) [CRLA-18/1992]

a result whereof, his father's condition was precarious. He also

alleged that he himself was caused injuries on hands and legs by

the accused persons. It was further alleged in the FIR that Murali

Sad and Heeralal Prajapat and few other persons intervened or

else, the accused persons would have caused graver harm. The

complainant got his father admitted to the hospital and thereafter

proceeded to the police station for lodging the report. On the basis

of this written report, formal FIR No.69/1988 (Ex.P/26) for the

offences punishable under Sections 307, 341, 323/34 IPC and

Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act came to be registered at the

Police Station Anandpur Kalu, District Pali and investigation was

commenced.

The medical jurist examined Mangilal as well as the first

informant Ghewar Ram for the injuries suffered by them.

Shri Mangilal expired while undergoing treatment upon which, the

offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was applied to the case.

The IO recorded the statements of the witnesses. The dead body

of Shri Mangilal was subjected to autopsy at the Government

Hospital, Beawar at the hands of Dr.S.C. Jain who issued the

postmortem report (Ex.P/19) taking note of four injuries on the

body of the deceased. The head injury as well as the injury on the

leg was opined to be grievous in nature. Ghewar Ram received

three simple bruises and his medical report (Ex.P/6) was also

prepared by Dr. S.C. Jain. The accused persons were arrested.

They too were got medically examined and medical reports were

prepared. Maduli, mother of the accused appellants was also

medically examined and three injuries were noticed on her body

as well. Upon conclusion of investigation, the IO proceeded to file

(4 of 17) [CRLA-18/1992]

charge-sheet against the accused appellants Kalu Ram and Puna

Ram for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 341,

325, 323 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 24 of the Cattle

Trespass Act. As the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC

was sessions triable, the case was committed to the Court of

Sessions Judge, Pali where charges were framed against the

accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 in the

alternative 302/34 IPC, 341 in the alternative 341/34 IPC, 323 in

the alternative 323/34 IPC and Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass

Act. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. 24

witnesses were examined and 30 documents were exhibited by

the prosecution case to prove its case. The accused, upon being

questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with

the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case,

denied the same, claimed to be innocent and took a specific plea

that Mangilal and Ghewar Ram were beating their mother Maduli

who was watering the cows. Upon this, both of them rushed to

save their mother. They too were beaten by the complainant and

his father. Three witnesses were examined in defence and four

documents were exhibited. Upon hearing the arguments advanced

by the learned Public Prosecutor and appreciating the evidence

available on record, the trial court found that the prosecution case

was full of suspicious circumstances. The prosecution could not

explain numerous injuries suffered by the accused and their

mother in the very same incident. The accused did not bear the

intention to kill the deceased. The complainant and his father were

taking the cattle of the accused unauthorizedly, and thus the

accused had the right to defend their person and property (cattle)

but the said right extended to causing simple hurt only. However,

(5 of 17) [CRLA-18/1992]

the accused inflicted repeated blows to the deceased and thus,

they exceeded the right of private defence and accordingly, the

charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with

Section 34 IPC was toned down to one under Section 304 Part II

read with Section 34 of the IPC. The accused were convicted and

sentenced as above for the offence punishable under Section 304

Part II IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC by the judgment dated

26.06.1991, which is assailed in these two appeals as mentioned

above.

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently

contended that the accused persons launched an unprovoked

attack on the deceased Mangilal who was a 70 years old man.

Repeated blows were landed on the vital body parts of the

deceased. His skull bones were fractured as a result of the assault.

Grievous injuries were also caused on his leg. Injuries were also

inflicted to the first informant Ghewar Ram. Thus, learned Public

Prosecutor urged that there was no justification for the learned

trial court to have toned down the charge under Section 302 IPC

to one under Section 304 Part II IPC. As per learned Public

Prosecutor, it is a case of cold blooded murder and hence, the

appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan to challenge the acquittal of

the respondents from the charge punishable under Section 302

IPC deserves to be accepted.

Per contra, Shri Tejmal Ranka, learned counsel representing

the accused vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions

advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor. He urged that it is the

admitted case of the prosecution that the complainant and his

(6 of 17) [CRLA-18/1992]

father had wrongfully confined the cattle owned by the accused

and were trying to deposit them in the cattle pond without any

justification. Madu Devi, mother of the accused persons requested

the complainant and his father to release the cattle on which, she

was beaten and numerous injuries were caused to her. The

accused persons, on noticing that their cattle had been illegally

confined and their mother was being beaten, rushed to save her

on which, they too were inflicted injuries. Thus, as per Shri Ranka,

it is clearly a case wherein, the accused persons caused injuries to

the complainant and his father in a bonafide exercise of right of

private defence. He further submitted that there are grave

contradictions in the story put-forth by the star prosecution

witness Shri Ghewar Ram in his evidence inasmuch as, the

Investigating Officer did not find any damage to the crops as

claimed by the complainant in his evidence. Murali Sad and Heera

Lal who were named in the written report as the eyewitnesses of

the incident, were not examined and were withheld and on the

contrary, the prosecution tried to create ocular testimony by

posing PW.4 Geeta, PW.5 Pratap Ram, PW.6 Puna Ram and PW.7

Keli to be the witnesses of the incident. He thus, implored the

Court to accept the appeal against conviction, reject the appeal

filed by the State and acquit the accused appellants of the charges

while accepting their appeal. His alternative submission was that

the incident took place way back in the year 1988. The accused

persons have already remained in custody for a period nearly two

years and nine months and thus, it is a fit case to reduce the

sentence suffered by the accused to the period already undergone

and there is no justification to send the accused persons back to

custody at this highly belated stage.

                                          (7 of 17)               [CRLA-18/1992]



     We   have    given     our     thoughtful         consideration   to   the

submissions advanced at bar and have carefully and meticulously

examined the record and have re-appreciated the evidence

available on record.

Now we proceed to examine the sworn testimony of the star

prosecution witness Ghewar Ram (PW.3) who himself received

injuries in the same incident. While deposing on oath, Shri Ghewar

Ram stated that he used to reside in Bherunda Ki Dhani, Village

Lambiya. On 05.12.1988, he and his father had gone to their field

where crops were collected laid out after harvesting. 8-10 cows

owned by the accused entered their field and were damaging the

harvested crop of ground-nut. He and his father turned the cattle

out of their field and were proceeding to hand them back to the

accused. He and his father went to the field of the accused, who

refused to accept or control their cows and stated that if anything

further was done, they would use their axes and kill. Upon this,

the complainant and his father rounded the cattle and were

proceeding to deposit them in the Lambiya Cattle pond. The

complainant's sister Geeta also came there. They had reached the

Dhuni of Narayan Das when the accused persons, forcibly got the

cattle released and exhorted that their cows would graze freely.

Saying so, Punia gave repeated blows on his father's head who fell

down unconscious. Thereafter, Kaliya inflicted lathi blows on the

head and other body parts of his father. He rushed for saving his

father on which, Kaliya inflicted lathi blows to him as well. Punia

also caused injuries to him. At that time, he was unarmed. Pratap

Ji Jat, Puna Ram, Geeta, Muralidhar Sad and Heeralal Panwar

intervened to save them and the accused ran away from the spot.

(8 of 17) [CRLA-18/1992]

He took his father to the Government Dispensary, Anandpur Kalu

from where he was referred to Beawar. His father was admitted at

the Beawar Hospital where he expired. He went back to the Police

Station and lodged the report. The witness pertinently stated that

while he was trying to save himself, some injuries were received

by the accused as well. In cross-examination, the witness denied

the defence suggestion that he and his father caused injuries to

the accused. He alleged that Punia gave a lathi blow on the head

of his father and thereafter random injuries were inflicted by both

the accused. His father did not hit anyone with the stick he was

carrying in his hands. Pratap, Geeta, and Puna came to the spot

after he (the informant) had reached near his father. The witness

could not state as to the extent of damage caused by the cattle of

the accused. He admitted that the accused were carrying bamboo

sticks and were not having axes in their hands. He was confronted

with the written report (Ex.P/5) wherein, there was an allegation

that the accused beat his father by lathis and axes. The witness

admitted that this fact was mentioned in the FIR. He also admitted

that it was not mentioned in the written report (Ex.P/5), as to

which/who of the accused caused the particular injury to his

father. He also admitted that in the written report, the names of

Pratap, Geeta and Puna, as the persons who intervened to save

them were not mentioned. Thus, the witness has made significant

improvements from the allegations set out in the report (Ex.P/5)

lodged by him with the police.

It may be noted that the first informant Shri Ghewar Ram is

a Government Teacher and thus, it can be reasonably expected

that he would incorporate all available evidence/material/facts

(9 of 17) [CRLA-18/1992]

before lodging the report of the incident with the police. On a

perusal of the written report (Ex.P/5), it becomes clear that there

is a clear indication in this report that only the informant saw the

incident. Murali Sad and Heeral Lal came to intervene at later

point of time. Thus, name of the so-called other eyewitnesses

does not figure in the written report. Furthermore, in this report,

there is no specific allegation qua the role played by the two

accused persons in the alleged assault. Rather, the FIR is silent

regarding the weapons allegedly held by the two accused persons.

Be that as it may.

On a threadbare perusal of the statement of the witness, we

are duly satisfied that so far as the witnesses Geeta (PW.4),

Pratapram (PW.5) and Puna (PW.6) are concerned, they must have

reached the place of incident after the assault had taken place and

could not have seen the blows being exchanged. Thus, their

portrayal as eyewitnesses of the incident is totally unacceptable

and the trial court was perfectly justified in discarding the

evidence of these three witnesses.

The next important witness whose evidence needs a brief

reference is the IO Shri Jugat Singh (PW.18). The IO admitted in

his cross-examination that during the course of investigation, it

came to light that the complainant party was taking the cows of

the accused to the cattle pond at which point of time, the incident

flared up. The IO admitted that he did not conduct spot

investigation/inspection of the field where the crops of the

complainant party were allegedly damaged. Thus, there is no

material on the record of the case to satisfy the Court that the

(10 of 17) [CRLA-18/1992]

cattle owned by the accused persons trespassed into the field of

the complainant or that they caused damage to the harvested

groundnut crop. To this extent, the evidence of Shri Ghewar Ram

(PW.3) does not get corroboration from any other evidence.

Now we proceed to discuss the medical testimony. Dr. S.C.

Jain, PW.16 initially examined Shri Mangilal while he was still alive

and issued the injury report (Ex.P/6). The doctor took note of the

following injuries.:-

1. Bruise admeasuring 4 x 3 inches on the right leg.

2. Lacerated wound admeasuring 1/4 x 1/5 x 1/6 inches on the

right leg.

3. Bruise admeasuring 5 x 2 inches on the right leg

4. Bruise admeasuring 2 x 1 inches on the right forearm

5. Bruise admeasuring 4 x 3-1/2 inches on the left shoulder

6. Bruise admeasuring 5 x 5 inches on middle of the forehead.

7. Bruise admeasuring 3 x 2 inches on the forehead with both

eyes blackened.

X-ray opinion was required for injuries Nos.1 & 6. All the

injuries were caused by blunt weapon. After x-ray, the injuries

nos. 1 & 6 were found to be grievous in nature. Shri Mangilal

succumbed to his injuries and postmortem was carried out on his

body by Dr. S.C. Jain who issued the postmortem report (Ex.P/19)

The bones underneath the injury No.6 were found fractured and

the brain was compressed which led to coma and sudden death of

Shri Mangilal.

(11 of 17) [CRLA-18/1992]

The medical jurist also examined the injuries of Ghewar Ram

and issued the injury report (Ex.P/6) as per which three bruises

were noticed on the left leg, right hand and left hand respectively

of the injured. All the injuries were found to be simple in nature.

The defence witness Mohanlal (DW.1) stated that the incident took

place at about 10 O' clock. Maduli, mother of Kalu and Puna Ram

was going to water the cows and at which point of time, Mangilal

inflicted stick blows to her. Puna Ram went to save his mother on

which he too was beaten by Ghewar Ram and Mangilal. The

witness also stated that the operations of the cattle pond in their

village were suspended at the time of the incident.

The defence witness Bhanwaru (DW.2) also gave evidence

that at the time of the incident, the cattle pond of their village was

not functional.

Dr. Jatan Singh (DW.3) conducted medical examination of

Maduli, mother of the appellants and the appellants themselves.

As per the medical report (Ex.D/5), Maduli was having a bruise

admeasuring 2 x 2 CM on the right side of chest and a bruise

admeasuring 3 x 2 CM on the right side of head. As per the

medical report (Ex.D/6), Kalu Ram was having a lacerated wound

admeasuring 1x 1/2 x 0.3 CM above the right ear and abrasion on

the index finger. As per medico legal report (Ex/D/7), Puna Ram

was having a lacerated wound above the right ear; swelling on the

right elbow and another lacerated wound admeasuring 5 x 1/2 x

1/2 CM in the middle of the scalp. The evidence of the remaining

witnesses is purely formal and would not impact the outcome of

the case.

(12 of 17) [CRLA-18/1992]

Upon a threadbare appreciation of the evidence available on

record, we are of the firm opinion that the trial court was perfectly

justified in holding that the witnesses Geeta (PW.4), Pratap Ram

(PW.5) and Puna (PW.6) were not the eyewitnesses of the

incident. Thus, the entire prosecution case hinges on the evidence

of the injured witness, the first informant Ghewar Ram (PW.3). It

may be reiterated that the IO did not conduct any spot inspection

of the field of the complainant party and thus, the allegation set

out in the evidence of Ghewar Ram (PW.3) that the cattle of the

accused were causing damage to the crops of the complainant

remains unsubstantiated. Ghewar Ram stated that he and his

father had confined the cattle of the accused and were proceeding

to deposit them in the cattle pond. It is precisely at this moment

that the accused persons allegedly launched the attack. Prior

thereto, when the complainant and his father took the cattle of the

accused to their field, the accused threatened them with axes.

However, Ghewar Ram stated on oath that the accused were

armed with lathis whey they indulged in the assault. Apparently

thus, there is a discrepancy regarding the nature of weapons used

by the accused in the incident. This discrepancy is starkly

indicated when we consider the written report (Ex.P/5) wherein,

the informant did not mention as to the exact description of

weapon individually held by the accused. It was vaguely stated in

the report that the accused were armed with axes and lathis.

Thus, this discrepancy created a grave doubt on the reliability of

the Ghewar Ram's testimony.

The evidence of defence witnesses, referred to supra, clearly

establishes that the cattle pond where, the complainant and his

(13 of 17) [CRLA-18/1992]

father were proposing/proceeding to deposit the cattle of the

accused was not functional. Furthermore, it does not stand to

reason that when initially the complainant and his father took the

cattle of the accused to their field, they would refuse to accept the

same. It thus, clearly appears that the complainant Ghewar Ram

has hidden true genesis of occurrence. Shri Ghewar Ram further

claimed that he was unarmed whereas his father, the deceased

Mangilal, who was a 70 years old man, was carrying a thin babool

stick with himself. In this circumstance, the possibility of Mangilal

singly having inflicted multiple injuries to the two accused persons

who were young men is well-nigh non existent and unbelievable.

Thus, it is evident that Ghewar Ram himself must be carrying

some weapon in his hands and that is why he tried to take a

stance in his examination-in-chief that while he was trying to save

himself, the accused also received injuries. If Ghewar Ram was

unarmed then, it is quite a surprise as to how he could manage to

inflict injuries to the accused. Thus, it is well and truly established

that not only did Ghewar Ram suppress the true genesis of

occurrence but he also failed to explain the injuries caused to the

accused. The defence has come out with a clear theory that Maduli

Devi, mother of the accused persons was watering the cows at

which point of time, the complainant and his father assaulted her.

The fact that Smt. Maduli Devi received injuries coinciding with the

time of the incident at hand, is well established from the evidence

of Dr. Jatan Singh (DW.3) who issued the medical report (Ex.D/5)

after examining Smt. Maduli on 07.12.1988. Both the accused

also received injuries in the same incident which fact was admitted

by Ghewar Ram. Their injury reports Ex.D/6 and Ex.D/7 were also

proved by Dr. Jatan Singh (DW.3). Puna Ram was caused two

(14 of 17) [CRLA-18/1992]

injuries on the skull region. Thus, it is not a case wherein, the

injuries received by the accused persons can be brushed aside as

being trivial or superficial.

In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the

firm opinion that the learned trial court was perfectly justified in

acquitting the accused persons from the charges under Sections

302 in the alternative Section 302/34, 341 in the alternative

341/34 and 323 in the alternative 323/34 IPC and Section 24 of

the Cattle Trespass Act by extending them the benefit of right of

private defence. The findings recorded by the trial court in the

impugned judgment to this extent are unimpeachable and hence,

the appeal preferred by the State has to fail.

Now we come to the appeal filed by the accused appellants.

Law is well settled that where the right of private defence is

extended to the accused, the penal provisions of Sections 34 and

149 IPC providing for vicarious liability cannot be invoked. In this

regard, reference may be had to the following observations made

by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar vs

Nathu Pandey and Ors. : AIR 1970 SC 27:-

"In order to attract the provisions of Section 149 the prosecution must establish that there was an unlawful assembly and that the crime was committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly. Under the fourth clause of Section 141 an assembly of five or more persons is an unlawful assembly if the common object of its members is to enforce any right or supposed right by means of criminal force or show of criminal force to any Person. Section 141 must be read with ss. 96 to 106 dealing with the right of

(15 of 17) [CRLA-18/1992]

private defence. Under Section 96 nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. The assertion of a right of private defence within the limits prescribed by law cannot fall within the expression "to enforce any right or supposed right" in the fourth clause of Section 141. In Kapildeo Singh v. the King (1949) F.C.R. 834 the High Court had affirmed the appellant's conviction and sentence under Section 147 and Section 304 read with Section 149, without considering the question as to who was actually in possession of the plot at the time of the occurrence. The High Court observed that the question of possession was immaterial and that the appellants party were members of an unlawful assembly, "as both sides were determined to vindicate their rights by show of force or use of force." The Federal Court set aside the conviction and sentence. It held that the High Court judge stated the law too loosely "if by the use of the word 'vindicate' he meant to include even cases in which a party is forced to maintain or defend his rights". The assembly could not be designated as an unlawful assembly if its object was to defend property by the use of force within the limits prescribed by law."

Reference may also be had to to the following observations

made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vajrapu

Sambayya Naidu & Ors. vs State of AP and Ors : (2004) 10

SCC 152:-

"Even assuming that the right of private defence of persons did not accrue to the appellants and that, in fact, they exceeded their right of private defence of property, it has to be seen as to which of the accused exceeded that right. It is well settled that in a case where the court comes to the conclusion that the members of the defence party exceeded the right of private defence, the court must identify and punish only those who have exceeded the right. Section

(16 of 17) [CRLA-18/1992]

34/149 IPC will not be applicable in the case of persons exercising their right of private defence. [See :State of Bihar v. Mathu Pandey, 1970 (1) SCR 358 and Subramani v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2002(7) SCC 210.). For the same reason, the appellants cannot be held guilty of the offence under Section 148 IPC, because nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence."

Thus, while holding that the accused exceeded the right of

private defence, the learned trial court was not justified in

convicting the accused appellants for the offence punishable under

Section 304 Part II with the aid of Section 34 IPC. It may be

reiterated that in the FIR (Ex.P/5), specific role assigned to the

accused was not elaborated. However, even if the exaggerated

allegations as set out in the testimony of PW.3 Ghewar Ram are to

be considered as reliable evidence, since the provisions of

constructive/vicarious liability cannot be applied. The finding

recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment that the

accused persons exceeded the right of private defence is thus

unimpeachable. However, in view of the precedents cited above,

the accused cannot be held liable with the aid of Section 34 of the

IPC and the prosecution would have to pinpoint the specific role

played by the accused in the incident and each accused would be

liable for the particular injury inflicted by him. Nonetheless, from

the evidence of the sole eyewitness PW.3 Ghewar Ram, this

exercise does not seem to be possible. Hence, both the accused

can at best be convicted for causing simple hurt to the

complainant and the deceased which is punishable under Section

323 IPC.

                                                                                    (17 of 17)                 [CRLA-18/1992]



                                         In    wake     of     the     discussion         made       hereinabove,     while

dismissing the State appeal, the appeal preferred by the accused

persons is accepted in part. The conviction of the accused persons

recorded by the learned trial court for the offence punishable

under Section 304 Part II/34 IPC is set aside. They are instead,

convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. Both

the accused persons have already suffered incarceration well in

excess of the maximum punishment provided for this offence.

They are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged.

The appeal (No.206/1991) preferred by the accused

appellants is allowed in part.

However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A

Cr.P.C., the accused appellants are directed to furnish a personal

bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each and a surety bond in the like

amount before the learned trial court which shall be effective for a

period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a

Special Leave Petition against the present judgment on receipt of

notice thereof, the appellants shall appear before the Supreme

Court.

Record be returned to the trial court forthwith.

                                   (KULDEEP MATHUR),J                                           (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
                                    56-Sudhir Asopa/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)