Mana Ram And Ors vs State
2022 Latest Caselaw 12224 Raj

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR


             D.B. Criminal Appeal No.270/1989

1. Mana Ram son of Shri Basta Ram,
2. Banshi Ram son of Shri Mana Ram,
3. Bhagirath son of Shri Jaga Ram,
4. Mohan Ram son of Shri Surja Ram,
5. Asha Ram son of Shri Dewa Ram,
All by caste Meghwal, residents of Sandila, Tehsil Jayal, District
Nagaour (Raj.)
(At present lodged in Central Jail, Jodhpur)
                                                                 ----Appellants
                                   Versus
The State of Rajasthan.
                                                                ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. S.L. Jain
                               Mr. S.R. Sharma
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. R.R. Chhaparwal, PP



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

                             JUDGMENT



Date of pronouncement                  ::::             12/10/2022
Order reserved on                      ::::            11/07/2022




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

1. The accused appellants Mana Ram, Banshi Ram, Bhagirath,

Mohan Ram and Asha Ram (Mana Ram and Bhagirath, since

deceased, appeal abated), were convicted and sentenced as

(2 of 17) [CRLA-270/1989]

below vide judgment dated 24.07.1989, passed by the Additional

Sessions Judge, Nagour, in Sessions Case No.42/1987 :-

Offence         Fine and Sentence                               Default          in
                                                                payment          of
                                                                Fine(s)
302/149 IPC     Life Imprisonment to each One             Month's
                accused with a fine in the sum Simple
                of Rs.100/-.                   Imprisonment    to
                                               each accused.
147, 148 and Six Months'             Simple         Imprisonment          to   each
323/149 IPC accused.
325/149 IPC     Fine of       Rs.100/-        to     each One Month's
                accused.                                  Simple
                                                          Imprisonment to
                                                          each accused.

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. They have preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.

for assailing their conviction and sentences awarded to them by

the learned trial court.

3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal

are noted hereinbelow :-

4. Sunda Ram (P.W.13), gave an oral report (Ex.P/37) to the

SHO, Police Station Khatu on 16.03.1987 at about 04.45 AM,

alleging inter alia that he was a resident of Village Sandila. On the

previous night i.e. 15.03.1987, he was sleeping in his house. The

house of his brother Poorna Ram is located in close vicinity. Poorna

Ram was sleeping on a cot laid inside the courtyard of his house.

In late hours of night, he heard the cries of his sister-in-law

Dhapudi on which, he went out and saw that Poorna Ram was

(3 of 17) [CRLA-270/1989]

being assaulted by Mana Ram son of Basta Ram, Banshi Ram son

of Mana Ram, Harkaran and Bhagirath sons of Jaga Ram, Ghota

Ram son of Bhagirath Ram, Bhiya Ram son of Kana Ram, Mohan

Ram son of Shri Surja Ram, Asha Ram son of Shri Dewa Ram all

by caste Meghwals, residents of Village Sandila. Mana Ram and

Banshi Ram were armed with farsis and others were having lathis.

Poorna Ram had fallen on the ground in an injured condition and

Dhapudi was lying on top of him in an attempt to save her

husband. The informant's nephew Mangi Lal and his brother Bhagu

Ram also made efforts to save the victims. All the accused persons

were indulging in the assault. Ghasi Ram and Bhanwara Ram,

came to the spot and tried to intervene on which, the assailants

went away.

His brother Poorna Ram had been given a farsi blow on his

head and was bleeding profusely. Blunt weapon injuries were

noticeable on left side of abdomen and the chest area. They lifted

Poorna Ram and placed him on a cot but by that time, he had

expired as a result of injuries inflicted to him. Mangilal, Bhagu

Ram and Dhapudi, also received injuries in the self same incident.

It was alleged that the reason behind the assault was a quarrel

which happened couple of days earlier, the accused Tola Ram and

the informant's nephew Banshi over a trivial incident while playing

Gher at Holi. The accused persons got enraged by this incident

and as a result thereof, they assaulted and killed Poorna Ram.

5. On the basis of this report, an FIR (Ex.P/34, No.7/1987),

came to be registered at the Police Station Khatu, District Nagour

for offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 325, 147, 148

and 149 IPC. Investigation was undertaken by Shri Chiranji Lal

(4 of 17) [CRLA-270/1989]

(P.W.18), SHO, Police Station Khatu, who proceeded to the place

of incident and conducted following steps of investigation :-

1. Examined the place of incident and prepared Site Inspection

Plan (Ex.P/8) and Haalat Mauka (Ex.P/7)

2. Prepared the Fard Surat Haal Laash (Ex.P/9)

3. Seized clothes of the deceased and recorded the same in

Seizure Memo Ex.P/10.

4. Prepared the Panchnama (Ex.P/11) and with the consensus

of the Panchas, determined the cause of death to be head

injury.

6. The dead body of Poorna Ram was forwarded to the

Government Hospital, Jayal for autopsy. His blood stained clothes

were seized. The accused were arrested and in furtherance of their

disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act,

recoveries were effected, which are noted hereinbelow in a tabular

form for the sake of ready reference. The seized articles were

forwarded to the FSL, Jaipur for Serological examination :-

Sr. No. Name of Informatio Details of Information Recovery             Details  of
        the       n Memo   Memo                   Memo                 Recovery
        Appellant                                                      Memo

1. Bhagirath Ex. P38 dt. Pertaining to the place Ex. P6 dt. One blood 18-03-87 at where blood covered 19-03-87 stained lathi 07:30 AM lathi (stick) had been (stick) hidden

2. Mana Ex. P42 dt. Pertaining to the place Ex. P2 dt. One used Ram 20-03-87 where blood covered 21-03-87 and old lathi (stick) had been bamboo hidden stick (lathi) black in color and had been

(5 of 17) [CRLA-270/1989]

inscribed with '2' on the bottom part of the stick which had a blood stain as well

3. Banshi Ex. P43 dt. Pertaining to the place Ex. P3 dt. One blood Ram 20-03-87 at where blood covered 21-03-87 stained 07:45 AM pharsi (sickle) was pharsi attached to a black (sickle) was colored stick, had been attached to a hidden black colored stick

4. Mohan Ex. P44 dt. Pertaining to the place Ex. P13 dt. One ber tree Ram 01-04-87 at where a bordi tree 02-04-87 stick which 09:00 AM (Indian Jujube) stick had been which had been wrapped encased in in white colored leather, white had been hidden colored leather

5. Asha Ram Ex. P45 dt. Pertaining to the place Ex.P46 One ber tree 18-04-87 at where a bordi tree(Indian dt.18-04-87 crooked 06:00 AM Jujube) stick which had stick which been wrapped in white had its bark colored leather, had been peeled and hidden hanging out.

                                                                    The     stick
                                                                    was thick on
                                                                    one end and
                                                                    thin on the
                                                                    other.
6.   Ghisa      Ex. P39 dt. Pertaining to the place Ex. P4 dt.      One blood
     Ram        18-03-87 at where blood covered 19-03-87            stained 6ft
                08:00 AM lathi (stick) had been                     lathi (stick)
                            hidden                                  which was
                                                                    from ber tree
                                                                    and had its
                                                                    bark peeling
                                                                    tapered.
7.   Bhiya      Ex. P40 dt. Pertaining to the place Ex. P5 dt.      One babool
     Ram        19-03-87 at where blood covered 21-03-87            tree     stick
                08:00 AM lathi (stick) had been                     which had
                            hidden                                  its      bark
                                                                    peeling
                                                                    tapered. The
                                                                    stick was 5
                                                                    ½ ft. long.

8. Harkaran Ex. P41 dt. Pertaining to the place Ex. P1 dt. One blood 20-03-87 at where lathi (stick) had 21-03-87 stained lathi 08:00 AM been hidden (stick) which was used and old.

(6 of 17) [CRLA-270/1989]

7. After concluding investigation, the SHO proceeded to file a

charge-sheet against eight accused persons namely; Mana Ram

son of Basta Ram, Banshi Ram son of Mana Ram, Harkaran son of

Mana Ram, Bhagirath son of Jaga Ram, Ghasi Ram son of

Bhagirath, Bhiya Ram son of Kana Ram, Mohan Ram son of Surja

Ram and Asha Ram son of Deva Ram, all by caste Meghwal, for

the offences punishable under Sections 302, 325, 323, 147, 148

and 149 IPC. As the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC,

was Sessions triable, the case was committed to the court of

Additional Sessions Judge, Nagour for trial.

8. The learned trial court, framed charges against all eight

accused persons for the offences mentioned above. They pleaded

not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as

18 witnesses and exhibited 47 documents to prove its case. The

accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and when

confronted with the allegations appearing against them in the

prosecution case, they claimed to be innocent and stated that they

had been falsely implicated in the case. One witness was

examined in defence. Upon hearing the arguments advanced by

the prosecution and the defence counsel and appreciating the

evidence available on record, the learned trial court, proceeded to

acquit three accused persons namely Harkaran, Ghasi Ram and

Bhiya Ram from the charges. However, five original appellants

were convicted and sentenced as above upon which, the instant

appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. It may be

reiterated that the accused appellant No.1 Mana Ram and the

accused appellant No.3 Bhagirath, passed away during pendency

(7 of 17) [CRLA-270/1989]

of the appeal and hence, the appeal to their extent, stands

abated.

9. Learned counsel Shri S.L. Jain and Shri S.R. Sharma,

representing the appellants, vehemently and fervently contended

that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The

prosecution witnesses were bearing ill will against the accused

appellants and they gave patently false evidence while implicating

the accused appellants for the alleged incident. The testimony of

the material prosecution witnesses is contradicted by the medical

evidence. When Dr. Phool Chand (P.W.10) carried out postmortem,

only a single blunt weapon injury was found on the body of the

deceased Poorna Ram and thus, the allegation of the prosecution

witnesses that as many as eight accused persons rained

indiscriminate blows on Poorna Ram, is falsified. The accused

Mana Ram also received significant injuries in the self same

incident and the prosecution did not offer any explanation for his

injuries and hence, the testimony of the eye-witnesses deserves

to be discarded.

Their alternative submission was that even if the allegations

levelled by the prosecution eye-witnesses are to be accepted, then

also, apparently their testimony is corroborated only to the extent

of a solitary injury inflicted on the head of Shri Poorna Ram. None

of the witnesses, made specific allegation against any of the

accused appellants regarding the said head injury. The incident

took place at the spur of the moment without any premeditation

and thus, involvement of the accused appellants in this case with

the aid of Section 149 IPC, is totally unjustified. They further

(8 of 17) [CRLA-270/1989]

submitted that even the allegations levelled by the prosecution

eye-witnesses in their sworn testimony were to be accepted, the

accused can at best be held guilty for the offence punishable

under Section 325 IPC.

On these grounds, learned defence counsel implored the

Court to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and

acquit accused appellants of the charges.

10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, vehemently and

fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants'

counsel. He urged that the witnesses Mangilal (P.W.1), Dhapudi

(P.W.12) and Bhagu Ram (P.W.3), themselves, received injuries in

the same incident. They gave unimpeachable testimony against

the accused and remained unshaken from their stance, despite

prolonged cross-examination. They had no enmity whatsoever

with the accused persons which could instigate them to falsely

implicate the appellants for the incident. The accused appellants

assaulted the unarmed victim Shri Poorna Ram without any

provocation. A grave injury was inflicted on the head of Shri

Poorna Ram, which was specifically attributed by the injured

witnesses Smt. Dhapudi (P.W.12) to the accused Banshi Ram. The

witness also alleged that the other accused persons also rained

indiscriminate blows upon her husband. She, her son Mangilal and

Bhagu Ram intervened and tried to save Poorna Ram on which,

they too were beaten and received numerous injuries in the same

incident. Thus, it is apparent that the accused persons formed an

unlawful assembly and launched the premeditated assault on the

(9 of 17) [CRLA-270/1989]

victim Poorna Ram and his family members, with the sole

objective of killing him.

He also drew the Court's attention to the testimony of the

Medical Jurist Dr. Arjun Ram (P.W.9), who proved the injuries of

Smt. Dhapudi, Bhagu Ram and Mangilal and Dr. Phool Chand

(P.W.10), who conducted autopsy and issued postmortem report of

Shri Poorna Ram and urged that the large number of injuries were

caused to the injured persons and the deceased and the medical

evidence fully corroborates the testimony of the eye-witnesses

and hence, the trial court was perfectly justified in convicting and

sentencing the appellants as above.

Concluding his arguments, he implored the Court to dismiss

the appeal and affirm the impugned judgment of conviction and

the sentences awarded to the appellants by the trial court.

11. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions

advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned judgment

and re-appreciated the evidence thoroughly.

We now proceed to analyze and appreciate the evidence of

the material prosecution witnesses.

12. The FIR Ex.P/34 was lodged by Sunda Ram (P.W.13) on

16.03.1987 at Police Station Badi Khatu, District Nagour at 4.45

AM i.e. soon after the incident. Thus, the report was filed without

any delay. Sunda Ram stated on oath that he was sleeping at his

house. He heard noise of commotion on which, he came out of his

house and saw the eight accused persons abusing Poorna Ram.

The informant intervened and requested the accused persons to

(10 of 17) [CRLA-270/1989]

refrain from indulging in the quarrel but they did not desist.

Banshi Ram and Mana Ram started raining blows. Owing to the

darkness, the witness could not ascertain whether the assault was

made with the sharp side or the reverse side of the Kassi. His

sister-in-law Dhapudi, nephew Mangilal and brother Bhagu Ram

also reached the place of the incident. Poorna Ram fell down on

the ground in an injured condition. The accused persons also

assaulted Dhapudi, Bhagu Ram and Mangilal. Ghasi Ram and

Bhanwararam also came at the spot. The accused Mana Ram fell

down on the stones which were lying at the place of incident. The

accused persons went away after assaulting the victims. Poorna

Ram was given blows on the abdomen and other parts of the body

by Mana Ram, etc. An altercation had taken place between Banshi

Ram and Tola Ram on the previous day during playing Gher at Holi

festivities and that is why, the accused persons indulged in the

assault. The witness proved the FIR Ex.P/34.

In cross-examination, the witness denied the defence

suggestion that the incident had already taken place before he

reached the spot. He was confronted with certain omissions vis-a-

vis his sworn testimony and the FIR Ex.P/34 to which, he offered

an explanation that he had given out all the details but he could

not explain as to why the specific allegations/overt acts of causing

the injuries to the deceased were not mentioned in the FIR.

13. Mangilal (P.W.1), being an injured witness, stated that his

father was sleeping in the open area outside their house. The

accused persons came there and started hurling abuses because

of an incident which took place on the previous day. His father told

(11 of 17) [CRLA-270/1989]

them to refrain from using profanities but, the accused started

assaulting Shri Poorna Ram who cried out. On hearing the shouts,

he and his mother ran out and saw that his father was being

assaulted and had fallen on the ground. He and his mother fell on

top of his father in an attempt to save him and the accused

inflicted injuries to them as well. Asha Ram gave him a lathi blow

on the hand and Ghasi Ram gave him a lathi blow on the chest.

Resultantly, his hand got fractured. His uncle Bhagu Ram came

there on which, he too was assaulted. He, his mother as well as

his uncle Bhagu Ram, all received injuries in this incident. His

father Poorna Ram expired at the spot as a result of the injuries

inflicted to him by the accused.

14. The witness Smt. Dhapudi, upon being examined as

(P.W.12), stated that her husband was sleeping outside their

house. She was sitting nearby. Eight assailants came and started

hurling abuses. Her husband requested them to refrain upon

which, the assailants launched an indiscriminate assault on him.

Banshi Ram gave a farsi blow on the head of her husband and

Mana Ram gave a farsi blow on his chest. She tried to intervene

for saving her husband on which, she too was assaulted. Her son

Mangilal and her brother-in-law Bhagu Ram also came around and

tried to save Shri Poorna Ram on which, they too were beaten.

Bhagirath gave lathi blow on her hand which got fractured. She

received injuries on her hands, back and legs. The accused Mana

Ram and Banshi Ram, were armed with farsis. The remaining

accused persons were armed with lathis and all participated in the

assault. The accused Mana Ram, fell down on the stones while

(12 of 17) [CRLA-270/1989]

running away and received injuries. Sunda Ram went and reported

the matter to the police. She showed her injuries to the doctor.

In cross-examination, the witness stated that Banshi Ram

and her brother-in-law's son had quarreled in the Holi Gher and

that is why, the incident took place. She was not sure whether the

farsi blows were given from the sharp side or the reverse side.

Both Mana Ram and Banshi Ram, inflicted injuries on her

husband's head. Mana Ram also inflicted an injury on his chest.

15. Now, we proceed to discuss evidence of the Medical Jurist Dr.

Phool Chand (P.W.10), who conducted autopsy upon the dead

body of Poorna Ram. The doctor stated that a solitary lacerated

wound admeasuring 4cm x 0.5cm muscle deep was noticed on the

right parietal region of the victim. The cranium, spinal cord and

the right parietal temporal bone, were fractured till the base of the

skull. Membranes of the brain were torn and bleeding. A laceration

was noticed on the right side of the brain. Cause of death was

opined to be the head injury. Apparently, thus, the Medical Jurist,

noticed a single injury on the head of the deceased which was

caused by a blunt weapon.

Resultantly, the case set up by the prosecution eye-witnesses

in their evidence that the two assailants Banshi Ram and Mana

Ram inflicted Kassi blows on the head and that the remaining

assailants also inflicted lathi blows on other body parts of Shri

Poorna Ram, is not corroborated but rather contradicted by the

evidence of the Medical Jurist.

(13 of 17) [CRLA-270/1989]

16. If we consider the allegations as set out in the evidence of

the three material eye-witnesses, it becomes clear that the motive

for the incident as has been alleged by them, was a trivial quarrel

which took place between Banshi Ram and Mana Ram, nephew of

the deceased Poorna Ram on the previous day. It is undisputed

that this quarrel was the only motive portrayed by the prosecution

witnesses for the assault made on Poorna Ram. It is our opinion

that it does not stand to reason that the accused would be

instigated so intensely owing to a trivial quarrel during Holi

Festivities, that they would launch a murderous assault on the

family members of Mana Ram and to be specific, his uncle Poorna

Ram. Thus, the theory of motive is not very convincing. It rather

appears that the prosecution witnesses have suppressed the true

genesis of occurrence. As per the pertinent allegations levelled by

the prosecution witnesses, the accused Banshi Ram and Mana

Ram were armed with farsis (sharp weapon) and the remaining six

accused were armed with lathis and that all of them, launched an

indiscriminate assault on Shri Poorna Ram, causing him large

number of injuries. However, this allegation is not corroborated

and is rather contradicted by the medical evidence as noted

above. It may be stated here that the accused Mana Ram also

received injuries in this very incident. Though, the injuries were

not very significant but the fact remains that the prosecution

witnesses tried to put forth an explanation for these injuries

alleging that Mana Ram was running away from the place of

incident when he fell down on the stones and got hurt. Darkness

was admittedly prevailing at the time of incident and it would not

have been possible for the witnesses to have seen how Mana Ram

(14 of 17) [CRLA-270/1989]

received injuries more particularly, when they were themselves in

distress. Thus, the explanation given by the witnesses for the

injuries of Mana Ram is not very convincing. It is clear that the

prosecution witnesses have concealed the true genesis of the

incident. Their evidence is contradicted by the medical evidence

on the very material aspect of number of injuries caused to the

deceased. The accused persons and the complainant party are

residents of the same vicinity and also hail from the same

community and had no significant animosity. Hence, it is our firm

opinion that it would not be safe to convict the accused persons by

invoking the provision of vicarious liability i.e. Section 149 IPC and

as a consequence, the court would be required to identify the

individual role of the accused persons for fixing their liability qua

the charge of murder.

The witness Mangilal (P.W.1) did not attribute any particular

injury caused to the deceased Shri Poorna Ram to any assailant.

His testimony qua the specific role of the accused is limited to the

injuries which he himself received in the incident. The witness

clearly admitted that his father received only one injury on his

head.

Shri Bhagu Ram (P.W.3), stated that Mana Ram and Banshi

Ram were armed with farsis and the others were armed with

lathis. Mohan Ram inflicted a lathi blow on his hand. Regarding the

injuries inflicted to Poorna Ram, this witness also gave vague

evidence alleging that Poorna Ram received injuries on his head

by a farsi, on the abdomen and back by lathis. He pertinently

stated that Banshi Ram gave the farsi blow on the head of Poorna

Ram. Thus, as per the statement of this witness, the head injury

(15 of 17) [CRLA-270/1989]

caused to Shri Poorna Ram, is specifically attributed to Banshi

Ram, who was armed with a farsi, which is a sharp weapon.

Manifestly, there is contradictory version in the evidence of

the material witnesses regarding the head injury caused to the

deceased Poorna Ram, with Dhapudi alleging that both Banshi

Ram and Mana Ram, inflicted the head injury to the deceased and

Shri Bhagu Ram, attributing the head injury only to Banshi Ram.

Regarding the side from which, the farsi was landed whether

sharp or reverse, as the incident took place in the cover of

darkness, the witnesses would not be in a position to notice this

aspect with certainty.

The evidence of the Medical Jurist Dr. Phool Chand (P.W.10),

makes it clear that only a solitary injury was observed on the head

of the deceased and that too was a lacerated wound.

Apparently, thus, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses

is acceptable only to the extent, they attributed the head injury

caused to the deceased Poorna Ram to the accused Banshi Ram.

17. The version of the eye-witnesses wherein, the accused Mana

Ram attributed a head injury to the deceased is an exaggeration

and deserves to be discarded. The only conclusion, which can

safely be drawn after a threadbare appreciation of the prosecution

evidence is that an altercation took place between the family

members of the opposing functions during the Holi Gher on the

previous day. During the night time, verbal abuses were

exchanged between the parties whereafter, tempers flared up and

a scuffle started and in this sudden quarrel, Banshi Ram inflicted a

solitary blow by the reverse side of the farsi on the head of the

(16 of 17) [CRLA-270/1989]

deceased Shri Poorna Ram, which proved fatal. Thus, Banshi Ram

was singularly liable for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Lathi

blows were inflicted by the two surviving accused persons Mohan

Ram and Asha Ram to the injured persons namely Dhapudi,

Mangilal, Bhagu Ram, resulting into simple as well as grievous

injuries and thus, these two accused appellants are liable to be

convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323/34 and

325/34 IPC.

Conviction of the accused appellants Asha Ram and Mohan

Ram for the offence punishable under Sections 302/149 IPC,

325/149 IPC and 323/149 IPC, is not sustainable in the eyes of

law.

18. As a consequence, the appeal deserves to be accepted in

part. The impugned judgment is modified. The two surviving

accused appellants Mohan Ram and Asha Ram are acquitted from

the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 302/149,

325/149 and 323/149 IPC. However, they are convicted for the

offences punishable under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 IPC. The

accused Asha Ram had suffered 2 months and 14 days

imprisonment whereas, the accused Mohan Ram has suffered

actual imprisonment of 2 months and 29 days and thus, it would

not be justifiable to send them back to the prison at this belated

stage i.e. after 35 years of the incident. Both the accused are

sentenced to the period already undergone by them.

Conviction of the accused Banshi Ram is altered from the

offence punishable under Section 302/149 IPC to one under

Section 302 IPC simpliciter, and for the said offence, he is

(17 of 17) [CRLA-270/1989]

sentenced to Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- in

default, to further undergo six months' imprisonment.

The accused Mohan Ram and Asha Ram are on bail. Their

bail bonds are discharged. The accused Banshi Ram is also on bail,

his bail bonds are cancelled. He shall surrender before the trial

court within thirty days failing which, the learned trial court shall

issue a warrant for securing the arrest of the accused so that, he

can be committed to jail for serving the remainder of the

sentences.

19. The appeal is partly allowed in terms.

                                   (KULDEEP MATHUR),J                                     (SANDEEP MEHTA),J


                                   Devesh Thanvi/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)