Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL     APPEAL     No.     65     of     2008      

Hiralal Pandey and Ors.                              …… Appellants

Versus

State of U.P.                                                      …..  Respondent

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T   

A.     K.     PATNAIK,     J.   

This is an appeal by way of special leave under Article  

136 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and  

order dated 06.02.2007 of the Allahabad High Court in  

Criminal Appeal No.178 of 1981.

2. The facts very briefly are that on 22.09.1979 at 8.05  

p.m. Balbir Singh, the complainant, lodged an FIR  

with Police Chowki Dhata, P.S. Khakhreru in District  

Fatehpur.  The prosecution story as stated in the FIR  

was that on 22.09.1979 the complainant was

Page 2

returning home after purchasing crude oil from Khaga  

and Raja Ram Singh (his father) and Kunj Behari  

Singh were waiting for him at Dhata and he left the oil  

at Dhata and the three sat on the Motorcycle No.UTY  

3213.  Kunj Behari Singh drove the motorcycle and  

when they reached near bamboo clumps ahead of  

Kanya Pathshala on Dhata-Hinauta Road at about  

6.00 P.M., Hira Pandey, Subhash Pandey @ Bodhan  

and Surendra Nath Pandey, the three appellants  

herein, who were waiting with single barrel gun,  

double barrel gun and rifle respectively and cartridge  

belts, started firing at them.  As soon as Kunj Behari  

was shot, the Motorcycle lost balance and he and his  

father jumped off from the bike and while his father  

ran towards the west into the paddy fields, he ran  

towards Harijan Basti.  From Dhata end, Sunder Lal  

Singh, Hari Prasad Singh, Lakhpat Sonar and Shisuvir  

Narain were coming and many other persons were  

coming from Kabraha side and on their exhortation,  

the appellants ran away to hide in the fields.  Raja  

Ram and Kunj Behari died at the spot as a result of  

2

Page 3

the firing.  He had lodged a case against two of the  

appellants, Subhash and Surendra under Sections  

323, 325 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code (for short  

‘IPC’) and they had asked him to compromise several  

times but he had not compromised and to take revenge  

they had fired upon them.  The complainant has also  

stated in the FIR that his pant got torn while running  

to save his life.

3. The FIR was registered. The investigation was  

entrusted to Pyare Lal Sharma, S.I. (for short ‘the IO’).  

The IO reached the place of occurrence at 7.30 A.M. on  

23.09.1979 where the complainant was present.  He  

recorded the statement of the complainant and wrote  

the Panchnamas of the deceased Raja Ram and the  

deceased Kunj Behari in the presence of the witnesses  

and seized the bodies of the two deceased persons and  

sent them for post mortem to the District Hospital  

through Constable Jamil Ahmad.  He also collected  

blood-stained earth and sealed them in containers.  He  

recorded the statements of Raghupat Singh, Sunder  

Lal Singh, Hari Prasad Singh and a few other persons  

3

Page 4

of the Harijan Basti.  The remaining investigation was  

completed by S.O. Ram Mohan Ramand a charge-sheet  

was filed against the appellants under Section 302  

read with 34, IPC.

4. At the trial, the complainant was examined as PW-1,  

who fully supported the prosecution case as alleged in  

the FIR.  Hari Prasad Singh was examined as PW-2  

and he also supported the prosecution case as alleged  

in the FIR.  Dr. Anand Swarup of the District Hospital,  

who carried out the post mortem, was examined as PW-

3.  He described in details the ante-mortem gun shot  

injuries in the chest and abdominal cavity and the  

thighs of the deceased Raja Ram and opined that the  

cause of his death was due to shock and hemorrhage  

as a result of the injuries sustained by him.  PW-3 also  

described the ante-mortem gun shot injuries on left  

side of the chin and below the left ear and the left side  

of the neck of the deceased Kunj Behari Singh and  

opined that the cause of his death was due to shock  

and hemorrhage.  Ram Prakash, the constable who  

received the complaint at Dhata Chowki of P.S.  

4

Page 5

Khakheru, was examined as PW-4.  The IO was  

examined as PW-5 and Jamil Ahmad, the constable,  

who carried the dead body for the post mortem, was  

examined as PW-6.  In defence, the appellants  

examined a resident of the Harijan Basti of village  

Dhata, Shiv Balak, as DW-1 who stated that he had  

heard some voice coming from the road in the south of  

his house asking for help and when he walked ahead  

in the direction of the voice he saw 6-7 miscreants who  

fired twice, but he could not recognise the miscreants  

and the appellants were not amongst the miscreants.  

The trial court, however, relied upon the evidence of  

PW-1 and PW-2 and convicted the appellants under  

Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and after  

hearing the parties on the question of sentence,  

sentenced them for life imprisonment.  The appellants  

carried an appeal to the High Court, but the High  

Court has affirmed the conviction and the sentence  

and has dismissed the appeal.

5. Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned Senior Counsel appearing  

for the appellants, submitted that the trial court and the  

5

Page 6

High Court should not have relied on the evidence of PW-1  

as admittedly he had previous enmity with the appellants.  

He submitted that if PW-1 was the prime target of the  

appellants, he would have received some injury as according  

to PW-1 all the appellants were armed with fire arms and  

cartridges, but as a matter of fact PW-1 has not received a  

single injury and this would go to show that PW-1 has  

falsely implicated the appellants.  He further submitted that  

according to the evidence of PW-1, as soon as the  

motorcycle lost balance he jumped off from the motorcycle  

and ran away from the place of occurrence towards the  

Harijan Basti and therefore he could not have seen the  

appellant firing on the two deceased persons.

6. Mr. Hansaria submitted that the trial court and the  

High Court should not have relied on PW-2, who was a mere  

chance witness and was also a witness cited by PW-1 in  

support of his complaint against the appellants under  

Sections 323, 325 and 147 IPC pending in the Court.  He  

argued that PW-2 therefore was an interested witness and  

his evidence should have been discarded.  He submitted  

that PW-2 has made material improvements over his  

6

Page 7

statement made to the police under Section 161 of the  

Cr.P.C.  He has stated that Hira and Surendra fired at the  

deceased Raja Ram in which case Raja Ram would have had  

injuries from at least two gun shots, but according to PW-3,  

the Doctor, who carried out the post mortem on the dead  

body of Raja Ram, all the injuries on his dead body were  

caused by a single gun shot.

7. Mr. Hansaria next submitted that in the FIR, PW-1 has  

stated that when the appellants were firing on the deceased  

persons from the Dhata end besides Hari Prasad Singh  

(PW-2) Sunder Lal Singh, Lakhpat Sonar and Shisuvir  

Narain were coming and many other persons were coming  

from Kabraha side, but the prosecution has examined only  

PW-1 and has not examined the other witnesses.  He  

submitted that the I.O. (PW-5) has admitted that he had  

recorded the statement of Sunder Lal Singh and yet Sunder  

Lal Singh has been withheld from the witness box and there  

is no explanation whatsoever as to why Sunder Lal Singh  

was not examined.  He submitted that independent  

witnesses have therefore not been examined in support of  

the prosecution case though these witnesses were named in  

7

Page 8

the FIR.  He cited Hem Raj and Others v. State of Haryana  

[(2005) 10 SCC 614] in which this Court has held that when  

the evidence of alleged eyewitnesses raises serious doubts  

on the point of their presence at the time of actual  

occurrence, the unexplained omission to examine the  

relevant witnesses would assume significance.  

8. Mr. Hansaria also pointed out the following lapses in  

the prosecution case:

(i) The time of recording of FIR at Dhata Police Chowki  

is doubtful, since at the time of writing the report it  

was made by pencil which was erased and again  

overwritten as per the evidence of PW-4 (Constable  

Ram Prakash).

(ii) There is no recovery of empty cartridges from the  

place of occurrence, even though both the  

eyewitnesses have stated that several gun shots  

were fired.  

(iii) Injuries on the bodies of the two deceased persons  

were not correlated with weapons allegedly  

possessed by accused persons.  

8

Page 9

(iv) The fire arms allegedly used have not been  

recovered nor is there any mention of efforts made  

to recover the same.

(v) Though blood stained earth was collected and  

sealed near the dead body of Kunj Behari; no  

serological report has been produced to match the  

blood with that of the deceased Kunj Behari.  

(vi) As per PW-4, though Darogaji from Police Station,  

Khakeru came to the outpost in the night after the  

report of the incident has been sent from Chowki,  

yet investigation was started only in the morning.  

9. Mr. R.K. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the  

State, submitted that the presence of PW-1 at the spot of  

occurrence is supported by three circumstances: (a) that his  

motorcycle was found lying at the spot; (b) that his pant was  

torn and (c) DW-1 admitted to have seen the motorcycle  

lying on the western side of the road.  He submitted that  

PW-1 therefore was present at the place of occurrence and  

was an eyewitness to the firing.  He submitted that PW-2  

could not be treated as a chance witness as the incident  

took place on the road and only passers-by on the road  

9

Page 10

would be witnesses to any such incident which took place  

on the road and their evidence could not be brushed aside  

on the ground that they are chance witnesses.  He cited  

Thangaiya v. State of T.N. [(2005) 9 SCC 650] in which this  

Court has held that if a murder is committed in a street,  

only passers-by will be the witnesses and their evidence  

could not be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the  

ground that they were mere chance witnesses.

10. Mr. Das also cited the decision of this Court in State of  

U.P. v. Anil Singh (1988 Supp. (2) SCR 611) for the  

proposition that the prosecution version could not be  

rejected only on the ground that all the witnesses to the  

occurrence have not been examined.  He submitted that the  

prosecution story thus cannot be discarded merely because  

all the witnesses named in the FIR including Sunder Lal  

Singh were not examined before the court.

11 Mr. Das submitted that it is true that the fired  

cartridges have not been recovered from the place of  

occurrence and this may be because the paddy fields  

had water and paddy stand up to knee height and it  

1

Page 11

was impossible to search and collect the fired  

cartridges, but the fact remains that the deceased have  

died of fire arm injuries.  He contended that the trial  

court and the High Court have rightly believed the two  

eyewitnesses PW-1 and PW-2 considering the fact that  

the motive of the appellant was to take revenge against  

the complainant and his father for not agreeing to  

compromise the complaint case under Sections 323,  

325 and 147 of the IPC pending before the court.

12. We may first examine the contention of Mr. Hansaria  

that the trial court and the High Court should not  

have relied on the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 who  

were interested witnesses and that the prosecution  

should have examined the independent witnesses  

cited in the FIR, namely, Sunder Lal Singh, Lakhpat  

Sonar and Shisuvir Narain, who as per the FIR  

shouted at the appellants when they were firing at  

the deceased.  We have perused the decision of this  

Court in Hem Raj and Others v. State of Haryana  

(supra) cited by Mr. Hansaria and we find that in the  

aforesaid decision this Court has held that non-

1

Page 12

examination of independent witnesses by itself may  

not give rise to adverse inference against the  

prosecution, but when the evidence of the alleged  

eyewitnesses raises serious doubts on the point of  

their presence at the time of actual occurrence, the  

unexplained omission to examine the independent  

witnesses would assume significance.  Hence, we will  

have to first consider whether the evidence of the two  

eyewitnesses PW-1 and PW-2 raises serious doubts  

on the point of their presence at the time of actual  

occurrence.

13. When we examine the evidence of PW-1 in this light,  

we find that he has stated that he had a motorcycle  

and a diesel pump set and on the day of the incident  

he purchased crude oil from Khaga, which is entered  

in his card and he came back to Dhata taking crude  

oil at 5.30 P.M. in the evening where he met his  

father and Kunj Behari and he kept the oil in a shop  

there and Kunj Behari drove the motorcycle from  

Dhata and his father and he sat behind him and  

when they started from Dhata for their village on the  

1

Page 13

motorcycle the incident took place at about 5-10  

minutes before 6.00 p.m.  He has stated:

“When we reached ahead of Kanya Pathshala  Dhata near bamboo clumps, these three accused  came out bamboo clumps.  At that time accused  Subhash was holding a double barrel gun with  cartridge belt on shoulder.  Hira Lal Pandey was  having single barrel gun with cartridge belt on  shoulder.  Surendra had rifle and also cartridge  belt.  When these people came on the road and  saw us going, then the three accused exhorted  that today let them not escape.  It was combined  voice of the three.  On exhortation all the three  fired almost same time.  First Subhash fired, I do  not know whether it hit any body or not.  But  Kunj Behari Singh was scared by firing and  Motor Cycle got dis-balanced and came on  western strip of the road.  Me and my father  jumped from Motorcycle and ran.  But Kunj  Behari fell down along with Motorcycle.  Accused  persons were firing continuously.  My father  went ran towards paddy field towards west and  I ran towards Harijan Basti in north.  Hearing  the fire, Sunder Lal Singh and Hari Prasad Singh  of village Sonari coming on cycles from Dhata  reached there.  Lakpat Sonar also reached there.  These people stopped there and shouted at the  accused.  I was running and hearing the fire.  I  was clearly hearing the sound of fire.  Accused  persons ran away on exhortation-lalkara of  witnesses.  When I jumped from the motorcycle  and ran, I could not see whether my father or  Kunj Behari was hurt or not because I was  running to save myself.  I ran towards village  through Harijan Basti and Canal Side.  I shouted  reaching near the village.  I returned back at the  spot along with several persons collected there,  and found that Kunj Behari was lying dead by  gun shot on the road and my father was lying  

1

Page 14

dead by gun shot in paddy field, while running  my trouser got torned.  We people remained for  about an hour at the place of occurrence.  From  there I came to Dhata and wrote the report in my  hand writing sitting near the shop of Uma  Shankar and gave that in Data Chowki.”  

 14. From the aforesaid narration of the incident by PW-1,  

it is very clear that he was present at the time of the  

occurrence and has seen the appellants with double  

barrel gun, single barrel gun and a rifle with  

cartridges.  He has stated that when the appellants  

fired, Kunj Behari, who was driving the motorcycle,  

got scared by the firing and the motorcycle got dis-

balanced and came on the western strip of the road  

and he and his father jumped from the motorcycle  

and ran but Kunj Behari fell down along with  

motorcycle.  He has also stated that the appellants  

were firing continuously and his father ran towards  

paddy field towards west and he ran towards Harijan  

Basti towards north.  He has also said that after he  

returned to the spot he found that Kunj Behari was  

lying dead by gun shot on the road and his father  

was lying dead by gun shot in paddy field.  Moreover,  

1

Page 15

PW-1 has clearly disclosed that hearing the firing,  

Sunder Lal Singh and Hari Prasad Singh (PW-2), who  

were coming on cycles from Dhata, reached there and  

Lakhpat Sonar also reached there.  He has not said  

that only Hari Prasad Singh (PW-2) from Dhata  

reached there.  If PW-1 was really interested in falsely  

implicating the appellants in the case with the help of  

PW-2, he could have also said that he also saw the  

appellants firing at his father and at Kunj Behari and  

that only Hari Prasad Singh (PW-2) was coming on  

cycle from Dhata and shouted at the appellants and  

that Sunder Lal Singh and Lakhpat Sonar, whom he  

had named in the FIR, did not reach the spot in time  

to be able to witness the incidence.  We are, thus, of  

the view that the evidence of PW-1 could not have  

been doubted by either the trial court or the High  

Court.

15. When we examine the evidence of PW-2 Hari Prasad  

Singh, we find that he has stated:  

“Incident occurred about an year ago.  Sun was  about to set at about 6 P.M. in the evening I  

1

Page 16

along with fellow Sunder Singh were going from  Dhata to Sonari on our separate cycles.  Sunder  Singh is also resident of Sonari.  When I reached  near girls school on Dhata-Sonari road, then from  our back, deceased Raja Ram, Kunj Behari and  Balbir P.W.1 crossed us on motorcycle.  Kunj  Behari was driving the motorcycle, Raja Ram  and then Balbir were sitting behind him.   

After crossing the girls school and when we were  30-40 paces away from Bamboo Kothi, all the  three accused, Surendra, Heera and Subhash,  present in court, came on the road from Bamboo  Kothi.  Seeing these persons, all the three  accused gave a Lalkara that they should not go,  and after saying this, three accused fired.  At  that time, accused Subhash had a double barrel  gun, Surendra had a rifle and Hira Pandey had  a single barrel gun.  Due to fire, motor cycle got  disbalanced.  I did not see that the fire hit any  body riding the motorcycle or its driver but I saw  motorcycle getting disbalanced and going  towards left strip of the road.  Balbir P.W.1  jumped from that disbalanced motorcycle and  ran towards north in the side we were going.  Raja Ram also got down from motorcycle and ran  towards paddy fields in west.  But Kunj Behari  fell there with motorcycle.  As soon as the  motorcycle fell, accused Subhash went near Kunj  Behari and fired.  Raja Ram fell down in water  filled paddy fields.  As Raja Ram tried to get up,  accused Surendra and Hira reached near him  and fired.  Kunj Behari and Raja Ram died due  to fire injuries then and there and Balbir ran  away.   

I asked accused persons not to fire which could  hit us.  Apart from me and Sunder Lal, Lakhpat  Sonar also reached on the place of occurrence  from south side and he also shouted that do not  fire, do not kill (Maaro).  Hearing this, accused  persons ran away from the spot.

1

Page 17

After the incident, I stayed for about 30-45  minutes at the spot.  During this, Balbir came on  the spot along with 7-8 persons.”

16. The aforesaid testimony of PW-2 supports the  

evidence of PW-1 in all material respects.  He has  

said that due to the firing by the appellants, the  

motorcycle got disbalanced and went towards left  

strip of the road and PW-1 jumped from the  

motorcycle and ran towards north side while Raja  

Ram ran towards paddy fields in the west, but Kunj  

Behari fell there with the motorcycle.  PW-2 has  

further said that that as soon as the motorcycle fell,  

the appellant Subhash went near Kunj Behari and  

fired.  He has also said that Raja Ram fell down in the  

water-filled paddy fields and when Raja Ram tried to  

get up, the appellants Subhash and Hira reached  

there and fired while PW-1 ran away.  He has also  

disclosed that Sunder Lal and Lakhpat also reached  

the place of occurrence and shouted along with him  

not to fire and hearing this, the appellants ran away  

from the spot.  He has also said that after the  

1

Page 18

incident, PW-1 came on the spot along with 7-8  

persons.  PW-2 is, therefore, a direct eyewitness to  

the firing by the appellants on the two deceased  

persons and in the lengthy cross-examination of PW-

2 the defence has not been able to bring to the notice  

of the court any material to hold that his evidence is  

not reliable.  On the other hand, we find, on a reading  

of the cross-examination of PW-2, that he has stated  

that Kunj Behari had fallen flat and his face was  

towards the sky when he was shot and his head was  

in the north, one leg in the south and one leg was on  

the motorcycle.  He has stated that the appellant  

Subhash fired at Kunj Behari from the east from a  

standing position and at that time the barrel of the  

gun of the appellant Subhash was downwards on  

Kunj Behari.  PW-2 has also stated that there were  

four paces distance between the place where Raja  

Ram fell in the paddy field and the place from where  

the two appellants entered the field and the two  

appellants fired on Raja Ram when he tried to get up.  

Had PW-2 not seen the occurrence, he could not have  

1

Page 19

given such details of the occurrence in the witness  

box during the cross-examination.  The veracity of  

PW-2, in our considered opinion, has been tested in  

the cross-examination and his evidence is, thus,  

reliable.  

17. We do not also think that the evidence of PW-2 could  

have been discarded on the ground that he was only  

a chance witness.  The incident took place when the  

deceased were traveling on a motorcycle on the road  

and PW-2 was also coming on the same road on his  

cycle when he saw the incident.  This Court has held  

in Thangaiya v. State of T.N. (supra) that if a murder  

is committed in a street, only passers-by will be  

witnesses and their evidence cannot be brushed aside  

or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they  

were mere chance witnesses.  Moreover, PW-2 has  

been named in the FIR as one of the persons who  

were coming on a cycle from Dhata side and as one of  

the persons who shouted at the appellants not to fire.  

In State of U.P. v. Anil Singh (supra), this Court has  

held that when a witness figures as an eyewitness in  

1

Page 20

the FIR, he cannot be categorized as a chance  

witness.  Once we accept that PW-1 and PW-2 were  

present at the place of occurrence and their evidence  

was reliable, the fact that other independent  

witnesses named in the FIR, such as Sunder Lal  

Singh, have not been examined before the Court,  

cannot be a ground for not believing the prosecution  

case.  In State of U.P. v. Anil Singh (supra), this Court  

has held that the prosecution case cannot be doubted  

for not examining the witnesses after taking note of  

the fact that the public are generally reluctant to  

come forward to depose before the Court.  We,  

therefore, do not find any merit in the submission  

made by the learned counsel for the appellants that  

the prosecution story should not be believed because  

the independent witnesses have not been examined.  

18.  We have also considered the contention of Mr.  

Hansaria that the time of recording of FIR at Dhata  

Police Chowki is doubtful as the FIR was first written  

by pencil which was erased and again overwritten as  

per the evidence of PW-4.  We find from the evidence  

2

Page 21

of PW-4 that although a suggestion was made to him  

in cross-examination by the defence that the time of  

incident in the chik register as the time of incident  

was first written in pencil and thereafter erased and  

again written, PW-4 has said that the suggestion is  

incorrect.  There is no definite evidence before the  

Court to come to the conclusion that the time of  

incident in the FIR was first written in pencil and was  

thereafter erased and again written and that the time  

of incident as recorded in the FIR was doubtful.

19. Regarding the contention of Mr. Hansaria that there  

was no recovery of empty cartridges, we find that the  

IO (PW-5) has admitted during cross-examination by  

the defence that no empty cartridge was found from  

the passage on which PW-1 ran away from the spot  

and he did not find any empty pellet, tikli or cartridge  

from the spot where the motorcycle was lying and  

where the deceased Kunj Behari was shot.  PW-5 has  

also not stated that any empty cartridge was  

recovered from the paddy field where Raja Ram was  

shot, but the fact remains that the deceased Kunj  

2

Page 22

Behari and Raja Ram were killed by gun shots.  Dr.  

Anand Swarup (PW-3), who carried out the post  

mortem, has described the gun shot wounds of the  

deceased Raja Ram as ante mortem injuries in the  

chest and abdominal cavity and has opined that the  

cause of his death is shock and hemorrhage as a  

result of the injuries sustained by him.  Mr. Hansaria  

is right that according to PW-3 all the injuries on the  

deceased Raja Ram were caused by one gun shot,  

whereas PW-2 has deposed that both Surendra and  

Hira fired at Raja Ram, but it appears only one of  

them was able to hit Raja Ram with a bullet because  

of which Raja Ram died.  PW-3 has similarly  

described the injuries on the body of the deceased  

Kunj Behari as gun shot injuries in his oval cavity on  

the left side of the chin and neck and left shoulder  

and has opined that the injuries were sufficient to  

normally cause death.  Thus, the medical evidence  

supports the eyewitness accounts of PW-1 and PW-2.

20.  The submission of Mr. Hansaria that injuries on the  

body of deceased were not correlated with the  

2

Page 23

weapons allegedly possessed by the appellants would  

have been relevant if the fire arms were recovered  

from the appellants and the bullets were also  

recovered from the body of the deceased or from the  

place of occurrence.  Regarding his contention that  

serological report has not been produced although  

the blood-stained earth was collected and that the  

investigation was started not on 22.09.1979 but only  

next day in the morning, these are defects in  

investigation but such defects cannot be a ground to  

disbelieve the prosecution story which has been  

proved beyond reasonable doubt through the  

evidence of the two eyewitnesses as supported by the  

medical evidence.  In State of Uttar Pradesh v.  

Bhagwant Kishore Joshi (AIR 1964 SC 221), Subba  

Rao, J., as he then was, has held that it was  

necessary for the accused to throw a reasonable  

doubt that the prosecution evidence is such that it  

must have been manipulated or shaped by reason of  

the irregularity in the matter of investigation, or that  

he was prevented by reason of such irregularity from  

2

Page 24

putting forward his defence or adducing evidence in  

support thereof, but where the prosecution evidence  

has been held to be true and where the accused had  

full say in the matter, the conviction cannot obviously  

be set aside on the ground of every irregularity or  

illegality in the matter of investigation.  In other  

words, unless the lapses on the part of the  

investigation are such as to cast reasonable doubt  

about the prosecution story or seriously prejudice the  

defence of the accused, the Court will not set aside  

the conviction.  

21.  We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal  

and we accordingly dismiss the appeal.     

.……………………….J.                                                                       (A. K. Patnaik)

………………………..J.                                                                        (Swatanter  Kumar) New Delhi, 17 April, 2012.    

2