REPORTABLE

  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 868 OF 2006

Sham @ Kishor Bhaskarrao Matkari    .... Appellant(s)

Versus

The State of Maharashtra    .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T  

P. Sathasivam, J.

1)  This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  common  final  

judgment  and  order  dated  03.05.2006  passed  by  the  High  

Court  of  Judicature  of  Bombay,  Bench  at  Aurangabad  in  

Criminal Appeal Nos. 183 of 2004 and 391 of 2003 whereby  

the  High  Court  dismissed  the  appeal  preferred  by  the  

appellant-accused  and  allowed  the  appeal  preferred  by  the  

State  of  Maharashtra,  respondent herein and enhanced the  

sentence of life imprisonment to death which was imposed by  

1

the  First  Ad-hoc  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Jalgaon  in  

Sessions Case No. 160 of 2001.       

2)    Brief facts:

a) Sham  @  Kishor  Bhaskarrao  Matkari,  the  appellant-

accused was residing with his brother Manohar Matkari (since  

deceased) and his family consisting of his wife, Meena (since  

deceased)  and  three  children,  namely,  Akhilesh  (since  

deceased), Monika (PW-7) and Vishwesh in a rented premises  

owned by one Pandurang Patil (PW-3).  Manohar, the deceased  

was serving in  the  Railway Mail  Service,  Bhusawal.   Dipak  

Narayan Thakur (the Complainant) was their neighbour.     

b) On 28.06.2001,  at  about  9.00 to  9.15 p.m.,  when the  

Complainant came out of his house for collecting the clothes  

which were kept for drying, he noticed that some quarrel was  

going  on  between  the  appellant-accused  and  his  brother  

Manohar in their house.  He heard the accused saying to his  

brother Manohar that you raised hands on me today, I will see  

you later.   Since  it  would be  a  dispute  over  the  household  

matter,  he  neglected  and  went  inside  the  house.   In  the  

2

midnight, at about 3.00 to 3.30 a.m., the Complainant heard  

some hue and cry from the house of Manohar.  He also heard  

the  cries  of  Meena,  the  wife  of  Manohar  and  the  noise  of  

beating and groaning of small child from the house.  He also  

noticed the  smell  of  leakage  of  gas  and something  burning  

from  the  house  of  Manohar.   Immediately,  he  informed  

Pandurang Patil (PW-3) – the landlord and also one Pitamber  

Choudhary, who was residing on the upper floor.  Thereafter,  

all of them proceeded to the house of the deceased-Manohar.  

When they were going towards the house of the deceased, they  

saw  the  accused  coming  out  of  the  house  and  when  they  

enquired, the accused told that three thieves entered into their  

house and assaulted them.  Thereafter, the accused demanded  

water  for  drinking.   They  also  noticed  that  the  hands  and  

clothes  of  the  appellant-accused  were  stained  with  blood.  

When they approached near the house of the deceased, they  

noticed smoke coming out of the house.  Immediately, PW-3,  

the landlord, telephoned the police.   

(c) On  receipt  of  the  information,  the  Inspector  of  Police,  

Dilip Shankarwar (PW-14) rushed to the place of occurrence  

3

immediately.  He saw the appellant-accused sitting by the side  

of water tank and having suffered bleeding injury on his head.  

When enquired, the accused narrated the same story that 3 to  

4  persons  entered into  their  house  and assaulted  him,  his  

brother, his brother’s wife and children and they tried to burn  

his brother’s wife and after taking household articles, they fled  

away.  Since blood was oozing out from his head, PW-14 sent  

the  accused  to  the  hospital  for  treatment  in  a  police  jeep.  

When they entered into the house, they noticed smoke coming  

out of the room and Akhilesh, the son of Manohar, was lying  

in injured condition on the cot and blood was oozing from his  

head.   They  also  noticed  that  Manohar,  his  wife  Meena,  

daughter  Monika  and  son  Vishwesh  were  lying  in  injured  

condition on the floor of the house.  They also noticed that  

Meena was partially burnt and a stone of big size and a gas  

cylinder  with  tube  were  lying  near  her  body.   PW-14  

immediately  sent  the  two  injured  boys  and  girl  to  the  

Municipal Hospital, Bhusawal in a police jeep.  As Manohar  

and  his  wife  were  dead,  their  bodies  were  sent  for  post-

mortem.   At  the  same  time,  spot  Panchanama (Ex.24)  was  

4

drawn by PW-14 and he also seized the articles found lying  

there including wooden rafter having stains of blood and a big  

stone.   Since  the  condition  of  injured  Akhilesh  was  

deteriorating, he was shifted to Civil Hospital, Jalgaon and he  

expired on 29.06.2001.  Injured Monika and Vishwesh were  

shifted to Civil Hospital, Jalgaon.  Later on, both were shifted  

to a private hospital at Aurangabad.      

(d) A crime was registered being Crime No. 41 of 2001 for the  

offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 201 of the  

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”).  During the course of  

investigation, the Investiating Officer recorded the statements  

of Pandurang Patil (PW-3) and others.  He also seized clothes  

of  the  deceased,  Manohar,  Meena and Akhilesh.   Since  the  

accused  was  detected  as  perpetrator  of  the  crime,  he  was  

arrested.  His nail clippings and blood samples were collected.  

PW-14 also recorded the statements of Monika and Vishvesh,  

the injured children.   

(e) After  necessary  investigation,  charge-sheet  was  laid  in  

the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhusawal, who  

committed the case to the Court of Sessions.  The First Ad-hoc  

5

Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Jalgaon,  after  examining  16  

witnesses including Monika, an injured minor girl as PW-7, by  

judgment  dated  04/05.03.2003  convicted  the  appellant-

accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and  

sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of  

Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous  

imprisonment for two years and also sentenced him to suffer  

rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under  

Section 307 IPC, and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of  

payment  of  fine,  to  suffer  rigorous  imprisonment  for  three  

months and acquitted him for the offence punishable under  

Section 201 IPC.   

(f) Against  the  aforesaid  judgment,  the  State  of  

Maharashtra,  respondent  herein  filed  an  appeal  being  

Criminal  Appeal  No.  391 of  2003 before  the  High Court  of  

Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad for enhancement  

of  sentence  from  imprisonment  for  life  to  death  and  the  

appellant-accused also filed appeal being Criminal Appeal No.  

183 of 2004.  Both the appeals were heard together and by a  

common  impugned  judgment  dated  03.05.2006,  the  High  

6

Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-accused and  

allowed  the  appeal  filed  by  the  State  and  enhanced  the  

sentence of life imprisonment to death.  Aggrieved by the said  

judgment, the appellant-accused has filed this appeal before  

this Court by way of special leave petition.   

3) Heard Mr. Tara Chand Sharma, learned counsel for the  

appellant-accused and Mr. Sushil Karanjkar, learned counsel  

for the respondent-State.   

4) Learned counsel for the appellant though canvassed the  

ultimate conviction imposed by the trial Court and affirmed by  

the High Court mainly contended before us with regard to the  

death sentence awarded by the High Court.  According to him,  

in view of several mitigating circumstances highlighted before  

the High Court, without adverting to the same, the High Court  

awarded the extreme penalty of death sentence which is not  

warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.  On the  

other  hand,  learned  counsel  for  the  State,  by  taking  us  

through the relevant materials, submitted that in view of death  

of three persons and causing injuries to two, all in one family,  

7

the High Court was justified in awarding capital punishment  

(death sentence) to the appellant-accused.   

5) We have carefully perused all the relevant materials and  

considered the rival submissions.  

6) Very briefly, let us consider the prosecution case and the  

ultimate  conviction  under  Sections  302 and  307 IPC.   The  

appellant-accused was the real brother of Manohar Matkari-

the deceased and was residing with him in a rented premise  

owned by Pandurang Patil, (PW-3).  The said Manohar and his  

wife  Meena  were  having  three  children.   The  incident  took  

place in the night intervening 28/29.06.2001.  Dipak Narayan  

Thakur (PW-1) was the neighbour of Manohar in one of the  

premises owned by Pandurang Patil, (PW-3) as tenant at the  

relevant point of time.  According to PW-1, on the said night,  

at about 9.00 to 9.15 p.m., when he came out of his house to  

collect the clothes which were kept for drying, he noticed that  

some  quarrel  was  going  on  between  the  accused  and  his  

brother Manohar in their house.  In the mid-night, at about  

3.00 to 3.30 a.m., PW-1 again heard some hue and cry from  

the  house  of  Manohar.   He  also  heard  cries  of  the  wife  of  

8

Manohar and the noise of beating and groaning of small child  

from the house.  He also noticed smell of leakage of gas and  

something burning in the house of Manohar.  On noticing all  

these things, PW-1 rushed to his landlord, Pandurang Patil,  

(PW-3) and also woke up one Pitamber Choudhary, who was  

residing  on  the  upper  floor.   It  is  further  seen  from  his  

evidence  that  he  then  along  with  those  persons  proceeded  

towards the house of Manohar and saw the accused coming  

out of the house and when they enquired him, the accused  

told  that  three  thieves  had  entered  into  their  house  and  

assaulted  him,  his  brother,  his  brother’s  wife  and  their  

children.   On  hearing  this,  PW-3  informed  the  police  over  

phone.  The police arrived there within 10 minutes and took  

the accused to the hospital as he had sustained head injury.  

The police also took all the three children to the hospital in a  

police jeep.  Thereafter, PW-1 entered the house of Manohar  

along with the police officers.  They noticed that Manohar and  

his wife Meena were lying dead and Meena was partially burnt.  

PW-1 narrated the incident to the police which was reduced  

into writing and treated as FIR (Ex.P-22).  

9

7) When the  appellant-accused was undergoing treatment  

in  the  hospital,  on  30.06.2001,  the  Police  Officer,  Zillapeth  

Police  Station,  Jalgaon  thought  that  the  accused  may  not  

survive and sent a requisition to Muralidhar Sapkale, (PW-16)  

who was the Executive Magistrate working in Treasury Office,  

Jalgaon  to  record  his  statement.   Pursuant  to  the  same,  

PW-16  visited  the  Civil  Hospital,  Jalgaon  and  recorded  the  

statement of the accused which is Ex.73.  All were under the  

impression  that  on  the  death  of  the  accused,  the  said  

statement  will  be  treated  as  dying  declaration.   The  said  

statement,  Ex.73,  contains  confession  on  the  part  of  the  

accused.   The  prosecution  also  relied  on  the  statement  of  

Monika, (PW-7), daughter of Manohar, who has stated to have  

seen the part of the occurrence.  

8) Learned counsel for the appellant-accused has taken us  

through  the  evidence  of  PWs-1,  3,  7  and  16  and  all  other  

connected  documents.   We  have  already  stated  that  Dipak  

Narayan Thakur,  (PW-1)  is  residing  in  one  of  the  premises  

adjoining to Manohar owned by one Pandurang Patil, (PW-3)  

as  tenant,  at  the  relevant  time.   PW-1  noticed  the  first  

10

occurrence, that is, between 9.00 to 9.15 p.m., namely, at the  

time of collecting his clothes which were kept for drying that  

some  quarrel  was  going  on  between  the  accused  and  his  

brother  Manohar.   It  was  he  who  witnessed  the  second  

incident also, that is, in the mid-night, at about 3.00 to 3.30  

a.m., in the house of Manohar.  He not only heard the cries of  

Manohar but also heard noise of beating and groaning of small  

children from the house.  He also noticed leakage of gas from  

the  house  of  Manohar.   It  is  further  seen  that  on  his  

information,  PW-3,  their  landlord,  and  one  Pitamber  

Choudhary,  also  joined  and  noticed  the  occurrence  in  the  

early morning.  When PW-1 and PW-3 proceeded towards the  

house of Manohar, they saw the accused coming out of the  

house and when they enquired, the accused told that three  

thieves had entered into their house and they assaulted him,  

his brother, his brother’s wife and their children.  They also  

noticed blood stains in the hands and clothes of the accused.  

PW-1 also informed that when they went inside the house in  

the  morning  along with the  police  and others,  they noticed  

that Manohar and his wife Meena were lying dead and Meena  

11

was burnt to some extent.  They also noticed a square sized  

stone weighing roughly 25 kgs. near the dead body.  The two  

injured boys  and girl  were  also  taken to  the  hospital.   Dr.  

Sandip Ingale (PW-6) and Dr. Sangram Narwade (PW-11), who  

conducted the post-mortem, were also examined.  They also  

noted the injuries of all the three persons.  We have already  

noted  the  statement  of  accused  himself  to  the  Executive  

Magistrate (PW-16) at the time when he was admitted in the  

hospital.  Since he was alive, the statement recorded by the  

Executive  Magistrate  had  been  treated  as  statement  under  

Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short  

“the Code”) and proceeded further.  Though the said statement  

is not a dying declaration, however, the accused knowing all  

the seriousness confessed about the killing of his brother, his  

wife and their child and causing injuries to other two children.  

There is no reason to disbelieve the version of Monika (PW-7)  

who  witnessed  the  occurrence,  neigbours  and  landlord  of  

Manohar (PWs 1 and 3) as well as the confessional statement  

of the accused before the Executive Magistrate.  Considering  

the opinion of the doctors, (PWs-6 and 11), cause of death and  

12

recovery of a stone inside the house of Manohar where three  

different  bodies  were  lying,  we  are  satisfied  that  the  

prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt  

for  an  offence  under  Section  302  IPC.   The  trial  Court  

considering  the  fact  that  the  murders  were  neither  pre-

meditated nor pre-planned on the part of the appellant, and a  

simple  case  of  land  dispute  which  led  to  altercation  and  

murdering of three persons, imposed life imprisonment under  

Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for seven years  

under Section 307 IPC.  The said conclusion is acceptable.  

About Sentence

9) Learned  counsel  for  the  respondent-State,  by  drawing  

our attention to the recent decision of this Court in Ajitsingh  

Harnamsingh Gujral vs.  State of  Maharashtra,  JT  2011  

(10) SC 465 submitted that the award of  death sentence is  

appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this case.  In  

that case, the accused was charged under Section 302 IPC for  

committing murders of  his wife, his son and two daughters  

and the trial Court, after finding that four members from the  

same family were murdered and it was a rarest of rare case,  

13

imposed  penalty  of  death  upon  the  accused.   The  death  

sentence was confirmed by the High Court and the matter was  

taken up before this Court by way of appeal.  This Court, after  

adverting to the earlier decisions as regards to award of death  

sentence  including  the  principles  enunciated  in  Bachan  

Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684, Machhi Singh  

and  Others vs.  State  of  Punjab,  (1983)  3  SCC  470,  

C. Muniappan and Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010)  

9 SCC 567 and various other judgments,  agreeing with the  

conclusion arrived at by the trial Court and the High Court  

and  finding  that  all  the  requisites  for  death  penalty  as  

discussed  and  noted  in  the  various  decisions  are  satisfied,  

confirmed the same.  Absolutely, there is no quarrel as to the  

propositions of law and principles laid down in those decisions  

and  the  ultimate  conclusion  in  Ajitsingh  Harnamsingh  

Gujral (supra).  In the case on hand, the appellant-accused  

had  no  pre-meditated  plan  or  mind to  eliminate  the  entire  

family of his brother, he himself slept with the victims on the  

fateful night, due to land dispute quarrel started and ended  

with murdering three persons.  In those circumstances and  

14

the background and no bad antecedents of the accused, the  

above decision relied on by the State is distinguishable and  

not helpful to the claim for retaining the death penalty.      

10) When the matter was taken up before the High Court,  

both by the accused and the State, after thorough analysis,  

the  High  Court  confirmed  the  conviction.   As  an  appellate  

Court,  the  High Court  once  again analysed the  prosecution  

evidence  and the  defence  taken by  the  accused  and finally  

concurred with the conclusion arrived at  by the  trial  Court  

insofar  as  conviction  under  Sections  302  and  307  IPC  are  

concerned.   On going  through  all  the  materials,  we  are  in  

entire agreement with the said conclusion.  

11) In  the  appeal  filed  by  the  State  for  enhancement  of  

sentence from life imprisonment to death sentence, from the  

evidence  on record and considering the  materials,  the  High  

Court  identified  the  following  circumstances  for  imposing  

extreme penalty of death:

“(i) The date and place of incident not disputed.

(ii) In  the  incident  that  occurred,  admittedly,  victim  Manohar, his wife Meenabai and son Akhilesh lost their lives  and  as  has  been  established  on  medical  evidence,  undoubtedly, these three victims died homicidal death.  In  that, victim Manohar and his wife Meenabai died on the spot  

15

having suffered head injuries and in addition to that, so far  as  Meenabai  is  concerned,  she  suffered  burn  injuries,  indicating  that  the  assailant  i.e.  the  respondent  (original  accused) before the Court, caused burns by setting her on  fire by leaking the gas from Gas Cylinder.   

(iii) The assault on victims by the respondent was aimed at  midnight when the victims were fast asleep and as such they  were  defenceless,  showing  that  the  respondent  acted  dastardly and was completely depraved.  The nature of the  injuries, which were inflicted on the child, more particularly,  the injuries on his head itself show that how the respondent  acted brutally showing extreme depravity and ruthlessness.

(iv) The  respondent  was  alone  in  the  house  during  the  time the occurrence took place at midnight.  This is, in the  sense, that there was no third person in the house, much  less, having entered the house.

(v) As against this, the Respondent put forth a false story  that  3  to  4  unknown  persons  entered  the  house  and  committed murders and murderous assault on the victims.  This plea of the respondent (original accused) was found to  be false and misguiding the investigating machinery.

(vi) The  respondent  (original  accused),  in  his  statement  Ex.-73, has clinchingly stated that the victims were done to  death by him, so also the injured children at the time and  place of incident.

(vii) In the early morning, witnesses Dipak Narayan Thakur  and Pandurang Patil noticed the respondent coming out of  his  house  having  his  hands  and  clothes  on  his  person  stained with blood.

(viii)   Though the respondent came up with the case that  unknown persons  assaulted  the  victims  in  the  house,  he  remained silent in the house, though, in his presence, the  victims were done to death and two small children suffered  serious injuries.

(ix) The  respondent  did  not  raise  hue  and  cry,  though  according to him, in his presence, unknown persons entered  the  house  and  assaulted  the  victims.   He  did  not  cause  alarm to the persons in the vicinity, thereby exhibiting most  queer and unnatural conduct.

16

(x) The witnesses, particularly, witness Dipak Thakur, in  the Midnight, heard cries of a woman groaning in pain and  early in the morning, saw the respondent coming out of the  house with blood on his clothes and hands.

(xi) Both  these  witnesses  Dipak  Thakur  and Pandurang  Patil  stated in their  evidence that  on that  night,  no third  person  from  outside  came  to  the  premises,  much  less,  entered in the house of the victims.

(xii) The  respondent,  in  his  statement  Ex.-73,  which  is  accepted and found to be truthful, candidly admitted to have  assaulted  the  victims  acting  in  a  brutal  manner  out  of  vengeance arising out of the dispute over the property.

(xiii)  The respondent did not deter, much less felt ashamed  even while assaulting small children of his real brother when  they were caught helpless, as they were sleeping when one of  them was done to death and other two were injured.

(xiv)  Admittedly, the earlier incident took place at about  08:30 p.m., which ended after quarrel and some beating by  victim  Manohar  to  the  respondent.   The  later  incident  occurred at midnight when the victims were fast asleep.  The  respondent assaulted them one by one and what is shocking  is that victim Monika had seen the respondent committing  assault after assault on her father, mother and her brothers  Akhilesh and Vishwesh.

(xv) It is seen that the murders have been committed and  three persons were done to death in ruthlessness, showing  that the respondent was totally depraved of and acted most  beastly.

(xvi)  Since the earlier incident took place at 08:30 p.m.,  and the accused, after taking meals at night, remained in  the house and then at midnight, surreptitiously killed one by  one  and  also  caused  murderous  assault  on  the  victims  showing extreme brutality.  This shows that the attack by  the  accused  was  predetermined,  so  also  premeditated.  Therefore, it is a case of cold-blooded murders.”   

17

12) With  the  above  aggravating  circumstances  put  forth  

against  the  accused,  various  mitigating  circumstances  were  

also  pressed into  service  and pointed  out  that  the  extreme  

penalty of death is not warranted.  It is pointed out that the  

accused is 38 years old and his antecedents are unblemished  

and  not  having  any  criminal  tendency,  there  can  be  no  

apprehension even of danger to the society, it cannot be ruled  

out that rehabilitation of the accused is impossible and it is  

not a rarest of rare case causing for extreme penalty of death.  

13) Taking  into  consideration  of  both  aggravating  and  

mitigating circumstances,  the High Court,  after  finding that  

the accused having slept with the victims in the same house  

proceeded to assault one after another, it must be said that  

the  assault  was  pre-meditated  and  the  accused  was  

determined to do the same, hence, it cannot be construed that  

the accused was on the spur of the moment, after having done  

to  death  his  brother,  brother’s  wife,  the  accused  also  gave  

murderous assault on their children and noting that it  is a  

case  of  extreme  culpability  concluded  that  the  sentence  

awarded  by  the  trial  Court  of  imprisonment  of  life  is  

18

inadequate  and  it  is  a  rarest  of  rare  case  where  extreme  

penalty of death is called for accepted the appeal preferred by  

the State and enhanced the penalty of death by hanging.

Conclusion:

14) Since  this  Court,  in  series  of  decisions  starting  from  

Bachan  Singh  (supra) indicated  various  aggravating  and  

mitigating circumstances, there is no need to refer to all those  

decisions.   Though  the  appellant  caused  death  of  three  

persons, he had no pre-plan to done away with the family of  

his brother and the quarrel started due to the land dispute  

and,  in fact,  on the fateful  night,  he was sleeping with the  

other victims in the same house.  In those circumstances and  

other materials placed clearly show that he has no pre-plan or  

pre-determination to eliminate the family of his brother.  At  

the time of the incident, i.e., in the year 2001, the accused was  

28 years old and was jobless.  He is in jail since 30.06.2001  

and in the death cell since the date of  the judgment of  the  

High Court that is on 03.05.2006.  It is clear that he remained  

in jail  for  more than 10 years and more than five  years in  

death  cell.   The  materials  placed  on  record  show  that  the  

19

antecedents  of  the  accused-appellant  are  unblemished  as  

nothing  is  shown  by  the  prosecution  that  prior  to  this  

incident, he was indulged in criminal activities.  The appellant  

had no bad antecedents.  We have already concluded that the  

murders were not pre-planned or pre-meditated.  No weapon  

much less dangerous was used in commission of offence.  As  

pointed out earlier, only on account of property dispute, the  

appellant went to the extent of committing murders.  This is  

clear from the prosecution evidence and the conclusion of the  

trial  Court.   As  rightly  pointed  out  by  the  counsel  for  the  

appellant, there is no reason to disbelieve that the appellant  

cannot be reformed or rehabilitated and that  he is likely to  

continue  criminal  acts  of  violence  as  would  constitute  a  

continued threat  to  the  society.   Considering  the  facts  and  

circumstances, it  cannot be said that the appellant-accused  

would be a menace to the society.  We are satisfied that the  

reasonings assigned by the High Court for awarding extreme  

penalty of death sentence are not acceptable.  It is relevant to  

point out that the trial  Court which had the opportunity of  

noting  demeanour  of  all  the  witnesses  and  the  accused  

20

thought  it  fit  that  life  sentence  would  be  appropriate.  

However, the High Court while enhancing the same from life to  

death, in our view, has not assigned adequate and acceptable  

reasons.  In our opinion, it is not a rarest of rare case where  

extreme  penalty  of  death  is  called  for  instead  sentence  of  

imprisonment for life as ordered by the trial Court would be  

appropriate.   

15) In the light of  the above discussion, while maintaining  

the conviction of the appellant-accused for the offence under  

Section 302 IPC, award of  extreme penalty  of  death by the  

High Court  is  set  aside  and we restore the  sentence of  life  

imprisonment  as  directed by  the  trial  Court.  The  appeal  is  

allowed in part to the extent mentioned above.                          

...…………………………………J.                   (P. SATHASIVAM)  

...…………………………………J.  NEW DELHI;           (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)  SEPTEMBER 30, 2011.        

21