Page 1 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 824 -825 of 2011

Brijesh Mavi … Appellant

Versus

State of NCT of Delhi … Respondent

J U D G M E N T

RANJAN GOGOI, J

These appeals are directed against the common judgment and

order dated 10.08.2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi whereby

the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 460 read with

Section 34 of the IPC as well as under Section 25 of the Arms Act

has been affirmed. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo

Page 2 rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 read

with Section 34 IPC whereas for the offence under Section 460 read

with Section 34 IPC sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment

has been imposed. Insofar as the offence under the Arms Act is

concerned, the accused-appellant has been sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the sentences have been

directed to run concurrently.

2.The short case of the prosecution is that on 06.06.2001, H.C.

Brij Pal (PW 11), who was posted in the PCR, received an

information at about 10.35 PM that firing is taking place at Savitri

Nagar near a sweet shop. Accordingly, PW 11 alongwith other

police personnel reached the said place and saw that a crowd had

gathered near a STD booth where blood was splattered and some

articles were lying scattered in broken condition. The STD booth

belonged to one Omiyo Das Of Malik Communications, who having

been injured in the firing had already been removed to the hospital.

The said information was passed on to the local police station

which was duly recorded in the Daily Diary of the Police Station and

marked to SI – Sudhir Sharma, PW 24, who along with Constable-

Bajrang Bahadur reached the place of occurrence. On reaching the

2

Page 3 said place the police party could come to know that the injured Omiyo

Das had already been declared brought dead to the hospital.

Further more, according to the prosecution, one Vicky Malik

(PW 1) was an eye witness to the occurrence. Accordingly, his

statement (Ex.PW-1/A) was recorded where he had stated that on

06.06.2001 at about 10.20 P.M. when he was sitting outside his STD

booth and sweet shop at J-196, Savitri Nagar, he had noticed a white

Maruti Car stopping on the other side of the road. In the statement

recorded by the police, PW 1 has stated that two men alighted from

the vehicle and entered the STD booth whereafter they started firing

at his maternal uncle, Omiyo Das. According to PW 1 he tried to

intervene and in fact had brought a palta from his nearby sweet shop

but his uncle told him to run away from the place and save his life.

PW 1 had further stated that blood was oozing out from the injuries

suffered by his uncle and he ran towards his house No.86B shouting

for help. According to PW 1, thereafter, the assailants fled away and

he had along with his younger brother –Raj Kumar Malik –PW 3 and

another maternal uncle – Ravi Kumar Dass – PW 4 had removed the

injured to the hospital. In his statement, PW 1 had categorically

stated that one Satish Kumar who had killed his father and who had

3

Page 4 been acquitted about a month ago in the case arising from the said

incident was one of the assailants whereas the other/second

assailant was about 25-26 years of age and was a well built person.

On the basis of the aforesaid statement made by PW 1 – Vicky Malik,

the FIR –Ex.PW-6/A was lodged and FIR Case No. 438/2006, Police

Station Malviya Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the present case)

was registered. Three live cartridges cage of 0.380 bore; one empty

cartridge of 0.380 bore and four lead pieces of fired bullets were

seized from the place of occurrence by PW 24 – Sudhir Sharma. The

blood stained baniyan of PW 3; blood stained earth etc. were also

seized from the place of occurrence by the Investigating Team.

3.The further case of the prosecution is that on the next day, i.e.

on 07.06.2001, PW 9 –Dr. T.Milo had conducted the post mortem on

the body of the deceased in the course of which nine ante-mortem

bullet injuries were noted and four bullets had been extracted from

the body which along with one cotton underwear; one cotton

baniyan, one long pant was handed over to the Investigating Officer,

PW 24- SI- Sudhir Sharma. The cause of death was stated to be

coma due to head injuries caused by a firearm.

4

Page 5 4.According to the prosecution on 16.11.2001, the IO- PW 24- SI

–Sudhir Sharma arrested accused Satish Kumar who was already

arrested by the Faridabad police in connection with FIR No.339/2004

of Police Station GRP, Faridabad under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution has alleged that Satish Kumar made a disclosure

statement (Ex.PW-24/D) in the instant case and had also disclosed

about the involvement of two other persons in the offence, i.e. one

Med Singh and the present appellant – Brijesh. On the basis of the

said disclosure statement made by accused Satish, a .30” pistol

along with 3(three) .30” calibre live cartridges was recovered.

Thereafter, on 09.01.2002, PW 25 – SI – Sanjeev Sharma arrested

Med Singh who was already arrested on 05.01.2002 in a separate

case under the Arms Act. Three sealed parcels containing the .30”

calibre pistol with three 7.62mm/.30” live cartridges recovered at the

instance of accused Satish, the three .380” live cartridges; one .380”

cartridge cage, two bullets and two defused bullets recovered from

the place of occurrence and the four bullets recovered from the dead

body in the course of post-mortem examination were all sent to the

Forensic Science Laboratory, Rohini, Delhi on 03.12.2001.

Thereafter, the report of one Shri KC Varshney, Senior Scientific

5

Page 6 Officer, FSL, Rohini, Delhi (Ex.PW-21/A) was received which was to

the effect that the bullets marked as EB-1, EB-3 to EB-8 (seven in

number) had been discharged through a standard .380” calibre

firearm. On these facts, the two apprehended accused Satish and

Med Singh were sent for trial. As the two accused persons denied

the charges levelled against them the trial proceeded. The third

accused was neither identified nor traced out at that stage.

5.While the trial of the case was in progress the present

appellant, Brijesh, was arrested on 12.8.2003 in connection with

another case, i.e., FIR No.575/2003 Police Station, Malviya Nagar.

According to the prosecution, on interrogation, the accused appellant

disclosed/admitted his involvement in the present case and made a

statement on the basis of which a .380” calibre revolver was

recovered from the second floor of an Apartment bearing No.F-4/64,

Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi alongwith 3 live .380” calibre cartridges. In

respect of the said incident a separate FIR No.456 of 2003 under

Section 25 of the Arms Act of Prashant Vihar Police Station was

registered. It may be noticed, at this stage, that the aforesaid

recovery of the weapon was in the presence of SI- Satish Kumar, ASI

– Ravinder and Head Constable – Rajiv Mohan who had been

6

Page 7 examined as PWs. 1, 2 and 3 in the case arising out of FIR No.

456/2003. It may also be noticed that Head Constable - Rajiv who

was examined as PW 3 in connection with FIR No.456/2003 was

again examined in the present case as PW 19. Both the cases, i.e.

the present as well FIR No. 456/2003 were clubbed together by order

of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge dated

10.03.2005 and charges under Sections 302 and 460 of the IPC read

with Section 34 were framed against the accused-appellant in the

present case. A separate charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act

was also framed against the appellant in FIR Case No. 456/2003.

PW 1 – Vicky Malik who was already examined was recalled for

further examination after charges were framed against the present

appellant. While the trial of the two cases was in progress, accused

Satish died and the proceedings stood abated against him. As many

as 25 witnesses were examined by the prosecution in the present

case and a large number of documents were also exhibited. Two

witnesses were examined by the defence. DW-1 –Vijay Gupta

claimed to be owner of the Apartment No.F-4/64, Sector 16, Rohini.

This witness has stated that while he had occupied the ground floor

of the apartment the first floor was vacant for repairs. The second

7

Page 8 floor was under the occupation of a tenant, one Rajiv Chauhan.

According to DW-1, no recovery was made as claimed by the police

on 12.08.2003. DW-2- Rajiv Chauhan, the tenant, had fully

corroborated the above version of DW 1. Both the accused persons

– Med Singh and appellant Brijesh were examined under Section 313

Cr.P.C. At the conclusion of the trial both Med Singh and the present

appellant Brijesh were convicted for the offences for which they were

charged. Separate appeals were filed by both the accused before

the High Court. By the impugned judgment dated 10.08.2009 while

the accused Med Singh was acquitted, the present appellant has

been convicted of the charges framed in both the cases and

sentenced as aforesaid giving rise to the present appeal.

6.Before proceeding to notice and examine the arguments

advanced on behalf of the appellant, the bare facts proved and

established by the evidence on record which would be required to be

considered may be set out hereinbelow.

7.In the initial deposition tendered in court by PW 1 – Vicky Malik,

the witness had categorically stated that the second assailant who

was accompanying accused Satish was not known to him. After the

arrest of the present accused-appellant on 11.08.2003 PW 1 was

8

Page 9 recalled and examined once again on 21.10.2005. On this occasion

PW 1 had clearly denied that in his statement to the police that he

had named the accused-appellant-Brijesh or that he had identified the

present accused-appellant before the police. In fact, in his further

examination PW 1 had categorically stated that “the accused-

appellant Brijesh Mavi present in court was not there on the date of

incident” and further that “accused present in the court Brijesh Mavi is

not the person who had killed my uncle. I have seen Brijesh Mavi first

time”. PW 1 was not declared hostile.

8.PW 24 – Sudhir Kumar, the IO of the case, in his deposition, as

already noted, had deposed about the recovery of three live

cartridges, one empty cartridge and 4 bullets ( all of 0.380 calibre)

from the place of occurrence. He has also deposed about the receipt

of four bullets which were extracted from the body of the deceased at

the time of post-mortem. According to PW 24 the cartridges and

bullets recovered from the spot were sealed with the initial SK

whereas the bullets recovered from the dead body were sealed with

the seal of Forensic Medicine AIIMS Hospital. PW 24 has also

deposed with regard to the arrest of accused Satish; the disclosure

statement made by him and the recovery of one pistol of .30” calibre

9

Page 10 alongwith three live cartridges. In his cross-examination, he has

stated that in the course of interrogation it was revealed that the .380

calibre revolver was with the accused Satish and the .30” calibre

pistol was with accused Brijesh.

9. From the evidence of PW 21 – Shri KC Varshney, Sr. Scientific

Officer and his report Ex.PW-21/A it is evident that along with the .

30” calibre pistol and the three .30” calibre live cartridges, the .380

cartridges(3 in No.), one .380 cartidge cage and the four bullets

recovered from the spot along with the four bullets recovered from the

body of the deceased were sent for the examination and the report

thereof is that 7 bullets marked as EB-1, EB-3 to EB-8 had been fired

from a .380 calibre fire arm.

10.From the evidence of PW 25, SI-Sanjiv Sharma, it also appears

that after the recovery of the .380 calibre revolver from Apartment No.

F-4/64, Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi, the said revolver and the empty and

live .380 calibre cartridges and the four bullets recovered from the

place of occurrence were sent to the CFSL, Chandigarh for

examination and “matching” report, namely, whether the cartridges

and bullets bore any relation to the fire arm recovered . The report of

examination (Ex. PW -20/B) submitted by Dr. P. Siddambary Junior

1

Page 11 Scientific Officer (Ballastics), CFSL, Chandigarh (PW 20) is to the

effect that the .380 revolver (bearing No. 25502) was in working

condition and the crime fired bullets marked B/1, B/3 and B/4 had

been fired through the said .38” revolver bearing No.25502 and

further that the said bullets could not have been fired through any

other firearm. Insofar as the live cartridges are concerned, the report

of PW 20 is silent where as in regard to the cartridge cage marked as

EC.1 by the Ballistic Expert the opinion was inconclusive. From the

above, it will be clear that the four bullets sent to the CFSL,

Chanidgarh and examined by PW 20 were the bullets recovered from

the place of occurrence. The bullets recovered from the dead body

though sent to the FSL, Rohini and were examined by PW 21 were

however not sent by the prosecution to the CFSL, Chandigarh and

are not a part of the report submitted by PW 20 in his report (Ex.

PW-20/B)

11.Another significant fact that has to be noticed is that in the

report of CFSL, Chandigarh Ex. PW- 20/B it is not mentioned that

one of the bullets recovered from the place of occurrence and marked

as B.2 by the Ballistic Expert had been fired from the revolver

1

Page 12 bearing No.25502 though according to both the reports, i.e. Ex.PW-

21/A and Ex.PW-20/B the said bullet is also a .380 calibre bullet.

12.Shri A. Sharan, learned senior counsel for the appellant, has

argued that from the evidence of the sole eye witness, PW 1 Vicky

Malik, it is clear and evident that he had not identified the accused-

appellant Brijesh to be the person accompanying the accused Satish

to the STD booth where the firing took place. In fact, according to

the learned counsel, PW 1 has categorically stated in Court that the

accused-appellant Brijesh was not present at the place of occurrence

and that he had seen the accused appellant for the first time in court.

Learned counsel therefore has contended that there is no direct

evidence to link the accused-appellant with the offence for which he

has been charged. In the absence of identification of the accused-

appellant, the conviction, it is contended, is wholly without any basis.

Shri Sharan has further contended that the recovery of the revolver

from Apartment No.F-4/64, Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi, as claimed by

the prosecution, has not been proved in any manner inasmuch as no

independent witness has been examined to prove the same.

Furthermore, DW 1 and DW 2 had clearly deposed that no police

party has come to the apartment on 12.08.2003 and no recovery had

1

Page 13 taken place on the said date. Shri Sharan has also contended that

the scrutiny of the evidence tendered by the defence witnesses

would go to show that there is no basis for not accepting the same.

Continuing, Shri Sharan has argued that the bullets extracted

from the body of the deceased, admittedly, had not been sent for

examination to the ballastic expert to prove that the same were fired

from revolver No. 25502 allegedly recovered from Apartment No.F-

4/64, Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi. Therefore, according to learned

counsel, even if the recovery of the revolver is to be assumed there is

no proof that the same was fired to cause the injuries resulting in the

death of the deceased. In sofar as the three bullets proved by Ex.PW

-20/B to have been fired from the recovered weapon is concerned,

Shri Sharan has argued that the same had not been sent for

serological examination to prove the presence of human blood so

as to establish that the said bullets had entered and exited the body

of the deceased. It is also argued that the report of the CFSL

Chandigarh (Ex.PW-20/B) read with the report of the FSL, Rohini

(Ex.PW-21/A) would go to show that the bullet marked as Ex.B2 in

the report of CFSL, Chandigarh (Ex.PW-20/B) was not fired from the

recovered weapon. Yet, according to the prosecution, the same was

1

Page 14 a .380 calibre bullet recovered from the place of occurrence which

facts open up the possibility of the use of another .380 revolver in the

incident. No Evidence to the aforesaid effect is forthcoming. In these

circumstances Shri Sharan has argued that the conviction of the

accused –appellant cannot be approved. In support, reliance has

been placed on the judgment of this court in Abdulwahab Abdulmajid

Baloch vs. State of Gujarat

1

. Placing the said judgment before the

court Shri Sharan has contended that in the present case even if it is

assumed that recovery of the offending weapon has been proved by

the prosecution the said fact is only one adverse circumstance

against the appellant. The same by itself, would not give rise to a

complete chain of events and circumstances from which the only

inference that can be drawn is one of culpability of the accused. Shri

Sharan has also sought to draw the attention of the court to a recent

judgment in Musheer Khan Alias Badshah Khan and anr . Versus

State of Madhya Pradesh

2

to contend that the

recovery of the alleged weapon, even if assumed, cannot reasonably

lead to a conclusion which would justify the conviction of the

accused-appellant.

1

( 2009) 11 SCC 625

2

(2010) 2 SCC 748

1

Page 15 13.In reply Shri J.S. Attri, learned senior counsel for the State has

contended that the failure of PW 1 to identify the accused-appellant

as being present at the place of occurrence would not be fatal to the

prosecution case, inasmuch as in the present case the prosecution

has succeeded in proving, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the

weapon recovered at the instance of the accused-appellant from

Apartment No. F-4/64, Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi was used to fire upon

the deceased. It is contended that the three bullets recovered from

the spot have been fired from the said weapon (Ex. PW 20/B). The

said circumstance, according to the learned State counsel, clinches

the issue beyond all reasonable doubt. It is argued that a firm

conclusion with regard to the culpability of the accused can be

reasonably drawn from the aforesaid circumstance proved in the

present case.

14.The brief conspectus of facts set out above demonstrates that

there is no direct evidence to connect the accused-appellant with the

firing incident involving the deceased. The only eye-witness

examined by the prosecution, namely, PW 1 has categorically

deposed that the accused-appellant Brijesh was not present at the

place of the crime on the date of occurrence and, in fact, he had seen

1

Page 16 the accused-appellant for the first time in court. The second person

accompanying the deceased accused Satish to the STD booth along

with the firearm therefore remained unidentified. The prosecution, in

the absence of any direct evidence, has sought to build up its case on

the basis of circumstantial evidence.

15.The principles of law governing proof of a criminal charge by

circumstantial evidence need hardly any reiteration. From the several

decisions of this court available on the issue the said principles can

be summed up by stating that not only the prosecution must prove

and establish the incriminating circumstance(s) against the accused

beyond all reasonable doubt but the said circumstance(s) must give

rise to only one conclusion to the exclusion of all others, namely, that

it is accused and nobody else who had committed the crime. The

above principle is deducible from the five propositions laid down by

this Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra

3

which principles have been consistenly followed in Tanviben

Pankajkumar Divetia vs. State of Gujarat

4

, Vikram Singh vs. State of

3

(1984) 4 SCC 116 (para 153)

4

(1997) 7 SCC 156

1

Page 17 Punjab

5

, Aftab Ahmad Anasari vs. State of Uttaranchal

6

, Sanatan

Naskar and anr . vs. State of West Bengal

7

and Mohd. Arif alias

ASshfaq vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

8

.

16.The next question that has to engage the attention of the court

is what are the circumstances that the prosecution has succeeded in

proving in the present case and if so proved what is the conclusion

that can be reached on the proved circumstances in the light of the

principles of law indicated above.

17.The prosecution has asserted that on 12.08.2003 the accused-

appellant, after being arrested in connection with another case

admitted his involvement in the present case. On the basis of

statement made by him before SI – Satish Kumar (PW 1); ASI –

Ravinder (PW 2) and Constable – Rajiv (PW 3) a .380 Calibre

revolver was recovered from the second floor of Apartment No. F-

4/64, Rohini,Delhi. The evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 examined in

connection with FIR Case No. 456/03 as well as the evidence of

Head Constable Rajiv (PW 3 ) in FIR Case No.456 who was

5

(2010) 3 SCC 56

6

(2010) 2 SCC 583

7

(2010) 8 SCC 249

8

(2011) 13 SCC 621

1

Page 18 examined as PW 19 in the present case indicates without doubt or

ambiguity the detailed facts in which the recovery was effected. The

cross-examination of three witnesses has not revealed any fact which

would go in favour of the accused. The defence witnesses, DW 1

and DW 2, examined, in our considered view, have not succeeded in

demolishing the prosecution version inasmuch as DW 1 – Vijay

Gupta admittedly was being interrogated in the police station on the

date when the recovery was made. On the other hand, DW 2 –Rajiv

Chauhan has failed to prove that he was a tenant under DW 1, in

respect of the second floor of the Apartment in question at the

relevant time. In such circumstances the court will have to proceed

on the basis that the recovery, as claimed by the prosecution, has

been proved by the evidence on record.

18.Our above finding would render the conviction of the accused-

appellant under Section 25 of the Arms Act wholly justified. However,

insofar as the charges under Section 302 and Section 460 read with

Section 34 of the IPC is concerned, there are certain other connected

facts and circumstances proved by the evidence on record which will

have to be weighed by us in order to determine the consequence(s)

that can be attributed to the accused from the recovery of the weapon

1

Page 19 in question. The recovery was affected after more than two years.

The incident had occurred on 06.06.2001 and the recovery was made

on 12.08.2003. The prosecution has not proved that during the

intervening period the weapon had not changed hands and the same

was consistently possessed by the accused appellant Brijesh. The

live and fired cartridges alongwith the bullets recovered from the

place of occurrence and also the bullets recovered from the dead

body in the course of post mortem were sent to the FSL Rohini. The

report has been exhibited as Ex.PW-21/A. The said report is dated

28.02.2002, i.e. before the recovery of the .380 calibre revolver. After

the recovery of the weapon said was made, the weapon itself along

with the cartridges (live and empty) as well as the four bullets

recovered from the place of occurrence was sent to the CFSL

Chandigarh and is covered by the report of PW 20 dated 28.11.2003

(Ex.PW-20/B). However, surprisingly, the bullets recovered from the

dead body at the time of post mortem were not sent to the CFSL,

Chandigarh. This is evident from the evidence of PW 25 – SI- Sanjiv

Sharma. No explanation for what appears to us to be a serious lapse

on the part of the prosecution is forthcoming. That apart, in Ex.PW-

20/B it is recorded that three out of the four bullets (recovered from

1

Page 20 the place of occurrence) were fired from the recovered weapon. The

said bullets were not sent for serological examination to establish that

the three bullets fired from the recovered weapon had entered and

exited from the body of the deceased. In such a situation a lingering

doubt remains as to whether the prosecution in the present case has

succeeded in proving the charge against the accused-appellant

beyond all reasonable doubt. Furthermore, from Ex.PW-20/B it is

evident that one bullet (marked as B.2 by the Expert) was not fired

from the .380 calibre firearm recovered at the instance of the

appellant. The first report of the FSL, Rohini, Delhi – EX.PW21/A

also indicates that one bullet of .380 calibre did not have any

striations of riffling marks. The prosecution has remained silent on

the aforesaid aspect of the matter, though, from the two reports, the

possibility of use of another fire arm of .380 calibres cannot be ruled

out.

19.In the above context the decision of this court in Abdulwahab

Abdulmajid Baloch vs. State of Gujarat (supra) would be a particular

significance. Though the observations contained in Paragraphs 37

and 38 of the judgment have to be understood to have been rendered

in the context of the facts of the case we find that the said

2

Page 21 observations would squarely apply to the present case.

Consequently the aforesaid two paragraphs may be usefully

extracted hereinbelow :

“ 37. Be that as it may, we feel that only because the

recovery of a weapon was made and the expert opined that

the bullet found in the body of the deceased was fired from

one of the weapons seized, by itself cannot be the sole

premise on which a judgment of conviction under Section 302

could be recorded. There was no direct evidence. The

accused, as noticed hereinbefore, was charged not only under

Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code but also

under Section 302 read with Section 120-B thereof. The

murder of the deceased was said to have been committed by

all the accused persons upon hatching a conspiracy. This

charge has not been proved.

38. The learned trial Judge himself opined that the recovery

having been made after nine months, the weapon might have

changed in many hands. In absence of any other evidence,

connecting the accused with commission of crime of murder

of the deceased, in our opinion, it is not possible to hold that

the appellant on the basis of such slander evidence could

have been found guilty for commission of offence punishable

under Section 302 of the Penal Code.”

20.Though the above discussions would lead us to the conclusion

that the prosecution, in the present case, has succeeded in proving a

highly incriminating circumstance against the accused –appellant,

yet, we do not consider that it would be wholly safe to hold that the

only conclusion that can follow from the aforesaid proved

circumstance is that the accused Brijesh is responsible for the death

2

Page 22 of the deceased that had occurred on 06.06.2001. We have also

noticed that the High Court has convicted the accused-appellant

under Section 302 as well as Section 460 IPC with the aid of Section

34. In a situation where co-accused Satish had died during the trial

and the other co-accused Med Singh had been acquitted by the High

Court, the culpability of the present accused-appellant with the aid of

Section 34 will be open to serious doubt. Such culpability will have to

be determined on the basis of individual overt acts on the part of the

accused appellant for which we do not find any cogent and reliable

material on record.

21.Consequently, we hold that while the conviction of accused-

appellant under Section 25 of the Arms Act and the sentence

imposed is justified, the accused-appellant is entitled to the benefit of

our doubts with regard to the offences under Section 302 and Section

460 read with Section 34 of the IPC. We, therefore, set aside the

judgment of the High Court insofar as the offence under Section 302

and Section 460 read with Section 34 of the IPC is concerned. The

conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 25 of the Arms Act

and the sentence imposed is upheld. If the appellant is presently in

custody and he has undergone the sentence imposed under Section

2

Page 23 25 of the Arms Act he be released forthwith unless wanted in any

other case.

The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

…………………………… ..J.

[SWATANTER KUMAR]

…………………………… ..j.

[RANJAN GOGOI]

New Delhi,

July 3, 2012

2

Page 24

2