CRA-D-264-DB-2004 &

connected matter -1

101

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH  

         Date of Reserve:09.10.2025

                   Date of Decision: 14.10.2025

(I) CRA-D-264-DB-2004

Rajinder Singh   …Appellant

Vs.

State of Haryana …Respondent

(II) CRA-D-616-DBA-2004    

State of Haryana   …Appellant

Vs.

Ran Singh and Anr. …Respondents

Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat

Hon’ble Ms. Justice Sukhvinder Kaur

Present: Mr. R.S Mamli, Advocate

for the appellant(s) in CRA-D-264-DB-2004.

Mr. Rajinder Kumar Banku,  Sr.DAG,Haryana with

Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Mr. P.K.S Phoolka, Advocate

for the respondents in CRA-D-616-DBA-2004.

***

N.S.Shekhawat J.

1. By way of common judgment, this Court shall dispose of two

appeals i.e.  CRA-D-264-DB-2004 titled as “Rajinder Singh Vs. State of

Haryana” and CRA-D-616-DBA-2004 titled as “State of Haryana Vs. Ran

Singh and Anr.” 

2. Since, both the appeals involve common questions of facts and law

and arise out of the same FIR, both the appeals are being disposed of,

CRA-D-264-DB-2004 &

connected matter -2

simultaneously.

3. Rajinder   Singh,   appellant/accused   in   criminal   appeal   No.

CRA-D-264-DB-2004  has challenged the impugned judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated 20.01.2004, passed by the Court of Additional

District & Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Jhajjar, whereby, he  was convicted for the

offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of IPC and was senteced to undergo

imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-,  in default of payment of

fine, he would further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six

months, whereas, in criminal appeal No.CRA-D-616-DBA-2004, the State of

Haryana has challanged the acquittal of respondents No.1 & 2/accused by the

same Court.

4. The FIR Ex.PD/2 in the present case was registered on the basis of

the statement Ex.PD made by Ranbir Singh son of Shish Ram, resident of

Village Dhakla and the statement Ex.PD is reproduced below:-

“Statement of Ranbir Singh s/o Shish Ram Jat r/o Dhakla

aged 40 years and stated that I am the resident of above address

and do agricultural work. We are two brother. Elder brother of

mine is Ram Singh, who is residing separately for the last 20%21

years. My mother has already expired. My father was alive. My

father's Sister(Buwa) Bhagwani had 16 Killas of land in her name.

Who had quathed her land in half share i. e 8 killas each in the

name of two brother but my father had 16 killas of land in his

name. Whole of that land has been given to me. No share was left

in this land for my brother Ran Singh. My father had suffered a

decree of 16 killas of land in favour of my three sons. My brother

Ran Singh and his family member had grudge for this. They used to

threat him time and again that they would not let him deprive them

from their right in ancestral land. Today previous night my father

CRA-D-264-DB-2004 &

connected matter -3

went to sleep in the garrage near the tractor as usual. I, my wife

Ram Bateri and my daughter Krishna after having our meals slept

at about 10.P.M.(night) on the roof. At about 11.30 P.M. we heard

the noise of 'Bachao.%Bachao' from the garrage. I, my wife and my

daughter came in the stair and saw that Krishna w/o my brother

was catching hold my father and Rajender son of Chander Jat r/o

chara brother%in%law of Ran singh was having a pharsa in his

hand. Satbir son of my brother Ran Singh was having a pistol in

his hand. They were giving injuries to my father. They were

exclaiming that they are teaching lesson for suffering a decree of

ancestral land in favour of one side. We gave a call that we are

coming and raised alarm of BachaoBachao. Then they ran away

with their respective weapons. Thereafter, Deep Chand s/o Daya

Nand and Ranbir S/o Teka, Jat of the same village also reached at

the spot. My father expired at the spot. Because of being fears

stricken and raining at the night I could not come to make a report.

Now I was going to police station to make a report that you have

met me. Ranbir and Deep Chand are left at the spot with the dead

body. I have got recorded my statement to you. Heard and correct.

Legal action may be taken.”

5. After the registration of the FIR Ex.PD/2, Sumer Singh, S.I along

with other police officials went to the spot and inspected the site. He prepared

the inquest report Ex.PN, which was identified by Ranbir Singh and Deep

Chand and also sent the dead body to Civil Hospital, Jhajjar for post mortem

examination. The blood stained earth was picked from the spot and was taken

into possession vide the recovery memo Ex.PK. The site plan Ex.PM of the

place of occurrence was also prepared. Thereafter, he arrested Ran Singh and

Krishna,   respondents   No.1   and   2   in   criminal   appeal  No.

CRA-D-616-DBA-2004 on the same day and were interrogated by the police

CRA-D-264-DB-2004 &

connected matter -4

team.  Ran Singh, respondent No.1 made a disclosure statement Ex.PO and got

recovered a phawra (spade), used in the occurrence from his house, vide the

recovery memo Ex.PO/1. On 05.06.2002, Sumer Singh, S.I, arrested Rajinder,

appellant/accused   in   criminal   appeal   No.CRA-D-264-DB-2004   and   in

pursuance of his disclosure statement Ex.PH, he got recovered a pharsa (axe)

with a long handle, which were taken into possession vide the recovery memo

Ex.PH/1, after preparing its rough sketch Ex.PH/2. The site plan Ex.PH/3 of the

place of occurrence was also prepared. On 25.06.2002, Sumer Singh, SI moved

an application before the doctor for obtaining their opinion as to whether the

injuries found on the person of the deceased could be caused with a phawra and

pharsa produced before them and the doctor had opined that the injuries No.1

to 10 on the person of the deceased could be possible with those weapons. After

concluding the investigation, Ran Singh, Krishna and Rajinder were challaned.

The co-accused Satbir, could not be arrested and since he had absconded, he

was declared as a proclaimed offender in the present case.

6. After the presentation of the challan, a prima facie case under

Sections 302/34 of IPC was made out against three accused, for which they

were charge-sheeted, however, all the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed

that they may be tried by the Trial Court.

7. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution had relied upon

14 witnesses.

8. The prosecution examined PW-1, Dr. Surender Kumar, who was

part of Board of the doctors, who conducted the post mortem on the dead body

of Shish Ram. The relevant extract of his statement has been reproduced

CRA-D-264-DB-2004 &

connected matter -5

below:-

“On that day we conducted the post mortem on the above said body

and found the following:% The length of the body was 5'6". There

was no ligature mark on the neck. The dead body was moderately

and nourished wearing white kurta, white baninyan, white doti, a

black thread around waist, a white thread around the waist and a

key tied to the white thread. A hole in the kurta corresponding to

the left anterior abdominal wall was present blackening around the

hole was present. Another hole was present in the kurta

corresponding to the right lower chest posteriorly. A hole in the

Baniyan was present corresponding to left anterior andominal wall

blackening around the hole was present. Another tear was present

over the back of Baniyan corresponding to right lower chest. Blood

stains around this hole was the present. Rigor mortis was present

in all the limbs. Bilateral black eyes were present. Post Mortem

staining was present over the back.

1. An abrasion of size 4x3cm. was present longitudinally over the

superior aspect of right shoulder extending posteriorly. Clotted

blood was present.

2. A red contusion of size 12x1 cm. was present on superior

aspect of left shoulder longitudinally extending anteriorly and

posteriorly, on exploration fracture left scapula was present.

3. An abrasion of size 2x5 cm. was present on superior aspect of

left shoulder, 1cm.medial to injury no.2. Clotted blood was present.

4. A lacerated wound of size 12x1.5cm. 75cm. on right side of

longitudinally over scalp over vertex 3cm. on right side of midline.

Clotted blood was present.

5. A lacerated wound of size 1.5x.5cms. was present over forehead

obliquely on left side of midline 1cm. above the nasion. Clotted

blood was present.

6. A transversly placed lacerated wound of size 2x. 5x.5cma. was

present in left post auricular region. Clotted blood was present.

CRA-D-264-DB-2004 &

connected matter -6

7. A lacerated wound of 3x.5x. 5cm. transversly placed in left

occipital region of scalp. 5cm.posterior to the upper part of left

pinna. Clotted blood was precent.

8. At ranversly placed lacerated sound 4.5x. Sarx, an. 5 in left

occipital region of scalp. 1.5cm below Injury no.7. Crocted blood

was present.

9. A lacerated wound transveraly placed 5.5.x.5cms. in left

occipital region of scalp. 1.5cm below injury no.8. Clotted blood

was present.

10. A red contusion of size 19×10cm. Obliquely placed in left

hypochondrium, extending over left lower chest and an

epigastrioum.

11.Megantry of small intestines was proturuding outside the left

lumbar rigion anteriorly at the level of unblicus on reducing the

mesentry into abdominal cavity alacerated would 3.5x2.5 cm wa

present at the level of wablicus and 5cm. from umblicus and left

lumbar region. Margins of the wound were contured and inverted.

Blackening and tattooing was present. On exploration the wound

was extending medially and upwards in the subcutaneous tissues,

muscles, pertiticnium and entering the abdominal cavity in midline,

3cm. above the anblimus, Blackening was present in such

cutaneous tissues from muscles and peritonius. On opening yhr

abdominal cavity a through and through puferahar was present in

the stomach and right lob of the liver. and diaphragm.

Hemoperitonium was present(1000ml.) semi digested food was

leaking out from the stomach in the abdominal cavity. 

12. A lacerated wound 2x1x2.5cm. in right infra%scapular regior

12.5cm. below and 6cm.medial to posterior right axillary fold.

Margins were everted and blood was oozing out.On exploration

fracture of 10th and 11th ribs on rignt side vere present

posteriorly. This injury was communicating with the injury no. 11.

CRA-D-264-DB-2004 &

connected matter -7

On exploration of the chest fracture of 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th ribs

were present anteriorly on left side. On exploration of the skull

depressed fracture of left occipital bone was present. A sub%dural

hemetoma of 10x7.5 x3.5cm.was present in left partietal region.

extending to left occipital region. Spleen, kidney, pleura, both

lungs are organs of generation external and internal all healthy.

The cause of death in our opinion was due to injury to the vital

organs i.e. liver and brinl.leading on to hemorrhage shock and

death. All the injuries were antemortem in nature and were

insufficient to cause of death in the ordinary course of nature”.

9.  As per PW-1, Dr. Surender Kumar, on 25.06.2002, Sumer Singh,

S.I moved an application before the doctors and sought the opinion of the

doctors. The doctors opined that injuries No.1 to 10 on the person of Shish Ram

could possibly be caused with pharsa and phawra.  Even, injuries No.11 and 12

were caused with some firearm and injury No.11 alone could be sufficient to

cause death. As the pharsa was having blunt edge blade side, so it was not

necessary that it could cause an incised wound. PW-2, Jai Chand Constable,

Draftsman had prepared a scaled site plan Ex.PC, whereas, PW-3, Azad Singh,

ASI had sent a ruqa to the police station and he had recorded the FIR Ex.PD/2

in the police station. PW-4, Surender Singh, Photographer had taken the

photographs of the dead body Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and negatives were exhibited as

Ex.P7 to Ex.P12. Further, Head Constable, Surender Singh was examined as

PW-5, who had taken the clothes of the deceased into possession vide the

recovery memo Ex.PE. The testimony of PW-6, Bijender Singh, Constable and

PW-7, Vijay Singh, Head Constable are formal in nature. Still further, the

prosecution examined Ranbir son of Shish Ram, complainant as PW-8 and he

CRA-D-264-DB-2004 &

connected matter -8

reiterated the version as mentioned in the FIR Ex.PD/2. Similarly, PW-9,

Darshana daughter of Ranbir and PW-10 Bhateri wife of Ranbir had also

supported the testimony of PW-8, Ranbir. The prosecution further examined

PW-11, Deep Chand, neighbour of the deceased, however, he did not support

the  case  of   the   prosecution  and  was   declared  hostile.   Similarly,   PW-12,

Rajender, another witness refuse to support the case of the prosecution. The

prosecution further examined Sumer Singh as PW-13, SI, who had initially

investigated   the   matter.   He   had   recorded   the   statement   of   Ranbir   Singh

complainant as Ex.PD and had made his endorsement as Ex.PD/1. He reached

at spot and took into possession the incriminating evidence from the place of

occurrence.   He   had   also   arrested   Ran   Singh   and   Rajinder,   accused   and

recoveries made from them. The prosecution further examined Raghubir Singh

PW-14, who was part of the police party and remained associated, during the

process of recovery. In his presence, phawra was recovered from Ran Singh

and the same was taken into possession by the police.

10. After the completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of

accused Ran Singh was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein, he stated

that the injuries were caused to the deceased by Satbir @ Kala and his friend,

whose name he did not know. His co-accused Krishna and Rajinder had caused

no injuries to the deceased.

11. Similarly,  Rajinder,   appellant/accused   in   criminal   appeal   No.

CRA-D-264-DB-2004 also pleaded his false implication and he supported the

statement made by Ran Singh, accused. Krishna, respondent No.2 also stated

CRA-D-264-DB-2004 &

connected matter -9

that she had been falsely implicated and injuries were caused by Satbir @ Kala

and one of his co-accused.

CRA-D-264-DB-2004

1. Learned counsel has vehemently argued that the entire prosecution

case was based on the testimonies of interested and official witnesses. The

whole prosecution case was based on the statements of PW-8 Ranbir, PW-9

Darshana daughter of Ranbir and PW-10 Bhateri wife of Ranbir and the

testimonies of such inimical witnesses are liable to be scrutinized with care and

caution. He further submits that even the above stated 03 witnesses had not

witnessed the occurrence at all and their presence at the place of occurrence was

highly doubtful. In fact, it has been stated that all the three witnesses had heard

the cries  of  the deceased,  while  he  was  being  attacked by the  accused.

Surprisingly, none of them had either raised the noise to save the deceased nor

tried to apprehend any of the accused. Still further, Ranbir Singh PW-8 was

already inimical towards Ran Singh and due to the said enmity, he had named

Ran Singh, his wife Krishna, Rajender his brother-in-law and Satbir @ Kala his

son. Consequently, a futile attempt has been made to involve the entire family

as well as their relative in a false criminal case. Learned counsel further

contends that in fact, the Trial Court had rightly disbelieved the version of the

prosecution qua two accused namely Ran Singh and Krishna and the appellant

was also liable to be acquitted by this Court.

2. On the other hand learned State counsel has vehemently opposed

the submissions made by the appellant on the ground the three witnesses

namely PW-8 Ranbir, PW-9 Darshana and PW-10 Bhateri wife of Ranbir had

CRA-D-264-DB-2004 &

connected matter -10

made specific allegations against Rajinder Singh, who had caused repeated

blows on the person of Shish Ram with a pharsa, whereas, Satbir @ Kala son

of Ran Singh, accused had fired a shot at Shish Ram and Shish Ram had

expired at the spot. He further contends that the version of the eye witnesses

has been duly supported by the statement of PW-1, Dr. Surender Kumar, who

stated that the injuries No.1 to 10 could be caused from the blunt side of pharsa,

whereas, injuries No.11 and 12 were firearm injuries and could have been

caused with a firearm. Still further, the statements of such witnesses have been

further corroborated by the testimony of PW-13 Sumer Singh, SI, who had

conducted the investigation in the present case. Thus, the appellant has been

rightly convicted by the Trial Court in the present case.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record carefully.

4. In the present case, Shish Ram was the father of Ran Singh,

co-accused as well as Ranbir Singh. Bhagwani sister of Shish Ram owned 16

killas of land, who had transferred 8 killas each in the names of Ran Singh,

co-accused as well as Ranbir Singh, complainant, whereas, Shish Ram had

suffered a decree of 16 killas of land in favour of three sons of Ranbir Singh,

complainant and Ran Singh, co-accused was deprived of the land. It is also

apparent from the record that the entire land was transferred by Shish Ram in

favour of the sons of the Ranbir Singh, complainant by way of civil Court

decree in the year 1991, when, Ran Singh, accused was deprived of half share

in the land. Consequently, the Trial Court has rightly held that for almost 11

years, Ran Singh, accused had neither raised any protest against his father nor

CRA-D-264-DB-2004 &

connected matter -11

had picked any fight with him. Thus, this clearly shows absence of motive on

the part of Ran Singh, accused in the present case. However, at that time, Satbir

was a young boy and after a gap of about 11 years, there was escalation in the

prices of the land and he might have been aggrieved of the act of Shish Ram,

whereby, he had transferred the entire parcel of land in favour of three sons of

complainant. Thus, it is apparent that Satbir had joined hands with Rajinder and

had caused injuries to Shish Ram. Even, it is also apparent that the deceased

had suffered 10 injuries, besides the fire arm injury and as per the statement of

PW-1, Dr. Surender Kumar, all the said injuries could have been caused from

the blunt side of the pharsa, which was carried by Rajinder Singh.

5. Apart from that, the prosecution has examined three witnesses

namely PW-8 Ranbir, PW-9 Darshana and PW-10 Bhateri wife of Ranbir, who

had been subjected to lengthy cross-examination by learned defence counsel

before the Trial Court, however, the testimonies of all the three witnesses could

not be shattered in any manner.

6. As a consequence, we have no hesitation to hold that Rajinder

Singh has been rightly convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court.

7. As a consequence of the above discussion, the present appeal fails

and is accordingly, ordered to be dismissed.

8.  The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

20.01.2004, passed by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge

(Adhoc), Jhajjar are ordered to be upheld.

9. The appellant may be taken in custody forthwith, if not in custody,

to serve the remaining sentence.

CRA-D-264-DB-2004 &

connected matter -12

(II) CRA-D-616-DBA-2004

1. By way of the present appeal, the State of Haryana has challenged

the acquittal of the Ran Singh and Krishna, respondents No.1 &2 by the Trial

Court.

2. Learned State counsel has vehemently argued that the Trial Court

did not appreciate the testimonies of  PW-8 Ranbir, PW-9 Darshana and PW-10

Bhateri, who had categorically deposed that both the respondents had also

participated along with Rajinder, co-accused. Even, Ran Singh, respondent

No.1 was the principal accused, who was having enmity with Shish Ram, since

deceased as he had not transferred the land in favour of the respondent No.1.

Due to this, both the respondents had joined the hands with their son Satbir @

Kala   and   Rajender,   brother-in-law   of   respondent   No.1.   All   the   accused

including respondents No.1 & 2  had gone at the place of occurrence and after

reaching there, Krishna had caught hold of Shish Ram, whereas, Ran Singh,

respondent No.1 had caused injuries on the person of Shish Ram, with a

phawara (spade). His co-accused Rajender caused injuries to Shish Ram with a

pharsa (axe) with a long handle, whereas, Satbir son of Ran Singh, fired a shot

from the pistol, which had hit Shish Ram on his stomach. Thus, Shish Ram had

expired at the spot on account of injuries sustained by him. Learned State

counsel vehemently argued that the testimonies of eye witnesses were duly

supported by the statement of PW-1, Dr. Surender Kumar, who clearly stated

that injuries No.1 to 10 on the person of Shish Ram could possibly be caused

with a pharsa and phawra. Thus, the trial Court had committed grave error in

acquitting the respondents in the present case. 

CRA-D-264-DB-2004 &

connected matter -13

3. On   the   other   hand   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of

respondents   has   supported   the   findings   recorded   by  the   Trial   Court   by

submitting that the Trial Court had recorded detailed reasons while acquitting

both the respondents. He further contends that in fact, the land dispute had

created backblood between the complainant and the respondent No.1, i.e two

real brothers. Even, the motive alleged against respondent No.1 was non-

transfer of land in favour of respondent No.1 and transfer of entire land of Shish

Ram in favour of sons of the complainant. Shish Ram had transferred the land

in favour of sons of the complainant, by way of a civil Court decree in the year

1991 and both the respondents had never raised any objection to the same.

Thus, the impugned judgment is legally sustainable.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record carefully.

5.   As   per   the   case   of   the   prosecution,   both   the   brothers   i.e.

complainant as well as respondent No.1 were residing separately and their

father Shish Ram, since deceased was residing with complainant. Shish Ram

had transferred his entire 16 acres of land in favour of sons of complainant by

way of civil Court decree, which was suffered by him in the year 1991,

whereas, in the present case, the occurrence had taken place on 29.05.2002 i.e

almost 11 years. Still further, even as per the admitted case of the prosecution,

the said transfer of land by Shish Ram was the motive for causing injuries to

Shish Ram. However, the Trial Court has rightly observed that in the past 11

years, Ran Singh, respondent No.1 had never objected to the said land as the

prices of the said land in those days was highly insignificant. However, after 11

CRA-D-264-DB-2004 &

connected matter -14

years Satbir @ Kalla son of respondent No.1 had attained  majority and

probably, he was aggrieved of the transfer of land in favour of sons of the

complainant as by that time the prices of land had escalated. 

6. Apart from that, the complainant was admittedly highly inimical

towards both the respondents due to the ongoing land dispute between the

parties. Thus, the possibility of false implication of respondents No.1 and 2

could not be ruled out. Apart from that, we have also perused the detailed

findings recorded by the Trial Court in favour of the respondents and find no

reasons to deviate from the same.

7. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of

“Bhaskarrao and others Vs. State of Maharashtra”, 2018 AIR (Supreme

Court) 2222; 2018 (5) RCR (Criminal) 228 as follows:- 

“14. As the trial court and High Court, having appreciated the

evidence on record, has come to diametrically opposite

conclusions, mandating herein to observe certain witness

statements which may have an important bearing in this case. In

the processes of appreciating the evidence at the appellate stage,

we need to keep in mind the views of this court as expressed in

Tota Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, 1987(2) RCR (Criminal)

35 : 1987 CriLJ 974 -

"The High Court has not found in its judgment that the reasons

given by the learned Sessions Judge for discarding the testimony of

PW2 and PW6 were either unreasonable or perverse. What the

High Court has done is to make an independent reappraisal of the

evidence on its own and to set aside the acquittal merely on the

ground that as a result of such reappreciation, the High Court was

inclined to reach a conclusion different from the one recorded by

CRA-D-264-DB-2004 &

connected matter -15

the learned Sessions Judge. This Court has repeatedly pointed out

that the mere fact that the Appellate Court is inclined on a

reappreciation of the evidence to reach a conclusion which is at

variance with the one recorded in the order of acquittal passed by

the Court below will not constitute a valid and sufficient ground

for setting aside the acquittal. The jurisdiction of the Appellate

Court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal is

circumscribed by the limitation that no interference is to be made

with the order of acquittal unless the approach made by the lower

Court to the consideration of the evidence in the case is vitiated by

some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the Court

below is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any

court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to

be characterized as perverse. Where two views are possible on an

appraisal of the evidence adduced in the case and the court below

has taken a view which is plausible one, the Appellate Court

cannot legally interfere with an order of acquittal even if it is of

the opinion that the view taken by the Court below on its

consideration of the evidence is erroneous."

8. 15. In Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, 1997(3) RCR

(Criminal) 62 : 1996 CriLJ 2867, this Court observed:

"This Court has repeatedly laid down that the mere fact that a view

other than the one taken by the trial Court can be legitimately

arrived at by the appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence

cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with an

order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire

approach of the trial Court in dealing with the evidence was

patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly

untenable. While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate

Court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether

the findings of the trial Court are palpably wrong, manifestly

erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court

CRA-D-264-DB-2004 &

connected matter -16

answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is

not to be disturbed."

9. As an upshot of the above discussion, the present appeal fails and

is accordingly ordered to be dismissed.

    (N.S.SHEKHAWAT)

                   JUDGE

                                (SUKHVINDER KAUR)

                    JUDGE

14.10.2025

hitesh

Whether speaking/reasoned :  Yes/No 

Whether reportable :  Yes/No