1 2025:CGHC:3249 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 43 of 2020 1 - Madhav Sahu S/o Maniram Sahu Aged About 53 Years R/o Amoda Durga Chowk Police Station Narharpur District Kanker Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Narharpur District Kanker Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh .. Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Advocate. For State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate and Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Judgment on Board 17-01-2025 1. The present appeal has been listed for orders on final hearing at motion stage and with consent of the parties the appeal has been heard finally. 2. The appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24-12- 2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) North Bastar Kanker in Special Criminal Case No.24/2019 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner with a direction to run all the jail sentences concurrently:- Conviction Sentence U/s 376(1) of the IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.25000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for one year, Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 U/s 450 of the IPC R.I. for 05 years and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for one year. The appellant has also been convicted under Section 4 of POCSO Act. Since he has been sentenced R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.25000/- in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for one year for his conviction under Section 376(1) of the IPC, no separate sentence has been awarded to him for his conviction under Section 4 of POCSO Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that father of the victim (PW-1) has lodged a report to the police on 03-04-2019 with the allegation that on 03-04-2019 when they returned to their house in the evening from their work his minor daughter has informed about the incident that at about 10:00 a.m. the appellant came to her house and committed rape upon her. Thereafter, she had gone to her school and in the evening he again came to her house and enquired that had she been disclosed the incident to anyone or not, then under the fear of him she disclosed the incident to her aunt. On the basis of written report (Ex.-P/1) lodged by father of the victim, the FIR (Ex.-P/2) was registered for offence under Section 376 and 450 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(b) and 3 (2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short ‘SC/ST Act’) and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short ‘POCSO Act’) against the appellant. The victim was sent for her medical examination to community health center Narharpur on 04-04-2019 and she was medically examined by PW-15, Doctor Jyoti Singh who after the medical examination, gave report Ex.-P/30. While examining the victim the doctor has not noticed any external injury on her body, her hymen was 3 found intact. Two slides of vaginal swab were prepared, sealed and handed over to the police for its chemical examination. The victim was also referred for X-ray examination for determination of her age. The victim was also referred for expert opinion to Gychonologist. She was presented before PW-14 Doctor Smt. K.L. Thakur who is gychonologist at Govt. Komaldev Hospital Kanker on 12-04-2019 and she, after her examination, gave report Ex.-P/28. During medical examination of the victim by PW-14, she also has not found any external injuries on her body and her internal examination slight mixed discharge (like mances) comes out, fimbrated hymen seen. Forcheete deep no oedema redness seen. Vagina roomy and she opined that exact opinion cannot be given about intercourse. The victim was also referred for her X-ray examination to District Hospital Kanker, where her X-ray examination was done by PW-16 Kamal Kant Sori. After examination the joints of various bones he opined that the age of the victim was in between 15 to 17 years and his X-ray report is Ex.-P/32 and X-ray plate is Ex.-P/33. With respect to the age and date of birth of the victim, the birth certificate, middle school certificate and social status certificate have been seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex.-P/4. From the mother of the victim one underwear, one kurti and one salwar have been seized vide seizure memo Ex.-P/10. Spot map Ex.-P/20 and P/21 were prepared by the police and spot map Ex.-P/15 was prepared by Patwari. The school register of the Primary School Nayapara Amoda has also been seized vide seizure memo Ex.-P/22. After retaining its true copy Ex.-P/23A the original school register was returned back to the school. The school admission and discharge certificate Ex.-P/24 has also been 4 seized by the police. The appellant was arrested on 04-04-2019 and he too was sent for his medical examination to community health center Narharpur where he was medically examined by PW-12, Doctor M.K. Sharma who after his medical examination gave report Ex.-P/25. During his medical examination the doctor could not noticed any external injuries on his body and opined that the appellant is capable to perform sexual intercourse. The vaginal slides of the victim, her underwear, salwar and kurti and underwear of the appellant were sent for chemical examination to regional FSL Jagdalpur from where report Ex.-P/40 was received and according to the FSL report semen and sperms were found on the vaginal slides and underwear of the victim, however, no semen and sperms were found on her salwar and kurti and underwear of the appellant. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation charge sheet was filed before the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 376, 450 of the IPC, Section 4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(1) (b) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. 4. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellant for offence under Section 450 and 376 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and Section 4 of POCSO Act. The appellant abjured the guilt and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove guilt of the appellant the prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has also been recorded in which he denied 5 the circumstances appeared against him, pleaded innocence and has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. 6. After appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant and sentence him as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses which cannot be made basis of for conviction of the appellant for the alleged offence. The prosecution could not prove the age of the victim by leading cogent and clinching evidence and the evidence produced by them with respect to age and date of birth of the victim is not sufficient to hold that the victim was minor on the date of incident. He would further submit that no injuries have been found on the body of the victim and even no sign of any protest or struggle were noticed by the doctor when she produced before the doctor for her medical examination on 04-04-2019 whereas in the second time she produced before gychonologist on 12-04-2019 and her hymen was found intact. He would further submit that although the vaginal slides were found positive and presence of semen were found, but no DNA test was conducted to connect the appellant with the semen present on the vaginal swab of the victim. The conduct of the victim itself is doubtful that she allegedly subjected to rape by the appellant, but she did not disclose the incident to anyone. She had gone to school for whole of the 6 day, but she even did not disclose it to her friends and not informed them that she was subjected to rape by the appellant. He would also submit that it was a market day and the place where the alleged incident has occurred and number of persons may have present there at the time of alleged incident that too in 10:00 a.m. and in the village market place the persons are gathered at that time, but no one has seen the appellant near the place of incident. It is also submitted by him that aunt of the victim who allegedly seen the appellant in the house of the victim has not been examined and therefore, there are inconsistent and insufficient evidence produced by the prosecution to hold guilt of the appellant in the offence in question. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt and for acquittal. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that there is no reason for false implication of the appellant in the offence in question. The victim has clearly deposed that the appellant came to her house and committed rape upon her. The evidence of the victim is not required to be corroborated by any other evidence and she remained firm in her evidence that the appellant has committed rape upon her. He would further submit that it is not necessary in all cases that injuries should have been found on body of victim and it depends upon facts of each case. The victim was found to be minor on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution, i.e. her birth certificate, ossification test report as also the school records. The minor victim was subjected to rape by the appellant has duly been considered 7 by the learned trial Court after appreciating the entire evidence available on record which is neither perverse nor contrary to the facts available in the case. Therefore, the appeal has no merits and is liable to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 10. The first and foremost question raises for consideration would be age of the victim as to whether on the date of incident the victim was less than 18 years of age or not. 11. The prosecution has mainly relied upon the school register, birth certificate and the ossification test report of the victim. The school register Ex.-P/23C and school admission and discharge certificate Ex.- P/24 is sought to be proved by PW-11, who is Head Master of the school. He stated in his evidence that the police has seized the school register from him vide seizure memo Ex.-P/22. He issued the attested true copy of the school register which is Ex.-P/23C and admission and discharge certificate Ex.-P/24. According to the school register the date of birth of the victim is recorded as 29-01-2003. In cross-examination he stated that at the time of her admission in the school, her birth certificate, Anganbadi certificate or even any hospital certificate have not been produced. They usually recorded the date of birth of the child on the information given by their parents and if their parents were unable to give any date of birth, they recorded their date of birth on assumption. He further stated that he did not know as to whether the date of birth of the victim recorded in the school register is correct or 8 not. From the evidence of this witness it does not appear that he is author of the school register as he has not stated that he made entry in the school register Ex.-P/23C. The basis on which the date of birth of the victim has been recorded in the school register has also not been produced by the prosecution as this witness has admitted that at the time of her admission in the school her birth certificate, hospital certificate or Anganbadi certificate has not been produced. Therefore, on the basis of principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 40, 42, 43, 44 and 48 of its judgment in Alamelu and Another Vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police, 2011(2) SCC 385 and in other judgments passed in the matter of Rishipal Singh Solanki Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2022 (8) SCC 602 and P. Yuvaprakash Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, 2023 (SCC Online) SC 846, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved the school record of the victim that her date of birth was correctly recorded in it, which can be made basis for determination of her age. 12. The other limb of proof of age of the victim is ossification test report of the victim which has been conducted by PW-16, Doctor Kamal Kant Sori. He stated in his evidence that he is posted as radiologist at District Hospital Kanker. On 10-04-2019 he conducted X-ray examination of the joints of various bones of the victim and after detailed examination of joints of various bones he opined that radiological age of the victim is 15 to 17 years and his X-ray report is Ex.-P/32. In his cross-examination he admitted that the development of joints is depend upon the climate and 9 nurture. He further admitted that there may be variation of two years in either side on the age determined by him. Although PW-16 Doctor Kamal Kant Sori has opined the variation of two years on either side is available, but his evidence can be looked into with a view of the birth certificate of the victim, the Article A1. Another piece of evidence with respect to the age of the victim is her birth certificate A/1(C) which is proved by the father of the victim PW-1. He stated in his evidence in para 13 that the birth certificate of the victim is Article A/1 which has been seized by the police. From perusal of the seizure memo Ex.-P/4 it appears that the birth certificate of the victim was seized on 04-04-2019 itself and copy of which is available in the case which marked as Article A/1 on which it appears that birth certificate was issued on 27-04-2005 by the Department of Planning, Economic and Statistics, State of C.G. in which the date of birth of the victim has recorded 29-01-2003. In cross-examination it is only asked from this witness that it was given to the police on the date when he had gone to the Police Station on the first occasion. The entries made in the birth certificate Article A/1 has not been challenged by the defence. In absence of any challenge to the entries of the birth certificate or date of birth of the victim recorded in birth certificate A/1C it is very difficult to disbelieve it. Under the provisions of the Section 35 of the Evidence Act, which provides that the entries made in public record in performance of official duty is relevant fact. The said birth certificate was issued on the basis of the record available with the Department of Planning, Economic and Statistics, State of C.G. and based on which 10 the said certificate was issued in discharge of official duty and the entries have not been challenged by the defence, therefore, the date of birth recorded in the said birth certificate Article A/1C is to be read with the age shown in the ossification test report Ex.-P/32 and from conjoint reading of both these documents, it is quite vivid that as per the date of birth recorded in birth certificate Article A/1C age of the victim comes to 16 years 2 months and as per Ossification test report Ex.-P/32 she is in between 15 to 17 years, which is corroborative piece of evidence and could not be rebutted by the defence in the cross-examination of the witnesses, therefore, it is very difficult for this Court to hold that the prosecution is not able to prove the fact that the victim was minor on the date of incident. The learned trial Court has recorded finding after considering the entire evidence available on record with respect to the age and date of birth of the victim and this Court also in agreement with the finding recorded by the trial Court that on the date of incident the victim was minor and less than 18 years of age. 13. So far as allegation of rape against he appellate is concerned, I again examine the evidence of the victim PW-10. The victim PW-10 has stated in her evidence that she knew the appellant. On 03-04-2019 at about 6:00 a.m. her parents have gone to field to collect Mahua flower and at about 7:00 a.m. her younger sister had gone to school and she was alone in her house. At about 10:00 a.m., the appellant came to her house and asked for Bhuinim, when she denied by having the same he asked for liquor. She again refused that she is not having any liquor and then the appellant caught hold her hand, closed the door of the house 11 and after removing her clothes committed rape upon her. He gagged her mouth by one hand. After commission of rape upon her he fled away from the place by saying that not to disclose the incident to anyone. At about 1:00 p.m. she had gone to school and at about 4:00 p.m. when she returned back from the school, the appellant again came to her house and enquired about the incident that she disclosed the incident to her uncle or not. At that time, she came out from house and started weeping and at that time her neighbour came there, asked about the reason for her weeping and then she disclosed about the incident. At abut 5:00 p.m. her parents came from the field and asked them about anything wrong with her in the house as she was weeping then she disclosed the incident to her parents. Thereafter, her other family members were called and she disclosed the entire incident to her family members and lodged the report. In cross-examination she stated that at the time of incident when she tried to shout the appellant gagged her mouth. Before proceeding to school, she has not disclosed the incident to anyone of her neighbours or the village persons even in the school she has not disclosed the incident to anyone. Further, when she came back from her school, then also she has not disclosed the incident to anyone. She also admitted that after taking bath and after changing her clothes she had gone to school . The date of incident was a market day of the village and the market was about to start running nearby her house as her house is also situated adjoining to the place of market on the main road and the villagers are used to passing through of her house. She also admitted that her house is adjoining to the house of 12 other villagers. She also stated that she has not disclosed the incident to her friends who were studying with her. She further admitted in her evidence that the appellant has not tied her hand and legs and she has not received any injuries on her body. She had not tried to save herself by giving nail scratch mark or teeth bite on his body even she has not kicked the appellant at the time of incident. She admitted that when she disclosed the incident to her parents they have not called the appellant to ask about the incident. She further admitted that the villagers have discussed and thereafter, lodged the report against the appellant. When the question is asked from her that whether her salwar and kurti were torn or not she answered that prior to the incident her salwar and kurti were not torn, but when the appellant removed clothes her kurti was torn. The appellant was stayed in her house for about 1 hour. She further admitted that if she raised her alarm or shouted from her house it would be heard by her neighbours. From the evidence of the victim, her conduct is appears to be against her normal behaviour because if any one is subjected to rape, she would have disclosed the incident immediately to any of her family member or her neighbour. In the present case, the place of incident is situated in dense locality that too on the main road where people are gathering for market. She has not disclosed about the incident to any one immediately and had gone to her school. Even in her school, she has not disclosed the incident to her friends which is not her normal conduct because a person is closest with her friends than her parents and discussed about everything with them, instead of discussing the 13 same with their parents, but in the present case she has not discussed anything with her friends. The conduct of the victim appears to be suspicious for the reason also the no external injuries on her body and as per her evidence she has not tried to protest, there is no sign of struggle on her body and she admittedly not given any nail scretch mark or teeth bite on the body of the appellant. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, 2020 (3) SSC 443, in which it was observed as under: “5.4.2 In the case of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu (supra), this Court had an occasion to consider who can be said to be a “sterling witness”. In paragraph 22, it is observed and held as under: “22 In our considered opinion, the “sterling witness” should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross- examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a “sterling witness” whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version 14 in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.” 15. The version of the victim commands great respect and acceptability, but if there are some circumstances which cast some doubt in the mind of the court on the veracity of the victim’s evidence, then it will not be safe to rely on the said version of the victim. There is contradiction and omissions in the statement of the victim and her parents. The law is well settled that in case of rape, conviction can be maintained even on the basis of sole testimony of the victim. However, there is an important caveat which is that the testimony of the victim must inspire confidence. Even though the testimony of the victim is not required to be corroborated, if her statement is not believable, then the accused cannot be convicted. The prosecution has to bring home the charges levelled against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt, which the prosecution has failed to do in the instant case. 16. PW-1 father of the victim has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident when he returned back to his house at evening at about 05:00 p.m. the victim discussed the incident to him then he called his other family members, the he lodged the report. In his cross- examination he admitted that the appellant is the resident of the same village and he came to his house once or twice on the ground that he is also resident of same vicinity. He further admitted that the appellant is his class fellow and they have studied together. He too has admitted that his house is adjoining to the place of market and situated in the 15 dense locality where the houses of others are situated. He admitted in para 8 of his cross-examination that when they came to know about the incident they enquired from their neighbours about the incident, but they denied about any information about incident. He also admitted that he has not written the report Ex.-P/1 and only signed it. On the instance of police he has signed the papers in the police station without reading it. He further admitted in his cross-examination that they often used to sale liquore when they prepare the liquor in the house. He also admitted that the appellant has also purchased liquor from them on one or two occasions, he further admitted that his daughter has not informed about the fact that the appellant has caught hold her. He further admitted that since they were not present in their house at the time of alleged incident, therefore, they did not tell as to what happened on that day. 17. PW-2 elder sister of the victim has stated in her evidence that on the date of incident when she returned back to her house in the evening the victim disclosed about the incident that the appellant has committed rape upon her. In her cross-examination she too has admitted that their house is situated in the dense locality in the village which is situated on the main road adjoining to the market area. She also admitted that if anyone would shout from her house, it would be clearly heard by her neighbours. She also admitted that their neighbours have disclosed that they have not heard any noise of the victim. She also admitted that the victim has disclosed that when the appellant came to her house and caught hold her hand she shouted and then the appellant fled away 16 from the place. She disclosed in her evidence that the victim has received injuries on her back waist and elbows which has been seen by her. She also admitted that the victim has not disclosed the incident to anyone and to anywhere. Even she has not disclosed the incident when they were in their filed. 18. PW-3, mother of the victim has stated in her evidence that when they returned from their filed in the evening the victim has disclosed about the incident. Thereafter, they called other family members and lodged the report. In cross-examination she too has admitted the situation of their house that it was in dense locality nearby the place of market. She too has admitted that their neighbours have not disclosed about hearing of any noise of the victim. She too has stated that her daughter has received injuries on her waist, elbow, neck and back. The clothes of the victim has been seized by the police on the date of lodging of the report itself. 19. PW-4, maternal grand father of the victim has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident he was in his filed and cutting his crop. In the evening, on being called by father of the victim he went to his house and came to know about the incident that the appellant has committed rape upon her. Thereafter, his other family members were called and after discussing with them, they lodged the report. In cross- examination he stated that the police has not recorded his statement and he has not given any statement to the police and he has given statement fr the first time before the Court. 17 20. PW-5, Sunder Singh and PW-6 Mukesh Kumar Nagesh, Kotwar of the village are the witnesses who had gone to the house of the victim when they have called by their family members, they were also informed about the incident by the family members and they have also stated that the neighbors of the victim have not disclosed about hearing of any noise at the relevant point of time. They are witnesses to the fact whatever discussed to them by family members of the victim. 21. So far as presence of semen and sperms in the vaginal swab of the victim is concerned, it is not found proved from the evidence available on record that it was the semen and sperm of appellant. Further, in view of the amendment incorporated in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by new Section 53 (A) by which the obligation was imposed upon the prosecuting agency to conduct DNA test of rape accused which came into force with effect from 23-06-2006 to connect the appellant in the offence in question. In the present case there is no DNA test conducted by the prosecution and therefore, in view of the provisions of section 53(A) of the Cr.P.C. if the prosecution has not conducted the DNA test of the appellant, it may face the consequence and for that reason also even if semen and sperms were found on vaginal swab of the victim it cannot connect with that of semen and sperms of the appellant. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130 held that:- “44. Now, after the incorporation of Section 53 (A) in the Criminal Procedure Code, w.e.f. 23.06.2006, brought to our notice by 18 learned counsel for the respondent State, it has become necessary for the prosecution to go in for DNA test in such type of cases, facilitating the prosecution to prove its case against the accused. Prior to 2006, even without the aforesaid specific provision in CrPC the prosecution could have still resorted to this procedure of getting the DNA test or analysis and matching of semen of the appellant with that found on the undergarments of the prosecutrix to make it a foolproof case, but they did not do so, thus they must face the consequences.” 22. From close scrutiny of the evidence led by the prosecution it is clear that though the victim has stated that she raised alarm and shouted when the appellant caught hold her hand, but none of the witnesses have stated that they heard any noise from the house of the victim. No any neighgbour has been examined, further the aunt of the victim who had seen the appellant in the house of the victim in the evening time has not been examined by the prosecution. They have not called the appellant to ask about the incident. Under the facts and circumstance of the case as well as the evidence of the victim and other witnesses, the evidence of the victim cannot be held to be sterling witness and as there are material discrepancies in her evidence and her behaviour is suspicious. Although the victim was found to be minor on the date of incident, but the involvement of the appellant in the ofenece in question could not be established by the prosecution by leading cogent and cinching evidence which unerringly, pointed out towards guilt of the appellant. 23. In view of the aforementioned discussions, the prosecution could 19 not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant and he is entitled for benefit of doubt and by giving benefit of doubt his appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellant is set aside and he is acquitted from all the alleged offences. The appellant is reported to be in jail since 04-04-2019. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 24. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 25. The record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent back to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil