CRA-S-1921 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 1. Jasvir Singh and another State of Punjab 2. Ravi State of Punjab 3. Sawarn Singh @ Bobby State of Punjab CORAM: Present:-. KIRTI SINGH, J. aforementioned appeals 1921-SB-2004 (O&M) and connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA Reserved on: Pronounced on Jasvir Singh and another Versus Punjab CRA Versus State of Punjab CRA Sawarn Singh @ Bobby Versus State of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate, Mr. Naresh Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Jagdeep Singh, Advocae and Mr. Arshdeep Singh Brar, Advocate for the appellant(s) in CRA-S Mr. Sakal Sikri, Advocate for the appellant(s) in CRA-S-1860-SB-2004. None for the appellant in CRA Ms. Guramrit Kaur, DAG, Punjab. ***** KIRTI SINGH, J. This common judgment aforementioned appeals, as they stem from the same 2004 (O&M) and connected cases - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH CRA-S-1921-SB-2004 (O&M) Reserved on: 02.05.2025 Pronounced on: 28.05.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) CRA-S-1869-SB-2004 (O&M) ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) CRA-S-1860-SB-2004 (O&M) ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Mr. Naresh Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Jagdeep Singh, Advocae and Mr. Arshdeep Singh Brar, Advocate S-1921-SB-2004. Mr. Sakal Sikri, Advocate for the appellant(s) None for the appellant in CRA-S-1869-SB-2004. Ms. Guramrit Kaur, DAG, Punjab. of mine shall decide the , as they stem from the same FIR No.54, dated shall decide the , dated KAPIL 2025.05.29 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1921 20.03.2003 Police Station extracted from 2. conviction and order of sentence dated Additional Sessions Judge Rupnagar, whereby the appellants w offence punishable undergo imprisonment Sentence under Section 366 IPC 376 IPC run concurrently. Factual Matrix 3. that on 28.02.2003, the prosecutrix brother's wife) items. As while they were returning to their residence white Ambassador car approached and stopped in front of them. son of Gurdial Singh, resident of Village Bahadurpur, was driving the said car, and Ravi was seated beside him. Ravi then forcibly grabbed prosecutrix by the arm and 1921-SB-2004 (O&M) and connected cases 20.03.2003, under Sections 341, 376, 506 and 34 Police Station Sadar Ropar. For the sake of from CRA-S-1921-SB-2004. Instant appeal has been preferred conviction and order of sentence dated 10.09.2004 Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Rupnagar, whereby the appellants were punishable under Sections 366, 37 imprisonment along with fine as under: under Section Sentenced to RI Fine RI for 03 years Rs.10 RI for 10 years Rs.2,000/ Learned Trial Court has ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. Factual Matrix The brief facts of the case, as revealed from the record, are on 28.02.2003, the prosecutrix along with her sis brother's wife) went to the Ropar market to purchase some household they turned towards a small bridge near the Ropar Head Works they were returning to their residence white Ambassador car approached and stopped in front of them. son of Gurdial Singh, resident of Village Bahadurpur, was driving the said car, and Ravi was seated beside him. Ravi then forcibly grabbed prosecutrix by the arm and forced her to sit inside the car. When her 2004 (O&M) and connected cases - 2- 341, 376, 506 and 34 IPC, registered at For the sake of brevity the facts are being preferred against the judgment of 10.09.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, held guilty for commission of under Sections 366, 376 and 34 IPC and sentenced to along with fine as under:- In default of payment of fine Rs.1000 each/- RI for 03 months ,000/- RI for 01 year Learned Trial Court has ordered that both the sentences shall The brief facts of the case, as revealed from the record, are along with her sister-in-law (her went to the Ropar market to purchase some household they turned towards a small bridge near the Ropar Head Works they were returning to their residence in Village Katli on foot, a white Ambassador car approached and stopped in front of them. Bobby, son of Gurdial Singh, resident of Village Bahadurpur, was driving the said car, and Ravi was seated beside him. Ravi then forcibly grabbed the her to sit inside the car. When her registered at the facts are being against the judgment of the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, for commission of and sentenced to Learned Trial Court has ordered that both the sentences shall The brief facts of the case, as revealed from the record, are law (her went to the Ropar market to purchase some household they turned towards a small bridge near the Ropar Head Works a Bobby, son of Gurdial Singh, resident of Village Bahadurpur, was driving the said the her to sit inside the car. When her KAPIL 2025.05.29 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1921 sister-in-law tried to intervene, the accused threatened the car, compelling the prosecutrix, and the car was Nurpur Bedi. While driving, Bobby made a call from his mobile phone to two other individuals, informing them that the prosecutrix was being taken to the forest. prosecutrix. The two individuals called by Bobby arrived on a scooter and also took turns raping the prosecutrix. further mentioned that after committing the act, Bobby and Ravi abandoned her on the bank of the Sutlej Rive husband, who had been searching for her, reached the spot and the prosecutrix narrated the entire incident to him. He also saw Ravi and Bobby in the car. disclose the i Manjeet Kaur, President of Mahila Mandal, Ropar, and the matter was reported to the police. Her statement was recorded on 20.03.2003, and an FIR was registered at Police Station Sadar Ropar. Investigat 4. the police officials and at one stage the accused innocent and the matter was closed. However, the complainant filed an application before the accused and the matter was again reinvestigated. After investigation, challan against the appellant 1921-SB-2004 (O&M) and connected cases law tried to intervene, the accused threatened compelling her to retreat. Subsequently, Ravi gagged the mouth of the prosecutrix, and the car was driven towards the forest area near Nurpur Bedi. While driving, Bobby made a call from his mobile phone to two other individuals, informing them that the prosecutrix was being taken to the forest. Thereafter, Bobby and Ravi took turns raping the prosecutrix. The two individuals called by Bobby arrived on a scooter and also took turns raping the prosecutrix. In her statement, the complainant further mentioned that after committing the act, Bobby and Ravi abandoned her on the bank of the Sutlej Rive husband, who had been searching for her, reached the spot and the prosecutrix narrated the entire incident to him. He also saw Ravi and Bobby in the car. Out of fear and shame, the prosecutrix did not disclose the incident to anyone immediately. However, later, she met Manjeet Kaur, President of Mahila Mandal, Ropar, and the matter was reported to the police. Her statement was recorded on 20.03.2003, and an FIR was registered at Police Station Sadar Ropar. Investigation Proceedings After registration of the case, the matter was investigated by the police officials and at one stage the accused innocent and the matter was closed. However, the complainant filed an application before the SSP Ropar along with an affidavit against accused and the matter was again reinvestigated. After investigation, challan against the appellant 2004 (O&M) and connected cases - 3- law tried to intervene, the accused threatened to crush her with Subsequently, Ravi gagged the mouth of driven towards the forest area near Nurpur Bedi. While driving, Bobby made a call from his mobile phone to two other individuals, informing them that the prosecutrix was being Thereafter, Bobby and Ravi took turns raping the prosecutrix. The two individuals called by Bobby arrived on a scooter and In her statement, the complainant further mentioned that after committing the act, Bobby and Ravi abandoned her on the bank of the Sutlej River at around 8–9 p.m. Her husband, who had been searching for her, reached the spot on his bicycle, and the prosecutrix narrated the entire incident to him. He also saw Ravi Out of fear and shame, the prosecutrix did not ncident to anyone immediately. However, later, she met Manjeet Kaur, President of Mahila Mandal, Ropar, and the matter was reported to the police. Her statement was recorded on 20.03.2003, and an FIR was registered at Police Station Sadar Ropar. of the case, the matter was investigated by the police officials and at one stage the accused persons were found innocent and the matter was closed. However, the complainant thereafter SSP Ropar along with an affidavit against accused and the matter was again reinvestigated. After completion of investigation, challan against the appellants-accused was presented in the her with Subsequently, Ravi gagged the mouth of driven towards the forest area near Nurpur Bedi. While driving, Bobby made a call from his mobile phone to two other individuals, informing them that the prosecutrix was being Thereafter, Bobby and Ravi took turns raping the prosecutrix. The two individuals called by Bobby arrived on a scooter and In her statement, the complainant further mentioned that after committing the act, Bobby and Ravi 9 p.m. Her , and the prosecutrix narrated the entire incident to him. He also saw Ravi Out of fear and shame, the prosecutrix did not ncident to anyone immediately. However, later, she met Manjeet Kaur, President of Mahila Mandal, Ropar, and the matter was reported to the police. Her statement was recorded on 20.03.2003, and an of the case, the matter was investigated by found thereafter SSP Ropar along with an affidavit against completion of accused was presented in the KAPIL 2025.05.29 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1921 Court. The copies of the relevant documents were supplied to the accused as provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Trial Proceedings 5. Court, the Sessions Court for trial vide commitment order dated 04.02.2004. the commitment of the case, the accused were heard on charges and charges under Sections 341 against the appellants. The charges were read over accused/appellants, to which they pleaded not 6. witnesses i.e. PW Aggarwal, PW3 Constable Satwant Singh, PW6 Nath, PW8 Harbans Singh, the appellant they pleaded not guilty Submissions by learned counsel for the 7. that, upon perusal of the FIR annexed, it is crystal clear that the names of two of the mentioned in the FIR. Neither was there any description of the unnamed accused, nor was any identification parade conducted that could have established the identity or presence of the appellants. 1921-SB-2004 (O&M) and connected cases The copies of the relevant documents were supplied to the accused as provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Trial Proceedings As the offences were exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Ropar committed the case Sessions Court for trial vide commitment order dated 04.02.2004. the commitment of the case, the accused were heard on charges and charges under Sections 341, 34, 366, 376 and 506 IPC were framed the appellants. The charges were read over accused/appellants, to which they pleaded not In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined witnesses i.e. PW1-complainant/prosecutrix, Aggarwal, PW3- Sunita Rani, PW4-Tapin Constable Satwant Singh, PW6- SI Manveer Singh, PW7 Nath, PW8- Manjeet Kaur, PW9- HC Balbir Kumar and PW10 ASI Harbans Singh, besides producing documentary evidence. Statement the appellant-accused under Section 313 Cr.P. they pleaded not guilty. Submissions by learned counsel for the appellant(s) Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that, upon perusal of the FIR annexed, it is crystal clear that the names of of the appellants i.e. Jasvir Singh and Paramjeet Singh mentioned in the FIR. Neither was there any description of the unnamed accused, nor was any identification parade conducted that could have established the identity or presence of the appellants. 2004 (O&M) and connected cases - 4- The copies of the relevant documents were supplied to the accused As the offences were exclusively triable by the Sessions Chief Judicial Magistrate Ropar committed the case to Sessions Court for trial vide commitment order dated 04.02.2004. After the commitment of the case, the accused were heard on charges and , 366, 376 and 506 IPC were framed the appellants. The charges were read over and explained to the accused/appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 10 complainant/prosecutrix, PW2-Dr. Sangeeta Tapinder Dutt Sharma, PW5- SI Manveer Singh, PW7- Sh. Jatinder HC Balbir Kumar and PW10 ASI besides producing documentary evidence. Statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were also recorded and appellant(s) Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that, upon perusal of the FIR annexed, it is crystal clear that the names of i.e. Jasvir Singh and Paramjeet Singh were not mentioned in the FIR. Neither was there any description of the unnamed accused, nor was any identification parade conducted that could have established the identity or presence of the appellants. In an initial inquiry The copies of the relevant documents were supplied to the accused As the offences were exclusively triable by the Sessions to After the commitment of the case, the accused were heard on charges and , 366, 376 and 506 IPC were framed and explained to the 10 Dr. Sangeeta - Sh. Jatinder HC Balbir Kumar and PW10 ASI of and Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that, upon perusal of the FIR annexed, it is crystal clear that the names of were not mentioned in the FIR. Neither was there any description of the unnamed accused, nor was any identification parade conducted that could have n an initial inquiry KAPIL 2025.05.29 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1921 conducted by the DSP, Ropar, the version of the prosecutrix was found to be false, and a cancellation report was recommended on 21.09.2023. However, based on a complaint subsequently filed by the complainant, the matter was reinvestiga Court. 8. incriminating evidence was brought on record by the prosecution against the appellants. The prosecutrix herself submitted an application to the police on 09.04.2003, exonerating both the appellants and the other co accused. Moreover, not support the case of the prosecution and individuals who committed rape upon her we persons present in Court the persons present in court law of the prosecutrix were declare witnesses failed to support the prosecution’s version of events. It has also been contended that the ocular evidence did not find support in the medical evidence. Dr. Sangeeta Aggarwal (PW examined Anita Rani on body, except for teeth marks on her left breast. During cross the doctor stated that at the time of examination, the prosecutrix was undergoing her menstruation cycle. discrepancies investigating agency stated that when she was dropped of persons, she met her husband who had come searching for her on 1921-SB-2004 (O&M) and connected cases conducted by the DSP, Ropar, the version of the prosecutrix was found to be false, and a cancellation report was recommended on 21.09.2023. However, based on a complaint subsequently filed by the complainant, the matter was reinvestigated, and a challan was presented before the It has further been argued that during the trial, no incriminating evidence was brought on record by the prosecution against the appellants. The prosecutrix herself submitted an application to the ice on 09.04.2003, exonerating both the appellants and the other co Moreover, the prosecutrix in her cross examination not support the case of the prosecution and individuals who committed rape upon her we present in Court, and that she had not filed any complaint against persons present in court. Not only that, even the husband and of the prosecutrix were declared witnesses failed to support the prosecution’s version of events. It has also been contended that the ocular evidence did not find support in the medical evidence. Dr. Sangeeta Aggarwal (PW examined Anita Rani on 20.03.2003, found no external injuries on her body, except for teeth marks on her left breast. During cross the doctor stated that at the time of examination, the prosecutrix was undergoing her menstruation cycle. discrepancies in the statements of the prosecutrix as she before the investigating agency stated that when she was dropped of persons, she met her husband who had come searching for her on 2004 (O&M) and connected cases - 5- conducted by the DSP, Ropar, the version of the prosecutrix was found to be false, and a cancellation report was recommended on 21.09.2023. However, based on a complaint subsequently filed by the complainant, ted, and a challan was presented before the It has further been argued that during the trial, no incriminating evidence was brought on record by the prosecution against the appellants. The prosecutrix herself submitted an application to the ice on 09.04.2003, exonerating both the appellants and the other co- the prosecutrix in her cross examination as PW-1 did not support the case of the prosecution and categorically stated that the individuals who committed rape upon her were different from the accused she had not filed any complaint against that, even the husband and sister-in- as hostile, and other material witnesses failed to support the prosecution’s version of events. It has also been contended that the ocular evidence did not find support in the medical evidence. Dr. Sangeeta Aggarwal (PW-2), who medico-legally 20.03.2003, found no external injuries on her body, except for teeth marks on her left breast. During cross-examination, the doctor stated that at the time of examination, the prosecutrix was Further, there were material s of the prosecutrix as she before the investigating agency stated that when she was dropped of by the accused persons, she met her husband who had come searching for her on his conducted by the DSP, Ropar, the version of the prosecutrix was found to be false, and a cancellation report was recommended on 21.09.2023. However, based on a complaint subsequently filed by the complainant, ted, and a challan was presented before the It has further been argued that during the trial, no incriminating evidence was brought on record by the prosecution against the appellants. The prosecutrix herself submitted an application to the - did categorically stated that the re different from the accused she had not filed any complaint against - , and other material witnesses failed to support the prosecution’s version of events. It has also been contended that the ocular evidence did not find support in the legally 20.03.2003, found no external injuries on her examination, the doctor stated that at the time of examination, the prosecutrix was Further, there were material s of the prosecutrix as she before the by the accused s KAPIL 2025.05.29 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1921 bicycle and she disclosed the entire incident t deposition a incident happened, she did not meet anybody and straight away went home where her husband was present appellants deserve to be acquitt Submissions made by learned State counsel 9. of conviction is based upon proper appreciation of evidence and the prosecution has proved its case against the accused/appellant cogent and convincing evidence. She further submits that there is no infirmity in the has rightly sentenced the appellant Analysis 10. the respective parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 11. delay in lodging the FIR. A perusal of the record indicates that the incident occurred on delay of 20 days, i.e., on 20.0 observed that, given the nature of the offence involving the modesty of a woman, families are often hesitant to approach the police promptl social stigma and concerns about their honour. itself is not sufficient to dent the case against the appellants. 1921-SB-2004 (O&M) and connected cases bicycle and she disclosed the entire incident t deposition as a prosecution witness she stated that after the alleged incident happened, she did not meet anybody and straight away went home where her husband was present. I appellants deserve to be acquitted. Submissions made by learned State counsel Learned State counsel submits that the impugned judgment of conviction is based upon proper appreciation of evidence and the prosecution has proved its case against the accused/appellant cogent and convincing evidence. She further submits that there is no infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court and the has rightly sentenced the appellants. Heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the record with their able assistance. Learned counsel for the appellants has emphasized delay in lodging the FIR. A perusal of the record indicates that the incident occurred on 28.02.2003, whereas the FIR was registered after a delay of 20 days, i.e., on 20.03.2003. The learned Trial Court rightly observed that, given the nature of the offence involving the modesty of a woman, families are often hesitant to approach the police promptl social stigma and concerns about their honour. itself is not sufficient to dent the case against the appellants. 2004 (O&M) and connected cases - 6- bicycle and she disclosed the entire incident to him whereas in her she stated that after the alleged incident happened, she did not meet anybody and straight away went . It is thus submitted that the Submissions made by learned State counsel. submits that the impugned judgment of conviction is based upon proper appreciation of evidence and the prosecution has proved its case against the accused/appellants by leading cogent and convincing evidence. She further submits that there is no passed by the learned Trial Court and the court Heard the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with their able assistance. Learned counsel for the appellants has emphasized on the delay in lodging the FIR. A perusal of the record indicates that the 3, whereas the FIR was registered after a . The learned Trial Court rightly observed that, given the nature of the offence involving the modesty of a woman, families are often hesitant to approach the police promptly due to social stigma and concerns about their honour. The ground of delay by itself is not sufficient to dent the case against the appellants. The other o him whereas in her she stated that after the alleged incident happened, she did not meet anybody and straight away went the submits that the impugned judgment of conviction is based upon proper appreciation of evidence and the by leading cogent and convincing evidence. She further submits that there is no court the learned counsel for the delay in lodging the FIR. A perusal of the record indicates that the 3, whereas the FIR was registered after a . The learned Trial Court rightly observed that, given the nature of the offence involving the modesty of a y due to The ground of delay by The other KAPIL 2025.05.29 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1921 evidence brought on record must be cautiously scrutinized on merits. 12. such her statement is cross examination of PW1 1921-SB-2004 (O&M) and connected cases evidence brought on record must be cautiously scrutinized on The most material witness is the prosecut such her statement is of paramount importance. The relevant part of the cross examination of PW1-prosecutrix is read as under: “ I was not identifying the accused at that time by face. The accused present in the Court are not the person who committed rape upon me and abducted me. Police has not got identified the accused from me. I got recorded name of the accused as suggested by the police. I had not given any accused present today in the Court. I identify the accused today present in the Court and amongst them none has forcibly abducted me nor committed rape upon me. The person those who had committed rape upon me were different who are Court and the police had that the accused today present in the Court never met me nor they ever threatened me, or the present accused ever stopped me on the way. Whate the examination-in-chief was re of police. Re-examination by the Ld. Addl. P.P. It is incorrect that I changed my statement due to the compromise with the accused. It is correct that I have given earlier one affidavit in fav is incorrect that Manjit Kaur recorded in my application as well as in affidavit by me to her (At this stage, Addl. P.P. for the State requested to declare the witness as hostile and allowed him to cross-examine the w is dis-allowed as the witness has supported the prosecution story in her examination fact was suppressed and thus, there is no ground to declare the witness as hostile after her cross examination by the Ld. Defen can be cross-examined by the Addl. P.P. if she was declared hostile during her examination 2004 (O&M) and connected cases - 7- evidence brought on record must be cautiously scrutinized on their own witness is the prosecutrix herself and as paramount importance. The relevant part of the prosecutrix is read as under:- was not identifying the accused at that time by face. The accused present in the Court are not the who committed rape upon me and abducted me. Police has not got identified the accused from me. I got recorded name of the accused as suggested by the given any complaint against the accused present today in the Court. I identify the accused today present in the Court and amongst them none has forcibly abducted me nor committed rape upon me. The person those who had committed rape me were different who are not present in the Court and the police had not arrested them. It is correct that the accused today present in the Court never met me nor they ever threatened me, or the present accused ever stopped me on the way. Whatever I had stated in chief was recorded at the instance examination by the Ld. Addl. P.P. It is incorrect that I changed my statement due to the compromise with the accused. It is correct that I have given earlier one affidavit in favour of accused. It is incorrect that Manjit Kaur recorded in my application as well as in affidavit whatever was stated by me to her (At this stage, Addl. P.P. for the State requested to declare the witness as hostile and allowed examine the witness). Heard. The request allowed as the witness has supported the prosecution story in her examination-in chief and no fact was suppressed and thus, there is no ground to declare the witness as hostile after her cross- examination by the Ld. Defence counsel. The witness examined by the Addl. P.P. if she was declared hostile during her examination-in-chief). own herself and as paramount importance. The relevant part of the was not identifying the accused at that time by face. The accused present in the Court are not the who committed rape upon me and abducted me. Police has not got identified the accused from me. I got recorded name of the accused as suggested by the against the accused present today in the Court. I identify the accused today present in the Court and amongst them none has forcibly abducted me nor committed rape upon me. The person those who had committed rape present in the arrested them. It is correct that the accused today present in the Court never met me nor they ever threatened me, or the present accused stated in corded at the instance It is incorrect that I changed my statement due to the compromise with the accused. It is correct that I our of accused. It is incorrect that Manjit Kaur recorded in my whatever was stated by me to her (At this stage, Addl. P.P. for the State requested to declare the witness as hostile and allowed itness). Heard. The request allowed as the witness has supported the in chief and no fact was suppressed and thus, there is no ground to - witness examined by the Addl. P.P. if she was KAPIL 2025.05.29 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1921 13. prosecutrix. She the stance after committing rape upon her, the accused persons dropped her at Head Works, Ropar at about 8 Court, she stated that FIR, it was stated by the prosecutrix that after committing rape, the accused persons dropped her at Head Works, met her and she narrated the entire incident to him statement before the trial Court when the accused persons dropped her after committing rape upon her, nobody met her and she had gone to her house by foot was present. It was also stated that she that had taken place. aforesaid material contradictions made by the prosecutrix in her statement before the police and in the statement recorded before the trial Court PW-1. This Court does not dispute the settled proposition of law that minor contradictions and inconsistencies the prosecution version possible for contradiction in her examination cross-examination, accused persons present in the Court were not rape upon her and 1921-SB-2004 (O&M) and connected cases There are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix. She stepped into the witness box as PW stance in the FIR. However, in the FIR, after committing rape upon her, the accused persons dropped her at Head Works, Ropar at about 8-9 PM whereas in the statement before the trial Court, she stated that she was dropped at 10/11 P.M. Furthermore, in the FIR, it was stated by the prosecutrix that after committing rape, the accused persons dropped her at Head Works, met her and she narrated the entire incident to him statement before the trial Court as a prosecution witness when the accused persons dropped her after committing rape upon her, nobody met her and she had gone to her house by foot present. It was also stated that she did not informe him of the incident that had taken place. The trial Court has gravely erred in ignoring the aforesaid material contradictions made by the prosecutrix in her statement before the police and in the statement recorded before the trial Court 1. This Court does not dispute the settled proposition of law that contradictions and inconsistencies, the prosecution version, need to be ignored. possible for this Court to adopt such an approach because there is a major contradiction in the prosecution story. Further, t in her examination-in-chief supported the prosecution version but in her examination, she retracted from her earlier stance and said accused persons present in the Court were not rape upon her and that she had named the accused persons in the FIR on 2004 (O&M) and connected cases - 8- There are material contradictions in the statements of the stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and corroborated However, in the FIR, the prosecutrix stated that after committing rape upon her, the accused persons dropped her at Head 9 PM whereas in the statement before the trial he was dropped at 10/11 P.M. Furthermore, in the FIR, it was stated by the prosecutrix that after committing rape, the accused persons dropped her at Head Works, Ropar where her husband met her and she narrated the entire incident to him whereas in her as a prosecution witness, she stated that when the accused persons dropped her after committing rape upon her, nobody met her and she had gone to her house by foot, where her husband did not informe him of the incident The trial Court has gravely erred in ignoring the aforesaid material contradictions made by the prosecutrix in her statement before the police and in the statement recorded before the trial Court as 1. This Court does not dispute the settled proposition of law that which do not go to the root of need to be ignored. But in this case, it is not h an approach because there is a major Further, though PW-1/prosecutrix chief supported the prosecution version but in her she retracted from her earlier stance and said that accused persons present in the Court were not the ones who committed named the accused persons in the FIR on There are material contradictions in the statements of the rated that after committing rape upon her, the accused persons dropped her at Head 9 PM whereas in the statement before the trial he was dropped at 10/11 P.M. Furthermore, in the FIR, it was stated by the prosecutrix that after committing rape, the Ropar where her husband her , she stated that when the accused persons dropped her after committing rape upon her, her husband did not informe him of the incident The trial Court has gravely erred in ignoring the aforesaid material contradictions made by the prosecutrix in her statement as 1. This Court does not dispute the settled proposition of law that which do not go to the root of n this case, it is not h an approach because there is a major 1/prosecutrix chief supported the prosecution version but in her that who committed named the accused persons in the FIR on KAPIL 2025.05.29 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1921 the suggestion of sexually assaulted, the most material witne as such, her statement inspire confidence, which is credibility of the prosecutrix stands shaken inconsistencies and discrepancies in her statements Singh v. State observed as under: 1921-SB-2004 (O&M) and connected cases the suggestion of the investigating agency sexually assaulted, the most material witne as such, her statement is of the paramount importance and the same inspire confidence, which is not so in the present case, given that the credibility of the prosecutrix stands shaken inconsistencies and discrepancies in her statements State of Bihar, (2018) 6 SCC 433 as under:- “22……..Hardly, one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain exaggerations, embroideries or embellishments. It is the duty of the Court to scrutinise and, in terms of felicitous metaphor, separate from the chaff. But, it cannot obviously disbelieve the substratum of the or the material parts of the evidence and reconstruct a story of its own out of the rest. Efforts should be made to find the truth. This is the very object for which Courts are created. To search it out, disperse the suspicious cloud and dust out as all these things clog the very truth. So long as chaff, cloud and dust remain, the criminals are clothed with this protective layer to receive the solemn duty of the Courts, not to merely conclude and leave the case the moment suspicions are created. It is the onerous duty of the Court, within permissible limits to find out the truth. It means, man should be punished, but person committing an offence should go scot free. If in spite of such effort suspicion is not dissolved, it remains 2004 (O&M) and connected cases - 9- the investigating agency. In a case where a woman is sexually assaulted, the most material witness is the prosecutrix herself and is of the paramount importance and the same must in the present case, given that the credibility of the prosecutrix stands shaken due to the various inconsistencies and discrepancies in her statements. In Kameshwar (2018) 6 SCC 433, Hon'ble Supreme Court has Hardly, one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggerations, embroideries or embellishments. It Court to scrutinise the evidence carefully felicitous metaphor, separate the grain chaff. But, it cannot obviously the prosecution case evidence and reconstruct a rest. Efforts should be made to very object for which Courts are created. To search it out, the Court has to suspicious cloud and dust out the smear of dust, very truth. So long as chaff, cloud criminals are clothed with this the benefit of doubt. So, it is a Courts, not to merely conclude and moment suspicions are created. It Court, within permissible limits to on one hand that no innocent man should be punished, but on the other hand to see no person committing an offence should go scot free. such effort suspicion is not dissolved, it remains . In a case where a woman is ss is the prosecutrix herself and must in the present case, given that the due to the various Kameshwar , Hon'ble Supreme Court has Hardly, one comes across a witness whose untruth or at any rate exaggerations, embroideries or embellishments. It evidence carefully grain chaff. But, it cannot obviously prosecution case evidence and reconstruct a rest. Efforts should be made to very object for which Courts are Court has to dust, very truth. So long as chaff, cloud criminals are clothed with this doubt. So, it is a Courts, not to merely conclude and moment suspicions are created. It Court, within permissible limits to one hand that no innocent to see no person committing an offence should go scot free. such effort suspicion is not dissolved, it remains KAPIL 2025.05.29 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1921 14. record. The relevant extract of the evidence of PW Aggarwal is reproduced as below: 1921-SB-2004 (O&M) and connected cases writ at large, benefit of to the accused. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness and once stands satisfied, it ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the It would also be apposite to examine the medical evidence . The relevant extract of the evidence of PW Aggarwal is reproduced as below:- “On 20.03.2003, I was working as E.M.O. on that day on the application of IO Mark medico legal examination of Axxxx to me vide order Ex.PD. I identify and signatures of Dr. Amarjit C.H. Ropar. On 20.03.2003 I conducted medico legal examination of Axxxx wife of xxxx aged 28 years R/o Village Katli, Tehsil and District Ropar. The patient gives alleged history of being given a lift by four persons on 28.02.2003 in t evening and taken to Nurpur Bedi and assaulted sexually. The patient was had tubectomy done four years ago. The previous L.M.P. was on 7.2.2003 and her last L.M.P. was 20.3.2003. The patient was conscious well oriented talking relevantly. Clothes changed since the incident. Externally there were teeth marks on left breasts on under side seen. No other external marks on injury. On pelvic examination, seen. Hymen ruptured, admits two fingers easily. Uterus anteverted multi parous size. Fornices clear vaginum was present cervical (Test tube A) Vaginal or posterior for mix swab(c) and pubic hair with were taken. All these were sent to Chemical 2004 (O&M) and connected cases - 10- of doubt has to be credited evidence is to be considered stworthiness and once the same stands satisfied, it ought to inspire the Court to accept the evidence.” to examine the medical evidence on . The relevant extract of the evidence of PW-2 Dr. Sangeeta On 20.03.2003, I was working as E.M.O. on that day on the application of IO Mark-A, SMO CH Ropar marked medico legal examination of Axxxx to me vide order Ex.PD. and signatures of Dr. Amarjit Singh the then SMO, On 20.03.2003 I conducted medico legal examination of Axxxx wife of xxxx aged 28 years R/o Village Katli, Tehsil and District Ropar. The patient gives alleged history of being given a lift by four persons on 28.02.2003 in the and taken to Nurpur Bedi and assaulted sexually. was had tubectomy done four years ago. The 2.2003 and her last L.M.P. was ent was conscious well oriented talking d since the incident. Externally there were teeth marks on left breasts on under side seen. No other external marks on injury. On pelvic examination, no injury to perineum was seen. Hymen ruptured, admits two fingers easily. Uterus size. Fornices clear-Bleeding per vaginum was present cervical (Test tube A) Vaginal or for mix swab(c) and pubic hair with vulval swab (b) were taken. All these were sent to Chemical Examiner doubt has to be credited evidence is to be considered same stands satisfied, it ought to inspire on geeta On 20.03.2003, I was working as E.M.O. on that day A, SMO CH Ropar marked medico legal examination of Axxxx to me vide order Ex.PD. Singh the then SMO, On 20.03.2003 I conducted medico legal examination of Axxxx wife of xxxx aged 28 years R/o Village Katli, Tehsil and District Ropar. The patient gives alleged history he and taken to Nurpur Bedi and assaulted sexually. was had tubectomy done four years ago. The 2.2003 and her last L.M.P. was ent was conscious well oriented talking d since the incident. Externally there were teeth marks on left breasts on under side seen. No was seen. Hymen ruptured, admits two fingers easily. Uterus Bleeding per vaginum was present cervical (Test tube A) Vaginal or vulval swab (b) Examiner KAPIL 2025.05.29 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1921 1921-SB-2004 (O&M) and connected cases Patiala enclosed in a cardboard box with ten seals and sample seal and letter to Chemical Examiner sent in an envelop with five seals. I have brought the original M.L.R. register with me and Ex.PF is the true carbon copy of the M.L.R. of patent xxxx and the same is in my hand and bears my After received report of the C.E. Ex.PG, I have my opinion in this case which is Ex.PH, on the request of IO mark 3.1.2004. Xxxxxx by Shri Shekhar Shula, Adv and Shri D.S. Deol, Adv. It is correct that as per the version given by she is a married woman and having children. It is correct that xxxxxxx did not give the name of accused at the time of her examination by me. It is correct that that the time of examination of xxxxxxx she was undergoing period. It is correct that in the M.L.R. I have not obtained the signatures or thumb impression of of teeth marks on the left breast of of child cannot be ruled out. the influence of other intoxicati forcibly raped in a hard surface come on her body. It is correct that there are chances of suffering injuries on the body the influence of intoxicants during her rape in a hard surface. The injury by teeth on the left breast of ascertained at the time of her examination and due to this reason I have not mentioned the durati M.L.R. I have not given any opinion qua the forcible rape of xxxxxxx. I have given opinion qua the sexual intercourse with xxxxxxx. The period elapsed between the medical examination and sexual intercourse cannot be determined and due to this reason I have not mentioned the same in the 2004 (O&M) and connected cases - 11- Patiala enclosed in a cardboard box with ten seals and sample seal and letter to Chemical Examiner sent in an envelop with the original M.L.R. register with me and Ex.PF is the true carbon copy of the M.L.R. of patent e same is in my hand and bears my signatures. After received report of the C.E. Ex.PG, I have my opinion in this case which is Ex.PH, on the request of IO mark-B on Xxxxxx by Shri Shekhar Shula, Adv and Shri D.S. per the version given by xxxxxxx she is a married woman and having children. It is correct that did not give the name of accused at the time of her examination by me. It is correct that that the time of she was undergoing menstruation . It is correct that in the M.L.R. I have not obtained the signatures or thumb impression of xxxxxxx. The possibility of teeth marks on the left breast of xxxxxxx due to sugging of child cannot be ruled out. If a woman is drugged or under the influence of other intoxication and after that she was forcibly raped in a hard surface then the injuries may not come on her body. It is correct that there are chances of body of a woman if she is not under the influence of intoxicants during her rape in a hard surface. by teeth on the left breast of xxxxxxx could not be ascertained at the time of her examination and due to this reason I have not mentioned the duration of injuries in the M.L.R. I have not given any opinion qua the forcible rape of . I have given opinion qua the sexual intercourse . The period elapsed between the medical examination and sexual intercourse cannot be determined have not mentioned the same in the Patiala enclosed in a cardboard box with ten seals and sample seal and letter to Chemical Examiner sent in an envelop with the original M.L.R. register with me and Ex.PF is the true carbon copy of the M.L.R. of patent . After received report of the C.E. Ex.PG, I have my opinion B on Xxxxxx by Shri Shekhar Shula, Adv and Shri D.S. xxxxxxx she is a married woman and having children. It is correct that did not give the name of accused at the time of her examination by me. It is correct that that the time of nstruation . It is correct that in the M.L.R. I have not obtained the . The possibility due to sugging If a woman is drugged or under and after that she was may not come on her body. It is correct that there are chances of of a woman if she is not under the influence of intoxicants during her rape in a hard surface. could not be ascertained at the time of her examination and due to this on of injuries in the M.L.R. I have not given any opinion qua the forcible rape of . I have given opinion qua the sexual intercourse . The period elapsed between the medical examination and sexual intercourse cannot be determined have not mentioned the same in the KAPIL 2025.05.29 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1921 15. on 20.03.2003, she had conducted medico prosecutrix. Clothes of the prosecutrix were changed since the incident and teeth marks on left breast were seen, however, there were no other external marks of injuries. time of her examination, cycle and the possibility of teeth marks on the left breast of prosecutrix being due to breastfeeding was a married woman having children. opinion qua the opinion was qua sexual intercourse. The learned trial Court while convicting the accused persons has h aforesaid witness while observing that as per chemical examiner report which is Ex.PG, spermatozoa seen on the content of Ex.III and on the basis of this report, Dr. Sangeeta Aggarwal gave her opinion that the possibility of sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out and the absence of injuries on the person of victim is not fatal. However, it has completed brushed aside the fact that medical examination of the prosecutrix was done after 20 days of the incident and by that t changed/washed report of the chemical examiner, reveals that cervical swab, pubic hair with vulval swab and swab from posterior fornix were taken and 1921-SB-2004 (O&M) and connected cases M.L.R. I have directly sent the swabs to the office of Forensic Science Lab, Patiala through a messenger. Thus the said material witness on 20.03.2003, she had conducted medico prosecutrix. Clothes of the prosecutrix were changed since the incident and teeth marks on left breast were seen, however, there were no other external marks of injuries. In her cross-examination, she stated that at the time of her examination, the prosecutrix was going through her menstrual cycle and the possibility of teeth marks on the left breast of prosecutrix due to breastfeeding a child cannot be ruled out, a was a married woman having children. opinion qua the sexual assault committed upon the prosecutrix and her opinion was qua sexual intercourse. The learned trial Court while convicting the accused persons has heavily relied upon the testimony of aforesaid witness while observing that as per chemical examiner report which is Ex.PG, spermatozoa seen on the content of Ex.III and on the basis of this report, Dr. Sangeeta Aggarwal gave her opinion that the y of sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out and the absence of injuries on the person of victim is not fatal. However, it has completed brushed aside the fact that medical examination of the prosecutrix was done after 20 days of the incident and by that t /washed her clothes. Furthermore, a perusal of Ex.PG, which is report of the chemical examiner, reveals that cervical swab, pubic hair with vulval swab and swab from posterior fornix were taken and 2004 (O&M) and connected cases - 12- M.L.R. I have directly sent the swabs to the office of Forensic Science Lab, Patiala through a messenger. Sd/- material witness in this case stated on oath that on 20.03.2003, she had conducted medico-legal examination of the prosecutrix. Clothes of the prosecutrix were changed since the incident and teeth marks on left breast were seen, however, there were no other examination, she stated that at the was going through her menstrual cycle and the possibility of teeth marks on the left breast of prosecutrix child cannot be ruled out, as the prosecutrix The doctor did not give any committed upon the prosecutrix and her opinion was qua sexual intercourse. The learned trial Court while eavily relied upon the testimony of aforesaid witness while observing that as per chemical examiner report which is Ex.PG, spermatozoa seen on the content of Ex.III and on the basis of this report, Dr. Sangeeta Aggarwal gave her opinion that the y of sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out and the absence of injuries on the person of victim is not fatal. However, it has completed brushed aside the fact that medical examination of the prosecutrix was done after 20 days of the incident and by that time, she had her clothes. Furthermore, a perusal of Ex.PG, which is report of the chemical examiner, reveals that cervical swab, pubic hair with vulval swab and swab from posterior fornix were taken and M.L.R. I have directly sent the swabs to the office of stated on oath that legal examination of the prosecutrix. Clothes of the prosecutrix were changed since the incident and teeth marks on left breast were seen, however, there were no other examination, she stated that at the was going through her menstrual cycle and the possibility of teeth marks on the left breast of prosecutrix the prosecutrix any committed upon the prosecutrix and her opinion was qua sexual intercourse. The learned trial Court while eavily relied upon the testimony of aforesaid witness while observing that as per chemical examiner report which is Ex.PG, spermatozoa seen on the content of Ex.III and on the basis of this report, Dr. Sangeeta Aggarwal gave her opinion that the y of sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out and the absence of injuries on the person of victim is not fatal. However, it has completed brushed aside the fact that medical examination of the prosecutrix was ime, she had her clothes. Furthermore, a perusal of Ex.PG, which is report of the chemical examiner, reveals that cervical swab, pubic hair with vulval swab and swab from posterior fornix were taken and KAPIL 2025.05.29 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1921 spermatozoa were seen posterior fornix and woman and therefore, husband cannot be ruled out. There is no medical evidence is available on record to show that DNA of spermatozoa was matched to the accused. It is also admitted fact that DNA test on any of ac persons was not conducted qua which it was expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SCC 130 that provision in the Criminal Procedure Code 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 undergr of the prosecutrix to make it a foolproof case, but they did not do so, thus, they must face the consequence.” 16. statements of PW prosecutrix that at about 8 PM some persons came in a vehicle with muffle abducted her sister abducted her sister cross-examination stated that his sister in law had informed him that Bobby son of Gurdial Singh was driving and Ravi was sitting on the back seat of the ambassador car which was used for the prosecutrix time when the prosecutrix arrived home on the night of the incident. It is 1921-SB-2004 (O&M) and connected cases spermatozoa were seen only on the contents of exhibit III i.e. swab from posterior fornix and not on the other two samples woman and therefore, the possibility of husband cannot be ruled out. There is no medical evidence is available on to show that DNA of spermatozoa was matched to the accused. It is also admitted fact that DNA test on any of ac persons was not conducted qua which it was expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishan Kumar Malik Vs. State of Harya that, “45. .... Prior to 2006, even without the aforesaid specific provision in the Criminal Procedure Code 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 undergr of the prosecutrix to make it a foolproof case, but they did not do so, thus, they must face the consequence.” Still further, the learned trial Court has misread the statements of PW-3 and PW-4 i.e. sister prosecutrix respectively. PW-3, Sunita Rani in her statement had stated that at about 8 PM some persons came in a vehicle with muffle abducted her sister-in-law but she nowhere stated names of persons, who abducted her sister-in-law whereas the husband of examination stated that his sister in law had informed him that Bobby son of Gurdial Singh was driving and Ravi was sitting on the back of the ambassador car which was used for the prosecutrix. There are inconsistencies in the statement of PW time when the prosecutrix arrived home on the night of the incident. It is 2004 (O&M) and connected cases - 13- tents of exhibit III i.e. swab from not on the other two samples. She was a married the possibility of sexual intercourse with her husband cannot be ruled out. There is no medical evidence is available on to show that DNA of spermatozoa was matched to DNA of any of the accused. It is also admitted fact that DNA test on any of accused persons was not conducted qua which it was expressed by the Hon’ble Krishan Kumar Malik Vs. State of Haryana (2011) 7 . Prior to 2006, even without the aforesaid specific provision in the Criminal Procedure Code 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 undergraments of the prosecutrix to make it a foolproof case, but they did not do so, thus, Still further, the learned trial Court has misread the 4 i.e. sister-in-law and husband of the 3, Sunita Rani in her statement had stated that at about 8 PM some persons came in a vehicle with muffled faces and nowhere stated names of persons, who husband of the prosecutrix in his examination stated that his sister in law had informed him that Bobby son of Gurdial Singh was driving and Ravi was sitting on the back of the ambassador car which was used for the abduction of the inconsistencies in the statement of PW-3 qua the time when the prosecutrix arrived home on the night of the incident. It is tents of exhibit III i.e. swab from . She was a married sexual intercourse with her husband cannot be ruled out. There is no medical evidence is available on any of cused persons was not conducted qua which it was expressed by the Hon’ble na (2011) 7 . Prior to 2006, even without the aforesaid specific provision in the Criminal Procedure Code prosecution could have still resorted to this procedure of getting the DNA test or analysis and aments of the prosecutrix to make it a foolproof case, but they did not do so, thus, Still further, the learned trial Court has misread the he 3, Sunita Rani in her statement had stated d faces and nowhere stated names of persons, who in his examination stated that his sister in law had informed him that Bobby son of Gurdial Singh was driving and Ravi was sitting on the back of the 3 qua the time when the prosecutrix arrived home on the night of the incident. It is KAPIL 2025.05.29 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1921 settled law tha corroborate the allegations levelled against the accused such cases extreme care and caution must be exercised does not seem to have done by the learned Trial Court in the present case while convicting the appellants. ignored the aforesaid PW-3 and PW witnesses while convicting the appellants 17. legs and it must prove its case beyond view of the material contradictions prosecution story establish its case beyond shadow of principle of law that if two views are possible, one in favour of the accused and the other adversely against accused must be accepted Conclusion 18. and order of sentence dated 10.09.2004 are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them doubt. The fine amount, if any, deposited by them, be refunded to them i accordance with law. Their personal and surety bonds stand discharged. 19. 1921-SB-2004 (O&M) and connected cases settled law that the testimonies of the hostile wi corroborate the allegations levelled against the accused such cases extreme care and caution must be exercised does not seem to have done by the learned Trial Court in the present case while convicting the appellants. Thus, the learned trial Court totally ignored the aforesaid major and material contradiction in the statements of 3 and PW-4 and wrongly relied upon testimonies of aforesaid witnesses while convicting the appellants-accused herein. It is trite law that case of prosecution has to stand on its own it must prove its case beyond shadow of view of the material contradictions noted hereinabove prosecution story rests on quicksand, as the ish its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt principle of law that if two views are possible, one in favour of the accused and the other adversely against him/her accused must be accepted. Conclusion As an upshot of above, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.09.2004 are set aside. The appellants are of the charges framed against them . The fine amount, if any, deposited by them, be refunded to them i accordance with law. Their personal and surety bonds stand discharged. Resultantly, all the appeals are allowed. 2004 (O&M) and connected cases - 14- the testimonies of the hostile witnesses may be used to corroborate the allegations levelled against the accused persons but in such cases extreme care and caution must be exercised, which prima facie does not seem to have done by the learned Trial Court in the present case Thus, the learned trial Court totally major and material contradiction in the statements of relied upon testimonies of aforesaid accused herein. It is trite law that case of prosecution has to stand on its own shadow of reasonable doubt. In noted hereinabove, the whole , as the prosecution has failed to reasonable doubt. It is a well-settled principle of law that if two views are possible, one in favour of the him/her, the view favouring the he impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.09.2004 are set aside. The appellants are of the charges framed against them by giving them the benefit of . The fine amount, if any, deposited by them, be refunded to them in accordance with law. Their personal and surety bonds stand discharged. appeals are allowed. tnesses may be used to persons but in , which prima facie does not seem to have done by the learned Trial Court in the present case Thus, the learned trial Court totally major and material contradiction in the statements of relied upon testimonies of aforesaid It is trite law that case of prosecution has to stand on its own In the whole prosecution has failed to settled principle of law that if two views are possible, one in favour of the , the view favouring the he impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.09.2004 are set aside. The appellants are by giving them the benefit of n KAPIL 2025.05.29 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1921 20. 21. expiry of period of limitation for filing the appeal(s). Record of the case be sent back to the Court below. 28.05.202 Kapil Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 1921-SB-2004 (O&M) and connected cases Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. The case property, if any, may be dealt with as per rules aft expiry of period of limitation for filing the appeal(s). Record of the case be sent back to the Court below. .2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2004 (O&M) and connected cases - 15- Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. The case property, if any, may be dealt with as per rules after expiry of period of limitation for filing the appeal(s). Record of the case (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No er expiry of period of limitation for filing the appeal(s). Record of the case KAPIL 2025.05.29 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document