Gian Singh and others vs State of Punjab

Muni Lal Verma, J.—Gian Singh appellant was convicted u/s 302, Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to imprisonment for life for causing the murder of Chanan Singh; Dalbir Singh appellant was convicted u/s 325, Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to nine months'' rigorous imprisonment and Tara Singh appellant was convicted u/s 324, Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to six months'' rigorous imprisonment by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar.

In short, the prosecution case is that during consolidation of holdings land, measuring 4 Kanals, 9 Marlas, had been reserved for the Gram Panchayat, Jalalpur Sheron. The said land had bean under the cultivation of the appellants. About six months before the incident, Chanan Singh, since deceased, had ploughed one Kanal out of the said land under the impression that the said land, measuring one Kanal, had been allotted to him. Therefore, the appellants were unhappy with him.

On 25th January 1967, Chanan Singh along with his daughter-Shrimati Chhindo, aged about 16 years, was proceeding towards the house of Lakha Singh, who is his brother. When they neared the drinking well, sunk in the village abadi, the appellants, accompanied by Gurmej Singh (since acquitted) and Kishan Singh (who was convicted u/s 323, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three months'' rigorous imprisonment) emerged out of a lane. Gian Singh, Tara Singh appellants and the said Gurmej Singh were armed with one spear each while Dalbir Singh appellant and Kishan Singh had one dang each. They challenged Chanan Singh and set upon him. Gian Singh appellant hit spear thrust-wise on his (Chanan Singh''s) abdomen and Dalbir Singh, appellant, gave dang blow thrust-wise on his mouth fracturing his upper tooth. Chanan Singh fell on the ground and Kishan Singh dealt two blows with dang to him. Shrimati Chhindo cried for help and Tara Singh appellant struck spear on her head. The cries of Shrimati Chhindo and Chanan Singh attracted Sarv Shrimati Viro and Kashmiro, who are daughters of Chanan Singh, as well as Shamir Singh. On their arrival, the appellants, along with Gurmej Singh and Kishan Singh, went away carrying their weapons. Chanan Singh was carried to his house and Shrimati Chhindo also went with him. Sarv Shrimati Viro and Kashmiro went to the house of their uncle-Lakha Singh and narrated the incident to him. He accompanied them to the house of Chanan Singh and he (Chanan Singh) was removed to Rural Dispensary, Batata. Shrimati Chhindo had also accompanied him. Dr. V.K. Khullar examined the injuries of Chanan Singh as well as the injuries sustained by Shrimati Chhindo. Chanan Singh was admitted as indoor patient in the said dispensary. On 27th January, 1967, Sub-lnspector Balwant Singh, then posted in Police Station, Beas, reached the said Rural Dispensary and Chanan Singh reported the incident to Him. He (Chanan Singh) was then removed to V.J. Hospital, Amritsar, on 28th January, 1967 and was admitted there as indoor patient. He was discharged from there on 6th February, 1967 but was readmitted in the said hospital at Amritsar. On 1st March, 1967 and, died there while under treatment at 12.10 A.M. on 13th March, 1967.

The report made by Chanan Singh, was forwarded by Sub-Inspector Balwant Singh to Police Station, Beas, and he went to the scene of occurrence. He raided the houses of the appellants but they were not present there. They, as well as Gurmej Singh and Kishan Singh, had surrendered before him on 29th January, 1967, Hence, after necessary investigation, the Police, Beas, sent up the appellants, alongwith Gurmej Singh and Kishan Singh, under sections 302, 325, 324, read with 149 and 148, Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate First Class, Amritsar, committed them to the Court of Session to stand trial for the said offences. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, after trial, recorded the conviction and sentence of the appellants as stated above. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentences, the appellants have appealed we have heard the arguments and examined the record.

The facts, that appellants are brothers and Gurmej Singh and Kishan Singh are their collaterals, and during consolidation of holdings land measuring 4 Kanals, 9 Marlas, had been reserved for the Gram Panchayat, Jalalpur Sheron, and had been under the cultivation of the appellants, and that Chanan Singh had died at 12.10 A.M. on 13th March 1967, when he was indoor patient for the treatment of his injuries, in V.J. Hospital, Amritsar, are amply borne out by the evidence present on the record and are not disputed. The prosecution evidence consist of motive, ocular, including dying declaration, medical and abscondence of the appellants.

The motive, as alleged by the prosecution, for the crime is that the appellants were offended against Chanan Singh because about 6 months prior to the incident he (Chanan Singh) had ploughed one Kanal, out of the aforesaid land of the Panchayat which had been under their (the appellants'') cultivation. It is in evidence from Shrimati Chhindo (P. W. 6) that Chanan Singh had cultivated one Kanal out of the land reserved for Panchayat believing that the same had fallen to his share. Teja Singh (P.W. 13) who is Sarpanch, has testified that Gian Singh and Tara Singh appellants had made complaint to him that Chanan Singh (since deceased) and Lakha Singh had cultivated some portion of the land which was reserved for the Panchayat and had been allotted to them for cultivation In dying declaration Exhibit P.N. Chanan Singh had, too, stated that he had ploughed 1 1/2 Kanals out of the aforesaid land reserved for the Panchayat. True, Gurnam Singh Patwari (P. W. 15) maintained that, according to the revenue record whole of the land, measuring 4 Kanals, 9 Marlas, reserved for the Panchayat, had been in cultivation of Milkha Singh from the harvest of Kharif 1963 up to the harvest of Rabi, 1967. The said Milkha Singh is father of the appellants. It is common knowledge that entries relating to the person cultivating a particular land, recorded in Khasra Girdawaris are not readily changed. Further, according to the prosecution evidence, Chanan Singh had ploughed 1 or 1 1/2 Kanals out of the aforesaid land reserve for the Panchayat which had been under the cultivation of the appellants or their father about a few months before the incident. That means that he could have ploughed the said land after the harvest of Kharif, 1966. The incident had taken place on 25th January, 1967 and Chanan Singh died on 13th March, 1967, that is before Khasra Girdawari for Rabi, 1967, was prepared. Therefore, the circumstance that Chanan Singh was not shown in cultivating possession of one Kanal out of the aforesaid land reserved for the Panchayat in the harvest of Kharif, 1966, or in the harvest of Rabi, 1967, does not, in any way, negative the aforesaid statements of Shrimati Chhindo, Teja Singh and Chanan Singh. Land, in these days, is very dear to the agriculturists because of the high prices of foodgrains etc. Therefore, I believing the statements of Shrimati Chhindo, Teja Singh and Chanan Singh, find myself in agreement with the trial Court that the appellants had cause for offence against Chanan Singh because the latter had ploughed a portion of the land reserved for the Gram Panchayat and which had been under their cultivation. So, the appellants could have motive to cause injuries to Chanan Singh. The said motive is, however, not evidence of the guilt of the appellants, but it is relevant and may be kept in view while appreciating the other evidence.

Chanan Singh narrated the story which has been summarised above in Exhibit P. N. on 27th January 1967. After his death, it (Exhibit P. N.) has attained the status of dying declaration and is substantive evidence. A dying declaration is relevant and material evidence in the prosecution of the assailants and a truthful and reliable dying declaration may form the sole basis of conviction. Chanan Singh stated clearly in dying declaration Exhibit P. N. that the appellants, Gurmej Singh and Kishan Singh had set upon him after coming out from a lane and Gian Singh had hit spear on his abdomen while Dalbir Singh hit dang on his mouth and Kishan Singh had dealt two blows with dang to him and that Tara Singh had given a blow with spear on the head of Shrimati Chhindo. It was also stated by him in Exhibit P. N. that Shrimati Chhindo was accompanying him at the time of incident and Sarv Shrimati Viro and Kashmiro, as well as Shamir Singh had been attracted to the scene of incident. There is nothing on the record for doubting the truthfulness of the aforesaid dying declaration (Exhibit P. N.) made by Chanan Singh except that it had been made two days after the incident. The said circumstance that the dying declaration had been made two days after the incident will, however, be kept in view while weighing the evidence and circumstances of the case.

Shrimati Chhindo (P.W. 6) supported the prosecution version in its entirety. She deposed that when she was accompanying her father, the appellants along with Gurmej Singh and Kishan Singh emerged out of a lane and attacked Chanan Singh and that Gian Singh appellant opened the attack by hitting spear on his abdomen and Dalbir Singh gave a dang blow on his face while Kishan Singh delivered two blows with dang to him after his fall. She maintained that when she raised alarm, Tara Singh had given a blow with spear on her head and that Sarv Shrimati Viro and Kashmiro and Shamir Singh had then appeared at the scene of incident. She had sustained incised wound 1" x 1/4" x 1/4" on her head during the incident. So, she is as commonly called, stamped-witness. As such, her presence at the time and scene of incident cannot be doubted. True, she is daughter of the deceased but her aforesaid relationship with the deceased does not render her statement as tainted evidence and, as such, her relationship with the deceased is no ground, much less just, for doubting her veracity. Shamir Singh (P.W. 7) and Shrimati Viro (P.W. 8) corroborated the statement of Shrimati Chhindo as well as the dying declaration Exhibit P.N. by asserting that on hearing the cries of Shrimati Chhindo and Chanan Singh they rushed to the scene of the incident and found Chanan Singh lying on the ground and the appellants and Kishan Singh and Gurmej singh armed with spears and dangs were standing there, and that Tara Singh had given a blow with spear on the head of Shrimati Chhindo in their presence. They also maintained that Shrimati Chhindo was present at the scene of incident. Shrimati Viro added that Chanan Singh was lying injured on the ground when she reached the scene of incident. It is note-worthy that neither Shamir Singh nor Shrimati Viro stated that Gian Singh had hit spear on the abdomen of Chanan Singh in their presence; and they could not state so because the said blow had been given to Chanan Singh by Gian Singh before Shrimati Chhindo raised the alarm. It is, thus, obvious that Shamir Singh and Shrimati Viro have given statements in straight and frank manner Shamir Singh belongs to village Khanpur which is about a mile from village Jalalpur Sheron where the incident had taken place. He explained that he had land located within the limits of the said village Jalalpur Sheron, and that he had gone to the house of Chanan Singh for placing his iron pan which was being used for preparing gur (black sugar), just before the incident and that he had fixed a sugarcane crusher in the said village Jalalpur Sheron. The aforesaid explanation cannot be readily brushed aside as unusual. There is absolutely nothing on the record to show that Shamir Singh had any animus against the appellants or that he was, in any way, thick with the deceased. So, he had no cause or motive to make false statement. His name and the fact that he had appeared at the scene of incident is, as indicated above, recorded in dying declaration Exhibit P.N. It, thus, follows that the ocular testimony as well as dying declaration Exhibit P.N. read consistent and the same do not suffer from any infirmity which can induce me to disbelieve the same.

Dr. V.K. Khullar (P.W. 1) who examined Chanan Singh and Shrimati Chhindo on 25th January 1967 found an incised wound, the dimensions of which have already been noted in the preceding paragraph, on the head of Shrimati Chhindo and he found an incised wound on the right side of the abdomen and three other injuries, including the fracture of the upper right incisor, on the person of Chanan Singh. He added that Chanan Singh remained as indoor patient in Rural Dispensary, Batala, till 28th January, 1967. Dr. Harjinder Singh (P.W. 5) maintained that Chanan Singh was admitted as indoor patient in V.J. Hospital on (sic) January 1967, that he was discharged on 6th February 1967 and was readmitted as indoor patient in V.J. Hospital on 1st March 1967 and that he died at 12.10 A.M. on 13th March 1967 in the aforesaid hospital. Dr. Ved Parkash (P.W. 4) who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Chahan Singh, found in the abdomen mass 6" x 6" in the kidney area below the liver and that the said mass was full of blood and the kidney was lying in it. He testified that Chanan Singh died due to secondary haemorrhage producing shock as a result of subscapsular and perirenal haemotoma which had resulted due to the aforesaid injury and that the same was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. The ocular testimony, as discussed in the preceding paragraph, tells that Gian Singh had given a blow with spear on the abdomen of Chanan Singh and Dalbir Singh appellant struck dang thrust-wise on his mouth fracturing his upper incisor and that Kishan Singh had dealt two blows with dang to him, and Tara Singh had hit spear on the head of Shrimati Chhindo. The medical evidence, discussed above, therefore, reads consistent with the ocular testimony and, lends necessary assurance to the prosecution case.

The Learned Counsel for the appellants challenged their conviction and sentences with the contentions that there had been delay of two days in reporting the incident to the police and that the prosecution witnesses did not explain the injuries sustained by Gian Singh appellant and Gurmej Singh. Relying on the plea of self defence, put-forth by Gian Singh and Gurmej Singh, he argued that the injury or injuries, sustained by Chanan Singh had been caused to him by Gian Singh in exercise of right of defence of body. True, there had been delay of two days in making report of the incident to the police but the said delay is not fatal to the prosecution. It is no doubt a circumstance which has to be taken in view while appreciating the evidence and circumstances of the case. The utmost, that can be urged on the basis of the said delay, is that Chanan Singh had ample time to give twist to the reality and thereby he could depict innocence on his part and throw whole of the blame for the incident on the appellants. But, in view of the facts that there was no bad blood between the parties, but for the incident that Chanan Singh had ploughed no Kanal out of the land of Panchayat which had been in possession of the appellants'' father that the presence of Sarv Shri mati Chhindo and Viro and Shamir Singh at the time of incident is unquestionable and their statements, as well as dying declaration Exhibit P.N. made by Chanan Singh are credible, the delay of two days in making report of the incident to the police is not, in my opinion, sufficient for dismissal of the prosecution case in toto. Dr. Haropinder Singh (P.W. 2) who examined Gurmej Singh (since acquitted) found an incised wound on his right little ringer and two superficial abrasions on his chest on 26th January 1967 and opined that the said injuries were of 24 hours duration. Dr. V.K. Khullar (P.W. 1) found two injuries, including an incised wound, on the person of Gian Singh on 27th January 1967, and opined that the said injuries were of 48 hours duration. Therefore, it can be maintained that Gian Singh appellant as well as Gurmej Singh could have sustained injuries at the time of incident. Though injuries, sustained by an assailant in an incident relating to beating, are not an ingredient of the offence with which he is charged, yet in fairness the prosecution is required to explain the injuries, especially, when the same appear to have been sustained by him at the time of incident. The failure on the part of prosecution to explain the said injuries sustained by the assailant may give rise to an inference that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses may not be wholly true. As such, the Court would, in that situation, scrutinise the evidence and circumstances of the case strictly and make effort to disengage the truth from falsehood. It would, however, be an error to dismiss the prosecution as a whole simply because it (the prosecution) did not explain the injuries sustained by the assailant without making an effort to find out the truth. The plea of defence, as put-forth by Gian Singh appellant and Gurmej Singh (since acquitted) in their statements u/s 342, Criminal Procedure Code, is that it was by chance that Gian Singh, when he was carrying kirpan, met Chanan Singh deceased and Lakha Singh who were armed with takwa and kirpan respectively. At that time, Gurmej Singh appeared from his house empty-handed and Chanan Singh gave a takwa blow from its reverse side on the thigh of Gian Singh and he (Gian Singh) hit kirpan, when it was sheathed, on his (Chanan Singh''s) shoulder. Chanan Singh gave second blow with takwa on his forehead and he (Gian Singh) gave second blow with kirpan to Chanad Singh. Lakha Singh wielded a kirpan blow and Gurmej Singh raised his hand toward off the same as a result of which he sustained injury on his right hand. Since Gian Singh appellant had pleaded the right of defence of body, the onus of proving the circumstances bringing his case within the exception provided in section 100, Indian Penal Code, was upon him, and in the absence of evidence the presumption was against him (vide section 105 of the Evidence Act). The appellants, including Gian Singh, did not produce any evidence to show that the incident had taken place in the manner as put-forth by Gian Singh appellant and Gurmej Singh. It may not be disputed that it was not necessary for Gian Singh appellant to produce evidence in support of the version stated by him and Gurmej Singh, and the burden of proof could be discharged otherwise then by producing evidence in defence and that the quantum of proof required u/s 105, Evidence Act, may not be proof beyond reasonable doubt. But, then there must be some reliable evidence, may be in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses or in the circumstances of the case, on the basis of which the plea of right of defence, raised by Gian Singh, should be sustained As indicated above, Shrimati Chindo had sustained an incised wound on her head at the time of incident. The defence version, put-forth by Gian Singh and Gurmej Singh, does not explain her injury. Gian Singh or Gurmej Singh or any other person on their behalf did not make any complaint to any authority, including the Court of Magistrate, for sustaining the injuries. The questions, suggesting the aforesaid defence version addressed to Shrimati Chhindo, were repudiated by her emphatically during cross-examination. Suggestions especially when rebutted, do not constitute evidence. Although, according to the aforesaid defence version. Lakha Singh was with Chanan Singh and he participated in the incident by wielding a kirpan blow which had landed on the right hand of Gurmej Singh, yet no question, suggesting the defence version or even a part of it, was addressed to Lakha Singh (P.W. 11) during cross-examination. Mo explanation for omission to cross-examine him respecting the defence version is forthcoming. I, therefore, find that the record bears no evidence in support of the defence version and, as such, it cannot be maintained that the defence version is proved or is true. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the injury, which had been caused by Gian Singh to Chanan Singh which had ultimately resulted into his death, had been caused by him in exercise of right of private defence.

Now, reading the evidence and circumstances of the case to the highest in favour of the appellants and giving all possible allowance for the delay of two days in making the report and for the failure of the prosecution to explain the injuries found on the persons of Gian Singh and Gurmej Singh, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the appellants, may be with Kishan Singh and Gurmej Singh, met Chanan Singh by chance. Both the parties viz the appellants and their associates-Kishan Singh, Gurmej Singh and Chanan Singh-were armed with weapons and there developed a mutual conflict between them. Though as discussed above the ocular testimony is reliable, yet even if the delay of two days in reporting the incident and failure of explanation of injuries sustained by Gian Singh and Gurmej Singh are read in favour of the appellants, the utmost that can be said is that the prosecution evidence is not very satisfactory as to how the conflict had started and as to who, out of the aforesaid two parties, aggressor. In paragraph 24 of the judgment reported in Jumman and Others Vs. The State of Punjab, , their Lordships of the Supreme Court posed a question that in a case where a mutual conflict develops and there is no reliable and acceptable evidence as to how it started and as to who was the aggressor, would it be correct to assume private defence for both sides? The said question was answered in the nagative by the Supreme Court and it was observed that such a situation does not permit of the plea of private defence on either side and would be a case of sudden fight and conflict and has to be dealt with u/s 300, Indian Penal Code, Exception 4. The authorities, reported in Abdul Razzaq Vs. State, nd Jangi Pathak v. State 1965 (1) Cri. LJ 373, relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the appellants, can be of no help because the facts of the said cases were different. It was found on the facts and the evidence present in Abdul Razzaq''s case (supra) that Reayat Husain was the aggressor and in Jangi Pathak''s case (supra) the prosecution evi-dece was found to be unreliable and the patty of Baldeo deceased was found to be aggressor It has been observed by the Division Bencn of our High Court in Balbir Singh v. The State, Criminal Appeal No. 1039 of 1964 that:-

The law draws a clear distinction regarding a case in which a participant in a fight receives fatal injuries and one in which fatal injuries are not caused. If two parties clash in a sudden fight in which nobody is killed, it is the duty of the Court to determine which party was the aggressor and if this cannot be decided on the evidence produced in the case, the accused party must be given the benefit of doubt regarding having acted in right of self-defence. Where, however, somebody is killed in a sudden fight, and if the responsibility for causing his fatal injuries can be fixed on any individual, that individual becomes guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the Fourth Exception itself provides specifically that in such a case it is immaterial which party struck the first blow or offered the provocation. In other words in the case of a killing in a fight of this kind the law exempts the Court from having to determine the question of which party actually started the fight.

In presence of the aforesaid observation made by the Division Bench of our High Court in Balbir Singh''s case (supra), the contention of the Learned Counsel for the appellants that Gian Singh cannot be convicted for causing the murder of Chanan Singh without a finding that he was the aggressor, is untenable.

''Intention'' or knowledge cannot be proved by direct evidence. The same has to be inferred from the act or conduct of the accused and the surrounding circumstances of the case. Every person is presumed to intend the probable consequences of his act. Abdomen is vital part of human body and spear is a deadly weapon. Gian Singh had given a blow with spear thrust-wise on the abdomen of Chanan Singh. Dr. V.K. Khullar found a big incised wound which was bleeding and gaping on the right side of the abdomen of Chanan Singh on 25th January 1967. Chanan Singh remained as indoor patient in Rural Dispepsary, Batala, from 25th January 1967 to 28th January 1967. He was then removed to V.J. Hospital, where he remained as indoor patient from 28th January 1967 to 6th February 1967. He was readmitted as indoor patient in V.J. Hospital, Amritsar. on 1st March 1967 and died there on 13th March 1967. The statement of Dr. Ved Parkash who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Chanan Singh, when read carefully, leaves no doubt that Chanan Singh had died due to secondary haemorrhage producing shock as a result of subscapsular and perirenal haemotoma which had resulted due to the incised wound sustained on his abdomen and that the said injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his (Chanan Singh''s) death. Therefore, the act of Gian Singh in giving blow on the abdomen of Chanan Singh, which had ultimately resulted into his death, is covered by clause ''thirdly'' of section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. The argument that he might not have the intention to kill him is not acceptable. Illustration (c) appended to the said section which reads as under-

''A'' intentionally gives ''Z'' a sword-cut or club-wound sufficient to cause the death of a man in the ordinary course of nature. ''Z'' dies in consequence. Here '' A'' is guilty of murder, although he may not have intended to cause "Z''s death."

clarifies the position. The Learned Counsel for the appellants argued that Chanan Singh might have suffered infection or the like due to his negligence during the period from 6th February 1967, when he was discharged from V.J. Hospital to 1st March, 1967 when he was readmitted as indoor patient in the said hospital and, as such, Gian Singh could not be held responsible for the result brought by the injury sustained by Chanan Singh on his abdomen. Explanation 2 appended to section 299, Indian Penal Code which reads as under-

where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented.

negatives the said argument. It has been observed in Nga Paw v. Emperor AIR 1936 Rang. 526, that-

Although the injuries caused by the accused were not the direct cause of the death of a person, on whom they were inflicted, but the person died as the result of gangrene that set in one of the wounds as a result of some dirty substance coming in contact with it, the accused is nevertheless guilty under the explanation 2 to section 299 of having caused the death of the deceased.

It is, therefore, clear to me that when injury caused by Gian Singh on the abdomen of Chanan Singh had resulted into the secondary haemorrhage producing shock as a result of subscapsular and perirenal haemotoma which brought about the death of Chanan Singh, his (Gian Singh s) act in hitting spear on his abdomen amounts to culpable homicide and the said culpable homicide amounted to murder vide clause ''thirdly'' of section 300, Indian Penal Code. But in view of the finding that there was mutual conflict between the parties wherein Chanan Singh had sustained injury on his abdomen from the spear blow wielded by Gian Singh, the offence of murder is reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder on account of application of Exception 4 to section 300, Indian Penal Code. In that view of the matter, his conviction u/s 302, Indian Penal Code, cannot be upheld, though on the evidence and circumstances of the case, as well as in view of the law discussed above, it is proved beyond any manner of doubt that he is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. So, his conviction has to be altered u/s 304, Part I, from u/s 302, Indian Penal Code. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I feel that a sentence of five years'' rigorous imprisonment would suffice. Since it cannot be said beyond reasonable doubt that Dalbir Singh and Tara Singh were the aggressors, their conviction, in view of the authority reported in Balbir Singh v. The State (supra) cannot be upheld.

Consequently, I party allow this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of Gian Singh appellant u/s 302, Indian Penal Code, but convict him under section, 304, Part I, Indian Penal Code, and sentence him to five years'' rigorous imprisonment. No fine is imposed because there is no likelihood of its recovery from him since his father is alive. The conviction and sentences of Dalbir Singh and Tara Singh are set aside and they are acquitted of the charges. They are on bail Their bails are discharged.

Pritam Singh Pattar, J.

I agree.