0 Criminal Appeal No.38 2 of 199 0 The State of Maharas v. Shank ar Khelu Batawale & Ors.

Judgment

(Per Smt.Ros h an Dalvi, J.)

1. Both these Appeals relate to the same incident. In both these Appeals, two groups of parties are concerned. One is called the Sarpanc h Party (SP) and the other is called as Police Patil Party (PPP). Criminal Appeal No.382 of 1990 concerns itself with the Police Patil Group as the Accused. There are ten Accused in this case, out of which Accused No.6 is said to have expired on 9.11.2005. The Appeal against Accused No.6 has abated. There are 25 Accused in Appeal No.417 of 1990, out of whom the Appeal is being prosecuted against the first 11 Accused only.

2. In the Trial Court, the two cases against the aforesaid two parties were tried one after another. In the case under Appeal No.382 of 1990, eight witnesses have been examined. In the case under Appeal No.417 of 1990, ten witnesses have been examined. The essential charge in both these cases is under Sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the cases have ended in acquittal.

3. The State has challenged the judgment of acquittal in these 3 cases under the aforesaid Appeals. It may be mentioned that since the same incident resulted in two criminal complaints filed by one of the members of the aforesaid two groups each, the allegations made and the statemen t s recorded were of several witnesses stated to be eye witnesses who deposed as to the incident with regard to a number of persons, most of whom were carrying deadly weapons. It is, therefore, for the prosecution to show and prove the specific overt act by each one of the Accused in both the groups. Conseque n tly, specified roles have to be assigned to each of the Accused. If that is not done, benefit of doubt would have to be given to the Accused. Consequen tly, in such Appeals, the prosecution must show a very striking and clear evidence of overt act or role played by a specific Accused which has been not correctly considered by the learned Trial Court. Failure to that extent must result in dismissal of the Appeals.

4. We have been read over the evidence of the 18 witnesses who deposed in the aforesaid two cases, several of whom are claimed to be eye witnesses. They are stated to have carried different deadly weapons. Some of these weapons have been recovered and identified. The weapons have to be connected to the Accused who used the weapons in the incident at whose instance, they came to be recovered. The eye witness 4 account must show from which angle, at which dista nce and under which circum st a n ces these specific overt acts committed by the specific Accused in the two groups were seen by members of the opposite group who deposed against them. Hence, it will be imperative for the Court to consider whether the evidence of the eye witnesses would be reliable under the circums t a n ce s in which they were when they witnessed the incident.

5. A case of enmity between the two groups well prior to the date of the incident has been shown and admitted. The incident took place on the date on which both the groups were required to perform rituals at Kalbhairav Yatra held every year in their village. Due to previous enmity, Police bandoba st was to be provided each year during the period of the Yatra. It is an admitted position that the members of both the parties were to proceed towards the temple of God Shiva and, by turn, were to cut the wooden pillar in the forest. There was a dispute who would give the first blow to the tree for cutting wooden pillar. The incident took place upon the dispute with regard to that blow. The evidence of the witnesses about what trans pired when the parties went beserk forms the crux of the prosecution case against both the groups in which the complaints came to be lodged by one member each of the aforesaid groups. 5

6. It may be mentioned that the oral eye witness accou nt s show who were the people in the group, how they came at the Shiva temple and what happened when the dispute commenced. They have sought to depose about who gave the blow to whom and with which weapon as seen by them. They have been cross- examined. A large chun k of the eye witness account of several witnesses has been shown to be omissions or contradictions. A part of the eye witness account has been assailed on the ground of unreliability upon the fact that it could not have been noticed, as deposed. It would, therefore, be futile to elaborate in detail evidence of examination- in- chief of these witnesses. It would be prudent to only see the crux of that examination and how it has stood its ground or being demolished in the cross- examination.

7. The evidence of the witnesses in Appeal No.382 of 1990 may be considered first since it was the prior Appeal filed. P.W.1 is the Circle Inspector of Goregon village in Raigad District. He has produced the map of the spot as per the spot panch a n a m a along with the explanatory notes. The map shows the spot of the offence between villages Nhave and Lonere. Near the spot is the hilly area. On the other side of the spot is a canal with flowing water. The villagers are 6 stated to have come from village Lonere to village Nhave via village Goregaon after crossing a seed farm in the latter village. The essential aspects of the map have not been denied in the cross- examination. Nhave village is stated to be 6½ k.ms. from Goregaon Police Station and Lonere village is stated to be 5½ k.ms. from Goregaon Police Station. In the case under Appeal No.417 of 1990 also the Circle Inspector has been examined as P.W.1. He has also produced a map of the scene of the offence as also the spot pancha n a m a giving his explanatory notes. That map shows the details of the spot in village Nhave where the offence took place, including the temple and the houses of several witnesses. His evidence shows the distance between Nhave village and Goregaon Police Station to be about 8 k.ms. and the distance between Lonere village and Goregon Police Station to be about 3½ k.ms. It shows the distance between the seed farm in Lonere village and the village habitation itself to be 1 k.m. and the distance between Kalbhairav temple and the seed farm to be about 3 k.ms. It further shows that the houses of the villagers surrou n d the scene of the offence to the North- West and South. There are agricultur al fields to the East. His cross- examination shows a bamboo island near the scene of the offence. The bamboo island is shown to be dense. There are 10- 15 houses nearby . There is a Bandh in the field which is 2½ in feet height. There are 7 various bushes on the Bandh to the West of the scene of the offence. Two trees are bigger than these bushe s.

8. The position of the place of offence, as deposed by this governme nt officer being the Circle Inspector, is essentially not denied.

9. It would be material to remember the spot pancha n a m a s and the maps of the scene of the offences in both cases together to underst a n d the credibility of the evidence of the Complaina n t who is the eye witness and the star witness of the prosecution. The parties were from Nhave village. They are stated to have travelled between Nhave village and Lonere village. The distance between the two villages is about 2 kms. The scene of the offence is near a canal, which is about ½ kms. from Lonere village. The Complaina nt , who got the spot panch a n a m a prepared and took the Police to the scene of the offence, showed the spot from the top of the mount ain where he stood and witnessed the incident in the case in appeal No.382 of 1990. It is 150 feet from the scene of the offence.

10. The evidence of both the complaina n t s in the aforesaid cases may be considered together. Both of them concede that the incident took place at about 5 or 5.15 p.m. 8

11. The complaina n t in Appeal No.382 of 1990 has involved Accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 and 3 other persons Kashiram Andhere, Parsh u r a m Malore and Bala Bhosale who are stated to be coming from Goregaon village to Nhave village. They came via the seed farm. Some people went straight to the village and some sat near the culvert and other sat in the Gavan (cattle way). Accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 were having sticks in their hand s. Accused Nos.8 and 10 – Kashiram and Parsh u r a m also had sticks. He saw one Mohan Andhere, Pand ur a ng Sontakke and Shant a r a m Andhere going to village Nhave. He saw them at the distance of 150 feet. He signalled them to run away. The people sitting near the culvert followed them and chased them. They were Accused Nos.1 to 10. Accused No.1 gave a stick blow to Shant a r a m Andhere. Shant a r a m fell down. All the remaining Accused assa ulted him with the sticks. He got afraid and ran towards the Goregaon Police Station and lodged a complaint.

12. He ran towards the hill / mo u n t ai n. The map on the spot of offence in Appeal No.382 of 1990 shows the place to which he ran. His cross- examination shows his admission that from the mount ai n side the Gavan is not visible. He was at the long distance from the Accused persons. It also shows 9 that they were 4- 5 feet from them. Though they saw him they did not do anything to him in the scuffle. It must be appreciated that after signalling to his party people to run because the opposite party people were having sticks in their hand s, the witnesses ran towards the mount ai n, which was in the Sout h direction by the upper side of the Canal. He went to the top of the mount ain and stood there. He did not go by any vehicle to the top of the mount ai n. His cross- examination further shows that he did not tell this incident to any one. Though his evidence shows that he ran away and went straight to lodge the complaint, his complaint has been lodged a couple of hours after the complaint of the complaina n t in Appeal No.417 of 1990, which is of the other group being the PPP.

13. Three persons Kashiram, Parsh u r a m and Bala died in the incident. His cross- examination shows that he did not know how they died and where they died. Those are the persons from the Police Patil group. They are alleged to have been assa ulted and murdered by the SP people to whom this witnesses belonged. His feigned ignorance of how they died shows his conduct. He has deposed that he did not know whether the people of the SP murdered these three persons with weapons like burchi, spheres and sticks. He has also feigned ignorance about whether Shant a r a m Andhere 10 received injuries or whether he was lifted to be taken to the hospital or that whilst run ni ng he realized that Shant ar a m was dead and, therefore, he was dropped in the field whilst others ran away. In his cross- examination he has refuted that people from his party directed him to lodge a complaint. He has deposed that he was at the Police Station for the entire night. Yet he has deposed that he did not see the complaina n t of the PPP.

14. The complaina n t in Appeal No.417 of 1990 (P.W.2 in Criminal Appeal No.417 of 1990.) belonged to the PPP. He has deposed that about 5 to 5.15 p.m. people from the SP party were standing near the Kalbhairav temple. They started pelting stones upon the people of the PP. They assa ulted them near the bamboo island. He saw Accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 9 assa ulting the persons of the SP. He has assigned roles to certain Accused. Accused No.1 gave a blow to Kashiram on his stomach with a burchi. Accused Nos.3, 4 and 9 gave blow to Bala and Kashiram with Phars hi. He has identified them. Accused No.2 gave a blow of the Phars hi on his right palm. His fingers were badly injured. He started running. Accused No.1 gave a blow of Phara s hi on his jaw. He was taken in a bullock cart to Goregaon where he was taken to the hospital and treated. His complaint was recorded. He has identified his clothes which were seized, 11 the weapons used in the offence by the Accused and Accused themselves in Court. He was an injured witness. Kashiram, Bala and Shant a r a m died in the incident. His cross- examination shows that they went to Lonere village via a seed farm. His cross- examination shows that 4- 5 persons were assa ulting Parsh u r a m with sticks and Phars hi whilst he ran away. They were both attacked at the same time. Parsh u r a m was lying on the ground, surrou n de d by 4- 5 people. He was at the distance of 10 paces. Different persons had attacked them. He would not be able to see who assa ulted Parsh u r a m . His cross- examination shows that he did not know whether the Accused persons were present or not in the crowd caused by villagers in front of the temple. His cross- examination shows no mention of the Phars hi used by Accused Nos.1 to 22 whilst assa ulting Kashiram and Bala. It shows a reference to axes, sticks, burchis and stones as the weapons used by the Accused. His FIR only shows the blow given to Parsh u r a m with Phars hi on his stomach and himself on his fingers by the Sarpa nc h.

15. It may be mentioned that the eye witness account of both the complaina nt s has been diluted in their cross- examination. The complaina n t from the Sarpa nc h Party in Criminal Appeal No.382 of 1990 has not explained how he 12 could witness the entire incident whilst runni ng and after running from the distance that he was. The complaina nt of the Police Patil Party in Criminal Appeal No.417 of 1990 has not explained how he could witness the incident whilst he himself was injured from behind the bushes. That have been shown near the Band h in the evidence of the Circle Inspector. The use of weapons by the Accused has also not been correctly shown in his evidence. The fact remains that the persons from both the parties have been assa ulted by several persons from the opposite party and have fallen down and died in the incident. However, the specific evidence against any specific Accused has not been subst a n ti ated in both the cases.

16. This evidence shows that the incident was witnessed from a distance of 150 feet. There were many people in the incident. Only Accused No.1 is stated to have given the first stick blow on the head which proved fatal. From the distance that the Complaina nt was, it is difficult, if not impossible, to state precisely who gave that blow as per his evidence. The further evidence of the remaining Accused is the general evidence relating to the stick blows all over the body of the deceased.

17. His cross- examination shows that he went to the top of the 13 mount ain after signaling to the three persons that the Accused, who belonged to the opposite party, approaching. The examination- in- chief shows that distance from the scene of the offence is 150 feet. His cross- examination also shows that he was at the distance of 4 / 5 feet from the Accused persons. If that was so, he would have also been assa ulted. He is not an injured eye witness. Since this is a group fight, the motive to kill is the same with regard to all the members of the opposite party. Hence, the Complaina n t would not have escaped it. The case of the Complaina n t that he was at the dista nce of 150 feet is, therefore, correct. It would have to be seen whether from the distance of 150 feet the incident that was described by him in which there were many assailant s as well as at- least three parties of the other group, 2 of whom were fatally wounded, could have been precisely witnessed by him. Even if this was a case of an assa ult between one man upon another it may be too much to conclude precisely about the assa ult from the dista nce as stated by the Complaina nt .

18. The learned Advocate on behalf of the Responde nt s in this case in Appeal No.382 of 1990 has drawn our attention to the Police Station Diary Entry No.25, which is marked Exhibit- 44 in evidence showing that at 5.45 p.m. on that date one Bal Mahadeo Andhere reported that there was a 14 fighting between two parties at Nhave at the seed farm and hence, 3 to 4 Police persons were dispatched immediately for bandoba st duty. These Police did not report any offence. They did not notice the altercation near the seed farm. If the incident, complained of by the Complaina n t , took place at

5.30 p.m. and Shant a r a m was fatally injured, that fact would have been reported to the Police at the time of the initial entry. Even after the Police was dispatc hed, as per the evidence of I.O., P.W.8 , no complaint was recorded by any of the Policemen on bandoba st duty.

19. Of course, the station entry does show an altercation that happened between the two parties a little before 5.45 p.m. when the incident was reported.

20. It must be appreciated that the Complaina nt of the PPP, who made the complaint essentially against the Sarpanc h himself, was an injured witness. Yet, he reached the Police Station after the opponent had lodged his complaint by

10.30 p.m. on that date, as shown in the Station Diary Entry No.30, Exhibit- 45, in evidence. The Complaina nt , in this case, who belonged to the Sarpa nc h party, witnessed the incident from afar and as per his evidence in Para- 2 in examination- in- chief itself got afraid and immediately ran towards the Police Station and lodged his complaint. Yet, his 15 complaint has been notified as Complaint No.31 recorded at

11.45 p.m. He was not an injured witness.

21. In the other case in appeal No.417 of 1990, the evidence of the Police Officer that the complaina nt deceased had all minor injuries shows that his key role in the incident as deposed by him is falsified.

22. The evidence of the Complaina nt s in both the cases therefore, becomes difficult to accept. The rejection of their evidence by the learned trial Judge giving the benefit of doubt to the Accused cannot, therefore, be faulted.

23. The evidence of the other eye witnesses is similar. Though they mention about the Accused by numbers, who have been identified in Court and also mention about the weapons used by them, there is a discrepa ncy in the use of the weapons as reflected in their stateme nt s which amou nt to material contradictions. Consequen tly, the evidence of P.W.3 shows that they had not carried sticks in the incident. The people from the PPP were ahead of them. They were signalled to run away. He started run ni ng along with Mohan and Shant a r a m . The Accused were armed with sticks and chasing them. Shant a r a m was aged so he got tired and was stabbed near the culvert. He turned back and saw that 16 Accused No.1 gave a blow on his head due to which he fell. The other Accused started assa ulting him. He hid in the house of Manohar Sawant. Manohar's wife told him that other persons have gone to Lonere. Therefore, he followed them. Manohar's wife has not been examined. He claims to have followed them after being beaten up by stick and after fleeing. He also feigned ignorance about the death of the three persons from the other group. His evidence is also not reliable. He did not give his stateme nt to the Police. His stateme nt was recorded after his arrest. In the other case, he has been attributed the role of having given a blow with Phars hi to Kashiram. Kashiram has expired. His evidence does not show the presence of Kashiram at all, who was the victim of his blow.

24. His evidence shows that when he had stopped near the canal, he turned back and saw Accused No.1giving the blow on the head of Shant ar a m , which caused him to fall. This shows that his eye witness account is like that of a chance witness. He witnessed the entire incident at precisely the time he turned aroun d whilst runni ng. Though his evidence shows that Manohar's wife told him that the Accused persons had gone to Lonere and, therefore, he followed them along with others and informed the Police about the incident suggesting that he went to the Police 17 Station on the same date, his stateme nt was recorded only on 2.5.1986 i.e. 5 days after the incident. Though the investigation was started on 28.4.198 6, the deposition of P.W.7 , the first IO in the case, shows that his statemen t was not recorded on the date of the incident because he might not have been found by the Police and that he did not come to give his statement. This evidence, therefore, completely belies the evidence of P.W.3 about what he did after witnessing the incident.

25. The Police have recorded, inter alia, the stateme nt of Vanda na Manohar Sawant, Manohar's wife. However, she has not been examined. She would have been an independen t witness who did not belong to either of the two parties. Her evidence would have shown the presence of P.W.3 at the time of the incident. In the absence of her evidence, the eye witness account of P.W.3 upon the chance that he got to witness the offence whilst running, cannot be accepted. This witness was arrested in the other cases which is under Criminal Appeal No.417 of 1990. He was arrested on 2.5.1986. Hence, there is a lot of subst a nce in the argume nt of the Advocate for the Respondent s that he gave a false stateme nt in this case after his arrest in that case. In his cross- examination, the date of his arrest has been admitted by him. The specific overt act done by him in 18 the cross case has also been put to him in his evidence. He is stated to have given the second blow to Kashiram with a Pharas hi.

26. The evidence of P.W.4 does not show him to be the eye witness of any assa ult. He only heard the voice of one Kalu as he was shouting. He saw several persons from the Sarpa nc h party, including Shant a r a m run ni ng towards the seed farm. He saw the persons from the Police Patil party chasing them with the sticks. He has not deposed about an assa ult on any Accused. His cross- examination shows that he was at a distance of 200 ft. from the temple where the incident relating to the death of the three persons from the Police Patil party by the Sarpa nc h himself and others of his party is shown to have taken place in the cross case. Yet he has deposed that he did not know where Kashiram, Parsh u r a m and Bala were, even at the time of the evidence and whether they were murdered. His evidence deserves to be discarded totally.

27. P.W.5 has deposed that Shant a r a m and others of the same party were coming to village Nhave. The persons from the Police Patil party were chasing them while they were armed with the sticks. Shant a r a m got tired, became slow and was caught by Accused No.1, who gave him a stick blow on his 19 head. Others gave him blows thereafter. She saw Shant a r a m having fallen down. She was scared that she would be also assa ulted and hence, went home. She has also feigned ignorance about the other three murders in the village on that day. She has accepted that she did not tell the Police anything about her eye witness account on 27 th, 28 th and 29 th April 1986. Her cross- examination shows that her field where she was rearing cattle was ½ k.m. From Nhave and 100 feet from the canal. She also saw the assa ult from the distance of 100 / 1 5 0 feet, which makes it difficult to accept the eye witness account given by her for an incident in which so many people are involved. She did not report about it to the Police from many days. Her evidence, therefore, goes the same way.

28. The Postmortem Report, Exhibit- 24, shows Contused Lacerated Wound over the forehead of Shant a r a m as well as over his upper lip right side. It also shows loosening of lower both central and lateral incisers and right canine, abrasion on right elbow and 5 contusions over back right side. The internal examination shows a fracture of the frontal bone over the forehead, laceration of left lobe of the brain and laceration of right lung. He died due to injury to his cerebru m and laceration of right lung. The inquest panch a n a m a shows him lying in the ditch with wounds over 20 his left eye- brow. The injuries on his person are seen on his right elbow, wound from the chin to abdomen, two teeth being broken, right knee being broken and protru ding from the wound and weal marks on the back as well as on the right side of the chest. Both these documen t s show that Shant a r a m was indeed fatally wounded. However, whether he was wounded by the fatal blow first dealt precisely by Accused No.1 on his head and later by the other Accused all over his body, as deposed by P.W. Nos.2, 3 and 5, cannot be specifically seen. The delay in lodging the FIR despite such a clear case where only Shant ar a m is shown to be the victim, the distance from which P.W.2 as well as P.W.5 saw the incident, chance that P.W.3 had whilst run ni ng to see the incident, the fact that the stateme nt s of P.W.3 as well as P.W.5 were not recorded on the scene day, the prosecution not having examined the independe nt witness Vandan a Manohar Sawant in whose house P.W.3 took refuge, the fact that the statemen t of P.W.3 was given only after his arrest, i.e. 5 days after the incident and the fact that P.W.5 did not report the incident to the Police, who came to the village on 27 th , 28 th and 29 th April, are circum st a n ce s too stark and too numero u s to be ignored for accepta nce of the oral evidence of these witnesses who have verbatim deposed the incident only relating to Shant a r a m and feigned ignorance about the three other persons, who also died in the same village on the 21 same day and who belonged to the opposite party. Conseque n tly, the case of the Accused that Shant a r a m was one of the victims in the commotion that ensued and also received blows in the resulta n t melee by two of the deceased persons of the opposite party Kashiram and Parsh u r a m , stands to reason. The extent of injuries suffered by him is evident from the inquest pancha n a m a as well as P.M. notes. However, precisely how he died, cannot be accepted as per the statement s of the Complaina nt and the two supporting witnesses in this case.

29. The eye witnesses in Criminal Appeal No.417 of 1990 other than the complaina nt have given similar evidence. P.W.3 is the daughter of the deceased – Kashiram Andhere. She has mentioned about which Accused was holding which weapon. Her evidence shows that Accused Nos.1 and 23 gave blows of Burchi on the head and stomac h of her father. Accused Nos.2, 3 and 9 gave blows with Phars hi on her father. Others assa ulted Bala, Parsh u r a m and the Complaina n t. When her father fell down, she ran to call her mother and narrated the incident to her. Accused No.9 pelted stones on her in which her right eye got injured. Though she identified the weapons in her examination- in- chief, in her cross- examination she has admitted that she would not be able to tell by which weapon the injured and the deceased were assa ulted. It may 22 be mentioned that there were 4- 5 weapons which were recovered. Three persons had died. 4- 5 persons were injured. The evidence does not subst a n tiate the blows attributed to each one of them.

30. P.W.4 is the brother of P.W.3 and the son of deceased Kashiram Andhere. He was 15 years old at the time of deposition. He witnessed Accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 9 and 23 with burchi, Phars hi, sticks and stones near the temple. His examination- in- chief itself shows that he does not show how Parsh u r a m and Bala were injured. He ran away becau se he was scared. His cross- examination shows that he could not say who assa ulted Parsh u r a m also. 15- 16 people had gathered near the temple. 20- 25 persons were not alive at the time of deposition. His evidence, therefore, assu me s no significance.

31. P.W.5 is the father of the deceased Balaram Bhosale. He was informed of the incident by another son Kashiram. All were assa ulting Balaram and Kashira m with Phars hi and sticks. Accused No.1 assa ulted Kashiram with Burchi. Others assa ulted him with sticks and Pharshi. He lied on the body of his son Bala to resist the blows on him. Thereupon, Accused No.25 gave him blows with Phars hi on his head. Accused Nos.10 and 24 stamped him. He went 23 unconscious. In his cross- examination, he has admitted that he would not be able to identify the Accused because his eye sight was weak with age. He would not also be able to say where the fighting took place. He admitted as correct the suggestion that the place where the fighting took place was not visible from his house. For want of identification, his evidence is also rendered useless.

32. P.W.6 is the wife of the deceased Parsh u r a m Malore. She has similarly deposed about several Accused having various weapons in the fight. Her cross- examination shows that she would not be able to see who assa ulted Shant a r a m .

33. P.W.7 has also been examined as another eye witness. He has deposed about the blows by Kashiram and Bala, who have expired, with Phars hi, axes and stones. His eye witness account is, therefore, different from those of the other eye witnesses as to the user of the weapons.

34. A reading of the entire evidence of the eye witnesses in the two groups shows that as too many persons and too many weapons were involved in the case, the witnesses have not been able to depose about specific roles and overt acts. The cross- examination has belied their evidence in examination- in- chief. The Investigating Officer in Criminal Appeal No.417 24 of 1990 has deposed that the complaina n t himself in that case had only minor injury when he came to the Police Station. His evidence shows quite the reverse of the other eye witnesses. The complaina n t in Criminal Appeal No.382 of 1990 did not even lodge his complaint soon after the incident.

35. In both the cases, the prosecution has examined various Pancha s and drawn up a large number of panch a n a m a s for recovery of the weapons. The prosecution has also relied upon the postmortem report and the inquest pancha n a m a . The fact remains that several persons died in the incident from both the groups. However, since the eye witness account s are not corroborative and have not stood the test of cross- examination, there is no need to deal with the evidence of the Panchs or consider the pancha n a m a s recorded.

36. Conseque n tly, the Accused in both the cases deserve to be given benefit of doubt. The order of acquittal cannot be disturbed.

37. Conseque n tly, both the Appeals fail and are dismissed. (DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) 25 (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.) 26