Chenchaiagari Sankaraiah , Shenkar, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.By Its Public Prosecutor,
ÐÏࡱá>þÿ uwþÿÿÿtÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ð¿£ZbjbjqPqP 5z::ÄQAÿÿÿÿÿÿ¤ÀÀÀ.î$&aaa8âT6$&ú6¶ff"ˆˆˆcccy6{6{6{6{6{6{6$°7h:-Ÿ6ccŸ6ˆˆÛ ́6ÓÓÓ2ˆˆy6Óy6ÓÓâù. ¤é0ˆZòž.ãÐa3f/U6$Ê60ú63/6®:TMЮ:,é0é08®:!14c®|ÓdñcccŸ6Ÿ6ijcccú6&&&„ a&&&a&&&ÿÿÿÿTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO Crl.A.No.1821 of 2005 JUDGMENT This Criminal Appeal is filed challenging the judgmentdt.08-09-2005 in S.C.No.1 of 2005 of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences under S.Cs. & S.Ts. (POA) Act, Kadapa convicting the appellant herein under Sections 366-A and 376 (2) (g) IPC but acquitting him for the offence under Section 3 (1) (xi) of S.Cs. & S.Ts. (POA) Act, 1989.
The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is the daughter of P.Ws.2 and 3. She is partially dumb and mentally insane and can pronounce only the words "akka akka" "anna anna". P.W.2 is living by doing hamali work in a solvent factory. P.W.3, the wife of P.W.2, and P.W.1 are working as coolies in a cotton mill. While so on 10-01-2000, P.W.2 was at his house as there was no work. P.W.3 and P.W.1 left their house around 6 a.m. to Ganesh Mill for coolie work. Around 11.30 a.m. P.W.3 alone returned to the house, had meals and again went to the mill at 11.45 a.m. While she was returning back, P.W.1 came in opposite direction. P.W.2 instructed P.W.1 to take lunch and return to the said mill. It is alleged that at about 11.50 a.m. while P.W.1 was about to reach her house, A-1 and A-2 came in an auto, caught hold of P.W.
1 forcibly, dragged her into the auto and took her towards Gopavaram side. P.W.4, who was proceeding to her house near polytechnic college at Korrapadu road, witnessed the same. Meanwhile, P.W.1 cried 'akka akka'. It is alleged by the prosecution that P.W.4 tried to stop auto but in vain and the auto went in high speed towards Gopavaram side. Immediately P.W.4 informed the same to P.W.2. P.W.2 and P.W.11 went to trace P.W.1. P.Ws.7 and 5 also proceeded on a scooter for tracing P.W.1. At about 1 p.m., while P.Ws.1 and 2 were in search of P.W.1 at Bhagatsingh Colony, it is alleged that the accused brought P.W.1 in the said auto from Gopavaram side, dropped her at Bhagatsingh colony and went away in the auto . When P.W.2 and P.W.11 tried to catch the accused,it is alleged that they escaped in the said auto speedily towards Proddatur side.
Meanwhile, P.Ws.7 and 5 also reached there and chased the auto on their scooter. They were able to stop the auto near III Town police station, Proddatur. It is alleged that the accused abandoned the auto and escaped. P.Ws.3 and 11 took the victim to III Town Police Station. They were instructed to report the matter to the Rural Police Station. As the victim was partially dumb and mentally unsound, P.W.3 being natural guardian, informed the same to the Assistant Sub-Inspector who recorded his statement and transferred the same to Proddatur II Town Police Station on the point of jurisdiction. During investigation, A-1 was arrested on 30-01-2000 at YMR colony, Proddatur and A-2 was arrested on 13-022000 at Vijaya Kumar Junction, Proddatur.
The case was taken on file under Sections 366, 376 (2) (g) read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3 (1) (xi) of S.Cs. and S.Ts. (POA) Act, Kadapa against the accused by the First Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Proddatur. It was then committed to the I Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences under S.Cs. and S.Ts. (POA) Act, Kadapa, who registered it as Special Sessions Case No.78 of 2000. Charges under Sections 366-A, 376 (2) (g) IPC and Section 3 (1) (xi) of the S.Cs. and S.Ts. (POA) Act, were framed against both the accused. The charges were read over and explained to them in Telugu. Both pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. By judgment dt.02-05-2002, I Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa convicted both the accused. The accused then preferred Criminal Appeal Nos.
947 of 2002 and 990 of 2002 before the High Court. By common judgment dt.26-09-2003, the High Court set aside the judgment of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa as also the conviction and sentence passed by him and remanded the matter for retrial with a direction to restore the case, examine the witnesses once again and also record the evidence of the victim by taking assistance of the Principal, Deaf and Dumb School, Hyderabad or any other expert who is having knowledge in understanding the signs given by deaf and dumb persons. After remand, the case was transferred to Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences under S.Cs. and S.Ts. (POA) Act, Kadapa and registered as Sessions Case No.1 of 2005. The case against A-2 was split up after it's remand by the High Court and it was registered as S.C.No.
42 of 2005 on the file of the Court against him as he jumped bail. Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 16 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-15 and M.O.1. After closure of the prosecution evidence, A-1 was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses was put to him. He denied the same. He marked Ex.D-1. By Judgment dt.08-09-2005, the Court below convicted the appellant/A-1. Challenging the same, this Criminal Appeal is filed. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Court below had erred in convicting the appellant of the offences punishable under Sections 366-A and 376 (2) (g) IPC. He contended that P.Ws.2 and 3 had stated that they did not know the accused prior to the commission of the offence and so in Ex.P-1 complaint, allegedly given by P.W.
2 on 10-01-2000, the names of the accused could not have been mentioned. He also contended that P.W.4 had not stated that she saw the accused in the auto along with P.W.1 and she had only stated that she saw two persons in the auto along with P.W.1 and therefore, her evidence also cannot be taken into account. He pointed out that P.Ws.5 and 6 also stated that they did not know the accused prior to the incident and in fact, P.W.5 had stated that he had seen the accused in the police station one month after the incident. Therefore, his identification of the accused in the Test Identification Parade conducted by P.W.16 has to be ignored. He also pointed out P.W.
7's evidence that he saw the accused getting down from the auto and escaping from the auto cannot be accepted since said witness had no prior acquaintance with the accused and did not know their names. He further contended that there were no external injuries over the face, neck, breast, abdomen and inner parts of the thighs of PW1 according to P.W.8; that no blood stains were found in the garments, there is no bleeding from the external genetelia according to P.W.8; that P.W.8 admitted that she had written in Ex.P-2 originally that P.W.1 was attempted to be raped and later corrected it that P.W.1 was raped; so her evidence also cannot be believed; since examination by P.W.8 was within four hours of the alleged incident and that medical evidence does not support the same, the accused is entitled for acquittal. He also contended that P.
W11's evidence cannot be relied upon regarding the identity of the accused since he had stated before the Magistrate in Ex.D-1 on 19-07-2000 during the Test Identification Parade conducted by P.W.16 that he had never seen the accused earlier. He therefore prayed that the Criminal Appeal be allowed and the judgment of the Court below be set aside. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand contended that the Court below has correctly considered the evidence on record and convicted the accused of the above charges and that the evidence of prosecution witnesses- in particular P.Ws.1, 4 and 11 was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused and any minor discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses cannot be given much credence. He also relied upon State of Maharashtra Vs.
Prakash and Another, Santhosh Moolya and Another Vs. State of Karnataka, State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh and others, Mohd. Imran Khan Vs. State Government (NCT of Delhi) and Dinesh Jaiswal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. I have noted the submissions of both sides. The assistance of one Ms. Devamani Kanakaraj, Correspondent of Christian Fellowship School for Deaf, Vasanthpet, Proddatur was taken by prosecution in the Sessions Court for examination of P.W.1, the victim. The said person had experienced in deaf and dumb school for 32 years as a teacher. No doubt P.W.1 identified A-1 in the Court and also by signs stating how she was subjected to rape. However, this evidence of P.W.1 was recorded again after remand on 25-07-2005, 5 1⁄2 years after the incident. P.W.8, the doctor, who had examined P.W.1 had opined that P.W.
1 was not in a fully sane condition. In this view of the matter, unless there is corroboration to some extent of her evidence, it is not safe to rely on it. It is stated by P.W.1 in answer to a question put through the interpreter by the counsel for A-1 as to whether the accused had beaten her, P.W.1 had replied in the affirmative. P.W.8 however stated that there were no external injuries on the body of P.W.1 when she examined her at 4.10 p.m. on 10-01-2000 within four hours of the incident. If P.W.1 was beaten by the accused and the rape had occurred between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. on 10-01-2000, when P.W.8 examined P.W.1 at 4.10 p.m. on that day, there would be external injuries on the body of P.W.1 apart from blood stains in her under garments or external genetalia.
Also when a question was put by the learned counsel for the accused as to whether the accused was a known person to P.W.1, she replied through gestures that he was a known person. This evidence cannot be believed because both her parents P.Ws.2 and 3 have stated that the accused was not known to them and P.W.1 has not stated how she knew the accused. A suggestion was given to P.W.1 that parents of the victim girl had tutored her, but the interpreter expressed her inability to put this question to P.W.1. There is no dispute that Ex.P-1 complaint was lodged by P.W.2 and the same was received by P.W.12 who was then working as an Assistant Sub Inspector in Yerraguntla police station and he registered it as Crime No.5 of 2000. In Ex.P-1 complaint, the names of the accused were specifically mentioned by P.W.2. However, P.W.
2 in his cross examination had stated that he did not know the accused prior to the offence and he also did not know the name of the accused at the time of the identification parade. Without knowing the identity of the accused at or before the filing of the FIR, how P.W.2 could have mentioned the name of the accused in the FIR is not explained by the prosecution. This suggests that the FIR itself might have been subsequently created. Even P.W.3 stated that she did not know the accused. P.W.4 in her chief examination had stated that she saw P.W.1 in an auto with two persons.
accused. So her evidence does not help the prosecution on the question whether it was the accused who took PW1 in the auto. P.W.5 had stated that he accompanied P.W.7 on a scooter; that the auto was pointed out to them by P.Ws.1 and 3 at Korrapadu road; they followed the auto and stopped it near Vivekananda Cloth Hall when the accused ran away. He did not state that at that time P.W.1 was in the auto. He admitted in cross examination that one month after the incident he saw the accused in the police station. Therefore, his identification in the Test Identification Parade conducted by P.W.16 cannot be given any credence. He also cannot be said to be an eye witness to the alleged kidnap of P.W.1 by the accused. So his evidence also does not help the prosecution. P.W.6 admitted that he did not know the accused.
But he claimed to have witnessed P.W.1 being dragged into auto by two persons. He did not state that those two persons are the accused. Therefore, his evidence also does not assist the prosecution. P.W.7 is said to have chased the auto along with P.W.5. He claimed that he was told by P.Ws.2, 4 and 11 that the auto in which the accused were travelling was the auto in which P.W.1 was taken and the auto number is AP04 T 6634. He did not state that P.W.1 was in the auto at the time when they chased it. Although he claimed that he saw the accused in the auto stand prior to the incident and denied the suggestion that the police had shown the accused to him in the police station for identifying them, he stated in cross examination that he did not have any prior acquaintance with the accused and did not know their names. P.W.
11 is the son-in-law of P.W.2 and is married to another daughter of P.W.1. In his evidence, he stated that P.W.4 came and told him that P.W.1 was taken away by somebody in auto and so he went and to the Cotton mill along with PW.2 and informed P.W.3; then they searched for P.W.1 at Korrapadu road and when they reached Bhagathsingh Colony, they saw the auto was coming. He stated that A-1 and A-2 left P.W.1 at Bhagatsingh Colony and went in the auto. He claimed that he told P.Ws.7 and 5 the auto number and asked them to chase the auto on the scooter on which they were travelling and that the accused left the auto at Vivekananda Cloth market and escaped. He claimed that he knew the accused prior to the incident with their names and that he had acquaintance with the driver of the auto of his village.
He claimed that both the accused are residents of his neighboring street in Achary colony. His evidence was strongly relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor. It is pertinent to note that the same witness had stated to P.W.16 at the time of Test Identification Parade to a question put to him whether he had seen the accused earlier, that he did not see him. When confronted with this statement (in Ex.D-1), PW11 denied that he stated in such a manner before P.W.16. It is thus clear that this witness is not truthful witness. P.W.16 stated that he conducted the Test Identification Parade on 19-07-2000 in the sub jail premises. The incident in question took place on 10-01-2000. Thus, 5 1⁄2 months after the incident, the Test Identification Parade was conducted. From the evidence of P.W.5 and the suggestion given to P.W.
7, it appears that the accused were shown in the police station before the Test Identification Parade. Admittedly A-1, the appellant herein, was arrested on30-01-2000 by the police. Why the Test Identification Parade was held 5 1⁄2 months later is not explained by the prosecution. It is settled law that Test Identification Parade ought to be conducted without undue delay and in view of the fact that such a delay is not satisfactorily explained and the possibility of the accused having been shown to the witnesses in the police station existing, the evidence of identification would be unacceptable and the accused would be entitled to benefit of doubt. (See Rajesh Govind Jagesha Vs. State of Maharashtra . In Shaik Umar Ahmad Shaikh Vs.
State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court held that if the accused were already shown to the witnesses, their identification in Court by the witnesses was meaningless and such identification lost all its value and could not be made the basis for rendering conviction. Therefore, the reliance placed by the prosecution on the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 11 as to the identity of the accused cannot be accepted. It is pertinent to note that P.W.8, the doctor, who examined P.W.1 had stated that the hymen of P.W.1 was torn and old tear was present. It is possible that since P.W.1 was doing cooly work, during such activity, this could have happened. She also stated that the tears of hymen of P.W.1 were old at the time of examination by her and she cannot say how much old but they were not recent.
She also stated that tears of hymen might have occurred more than seven days back. She also stated that there were no blood stains in the under garments and there was no bleeding from the external genetalia. In my considered opinion, this evidence of P.W.8 does not establish commission of rape on P.W.1. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that since the accused had not given any reason why they would have been implicated as accused, it has to be presumed that the accused had committed the offence of rape on P.W.1. In Prakash (1 supra), the Supreme Court has held that no finding of rape could be given on the basis that the accused had not suggested to the prosecution witnesses that they were falsely implicated by someone else.
The learned Public Prosecutor also contended that the mere fact that no marks of injuries were found either on the person of the accused or the person of the prosecutrix does not lead to any inference that the accused had not committed forcibly sexual intercourse on the prosecutrix and relied upon the judgment in Santhosh Moolya (2 supra). In the said judgment it is also observed that in case of rape, particularly, if the victims are illiterate, uneducated, their statements have to be accepted in toto without further corroboration. In that case, unlike in the present case, the accused was fully sane woman and it was specifically pleaded that on account of the illiteracy of the victim as well as her family members, the evidence of the prosecutrix may be accepted without further corroboration.
It was pointed out that no self respecting woman would put her honour at stake by falsely alleging commission of rape on her and, therefore, ordinarily to look for corroboration of her testimony is unnecessary and uncalled for. In that case it was also a fact that the prosecutrix was a married woman having children which indicates that she is accustomed to sexual intercourse and therefore it was opined by the Apex Court that it would be difficult to expect a Doctor who examined her after sometime (after 42 days) to indicate that signs of sexual intercourse. In the present case, the victim is not a married woman accustomed to sexual intercourse nor was she fully of sound mind. Therefore, the principle laid down in the said case cannot be applied here.
In Gurmit Singh (3 supra), the Supreme Court had opined that corroboration is not required in a rape case and the conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the victim. It also stated that the accused ought to have stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case and give reasons for such false implications. The Court observed that if the evidence of prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. It clarified that if for some reason, the Court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. In the present case, the victim P.W.1 being not in fully sane condition and the evidence of P.W.
1 having been recorded afresh 5 1⁄2 years after the alleged incident, the surrounding evidence being of the nature mentioned discussed above, I am of the opinion that the accused cannot be convicted on the sole testimony of P.W.1. In Mohd. Imran Khan (4 supra) also the principle laid down in Gurmit Singh (3 supra), has been reiterated and the Court observed that the statement of prosecutrix, if found worthy and reliable requires no corroboration and the Court may convict the accused with sole testimony of prosecutrix.
In Dinesh Jaiswal (5 supra), however, the Supreme Court pointed out that although there is no quarrel with the proposition that the evidence of prosecutrix was liable to be believed except in exceptional circumstances, to hold that a prosecutrix must be believed irrespective of the improbabilities in her story, is an argument that can never be accepted. It pointed out that the test always is as to whether the given story prima facie inspires confidence. I am therefore of the opinion that the prosecution firstly failed to prove that it was the accused who had actually kidnapped P.W.1, that the evidence of identity of the alleged assailants was not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution and the medical evidence does not prove unequivocally that P.W.1 was subjected to rape by the accused.
Having regard to these findings, I am of the opinion that the Court below had erred in convicting the accused basing on the evidence of P.Ws.2, 7 and 11. Obviously the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record in coming to the said conclusion. Therefore, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the judgment dt.08-09-2005 of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences under S.Cs and S.Ts. (POA) Act, Kadapa in S.C.No.1 of 2005 is set aside; the accused is declared as not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 366-A and 376 (2) (g) IPC. The bail bonds, if any obtained from the accused, shall stand cancelled. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.
(1) S.C.C. 653 (2010) 5 S.C.C. 445 (1996) 2 S.C.C 384 (2011) 10 S.C.C. 192 (2010) 2 S.C.C. 232 AIR 2000 S.C. 160 AIR 1998 S.C. 1922 PAGE PAGE 15 MSR,J Crl.A.No.1821 of 2005 ,-.7;BCDEMNl„...} ~ € • / 4 5 ? ˆ Š ® ï ÿ 68hj†‰êïñ÷öîãØÍÂÍØ·¬·¤œ"œŒœŒ„œ| œtœtœtœŒœtœŒœlœtœlœŒœhñ!CJaJh:yÖCJaJh;>ÐCJaJhü<‚CJaJh'PCJaJhÜrúCJaJhñ&ÉCJaJhOWCJaJhÈ5>*CJaJhƒI5>*CJaJhé §'†ôO±šGñ9!jŸóäÕäÌ»«««««««««««««$ &Fdà¤ða$gd.$„Ðdà¤ð`„Ða$gdUYí¤¤[$\$$¤¤[$\$a$gdPJˆ$¤¤[$\$a$gdF1$¤ð¤[$\$a$ÄYaZ¢Zþþþ/0tˆ÷ÿ ( A B G H " " !PQR^«¬ÿ*+06VW‰ŠÇÊùü[\©'(+,w- 11⁄4þÿ'P[¦§9HIYquÂøðøðøèøèøàèàèàèðèàèàèàèàèàèàèàèàèØèðèðèðèðèàèÐàðÐàÐÈÐðÐðÐðÐÀÐ ̧°ÈÀÈ°ð°h $CJaJhò„CJaJhÜrúCJaJhûtÞCJaJhþMCCJaJhÎ*CJaJh'PCJaJh;>ÐCJaJh:yÖCJaJhñ!CJaJEÂ&'1⁄41⁄234...†ôNOÑ [zžŸ¦§ÁÊTMšFGqs'"ÑÝñ89oŽ"ØøùýŸÔ%ghÚ Ý Þ å þ !
(!)Q!øðøðèàèØèÐèÐÈÀÈÀÈðÈðÈðÈÐ ̧È ̧ð ̧ð ̧ð ̧° ̧°à°à°à°à° ̈ ð ð à ð ð à hE!kCJaJhDƒCJaJhÉjCJaJhëeäCJaJhûtÞCJaJh>ÎCJaJh.YÏC $CJaJh'PCJaJhM,CJaJh:yÖCJaJh†aCJaJ:Q!W!X!Z![!ÿ! ("S"p"##e#Ÿ#¬#D$E$o$„$Ÿ$¡$!%"%Ý%ñ%&&R&S&€&&·& ̧&1&1⁄2&ç&è&é&ê&''õêõáÙÑÙÉÙÁÙ1Ñ1±¦›"É"Ñ"›‡w‡w‡w‡w‡›‡w‡›oghDƒCJ 56'8g<Ù=k?ÐAûBŒCåEHFüG NïïïßÏÏ¿ïïïïïïïïïïïïïïï$ &Fdà¤ða$gd:yÖ$ &Fdà¤ða$gdy'Û$ &Fdà¤ða$gdÿj)$ &Fdà¤ða$gd.'Y)c)è)T.μ.//N0N1‚1ƒ1!2"2œ2233A3W3 5Ÿ5 5¡5¥566ù6ú677â7å7æ788 858 ̃8Ú8Û8Z9h99'9¥9 ̈9 ́9»9ï9ø9h;l;p;r;}; ‚;ù;<<"<f<g<„<ˆ<‰<Š<"<- <øíøåÝÕÍÕÍÕÍÕÍÕÍÕÅÕÅÕ1⁄2Å1⁄2Å1⁄2Õ1⁄2Å1⁄2Å1⁄2Å1⁄2μÍμÍμÅÍÅÍÅÍÍÍÅÍÍ1⁄2ÍÍÅh1⁄2'æCJaJh ̄$CJaJh¦%CJaJh+9ëCJaJh:yÖCJaJh2CJaJhUJ$CJa -< ̃<==T=U=_=`=a=e=k??? ¡?
ú@ ̃AAžAËAÌAÏAÐAÔABBBúBûBGCJCŒCöCúCDDJDKD`DaDμDÒDE EE`EøðøðèðèðøðàèàðàØøÌÀ°Øøا- §ØøØ؇‡‡‡‡wwhÄT1⁄4CJaJhò64CJaJh1iCCJaJhy'ÛCJaJjhÊ0J5CJUaJhÊ5CJaJjh:yÖ0J5CJUaJh:yÖhÊ5CJaJh:yÖh:yÖ5CJaJhÊCJaJh `EeEÂEáEäEåE)F6FGFHF'G/GûGüGH.HÜHÝHåHI7IGIŽIðIòIóI÷IJ JRJ\JoK1⁄4K)L*LÐLÒLøLùLM:M?M@MmMnM{M|M°MÑMN NøðèðàðØðØÐǿп·¿Ø¿Ø¿Ç¿·«¢«·š··Ø·š·Ø·š·Ø·Ø·š·‡·Ø·¿h ̧éCJaJh ̧éhò64CJaJhpüCJaJhy'Û6CJaJhŒ¶hŒ¶6CJaJhŒ¶CJaJh8+RCJa N#N0N\PdP£P¦P§PþPQQQ1Q4Q5Q?QEQJQ8R9RGRJR[R...R'RëRóRhSiSkSlSoS~SU U6U7UoU-VKVLV•VVßV1WOW¡W¢WžX©XÊXøïçßç×Ï×Ï×Ç×Ï×1⁄4ßÏ× ́׬£¬£¬Ï¬ß¬×›'›Ï›¬ŠÏŠ‚Š›Š ́‚ ́Š ́Ï ́hƒ [CJaJhm~BCJaJhƒC5CJaJhƒCCJaJhž¢5CJaJhž¢CJaJh\3CJaJh ̧éhò64CJaJhŒ¶CJaJhy'ÛCJaJhñ,@CJaJhÜrúCJaJh¿ cCJaJh¿ c5CJaJh TðCJaJ2 NQGRlS7U-V¢WYjY¬YÀYÄYßYõY Z!
Z7ZKZ`ZaZcZdZfZïïïïïïïßÏÃÃÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ¿¿¿¿$¤¤[$\$a$$„@¤ð¤[$\$^„@a$$ &Fdà¤ða$gd o$ &Fdà¤ða$gd.ÊXËXYDYEYTYUYaYhYiYjY¬Y2YμY·Y ̧Y1⁄4Y1⁄2YÄYÅYßYàYõYöY ZZ!Z"Z7Z8Z9ZJZKZLZ`ZaZbZdZeZgZhZjZkZøðåÚåÚåÏåÄ»3«3£3›3'''''ƒx'tltltltljh"jÅUh"jÅh:yÖh:yÖh:yÖjh:yÖ0JUhWuújhWuú0JUh K^CJaJ hWuúCJh EhWuúCJ hWuúCJhü<‚0JmHnHuhWuú hWuú0JjhWuú0JUh"jÅ3 0&P1h°Ð/ °ÀN!°p"°p#p$p%°°Ð°ÐІœ@@ñÿ@NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA@òÿ¡DDefault Paragraph FontVióÿ3VTable Normal :Vö4Ö4Ö laö(kôÿÁ(No List4U@¢ñ4 Hyperlink >*phÿB^@BNormal (Web)¤d¤d[$\$4@4Header ÆàÀ!.)@¢!.Page Number>@2> Footnote TextCJaJ@&@¢A@Footnote ReferenceH*4 @R4Footer ÆàÀ!@B@b@ Body Text$a$OJQJ^J<þ¢q< Char Char_HmH sH tH R€·çË9:£R1F]s‡œŸ£Rzÿÿÿÿ-.
DEN ̈§ '† ô O±šGñ9!jŸEêè!U$T&N)ƒ)"* -.'0g4Ù5k7Ð9û:Œ;å=H>ü? FIGJlK7M-N¢OQjQ¬QÀQÄQßQõQ R!R7RKR`RaRcRdRfRgRiRjRlRmRvRwRxR„RŠR R¡R¤R ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃ 0€€ ̃ 0€€ ̃ 0€€ ̃ 0€€ ̃ 0€€ ̃ 0€€ ̃ 0€€ ̃ 0€€ ̃ 0€€ ̃ 0 €€ ̃ 0 €€ ̃ 0€€ ̃ 0€€ ̃ 0 €€ ̃ 0€€ ̃ 0€€ ̃ 0€€ ̃ 0€€ ̃ 0€€ ̃ 0€€ ̃ 0€€ ̃ 0€€ ̃ 0€€ ̃ 0€€ ̃ 0€€ ̃ 0€€ ̃ 0€€ ̃ 0€€ ̃ 0€€ ̃ 0€€ ̃ 0€€ ̃ 0€€ ̃ 0 €€ ̃ 0!€€ ̃ 0"€€ ̃ 0#€€ ̃ 0$€€ ̃ 0%€€ ̃ 0&€€ ̃ 0'€€ ̃ 0(€€ ̃ 0)€€ ̃ 0*€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃@0€€ ̃@0€€ ̃@0€€ ̃@0€€ ̃@0€€ ̃@0€€ ̃@0€€00œ ̃@0€€Iˆ007 ̃@0€€Iˆ007 ̃@0€€Iˆ007 ̃@0€€Iˆ007IÈ00(1EIÈ00IÈ00 ̃@ @@@@@CÂQ!'-<`E NÊXkZ£Z.1235678:<Ÿ NfZ£Z/49;¢Z0!C!•!ÿ•€ð8ð@ñÿÿÿ€€€÷ð'ðð0ð( ð ððB ðSð¿Ëÿ ?
ðÿÿÝ( ́\ÒBÞ( ́œÒBß( ́ÜÒBà( ́ÓBá( ́ÒBâ( ́ÜÑBã( ́\ÓBä( ́œÓBå( ́ÜÓBæ( ́ÔBç( ́\ÔBè( ́œÔBÄÄÈúI^^±ÙÙÀ9À9¤R ÇÌÌRuu¶ççË9Ë9¤R 9 *€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€State€8*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€City€= *€urn:schemas-microsoftcom:office:smarttags €PlaceType€=*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags €PlaceName€9*€urn:schemas-microsoftcom:office:smarttags€place€"¿ ú'•@DEILPQUrxkq09...ŽÂÆÇËBK$/{„š¥òü<EÝæh q ë ô !2;ÇÍ$¶1⁄4,2#‡QZ ()/ioƒ‡‰Ž1⁄2ÃÄË089B{... ‡J$S$ì&÷&++21»1×1ã142?244¤9a9«929À9Ë9Ô9Ù9Ú9Þ9å9ë9@<E<Ú=ã='?.?7A?A@AFAóA÷AaCgC#F)FJJNJPJUJ... J‹JoKuKvK}K?PEPÀQÃQÄQaRaRcRcRdRdRfRgRiRjRlRmR¡R¤R-ÂÈùüRaãï:@79{<>"- ‡0!5!
A"G"‰77ì9î9É;Î;ÃEÌEçIíIüPQ¬Q2QÀQÃQÄQaRaRcRcRdRdRfRgRiRjRlRmR‡R‰R¡R¤R333333333333333333333"•éMóM-NNžP©P2QμQÃQÄQÆQÞQßQ`RaRaRcRcRdRdRfRgRiRjRlRmRuRxRƒR„RŸR¤R'•ÄQaRaRcRcRdRdRfRgRiRjRlRmR¡R¤Rÿ?"0"N ́ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¬VÝ*rð»ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ0B2 (zþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿlR5: ̃Ä•ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿZzYQ ̈08Kÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ{ai0]Î ̈_Î aÎ.YÏã(Ð;>Ð-ZÑ3eÒO^ÓÀÓ° Ô$ Õ? $Õ:yÖ×5×>&Ûy'Ûà|Ü»ÝýkÞûtÞxß7ß›=ß"xßfxßà3QáIjá <âŒXã&ä\Oäëeä1⁄2'æšZæRç?`çM<è ̧éó,êg3ê==êqê{ê+9ë%ìNíUYí#[ïƒ`ïGvï Tð òG!öi,öE÷+Y÷¬ùýù‹Xù-úUúÜrúWuú3fûpüêHýÃQÄQJR¤Rÿ@€••<(š••£R@@ÿÿUnknownÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿGÿ:àAxÀ ÿTimes New Roman5€Symbol3&ÿ:àCxÀ ÿArial"1ˆðÐh!ô4‡×6g©ò4‡'Ú4E)"4E)"±ðpp ́ ́4›Q›Q2ƒqðÜÿýHPðÿ?äÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿL&2ÿÿ%THE HON BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AdministratorUSER,þÿà...
ŸòùOh«'+'3Ù0 ̈ ̃ ÐÜô ,8 Xdp |ˆ ̃ ä(THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAMAdministratorNormalUSER39Microsoft Office Word@œIt@ʃÐ@ œ85ƒÐ@fBãÐ4EþÿÕÍÕœ."-+,ù®0hpˆ ̃ ̈° ̧À ÈúäWipro Limited")›Qæ&THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAMTitle !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=þÿÿÿ? @ABCDEþÿÿÿGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcþÿÿÿefghijkþÿÿÿmnopqrsþÿÿÿýÿÿÿvþÿÿÿþÿÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿRo Entryÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÀFÔ£.ãÐx€Data ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ>1TableÿÿÿÿFÚ:WordDocumentÿÿÿÿ5zSummaryInformation(ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿdDocumentSummaryInformation8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿlComp ÿÿÿÿ ÀFMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.