The learned defence counsel further laid stress in his argument that the
cross-examination of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 clearly reveals that the
proceedings of the meeting were reduced to writing, but no such document was
exhibited in the court. In this context learned defence counsel has referred to
Mussauddin Ahmed -Vs- State of Assam (2009) 14 Supreme Court Cases 541
wherein it was held that - “It is the duty of the party to lead the best evidence in
its possession which could throw light on the issue in controversy and in case
such material evidence is withheld, the court may draw adverse inference under
Section 114 {Illustration (g) } of the Evidence Act, 1872 notwithstanding that the
onus of proof did not lie on such party and it was not called upon to proceed the
said evidence.” But in this case although the document where proceedings of the
meeting was recorded was not proved, the people present in the meeting were
examined.
IN THE COURT OF THE ASSTT. SESSIONS JUDGE::SIVASAGAR::
Present :- Mrs. S. P. Khound, M.A.,LL.B.,
Asstt. Sessions Judge,
Sivasagar:
Sessions Case No.38(S-C)2008
U/S 376 I.P.C.
THE STATE OF ASSAM
-VSSRI TAPAN DAS ----ACCUSED
Date of delivering judgment -------- 25.01.2012
J U D G M E N T:
Contd...page-2J U D G M E N T
1. The prosecution case is as follows :
Tapan Das (hereinafter referred to as the accused person) has
committed rape on the victim ‘X’. As a result the victim became pregnant. Her
brother Arun Das came to know about her pregnancy and arranged a meeting in
the village. The accused was present in the meeting but denied the allegations
levelled against him. So Arun Das has lodged an FIR in the Police Station.
INVESTIGATION
2. On receipt of the FIR marked Ext.1, the police registered a
Sivasagar P.S.Case No.226/08 dated 04.10.08 U/S 376 of the Indian Penal Code
(I.P.C. in short) The preliminary investigation of this case was entrusted to A.S.I.
R.K. Baruah. During the preliminary investigation the Investigating Officer (I.O.
in short) forwarded the victim for medical examination and she was again
forwarded to the Magistrate for recording her statement U/S 164 of the Criminal
Procedure Code (Cr.P.C. in short). I.O. went to the place of occurrence and
recorded the statements of the witnesses, arrested the accused and forwarded him
to the court. He also prepared the Sketch map of the place of occurrence. After
completion of preliminary investigation, he handed over the Case Diary to the
Officer-in-charge, who submitted Charge-Sheet against the accused U/S 376 of the
I.P.C. Ext.7 is the Charge-Sheet.
TRIAL
3. As offence U/S 376 I.P.C. is exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions, this case was committed to the court of the Hon’ble Sessions Judge,
Sivasagar by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M) Charaideo,
Sonari vide order dated 01.11.2008 passed in G.R.Case No.613/08. Subsequently
the case was transferred to this court for disposal.
4. On consideration of the case record including the Case Diary and
other materials submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the
accused and the prosecution, a formal charge was framed U/S 376 I.P.C. and read
over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
Contd..page-2
Page-2
5. The prosecution sought to prove the charge by producing as many as
nine witnesses including the medical expert and the Investigating Officer.
6. The statement of the accused was recorded U/S 313 (1)(b) of the Cr.
P.C. And the plea of the accused was of total denial. The accused did not tender
any evidence for defence.
7. I have heard Mr. Jayanta Bhuyan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for
the State and Mr. S. K. Baruah, learned Advocate for the defence. The prosecution
has submitted that this case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the
accused person and considering the nature and gravity of the offence, a strict
punishment ought to be inflicted upon him. On the contrary, the learned defence
counsel has submitted that this case suffers from serious legal defects and several
loopholes emerged and this gives the benefit of doubt to the accused. The accused
deserves to be acquitted and set at liberty forthwith.
8. Point for determination :
The point for determination in the instant case are -
Whether the accused had sexual intercourse with an
woman against her will or without her consent and
thereby committed an offence described U/S 375 of
the I.P.C. and is thereby likely to be punished U/S 376
of the I.P.C. ?
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
9. The complainant Sri Arun Das deposed as P.W.1, Smti Jayanti Das
deposed as P.W.2, the scribe of the Ejahar Smti Sabita Das deposed as P.W.3, the
victim Smti Rakhi Das deposed as P.W.6, neighbours Sri Sukhamoi Das and Sri
Moina Das deposed as P.W.4 and P.W.5 respectively, the Medical Officer Dr.
Phanidhar Gogoi deposed as P.W.7, the Investigating Officer Sri Reba Kanta
Baruah deposed as P.W.8 and the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Sri Madhujya
Narayan Bordoloi deposed as P.W.9.
Contd...page-3
Page-3
10. P.W.1 has deposed that the victim is his sister. During the year 2008, it
was observed by their family members that the victim was constantly depressed. A
distant relative once asked the victim the reason of her depression and the victim
finally came out with the truth. She informed her that the accused made her
pregnant. When his relative informed him (P.W.1) about the incident, he asked his
sister about the incident. His sister, the victim who is deaf and dumb explained
him through her gestures that the accused gagged her and committed rape on her.
He then called a meeting in the village and in the meeting the victim pointed
towards the accused indicating that he committed rape, but the accused denied her
allegations. He (P.W.1) then lodged the Ejahar in the Police Station which was
written by Smti Sabita Das. Ext.1 is the Ejahar and Ext.1(1) is his signature.
He further deposed that his sister was seven months pregnant when he
lodged the FIR and she was a student of Class-IV. The police seized her school
certificate. The victim was sent for medical examination and thereafter she was
forwarded to the court for recording her statement. He also gave his statement
before the Magistrate. Ext.3 is his statement and Ext.3(1) and Ext.3(2) are his
signatures. P.W.1 was extensively cross-examined by the defence but the defence
could not rebut his evidence.
11. P.W.2 has testified that the victim is her niece. The victim’s mother
died when she was young and she stays with her father. She came to know from
Nagendra Das that the victim was pregnant. The victim is deaf and dumb but when
asked the victim explained through signs that the accused gagged her and
committed rape on her. The victim studied upto Class-IV. When they came to
know about this incident they went and informed the accused person’s father about
the incident. A meeting was called by the ward member Sabita Das and in the
meeting the victim pointed towards the accused in front of the crowd indicating
that he (accused) committed rape on her, but the accused denied the allegations. A
case was filed and she gave her statement before the Magistrate. Ext.4 is her
statement and Ext.4(1) and Ext.4(2) are her signatures. The cross-examinations of
P.W.1 and P.W.2 depicts that victim’s younger brother is 15 years old and her
younger sister is around 11 to 13 years old. She has further mentioned in her crossexamination that the victim through her gestures and signs explained that the
person who is the owner of buffaloes committed rape on her. As there are only
two families in their village rearing buffaloes, they came to know from the vitim’s
indication that the accused is the person who committed rape. Further she has
mentioned in her cross-examination that the proceedings of the meeting were
reduced to writing.
Contd...page-4Page-4
12. The scribe deposed as P.W.3 that on 26.09.2008 the victim’s brother
Arun Das informed her in writing that the victim was pregnant. In the evening she
went to Arun Das’s house accompanied by Ratneswar Das,
Sukhmoi Das, Lohit Dass, Monti Das and some other people. They queried about
the incident. As the victim is deaf and dumb, they requested her to write down the
name of the miscreant and the victim wrote down the accused person’s name. She
then went inside and brought out one Dao and through her signs explained that the
accused person showed her the Dao and gagged her and committed rape. The
complainant requested her to decide the matter as she was the ward member. On
28.09.2008, she accompanied by some other people went to the accused person’s
house and informed his father about the incident, but the accused person’s father
misbehaved with them. The accused denied the allegations. On 02.10.2008 a
meeting was called in the village and the Gaonburah, V.D.P. President & Secretary
and several local people were present and in the meeting the victim pointed out
towards the accused indicating that the accused committed rape on her. But the
accused denied the allegations and so the complainant lodged the Ejahar. She
wrote down the Ejahar as narrated by the complainant. Ext.1 is the Ejahar and
Ext.1(2) is her signature. P.W.3 further deposed that the victim was seven months
pregnant at the time of the incident. In her cross-examination the P.W.3 has
testified that the proceedings of the meeting were reduced to writing.
13. P.W.4 has testified that the accused is his neighbour. About a year
back, Sabita Das informed him that the victim was pregnant. The following
morning, he went to the victim’s house accompanied by Sabita Das, Jayanti Das
and another woman. They asked the victim about the incident. Then the victim
explained the incident to the women. They went to the accused person’s house, but
the accused person denied the allegations that he committed rape on the victim. So
a meeting was called and in the meeting the victim pointed towards the accused
indicating that he made her pregnant. The accused again denied the allegations. So
they all went to the Police Station where Arun Das lodged the Ejahar. In his crossexamination the P.W.4 testified that the accused person rears buffalo. 4/5 families
also rear cattle in their village. He has further mentioned in his cross-examination
that the proceedings of the meeting were reduced to writing.
14. P.W.5 has testified that the victim is a deaf and dumb girl and she can
communicate through signs. The accused person sometimes visits the victim. He
came to know from the villagers that the accused made the victim pregnant. A
meeting was called in the village and he is not aware about the proceedings of the
meeting. This witness was declared as hostile on submission by the prosecution.
Contd...page-5
Page-5
15. The statement of the victim was recorded as P.W.6. She identified the
accused and showing three fingers she tried explain that she is the unmarried
mother of a 3 year old daughter. She pointed towards her tummy and also towards
the accused indicating that he made her pregnant and as a result she is the mother
of a 3 year old daughter.
As the victim is deaf and dumb, the learned defence counsel wrote
down some questions but she could not answer those questions. The learned
defence counsel tried to cross-examine her through some signs and gestures which
can easily be understood by any normal person. The learned defence counsel
pointing towards the accused and tummy asked the victim that she was not made
pregnant by the accused which the victim denied. Further the learned defence
counsel in his cross-examination showed the sign of gagging her mouth and asked
the victim that the accused did not gag her mouth and commit rape on her to which
the victim’s clear scream was a strong denial to this suggestion.
16. The Medical Officer testified as P.W.7 that on 04.10.2008 he examined
the victim in connection with this case and found the following :
BP 110/80. Pulse – 80 per minute.
Uterus 26 weeks + pregnancy.
Foetal movement present.
On ultra-sonography examination :
Single viable intrauterine foetus of 26 weeks done
by Doctor P.K. Dey at Konaklata Memorial Hospital
on 04.10.2008.
Opinion: The patient is pregnant of 26 weeks duration. Ext.5
is the medico legal report and Ext.5(1) is his signature. IN his cross-examination
the M.O. (P.W.7) has mentioned that the probable period of sexual intercourse is
March 2008.
17. The Investigating Officer has deposed as P.W.8 that on 04.10.2008
while serving as A.S.I. at Sonari Police Station, the Officer-in-charge received an
Ejahar from Arun Das and registered a case and entrusted him with the preliminary
investigation. After completion of the investigation, he handed over the Case Diary
to the Officer-in-charge who submitted Charge-Sheet against the accused person.
Ext.7 is the Charge-Sheet and Ext.7(1) is O/C Rajib Kumar Saikia’s signature,
known to him. Ext.6 is the Sketch map of the place of occurrence prepared by him
and Ext.6(1) is his signature. Ext.2 is the seizure list and Ext.2(2) is his signature.
The I.O. (P.W.8) was cross-examined extensively. The cross-examination of the
I.O. will be discussed while analyzing the evidence.
Contd...page-6
Page-6
18. The Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Sri Madhujya Narayan Bordoloi
deposed as P.W.9 that on 04.10.2008, while serving as Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate (M) at Charaideo, Sonari he recorded the statement of the victim girl
U/S 164 Cr.P.C. in connection with this case. Ext.8 is the statement of the victim
and Ext.8(1) is his signature.
DECISION THEREON AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION
19. In order to appreciate the merit of the rival contentions in a right
perspective, it is necessary to advert to the evidence on record which has been
thoroughly discussed above. The evidence has to be analyzed and evaluated for a
just and proper decision. The defence did not adduce any evidence, but the
prosecution witnesses were cross-examined extensively to rebut the evidence of
the prosecution.
Analysis of Evidence :
20. The victim (P.W.6) has clearly testified that the accused made her
pregnant. Through her cross-examination it is clear that the accused gagged her
and committed rape on her. The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 clearly
implicates that the victim pointed towards the accused in the public meeting held
in the village and through her signs and expressions indicated that the accused
committed rape on her. The victim was seven months pregnant when the
complainant came to know about the incident. As soon as he came to know about
the incident from his relative, he asked his sister (victim) who explained him that
the accused gagged her and committed rape on her. He then lodged the Ejahar
Ext.1 on 03.10.2008. P.W.3 is the scribe of the Ejahar. Her evidence supports and
corroborates the evidence of P.W.1 who has testified that she wrote down the
Ejahar for him. The evidence of Jayanti Das (P.W.2) also supports and
corroborates the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3. It is clear from P.W.3’s evidence
that on 26.09.2008 she was informed by P.W.1 about the victim’s pregnancy.
Thereafter on 28.09.2008 they went to the accused person’s house but the accused
denied the allegations. On 28.09.2008, a meting was held where the accused
denied the allegations. Finding no way out the complainant lodged an FIR on
03.10.2008 in the Police Station. The victim was examined by the Medical Officer
on 04.10.2008 and her statement was recorded by Magistrate also on 04.10.2008.
From the evidences of the witnesses, it can be understood that the victim is deaf
and dumb and she communicates through signs commonly understood by the
public in general.
Contd...page-7Page-7
21. The learned defence counsel laid stress in his argument that the victim
appears to be a consenting party because she maintained her silence for seven
months and when she could not conceal any further she disclosed the fact of her
pregnancy. She falsely blamed the accused and there was also delay in lodging the
Ejahar, Ext.1.The accused person thereby deserves to be acquitted. He has referred
to Vijayan -Vs- State of Kerela (2008) 14 Supreme Court Cases 763 wherein it has
been held that - “In cases where the sole testimony of the prosecutrix is available,
it is very dangerous to convict the accused, specially when the prosecutrix could
venture to wait for seven months for filing the FIR for rape. This leaves the
accused totally defenceless. Had the prosecutrix lodged the complaint soon after
the incident, there would have been some supporting evidence like the medical
report or any other injury on the body of the prosecutrix so as to show the sign of
rape. If the prosecutrix has willingly submitted herself to sexual intercourse and
waited for seven months for filing the FIR it will be very hazardous to convict on
such sole oral testimony.”
22. In the case referred to by the learned defence counsel, the accused
gratified his passion over the victim girl by promising to marry her and the victim
waited for seven months carrying the appellant-accused person’s child expecting
that he will marry her and she requested the accused to marry her and when
accused refused, she lodged the Ejahar. But the facts and circumstances of this
case is different from the facts and circumstances of the aforementioned case. In
this case the victim is a deaf and dumb girl who studied only upto Class IV. She
was not aware that she was pregnant until it dawned upon her much later that she
was pregnant. When her body started showing tell-tale signs and when her
depression was observed by her family members, the victim came out with the
truth. The FIR was lodged soon after the complainant came to know about the
incident. The short delay of 2/3 days has been clearly explained through the
evidence of P.W.3 who testified that on 27.09.2008 she and the local people
decided to go to the accused person’s house to discuss with him about the incident.
On 28.09.2008 they went to the accused person’s house and when the accused
person denied the allegations a meeting was arranged on 02.10.2008. Again on
02.10.2008 when the accused person denied the allegations the Ejahar was lodged.
On 03.10.2008 the FIR was lodged and the case was registered on 04.10.2008. As
P.W.3 was the ward member, the complainant requested her to help him. She is the
scribe of the Ejahar.
Contd...page-8Page-8
23. Further it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Om Prakash -Vs- State of Haryana AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2682 that -
“There is some delay in lodging the FIR but that delay has been well
explained A young girl who has undergone the trauma or rape is likely to be
reluctant in describing those events to anybody including her family members.
The moment she told her parents, the report was lodged with the police without
any delay. Once a reasonable explanation is rendered by the prosecution then
mere delay in lodging of a first information report would not necessarily prove
fatal to the case of the prosecution.” In this case also, a deaf and dumb girl was
raped. It dawned upon her later that she may be pregnant which explains her
depression. As there was delay in lodging the FIR, no sign of injury was detected
on the victim by the medical expert.
24. It is clear from the evidences of the P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P..4 and P.W.5
that the alleged incident took place sometime around the year 2008. From the
evidence of P.W.6, the victim it is clear that she is the mother of a three year old
girl. The Medical Officer’s evidence confirms that victim became pregnant in
March 2008. P.W.3 has also testified that the victim gave birth to a baby girl. Thus
it is clear that the victim is indeed an unmarried mother. The evidence of P.W.1,
P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.6 are corroborating and supports the fact that the
victim was raped by the accused and this resulted in her pregnancy and as a
consequence she gave birth to a baby girl who is 3 years old now. So it is clear that
the victim became pregnant around the time described by the witnesses in their
evidences.
25. The accused denied in his statement U/S 313 (1) (b) of the Cr.P.C. that
he rears cattle like buffalo. On the contrary, P.W.2 has testified in her crossexamination that two families in their village rear buffaloes and the accused
person’s family is one of them. P.W.2 has also mentioned in her cross-examination
that the victim indicated by her gestures that the person who has buffaloes in their
house committed rape on her. Again P.W.4 has also testified in his crossexamination that the accused is the owner of buffaloes. Moreover, the victim has
directly pointed out in front of the crowd gathered in the meeting that the accused
is the person who committed rape on her. Thus it is clear from the evidences of the
witnesses that the accused is the person who committed rape on the victim.
Contd...page-9Page-9
26. The learned defence counsel laid stress in his argument that the
prosecutrix’s evidence is not reliable because she did not raise hue and cry when
the accused forcefully gratified his passion over her and she kept mum for seven
months. He also referred to Narayan -Vs- State of Rajasthan (2007) 6 Supreme
Court Cases 465. In this case the prosecutrix was raped by the appellant-accused
while they were travelling together on a tractor. The prosecutrix was rapped thrice
during the journey and finally accused-appellant snatched away Rs.1000/- and
gold tops. The accused was acquitted
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court because it was held that she did not shout or
scream when the accused rapped her thrice. Moreover there were other
discrepancies because the witnesses who were sitting with the prosecutrix in the
tractor trolley were not examined. But in this case it is clear from the evidence of
the P.W.3 that the victim was gagged by the accused when he committed the
offence. When P.W.3 came to know about the incident on 26.09.2008, she went to
meet the victim who explained her about the incident by her gestures. Then the
victim went inside the house and brought out a Dao and through gestures, she tried
to explain that the accused threatened to cut her into pieces if she reveals about the
incident. The victim being a deaf and dumb girl thus concealed the incident until
she could conceal no more. The facts and circumstances of this case are not at all
similar to the case referred above. In this case there is evidence that the accused
threatened the victim not to disclose the incident. All the witnesses were
thoroughly examined by the prosecution and their evidence clearly depicts that the
accused committed rape on the victim. The victim clearly pointed towards the
accused in the meeting and it could be understood by her gestures that the accused
committed rape on her. Both the victim and the accused were present in the
meeting.
27. The learned defence counsel further laid stress in his argument that the
cross-examination of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 clearly reveals that the
proceedings of the meeting were reduced to writing, but no such document was
exhibited in the court. In this context learned defence counsel has referred to
Mussauddin Ahmed -Vs- State of Assam (2009) 14 Supreme Court Cases 541
wherein it was held that - “It is the duty of the party to lead the best evidence in
its possession which could throw light on the issue in controversy and in case
such material evidence is withheld, the court may draw adverse inference under
Section 114 {Illustration (g) } of the Evidence Act, 1872 notwithstanding that the
onus of proof did not lie on such party and it was not called upon to proceed the
said evidence.” But in this case although the document where proceedings of the
meeting was recorded was not proved, the people present in the meeting were
examined. They have evinced that the victim explained through her gestures
Contd...page-10Page-10
in the meeting that the accused made her pregnant. P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4
were all present in the meeting. Their evidence is direct evidence implicating that
the victim was made pregnant by the accused. Their evidence clearly depicts that
the victim was pregnant for seven months. The accused was also present in the
meeting and the victim directly pointed towards him indicating that he made her
pregnant. Although the proceedings of the meeting was necessary, this case will
not fail because it was not exhibited in the court. The direct oral evidence is strong
enough to prove the guilt of the accused. The dictum of Section 119 of the
Evidence Act is - “Dumb witnesses – A witness who is unable to speak may give
his evidence in any other manner in which he can make it intelligible, as by
writing or by signs; but such writing must be written and the signs made in open
Court. Evidence so given shall be deemed to be oral evidence.”
28. The learned defence counsel further relied on Radhu -Vs- State of
Madhya Pradesh (2007) 12 SCC 57. In support of his submission he has stated that
although defence fails to prove the motive for false implication, it is
inconsequential because prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges. It is
true that in this case defence has not taken any plea of false implication due to
animosity between the families or any such plea, but it is not true that prosecution
has miserably failed to prove the charge against the accused. It has already been
discussed that the evidence of the witnesses clearly implicates that the accused
gagged the victim and committed rape on her, as a result the victim became
pregnant and eventually gave birth to a baby girl. The learned defence counsel
further laid stress in his argument that the cross-examination of the witnesses from
P.W.1 to P.W.4 introduces new facts. They have not revealed these facts in their
statements U/S 161 Cr.P.C. before the I.O. But in my opinion it is not required to
give a detailed definition of the incident before the I.O. Moreover the I.O. records
the statements of the witnesses U/S 161 Cr.P.C. in a routine manner. It has also
been held in Om Prakash -Vs- State of Haryana AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2682
that - “Every small discrepancy or minor contradiction which may erupt in the
statements of a witness because of lapse of time, keeping in view the
educational and other backgrounds of the witness, can not be treated as fatal to
the case of the prosecution. The court must examine the statement in its entirety,
correct perspective and in light of the attendant circumstances brought on
record by the prosecution.” The victim in this case is deaf and dumb. She was not
properly educated in a deaf and dumb school. She studied only upto Class-IV. She
has given her age as 18 years when her statement U/S 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded
which implies that she was 18 years old at the time of the incident.
Contd...page-11
Page-11
29. It is a settled law that the evidence of the prosecutrix in a rape case
need not be corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses. But in the case in
hand the direct oral evidence of the victim is corroborated and supported by the
direct evidence of all the other witnesses. The evidence of P.W.5 also supports the
evidence of all the other witnesses inspite of the fact that he was declared a hostile
witness.
30. In view of the foregoing discussions, it is thereby held that the accused
Tapan Das had sexual intercourse with the victim against her will and without her
consent. It is also clear from the evidence of the witnesses that the accused
committed rape against the victim’s will and without her consent. There is glaring
evidence that the accused gagged the victim and had sexual intercourse against her
will and without her consent. Accused is thereby held guilty of offence described
U/S 375 I.P.C.
31. I have heard the accused on the point of sentence. The accused has
submitted that he is the sole earning member and looks after his family. He is a
mason and his family will face dire consequences if he is confined for a very long
time. I have considered the facts and circumstances of this case. There was no
brutality when the accused committed rape on the victim. The witnesses gave their
evidence in detail, but there was no instance of brutality in their evidence. I have
also considered the age and antecedent of the accused. I have reduced his sentence
to six years. I believe that a sentence to Rigorous Imprisonment of six years will
meet the ends of justice and will also act as a deterrent.
32. O R D E R
The accused Tapan Das is convicted U/S 376 I.P.C. and
sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 (six) years and a fine of Rs.500/- and in
default of payment of fine, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month. The
period of detention of the accused during imprisonment and trial is set off with the
custodial sentence.
Contd...page-12 Page-12
33. Furnish free copies of the judgment to the accused and the
District Magistrate, Sivasagar.
Judgment is signed, sealed and delivered in the open court on
this the, 25th day of January 2012.
Dictated and corrected ( MRS. S. P. KHOUND ),
by me. ASSTT. SESSIONS JUDGE,
SIVASAGAR
Asstt.Sessions Judge,Sivasagar.
No comments:
Post a Comment