HITESH VERMA versus THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR. on 5 November 2020

[2020] 9 S.C.R. 593

HITESH VERMA

v.

THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.

(Criminal Appeal No. 707 of 2020)

NOVEMBER 05, 2020

[L. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA ANDAJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

s. 482 – Petition under – For quashing charges u/ss. 452,504 and 506 IPC and u/ss. 3(1)(x) (Substituted as 3(1)(r) by ActNo. 1 of 2016) and 3(1)(e) of Scheduled Castes and the ScheduledTribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Dismissed by High Court– Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Offences under the Act notestablished – Hence the charges under the Act, quashed – Chargesunder IPC to be tried by competent Court.

s. 482 – Quashing of charge-sheet in part – Held: There is noprohibition under the law for quashing the charge-sheet in part.

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, 1989:

s.3(1)(x) (substituted as 3(1)(r) by Act No. 1 of 2016) –Applicability of – Held: Basic ingredients of the offence u/s. 3(1)(r)are that there is intentional insult or intimidation with intent tohumiliate a member of SC or ST and that such insult or intimidationshould have taken place at any place within public view – All theinsults and intimidations will not come within purview of the offenceunder the Act – In the facts of the present case, the Act is notapplicable.

Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The Scheduled Castes and the ScheduledTribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was enacted to improvethe social economic conditions of the vulnerable sections of thesociety as they have been subjected to various offences such asindignities, humiliations and harassment. They have beendeprived of life and property as well. The object of the Act is thus

A

B

CD

E

F

G

H

Ato punish the violators who inflict indignities, humiliations andharassment and commit the offence as defined under Section 3 ofthe Act. The Act is thus intended to punish the acts of the uppercaste against the vulnerable section of the society for the reasonthat they belong to a particular community. [Para 10][600-D-E]

B1.2 The charge-sheet filed in the present case was for anoffence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The said section standssubstituted by Act No. 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26.1.2016. The substitutedcorresponding provision is Section 3(1)(r). The basic ingredientsof the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act can be classified as“1) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate aCmember of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and 2) in anyplace within public view”. [Paras 11 and 12][600-E, G]

1.3 The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act wouldindicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation withan intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or aDScheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will notbe an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation ison account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or ScheduledTribe. [Para 13][600-G-H; 601-A]

1.4 An offence under the Act would be made out when aEmember of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected toindignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of titleover the land by either of the parties is not due to either theindignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a rightto avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if theFappellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of thecivil court, or that respondent No.2 has invoked the jurisdictionof the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies inaccordance with the procedure established by law. Such action isnot for the reason that respondent No.2 is member of ScheduledCaste. [Para 13][601-A-C]G

1.5 Therefore, offence under the Act is not establishedmerely on the fact that the informant is a member of ScheduledCaste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member ofScheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim H

belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties arelitigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling ofabuses is against a person who claims title over the property. Ifsuch person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence underSection 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out. [Para 18][603-D]

Khuman Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019) SCCOnLine SC 1104; Gerige Pentaiah v. State of AndhraPradesh & Ors. (2008) 12 SCC 531 : [2008] 12 SCR623 – relied on.

Ashabai Machindra Adhagale v. State of Maharashtra& Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 789 : [2009] 2 SCR 382 –distinguished.

1.6 Another key ingredient of the provision is insult orintimidation in “any place within public view”. In the present case,the offence is alleged to have taken place within the four walls ofthe building. It is not the case of the informant that there was anymember of the public (not merely relatives or friends) at the timeof the incident in the house. Therefore, the basic ingredient thatthe words were uttered “in any place within public view” is notmade out. In the list of witnesses appended to the charge-sheet,certain witnesses are named but it could not be said that thosewere the persons present within the four walls of the building.Therefore, it cannot be said to be a place within public view asnone was said to be present within the four walls of the buildingas per the FIR and/or charge-sheet. [Paras 14 and 15][601-D;602-C-E]

Swaran Singh & Ors. v. State through Standing Counsel& Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 435 : [2008] 12 SCR 132 –relied on.

2.1 If there is a false and unsubstantiated FIR, theproceedings under Section 482 of the Code can be invoked. [Para19][603-F]

Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State ofMaharashtra & Anr. (2018) 6 SCC 454 : [2018] 4 SCR877; Union of India v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.(2020) 4 SCC 761 : [2019] 12 SCR 1125 –referred to.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

APrathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India & Ors. (2020)4 SCC 727 – relied on.

2.2 There is no prohibition under the law for quashing thecharge-sheet in part. In a petition filed under Section 482Cr. P.C, the High Court is required to examine as to whether itsBintervention is required for prevention of abuse of process of lawor otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In view of the facts ofthe case, the charges against the appellant under Section 3(1)(r)of the Act are not made out. Consequently, the charge-sheet tothat extent is quashed. The FIR in respect of other offences willbe tried by the competent Court. [Paras 23, 24 and 25][605-C-D;C606-A-B]

Ishwar Pratap Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh& Anr. (2018) 13 SCC 612 : [2017] 11 SCR 145 –relied on.

Case Law Reference

D

E

FCRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.707 of 2020.

From the Judgment and Order dated 20.07.2020 of the High Courtof Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Misc. Application No. 507 of2020.

G

Ayush Negi, Ms. Manini Roy, Atul Sharma, Rahul Sharma, KapilPant, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by theHigh Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital on 20.7.2020 whereby the petitionfiled by the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973[1] for quashing the charge-sheet as well as the summoningorder dated 25.6.2020 was dismissed.

2. The FIR No. 173 in question was lodged by the respondent No.2 on 11.12.2019 at 23:24 hours in respect of an incident alleged to haveoccurred on 10.12.2019 at 10:00 hours against the appellants and others.The FIR was lodged for the offences under Sections 452, 504, 506 IPCand Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(e) of the Scheduled Castes and the ScheduledTribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989[2]. The said FIR, whentranslated, reads as under:

“Respected SHO with respect of registering of FIR, thecomplainant is presently resident of Gram New Bajeti PattiChandak Tehsil & District Pithoragarh. I am constructing my houseon my Khet No. 6195, 6196 & 6199 but Banshilal, Pyarelal S/oLate Har Lal, Hitesh Verma S/o Sh. Pyarelal, Pawan Verma S/oBanshilal, Uma Verma w/o Pyarelal and their Nepali Domestichelp Raju from past 6 months are not allowing the applicant towork on her fields. All the above persons used to abuse theapplicant her husband and other family members and use to givedeath threats and use Caste coloured abuses. On 10.12.2019 ataround 10 am, all these persons entered illegally in to four walls ofher building and started hurling abuses on myself and my labourersand gave death threats and used castes’ remarks/abuses and tookaway the construction material such as Cement, Iron, Rod, Bricks.The Applicant is a Scheduled Caste and all of the above personuses castes’ remarks/abuses (used bad language) and said thatyou are persons of bad caste and that we will not let you live inthis mohalla/vicinity. Respect Sir, the applicant and her family hasthreat to her life from such persons. Thus, it is requested that anFIR may be lodged against such persons and necessary actionmay be taken against them…..”

1 For short, the ‘Code’

2 For short, “the Act”.

A

B

C

DEF

G

H

A

3. Pursuant to the FIR filed by Respondent No. 2, Police filed areport disclosing offences under Sections 504, 506 IPC and Section3(1)(x) of the Act, cognizance for the same was taken by the Trial Courton 25.6.2020. It is the said order which was challenged along with thecharge-sheet before the High Court, which was unsuccessful.

B4. On the other hand, on the basis of the statement of Mr. PawanVerma, an FIR No. 174 at about 23:47 hours was lodged on 11.12.2019in respect of an occurrence which had taken place allegedly at 9:45hours on 11.12.2019. A charge-sheet in the said matter has been submittedagainst respondent No. 2 and others. Thereafter, the learned Chief JudicialMagistrate, Pithoragarh had taken cognizance for the offences underCSections 323 and 354 IPC against respondent No. 2 and others on2.7.2020.

5. The Appellant invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court byway of a petition under Section 482 of the Code to challenge the charge-sheet and the order taking cognizance. The Appellant relied upon GerigeDPentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.[3] wherein the allegationwas of abusing the complainant in the name of their caste and this Courtquashed the complaint. The attention of the High Court was drawn toanother judgment reported as Ashabai Machindra Adhagale v. Stateof Maharashtra & Ors.[4] wherein this Court refused to quash the FIREon the ground that the caste of the accused was not mentioned in thefirst information report. The High Court found that both theabovementioned cases dealt with the same issue with regard toapplicability of the provisions of the Act. It was observed by the HighCourt that the appellant had categorically admitted that the informantbelonged to Scheduled Caste and that she and her labourers were abused.FTherefore, the provisions of the Act were found to be applicable andaccordingly, after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted. TheHigh Court dismissed the petition with the aforesaid findings.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the disputesrelating to the property are pending before the Civil Court and that, theGpresent FIR has been filed on patently false grounds by respondent No.2 only to harass the appellant and to abuse the process of law. It isargued that the allegations levelled in the FIR and the subsequent reportsubmitted by the Police after investigations does not disclose any offence 3 (2008) 12 SCC 531H4 (2009) 3 SCC 789

under the Act. Furthermore, it is argued that the report neither disclosesthe caste of the informant nor the allegations are that they were made inpublic view. Also, the offending words are not purported to be made forthe reason that the informant is a person belonging to Scheduled Caste.

7. The learned counsel for the State on the contrary, submittedthat during investigations, certain persons have supported the version ofthe informant. It is argued on behalf of respondent No. 2 that in fact theappellant and his family are encroacher on the informant’s land. Therefore,the appellant was rightly not granted any indulgence by the High Court.

8. Against the backdrop of these facts, it is pertinent to refer tothe Statement of Objects and Reasons of enactment of the Act. It isprovided as under:

“Despite various measures to improve the socio-economicconditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, theyremain vulnerable. They are denied number of civil rights. Theyare subjected to various offences, indignities, humiliations andharassment. They have, in several brutal incidents, been deprivedof their life and property. Serious crimes are committed againstthem for various historical, social and economic reasons.

2. Because of the awareness created amongst the ScheduledCastes and the Scheduled Tribes through spread of education,etc., they are trying to assert their rights and this is not beingtaken very kindly by the others. When they assert their rights andresist practices of untouchability against them or demand statutoryminimum wages or refuse to do any bonded and forced labour,the vested interests try to cow them down and terrorise them.When the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes try topreserve their self-respect or honour of their women, they becomeirritants for the dominant and the mighty. Occupation andcultivation of even the Government allotted land by the ScheduledCastes and the Scheduled Tribes is resented and more often thesepeople become victims of attacks by the vested interests. Of late,there has bene an increase in the disturbing trend of commissionof certain atrocities like making the Scheduled Caste persons eatinedible substances like human excreta and attacks on and masskillings of helpless Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribesand rape of women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

Scheduled Tribes. Under the circumstances, the existing laws likethe Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the normal provisionsof the Indian Penal Code have been found to be inadequate tocheck these crimes. A special Legislation to check and deter crimesagainst them committed by non-Scheduled Castes and non-Scheduled Tribes has, therefore, become necessary.”

B

9. The long title of the Act is to prevent the commission of offencesof atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and theScheduled Tribes, to provide for Special Courts and Exclusive SpecialCourts for the trial of such offences and for the relief and rehabilitationof the victims of such offences and for matters connected therewith orCincidental thereto.

10. The Act was enacted to improve the social economic conditionsof the vulnerable sections of the society as they have been subjected tovarious offences such as indignities, humiliations and harassment. Theyhave been deprived of life and property as well. The object of the Act isDthus to punish the violators who inflict indignities, humiliations andharassment and commit the offence as defined under Section 3 of theAct. The Act is thus intended to punish the acts of the upper casteagainst the vulnerable section of the society for the reason that theybelong to a particular community.

E

11. It may be stated that the charge-sheet filed is for an offenceunder Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The said section stands substituted byAct No. 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26.1.2016. The substituted correspondingprovision is Section 3(1)(r) which reads as under:

“3(1)(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliateFa member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any placewithin public view;”

12. The basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) ofthe Act can be classified as “1) intentionally insults or intimidates withintent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled TribeGand 2) in any place within public view”.

13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicatethe ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliatea member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults orintimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unlessHsuch insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled

Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribesas they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Actwould be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of theSociety is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. Theassertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to eitherthe indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right toavail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellantor his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or thatrespondent No.2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then theparties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedureestablished by law. Such action is not for the reason that respondentNo.2 is member of Scheduled Caste.

14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidationin “any place within public view”. What is to be regarded as “place inpublic view” had come up for consideration before this Court in thejudgment reported as Swaran Singh & Ors. v. State through StandingCounsel & Ors.[5]. The Court had drawn distinction between theexpression “public place” and “in any place within public view”. It washeld that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawnoutside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road orlane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a placewithin the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside abuilding, but some members of the public are there (not merely relativesor friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the publicview. The Court held as under:

“28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the firstinformant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a“chamar”) when he stood near the car which was parked at thegate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a placewithin public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a placewithin public view. It could have been a different matter had thealleged offence been committed inside a building, and also wasnot in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outsidethe building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can beseen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall,the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, 5 (2008) 8 SCC 435

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

Aeven if the remark is made inside a building, but some membersof the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also itwould be an offence since it is in the public view. We must,therefore, not confuse the expression “place within public view”with the expression “public place”. A place can be a private placebut yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public placeBwould ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by theGovernment or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabhaor an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons orprivate bodies.”

15. As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the informant wereCwithin the four walls of her building. It is not the case of the informantthat there was any member of the public (not merely relatives or friends)at the time of the incident in the house. Therefore, the basic ingredientthat the words were uttered “in any place within public view” is notmade out. In the list of witnesses appended to the charge-sheet, certainDwitnesses are named but it could not be said that those were the personspresent within the four walls of the building. The offence is alleged tohave taken place within the four walls of the building. Therefore, in viewof the judgment of this Court in Swaran Singh, it cannot be said to be aplace within public view as none was said to be present within the fourwalls of the building as per the FIR and/or charge-sheet.E

16. There is a dispute about the possession of the land which isthe subject matter of civil dispute between the parties as per respondentNo.2 herself. Due to dispute, appellant and others were not permittingrespondent No.2 to cultivate the land for the last six months. Since thematter is regarding possession of property pending before the Civil Court,Fany dispute arising on account of possession of the said property wouldnot disclose an offence under the Act unless the victim is abused, intimatedor harassed only for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste orScheduled Tribe.

17. In another judgment reported as Khuman Singh v. State ofGMadhya Pradesh[6], this Court held that in a case for applicability ofSection 3(2)(v) of the Act, the fact that the deceased belonged toScheduled Caste would not be enough to inflict enhanced punishment.This Court held that there was nothing to suggest that the offence was committed by the appellant only because the deceased belonged toScheduled Caste. The Court held as under:

“15. As held by the Supreme Court, the offence must be such soas to attract the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. Theoffence must have been committed against the person on theground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste andScheduled Tribe. In the present case, the fact that the deceasedwas belonging to “Khangar”-Scheduled Caste is not disputed.There is no evidence to show that the offence was committedonly on the ground that the victim was a member of the ScheduledCaste and therefore, the conviction of the appellant-accused underSection 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not sustainable.”

18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely onthe fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless thereis an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or ScheduledTribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the presentcase, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegationof hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property.If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence underSection 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out.

19. This Court in a judgment reported as Dr. Subhash KashinathMahajan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.[7] issued certain directions inrespect of investigations required to be conducted under the Act. In areview filed by the Union against the said judgment, this Court in ajudgment reported as Union of India v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.[8]reviewed the directions issued by this Court and held that if there is afalse and unsubstantiated FIR, the proceedings under Section 482 of theCode can be invoked. The Court held as under:

“52. There is no presumption that the members of the ScheduledCastes and Scheduled Tribes may misuse the provisions of law asa class and it is not resorted to by the members of the uppercastes or the members of the elite class. For lodging a false report,it cannot be said that the caste of a person is the cause. It is dueto the human failing and not due to the caste factor. Caste is not 7 (2018) 6 SCC 454

8 (2020) 4 SCC 761

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aattributable to such an act. On the other hand, members of theScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes due to backwardnesshardly muster the courage to lodge even a first information report,much less, a false one. In case it is found to be false/unsubstantiated, it may be due to the faulty investigation or forother various reasons including human failings irrespective of casteBfactor. There may be certain cases which may be false that canbe a ground for interference by the Court, but the law cannot bechanged due to such misuse. In such a situation, it can be takencare of in proceeding under Section 482 CrPC.”

20. Later, while examining the constitutionality of the provisionsCof the Amending Act (Central Act No. 27 of 2018), this Court in ajudgment reported as Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India & Ors.[9]held that proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code. Itwas held as under:

“12. The Court can, in exceptional cases, exercise power underDSection 482 CrPC for quashing the cases to prevent misuse ofprovisions on settled parameters, as already observed while decidingthe review petitions. The legal position is clear, and no argumentto the contrary has been raised.”

21. In Gerige Pentaiah, one of the arguments raised was non-Edisclosure of the caste of the accused but the facts were almost similaras there was civil dispute between parties pending and the allegationwas that the accused has called abuses in the name of the caste of thevictim. The High Court herein has misread the judgment of this Court inAshabai Machindra Adhagale as it was not a case about the caste ofFthe victim but the fact that the accused was belonging to upper castewas not mentioned in the FIR. The High Court of Bombay had quashedthe proceedings for the reason that the caste of the accused was notmentioned in the FIR, therefore, the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) ofthe Act is not made out. In an appeal against the decision of the BombayHigh Court, this Court held that this will be the matter of investigation asGto whether the accused either belongs to or does not belong to ScheduledCaste or Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the High Court erred in law todismiss the quashing petition relying upon later larger Bench judgment.

22. The appellant had sought quashing of the charge-sheet on theground that the allegation does not make out an offence under the Actagainst the appellant merely because respondent No. 2 was a ScheduledCaste since the property dispute was not on account of the fact thatrespondent No. 2 was a Scheduled Caste. The property disputes betweena vulnerable section of the society and a person of upper caste will notdisclose any offence under the Act unless, the allegations are on accountof the victim being a Scheduled Caste.Still further, the finding that theappellant was aware of the caste of the informant is whollyinconsequential as the knowledge does not bar, any person to protect hisrights by way of a procedure established by law.

23. This Court in a judgment reported as Ishwar Pratap Singh& Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.[10] held that there is no prohibitionunder the law for quashing the charge-sheet in part. In a petition filedunder Section 482 of the Code, the High Court is required to examine asto whether its intervention is required for prevention of abuse of processof law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Court held asunder:

“9. Having regard to the settled legal position on externalinterference in investigation and the specific facts of this case,we are of the view that the High Court ought to have exercisedits jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice.There is no prohibition under law for quashing a charge-sheet inpart. A person may be accused of several offences under differentpenal statutes, as in the instant case. He could be aggrieved ofprosecution only on a particular charge or charges, on any groundavailable to him in law. Under Section 482, all that the High Courtis required to examine is whether its intervention is required forimplementing orders under the Criminal Procedure Code or forprevention of abuse of process, or otherwise to secure the endsof justice. A charge-sheet filed at the dictate of somebody otherthan the police would amount to abuse of the process of law andhence the High Court ought to have exercised its inherent powersunder Section 482 to the extent of the abuse. There is norequirement that the charge-sheet has to be quashed as a wholeand not in part. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The AB

C

D

E

F

G

Asupplementary report filed by the police, at the direction of theCommission, is quashed.”

24. In view of the above facts, we find that the charges againstthe appellant under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act are not made out.Consequently, the charge-sheet to that extent is quashed. The appeal isBdisposed of in the above terms.

25. The FIR in respect of other offences will be tried by thecompetent Court in accordance with law along with the criminal case[11],though separately initiated, for the reason that it relates to interpartydispute and is in respect of same subject matter of property, despite ofCthe fact that two different dates of the incident have been provided bythe parties.

Kalpana K. Tripathy

Appeal disposed of.

D

E

F

G