Crl. Revision No.3657 of 2012 -:1:- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.3657 of 2012 Date of decision: May 05, 2014 Saroj Bala …Petitioner Versus Vipan Kumar and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH Present:- Mr. V.B. Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for respondent No.1. *** 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. *** Amol Rattan Singh, J.
This revision petition has been filed by the wife of the late complainant of FIR No.156, dated 27.12.2008, lodged at Police Station GRP-Faridabad, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 306, 309 IPC and under Section 3 of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the complainant himself having since died. The petition seeks setting aside of the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, dated 22.09.2012, by which the application filed by the present petitioner and her late husband (complainant of the FIR), was dismissed. The application sought that a charge for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC be framed against the accused, i.e. the present Respondent no.1, Vipan Kumar, on account of the death of Chander Vikas 2014.05.12 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No.3657 of 2012 -:2:- the daughter of the complainant and the present petitioner, in view of the circumstances surrounding her death.
2. The facts of the case are that the FIR was lodged on 27.12.2008, on the statement of Chhotan Lal son of Jee Ram, resident of Panjokra Ka Majra, Police Station, Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar, to the effect that he had three children of whom the eldest was a daughter, Monika Karanwal. The said elder daughter, after having passed her matriculation examination, was studying in the 1st Semester of the Computer Trade in Bhagwan Parsu Ram Polytechnic College, Masana. Along with her, a co- girl student named Neeraj, resident of Ambala, and a boy student, Vipan Kumar, resident of Village Alika near Palwal, were also studying in the college. As per the FIR, a complaint had been earlier lodged against Vipan Kumar (present Respondent no.1) for teasing Monika, upon which the complainant had gone to the college and advised the boy to “become wise”.. The contents of the FIR further are, that after admission in the College, Monika started to reside with her maternal grandfather at Village Barara, District Ambala and on 24.12.2008, she went to college from the house of her maternal grandfather. On that very day, at about 11.00/11.30 a.m., Monika is stated to have used the phone of her friend (girl) Neeraj, to ring up her mother, i.e. the present petitioner Saroj Bala, telling her that she would come home on that day as there was a two day holiday. However, Monika did not turn up till late in the night, upon which the complainant spoke to her maternal grandfather and discovered that she had not reached Village Barara either. Chander Vikas 2014.05.12 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No.3657 of 2012 -:3:- On the next day, i.e. 25.12.2008, the complainant is stated to have searched for his daughter and it was learnt by him, from her college, that she had actually left the college the previous day. He is also stated to have searched for Vipan Kumar who was also not found to be available. The next day, i.e. 26.12.2008, as stated in the FIR, information was received by the complainant and his family by telephone that a dead body crushed by a train was lying at Hodal station near Palwal and that the Railway Police at Palwal had taken action in the matter. Having contacted the Railway Police, he reached Palwal on 27.12.2008, along with his brother Narinder Kumar and had identified the body of his daughter at the mortuary of the Civil Hospital. He gave her age there as 15/16 years. The allegation in the FIR further is that Monika was “taken from the college in love net”. by Vipan Kumar son of Kishanbir, caste Jat, resident of Village Alika, District Palwal, but later on because of the fear of parents and “social limits”., they went somewhere else and Monika was then instigated by Vipan Kumar to commit suicide by jumping in front of a train at Hodal Railway Station. The allegation is that though Monika jumped in front of the train and was killed on the spot, Vipan Kumar saved himself and, as such, the death of the complainants' daughter took place by Vipan Kumar compelling her to commit suicide and thereby abetting such suicide. He consequently prayed that action be taken against Vipan Kumar.
3. Consequently, the proceedings which were initially taken by the Railway Police upon discovery of a dead body of a “naked girl”., under Chander Vikas 2014.05.12 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No.3657 of 2012 -:4:- Section 174 Cr.P.C., were converted into an FIR with an offence punishable under Sections 306, 309 IPC, having found to be made out.
4. Subsequently, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. came to be filed, making out offences against Vipan Kumar punishable under Sections 366,366A, 306 and 309 IPC and Section 3 of the SC&ST Act, (on account of the fact that the deceased belonged to a Dalit family).
5. Not satisfied with the investigation, since by that time the complainant and the petitioner were convinced in their minds that it was not a case of a simple kidnapping but also of a rape and murder, a detailed representation was moved by them to the Director General of Police, Haryana, on 28.02.2009. No action having been taken thereupon, they filed CWP No.11536 of 2009 on 22.02.2009 in this Court, praying that the CBI be directed to investigate the matter. An interim order was passed by a coordinate Bench, in an application (Civil Misc. No.2958 of 2011) moved in that petition, on 25.02.2011, directing the Superintendent of Police, Palwal, to himself verify the investigation and to inform the Court, as to whether the matter had been investigated into properly or not. The petitioners before the writ Court were also given liberty to lead evidence before the trial Court by moving an appropriate application, if they so desired, for framing of an additional charge, after receipt of the report of the Superintendent of Police.
6. Consequently, the Superintendent of Police, Palwal, filed his affidavit before the writ Court on 28.03.2011, to the effect that “senior officers”. of the rank of Dy. Superintendent of Police had investigated into the matter and a challan had been submitted before the Illaqa Magistrate, but he had also called the complainant and after making enquiries, had visited Chander Vikas 2014.05.12 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No.3657 of 2012 -:5:- the place of occurrence and inspected it minutely and after verifying the facts at the spot, had come to a conclusion that the deceased, as also Vipan Kumar, had attempted to commit suicide by jumping before a running train, but Vipan Kumar instead of coming in front of the running train, crossed the railway track and fell down on the stones lying on the railway track and, as such, also suffered injuries, whereas Monika fell in front of the running train and died. The affidavit further stated that even the place where the torn pieces of clothes worn by the deceased were recovered, was also inspected. The affidavit also stated that as per the report of the board of doctors, dated 30.06.2009, the possibility of sexual intercourse could not be ruled out. As such, keeping in view the fact that the age of the deceased on the date of her death was 15 years, 5 months and 10 days and further because a packet of condoms was recovered from her bag, along with other articles, on 29.12.2008, “from the rented room of respondent No.5 by the investigating officer”., the Superintendent of Police was of the view that an offence under Section 376 IPC was also found to have been made out against Vipan Kumar, in addition to the offences for which he was already facing trial in the Court. However, as per the Superintendent of Police, no offence under Section 302 IPC was found to have been made out against him.
7. A supplementary report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was consequently filed by the police, making out an offence under Section 376 IPC also, against respondent No.1.
8. The petitioner and her husband had also moved an application Chander Vikas 2014.05.12 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No.3657 of 2012 -:6:- for addition of the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 302 IPC before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Palwal, on 13.06.2011.
9. Thereafter, CWP No.11536 of 2009 was finally disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 27.07.2011, observing therein that, as per the State counsel, a supplementary challan had been filed against the accused for an offence punishable under Sections 376 IPC, but the grievance of the petitioners was that Section 302 IPC had not been added and “the petitioners (sic, obviously meaning respondent No.5 in that case- Vipin Kumar), had not been arrested yet”.. The court also observed that the accused had already been released on bail and directed the police to apply for cancellation of the bail bonds and that if such application was filed, the same would be considered by the trial Court. It was also directed in the said order that any grievance of the petitioner with regard to the commission of a higher offence for which the accused had still not been charged, would be a matter that would be determined by the trial Court and when “appropriate materials are brought for amending the chargesheet before the trial Court”., the same would be considered by that Court. With this observation, that writ petition was disposed of.
10. The application of the petitioner and her late husband for enhancement of the charge against respondent No.1 was eventually decided by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra vide the impugned order dated 22.09.2012. In the said order, it has been noted that the additional charge under Section 376 IPC had already been framed on 05.08.2011 by the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Palwal. (As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the case was transferred by this Court, from Palwal to Chander Vikas 2014.05.12 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No.3657 of 2012 -:7:- Kurukshetra, on an application moved by the petitioner).
11. The question before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, therefore, was only with regard to framing of an additional charge for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. It was argued before the trial Court that from the affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police, Palwal, it was obvious that there was sufficient proof that the deceased was last seen in the company of respondent No.1 and that it was extremely difficult to believe that when both, Vipan Kumar and Monika, had jumped in front of a running train, she would have been killed at the spot “or crushed and died”., whereas he had not received a single injury, as there is no medico legal report with regard to him. It was further argued before the trial Court that the clothes on the dead body of Monika, in the month of December, as shown in the photographs taken by the police, clearly showed that she had been actually raped and was thereafter thrown in front of a running train, almost in a naked condition, as otherwise, she would have been wearing normal warm clothing on her body in routine, considering that the occurrence was towards the end of December. It was further argued that Vipan Kumar had stated before the police that he had left a note in his room, saying that in case his father would not agree with their inter-caste marriage, they would commit suicide. However, the said note was not recovered from Vipan Kumars' room at Pipli and thus, an inference should be taken against the accused.
12. As per the impugned order, in reply to the application, it had been stated (on behalf of the accused), that there wasn't an iota of evidence to connect the accused even for an offence under Section 376 IPC and that Chander Vikas 2014.05.12 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No.3657 of 2012 -:8:- an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was not made out, in view of the fact that the case had been thoroughly investigated and further, that the charge under Section 376 IPC was framed by the trial Court as per the directions of this Court.
13. The learned trial Court further took note of the judgments cited by the counsel for the applicant before it, but by simply referring to the fact that the matter had been investigated thoroughly by the Superintendent of Police, Palwal, dismissed the application, stating that no offence was made out for adding a charge in respect of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
14. After having heard learned counsel, before dealing with the matter on its merits, the issue raised by Mr. Ashit Malik, learned counsel for respondent No.1, would need to be addressed, on the maintainability of a revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against an order of the trial Court, discussing an application for framing an additional charge.
15. Therefore, first coming to the issue of maintainability of the revision petition. Mr. V.B. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, had submitted that the order dismissing an application seeking to frame an additional charge, is not an interlocutory order, as has been held in the case of Madhu Limaye vs. The State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC551 In paragraph no.15, thereof, it has been held, after examining the law on the issue, that:- “Even though there may be a scope for expressing different Chander Vikas 2014.05.12 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No.3657 of 2012 -:9:- opinions apropos the nature of the order which was under consideration in Mohan Lal's case in our judgment, undoubtedly, an order directing the filing of a complaint after enquiry made under a provision of the 1973 Code, similar to Section 476 of the 1898 Code will not be an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2). The order will be clearly revisable by the High Court. We must, however, hasten to add that the majority decision in Mohan Lal's case treats such an order as an order finally concluding the enquiry started to find out whether a complaint should be lodged or not, taking the prosecution launched on the filing of the complaint as a separate proceeding. From that point of view the matter under discussion may not be said to be squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Mohan Lal's case. Yet for the reasons already alluded to, we feel no difficulty in coming to the conclusion, after due consideration, that an order rejecting the plea of the accused on a point which, when accepted, will conclude the particular proceeding, will surely be not an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2).”. 16. However, it was also held that in para 10 of that judgment, after discussing an earlier judgment in Amar Nath Vs. State of Haryana (1977) 4 SCC137 that while the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would not be limited, even so it must be exercised very sparingly, however, in an order of interlocutory character, this Court would not exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. Thus, whether an order framing a charge, or as in this case, refusing to frame an additional charge, is an interlocutory order or not, is therefore, the question which needs to be answered.
17. Despite the doubt expressed by me at the time of putting up the case for re-hearing, in view of the judgment in Poonam Chand Jain vs. Fazru (2004) 13 SCC269and V.C. Shukla vs. State through CBI (1980) Suppl. SCC92 the matter need not be dwelt upon in detail, in view of what was also stated in V.C. Shuklas' case itself (supra) in para 8 thereof, to the Chander Vikas 2014.05.12 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No.3657 of 2012 -:10:- effect that “it follows therefore that an order framing a charge was clearly revisable by the High Court under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of 1898”.. However, it was held by their Lordships that as regards Section 11(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the order framing the charge was an interlocutory order within the meaning of the said section and as such an appeal against such order was not competent, in view of the provisions contained in Section 11(2) thereof. The matter, in my opinion, also stands settled in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in Helios & Matheson Information Technology Limited and others Vs. Rajeev Sawhney and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Crl.) 354 wherein, while examining the correctness of an order framing a charge, holding that it should be gone into by reference only to the documents referred to in Sections 239 and 240 Cr.P.C. and not on the basis of documents that the accused may produce, except in exceptional cases, it was held by their Lordships as below, in para 9 of the said judgment: “...Answering the question in the negative this Court held that while an order framing charges could be challenged in revision by the accused persons before the High Court or the Sessions Judge, the revisional Court could in any such case only examine the correctness of the order framing charges by reference to the documents referred to in Sections 239 and 240 of the Criminal Procedure Code and that the Court could not quash the charges on the basis of documents which the accused may produce except in exceptional cases where the documents are of unimpeachable character and can be legally translated into evidence. The following passage is, in this regard, apposite:
“7. If charges are framed in accordance with Section 240 Criminal Procedure Code on a finding that a prima facie case has been made Chander Vikas 2014.05.12 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No.3657 of 2012 -:11:- out as has been done in the instant case the person arraigned may, if he feels aggrieved, invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court or the Sessions Judge to contend that the charge-sheet submitted under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code and documents sent with it did not disclose any ground to presume that he had committed any offence for which he is charged and the revisional Court if so satisfied can quash the charges framed against him. To put it differently, once charges are framed under Section 240 Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction would not be justified in relying upon documents other than those referred to in Sections 239 and 240 Criminal Procedure Code; nor would it be justified in invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code to quash the same except in those rare cases where forensic exigencies and formidable compulsions justify such a course. We hasten to add even in such exceptional cases the High Court can look into only those documents which are unimpeachable and can be legally translated into relevant evidence.”
. (emphasis in italics supplied) The same view has been expressed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Dalip Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab, 1994(1) RCR (Crl.) 116 and by a Single Bench of the Madras High Court in V.R. Nedunchezhian Vs. State, (2000) Criminal Law Journal 976.
18. Hence, on the analogy that an order framing a charge is revisable, the order rejecting the framing of an additional charge on an application moved by the aggrieved person, would also be a revisable order, by invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C, in view of the fact that it determines finally, before the trial Court, an important right of the complainant, declining the prayer that the accused be charged for an offence of murder. Hence, the impugned order, is a revisable order. Chander Vikas 2014.05.12 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No.3657 of 2012 -:12:- 19. Coming now to the merits of the case. Mr. V.B. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that firstly, if the deceased were to commit suicide by jumping before the train on her own, there was no reason for her to be in a semi nude condition in the month of December, in a public place, i.e. the Railway Station, as is obvious from the photographs of the dead body taken at the spot, copies of which have been appended to this petition.
20. He next contended that respondent No.1 had earlier made a statement confessing to having made a “pact to die”. and had stated that he had also jumped and fallen between the railway track. However, in the affidavit of the Superintendent of Police, Palwal, filed in CWP No.11436 of 2009 (Annexure P-11), it was stated that he crossed the railway track and fell down on the stones lying on the railway track and, as such, also suffered injuries, while Monika came in front of a running train and died. Mr. Aggarwal contended that as such, firstly and foremost, there was a glaring discrepancy between (what is described as) the confessional statement (Annexure P-14 with the petition) made by respondent No.1 and the finding recorded by the Superintendent of Police, Palwal, to absolve respondent No.1 of having committed an offence of murder. The said statement dated 28.12.2008 to which Mr. Aggarwal refers, is stated to have been made before Sub-Inspector Desraj, Incharge of the Police Post, GRP, Palwal and ASI Surinder Singh, also of the said police post and is alleged to have been signed by respondent No.1. As per the said annexure, respondent No.1 is stated to have said Chander Vikas 2014.05.12 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No.3657 of 2012 -:13:- that both jumped before the train together but he came under the train and was saved, whereas Monika was crushed and died on the spot. As per that statement, he became unconscious and after regaining consciousness after sometime, went away from the spot out of fear and spent the night in the fields. On the other hand, the Superintendent of Polices' findings were, as already given herein above, to the effect that he landed across the track and not under the train.
21. Mr. Aggarwals' next contention was that, subsequently, respondent No.1 had retracted from his confessional statement and stated that he had been falsely implicated in the entire case. Thus, there was no consistency in any statement made by him and the murder was being attempted to being covered up by him, one way or the other.
22. He next contended that despite such a grave occurrence having taken place and respondent No.1 having survived, he made no complaint about the occurrence at all, before the police.
23. Learned counsels' next contention was that the accused had referred to a suicide note alleged to have been written by him, which was stated to be in his room, which was never recovered and as such, at least inference should have been drawn against him, which was a contention made before the learned trial Court but was not dealt with. Mr. Aggarwal contended that actually there was no such letter or pact of suicide and it was actually a case of murder, which was initially given the colour of suicide, with rape having been added as a charge only because the police had no choice in the matter, in view of the report of the Chander Vikas 2014.05.12 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No.3657 of 2012 -:14:- medical board and the recovery of condoms and the deceased being below the age of 16. Similarly, the clothes worn by the accused were also never recovered which he had allegedly stated that he would get recovered.
24. He next contended that even the confessional statement made to the police could not be ignored just because it was made to the police by the accused. In this regard, he cited the judgment of Rohtash Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 3 RCR (Crl.) SC355 drawing attention to para 26 thereof, wherein it was observed that the evidence of police officials cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belong to the police force and are in the investigating or prosecuting agency, though, as far as possible, the corroboration of their evidence should be done, on material particulars.
25. Next, with regard to the issue raised on the interference of this Court at a stage where a large number of witnesses have been examined by the trial Court, Mr. Aggarwal cited the judgment of Bhimanna Vs. State of Karnatka (2013) 2 RCR (Crl.) SC533 wherein the judgment in Kantilal Chandulal Mehta Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, AIR1970SC359 was cited, to the effect that where a Court of appeal or revision thinks that by omission to frame a charge, a failure of justice has been occasioned, it would order the charge to be framed and direct that the trial be re- commenced from the point immediately after the framing of the charge. Mr. Aggarwal points out that this was in fact in reference to a case where the accused had been acquitted and even then the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where a failure of justice occurs, the matter still be Chander Vikas 2014.05.12 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No.3657 of 2012 -:15:- remanded back to the trial Court for framing of the charge and to re- commence the trial from that point.
26. On the other hand, Mr. Ashit Malik, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, i.e. accused Vipan Kumar, submitted that of the 19 prosecution witnesses already examined, out of 21, none has supported any version of the occurrence as would suggest that a charge under Section 302 IPC is made out. He specifically referred to the statement of PW-16 who was the paternal uncle (Chacha ) of the deceased, i.e. brother of the late complainant. He next submitted that the FIR lodged at the instance of Chhotan Lal, i.e. the father of the deceased, nowhere even suggests murder but only instigation of the deceased to suicide by the accused. He further submitted that the matter of framing of additional charge stood closed after the order of a coordinate Bench of this Court, dated 27.07.2011 passed in CWP No.11536 of 2009, which specifically stated that the trial Court would take up the matter with regard to framing of additional charges when “appropriate materials”. are brought for amending the charges before that Court. As such, his contention is that with the material before the trial Court, if it felt that no charge under Section 302 IPC is made out, this Court would not interfere with that finding. He, thus, obviously prayed for dismissal of the petition.
27. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned AAG, Haryana, submitted that as per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, torn clothes, including a jacket and “chemise”., stated to be worn by the deceased, were also discovered, leaving the inference that can be drawn, to the Court (as to Chander Vikas 2014.05.12 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No.3657 of 2012 -:16:- whether they were thrown, after murdering the deceased or on account of the accident).
28. After considering the pleadings before me and the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing in the case, I find that the issues raised by Mr. Aggarwal, which were also raised before the trial Court, remained unanswered, as is obvious from a perusal of the impugned order, viz as to why and how the deceased, towards the end of month of December, was in a semi nude condition on the railway track, when her dead body was found. Secondly, as regards the different versions given by the accused, about the occurrence, as also the alleged suicide note not being recovered, are points that should have been dealt with by the trial Court, while considering the application of the petitioner and her late husband. This, in my opinion, would be necessary to have been gone into by the trial Court, before a conclusion could be reached by it, on whether a charge under Section 302 IPC is to be framed or not, against respondent No.1. Somehow, the application was simply dismissed by saying that there appears to be nothing to suggest that an offence against the accused punishable under Section 302 IPC is made out. It needs mention here that in case a charge is to be framed, obviously no detailed reasons are to be given by the trial Court so as to suggest a pre determined mind on the guilt of the accused but, while dismissing an application seeking to frame an additional charge, especially for an offence as grave as murder, the trial Court is required to give detailed reasons, as to why, as per the evidence and material before it, such a charge Chander Vikas 2014.05.12 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No.3657 of 2012 -:17:- is not warranted. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 22.09.2011, dismissing the application of the petitioner and her late husband, praying for addition of a charge in respect of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court for first determining, in the light of the evidence before it, as to whether such a charge is made out or not and thereafter only, accepting or rejecting the application. As already stated, in case the application is to be still dismissed, it would be done by the trial Court by passing an order, detailing therein the reasons as to why a charge under Section 302 IPC is not made out against respondent No.1, as per the material before it. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove, even giving reasons for remand of the case, will not be taken to be an indication to the trial Court that a charge must be framed or should not be framed, but are only an observation with regard to reasoning to be given at a stage when it still needs to be determined, as per evidence available, as to whether a charge under Section 302 IPC is made out or not. (AMOL RATTAN SINGH) JUDGE May 05, 2014 vcgarg Chander Vikas 2014.05.12 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh