Allahabad High Court
Ranvir Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. on 9 July, 2025
Author: Vivek Kumar Birla
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved on 22.04.2025 Delivered on 09.07.2025 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:108028-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 159 of 1986 Appellant :- Ranvir Singh And Others Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- U.C. Katiyar,Dharmendra Kumar Singh,Lavkush Kumar Bhatt,Narendra Kumar Singh,Rahul Pandey,Vijay Kumar Mahendra Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Hon’ble Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.
(Per: Hon’ble Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
1. Heard Shri Dalvir Singh, learned counsel for the appellant nos.1 and 2, Shri Gyan Chandra, learned counsel for the appellant no.3, Shri Rahul Ashthana, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
3. By way of this appeal, the appellant nos.1 2, 3 & 4,namely, Ranvir Singh, Rajveer Singh, Babu Singh and Mahesh Singh (since deceased) during the pendency of the appeal have challenged their conviction and sentence passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad vide judgement and order dated 09.01.1986 in Sessions Trial No.360 of 1983, arising out of Case Crime No.16 of 1982, under sections 302, 302/34, 201 IPC, Police Station Rajepur, District Farrukhabad.
4. The learned trial Court vide judgement and order dated 09.01.1986 has convicted and sentenced appellant no.1 Ranvir Singh under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment of 7 years for charge under Section 201 of IPC. The learned trial Court has also convicted and sentenced appellants Rajveer Singh son of Puttoo Singh, Babu Singh son of Jagat Nath Singh and Mahesh Singh son of Harish Chandra for charge under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and they have also been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the said sections and further sentence of seven years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 of IPC. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant Mahesh Singh died and the appeal stands abated against him.
5. The prosecution story in brief is that the first information report was lodged by the informant Jadunandan Singh stating therein that his brother Brijnandan Singh was a candidate of Pradhan in the election of Gaon Sabha. On 14.04.1983, the informant Jadunandan Singh, his brother Brijnandan Singh and Rakshpal Singh had gone from village Leelapur to village Udhranpur for canvassing in favour of Brijnandan Singh in the upcoming election of Pradhan of Gaon Sabha. At about 04:00 P.M. in the evening, when they were sitting on the cot near the tube-well of Nathhu Singh and Bachan Singh was sitting on another cot and they were discussing about the election. Thereafter, all these accused Ranveer Singh and Rajveer Singh sons of Puttu Singh, Babu Singh son of Jagganath Singh and Mahesh Singh son of Harishchand Singh, resident of village Leelapur reached near the tube-well. Accused Rajveer Singh was armed with tamancha (country made pistol), accused Ranveer Singh armed with Banka, accused Babu Singh armed with lathi and accused Mahesh Singh also armed with Tamancha (country made pistol) surrounded Brijnandan Singh. Accused Babu Singh started beating Brajnandan Singh with lathis and sticks. They shouted and ran away but Rajveer Singh challenged them saying that today they will take revenge for their father. Rajveer Singh fired from his pistol at Brajnandan Singh which hit him and Mahesh fired at Jadunandan Singh but he missed the target. Ranbir Singh took off Brajnandan Singh’s head from his banka and covering his head with his towel (Agaunchha) everyone ran towards south. They could not chase them due to fear and being unarmed. Rajveer Singh’s father was murdered about 20 years ago. This happened a year ago in which Jadunandan Singh and his brother Brijnandan Singh were also accused. It has been stated by informant that accused persons were earlier involved in a case lodged by him and they have been acquitted by High Court and due to this reason, there was enmity between the accused and the informant.
6. On the basis of the above report, Case Crime No.16 of 1982, under sections 302, 302/34, 201 IPC, Police Station Rajepur, District Farrukhabad was registered against all four named accused persons. The Investigating Officer commenced the investigation and after conclusion of the investigation submitted charge sheet against all the above accused persons.
7. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad took cognizance of the case and committed the case to the Court of Session and thereafter the trial commenced and the case was finally transferred to the Court Second Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad.
8. The charges were framed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad against the accused/ appellant under Sections 302, 302/34 IPC and 201 IPC against all the four named accused persons to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
9. The prosecution examined five witnesses, namely, PW-1 Jadunandna Singh, PW-2 Rakshpal Singh PW-3 Natthu Singh, PW-4 Dr. Rajendra Shukla, PW-5 Ram Saran Singh were examined in oral as well as documentary evidence.
10. PW-1 Jadunandan Singh, first informant who accompanied the deceased for canvassing is the real brother of the deceased and was one of the accused in the murder case of the father of the appellant nos.1 and 2 and in that case father of Babu Singh (appellant no.3) and father of Mahesh Singh (appellant No.4) were the witnesses.
11. PW-2 Rakeshpal Singh who accompanied the deceased for canvassing is real nephew of Rampal Singh & Het Singh, both sons of Lalla Singh, was the accused in the murder case of father of the appellant no.1 and 2 and in that case father of appellants no.3 and 4 namely, Jagannath Singh & Harishchand were the witnesses.
12. PW-3 Natthu Singh, who was allegedly present at his tube-well did not support the prosecution version and was declared hostile.
13. PW-4 Dr. Rajendra Shukla, who conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased found the following injuries:-
(a) 2 incised wound one wound is 6×2 cm x bone deep just above to left wrist, second incised wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep obliquely placed to 2 cm left to the first injury out of which the bone of first injury was clean cut and the margins were clean cut.
(b) Abrasion bruise 6 cm x 2.5 cm on the back of right elbow.
(c) Lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.75 cm x bone deep all around which bruise injury in the area of 4.5 cm x 2.5 cm on the back of left forearm 7 cm below to elbow with curvature.
(d) Bruise / contusion 3 cm x 1.5 cm on the back of right knee.
(e) Abraded contusion 4.5 cm x 3 cm just below the left knee slightly in the middle place obliquely.
(f) Abrasion 26 cm x 2.5 cm crossing the mid line and placed obliquely.
(g) Abraded contusion 9 cm x 4 cm on the upper and outer side of left thigh.
(h) Irregular cut injury at the leve of 7th survical vertebra (C-7). 12 cm diameter X all structure clean cut margin clean cut and raged with clotted blood. The food material was coming out from the oesophagus (Khane ki nali). The head from the C-7 level was missing.
(i) Entry wound of firearm .5 cm x .5 cm x chest deep just 18 cm below the right axilla. The margins were inverted, abraded and lacerated.
14. PW-5 Ram Saran Singh, the Investigating Officer, who conducted the panchayatnama of the dead body of the deceased collected the blood stained and original soil from the alleged place of occurrence and prepared the seizure memo, Exhibit Ka-12 and also recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and submitted charge sheet.
15. After closure of prosecution evidence the statement of appellant-accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which the accused denied his involvement in the case. The appellant accused also stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he was roped in this case due to enmity.
16. The prosecution has examined five witnesses before the learned trial court in oral evidence and has proved Tehrir as Ext. Ka1, Post-mortem report as Ext. Ka2, First information Report as Ext. Ka3, G.D. No.16 as Ext. Ka4, Inquest report as Ext. Ka7, Photo Naash as Ext. Ka8, Report to R.I. as Ext. Ka8, Report to Chief Medical Officer as Ext. Ka9, Namoona Mohar as Ext. Ka10, Recovery memo of blood stained and original soil as Ext. Ka11, Recovery memo of shoes of deceased which were handed over to his brother as Ext. Ka12, Site plan of place of occurrence as Ext. Ka13, Charge sheet as Ext. Ka14, in F.I.R.
17. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that PW-1 Jadunandan Singh and PW-2 Rakshpal Singh are highly interested witnesses and their testimony is not reliable as PW-1 Jadunandan Singh has deposed that Rampal Singh, Het Singh both sons of Lalla Singh, Shivamangal Singh s/o Lal Singh, he and his brother Brijnandan, Ram Bharose Lohar and Kariya were the accused in the murder case of father of Ranvir Singh and Jai Singh was the informant of that case. PW-1 and 2 are highly interested witnesses and there are material contradictions in the testimony of PW-1 and 2.
18. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on Raju Alias Balachandran and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 12 Sureme Court Cases 701, paragraphs 24 reads as under:-
” 24. For the time being, we are concerned with four categories of witnesses- a third party disinterested and unrelated witnesses (such as a bystander or passer by); a third party interested witness (such as a trap witness); a related and therefore, an interested witness (such as the wife of the victim) having an interest in seeing that the accused is punished; a related and therefore, an interested witness (such as the wife or brother of the victim) having an interest in seeing the accused punished and also having some enmity with the accused. But, more than the categorisation of a witness, the issue really is one of the appreciation of the evidence of a witness, the issue really is one of the appreciation of the evidence of a witness. A court should examine the evidence of a related and interested witness having an interest in seeing the accused punished and also having some enmity with the accused with greater care and caution than the evidence of a third party disinterested and unrelated witness. This is all that is expected and required.
26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship for from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalisation. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts.”
19. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that there are material contradictions between the ocular and the medical evidence and ocular evidence does not find corroboration from medical evidence and as such the testimonies of alleged eye witnesses are doubtful and cannot be relied upon.
20. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on Chotkau Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 987, paragraph nos.65, 66, 67 reads as under:-
” 65. Therefore, the learned Additional Advocate General for the State may be right, in theory, that a delay in transmission of the FIR to the Court, may not, per se, be fatal, without anything more. But in the case on hand, the delay was not small. The FIR said to have been registered on 08.03.2012 was received by the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 13.03.2012. It is true that no question was put in cross-examination to the Investigation Officer about this delay.
66. But we have found that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is untrustworthy, particularly on the question of the origin and genesis of the first information report. Therefore, the inordinate delay in the FIR reaching the jurisdictional court assumes significance. We agree that the word “forthwith” in Section 157(1) of the Code is to be understood in the context of the given facts and circumstances of each case and a straitjacket formula cannot be applied in all the cases. But where ocular evidence is found to be unreliable and thus unacceptable, a long delay has to be taken note of by the Court. The mandate of Section 157(1) of the Code being clear, the prosecution is expected to place on record the basic foundational facts, such as the officer who to0ok the first information report to the jurisdictional court, the authority which directed such a course of action and the mode by which it was complied. Explaining the delay is a different aspect than placing the material in compliance of the Code.
67. In the present case, it is not even known as to who took the first information report from P.W.6 or P.W.4 and submitted before the jurisdiction court. Neither PW4 nor PW6 spoke about the person who took the FIR to the Court. They did not say that they took it to the court. It is not a case of mere delay in sending the first information report, but one involving the contradictory evidence by the prosecution witnesses on the manner in which the first information report is written.
21. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that PW-4, who has conducted the post-mortem of the deceased and has opined that rigor mortis just after death was present on 15.04.1982 at 02:30 p.m. and semi digested food was also found in stomach and there was no sign of decomposition which shows that the deceased must have died in between 8/8.30 p.m. to 12 hours in the night of 14/15.04.1982 and it cannot be ruled out that the deceased was murdered in the night by unknown miscreants and none has witnessed the incident but due to old enmity with the appellants, the first informant with connivance of PW-2, concocting the false story, got lodged the ante-time and ante-date F.I.R. against the appellants.
22. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that PW-4 Dr. Rajendra Shukla has also opined that the injuries sustained by the deceased might have been caused in between 4.30 to 10.30 in the night of 14.04.1982, but the prosecution in order to strengthen its case, concocting a false story, alleged that the incident had taken place at 04:30 p.m. on 14.04.1982.
23. Learned counsel for the appellants has also highlighted the fact that PW-1 has stated in his testimony that it took 2 to 3 minutes for the whole incident to have occurred and he stayed on the spot till 5.00 p.m. but nobody came there, neither any resident of village Udharanpur nor any other person except his son Ramesh Pal Singh, which is highly improbable and unnatural that no one from the village would reach the place of occurrence after the incident had taken place.
24. Learned counsel for the appellants has also argued that the FIR is ante-time and ante-date and it had been got lodged at 17:45 i.e. 5.45 p.m. on 14.04.1982 and the distance of the reporting police chauki (out post) Amritpur is only 3 kms far from the alleged place of occurrence but the inquest of the dead body of the deceased had been conducted on 15.04.1982 in between 6 a.m. to 7 a.m. and regarding this delay no explanation has been offered by the prosecution.
25. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants has drawn attention of this Court towards the statement of PW-5 Sub Inspector (Ram Saran Singh) Investigating Officer, wherein he had conducted the inquest of the dead body of the deceased at 06.00 a.m. on 15.04.1982. He has also denied Exhibit Nos.Ka-11, Ka-12, Ka-8, Ka-9, Ka-10 & Ka-6 and Section 201 had been inserted later on by another ink because it was left due to inadvertence.
26. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that since Section 201 of IPC has been inserted later on by another pen. The possibility of non existence of the first information report and at the time of inquest cannot be ruled out and the F.I.R. is ante-time. Further learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the G.D. entry of Police Station Amritpur except the present case and no other entry has been made on that day, which also raises serious doubt on the timing of the first information report.
27. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn attention towards the statement of PW-5 Investigating Officer, wherein he has admitted that he had not recorded statement of any of the resident of the village Udhranpur except Natthu Singh.
28. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that from the above facts, it can safely be inferred that the incident took place somewhere else in the field in the dark night of 14.04.1982 and none has witnessed the incident.
29. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the conduct of PW-1 is highly unnatural as he did not raise any alarm when his brother was being murdered before him, also PW-2 did the same. Neither PW-1 nor PW-2 raise any alarm and they did not try to save Brijnath Singh. Further submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the ocular evidence and the postmortem report are in conflict with each other and also the site-plan prepared does not show the correct place of occurrence and the place of occurrence is highly doubtful.
30. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since PW-1 and PW-2 are highly interested witnesses, their testimony are required to be scrutinized very closely and with great care and caution.
31. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt and they are also entitled to be acquitted of charge framed against them.
32. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellants has stated that PW-3 has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case.
33. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the first information report has been sent to the learned Magistrate after long delay of 6 days i.e. 20.04.2011, which raises doubt on the correctness of the prosecution case and embellishment in the first information report cannot be ruled out.
34. Learned AGA while supporting the judgement of conviction and order of sentence impugned has submitted that PW-1 and 2 are natural eye witnesses and their presence at the place of occurrence has been established by their testimony. There is no material contradiction between medical evidence and the ocular evidence. Further, the enmity between the prosecution side and the accused is admitted.
35. Learned AGA further submits that motive of commission of crime is old criminal case between the prosecution and the accused side and as a result of this motive the accused have committed offence.
36. Learned counsel further submits that the accused appellant cannot be given the benefit of PW-3 turning hostile and even the testimony of hostile witness cannot be discarded in toto.
37. Learned counsel submits that the defence has not put any question in cross examination regarding delay of conducting inquest of the dead body from PW-5 therefore, they cannot raise this issue at the belated stage during argument.
38. Learned trial court, after hearing the prosecution and the defence, passed the judgement and sentence impugned whereby the appellants/ accused have been convicted under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
39. This Court is tasked with re-appreciation of the evidence on record and come to the conclusion and to find whether prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellants/ accused, beyond the reasonable doubt and whether the learned trial court has appreciated the evidence in the right perspective.
40. The enmity between the appellants/ accused and the prosecution side is admitted. In that view of the matter, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that PW-1 Jadunandan Singh and PW-2 Rakshpal Singh are highly interested witnesses and their testimony is not reliable. PW-1 Jadunandan Singh has deposed that Rampal Singh, Het Singh both sons of Lalla Singh, Shivamangal Singh s/o of Lal Singh, he and his brother Brijnandan, Ram Bharose Lohar and Kariya were the accused in the murder of father of Ranvir Singh and Jai Singh.
41. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that PW-1 has deposed that Jagannath Singh, the father of Babu Sing (appellant no.3) and the father of appellant no.4 (since died) were the witnesses and they had deposed against the accused persons. In the middle of page no.20 of the paper book, a specific allegation that there was a case under Sections 324, 325 IPC got lodged by PW-2 against appellant no.3 Babu Singh, however, he stated that he did not know but at page no.32 from 5th line to top PW-2 Rakshpal Singh admitted the fact that against appellant no.3 Babu singh and his brothers were beaten by appellant no.3 Babu Singh and in that incident a bone of his brother was also fractured, for which, the criminal case was got lodged by him and the accused were sentenced & convicted.
42. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that in the backdrop of the above, the old enmity between the parties is admitted and PW-1 and PW-2 are highly interested witnesses and their testimony has to be examined with due care and caution.
43. It is well settled that the testimonies of the interested witnesses are required to be scrutinized with greater care and caution as held in Raju alias Balachandran (supra).
44. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that there are material contradictions between the ocular and the medical evidence i.e. postmortem report, in other words it may be stated that the ocular evidence dost not seek corroboration from medical evidence, as injury no.1 there are two incised wounds, one incised wound is 5×2 cm x bone deep just above left wrist, second incised wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep obliquely placed to 2 cm left to the first injury out of which, the bone of first injury was clean cut and the margins were clean cut but the above said two cut injuries (injury no.1 of the postmortem) have not been explained by the prosecution.
45. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that it is not the case of prosecution that when the blow of baka was made the deceased tried to block the blow of Baka to save him as such the ocular evidence does not seek corroboration from the postmortem report.
46. The testimony of eye witness has been recorded after lapse of much time. PW-1 has categorically stated that blow of Baka was inflicted on the neck of the deceased and it is quite possible that in order to save himself the deceased might have tried to stop the blow from his hand and in that process, he might have received injuries on his wrist.
47. In view of the above, there does not appear to be material contradictions between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence.
48. In case of Pruthiviraj Jayantibhai Vanol Vs. Dinesh Dayabhai Vala, AIR ONLINE 2021 SC 382, paragraph no.17, reads as under:-
“17. Ocular evidence is considered the best evidence unless there are reasons to doubt it. The evidence of PW2 and PW10 is unimpeachable. It is only in a case where there is a gross contradiction between medical evidence and oral evidence, and the medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable and rules out all possibility of ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved. In the present case, we find no inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence. The High Court grossly erred in appreciation of evidence by holding that muddamal no.5 was a simple iron rod without noticing the evidence that it had a sharp turn edge.
49. In view of the above, argument of learned counsel for the appellants does not have much force. Further contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that there was a delay of 6 days in sending the first information report to the jurisdictional Magistrate and on the basis of the above, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted as delay in sending the first information report raises doubt on the veracity of the first information report and it goes to show that the first information report is ante time document and is not worthy of credence.
50. In the case of Ombir Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 2609, paragraph no.21, reads as under:-
“17. Ocular evidence is considered the best evidence unless there are reasons to doubt it. The evidence of PW2 and PW10 is unimpeachable. It is only in a case where there is a gross contradiction between 21. This Court in Anjan Dasgupta v. State of W.B. [Anjan Dasgupta v. State of W.B., (2017) 11 SCC 222 : (2017) 4 SCC (Cri) 280] (of which one of us was a member, Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.) had considered Section 157 CrPC. In the above case also, the FIR was dispatched with delay. Referring to an earlier judgment [Rabindra Mahto v. State of Jharkhand, (2006) 10 SCC 432 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 592] of this Court, it was held that in every case from the mere delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate, the Court would not conclude that the FIR has been registered much later in time than shown. Therefore, delay in compliance of Section 157 of the Code cannot, in itself, be a good ground to acquit the appellant. Albeit, this fact has to be considered when we examine the credibility of the version of the eye-witnesses; in this case, the testimonies of Dinesh Singh (PW-1) and Mukesh Singh (PW-2). We must also keep in mind that there were questions raised by the complainant and the family members of the deceased as to the manner in which the investigation was carried by the first Investigation Officer and his team, and therefore the investigation was subsequently transferred to the Crime Branch- Crime Investigation Department (‘C.B.C.I.D’, for short) on 01.08.1999.
51. Considering the above proposition of law, it is clear that the delay in sending the first information report to the jurisdictional Magistrate can be taken into account along with other attending evidences and if the evidence of eye witnesses are wholly unreliable, then the fact of delay in sending the first information report to the jurisdictional Magistrate can prove fatal for the prosecution.
52. In this case, PW-1 and PW-2 are consistent in their statement regarding the incident being committed and the role of the accused persons as narrated in the first information report to be true. There are some improvements and some contradictions but they are not of such a nature which could erode their credibility.
53. PW-3 has turned hostile but he has also stated that when he reached his village he found the dead body of the deceased with neck chopped off.
54. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the incident has not taken place as alleged and the time of the incident is doubtful rather than the incident took place in the dark of the night. The appellants have been falsely implicated.
55. PW-4 in his cross-examination has stated that the injuries sustained by the injured could have been possible between 04:30 P.M. to 10:30 P.M. and injury No.8 could have been caused by single blow. Thus, the above argument of the learned counsel for the appellants has got no force.
56. From the above evidence, it cannot be said that the incident could not have been occurred at 04:30 P.M. as alleged by the prosecution.
57. In view of above, learned trial court has appreciated the evidence in the right perspective and has passed a well reasoned judgement and sentence which does not call for any interference by us.
58. Resultantly, the appeal is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed, accordingly.
59. Let a copy of this order be communicated by the Registrar (Compliance) to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad for compliance forthwith.
60. The Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned is also directed to send his compliance report within one month to Court from the date of receipt of this order.
Order Date :- 09.07.2025
RKM