SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mr. Manjunatha vs State Of Karnataka on 15 July, 2019










PIN – 572 101.



TUMKUR TOWN – 572 101
BANGALORE – 560 001.


SECTIONS 498-A AND 302 SectionIPC.



This appeal is directed against the judgment

passed in S.C.No.155/2013 on the file of learned II

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur, on

30.01.2015, wherein the appellant was found guilty

under Section 235 (2) SectionCr.PC and was convicted for the

offence punishable under Sections 498-A and Section302 of

IPC and sentenced to under go Rigorous Imprisonment

for a period of three years and also pay fine of

Rs.25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section

498A IPC and also sentenced to undergo imprisonment

for life and also to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- in default, to

undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for period of six

months for the offence punishable under Section 302

IPC and both sentences shall run consecutively.

2. The complaint came to be registered in Crime

No. 0019/2013 of Thilak Park Police Station, Tumkur,

for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and

Section302 IPC against Manjunatha, son of late Gangaiah, of

Kuripalya, Tumkur. The complainant is one

Jayamma, wife of said Manjunatha and the complaint

was lodged on 26.01.2013 at 9.15 a.m. registered in the

crime number stated above

3. The substance of the complaint is that,

On 26.01.2013 at about 8.00 a.m., the Police

received intimation from District Government Hospital,

Tumkur, and when the Police visited the hospital, he

was taken to injured Jayamma and her statement was

recorded. She is said to have stated that, about 10 years

back, she was given in marriage to Manjunatha, S/o.

Gangaiah, Kuripalya, Tumkur and through the

marriage, she got a son and a daughter who were then

aged 4 and 7 years respectively. Right from the

beginning of marital days, her husband used to

consume alcohol and was creating havoc in the family.

He used to abuse in a filthy language. In this connection

several Panchayat were conducted, but were of no avail.

On 25.01.2013 at about 6.30 p.m. Manjunatha came in

a drunken state to house, raised galata with the

complainant and abused her in bad language as

‘sulemunde bolimunde’ further with the intention of

killing the complainant, took out kerosene can and

poured kerosene on the complainant and set her ablaze,

thus, tried to murder her. When she screamed,

neighbhours Manjamma, wife of Murthappa and

Kariyamma, wife of Doddaiah, came and offered

assistance to her. Case was registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A and Section307 IPC. It was

upon her death due to burn injuries, case is

chargesheeted against the accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 498A and Section302 IPC.

4. On completion of investigation, the accused

was chargesheeted in CC No.1646/2013. It is stated

that on 25.01.2013 accused inflicted serious injuries by

pouring kerosene and setting complainant ablaze.

Manjunatha, from the date of marriage till the date of

incident used to pose torture, inflict injuries on her.

Further, harassed her physically and mentally and

caused cruelty to her. On 25.01.2013, in the evening,

when Jayamma was at house, he raised quarrel

regarding getting provisions and took out a can

containing kerosene, poured on Jayamma and set her

ablaze, because of which, she sustained serious injuries

and being unable to recover from burn injuries, she

succumbed to them on 29-01-2013. The accused

pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.

5. During the trial, the learned Sessions Judge

was accommodated with the oral evidence of PWs 1 to

16, documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to P10 and

documentary evidence of Ex.D1 in the form of statement

of PW3 and material objects MO1- Plastic can and MO2-

Match box.

6. On considering the evidence stated above and

on the submissions of learned Public Prosecutor and

learned counsel for accused, accused was found guilty

by the learned Sessions Judge for the offences

punishable under Sections 498A and Section302 IPC and

sentenced him as stated above.

7. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping,

the parties herein are referred to with their ranks as

held by them before the trial court.

8. We have heard learned counsel for appellant

Sri. N.R. Krishnappa and learned Additional Public

Prosecutor Sri. Vijaya kumar Majage for prosecution.

9. Sri. N.R. Krishnappa, learned counsel for

accused would submit that, accused is only the victim

of circumstances without any fault of him and learned

trial Judge failed to take note of the discrepancies

between the evidence of complainant and her daughter

PW1 and the neighbhours and independent witnesses

have not supported the prosecution version in principle.

He would further submit that on reading the oral

evidence of the witnesses, perusing the documents,

apparently, it could be seen that the accused is

innocent and was falsely roped into the case.

10. Sri. Vijaya Kumar Majage, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor for prosecution would submit that the

grievous injuries to the victim was sustained by her at

home at the hands of the accused and he was arrested

on 27.01.2013. Right from the day one, the marital life

was never easy or was bearable. The accused never

missed a single opportunity to harass and torture his

wife Jayamma. He used to consume alcohol and come

home intoxicated and beat Jayamma mercilessly and

had made her life miserable. He would further submit

that there are no exaggerations or artificial versions in

the evidence of prosecution witnesses. All those would

spoke in respect of the commission of offence by the

accused on his wife Jayamma, spoken naturally and it

established the guilt of the accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 498A and Section302 IPC.

11. The statement was given by complainant

Jayamma when she was in control of her state of affair

and able to give her statement. It was further submitted

that injured is the best witness. There is no occasion or

circumstances to disbelieve the version of the

complainant. Section 307 IPC which deals with attempt

to murder was converted into Section 302 IPC by virtue

of death of Jayamma, wife of the accused.

12. The main offence charged against the accused

is the one punishable under Section 302 IPC and it is

incumbent on the part of the prosecution to establish

the death of Jayamma on 29.01.2013 is a homicidal.

13. In this connection, the complaint is in the

form of statement – Ex.P7, which is the statement of

Jayamma when she was with burn injuries, evidence of

the Station House Officer-HC42, Ex.P4-Inquest mahazar

dated 30.01.2013 reveals the status of Jayamma and

massive burn injuries borne by the dead body and

posture versions and statement of witnesses are

confirming factors to conclude that death of Jayamma

on 29.01.2013. Postmortem Report dated 30-01-2013

is marked as Ex.P3 and the ante mortem injuries

mentioned therein and cause of death is due to

Septicemia, and the death was unnatural.

14. Thus, we have no hesitation in agreeing with

the fact of death of Jayamma, wife of Manjunatha/

accused on 29.01.2013 was a homicidal and not a

natural one.


15. Further, it is also incumbent on the part of

the prosecution to establish that homicidal death of

Jayamma was caused by the accused. In this

connection, it is necessary to go through the evidence of

the witnesses.

16. Among the witnesses who were examined,

PW1-Rakshitha is the daughter of accused and

deceased. This witness was aged 08 years as on the date

of giving her evidence.

17. Rakshitha, is cited as CW2, she is a child

witness examined as PW1 and learned trial Judge by

posing questions ascertained her ability to understand

the question and to give answers and she was permitted

to be examined. In her chief- examination on

17.09.2014, she tells about the relationship between the

accused and the deceased as they are parents. CW3-

Abhilash, is her brother. CW18- Shivanna and CW19-

Neelamma are her grand parents. This witness and her

brother were residing with her parents. Her father was

of quarrelsome nature. She does not know the reason

for quarrel. About two years back, one day night, her

father poured kerosene on her mother and set fire. Her

mother was taken to Victoria Hospital, there she died.

She was cross examined by the learned counsel

for the accused. She denied the suggestion that her

mother contacting fire from stove and accused saving

her and also getting injured in the process.

This witness what is spoken may be less, but tells

about the overtact. She was mindful of the fact that

accused being her father and deceased being her


18. PW2-Vinay Kumar, is a known person to the

accused and the victim and also circumstantial witness.

This witness states that accused was his relative and

his spouse with children were staying together and

galata was happening very often and one day two years

back at 7.30 p.m., people were speaking regarding

accused pouring kerosene on Jayamma and when this

witness went to the house, fire was put off, he took her

to Tumkur Hospital, thereafter, taken to Bangalore


19. PW3-Manjamma, resides in the same village.

She deposes that accused, deceased and their children

were residing near her house and are relatives of this

witness. There used to be galata in the house regarding

buying of provision. She has given statement before the

police and she has not stated before the police that the

accused was putting off the fire with the help of clothes,

which portion is marked as Ex.D1.

She was cross examined. No significant

contradictions are elicited.

20. PW4-Dr. Purushotham is the Medical Officer,

who has examined Jayamma on the date of the incident

i.e. on 25.01.2013 and he has observed that victim has

suffered 90 to 95 percent of 2nd degree burns has

covered entire body, except forehand. He referred her to

General Surgeon, sent her to Burns Ward and on the

same day, he has examined one Manja, 40 years stated

to be the husband of Jayamma with burn injuries. He

denies suggestions by learned defence counsel.

21. PW5-Maruthi, is circumstantial witness, but

turns hostile and does not supports the prosecution

case. Hostile.

22. PW6-Rajashekhar is circumstantial witness

and he has given his evidence on 20.11.2014. His

evidence is, about one and half years back, at about 7

or 7.30 p.m. CW1 -Jayamma came out from the

house and she was in flames and this witness and

others went near her and by that time, fire was put off

and she was taken to Tumkur hospital and thereafter,

she was taken to Bangalore Hospital.

He was treated hostile and cross examined. But

no significant admission are elicited from him.

23. PW7-Dr. Indira, has conducted the post

mortem on the dead body of Jayamma on 30.01.2013

and her evidence reveals the fact that Jayamma died

due to burn injuries.

24. PW8-Roopa is the sister of victim. She was

examined on 20.11.2014. She tells about the ill-

treatment meted out by the accused to her sister. She

states that accused used to came home intoxicated and

beat Jayamma. During her life time, Jayamma used to

express her grievance with this witness.

During her cross examination, she denies the


25. PW9-Geetha, was examined on 20.11.2014.

She is the elder sister of Jayamma. Her evidence is

almost in the same lines of her sister PW8-Roopa.

26. PW10-Hanumantharayappa, is the paternal

uncle of Jayamma. His evidence is to the effect that

Jayamma used to disclose marital difficulties, ill-

treatment by her husband, not being properly

maintained by the accused. He has advised accused.

He tells about the fire put to Jayamma.

27. PW11-Shivanna @ Tamate Shivanna, is the

father of Jayamma. He tells about the relationship and

the accused was not bringing provisions for the family

further not maintaining the family. This witness used to

send rice flour to Jayamma. Accused used to beat

Jayamma and tells about the incident of accused setting

fire to Jayamma and according to him, at about 12

a.m. one and half years back, he got the news and went

to District Hospital Tumkur and tells about the burn

injuries sustained by his daughter Jayamma. This

witness further states that accused was also there. He

denies the suggestions made against his version.

28. PW12-Neelamma is the mother of Jayamma.

She was examined on 20.11.2014. She deposes in the

lines of her husband PW11. She says Jayamma has told

to this witness that accused is even not getting

provisions and looking after her and even 15 days back

she came home and shows her chest, mouth and

suffered pains because she was beaten by her husband.

She tells about the incident that is said to have

been happened one and half years back and she

confirms the version of her husband regarding the

death of Jayamma.

29. PW13-Narasimhamurty is examined on

20-11-2014. He tells about the mahazar and seizure of

can and match box and mahazar is marked as Ex.P5.

30. PW14-Dr.Suresh babu has examined

Jayamma on 26.01.2013 at 8.30 a.m., she was bearing

burn injuries and she was aware of place, time and after

confirming her status, he permitted the Police Officers

to obtain her statement. He has signed the statement of

victim as Ex.P7 and his signature is Ex.P7(a) and also

identifies the signature of the injured as per Ex.P7(c).

He was cross examined. No significant

contradictions were elicited.

31. PW15- N.Guruprasad, Sub Inspector of Police

and he has spoken that on 26.01.2013 he went to

hospital and recorded the statement of Jayamma. He

has conducted part of investigation, seized material

objects- kerosene can and match box. He received the

information on 30.1.2013 that Jayamma was dead and

he gave intimation for registering offence under Section

302 IPC against the accused.

32. PW16- H.Y.Jagadeesh is the Circle Inspector

of Police. He has conducted substantial part of

investigation, recorded the statements of PWs-1,5,6,

8,9,10, CWs-3, 11,12, 13, sent the seized articles for

chemical examination, collected document’s like wound

certificate, FSL report and submitted the final report.

33. The offences that were registered against the

accused as per the FIR are, punishable under Sections

498A and Section307 IPC committed against his wife Jayamma

at Kuripalya, Tumkur Town on 25.01.2013.

34. The report in this case was not lodged in the

Police Station. The complainant had sustained burn

injuries of 90% to 95% said to have been inflicted by her

husband/accused. It is stated that she was examined

and in a short duration she was able to understand

question and answers and on examination by the

Doctor, Police Inspector collected her statement as per

Ex.P7. However, on 29.01.2013 she succumbed to

injuries. Naturally, the offence was transformed into one

punishable under Section 302 of IPC in place of 307



35. PW1-Rakshitha, daughter of accused was

aged 08 years on the date of giving her evidence on

17-09-2014 and was 06 years at the time of incident.

She happens to be an eye witness. She tells that

accused and victim are her parents and accused litting

fire on his wife Jayamma. This witness was at loss from

both the ends. She lost her mother and her evidence

confirmed the act of her father. In this context, she has

deposed knowing fully well that having lost her mother,

is likely to loose the company of her father as well, still

then, she has spoken her version which does not appear

to be exaggerated or artificial. Her evidence in brief

speaking on the act of her father setting fire to her

mother, Jayamma, inspires confidence to believe the

version as there were no material defect in her evidence.

Further, there was no person was biased or tutored her

to give evidence against the accused. The witnesses

PWs-2,3,5,6,8,9 and 10 speak regarding the

circumstances prevalent for believing the version of the


36. Further, accused can never be considered as

a victim of circumstances. He has most brutally and

ferociously inflicted injuries to his wife, that too, in a

horrible way by pouring kerosene and setting her ablaze

on 25.01.2013. There are no lapses in the evidence and

the materials of the prosecution. The neighbours, more

particularly, PWs-8,9,10,11 and 12 sisters and parents

have given natural version which is authenticated

without glorifying the facts. The incident happened in

the house at Kuripalya, Tumkur. She had sustained

burn injuries to the extent of 90 to 95 percent and

accused was arrested on the very next day.

37. It is not the question of quantum of witnesses,

but it is the amount of evidence that inspires

confidence of the Court. It may happen with many

number of witnesses or by a single witness or a

circumstance or a material factor. There is no hard and

past rule that there must be bunch of witnesses who

have given the oral evidence running to pages.

38. In this case, the incident happening at home,

the accused does not give explanation regarding what

he knew. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it

is illogical to expect more number of persons to have

witnessed the incident. Barring minor discrepancies, it

is the question of inspiring confidence by the oral

evidence of the witnesses. Further, PW1-Rakshitha,

cannot be expected to have photographic memory of

incident, but she speaks about the substance. Insofar

as the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC is

concerned, firstly, it is necessary to mention the said

offence, which is as under:

“498A. Husband or relative of
husband of a woman subjecting her to
cruelty.- Whoever, being the husband or the
relative of the husband of a woman, subjects

such woman to cruelty shall punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend
to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.- For the purpose of this
section, “cruelty” means-

(a) any willful conduct which is of
such a nature as is likely to drive the woman
to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health (whether
mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where
such harassment is with a view to coercing
her or any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security or is on account of failure
by her or any person related to her to meet
such demand.”

39. On considering the ingredients of the said

Section, it could be concluded that the life of

Jayamma/ victim was miserable, she was ill-treated and

was subjected to cruelty by her husband. In this

connection, the evidence of sisters PWs- 8 and 9 and

PW12, mother are reliable, as their evidence inspire

confidence. The death of Jayamma was a homicidal.

40. The main oral evidence need not be running

to bundles of pages. On the date of incident, victim did

not die, suffered injuries. The best form of evidence is

given by herself. Formats, procedures do not hold the

court so long the statement given by the witnesses is

credit worthy and consists of truth.

41. In respect of the statement made as per Ex.P7

by the victim on 25.01.2013, it has to be considered

that the format or the procedure do not over ride the

effect of substance of the statement that is treated as

dying declaration as it spoke regarding the cause of

death, thereby becomes a substantive evidence. The

substance gets more scope than the proforma or the


42. The dying declaration or the effect of Ex.P7

when has inspired the confidence of the Court cannot

be brushed aside because of the factors that are not

very much relevant for the circumstances. Further,

the statement made before the police by the

complainant thereby stating the guilt of the accused in

unequivocal terms for having set fire to her who is the

prime witness, in fact, a best witness, being the victim

and the injured.

43. Further, it is the veracity of the statement with

reference to circumstances has to be considered and

accepted. In case of discarding dying declaration just

because of corroboration from other angle if it is going

to cause miscarriage of justice it cannot be laid down as

an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration

cannot form sole basis of conviction unless, it is

corroborated. The Apex Court has held that the rule

requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence in

the case of S.Paneerselvam Vs. State of T.N. – 2008

AIR SCW 4787, wherein, it is held as under:

“(A) Criminal P.C.(2 OF 1974), S.162 –
Statement before police- Admissibility -Stand
of accused that deceased put himself on fire
and accused actually took him to hospital-
Statements made by deceased to doctors that
deceased voluntarily told each of them that
he had set himself on fire- One police official
was present when statement was made by
deceased-However, large number of relatives
of deceased, more particularly, witness who
had taken him to hospital were also present –
Statement before doctors cannot be discarded
as not voluntary.”

4. Stand of the appellant before the
High Court was that the deceased had put
himself on fire and in fact, all the accused
persons immediately quenched the fire and
had taken him to the Government Primary
Health Hospital, Ammapet, where PW3 doctor
was available. The deceased made a
voluntary statement to PW3 wherein he
categorically stated that he had poured petrol
on himself and set himself on fire. Thereafter
the deceased with the burn injuries was
taken to the Medical College Hospital where
also he made similar statement to PW4 the
doctor. Subsequently, another doctor PW6
examined him where also he made similar
statement. Therefore, it was submitted that
the Trial Court was not justified in convicting
them relying on the purported dying
declaration alleged to have been given by the
deceased to the Revenue Divisional
Officer(PW14) on 16.12.1992 i.e. four days
prior to his death. The same was nothing but

a tutored one. The High Court held that the

7. xxx xxx

8. Though a dying declaration is
entitled to great weight, it is worthwhile to
note that the accused has no power of cross-
examination. Such a power is essential for
eliciting the truth as an obligation of oath
could be. This is the reason the Court also
insists that the dying declaration should be of
such nature as to inspire full confidence of
the Court in its correctness. The Court has to
be on guard that the statement of the
deceased was not as result of either tutoring
or prompting or a product of imagination.
The Court must be further satisfied that the
deceased was in a fit state of mind after a
clear opportunity to observe and identify the
assailant. Once the Court is satisfied that
the declaration was true and voluntary,
undoubtedly, it can base its conviction
without any further corroboration. It cannot
be laid down as an absolute rule of law that
the dying declaration cannot form the sole
basis of conviction unless it is corroborated.
The rule requiring corroboration is merely a
rule of prudence.

This Court has laid down in several
judgments the principles governing dying
declaration, which could be summed up as
under as in dictated in SectionSmt.Paniben V.State
of Gujarat (AIR 1992 SC 1817)

(i) There is neither rule of law nor of
prudence that dying declaration cannot
be acted upon without corroboration.
(SectionSee Munnu Raja and Anr.v.The State of
Madhya Pradesh (1976) 2 SCR 764)

(ii) If the Court is satisfied that the dying
declaration is true and voluntary it can
base conviction on it, without
corroboration. (SectionSee State of Uttar
Pradesh v. Ram Sagar Yadav and
Qrs.(AIR 1985 SC 416) and SectionRamavati
Devi v.State of Bihar (AIR 1983 SC 164)

(iii) The Court has to scrutinize the dying
declaration carefully and must ensure
that the declaration is not the result of
tutoring prompting or imagination. The
deceased had an opportunity to observe
and identify the assailants and was in a
fit state to make the declaration. [SectionSee
K.Ramachandra Reddy and Anr. V. The
Public Prosecutor (AIR 1976 SC 1994)

(iv) Where the dying declaration is
suspicious, it should not be acted upon
without corroborative evidence. [SectionSee
Rasheed Beg v.State of Madhya Pradesh
(1974 (4) SCC 264)]

(v) Where the deceased was unconscious
and could never make any dying
declaration, the evidence with regard to
it is to be rejected. [SectionSee Kaka Singh
v.State of M.P.(AIR 1982 SC1021)]

(vi) A dying declaration which suffers from
infirmity cannot form the basis of
conviction. [SectionSee Ram Manorath and
Ors. V. State of U.P.(1981 (2)SCC 654)]

(vii) Merely because a dying declaration
does contain the details as to the
occurrence, it is not to be rejected.[SectionSee
State of Maharashtra v. Krishnamurthi
Laxmipati Naidu (AIR 1981 SC 617)]

(viii) Equally, merely because it is a brief
statement, it is not to be discarded. On
the contrary, the shortness of the
statement itself guarantees truth.[See
Surajdeo Oza and Ors.v.State of Bihar
(AIR 1979 SC 1505)].

(ix) Normally the Court in order to satisfy
whether the deceased was in a fit
mental condition to make the dying
declaration looks up to the medical
opinion. But where the eye-witness said
that the deceased was in a fit and
conscious state to make the dying
declaration, the medical opinion cannot
prevail. [SectionSee Nanahau Ram and
Anr.v.State of Madhya Pradesh(AIR
1988 SC 912)].

(x) Where the prosecution version differs
from the version as given in the dying
declaration, the said declaration cannot
be acted upon. [SectionSee State of
U.P.v.Madan Mohan and Ors.(AIR 1989
SC 1519)].


(xi) Where there is more than one
statement in the nature of dying
declaration, one first in point of time
must be preferred. Of course, if the
plurality of dying declarations could be
held o be trustworthy and reliable, it
has to be accepted.[See Mohanlal
Gangaram Gehani v. State of
Maharashtra (AIR 1982 SC 839)]”

44. Further the quantum of oral evidence running

to pages or more number of witnesses are not the

compulsory yardstick to decide a criminal case like the

present one. The incident occurred at home at 7.30

p.m. and there was no occasion for witnesses to be

present. The concept of appreciation of oral evidence

does not endorse on number game. The acid test

would be, whether the evidence whether documentary,

oral or circumstantial inspire confidence of the Court.

In the present case, evidence of PW1 -Rakshita in the

context and circumstances presents concentrated truth,

regarding commission of offence charged against the



45. When the case was registered, it was for the

offence punishable under Sections 498A and Section307 IPC

and as Jayamma did not recover from injuries despite

being hospitalized, however, burn injuries of 90 to 95%

got aggravated and formed into Septicemia and caused

her death on 29.01.2013. Invariably it is the accused,

her husband in the circumstances is being the reason

for her murder.

46. We do not find any infirmity or irregularity or

defects in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge to

interfere with the same. The prosecution beyond all

reasonable doubt has proved the charges leveled

against the accused for the offences punishable under

Section 498A and Section302 IPC. The appeal is devoid of

merits. It is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, we

proceed to pass the following:


The appeal is dismissed.


The judgment dated 30-01-2015 passed by the

learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Tumkur, in S.C.No.155/2013 convicting the

appellant/accused for the offences punishable under

Sections 498-A and Section302 IPC and sentencing him to

undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three

years and also pay fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence

punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and to undergo

imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-

in default, shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of 6 months for the offence punishable under

Section 302 IPC are hereby confirmed.






Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation