1 apeal552.07.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.552 OF 2007
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.561 OF 2007
1) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.552 OF 2007 :
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Nagbhid,
District Chandrapur. ………. APPELLANT
// VERSUS //
1.Ramabai w/o. Wamanrao Khanorkar,
Aged about 50 years,
2.Ajay s/o.Wamanrao Khanorkar,
Aged about 29 years, Occ.Business,
r/o.Korpana.
3.Santosh w/o. Wamanrao Khanorkar,
Aged about 33 years.
All r/o. Talodhi (Balapur), Tq.
Nagbhid, Distt. Chandrapur. ………. RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:09 :::
2 apeal552.07.odt
Mr.N.S.Rao, A.P.P. for Appellant/State.
Mr.R.P.Joshi, Advocate for Respondents.
2) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.561 OF 2007 :
1.Ramabai wd/o. Wamanrao Khanorkar,
Aged about 52 years,
2.Ajay s/o.Wamanrao Khanorkar,
Aged about 31 years, Occ.Business..
3.Santosh w/o. Wamanrao Khanorkar,
Aged about 35 years.
All r/o. Village Talodhi (Balapur), Tq.
Nagbhid, Distt. Chandrapur. ………. APPELLANT
// VERSUS //
State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Nagbhid,
District Chandrapur. ………. RESPONDENT
Mr.R.P.Joshi, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr.N.S.Rao, A.P.P. for the Respondent.
::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:09 :::
3 apeal552.07.odt
************
Date of reserving the Judgment : 11.12.2017.
Date of pronouncing the Judgment : 22.12.2017.
************
CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE
AND
M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
JUDGMENT (Per M.G.Giratkar, J) :
1. Criminal Appeal No.552 of 2007 is filed by the State
against the Judgment of acquittal of respondents/accused for the
offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal
Code. Criminal Appeal No.561 of 2007 is filed by the
appellants/accused against their conviction for the offence
punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A r/w. 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
2. The case of prosecution against the
appellants/respondents (accused), in short, is as under :
Marriage of deceased Sarika was performed with
accused no.2 Ajay s/o. Wamanrao Khanorkar on 28.5.2005. It was a
::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:09 :::
4 apeal552.07.odt
settled marriage on the mediation of one Suresh Ahirkar. At the time
of marriage, accused no.3 Santosh s/o.Wamanrao Khanorka caused
nuisance at the marriage pendal on some trivial ground. There was
reception at the house of accused. At that time, parents of deceased
were insulted. Deceased was co-habitating with her husband/accused
no.2 Ajay. At the time of festival of Watsavitri, father of deceased
went to the house of accused. At that time, deceased Sarika was
appearing to be disappointed. Whenever, she used to talk on phone,
she appeared to be disappointed.
3. For the festival of Akhadi, Sarika was taken to her
parent’s house by her brother Sarang. She was reached to the house
of accused after Akhadi. Accused were ill-treating the deceased for
dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. On 12.9.2005, Sarika died due to burning.
4. Accused no.3 Santosh immediately lodged report about
burning of deceased. Thereafter, her parents reached to the house of
accused. Father of deceased namely Wasudeo Sakharam Samarth
(PW-7) lodged report (Exh.59) in Police Station, Nagbhid, District
Chandrapur. On his report, offence punishable under Section 304-B
r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. On the
::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:09 :::
5 apeal552.07.odt
insistence of complainant Wasudeo, again offence punishable under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added.
5. PSI Rajendra Sukhlal Kohare (PW-13) investigated some
part of crime. Thereafter, investigation was handed over to API
Sheikh. Both the Investigating Officers investigated the crime as
usual. After completing investigation, submitted charge sheet to the
Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagbhid. The Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Nagbhid committed the case to the Court of
Sessions at Chandrapur for trial.
6. Charge was framed at Exh.32 for the offences punishable
under Sections 302, 498-A, 304-B, 201 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code. Defence of the accused appears to be of total denial and
false implication. It is the defence of the accused that the deceased
committed suicide. Prosecution has examined the following
witnesses.
1) Sandeep Bhayyaji Waranasiwar (PW-1) (Exh.40).
2) Vasant Balaji Pakmode (PW-2) (Exh.42).
3) Sonabai Ratanlal Baig (PW-3) (Exh.45).
::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:09 :::
6 apeal552.07.odt
4) Ajay Krushnarao Bhagwatwar (PW-4) (Exh.46).
5) Pallavi Rajendra Rahate (PW-5) (Exh.51).
6) Vasant Mahadeoro Harde (PW-6) (Exh.52).
7) Wasudeo Sakharam Samarth (PW-7) (Exh.58).
8) Dr.Pramod Bhayyaji Khandate (PW-8) (Exh.61).
9) Manda Ramesh Deshmukh (PW-9) (Exh.69).
10) Ranjit Narayan Shendre (PW-10) (Exh.75).
11) Babybai Wasudeorao Samarth (PW-11) (Exh.77).
12) Bhaskar Vithobaji Lanjewar (PW-12) (Exh.84).
13) Rajendra Sukhlal Kohare (PW-13) (Exh.119).
14) Santosh Rustamrao Tale (PW-14) (Exh.139).
15) Anwar Mehaboob Sheikh (PW-15) (Exh.141).
7. Learned trial Court recorded statements of witnesses
u/s.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After hearing prosecution
and defence, accused nos. 1 to 3 were convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 304-B r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years. They
are also convicted under Section 498-A r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years
and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, failing which to undergo simple
::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:09 :::
7 apeal552.07.odt
imprisonment for one month. The accused nos.1 to 3 are acquitted of
the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian
Penal Code.
8. Being aggrieved by the sentence afore-mentioned, the
appellants/accused have filed Criminal Appeal No.561 of 2007. The
State has filed Criminal Appeal No.552 of 2007 against acquittal of
appellants/accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w.
34 of the Indian Penal Code.
9. Heard Mr.R.P.Joshi, learned Counsel for the accused. He
has submitted that there is no evidence against the
appellants/accused to convict them for the offences punishable under
Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, they
are rightly acquitted by the trial Court.
10. Learned Counsel has pointed out evidence of parents of
deceased i.e. Wasudeo Sakharam Samarth (PW-7) – father of
deceased and Babybai Wasudeorao Samarth (PW-11) – mother of
deceased and one Manda Ramesh Deshmukh (PW-9). Learned
Counsel has pointed out material omissions in their evidence.
::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:09 :::
8 apeal552.07.odt
Learned Counsel has submitted that there is material omission in
respect of demand of dowry.
11. Learned Counsel has submitted that prosecution has
failed to prove that accused persons were demanding dowry and on
that count, they were ill-treating the deceased. Learned Counsel has
submitted that material ingredients of Section 304-B of the Indian
Penal Code are not proved by the prosecution. Therefore,
appellant/accused are wrongly convicted by the trial Court.
12. Learned Counsel has submitted that prosecution has to
prove each and every ingredient of Section 304-B and 498-A of the
Indian Penal Code, but prosecution has failed to prove that death of
deceased was due to demand of dowry. Hence, prosecution has
miserably failed to prove the offence punishable under Section 304-B
and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
13. Learned Counsel for the appellants/accused has pointed
out the Judgments in the cases of Pratap Singh and another .vs.
State of M.P. reported in (2005) 13 SCC 624 and Bakshish Ram
and another .vs. State and Punjab reported in (2013) 4 SCC 131.
::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:09 :::
9 apeal552.07.odt
14. At last, the learned Counsel has submitted that there is
no evidence to show that the appellants/accused ill-treated the
deceased on account of demand of dowry and therefore, the
deceased has committed suicide. Learned trial Court has wrongly
convicted all the appellants for the offences punishable under Section
304-B and 498-A of I.P.C. Hence, the impugned Judgment is liable to
be quashed and set aside.
15. Heard Mr.N.S.Rao, learned A.P.P. for the State. He has
submitted that deceased was in the custody of accused. Deceased
died unnatural death within a short period of five months. Deceased
died due to burns. Father and mother of the deceased and one
independent witness Manda (PW-9) have stated about demand of
dowry. Accused persons have committed murder of deceased.
Learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused of the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned
A.P.P. has submitted that the appeal filed by the State be allowed
and appeal filed by the accused be dismissed.
16. Perused the evidence on record and the impugned
Judgment. From the perusal of evidence, it is clear that none of the
::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:09 :::
10 apeal552.07.odt
witnesses have stated anything against the accused for committing
murder of deceased. As per the evidence on record, at the time of
incident, accused no.2 Ajay was not present. He had gone to
Amravati. Accused no.1 Ramabai Khanorkar – mother-in-law and
accused no.3 Santosh Khanorkar – brother-in-law of deceased were
present. Ranjit Narayan Shendre (PW-10) was also residing in the
house of accused. He was servant of accused persons.
17. As per the evidence of Ranjit Shendre (PW-10), in the
night of incident, there was immersion of Lord Ganesh. After
immersion, in the night at about 00.00 hours, they went to sleep. He
himself, Pallavi Rajendra Rahate (PW-5), accused nos. 1 and 3 were
sleeping in drawing room. Deceased was sleeping in her bed room.
In the morning, accused no.3 Santosh was at the pan shop. Accused
no.1 Ramabai disclosed him that Sarika had left for washing clothes.
He searched deceased Sarika, but could not find her. Accused no.1
Ramabai asked him to search Sarika at the house of Kaushalyabai.
He went to the house of Kaushalyabai, but he did not find Sarika.
Thereafter, he noticed smoke from one room of house. They tried to
open door of the room, but it was closed from inside. Thereafter, he
along with accused no.1 Ramabai anyhow entered inside the room.
::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:09 :::
11 apeal552.07.odt
They pulled Godrej almirah in the house and noticed that deceased
Sarika was completely burnt. He raised alarm. He went running
towards accused no.3 Santosh. Accused no.3 Santosh came running
to the house. At that time, deceased Sarika was already dead.
Immediately accused no.3 Santosh informed police by lodging report.
18. Evidence of parents of deceased show that they reached
to the house of accused when they received information about the
incident. There is no evidence to show that accused persons have
committed murder of deceased.
19. As per the evidence of Medical Officer Dr.Pramod
Bhayyaji Khandate (PW-8), deceased died due to burn injuries. As
per his evidence, he conducted post mortem on the dead body of
Sarika. She had sustained 92 % burn injuries. Cause of death was
due to burns. There is no dispute about the death of deceased due to
burn injuries. There is no dispute that deceased was married with
accused no.2 Ajay on 28.5.2005. Deceased died on 12.9.2005. Death
was within 4-5 months from the date of marriage. Therefore, it is
clear that the deceased died within seven years from the date of
marriage. Her death was also unnatural.
::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:09 :::
12 apeal552.07.odt
20. Appellants are convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Section
304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code read as under :
Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code :
304B. Dowry death.–
(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or
bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal
circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is
shown that soon before her death she was subjected to
cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her
husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry,
such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband
or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation.–For the purpose of this sub-section, “dowry”
shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven
years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.]Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code :
[498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty.–
::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:09 :::
13 apeal552.07.odt
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the
husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty
shall be 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 wilful 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.]
21. In order to seek conviction under Section 304-B of the
Indian Penal Code against the accused persons for the offence of
dowry death, prosecution is obliged to prove that : a) the death of a
woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise
than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage,
b) the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:09 :::
14 apeal552.07.odt
husband or any relative of her husband, c) such cruelty or
harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of
dowry, d) such cruelty or harassment to the deceased should have
been subjected soon before her death.
22. There is no dispute that the deceased died unnatural
death due to burning. There is no dispute that the deceased died
within a period of five months from the date of marriage. Dispute is
about only demand of dowry and cruelty on account of demand of
dowry.
23. Prosecution has not proved all the ingredients of Section
304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution has miserably failed to
prove that there was any cruelty by any of the accused persons on
account of demand of dowry and therefore, the deceased has
committed suicide.
24. Wasudeo Sakharam Samarth (PW-7) – father of
deceased has stated in his evidence that marriage of his daughter
Sarika was performed with accused Ajay on 28.5.2005. Thereafter,
she came to his house only for one time at the time of Akhadi
::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:09 :::
15 apeal552.07.odt
festival. He did not state anything about any talk he had with
deceased at the time of Akhadi festival. He has stated in his evidence
that the accused were ill-treating the deceased for demand of
Rs.1,00,000/-. Except this, he has not stated anything more.
25. The evidence of Wasudeo in respect of cruelty by
accused on account of demand of dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- is material
omission brought in his cross-examination. It is proved by the
Investigation Officer. In his cross-examination, Wasudeo (PW-7) has
stated as under :
” At the time of settlement of the marriage, none of the
accused had made any demand. The marriage of accused
no.3 Santosh was not settled. Ultimately, the marriage of
accused no.2 and Sarika was solemnized on 28.5.2005.
At the time of marriage, I had given articles to my
daughter Sarika as per my wish.”
26. He has further stated in his cross-examination that “he
had also stated to the police that the accused were ill-treating
deceased Sarika on account of demand of dowry of Rs. 1 Lakh. He
::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:09 :::
16 apeal552.07.odt
cannot assign any reason as to why all these are not findings placed
in his statement before the police so also report”.
27. Babybai Wasudeorao Samarth (PW-11) – mother of
deceased has stated in her evidence that accused were demanding
Rs.1,00,000/- and on that count, they were ill-treating the deceased.
In her cross-examination, she has stated that ” I had also stated to
police in my statement as to demand of Rs.1,00,000/- by the
accused. It is not in my statement.”
28. The evidence of father and mother of deceased in respect
of demand of dowry is nothing but omission. Therefore, it is clear
that they made improvements in their evidence before the Court.
Evidence of Manda Deshmukh (PW-9) shows that she had gone to
the house of accused at the time of Gokul Ashtmi. At that time,
deceased had told her that her mother-in-law and accused no.2
Ajay/her husband were ill-treating her. Accused no.2 Ajay was
stating that Sarika had not brought dowry. Manda Deshmukh (PW-
9) has stated in her evidence that after returning to village she called
mother of deceased Sarika and asked her to contact Sarika and told
her that Sarika is ill-treated by accused.
::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:09 :::
17 apeal552.07.odt
29. It is pertinent to note that the evidence of Manda (PW-
9) though is supported by mother of deceased Babybai Samarth (PW-
11) by stating that Manda told her about cruelty by accused on
account of demand of dowry, but it is brought on record as a
material omission.
30. Except evidence of Wasudeo Samarth (PW-7), Manda
Deshmukh (PW-9) and Babybai Samarth (PW-11), there is no other
evidence by the side of prosecution to show demand of dowry by the
accused persons and cruelty on that count. The evidence in respect of
demand of dowry stated by father and mother of deceased and one
Manda is nothing but material improvement. Moreover, admission of
Wasudeo (PW-7) in his cross-examination shows that the marriage of
his daughter with accused no.2 Ajay was settled and at the time of
settlement of marriage, none of the accused persons made any
demand of dowry. This itself shows that there was no any demand
of dowry by the accused persons. Hence, the material ingredient sof
Section 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code requiring death of
deceased due to cruelty on account of demand of dowry is not
proved by prosecution.
::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:09 :::
18 apeal552.07.odt
31. Evidence of Ranjit Shendre (PW-10) shows that he was
compelled to give statement against the accused persons. He was
detained in Police Station for about 15 days. As per his evidence, the
deceased was hot tempered. She was always threatening to commit
suicide. Therefore, possibility of committing suicide by the deceased
due to some household problems cannot be ruled out.
32. Evidence of Investigating Officer supports the contention
of Ranjit Shendre (PW-10) that he was detained in Police Station and
was compelled to give statement against the accused. The cross-
examination of API Anwar Mehboob Sheikh (PW-15) shows that
complainant/father of deceased pressurized him to register offence
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the
accused. A question was asked by the defence side to this witness
and he replied. The question and the answer is reproduced as
under :
“Question : Till the recording of statement of Ranjeet
Shendre you were not having any evidence relating to
offence under S.302 and 201 of I.P.C. ?
::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:09 :::
19 apeal552.07.odt
Answer : The witness is taking time to answer and stating
repeatedly that papers were kept before me on 20-9-05 and
on reading statement of Ranjeet Shendre offence under
Section 302 and 201 of I.P.C. came to be added. I had
recorded the statements of material relatives of the deceased
after I had taken up investigation. I had recorded the
statement of Babybai Samarth. I had recorded the said
statement on 26.9.07. There is no contention as to the
demand of Rs.1 Lac on telephone. ”
33. Investigating Officer API Anwar Sheikh (PW-15) has
admitted that statement of Ranjit was recorded by PSI Kohare on
12.9.2005 and thereafter, his statement was recorded on 19.9.2005.
It was also recorded by PSI Kohare. The statements of Babybai
Samarth and other witnesses were recorded by PSI Kohare on
12.9.2005. Again statements were recorded on 26.9.2007 by
Investigating Officer API Sheikh. Statements recorded by API Kohare
are not produced on record. Therefore, it appears that prosecution
has suppressed material fact from the Court.
::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:09 :::
20 apeal552.07.odt
34. There is no evidence to show that the accused persons
committed murder of deceased Sarika. There is no evidence to show
that death of Sarika was dowry death as defined under Section 304-B
and cruelty u/s. 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The material
ingredients of Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code are
not proved by prosecution.
35. Learned Counsel for the appellants/accused Mr.R.P.Joshi
has pointed out the decision in the case of Bakshish Ram and another
.vs. State of Punjab (cited supra). It is held by Hon’ble Supreme
Court that ” It is but natural that being the mother of deceased if she
had come across any harassment or ill-treatment of her daughter in
connection with demands for dowry soon before her daughter’s
death, she could have explained the same in her evidence. She had
neither asserted nor narrated any complaint from her daughter about
harassment or ill-treatment by the appellants. The mother of the
deceased has not stated anything in her evidence with regard to
harassment or mal-treatment of the deceased by the appellants on
the basis of her personal knowledge………….. Hence, the evidence is
not helpful insofar as the allegation of harassment and maltreatment
in relation to demand of dowry is concerned. It is further held that
::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:09 :::
21 apeal552.07.odt
prosecution is obliged to show that soon before occurrence, there
was cruelty or harassment in relation to dowry demand and only in
that case presumption u/s.113-B of the Evidence Act operate.”
36. In the present case, father and mother of the deceased
have stated regarding demand of Rs.1,00,000/- by accused persons,
but those are material omissions proved by the Investigating Officer.
Therefore, there is no evidence to show that there was any demand
of dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. There is no evidence of cruelty. Not a
single neighbour of accused examined by the prosecution to show
cruelty by the accused persons. On the other hand, Wasudeo (PW-7),
father of deceased has stated in his evidence that it was a settled
marriage. At the time of settlement of marriage, accused persons did
not demand any dowry. Therefore, material ingredients of Section
304-B and 498-A of Indian Penal Code are not made out by
Prosecution.
37. Learned Advocate for the appellant has pointed out
decision in the case of Pratap Singh and another .vs. State of M.P.
(cited supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that
“Investigating Officer has failed to file statements of two independent
::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:10 :::
22 apeal552.07.odt
eye witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure along with the charge sheet and also not examined them
in the Court, observed that, for such lapses, adverse inference needs
to be drawn.” In the present case also, prosecution has suppressed
the earlier statement recorded by PSI Kohare. Statements are
intentionally not produced with the charge sheet and material facts
are suppressed from the Court.
38. All the above discussion clearly shows that prosecution
has failed to prove the material ingredients of Sections 304-B and
498-A of the Indian Penal Code that deceased Sarika was ill-treated
and subjected to cruelty by accused persons on account of demand of
dowry. Therefore, it is clear that accused are wrongly convicted by
trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and
498-A r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no evidence by the
side of prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code. Hence, we proceed to pass the following
order.
::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:10 :::
23 apeal552.07.odt
// ORDER //
Criminal Appeal No.552 of 2007 filed by the
State is hereby dismissed.
Criminal Appeal No.561 of 2007 filed by
appellants/accused is hereby allowed.
Appellants/accused are hereby acquitted of
the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A
r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall
stand cancelled.
Fine amount, if paid, be refunded by the
appellants/accused.
The record and proceedings be sent back to
the trial Court.
JUDGE JUDGE
[jaiswal]
::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:10 :::
24 apeal552.07.odt
::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 04/01/2018 23:33:10 :::