Delhi High Court
Danvir Tomer vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 15 April, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 06.04.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 15.04.2026
+ CRL.A. 296/2017
DANVIR TOMER .....Appellant
Through: Mr. S.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate with
Ms. Saniya Zehra, Advocate along
with the appellant in person.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the
State with SI Mitthan Lal, P.S. Sarita
Vihar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.PC.), the first accused (A1), in
Sessions Case No. 1852/2016 on the file of the Additional
Sessions Judge, South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi assails the
judgment dated 15.02.2017 and order on sentence dated
27.07.2017 as per which he has been convicted and sentenced for
the offences punishable under Section 498A and 304B read with
34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC).
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 296/2017 Page 1 of 24
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, Julie, the
daughter of PW2 was married to A1 on 21.05.2013 as per the rites
and customs of the community to which they belong. Pursuant to
the marriage, A1, her husband and her in-laws, namely, the
second accused (A2), the father of A1 and the third accused (A3),
the brother of A1 in furtherance of their common intention
subjected Julie to cruelty during her stay in the matrimonial home
for the period from 21.05.2013 to 29.07.2013demanding more
dowry due to which she committed suicide on 29.07.2013 by
hanging herself. Hence, as per the final report/charge-sheet, the
accused persons were alleged to have committed offences
punishable under Sections498A, 304B read with Section 34 IPC.
3. On the basis of Ext. PW2/B FIS/FIR of PW2, father of
the deceased, given on 30.07.2013, Crime No. 283/2013, Sarita
Vihar Police Station, i.e., Ex. PW7/A, FIR was registered by
PW7, Head Constable (HC). PW15 conducted investigation into
the crime and on completion of the same, filed the charge-
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 296/2017 Page 2 of 24
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
sheet/final report dated 12.11.2013 and a Supplementary charge-
sheet dated 05.04.2014 alleging commission of the offences
punishable under the aforementioned sections.
4. On appearance of the accused persons before the
jurisdictional magistrate pursuant to receipt of summons, copies
of all the prosecution reports were furnished to them as
contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, in compliance
of Section 209 Cr.P.C, the case was committed to the Court of
Session concerned.
5. When the accused persons appeared before the trial
court, as per orders dated 10.01.2014 and25.04.2014, Charge
under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 34IPC was
framed, read over and explained to the accused persons, to which
they pleaded not guilty.
6. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 15 were
examined and Ext. PW 1/A, Ext. PW 1/A1-A5, Ext. PW 2/A-C,
Ext. PW 2/D1-4, Ext. PW2/E, Ext. PW 3/A, Ext. PW4/A-F, Ext.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 296/2017 Page 3 of 24
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
PW5/A, Ext. PW 6/A-B, Ext. PW 7/A-B, Ext. PW 8/A, Ext. PW
11/A-F, Ext. PW 12/A, Ext. PW 15/A, Ext. PW 15/B-1 to 7, Ext.
PW15/C-1-11 were marked in support of the case.
7. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused
was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C., with regard to
the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the
evidence of the prosecution. The accused persons denied all those
circumstances and maintained their innocence. They submitted
that they have been falsely implicated in the case and denied
demanding any dowry.
8. After questioning the accused under Section 313(1)(b)
Cr.PC., compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C., was mandatory. In the
case on hand, no hearing as contemplated under Section 232
Cr.P.C., is seen done by the trial court. However, non-compliance
of the said provision does not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings
unless omission to comply with the same is shown to have
resulted in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused (See
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 296/2017 Page 4 of 24
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
Moidu K. Vs. State of Kerala, 2009 (3) KHC 89; 2009 SCC
OnLine Ker 2888). In the case on hand, the accused has no case
that non-compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C. has caused any
prejudice to him.
9. On behalf of the accused persons, DW1 to DW3 were
examined. No documentary evidence was adduced by the accused
persons.
10. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence
and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the impugned
judgment dated 15.02.2017 found A1guilty of the offences
punishable under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 34
IPC. Accordingly, vide order on sentence dated
22.02.2017,sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of ₹5,000/- for the offence
punishable under Section 304B IPC, and in default of payment of
fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 296/2017 Page 5 of 24
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
a fine of ₹1,500/- for the offence punishable under Section 498A
IPC, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple
imprisonment for 3 months. The sentences have been directed to
run concurrently. The trial court, however, held that the
prosecution had failed to prove the case against A2 and A3
beyond reasonable doubt and so acquitted them under Section
235(2) Cr.P.C. of the offences punishable under Sections 498A,
304B read with Section 34 IPC. Aggrieved, A1 has preferred this
present appeal.
10.1. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant/A1 that the prosecution has failed to establish the
essential ingredients of Sections 304B and 498A IPC, in view of
the material inconsistencies in the testimonies of key witnesses.
These inconsistencies, according to the learned counsel for the
accused, cast serious doubt on the prosecution case. It was also
submitted that there is no cogent or reliable evidence on record,
such as any prior police complaint or communication from the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 296/2017 Page 6 of 24
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
deceased, to establish that she was unhappy, subjected to
harassment, or treated with cruelty soon before her death, thereby
failing to satisfy the essential requirement under the law. The
evidence on record is unsatisfactory and hence the trial court went
wrong in convicting the appellant/ A1, goes the argument.
11. Per Contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the State submitted that the impugned judgment does not
suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this court as
the trial court has duly considered each and every ground raised
in the present appeal and, upon an overall appreciation of the
materials on record, adjudicated the matter on merits.
12. Heard both sides and perused the materials on record.
13. The only point that arises for consideration in this
appeal is whether the conviction entered and sentence passed
against the appellant/A1 by the trial court are sustainable or not.
14. Section 304B IPC provides that where the death of a
woman is caused by burns or bodily injury, or occurs otherwise
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 296/2017 Page 7 of 24
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
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 his relatives
in connection with any demand for dowry, such death shall be
termed as a “dowry death”, and the husband or such relative shall
be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation to the Section
says that the term “dowry” shall have the same meaning as
assigned under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961,
which defines it as any property or valuable security given or
agreed to be given, directly or indirectly, by one party to the
marriage to the other party, or by the parents or any other person,
at or before or any time after the marriage, in connection with the
marriage of the said parties. Therefore, in order to seek conviction
of a person for the offence of dowry death under Section 304B
IPC, the prosecution is obliged to prove that – (i) the death of the
woman was caused by burns or bodily injury or had occurred
otherwise than under normal circumstances; (ii) such death
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 296/2017 Page 8 of 24
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
should have occurred within 7 years of her marriage; (iii) the
deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband
or by any relative of her husband; (iv) such cruelty or harassment
should be for or in connection with the demand of dowry; and (v)
to such cruelty or harassment, the deceased should have been
subjected to soon before her death.
15. In the case on hand, the factum of death of Julie by
hanging has not been disputed by the accused. Ext. PW5/A post
mortem report proved through PW5, the doctor who conducted
the post mortem shows that Julie died due to asphyxia caused by
ante mortem hanging. It is also no doubt true that the death fell
within the prescribed period of seven years, as A1 and Julie got
married on 21.05.2013 and she committed suicide on 28.07.2013,
which is within a short span of about two months from the date of
marriage. Therefore, ingredients (i) and (ii) of Section 304B IPC
stands established. What remains is ingredients (iii), (iv) and (v).
The prosecution relies on the testimony of PW2, PW9, PW10 and
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 296/2017 Page 9 of 24
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
PW14 to establish the same. Hence, I will make a brief reference
to the same.
16. PW2, father of Julie, when examined before the trial
court deposed that after Julie’s marriage to A1 on 21.05.2013, she
started residing in her matrimonial home. Prior to the marriage,
A2, the father of A1 demanded a sum of ₹6,00,000/- out of which
₹5,50,000/- was paid in cash at the time of lagan, apart from
jewellery worth approximately ₹4,00,000/-. According to PW2,
he spent about ₹10,00,000/- for the marriage. After about ten days
of the marriage, when Julie visited her parental home, she
informed them that she was being taunted by the accused persons,
namely, A1, A2 and A3 for not bringing the remaining amount of
₹50,000/- and that she was also beaten by her husband on that
account. Thereafter, Julie was taken back to her matrimonial
home by the accused, and after about 12 to 13 days she again
returned to her parental house and reiterated the aforesaid
allegations. PW2 deposed that he tried to pacify the accused and
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 296/2017 Page 10 of 24
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
undertook to pay the remaining amount of ₹50,000/- on the
occasion of Rakshabandhan, pursuant to which Julie was again
sent to her matrimonial home.
16.1. PW2 in his cross examination deposed that he is a
farmer by profession, belongs to a semi-literate family. He
deposed that he was hardly able to save anything and had
arranged funds for the marriage through financial assistance
received from his two sons including PW10 and his nephew who
used to send him money in cash, but could not recollect the
details of the amount given by them. He further deposed that Julie
had informed them about the harassment for dowry even prior to
31.05.2013. On 28.07.2013, A1 had called him on phone. PW2
further deposed that the marriage was arranged through a
mediator, PW14, who knew both the families. PW2 reiterated that
the accused persons had demanded ₹6,00,000/- in cash apart from
other articles, and that they had undertaken to pay ₹ 50,000 at the
time of Rakshabandhan. However, he admitted that the said
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 296/2017 Page 11 of 24
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
amount was not demanded before Rakshabandhan either by the
accused persons or through the mediator. He further deposed that
Julie had initially praised her husband and in laws when she first
visited after marriage, but according to him, she had also
reminded them about the demand of ₹ 50,000/-.
17. PW9, the mother of Julie, when examined, deposed that
Julie, one day prior to her death, had called her on the telephone
and informed that A1 was demanding a sum of ₹50,000/- and had
threatened her with dire consequences in case the said amount
was not paid.PW9, in her cross examination, deposed that neither
A1 nor his father A2 had ever called her on phone or demanded
anything. According to her, they used to call her another son-in-
law which also, admittedly, had never been done in her presence.
18. PW10, brother of Julie, when examined, deposed that
one day in July 2013, he visited the matrimonial house of Julie,
on which day she did not made any complaint against the accused
as she was not permitted to remain alone with him. He further
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 296/2017 Page 12 of 24
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
deposed that A3 demanded a sum of ₹ 50,000/- stating that the
said amount remained unpaid at the time of marriage, and that A2
also complained about the delay in payment of the said amount
for which he assured them that the amount would be paid on the
occasion of Rakshabandhan.
19. PW10 in his cross examination, however, deposed that
his parents PW2 and PW9 had never consulted him regarding the
dowry to be given in the marriage of Julie and that he had no
knowledge of what dowry had been given. He further deposed
that during Julie’s stay at their parental home, she had not made
any complaint against the accused to him. He further admitted
that A3 was not present on the day when he had visited the house
of the accused. He denied the suggestion that A3 had ever
demanded ₹50,000/- from him. PW10 further deposed that he had
never spoken to A1 in connection with the demand for dowry. He
further admitted that Julie had never made any complaint to him
against A1 or his father.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 296/2017 Page 13 of 24
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
20. PW14, the mediator to the marriage, deposed that after
the marriage, A3 had telephonically demanded a sum of ₹
50,000/- from him, stating that the same was the balance amount
of dowry. PW14 refused to make any payment and advised A3 to
speak to his father in that regard. He further deposed that on the
night of 25.07.2013, Julie had called him on telephone and
informed that she was being threatened by her-in-laws in
connection with the payment of ₹50,000/-. He consoled her and
assured that he would ask her father to visit her matrimonial
home.
20.1. PW14 in his cross examination deposed that he had
acted as a mediator in the marriage of Julie to A1 and that he had
no knowledge regarding the dowry articles or amount given in the
said marriage. He further deposed that he had spoken to Julie only
once after her marriage, which was on 25.07.2013, when she had
asked for payment of some remaining amount to the accused. As
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 296/2017 Page 14 of 24
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
the call got disconnected, he could not clearly hear or ascertain the
exact amount being referred to.
21. Now, the question is whether the aforesaid evidence is
sufficient to prove ingredients (iii), (iv) and (v) of Section 304B
IPC referred to earlier. Going by the prosecution case, as spoken
by PW2 the demand for ₹6,00,000/- was made before the
marriage, out of which, ₹5,50,000/- was paid at the time of lagan,
which was apart from jewellery worth ₹4,00,000/-. PW2 admitted
that he is a farmer by profession, belongs to a semi-literate
background, and was hardly able to save any money. PW2 also
deposed that the money for meeting the marriage expenses was
received from his sons, namely, PW10 Sanjay and Govind as well
as from his nephew. But PW10 Sanjay, when examined has no
such case. In the cross-examination, PW10 deposed that his
parents never consulted him about the dowry to be given and that
he has no knowledge as to what dowry had been given. PW2 in
his examination-in-chief deposed that he had spent ₹ 10,00,000/-
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 296/2017 Page 15 of 24
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
for the marriage, but in his cross-examination claimed to have
spent ₹ 11,00,000/-. But PW9, the mother, seems to have no such
case. According to her, they spent ₹6,00,000/-. PW9 pleaded
ignorance when she was asked whether ₹6,00,000/- included cost
of jewellery also. Further, PW14 who is stated to have been the
mediator to the marriage, admitted in the cross examination that
he had no knowledge of what dowry had been given in the
marriage. He also admitted that no demand was made by A3 and
his family at the time of the marriage. He also admitted that no
dowry had been given in his presence. PW14 claimed that he had
spoken to A3 several times before the settlement of marriage. If
that be so, he would certainly have known the demand(s) if any
that had been made.
22. As held in K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao,
(2003) 1 SCC 217, to attract the provisions of Section 304-B IPC,
one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be
established is that “soon before her death” she was subjected to
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 296/2017 Page 16 of 24
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
cruelty and harassment “in connection with the demand for
dowry”. (See also Suresh Babu Vs State of Kerala, (2022 SCC
OnLine Ker 5962 : 2022 KHC 954). In the case on hand, an
overall reading of the testimony of PW2, PW9, PW10 and PW14
reveal that the prosecution has failed to establish a consistent and
credible proof of demand of dowry. Hence, the prosecution case
of demand of the remaining dowry amount ₹50,000/- is doubtful,
thereby failing to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Julie was
subjected to cruelty or harassment “for or in connection with”
dowry demand, which is a sine qua non for establishing the
offence under Section 304B IPC.
23. Coming to the offence under Section 498A IPC. As per
this Section, if the husband or a relative of the husband, subjects
the woman to cruelty, they are liable to be punished. Explanation
to the Section defines “cruelty” to mean any wilful conduct of
such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or
to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, whether
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 296/2017 Page 17 of 24
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
mental or physical, or harassment of the woman with a view to
coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful
demand for property or valuable security, or on account of failure
to meet such demand.
24. Here, again the testimony of PW2, PW9, PW10 and
PW14, the close relatives and loyal prosecution witnesses, is
relevant and important. PW2 deposed that Julie had informed
them that she was being taunted by the accused persons, namely,
A1, A2 and A3 for not bringing the remaining amount of
₹50,000/- and that she was also beaten by her husband A1on
account of non-payment of the said amount.PW2, in his cross
examination, deposed that even prior to 31.05.2013, Julie had
informed them that she was being harassed by her-in-laws in
connection with demand of dowry. PW2 also admitted that when
she visited her home, Julie had praised her husband and other
family members; however, she had also reminded them about the
demand of ₹50,000/- made by the accused. PW9, in her cross
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 296/2017 Page 18 of 24
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
examination, admitted that except for two days after her marriage,
Julie had never informed her on phone that she was being
harassed by her-in-laws. PW9 further deposed that when Julie
stayed at her parental house for about 11 to 12 days on her first
visit post marriage, she did not make any such complaint, and
even after returning to her matrimonial home, she never informed
PW9 about any harassment by the accused. PW10, in his cross
examination, also reiterated that when Julie visited her parental
house after her marriage, she did not make any such complaint
against A1.
25. It is no doubt true that Sections 304B and 498A IPC
deal with distinct offences, though “cruelty” constitutes a
common essential ingredient in both and is required to be proved.
The Explanation to Section 498A defines the term “cruelty”,
whereas Section 304B does not contain a separate definition.
However, having regard to the common object and background of
these provisions, the expression “cruelty or harassment” under
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 296/2017 Page 19 of 24
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
Section 304B has to be understood in the same sense as explained
under Section 498A. While cruelty by itself constitutes an
independent offence punishable under Section 498A, Section
304B specifically deals with “dowry death”, which must have
occurred within seven years of marriage. No such time limit is
prescribed under Section 498A, and the husband or his relatives
may be held liable for subjecting a woman to cruelty at any time
after the marriage. However, the prosecution has to prove the fact
that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment, and such
cruelty should be one which comes within the Explanation to
Section 498A which defines “cruelty” as held in Sakatar Singh v.
State of Haryana, (2004) 11 SCC 291.
26. From the evidence on record, it is seen that the
allegation of cruelty or harassment attributed to the accused A1
and his family members rests solely on the testimony of the
parents of the deceased, namely, PW2 and PW9. However, as
discussed before, a closer scrutiny of their depositions reveals that
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 296/2017 Page 20 of 24
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
the same suffer from material inconsistencies and do not present a
coherent or reliable case of any such cruelty. PW2 tried to
establish a case of continuous harassment from shortly after the
marriage, alleging demands of ₹50,000/- by taunts and physical
assault by A1 and his family members. In contrast, PW9 admitted
that when the deceased first returned to her parental home after
marriage, she had no complaint against her in laws, and further
stated that there were no consistent or repeated complaints
thereafter. I have already found that the demand for dowry
appears quite doubtful and has not been proved beyond
reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, the allegation of
subjecting Julie to cruelty claiming dowry will necessarily also
have to fail in the light of the unsatisfactory evidence on record.
27. Another aspect to be noted is the testimony of DW3,
the sister of A1, who has given an account of the events that
transpired on 28.07.2013, that is, a day prior to the incident, DW3
deposed that Julie and her husband, A1, returned from a picnic in
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 296/2017 Page 21 of 24
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
Delhi at about 08:30 PM. Julie cooked food for the family, and
that all of them had dinner together. At about 10:00 PM, when A1
intended to go out with his friends, Julie objected, but the former
nevertheless left, after which all went and slept in their respective
rooms. Julie went to sleep in her room. In the morning at about
06:00 A.M., they found Julie hanging in her room. According to
DW3, Julie was a sensitive person who used to keep things to
herself and never disclosed her problems. This part of the
testimony of DW3 was never cross-examined, disproved or
discredited. It has also come out in the testimony of the parents
and the brother of Julie that one another sister of Julie also
committed suicide. The defence version of Julie being a sensitive
person has not ever been challenged by the prosecution. So was it
because A1 left his newly married wife in the night to join his
friends on the intervening night of 28.07.2013 and 29.07.2013,
that hurt Julie prompting her to take the extreme step? There is no
evidence as to when A1 returned in the night of 28.07.2013.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 296/2017 Page 22 of 24
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
Nobody has a case of any foul play by A1 in the death of Julie
except that he had harassed her for dowry. Did any quarrel take
place between Julie and A1 when he decided to go with his
friends on the night of 28.07.2013 despite the former’s objection?
Did that lead to the suicide? Doubts arise in the mind of the
Court. As held in Assoo v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2011) 14
SCC 448, the standard of a reasonable and practical woman as
compared to a headstrong or oversensitive one, has to be applied.
28. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, it is
apparent from the materials on record, that the reasons given by
the trial court are not quite satisfactory to hold A1 guilty for the
offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A IPC as the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the reasonable
doubt. Conviction can only be made on the basis of cogent
evidence and materials brought on record by the prosecution.
Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. In
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 296/2017 Page 23 of 24
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
these circumstances, I find that the accused is entitled to the
benefit of doubt.
29. In the result, the appeal is allowed, and the impugned
judgment convicting and sentencing the appellant/A1 by the trial
court is set aside. Appellant/A1 is acquitted under Section 235(1)
Cr.P.C. of all the offences charged against him. He is set at liberty
and his bail bond shall stand cancelled.
30. Application(s), if any, pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 15, 2026/rs
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 296/2017 Page 24 of 24
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
