Full Judgment Text
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 03.07.2009
+ CRL A. 187/1993
RAJIV KATYAL ... Appellant
- Versus -
STATE ... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case :-
For the Appellant : Mr Ajay Burman with Mr R.K. Singh and
Mr R. Samanotra
For the Respondent : Mr Sunil Sharma
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ? Yes
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
1. The appellant Rajiv Katyal was found guilty of having murdered
his uncle (father‟s brother) Satya Pal and was accordingly convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi by his judgment dated 27.10.1993 in
Sessions Case No.56/1992 (Old No.21/1986) arising out of FIR No.
558/1985 under Section 302 IPC registered at Police Station Moti
Nagar, Delhi. By virtue of a separate order of the same date, the
learned Additional Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant to undergo
CRL.A. 187/93 Page No. 1 of 18
rigorous imprisonment for life as also to pay a fine of Rs 3,000/- and in
default of payment of fine, he was to suffer further rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year.
2. As per the prosecution, the appellant Rajiv Katyal committed the
murder of his uncle Satya Pal on 19.11.1985 at about 9.00 a.m. near C-
183, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. The said murder is said to have been
committed by the appellant by using a pointed iron object referred to as
„s ua ‟. It is alleged that the appellant repeatedly stabbed his uncle Satya
Pal with the said sua on his chest and abdomen and thereafter fled from
the scene. Satya Pal was first taken to Vohra Nursing Home, Rajouri
Garden by PW-5 (Gulshan Kumar, another uncle of the appellant and
brother of the deceased Satya Pal) and others. Since no doctor was
available at the said nursing home, the injured Satya Pal was taken to
Rana Nursing Home. As per Exhibit PW-9/DB, injured Satya Pal
arrived at Rana Nursing Home at 9.45 a.m. and passed away shortly
thereafter at 9.51 a.m. and the police was thereafter informed.
3. The prosecution case is based upon the statement (Exhibit PW-
1/A) of PW-1 (Kundan Lal, another uncle of the appellant and brother
of the deceased Satya Pal) given to the police on that date, i.e.,
19.11.1985. As per the statement, the appellant Rajiv was the son of
his brother PW-12 (Jagdish Lal) who resided at C-187, New Moti
CRL.A. 187/93 Page No. 2 of 18
Nagar and that Rajiv had thrown out his father Jagdish Lal from his
house for the last about one year. He further stated that the appellant
Rajiv had bad habits and that he took money from the house and wasted
it. As per the said statement (Exhibit PW-1/A), Kundan Lal stated that
his brother PW-12 (Jagdish Lal) had objected to the activities of the
appellant Rajiv and it is due to this that the appellant Rajiv alongwith
his mother DW-1 (Vimla) had ousted PW-12 (Jagdish Lal) from his
house so that they may live freely. It is thereafter that PW-12 (Jagdish
Lal) started residing with his parents at 20/14, East Punjabi Bagh where
his younger brother PW-5 (Gulshan Kumar), Satya Pal and Rajpal were
also residing. The statement (Exhibit-PW-1/A) goes on to further
indicate that due to this, the appellant had enmity with his uncle Satya
Pal and he used to question him as to why his (appellant‟s) father was
being kept by him (Satya Pal) in their house. Satya Pal did not bother
about this. The appellant is said to have threatened Satya Pal many
times that if he continued to keep Jagdish Lal with him, he would have
to pay for it and the result would be very bad.
4. It was further stated that on 19.11.1985 at about 8.30 a.m., PW-1
(Kundan Lal) had gone to C-183, New Moti Nagar in order to find out
about the mare which had to be arranged for his brother Gulshan‟s
marriage to be held on 29.11.1985. There, he met PW-2 (Narain Dass)
and discussed about the mare and the petromax which was also to be
CRL.A. 187/93 Page No. 3 of 18
arranged. He further stated that while he was talking with Narain Dass,
the appellant Rajiv @ Bawa came out of his house and started abusing
Staya Pal. He stated that Satya Pal had given him time to meet the
ghori wala and he had arrived. While abusing, the appellant Rajiv is
said to have gone inside his house C-187, New Moti Nagar and from
there he brought a pointed iron object and injured Satya Pal by
attacking him and giving blows on his chest and abdomen. Satya Pal
started bleeding. As per Exhibit-PW-1/A, the said incident was
witnessed by him [PW-1 (Kundan Lal)], PW-2 (Narain Dass) and other
public persons who were standing nearby. They tried to apprehend the
appellant but he, while showing the pointed object in his hand and
giving threats, ran away. Due to fear, he was not chased by them. In
the meantime, PW-5 (Gulshan Kumar) also arrived. It is further stated
that they took Satya Pal to Vohra Nursing Home, Rajouri Garden but,
as no doctor was available there, they took him to Rana Nursing Home.
There, the doctor examined him and treated him, but Satya Pal died at
9.51 a.m. The doctor at Rana Nursing Home informed the police. As
per Exhibit-PW-1/A, PW-1 (Kundan Lal) claimed that his brother
Satya Pal had been killed deliberately by the appellant and sought that
legal action be taken against him.
5. On the basis of this statement, the ruqqa was prepared by PW-24
(Manohar Lal Sharma), the investigating officer in this case, and sent to
CRL.A. 187/93 Page No. 4 of 18
the police station through PW-9 (Constable Shambhu Dayal).
Thereafter the FIR was registered.
6. After the inquest proceedings, the dead body was sent for post
mortem examination etc. Statements of the witnesses were recorded.
A search was made for the appellant who was apprehended in a park
near the ganda nala . The appellant is alleged to have made a
disclosure statement disclosing the fact of where he had thrown the sua
in the ganda nala . However, the sua was not recovered. At this
juncture, it may be pointed out that no attempt for making the recovery
or taking the appellant to the place from where the sua could be
recovered appears to have been made. The post mortem report was
obtained and thereafter the CFSL report was also received. The
challan was filed. Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed and since
the appellant pleaded not guilty, the trial was undertaken.
7. The prosecution examined as many as 25 witnesses in support of
its case. The Section 313 CrPC statement of the appellant was recorded
and the defence also examined two witnesses, namely, DW-1 (Smt.
Vimla, appellant‟s mother) and DW-2 (Smt. Sunita, appellant‟s sister).
8. The main thrust of the defence case before the trial court was that
the entire prosecution case hinges upon the solitary testimony of PW-1
CRL.A. 187/93 Page No. 5 of 18
(Kundan Lal). The other eye witnesses, PW-2 (Narain Dass), PW-3
(Shankar Lal), PW-5 (Gulshan Kumar) and PW-7 (Satbir) have all
indicated that they did not see anyone inflicting the injuries and,
therefore, have not supported the prosecution case. The learned
defence counsel also submitted before the learned Additional Sessions
Judge that even the testimony of PW-1 (Kundan Lal) cannot be
believed because of serious contradictions. His testimony is not of
such a quality that it could be made the basis of a conviction without
seeking any other corroborative evidence. The learned Additional
Sessions Judge rejected the plea raised by the defence counsel and took
the view that although there were contradictions in the testimony of
PW-1 (Kundan Lal), they were not so material as to be fatal to the
entire prosecution case. The court was also of the view that PW-1
(Kundan Lal) was the uncle of the appellant and there was no reason
why he would depose against his own nephew naming him to be the
assailant of his brother. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also
brushed aside the fact that the sua which was the so-called weapon of
offence had also not been recovered. He noted the fact that PW-25
(Dr L.T. Ramani), who conducted the post mortem examination, had
clearly observed that all the nine injuries on the person of Satya Pal
were puncture wounds. Such wounds were only possible by a weapon
like a sua and, therefore, according to the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, non-recovery of the weapon of offence from the possession of
CRL.A. 187/93 Page No. 6 of 18
the appellant or at his instance was of no consequence. Consequently,
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, believing the testimony of PW-1
(Kundan Lal) to be a true eye witness account, found the appellant
guilty for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC.
9. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the
arguments advanced by the defence counsel before the trial court. The
sum and substance of his arguments was that there is only one witness
and that is PW-1 (Kundan Lal), who appears to support the prosecution
case. All the other eye witnesses have either turned hostile or have not
otherwise supported the prosecution case. The testimony of PW-1
(Kundan Lal), on which the entire prosecution case hinges, is full of
contradictions. The nature of contradictions is such that serious doubts
are cast on the truthfulness of the account given by PW-1 (Kundan
Lal). In such a situation, the conviction of the appellant cannot be
upheld on the basis of the solitary evidence of PW-1 (Kundan Lal),
which is not corroborated by any other prosecution evidence. The
learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the entire case was
manipulated and framed with the assistance of the prosecuting agency.
It was submitted that the appeal ought to be allowed and the conviction
and the order on sentence be set aside.
CRL.A. 187/93 Page No. 7 of 18
10. Mr Sunil Sharma, appearing on behalf of the State, fully
supported the impugned judgment and order on sentence. It was his
contention that the trial court has gone into the evidence in great detail
and has examined not only the testimony of the prosecution witnesses,
but also those of the defence witnesses, threadbare, and it has then
come to the conclusion that the testimony of PW-1 (Kundan Lal) was
fully reliable. According to Mr Sunil Sharma, the victim, the accused
and many of the witnesses belong to the same family. He submitted
that there may be contradictions of a minor nature with regard to the
D.D. entries, but they do not affect the merits of the case. He also
submitted that the motive for the murder also stood established.
According to him, the motive was supplied by the strained relations
between the appellant and his father as also the fact that his father had
been thrown out of his house by the appellant and that his father had
been supported and given a place to stay by his uncles and in particular
Satya Pal. This circumstance annoyed the appellant who harboured
deep animosity against Satya Pal. Mr Sunil Sharma submitted that this
was the motive for the appellant committing the murder of his uncle.
11. Mr Sunil Sharma also submitted that the enmity was actually
between the appellant and the deceased Satya Pal and not between the
appellant and PW-1 (Kundan Lal). This being the position, according
to him, there was no reason as to why PW-1 (Kundan Lal) would
CRL.A. 187/93 Page No. 8 of 18
falsely implicate the appellant. Mr Sharma submitted that if the
testimony of PW-1 (Kundan Lal) is to be regarded as being above
board, then the prosecution case stands established irrespective of
minor contradictions. He submitted that the trial court has rightly
concluded that the testimony of PW-1 (Kundan Lal) with regard to the
actual incident is believable. That being the case, according to Mr
Sharma, no further corroboration is necessary and the conviction of the
appellant has rightly been based solely on such testimony. It was,
therefore, submitted by Mr Sharma that the appeal be dismissed and the
conviction and sentence be upheld.
12. Since PW-1 (Kundan Lal) is the key to this case, let us see what
he has stated with regard to the alleged incident. In his examination-in-
chief, he has, inter alia , stated as under:-
“The marriage of my brother Gulshan was scheduled to
th
take place on 29 November, 1985. We had hired
petromax and mare etc. from Narain Dass Arora C-183,
New Moti Nagar. Prior to 19.11.1985 we had agreed with
Narain Dass Arora, petromax owner that we will come to
th
his shop on the morning of 19 November, 1985 and there
we will finalise the whole programme. On 19.11.1985 at
about 8.30 AM I started from my house to reach Narain
Dass Arora, the petromax owner and reached there within
5-6 minutes. When I reached there near about that very
time Sat Pal also came there. While I and Sat Pal were
talking to Narain Dass Arora, Rajiv @ Bawa came out of
his house No. C-187, New Moti Nagar and approached us
and started abusing Sat Pal. One or two minutes thereafter
went into his house and returned again within about two
minutes to Narain Dass Arora‟s shop. When he came at the
shop for the second time he was holding a pointed object of
iron and immediately on reaching there he started stabbing
CRL.A. 187/93 Page No. 9 of 18
Sat Pal by the said pointed object. At that time I was
standing near thiya of Narain Dass. Accused stabbed 7-6
times at one stretch on the stomach, chest and throat of Sat
Pal by the said pointed object. Before the accused had
started stabbing Sat Pal my younger brother Gulshan had
also arrived there at the spot and was present there at the
time of occurrence. We and other persons present at the
spot tried to apprehend the accused but he waiving the sua
while holding in his hand and threatening us fled towards
Milan Cinema. There was bleeding from the body of Sat
Pal on account of injury but the blood was soaked by his
clothes and did not trickle down the ground. Gulshan had
come to the shop by car. I and Gulshan put Sat Pal into the
car and took him to Vohra Nursing Home Rajouri Garden
but no doctor was available there. Therefore, at that very
time we took Sat Pal to a nearby Rana Nursing Home
Rajouri Garden. The doctor examined Sat Pal there but Sat
Pal died at 9.51 AM. The concerned doctor of Rana
Nursing Home informed the police after death of Sat Pal
and after some time the police arrived there. The police
recorded my statement at the Nursing Home itself which
was read over to me and I appended my signature thereto.
My report is Exhibit Pw1/A. The police completed inquest
proceedings and the dead body was taken to the police
station on a police vehicle. Inquest report was prepared in
my presence and I signed the same. I identified the dead
body. Inquest report is Exhibit PW1/B and my statement
identifying the dead body is Exhibit PW1/C. Later, the
police went to the spot also and I told them the place of
occurrence. The site plan was prepared by the police.”
13. While PW-2 (Narain Dass) admitted that he did repair work for
petromax etc. for marriages at the pavement near his house C-183, New
Moti Nagar and that deceased Satya Pal had booked petromax from
him in connection with the marriage of his brother, he also stated that
he had not seen the appellant Rajiv inflicting injuries on any person.
He stated that he did not know anything about the occurrence of this
case. Thereafter, PW-2 (Narain Dass) was treated as a hostile witness
CRL.A. 187/93 Page No. 10 of 18
and was cross-examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
(APP). He was also cross-examined by the defence counsel and in the
course of such cross-examination, he stated that it was correct that on
16.11.1985, the younger son of Jagdish, who was his grandson, had
died and, therefore, he had not opened his shop on 19.11.1985.
14. The next person mentioned in the testimony of PW-1 (Kundan
Lal), apart from the deceased Satya Pal and the appellant Rajiv, is PW-
5 (Gulshan Kumar). It must be remembered that PW-5 (Gulshan
Kumar) is Kundan Lal‟s brother and is also an uncle of the appellant
Rajiv Katyal. In fact, the appellant Rajiv Katyal is the son of PW-12
(Jagdish Lal), whose four brothers include the deceased Satya Pal, PW-
1 (Kundan Lal), Rajpal and PW-5 (Gulshan). As per PW-1 (Kundan
Lal) “before the accused had started stabbing Satya Pal my younger
brother Gulshan had also arrived there at the spot and was present there
at the time of occurrence”. This is a clear improvement from his
statement (Exhibit-PW-1/A) where it is not so stated. In fact, in PW-
1/A, it is recorded that Gulshan Kumar arrived at the spot after the
stabbing incident was over and after the appellant is alleged to have run
away. Now, let us compare this testimony with what PW-5 (Gulshan
Kumar) has stated. In his examination-in-chief, PW-5 (Gulshan
Kumar) stated that on 19.11.1985 at about 9.30 a.m., he had gone to see
Narain Dass ghori wala at C-183, New Moti Nagar in connection with
CRL.A. 187/93 Page No. 11 of 18
his marriage in a car borrowed from his friend. He had gone to meet
Narain Dass ghori wala for fixing the time for the mare and the
petromax for his marriage. He further stated that when he reached the
shop of Narain Dass, he heard an alarm there “ mar gaya… mar gaya ”
and on reaching the spot, he found his brother Satya Pal in an injured
condition. Importantly, he stated that he had not seen the person who
had injured Satya Pal at the time when he had injured Satya Pal. He
stated that he and his brother Kundan Lal took Satya Pal in an injured
condition in a car to Vohra Nursing Home where no doctor was
available. Then, they took him to Rana Nursing Home and at Rana
Nursing Home, the doctor concerned examined Satya Pal and declared
him to be dead. The doctor informed the police and the police came
over to Rana Nursing Home. However, this witness was declared to be
hostile and was cross-examined by the learned APP. Thus, he does not
support the version given by PW-1 (Kundan Lal).
15. There are other contradictions in the testimony of PW-1 (Kundan
Lal) which have already been acknowledged by the trial court. Those
contradictions related to the time, the place where PW-1‟s (Kundan
Lal‟s) statement was recorded by the police, the time at which the
photographs were taken, etc. In fact, PW-1 (Kundan Lal) had so
contradicted himself with regard to the recording of his statement
CRL.A. 187/93 Page No. 12 of 18
Exhibit-PW-1/A that the court had to put a question to him to the
following effect:-
“Court Q:- In your statement dated 02.06.1986 recorded in
the court, you have stated that the police had recorded your
statement Exhibit PW1/A at Rana Nursing Home and you
had signed on that. Today, in your statement in the court,
you have stated that you signed on Exhibit PW1/A at the
spot. Thus you have made two contradictory statements.
Can you tell if out of these two statements, which one is
correct and which is wrong because both the statements
cannot be two (sic: true) at the same time ?
A. Today‟s statement of mine is correct. On Exhibit
PW1/A I had in fact signed at the spot. My earlier
statement that I had signed on Exhibit PW1/A at Rana
Nursing Home is not correct. I had made that statement
due to confusion/ misunderstanding.”
16. PW-3 (Shankar Lal), who was cited as a public witness also
turned hostile. He stated that he had noticed a crowd near Punjabi
Bagh Bridge. He also stated that he had not seen the appellant Rajiv
inflicting injury on the person of anybody. He also stated that some
people in the crowd were telling that a Sikh had run away after injuring
someone and that he had seen him fleeing at a far distance. He further
stated that the person with whom the fight with the Sikh had taken
place had gone towards Punjabi Bagh on a rickshaw. Obviously, this
witness was also declared to be hostile and was cross-examined by the
learned APP. PW-4 (Jagdish Lal) is the son of PW-2 (Narain Dass).
He was declared to be hostile inasmuch as he did not support the
prosecution case with regard to the preparation of the receipt dated
06.10.1985 with respect to the booking of the petromax and the mare in
CRL.A. 187/93 Page No. 13 of 18
connection with the marriage of Gulshan Kumar. According to him,
the receipt was prepared later at the instance of the police. In cross-
examination by the defence counsel, he further stated that 3-4 days
prior to the occurrence, i.e., on 16.11.1985, his son had died. He
produced the certificate marked DA in respect of his son‟s death. He
further stated that on account of the said death, their shop remained
closed on 19.11.1985.
17. PW-7 (Satbir Singh), who is also a public witness, indicated that
when he reached the shop of the mare and petromax near Milan
Cinema at about 8.45 a.m. or 9.00 a.m., he saw a crowd collected there
and that Satya Pal was bleeding. He also stated that he did not see
anybody inflicting the injuries on the person of Satya Pal deceased.
The said witness was also declared hostile and was cross-examined by
the learned APP.
18. From a review of the evidence on record, it is apparent that none
of the prosecution witnesses, who were said to have been eye
witnesses, other than PW-1 (Kundan Lal), have supported the
prosecution case. The entire edifice of the prosecution case rests on the
testimony of PW-1 (Kundan Lal). The learned Additional Sessions
Judge has believed the testimony of PW-1 (Kundan Lal) after arriving
at the conclusion that there was no occasion for PW-1 (Kundan Lal) to
CRL.A. 187/93 Page No. 14 of 18
have lied in court and falsely implicated his nephew for the murder of
his brother. The question that seems to have weighed heavily with the
learned Additional Sessions Judge was – Why would Kundan Lal lie
about the incident ? But this very question can be posed in respect of
the appellant‟s other uncle PW-5 (Gulshan Kumar) also. Why would
one uncle [PW-1 (Kundan Lal)] want to implicate the appellant and the
other uncle [PW-5 (Gulshan Kumar)] testify against the prosecution
case ? This is a question which is very difficult to answer, if at all.
But, the fact remains that it is the word of one witness PW-1 (Kundan
Lal) against the word of all the others. Furthermore, why did PW-1
(Kundan Lal) make an improvement in his testimony before court that
PW-5 (Gulshan Kumar) had arrived at the spot prior to the alleged
stabbing incident when, in his statement (Exhibit-PW-1/A), which he
claimed to be his true and correct statement, made to the police officer,
he had indicated that PW-5 (Gulshan Kumar) arrived at the scene after
the stabbing incident and after the appellant had fled from the scene ?
When this circumstance is read alongwith the other contradictions with
regard to the time when the photographs were taken; with regard to
whether they went to the police station at all with the dead body or not;
with regard to where PW-1 (Kundan Lal‟s) statement (Exhibit-PW-
1/A) was recorded – whether at the spot or at Rana Nursing Home –
serious doubts arise about the accuracy and truthfulness of the
testimony of PW-1 (Kundan Lal). There has also been a suggestion on
CRL.A. 187/93 Page No. 15 of 18
the part of the defence that PW-1 (Kundan Lal) was eyeing the
properties of the appellants father PW-12 (Jagdish Lal). Apart from
this, there are several gaps in the prosecution case. One of them is that
the car in which the injured Satya Pal is said to have been taken to the
hospital has not been identified or recovered. The second is that
although it is alleged that the appellant had made a disclosure statement
disclosing the place where he had thrown the sua in the ganda nala and
even a pointing out memo had been prepared, no attempt was made to
recover the said sua . The non-recovery of the sua , in these
circumstances, is certainly a factor which goes against the prosecution
case. There is also the circumstance that the inquest papers were not
sent alongwith the dead body for the purposes of post mortem , but were
sent later on. The body had been received at the place where the post
mortem was to be conducted at 08.15 p.m. on 19.11.1985. The papers,
however, were received at 9.00 a.m. the next day, i.e., on 20.11.1985.
19. There is another dimension to this case and that is whether the
injured Satya Pal arrived at Rana Nursing Home on his own or was he
accompanied by PW-1 (Kundan Lal) and PW-5 (Gulshan Kumar) ?
PW-13 (Dr S.P. Gogia of Rana Nursing Home) stated that the patient
came to the nursing home and expired. He informed the police.
Exhibit-PW-9/DB is some kind of a report written on the letter head of
Rana Nursing Home. The portion marked „X‟ which bears the name
CRL.A. 187/93 Page No. 16 of 18
Satya Pal son of „blank‟ and address 20/14, Punjabi (East) Bagh, T. No.
535369 P.P.; 503419 P.P. was clearly stated by PW - 13 (Dr S.P. Gogia)
as not to have been written in his hand. He also stated that the portion
marked „Y‟ which contains the writing „motorcycle‟ which is scratched
out and beneath it „DIX 3344‟ is written, is also not in the hand of PW-
13 (Dr S.P. Gogia). The rest of Exhibit-PW-9/DB is stated to be in his
hand writing and bears his signature.
20. From these, the learned counsel for the appellant sought to draw
the inference that when Satya Pal came to the hospital in an injured
condition, the doctor was not aware of his name and address and that
was added later on. The further inference is that Satya Pal was not
accompanied by either PW-1 (Kundan Lal) or PW-5 (Gulshan Kumar)
inasmuch as if that had been the case, they would have certainly given
the name and address and would have also given his father‟s name.
The writing which indicates the motorcycle number was obviously
added much later on, but it is not known by whom. PW-13 (Dr S.P.
Gogia) stated that he cannot say as to why the said portion which was
marked „X‟ was written and he cannot say whether the patient came on
a motorcycle. Importantly, this witness stated in his cross-examination
that he did not meet any relative of the patient nor was he informed
about the history of the injured.
CRL.A. 187/93 Page No. 17 of 18
21. Considering the evidence on record and the totality of the
circumstances, we are of the opinion that the testimony of PW-1
(Kundan Lal) is not free from doubt. Apart from his testimony, as
already indicated above, there is no other evidence which conclusively
points towards the guilt of the appellant. Thus, the benefit of doubt has
to go to the appellant. Consequently, the impugned order / judgment
and the order on sentence are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all
charges in this case. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond stands
cancelled and the sureties stand discharged.
The appeal is allowed.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
V.B. GUPTA, J
July 03, 2009
dutt
CRL.A. 187/93 Page No. 18 of 18
% Judgment delivered on: 03.07.2009
+ CRL A. 187/1993
RAJIV KATYAL ... Appellant
- Versus -
STATE ... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case :-
For the Appellant : Mr Ajay Burman with Mr R.K. Singh and
Mr R. Samanotra
For the Respondent : Mr Sunil Sharma
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ? Yes
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
1. The appellant Rajiv Katyal was found guilty of having murdered
his uncle (father‟s brother) Satya Pal and was accordingly convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi by his judgment dated 27.10.1993 in
Sessions Case No.56/1992 (Old No.21/1986) arising out of FIR No.
558/1985 under Section 302 IPC registered at Police Station Moti
Nagar, Delhi. By virtue of a separate order of the same date, the
learned Additional Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant to undergo
CRL.A. 187/93 Page No. 1 of 18
rigorous imprisonment for life as also to pay a fine of Rs 3,000/- and in
default of payment of fine, he was to suffer further rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year.
2. As per the prosecution, the appellant Rajiv Katyal committed the
murder of his uncle Satya Pal on 19.11.1985 at about 9.00 a.m. near C-
183, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. The said murder is said to have been
committed by the appellant by using a pointed iron object referred to as
„s ua ‟. It is alleged that the appellant repeatedly stabbed his uncle Satya
Pal with the said sua on his chest and abdomen and thereafter fled from
the scene. Satya Pal was first taken to Vohra Nursing Home, Rajouri
Garden by PW-5 (Gulshan Kumar, another uncle of the appellant and
brother of the deceased Satya Pal) and others. Since no doctor was
available at the said nursing home, the injured Satya Pal was taken to
Rana Nursing Home. As per Exhibit PW-9/DB, injured Satya Pal
arrived at Rana Nursing Home at 9.45 a.m. and passed away shortly
thereafter at 9.51 a.m. and the police was thereafter informed.
3. The prosecution case is based upon the statement (Exhibit PW-
1/A) of PW-1 (Kundan Lal, another uncle of the appellant and brother
of the deceased Satya Pal) given to the police on that date, i.e.,
19.11.1985. As per the statement, the appellant Rajiv was the son of
his brother PW-12 (Jagdish Lal) who resided at C-187, New Moti
CRL.A. 187/93 Page No. 2 of 18
Nagar and that Rajiv had thrown out his father Jagdish Lal from his
house for the last about one year. He further stated that the appellant
Rajiv had bad habits and that he took money from the house and wasted
it. As per the said statement (Exhibit PW-1/A), Kundan Lal stated that
his brother PW-12 (Jagdish Lal) had objected to the activities of the
appellant Rajiv and it is due to this that the appellant Rajiv alongwith
his mother DW-1 (Vimla) had ousted PW-12 (Jagdish Lal) from his
house so that they may live freely. It is thereafter that PW-12 (Jagdish
Lal) started residing with his parents at 20/14, East Punjabi Bagh where
his younger brother PW-5 (Gulshan Kumar), Satya Pal and Rajpal were
also residing. The statement (Exhibit-PW-1/A) goes on to further
indicate that due to this, the appellant had enmity with his uncle Satya
Pal and he used to question him as to why his (appellant‟s) father was
being kept by him (Satya Pal) in their house. Satya Pal did not bother
about this. The appellant is said to have threatened Satya Pal many
times that if he continued to keep Jagdish Lal with him, he would have
to pay for it and the result would be very bad.
4. It was further stated that on 19.11.1985 at about 8.30 a.m., PW-1
(Kundan Lal) had gone to C-183, New Moti Nagar in order to find out
about the mare which had to be arranged for his brother Gulshan‟s
marriage to be held on 29.11.1985. There, he met PW-2 (Narain Dass)
and discussed about the mare and the petromax which was also to be
CRL.A. 187/93 Page No. 3 of 18
arranged. He further stated that while he was talking with Narain Dass,
the appellant Rajiv @ Bawa came out of his house and started abusing
Staya Pal. He stated that Satya Pal had given him time to meet the
ghori wala and he had arrived. While abusing, the appellant Rajiv is
said to have gone inside his house C-187, New Moti Nagar and from
there he brought a pointed iron object and injured Satya Pal by
attacking him and giving blows on his chest and abdomen. Satya Pal
started bleeding. As per Exhibit-PW-1/A, the said incident was
witnessed by him [PW-1 (Kundan Lal)], PW-2 (Narain Dass) and other
public persons who were standing nearby. They tried to apprehend the
appellant but he, while showing the pointed object in his hand and
giving threats, ran away. Due to fear, he was not chased by them. In
the meantime, PW-5 (Gulshan Kumar) also arrived. It is further stated
that they took Satya Pal to Vohra Nursing Home, Rajouri Garden but,
as no doctor was available there, they took him to Rana Nursing Home.
There, the doctor examined him and treated him, but Satya Pal died at
9.51 a.m. The doctor at Rana Nursing Home informed the police. As
per Exhibit-PW-1/A, PW-1 (Kundan Lal) claimed that his brother
Satya Pal had been killed deliberately by the appellant and sought that
legal action be taken against him.
5. On the basis of this statement, the ruqqa was prepared by PW-24
(Manohar Lal Sharma), the investigating officer in this case, and sent to
CRL.A. 187/93 Page No. 4 of 18
the police station through PW-9 (Constable Shambhu Dayal).
Thereafter the FIR was registered.
6. After the inquest proceedings, the dead body was sent for post
mortem examination etc. Statements of the witnesses were recorded.
A search was made for the appellant who was apprehended in a park
near the ganda nala . The appellant is alleged to have made a
disclosure statement disclosing the fact of where he had thrown the sua
in the ganda nala . However, the sua was not recovered. At this
juncture, it may be pointed out that no attempt for making the recovery
or taking the appellant to the place from where the sua could be
recovered appears to have been made. The post mortem report was
obtained and thereafter the CFSL report was also received. The
challan was filed. Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed and since
the appellant pleaded not guilty, the trial was undertaken.
7. The prosecution examined as many as 25 witnesses in support of
its case. The Section 313 CrPC statement of the appellant was recorded
and the defence also examined two witnesses, namely, DW-1 (Smt.
Vimla, appellant‟s mother) and DW-2 (Smt. Sunita, appellant‟s sister).
8. The main thrust of the defence case before the trial court was that
the entire prosecution case hinges upon the solitary testimony of PW-1
CRL.A. 187/93 Page No. 5 of 18
(Kundan Lal). The other eye witnesses, PW-2 (Narain Dass), PW-3
(Shankar Lal), PW-5 (Gulshan Kumar) and PW-7 (Satbir) have all
indicated that they did not see anyone inflicting the injuries and,
therefore, have not supported the prosecution case. The learned
defence counsel also submitted before the learned Additional Sessions
Judge that even the testimony of PW-1 (Kundan Lal) cannot be
believed because of serious contradictions. His testimony is not of
such a quality that it could be made the basis of a conviction without
seeking any other corroborative evidence. The learned Additional
Sessions Judge rejected the plea raised by the defence counsel and took
the view that although there were contradictions in the testimony of
PW-1 (Kundan Lal), they were not so material as to be fatal to the
entire prosecution case. The court was also of the view that PW-1
(Kundan Lal) was the uncle of the appellant and there was no reason
why he would depose against his own nephew naming him to be the
assailant of his brother. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also
brushed aside the fact that the sua which was the so-called weapon of
offence had also not been recovered. He noted the fact that PW-25
(Dr L.T. Ramani), who conducted the post mortem examination, had
clearly observed that all the nine injuries on the person of Satya Pal
were puncture wounds. Such wounds were only possible by a weapon
like a sua and, therefore, according to the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, non-recovery of the weapon of offence from the possession of
CRL.A. 187/93 Page No. 6 of 18
the appellant or at his instance was of no consequence. Consequently,
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, believing the testimony of PW-1
(Kundan Lal) to be a true eye witness account, found the appellant
guilty for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC.
9. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the
arguments advanced by the defence counsel before the trial court. The
sum and substance of his arguments was that there is only one witness
and that is PW-1 (Kundan Lal), who appears to support the prosecution
case. All the other eye witnesses have either turned hostile or have not
otherwise supported the prosecution case. The testimony of PW-1
(Kundan Lal), on which the entire prosecution case hinges, is full of
contradictions. The nature of contradictions is such that serious doubts
are cast on the truthfulness of the account given by PW-1 (Kundan
Lal). In such a situation, the conviction of the appellant cannot be
upheld on the basis of the solitary evidence of PW-1 (Kundan Lal),
which is not corroborated by any other prosecution evidence. The
learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the entire case was
manipulated and framed with the assistance of the prosecuting agency.
It was submitted that the appeal ought to be allowed and the conviction
and the order on sentence be set aside.
CRL.A. 187/93 Page No. 7 of 18
10. Mr Sunil Sharma, appearing on behalf of the State, fully
supported the impugned judgment and order on sentence. It was his
contention that the trial court has gone into the evidence in great detail
and has examined not only the testimony of the prosecution witnesses,
but also those of the defence witnesses, threadbare, and it has then
come to the conclusion that the testimony of PW-1 (Kundan Lal) was
fully reliable. According to Mr Sunil Sharma, the victim, the accused
and many of the witnesses belong to the same family. He submitted
that there may be contradictions of a minor nature with regard to the
D.D. entries, but they do not affect the merits of the case. He also
submitted that the motive for the murder also stood established.
According to him, the motive was supplied by the strained relations
between the appellant and his father as also the fact that his father had
been thrown out of his house by the appellant and that his father had
been supported and given a place to stay by his uncles and in particular
Satya Pal. This circumstance annoyed the appellant who harboured
deep animosity against Satya Pal. Mr Sunil Sharma submitted that this
was the motive for the appellant committing the murder of his uncle.
11. Mr Sunil Sharma also submitted that the enmity was actually
between the appellant and the deceased Satya Pal and not between the
appellant and PW-1 (Kundan Lal). This being the position, according
to him, there was no reason as to why PW-1 (Kundan Lal) would
CRL.A. 187/93 Page No. 8 of 18
falsely implicate the appellant. Mr Sharma submitted that if the
testimony of PW-1 (Kundan Lal) is to be regarded as being above
board, then the prosecution case stands established irrespective of
minor contradictions. He submitted that the trial court has rightly
concluded that the testimony of PW-1 (Kundan Lal) with regard to the
actual incident is believable. That being the case, according to Mr
Sharma, no further corroboration is necessary and the conviction of the
appellant has rightly been based solely on such testimony. It was,
therefore, submitted by Mr Sharma that the appeal be dismissed and the
conviction and sentence be upheld.
12. Since PW-1 (Kundan Lal) is the key to this case, let us see what
he has stated with regard to the alleged incident. In his examination-in-
chief, he has, inter alia , stated as under:-
“The marriage of my brother Gulshan was scheduled to
th
take place on 29 November, 1985. We had hired
petromax and mare etc. from Narain Dass Arora C-183,
New Moti Nagar. Prior to 19.11.1985 we had agreed with
Narain Dass Arora, petromax owner that we will come to
th
his shop on the morning of 19 November, 1985 and there
we will finalise the whole programme. On 19.11.1985 at
about 8.30 AM I started from my house to reach Narain
Dass Arora, the petromax owner and reached there within
5-6 minutes. When I reached there near about that very
time Sat Pal also came there. While I and Sat Pal were
talking to Narain Dass Arora, Rajiv @ Bawa came out of
his house No. C-187, New Moti Nagar and approached us
and started abusing Sat Pal. One or two minutes thereafter
went into his house and returned again within about two
minutes to Narain Dass Arora‟s shop. When he came at the
shop for the second time he was holding a pointed object of
iron and immediately on reaching there he started stabbing
CRL.A. 187/93 Page No. 9 of 18
Sat Pal by the said pointed object. At that time I was
standing near thiya of Narain Dass. Accused stabbed 7-6
times at one stretch on the stomach, chest and throat of Sat
Pal by the said pointed object. Before the accused had
started stabbing Sat Pal my younger brother Gulshan had
also arrived there at the spot and was present there at the
time of occurrence. We and other persons present at the
spot tried to apprehend the accused but he waiving the sua
while holding in his hand and threatening us fled towards
Milan Cinema. There was bleeding from the body of Sat
Pal on account of injury but the blood was soaked by his
clothes and did not trickle down the ground. Gulshan had
come to the shop by car. I and Gulshan put Sat Pal into the
car and took him to Vohra Nursing Home Rajouri Garden
but no doctor was available there. Therefore, at that very
time we took Sat Pal to a nearby Rana Nursing Home
Rajouri Garden. The doctor examined Sat Pal there but Sat
Pal died at 9.51 AM. The concerned doctor of Rana
Nursing Home informed the police after death of Sat Pal
and after some time the police arrived there. The police
recorded my statement at the Nursing Home itself which
was read over to me and I appended my signature thereto.
My report is Exhibit Pw1/A. The police completed inquest
proceedings and the dead body was taken to the police
station on a police vehicle. Inquest report was prepared in
my presence and I signed the same. I identified the dead
body. Inquest report is Exhibit PW1/B and my statement
identifying the dead body is Exhibit PW1/C. Later, the
police went to the spot also and I told them the place of
occurrence. The site plan was prepared by the police.”
13. While PW-2 (Narain Dass) admitted that he did repair work for
petromax etc. for marriages at the pavement near his house C-183, New
Moti Nagar and that deceased Satya Pal had booked petromax from
him in connection with the marriage of his brother, he also stated that
he had not seen the appellant Rajiv inflicting injuries on any person.
He stated that he did not know anything about the occurrence of this
case. Thereafter, PW-2 (Narain Dass) was treated as a hostile witness
CRL.A. 187/93 Page No. 10 of 18
and was cross-examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
(APP). He was also cross-examined by the defence counsel and in the
course of such cross-examination, he stated that it was correct that on
16.11.1985, the younger son of Jagdish, who was his grandson, had
died and, therefore, he had not opened his shop on 19.11.1985.
14. The next person mentioned in the testimony of PW-1 (Kundan
Lal), apart from the deceased Satya Pal and the appellant Rajiv, is PW-
5 (Gulshan Kumar). It must be remembered that PW-5 (Gulshan
Kumar) is Kundan Lal‟s brother and is also an uncle of the appellant
Rajiv Katyal. In fact, the appellant Rajiv Katyal is the son of PW-12
(Jagdish Lal), whose four brothers include the deceased Satya Pal, PW-
1 (Kundan Lal), Rajpal and PW-5 (Gulshan). As per PW-1 (Kundan
Lal) “before the accused had started stabbing Satya Pal my younger
brother Gulshan had also arrived there at the spot and was present there
at the time of occurrence”. This is a clear improvement from his
statement (Exhibit-PW-1/A) where it is not so stated. In fact, in PW-
1/A, it is recorded that Gulshan Kumar arrived at the spot after the
stabbing incident was over and after the appellant is alleged to have run
away. Now, let us compare this testimony with what PW-5 (Gulshan
Kumar) has stated. In his examination-in-chief, PW-5 (Gulshan
Kumar) stated that on 19.11.1985 at about 9.30 a.m., he had gone to see
Narain Dass ghori wala at C-183, New Moti Nagar in connection with
CRL.A. 187/93 Page No. 11 of 18
his marriage in a car borrowed from his friend. He had gone to meet
Narain Dass ghori wala for fixing the time for the mare and the
petromax for his marriage. He further stated that when he reached the
shop of Narain Dass, he heard an alarm there “ mar gaya… mar gaya ”
and on reaching the spot, he found his brother Satya Pal in an injured
condition. Importantly, he stated that he had not seen the person who
had injured Satya Pal at the time when he had injured Satya Pal. He
stated that he and his brother Kundan Lal took Satya Pal in an injured
condition in a car to Vohra Nursing Home where no doctor was
available. Then, they took him to Rana Nursing Home and at Rana
Nursing Home, the doctor concerned examined Satya Pal and declared
him to be dead. The doctor informed the police and the police came
over to Rana Nursing Home. However, this witness was declared to be
hostile and was cross-examined by the learned APP. Thus, he does not
support the version given by PW-1 (Kundan Lal).
15. There are other contradictions in the testimony of PW-1 (Kundan
Lal) which have already been acknowledged by the trial court. Those
contradictions related to the time, the place where PW-1‟s (Kundan
Lal‟s) statement was recorded by the police, the time at which the
photographs were taken, etc. In fact, PW-1 (Kundan Lal) had so
contradicted himself with regard to the recording of his statement
CRL.A. 187/93 Page No. 12 of 18
Exhibit-PW-1/A that the court had to put a question to him to the
following effect:-
“Court Q:- In your statement dated 02.06.1986 recorded in
the court, you have stated that the police had recorded your
statement Exhibit PW1/A at Rana Nursing Home and you
had signed on that. Today, in your statement in the court,
you have stated that you signed on Exhibit PW1/A at the
spot. Thus you have made two contradictory statements.
Can you tell if out of these two statements, which one is
correct and which is wrong because both the statements
cannot be two (sic: true) at the same time ?
A. Today‟s statement of mine is correct. On Exhibit
PW1/A I had in fact signed at the spot. My earlier
statement that I had signed on Exhibit PW1/A at Rana
Nursing Home is not correct. I had made that statement
due to confusion/ misunderstanding.”
16. PW-3 (Shankar Lal), who was cited as a public witness also
turned hostile. He stated that he had noticed a crowd near Punjabi
Bagh Bridge. He also stated that he had not seen the appellant Rajiv
inflicting injury on the person of anybody. He also stated that some
people in the crowd were telling that a Sikh had run away after injuring
someone and that he had seen him fleeing at a far distance. He further
stated that the person with whom the fight with the Sikh had taken
place had gone towards Punjabi Bagh on a rickshaw. Obviously, this
witness was also declared to be hostile and was cross-examined by the
learned APP. PW-4 (Jagdish Lal) is the son of PW-2 (Narain Dass).
He was declared to be hostile inasmuch as he did not support the
prosecution case with regard to the preparation of the receipt dated
06.10.1985 with respect to the booking of the petromax and the mare in
CRL.A. 187/93 Page No. 13 of 18
connection with the marriage of Gulshan Kumar. According to him,
the receipt was prepared later at the instance of the police. In cross-
examination by the defence counsel, he further stated that 3-4 days
prior to the occurrence, i.e., on 16.11.1985, his son had died. He
produced the certificate marked DA in respect of his son‟s death. He
further stated that on account of the said death, their shop remained
closed on 19.11.1985.
17. PW-7 (Satbir Singh), who is also a public witness, indicated that
when he reached the shop of the mare and petromax near Milan
Cinema at about 8.45 a.m. or 9.00 a.m., he saw a crowd collected there
and that Satya Pal was bleeding. He also stated that he did not see
anybody inflicting the injuries on the person of Satya Pal deceased.
The said witness was also declared hostile and was cross-examined by
the learned APP.
18. From a review of the evidence on record, it is apparent that none
of the prosecution witnesses, who were said to have been eye
witnesses, other than PW-1 (Kundan Lal), have supported the
prosecution case. The entire edifice of the prosecution case rests on the
testimony of PW-1 (Kundan Lal). The learned Additional Sessions
Judge has believed the testimony of PW-1 (Kundan Lal) after arriving
at the conclusion that there was no occasion for PW-1 (Kundan Lal) to
CRL.A. 187/93 Page No. 14 of 18
have lied in court and falsely implicated his nephew for the murder of
his brother. The question that seems to have weighed heavily with the
learned Additional Sessions Judge was – Why would Kundan Lal lie
about the incident ? But this very question can be posed in respect of
the appellant‟s other uncle PW-5 (Gulshan Kumar) also. Why would
one uncle [PW-1 (Kundan Lal)] want to implicate the appellant and the
other uncle [PW-5 (Gulshan Kumar)] testify against the prosecution
case ? This is a question which is very difficult to answer, if at all.
But, the fact remains that it is the word of one witness PW-1 (Kundan
Lal) against the word of all the others. Furthermore, why did PW-1
(Kundan Lal) make an improvement in his testimony before court that
PW-5 (Gulshan Kumar) had arrived at the spot prior to the alleged
stabbing incident when, in his statement (Exhibit-PW-1/A), which he
claimed to be his true and correct statement, made to the police officer,
he had indicated that PW-5 (Gulshan Kumar) arrived at the scene after
the stabbing incident and after the appellant had fled from the scene ?
When this circumstance is read alongwith the other contradictions with
regard to the time when the photographs were taken; with regard to
whether they went to the police station at all with the dead body or not;
with regard to where PW-1 (Kundan Lal‟s) statement (Exhibit-PW-
1/A) was recorded – whether at the spot or at Rana Nursing Home –
serious doubts arise about the accuracy and truthfulness of the
testimony of PW-1 (Kundan Lal). There has also been a suggestion on
CRL.A. 187/93 Page No. 15 of 18
the part of the defence that PW-1 (Kundan Lal) was eyeing the
properties of the appellants father PW-12 (Jagdish Lal). Apart from
this, there are several gaps in the prosecution case. One of them is that
the car in which the injured Satya Pal is said to have been taken to the
hospital has not been identified or recovered. The second is that
although it is alleged that the appellant had made a disclosure statement
disclosing the place where he had thrown the sua in the ganda nala and
even a pointing out memo had been prepared, no attempt was made to
recover the said sua . The non-recovery of the sua , in these
circumstances, is certainly a factor which goes against the prosecution
case. There is also the circumstance that the inquest papers were not
sent alongwith the dead body for the purposes of post mortem , but were
sent later on. The body had been received at the place where the post
mortem was to be conducted at 08.15 p.m. on 19.11.1985. The papers,
however, were received at 9.00 a.m. the next day, i.e., on 20.11.1985.
19. There is another dimension to this case and that is whether the
injured Satya Pal arrived at Rana Nursing Home on his own or was he
accompanied by PW-1 (Kundan Lal) and PW-5 (Gulshan Kumar) ?
PW-13 (Dr S.P. Gogia of Rana Nursing Home) stated that the patient
came to the nursing home and expired. He informed the police.
Exhibit-PW-9/DB is some kind of a report written on the letter head of
Rana Nursing Home. The portion marked „X‟ which bears the name
CRL.A. 187/93 Page No. 16 of 18
Satya Pal son of „blank‟ and address 20/14, Punjabi (East) Bagh, T. No.
535369 P.P.; 503419 P.P. was clearly stated by PW - 13 (Dr S.P. Gogia)
as not to have been written in his hand. He also stated that the portion
marked „Y‟ which contains the writing „motorcycle‟ which is scratched
out and beneath it „DIX 3344‟ is written, is also not in the hand of PW-
13 (Dr S.P. Gogia). The rest of Exhibit-PW-9/DB is stated to be in his
hand writing and bears his signature.
20. From these, the learned counsel for the appellant sought to draw
the inference that when Satya Pal came to the hospital in an injured
condition, the doctor was not aware of his name and address and that
was added later on. The further inference is that Satya Pal was not
accompanied by either PW-1 (Kundan Lal) or PW-5 (Gulshan Kumar)
inasmuch as if that had been the case, they would have certainly given
the name and address and would have also given his father‟s name.
The writing which indicates the motorcycle number was obviously
added much later on, but it is not known by whom. PW-13 (Dr S.P.
Gogia) stated that he cannot say as to why the said portion which was
marked „X‟ was written and he cannot say whether the patient came on
a motorcycle. Importantly, this witness stated in his cross-examination
that he did not meet any relative of the patient nor was he informed
about the history of the injured.
CRL.A. 187/93 Page No. 17 of 18
21. Considering the evidence on record and the totality of the
circumstances, we are of the opinion that the testimony of PW-1
(Kundan Lal) is not free from doubt. Apart from his testimony, as
already indicated above, there is no other evidence which conclusively
points towards the guilt of the appellant. Thus, the benefit of doubt has
to go to the appellant. Consequently, the impugned order / judgment
and the order on sentence are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all
charges in this case. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond stands
cancelled and the sureties stand discharged.
The appeal is allowed.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
V.B. GUPTA, J
July 03, 2009
dutt
CRL.A. 187/93 Page No. 18 of 18