Full Judgment Text
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 17 February, 2014
+ CRL.L.P. 567/2012
STATE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the
State.
versus
RUBEN & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jatin Rajput Amicus Curiae with
Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL
J U D G M E N T
SANJIV KHANNA J.(ORAL)
CRL.M.A.19607/2012 (delay of 300 days) in CRL.L.P. 567/2012
1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 300 days in filing of
the leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal. It is stated that
the delay had occasioned due to administrative reasons as the file had
been circulated and opinion of different officers had to be
obtained.
2. The delay is substantial. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts but
subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the
CLP 567/2012 Page 1 of 12
Respondents by way of two cheques of Rs. 2,500/- each, the
application for condonation of delay is allowed. Payment will be
made within four weeks of receipt of this order by the appellant.
CRL.L.P. 567/2012
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.10.2011
relating to FIR No. 163/ 2010, Police Station New Friends Colony
registered under Section 302/ 201/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(IPC for short). The said FIR relates to the homicidal deaths of Vimla
and Hari Lal (at some places in the impugned judgment, the second
deceased has also been mentioned as Hariom). Factually, it is an
undisputed position that D.D. No. 8-A was recorded at about 08:25
a.m. on 10.07.2010 that in Block B, New Friends Colony, dead bodies
of a girl and a boy were found lying in a park. Photographs of the
crime scene as well as of the two bodies were taken but the identity of
the deceased boy and the girl could not be ascertained and the dead
bodies were sent to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS)
mortuary to be preserved. The said facts stand proved by PW-2 S.I.
Hoti Lal who had reached the spot along with PW-15 Constable
Jitender Kumar. PW-15 has deposed that he along with PW-2 reached
the spot after receiving D.D. No. 8-A and found bodies of a male and
a female in the park, one pair of gent’s shoes and single lady’s
chappal were also located but no other incriminating material/
evidence was found in the park. PW-15 has further deposed that they
had thoroughly examined the park. S.H.O. Sunil Kumar Singh and
Inspector Jagbir Singh were also present. Number of public persons
had gathered at the spot including some chowkidars but they could
CLP 567/2012 Page 2 of 12
not identify the victims.
2. The FIR in the present case was recorded on 11.07.2010 at 12:40 a.m.
at night, after a gap of more than 12 hours after the two dead bodies
were recovered. The FIR does not mention the names of the deceased
or any eye witness or any facts relating to commission of the crime.
The FIR is silent in these regards, though it was recorded 12 hours
after the police had inspected the place of the crime and had carried
out further investigation.
3. As per the police version two SIM cards were recovered from the
wallet of deceased Hari Lal. The Trial Court has however, disputed
this position for various reasons set out in paragraphs 46 and 47 of the
impugned judgment which read as under:-
“46. According to prosecution on receiving the
information of lying of dead bodies at the spot, PW2 SI
Hoti Lal alongwith PW15 Ct. Jitender Kumar reached spot
and after some time SHO also reached the spot, recovered
two SIM cards from back pocket of the pant of deceased
Hari Lal and as per statement of PW2 SI Hoti Lal, crime
team and photographers were called at the spot.
Admittedly, there is no crime team report on record.
PW21 Jagbir Singh (IO) had stated that he did not know
whether crime team was called at the spot. The
photographs of the spot including dead bodies and
chappals, shoes etc. do not show whether any SIM cards
etc., were also recovered from the dead body at that time.
It is unexplained by the prosecution that when the SIM
cards were recovered in the morning before the dead
bodies were taken to hospital by PW2 and PW15, why the
rukka was prepared at 11.55 p.m. in the night. Further
CLP 567/2012 Page 3 of 12
even there is no mention of recoveries of SIM cards from
the back pocket pant of deceased Hari Lal in rukka.
47. PW15 Ct. Jitender had not stated anything about
recovery of these two SIM cards who was accompanying
PW2 SI Hoti Lal at that time. It is not explained if two SIM
cards were recovered in the morning why the information
from them not gathered at that time, why police waited till
1’o clock night that is for about 14 hours after recovery.
This itself creates doubt about the recovery of the SIM
cards from the dead body of deceased Hari Lal.”
4. We do not elaborately discuss on the aforesaid aspect, as it is the case
of the prosecution that the two Respondents herein, namely, Edward
and Ruben were arrested on 11.07.2010 at 03:15 p.m. and 05:45 p.m.
vide arrest memos Ex. PW-2/ F and PW-2/ I respectively. At this
stage, it is important to record that Edward is the father of the
deceased girl Vimla, aged about 21 years and Ruben is stated to be a
friend of Edward. For clarity, we record that there is discrepancy
about the arrest of the two accused which has been noticed in
paragraph 53 of the impugned judgment. As per the arrest memos of
the accused persons, accused Edward was shown to be arrested at
around 03:15 p.m. (late afternoon) on 11.07.2010 and accused Ruben
was shown to be arrested at 05:45 p.m. (evening) on the same day
from B-434, New Friends Colony. However, as per the statements of
PW-17 HC Manoj, these accused were arrested in night itself from
Panchsheel Enclave and New Friends Colony respectively. This casts
doubt about the preparation of arrest memos and the circumstance of
arrest of accused persons, consequently creating doubt on the
sequence of events including recoveries at the instance of accused
CLP 567/2012 Page 4 of 12
persons.
5. Apart from said discrepancies which have been noticed and recorded
in the impugned judgment, we feel that the case of the prosecution is
doubtful and shaky as they have not been able to show and establish
beyond doubt that the two Respondents were the perpetrators of the
crime.
6. It is accepted and admitted position that there are no eye witnesses
and the case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence.
The prosecution relies upon the disclosure statements and the
pursuant recoveries of a vegetable cutter knife, ashes of chunni , piece
of chunni , broken plywood door and piece of it and an iron tray at the
instance of the respondents, relying upon Section 27 of the Evidence
Act, 1872 (the E. Act). The prosecution also relies upon motive.
7. Section 25 of the E. Act excludes any confession made to a police
officer from consideration. Similarly, Section 26 of the E. Act
excludes the confession made by a person while he is in custody of a
police officer, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a
Magistrate. Section 27 of the E. Act which is in the form of an
exception to Sections 25 and 26 of the E. Act, admits only so much of
the information given by an accused which distinctly relates to the
facts discovered in pursuance of the information. The recovery of the
object has to be distinguished from the fact thereby discovered. If in
pursuance of the information provided, any fact is discovered which
connects the accused with the commission of the crime, then only the
fact discovered becomes relevant.
CLP 567/2012 Page 5 of 12
8. In Pulukuri Kottaya & Ors. v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67, the Privy
Council very vividly brought out the distinction between the object
discovered and discovery of a fact in pursuance of an information
provided by a person accused of an offence while he is in police
custody. Their Lordships observed as under:-
“Section 27, which is not artistically worded, provides an
exception to the prohibition imposed by the preceding
section, and enables certain statements made by a person in
police custody to be proved. The condition necessary to
bring the section into operation is that the discovery of a
fact in consequence of information received from a person
accused of any offence in the custody of a Police officer
must be deposed to, and thereupon so much of the
information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby
discovered may be proved. The section seems to be based
on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in
consequence of information given, some guarantee is
afforded thereby that the information was true, and
accordingly can be safely allowed to be given in evidence;
but clearly the extent of the information admissible must
depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which
such information is required to relate. Normally the section
is brought into operation when a person in police custody
produces from some place of concealment some object, such
as a dead body, a weapon, or ornaments, said to be
connected with the crime of which the informant is accused.
Mr. Megaw, for the Crown, has argued that in such a case
the “fact discovered” is the physical object produced, and
that any information which relates distinctly to that object
can be proved. Upon this view information given by a
person that the body produced is that of a person murdered
by him, that the weapon produced is the one used by him in
the commission of a murder, or that the ornaments
CLP 567/2012 Page 6 of 12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 17 February, 2014
+ CRL.L.P. 567/2012
STATE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the
State.
versus
RUBEN & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jatin Rajput Amicus Curiae with
Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL
J U D G M E N T
SANJIV KHANNA J.(ORAL)
CRL.M.A.19607/2012 (delay of 300 days) in CRL.L.P. 567/2012
1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 300 days in filing of
the leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal. It is stated that
the delay had occasioned due to administrative reasons as the file had
been circulated and opinion of different officers had to be
obtained.
2. The delay is substantial. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts but
subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the
CLP 567/2012 Page 1 of 12
Respondents by way of two cheques of Rs. 2,500/- each, the
application for condonation of delay is allowed. Payment will be
made within four weeks of receipt of this order by the appellant.
CRL.L.P. 567/2012
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.10.2011
relating to FIR No. 163/ 2010, Police Station New Friends Colony
registered under Section 302/ 201/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(IPC for short). The said FIR relates to the homicidal deaths of Vimla
and Hari Lal (at some places in the impugned judgment, the second
deceased has also been mentioned as Hariom). Factually, it is an
undisputed position that D.D. No. 8-A was recorded at about 08:25
a.m. on 10.07.2010 that in Block B, New Friends Colony, dead bodies
of a girl and a boy were found lying in a park. Photographs of the
crime scene as well as of the two bodies were taken but the identity of
the deceased boy and the girl could not be ascertained and the dead
bodies were sent to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS)
mortuary to be preserved. The said facts stand proved by PW-2 S.I.
Hoti Lal who had reached the spot along with PW-15 Constable
Jitender Kumar. PW-15 has deposed that he along with PW-2 reached
the spot after receiving D.D. No. 8-A and found bodies of a male and
a female in the park, one pair of gent’s shoes and single lady’s
chappal were also located but no other incriminating material/
evidence was found in the park. PW-15 has further deposed that they
had thoroughly examined the park. S.H.O. Sunil Kumar Singh and
Inspector Jagbir Singh were also present. Number of public persons
had gathered at the spot including some chowkidars but they could
CLP 567/2012 Page 2 of 12
not identify the victims.
2. The FIR in the present case was recorded on 11.07.2010 at 12:40 a.m.
at night, after a gap of more than 12 hours after the two dead bodies
were recovered. The FIR does not mention the names of the deceased
or any eye witness or any facts relating to commission of the crime.
The FIR is silent in these regards, though it was recorded 12 hours
after the police had inspected the place of the crime and had carried
out further investigation.
3. As per the police version two SIM cards were recovered from the
wallet of deceased Hari Lal. The Trial Court has however, disputed
this position for various reasons set out in paragraphs 46 and 47 of the
impugned judgment which read as under:-
“46. According to prosecution on receiving the
information of lying of dead bodies at the spot, PW2 SI
Hoti Lal alongwith PW15 Ct. Jitender Kumar reached spot
and after some time SHO also reached the spot, recovered
two SIM cards from back pocket of the pant of deceased
Hari Lal and as per statement of PW2 SI Hoti Lal, crime
team and photographers were called at the spot.
Admittedly, there is no crime team report on record.
PW21 Jagbir Singh (IO) had stated that he did not know
whether crime team was called at the spot. The
photographs of the spot including dead bodies and
chappals, shoes etc. do not show whether any SIM cards
etc., were also recovered from the dead body at that time.
It is unexplained by the prosecution that when the SIM
cards were recovered in the morning before the dead
bodies were taken to hospital by PW2 and PW15, why the
rukka was prepared at 11.55 p.m. in the night. Further
CLP 567/2012 Page 3 of 12
even there is no mention of recoveries of SIM cards from
the back pocket pant of deceased Hari Lal in rukka.
47. PW15 Ct. Jitender had not stated anything about
recovery of these two SIM cards who was accompanying
PW2 SI Hoti Lal at that time. It is not explained if two SIM
cards were recovered in the morning why the information
from them not gathered at that time, why police waited till
1’o clock night that is for about 14 hours after recovery.
This itself creates doubt about the recovery of the SIM
cards from the dead body of deceased Hari Lal.”
4. We do not elaborately discuss on the aforesaid aspect, as it is the case
of the prosecution that the two Respondents herein, namely, Edward
and Ruben were arrested on 11.07.2010 at 03:15 p.m. and 05:45 p.m.
vide arrest memos Ex. PW-2/ F and PW-2/ I respectively. At this
stage, it is important to record that Edward is the father of the
deceased girl Vimla, aged about 21 years and Ruben is stated to be a
friend of Edward. For clarity, we record that there is discrepancy
about the arrest of the two accused which has been noticed in
paragraph 53 of the impugned judgment. As per the arrest memos of
the accused persons, accused Edward was shown to be arrested at
around 03:15 p.m. (late afternoon) on 11.07.2010 and accused Ruben
was shown to be arrested at 05:45 p.m. (evening) on the same day
from B-434, New Friends Colony. However, as per the statements of
PW-17 HC Manoj, these accused were arrested in night itself from
Panchsheel Enclave and New Friends Colony respectively. This casts
doubt about the preparation of arrest memos and the circumstance of
arrest of accused persons, consequently creating doubt on the
sequence of events including recoveries at the instance of accused
CLP 567/2012 Page 4 of 12
persons.
5. Apart from said discrepancies which have been noticed and recorded
in the impugned judgment, we feel that the case of the prosecution is
doubtful and shaky as they have not been able to show and establish
beyond doubt that the two Respondents were the perpetrators of the
crime.
6. It is accepted and admitted position that there are no eye witnesses
and the case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence.
The prosecution relies upon the disclosure statements and the
pursuant recoveries of a vegetable cutter knife, ashes of chunni , piece
of chunni , broken plywood door and piece of it and an iron tray at the
instance of the respondents, relying upon Section 27 of the Evidence
Act, 1872 (the E. Act). The prosecution also relies upon motive.
7. Section 25 of the E. Act excludes any confession made to a police
officer from consideration. Similarly, Section 26 of the E. Act
excludes the confession made by a person while he is in custody of a
police officer, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a
Magistrate. Section 27 of the E. Act which is in the form of an
exception to Sections 25 and 26 of the E. Act, admits only so much of
the information given by an accused which distinctly relates to the
facts discovered in pursuance of the information. The recovery of the
object has to be distinguished from the fact thereby discovered. If in
pursuance of the information provided, any fact is discovered which
connects the accused with the commission of the crime, then only the
fact discovered becomes relevant.
CLP 567/2012 Page 5 of 12
8. In Pulukuri Kottaya & Ors. v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67, the Privy
Council very vividly brought out the distinction between the object
discovered and discovery of a fact in pursuance of an information
provided by a person accused of an offence while he is in police
custody. Their Lordships observed as under:-
“Section 27, which is not artistically worded, provides an
exception to the prohibition imposed by the preceding
section, and enables certain statements made by a person in
police custody to be proved. The condition necessary to
bring the section into operation is that the discovery of a
fact in consequence of information received from a person
accused of any offence in the custody of a Police officer
must be deposed to, and thereupon so much of the
information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby
discovered may be proved. The section seems to be based
on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in
consequence of information given, some guarantee is
afforded thereby that the information was true, and
accordingly can be safely allowed to be given in evidence;
but clearly the extent of the information admissible must
depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which
such information is required to relate. Normally the section
is brought into operation when a person in police custody
produces from some place of concealment some object, such
as a dead body, a weapon, or ornaments, said to be
connected with the crime of which the informant is accused.
Mr. Megaw, for the Crown, has argued that in such a case
the “fact discovered” is the physical object produced, and
that any information which relates distinctly to that object
can be proved. Upon this view information given by a
person that the body produced is that of a person murdered
by him, that the weapon produced is the one used by him in
the commission of a murder, or that the ornaments
CLP 567/2012 Page 6 of 12
| produced were stolen in a dacoity would all be admissible. | |
|---|---|
| If this be the effect of section 27, little substance would | |
| remain in the ban imposed by the two preceding sections on | |
| confessions made to the police, or by persons in police | |
| custody. That ban was presumably inspired by the fear of | |
| the legislature that a person under police influence might be | |
| induced to confess by the exercise of undue pressure. But if | |
| all that is required to lift the ban be the inclusion in the | |
| confession of information relating to an object subsequently | |
| produced, it seems reasonable to suppose that the | |
| persuasive powers of the police will prove equal to the | |
| occasion, and that in practice the ban will lose its effect. On | |
| normal principles of construction their Lordships think that | |
| the proviso to Section 26, added by Section 27, should not | |
| be held to nullify the substance of the section. In their | |
| Lordships' view it is fallacious to treat the “fact | |
| discovered” within the section as equivalent to the object | |
| produced; the fact discovered embraces the place from | |
| which the object is produced and the knowledge of the | |
| accused as to this, and the information given must relate | |
| distinctly to this fact. Information as to past user, or the | |
| past history, of the object produced is not related to its | |
| discovery in the setting in which it is discovered. | |
| Information supplied by a person in custody that “I will | |
| produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house” does not | |
| lead to the discovery of a knife; knives were discovered | |
| many years ago. It leads to the discovery of the fact that a | |
| knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his | |
| knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been used in | |
| the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very | |
| relevant. But if to the statement the words be added “with | |
| which I stabbed A” these words are inadmissible since they | |
| do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the | |
| informant.” |
CLP 567/2012 Page 7 of 12
9. The Trial Court noticed that there were contradictions between the
statements of PW-2 and PW-21 regarding the place of recovery of
ashes of burnt chunni and tasla because PW-2 stated that the same
were recovered from the second floor whereas PW-21 stated that
these were recovered from the ground floor.
10. The question for consideration is that even if the recoveries are
believed, do the same in any way advance the prosecution case and
connect the respondents with the commission of the crime? This
position of law has been explained in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot
Sandhu @ Afsal Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600, wherein the contention
raised on behalf of the State that Section 27 is not limited to actual
physical material object discovered but also includes any mental
condition of which any person is conscious, was rejected. In Navjot
Sandhu (supra), the Supreme Court reiterated and approved the law
with regard to the admissibility of only that portion of the information
supplied by an accused which distinctly relates to a material fact
discovered, in other words, any fact which showed the accused’s
relation with the commission of the offence.
11. The alleged discovery of above stated articles is not a discovery of
any material fact so as to connect the respondents with the
commission of the murder of deceased Vimla and Hari Lal and
therefore the alleged recoveries at the respondents’ instance are of no
consequence as neither the knife nor the burnt pieces of chunni nor
the ashes would show that the respondents were in any way connected
with the commission of the offence.
CLP 567/2012 Page 8 of 12
12. We may notice that the ligature mark on the neck of the deceased
Vimla is clearly visible and noticeable in the photographs which have
been marked as Ex. PW-14/ A-1 to A-3. The ligature mark is also
mentioned in the MLC of the deceased Hari Lal Ex. PW-5/ A
recorded on 10.01.2010 at 10:19 a.m. which clearly records that the
patient was brought dead on 10.07.2010 at 10:19 a.m. and there was a
ligature mark present on the neck and blood stained froth present on
the mouth. The MLC of Vimla was not exhibited, but as per the said
MLC Mark A, the patient was brought dead on 10.07.2010 at 10:22
a.m. and a ligature mark was present on her neck. The two bodies
were subsequently sent for post-mortem on 12.07.2010 at about 2:40
p.m. when the inquest papers were received. As per the post-mortem
reports Ex. PW-6/ A of deceased Hari Lal and Ex. PW-1/ A of
deceased Vimla, no incised wounds were present on the body of the
two deceased and the deceased died due to ante-mortem strangulation
by ligature. Viscera was preserved to rule out any possibility of
intoxication. There were some bruises and a lacerated wound on the
body of deceased Vimla. The prosecution has not been able to show
and establish that the alleged knife which was recovered was either
involved in the said occurrence or was used in the occurrence. In
view thereof, Section 27 of the E. Act cannot and does not come to
the aid of the prosecution as the prosecution has not been able to
connect the knife with the offence in question.
13. On the question of motive, the Trial Court has recorded that the
prosecution has not been able to prove and establish that Edward,
father of deceased Vimla, wanted to kill his daughter as he did not
CLP 567/2012 Page 9 of 12
want Vimla to get married with deceased Hari Lal as he was
dependent upon her income. The findings recorded by the Trial Court
in this regard are as under:-
“54. According to prosecution, the motive for killing of
the deceased was due to the fact that accused Edward do
not want to marry his daughter deceased Vimla with Hari
Lal because he was dependent upon her income and in this
regard the prosecution had examined PW-9 Anand Kumar
who stated that deceased Vimla daughter of accsued
Edward used to work in the house of Mrs. Sabharwal who
used to tell that accused Edward used to take salary from
Vimla but in cross examination he stated that he had no
talks with Vimla regarding her salary. Further Aruna
Sabharwal (PW14) has also denied any such fact. PW11
Daisy, sister of deceased Vimla also stated that deceased
Vimla wanted to marry deceased Hari Lal but it could not
be finalised but she do not know why marriage could not
be finalised, though in cross examination she stated that
her father was agreeable for marriage. Whereas PW10
Rajesh husband of PW11 Daisy stated that he was told by
Daisy that as her father was angry therefore, marriage
could not be finalised between Vimla and Hari Lal. There
is nothing tangible came out from the deposition of these
witnesses regarding the motive of the crime. Further, as
per prosecution case, there is no prior planning of murder
and accused Edward just reached the spot all of a sudden
and found both of them in objectionable condition and due
to altercation Ruben also involved and they murdered the
deceased persons. Therefore, no motive as alleged is
deducible from prosecution story.”
14. We have also examined the statements of PW-3 Kamla Devi, PW-9
Anand Kumar, PW-10 Rajesh, PW-11 Ms. Daisy and PW-14 Mrs.
CLP 567/2012 Page 10 of 12
Aruna Sabharwal. These witnesses do not disclose that there were
repeated quarrels or Edward carried any ill-will against the deceased
Vimla and Hari Lal. However, it is clear that Vimla used to like Hari
Lal and they wanted to get married.
15. Failure of Edward to inform the police about disappearance of his
daughter deceased Vimla does raise some suspicion but on the said
aspect we have deposition of PW-8 M.P. Gogia and the doubt/ debate
on the time and date of arrest. PW-8 M.P. Gogia has deposed that he
is a retired government official and working as a builder at B-434,
New Friends Colony, New Delhi, which was owned by three persons.
He had kept Ruben as chowkidar who used to stay there round the
clock. On 09.07.2010 at about 5:30 p.m. he had gone to the aforesaid
premises, B-434, New Friends Colony, New Delhi and Ruben was
present. After two days he came to know about the incident and that
Ruben was involved in a murder case and he had been arrested. In the
cross-examination, he had deposed that the police persons did not
allow the work of construction to continue for 3-4 days after the
incident and they had locked the premises. He had not gone to the
premises on 10.07.2010 but had come to know through his labour that
police had locked the premises and stopped the work. This was
informed to him at 12:00 noon on 10.07.2010 but he could not inform
and state the name of the worker who had called him up and informed
him.
16. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid evidence, that is, reliance on
Section 27 of the E. Act and the alleged motive, we do not find that
the prosecution has been able to prove and establish its case as made
CLP 567/2012 Page 11 of 12
out in the charge sheet. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any
merit in the present leave to appeal; the same is accordingly
dismissed.
(SANJIV KHANNA)
JUDGE
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 17, 2014
vk
CLP 567/2012 Page 12 of 12