I! ^.11 HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE MR. T.P. SHARMAAND HON'BLE MR. R.L. JMANWAR, JJ. Criminal Appeal No.351 of2005 ^s APPELLANT: RESPONDENT: Manoj Giri Versus The State of Chhattisgarh JUDGMENT FOR CONSIDERATION Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.L. JHANWAR ^^ Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge. th Post for Dronouncement of iudgmenton 13l" Mav. 2011 Sd/- 13-5-2011 / 1 1 i •M* e|S3), 3 81 m ^ HIGHCOURTOF GHHATTISGARH.BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH ^ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. T.P. SHARMA AND HON'BLE MR. R.L.JHANWAR, JJ. Criminal Appeal No.351 of 2005 Manoj Giri S/o Shri Lal BahadurGiri,aged about 28 years, resident of Samne Dhar, Bhagwanpur, Varanasi, Distt. Varanasi Versus The State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ratanpur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) PETITIONER/: (Appellant) (In Jail) RESPONDENT: {Criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure} Present: Mr. N.L. Soni, counsel for the appellant. Mr. J.A. Lohani, Panel Lawyer for theState/respondent. JUDGMENT (13tKMay,2011) The followina iudament ofthe Court was passed bv T.P. Sharma. J: - 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment ofconviction & order of sentence dated 31-3-2005 passed by the1 Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 175/2004, vvhereby & whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge, while acquitting four accused persons,; after ^holding appellant Manoj Giri guilty for cornmission of dacoity, murder of Domra Sahu in course of committing dacoity, dacoity by using deadly weapons, attempt to commit dacoity by using deadly weapons and gang rape upon the prosecutrix,, convicted the appellant under Sections 395, 396, 397, 397, 398 & 376 (2) (g) of the IPC and senfenced m to undergo Rl fbr five years, imprisonment forlife, Rl forsevenyears; Rl for seven years, Rl fbr seven years & Rl for ten years, respectively. j %!<ttels^' / ^^ 2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without any iota of evidence the trial Court has convicted & sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality. 3. As percaseofthe prosecution, on thefateful nightof 25-1-2004atabout 9 p.m. unfortunate prosecutrix (PW-1) (name not mentioned) was coming backwith her husband Ganesh Ram Sahu(PW-2) & father-in-Taw Domra Sahu (since deceased) from Village Mohtaraiafter getting her treatment, by two bicycles to their Village Gatauri, Police Station Koni, Distt. Bilaspur. While they were passing near Koshtha pond, accused Rakhi stopped them and .assaulted Ganesh (PW-2) by rod. The accused persons were five in number and out of five, three persons took the prosecutrix (PW-1) to one field and after layjng her on the field, they forcefully removed her ornaments which she was wearing, her face was towards the earth. The accused persons also compelled hertiusbahdto keep his face towards the earth. They were abusing and using'filthy language. The accused persons were threatening the victims. Thereafter, out of five accused persons, two accused forcefully dragged Ganesh (PVV-2) & Domra Sahu (since deceased) - fatherof Ganesh to another field and they mercilessly assaulted Ganesh & Domrai Sahu by deadly weapons. Thereafter, all the five accused persons committed rape on the prosecutrix. At the time of commission of rape by pne accused, remaining accused personswere lighting torch ov^r.the bpdy of the prosecutrix and were enjoying and laughing. Aftercommission of rape, the accused persons roped the victims and fled away Ifrom the spot. Ganesh (PW-2) & Domra Sahu (since decea^ed) were unconscious. Some how, the prosecutrix corrected herself anci went to the house of Raj Kumar situate at some distance ftom.the incident. Thereafter, villagers gathered andcametothespot. plac^ ofj ^A .' ».^ all the injured to the house of Raj Kumar. Thereafter, at the jnstance of Raj Kumar(PW-18) & Manoj Kumar Sahu (PW-12), Ashok Kumar (PW- 13) went to the police station and lodged FIR vide Ex.P-27. The polipe registered FIR for the offence punishable under Section 394 ofthe IPC. Thereafter, they immediately shifted injured Ganesh (PW-2) & Domra Sahu (since deceased) to CIMS, Bilaspyr for their examination and treatment. Ganesh (PW-2) was examined by Dr. A.N. Mandal (PW-4) vide Ex.P-4 and following injuries were found: - (1) Incisedwound of4c.m. x 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. on fprehead. (2) Lacerated wound of 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. x % c.m. over left temporal reglon. • (3) Lacerated wound of 1 c.m. x YzC.m. x % c.m. near lefteye. (4) Swelling of2 c.m. xZG.m. over right leg. (5) Lefteye wasblackenedandswollen. (6) Left cheek was swollen. After providing treatment, Ganesh was admitted in the hospital. Domra Sahu was also examined by Dr. A.N. Mandal (PW-4) vide Ex.P-5 eTnd following injurieswere found: - (1) He was under coma.his general condition was very poor. (2) Blood was coming from noseand ear. (3)Swelling on lefttemporal region. l Domra Sahu was immediately admitted in Surgical Ward for emergency treatment. During treatment, Domra Sahu died on 26-1-2004. Deathof Domra Sahu was intimated by the doctor, naerg was recorded vi^s Ex.P- / 22 and on the basis of FIR under zero number, numbered-FIR was -* ,'. ' • ' ' ' registered by Ratanpur police vide Ex.P-21. After sun'imbning the witnesses vide Ex.P-19, inquestover the dead body of Domra Saljiu was prepared vide Ex.P-20. Dead body was sent for autopsy toiMedieal College, Bilaspur vide Ex.P-28. Dr. A.K. Shukla (PW-3) lcoriducted autopsy vide Ex.P-2 and found following injuries & symptoms: - •;..;.:-1--^*t"!. taA! si".-...^ sd'liiial ss-sSxSs'ss.^gws^"i1^a^y1^^^¥.y )UB 8e-d'x3 8P!A (tueuieujo JSAIJS) BL|t|oe| 's poj p tusiusteis jesoiosip s • '" ~ -. ^' " "' ' ' ' ' ' '' ^ / ' ' " . ^peLU SLi'ApoisnooiU! us)|Bt OS.|B SBM 019 foue|A|4ue||9ddv •saueisuisiq ;)B PSJ9A009J SJ9M 31UBS pUB Z.£-d'X3SplA POJ UOJI '§ (tUaUJEUJO -ISA|!S) - |Bi|40B| 'sdo} jea '6uu p }U3Ui9}ets jssoiosip sipBLU ai| 'Ap0}sno oiui ue^ei SBM eLuJe)|eMqs!A diiia pssnooe 'UOBBBIISSAUI ^o ssjnoo 94} Suuna •s ', •siusd sue|B JSAO BUISSIIU SBM eiuBsius pue )jed stBAud sjq asAO punoj sem Ajnfuiou 'ssjnoojStU! lenxss BUIMJLULUOO ^o aiqedeo sem UIQ foue|/\| 4UB||sdde }ei<} psoitou (si.-Md) -ieiun» ejpusuueiia '^£-d"x3 yodej uoiieuiiuexs leoipsuj spjA 'AiaAiiosdsaj 'ge '8 Ifrs 'ee 'ze-d'sx? SP'A (si.-Md) Jeujn» ejpusLUjeya •Ja Aq psuiuiexs 3J9M Aeq} pue WQZ'^-QZ uouoseujiuexs leoipsiu jo^ }U9S SJSM ueAejBN Anjtia 'S WQ foue|/y }ue||9dde lusssjd 'AsqnQ qsiysv 'diiiQ pssnooe 'uojie&tssAU! ;o asjnoo SL)} Buuna •ssjnoojstuj |enxss 0} peLUOisnooe puno^ SBM sqs pue us>|e} 8J9M JBSLUS iBuiBeA psapjis OM) 'AIISBS "s ^' sjsBuy OM) s»iLUpB euiBeA 'psjn^dnj p|o SBM usujAi) 'pado|9A9p ||9M aje/wsjspejBL)o|enxss Ajepuooss J9|-) •Ql.-d'xa SPIA 'urd OS'E ie WOZ -I.-92 uo (9-Md) ^3P4ed 'W '-IQ Aq psuituexs SEM 943 •frOOZ-l.-9Z uo 9^ -d'xg apiA 8tejtS!6etM eAi)no9X3 04} tuoj^ psuieiqoosie SBM uogeuiiuexs jeq joj uoissiiujad 'l.-d"x3 spiA psuieiqo SBM uoiteuiLuexs jai) jcy (u^uoo 'suosjsd 8Ay Aq JSL) uo sd&i ^o UOISSILULUOO }noqe soiiod 041 psiujo^ui xuinossojd si)} WOZ-l-QZ uo 'uoiteGjtsaAU! asjnoo 94} 6uuna •^ •f •g^-j-xg epiA 30i|od 34} Aq pejedsjd SBM detu }odg •BIUOO SBM nyeg BJIUOQ p qieep p esneo •sssu^eijt q}oq J9AO suoisEjqe ysajj (9) •pesqsjopBAo uo.isejqv (s)' •6ui)|eMS ijtjm suaq |BJoduia} j.o 9jn}oe^ pssssjdea (^) •BUI||9MS l)t!MU!>|S 94} SplSUI 9BBMJJOLUSBH (g) •iu'o / x 'iu'o 9 jo uoi6aj |ejodiusi t^Bu J8AO BUIIISMS pssnjaa (g) •BUIIISMS iitiMjes puessou ui }0|0 pooig (^ same were recovered at his instance. Another accused Rakhi Ram also made discloser statement vide Ex.P-39. One pair of golden tops, one pair of silver lachha and two iron rods were jointty recovered from the accused persons including the appellant herein vide Ex.P-42. Three iron objects and one piece of iron object were recovered from accused Radheyshyam vide Ex.P-6. One newspaper dated 25-1-2004 was recovered from the spot vide Ex.P-7. Piece oLiron object, emptypacket of Bristol cigarettes, one piece of cigarette, piece of lungi, one ladies' undergarment,,two Acceloc tablets, blood stained and plain soil were recovered from the spot vide Ex.P-8. Sealedclothes of deceased Domra Sahu were seized vide Ex.P-9. Sealed packets relating to the accused persons were seized vide Ex.P-10. Stained undergarment of accused Dilip was seized vide Ex.P-11. Stained undergarment (langot) of appellant Manoj Giri was seized vide Ex.P-12. Stained sari and stained s, petticoat of the prosecutrix were seized vide Ex. P-13. Stained undergarment of accused Ashjsh Dubey was seized vide Ex.P-14. Slides of vaginal smear of the prosecutrix were seized vide Ex.P-15. Stained undergarment of accused Dhruv Narayan was seized vide Ex.P- 16. One pair of chappal, broken piece of bangles, part of ear tops, twb oldcycles and one piece of iron were seized from the spot vide Ex.P-17. Seized golden tops and silver laccha were placed for identification and same have been identified by the prosecutrix vide Ex.P-24. The aCcused persons were also placed fbr identification and the prosecutrix has identifiedtheappellanthereininjarlvideEx.P-2. i 6. Spot map was prepared by the Patwari vide Ex.P-25. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination and presence of sperm was confirmed on petticoat, sari and slides of vaginal smearof the prosecutri^ || vide Ex.P-44. i l\ 6 7. Statements of the Witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Bilaspur, from where learned Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer fortrial. 8. In order to prove the guilt ofthe appellant and the accused persons the prosecution has examined as many as t\)venty-four witnesses. The accused persons were also examined under Section 313 of the CrPC in which they denied the circumstances appearing against thenii and pleaded innocence& false implication in the crime in question. They have also examjried defence witness Poonam Goswami (DW-1)—wifeof accused Dhruv Narayan, who has deposed that on the date of incictentat night her husband Dhruv NaFayan, co-accused Ashish Dubeyahd IVtanoj Giri were presentin her house. \ '''-^; 9. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, leamed Adcfitional Sessions Judge while acquitting other accused persons convictgd & sentenced theappellant in theaforesaid manner. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused thejudgnpent and record of the triai Court. 1l.Learnedcounsel for the appellant vehemently argued that in the pr^sent f r '•• case, five accused persons have been prosecuted for commission|of '., ' . ! !i aforesaid offences, but the trial Court has acquitted four acciised persons on the same set of evidence and has convicfed the appellant herein on the same set of evidence and thereby committed illegality. i The appellant herein is also .pntitled for equal treatment on the basis of same set of evidence. Initially after'interrogating the prosecutrix arad injured Ganesh (PW-2), Ashok Kymar (PW-13) has lodged RR vjcie BL..'®^3 Ei ^•^^l^b : l^ ..y' ,S "^•^ A? i"..^ Ex. P-27, but the prosecutrix has not informed about thecommissionof gang rape upon her. This shows that the story of gang rape is an after thought and only with a view to implicate the appellant, false story of gang rape and commission of aforesaid heinous offences has been cooked up. Evidence of the prosecutrix and Ganesh (PW-2) does not inspire confidence and is not trustworthy. In thelight of evidence of Anil Tiwari (PW-20) - Investigating Officer, Raj Kumar (PW-18) - whom the incident was first time narrated by the prosecutrix & her husband and S. Kerketta (PW-22) -Sub Inspector posted at Police .Station Koni who has lodged FIR Ex.P-27 for the first time, the story of gang rape is Inot sustainable under the law. Even otherwise, the prosecutrix (PW-1) has not correctly identified the appellant herein. The appellant is knowra to the victim party, but the FIR has been lodged against unknown persons which reveals that the persons who have committed theoffence werejnot known to the victjm party and thereafter, the prosecutrix along with hef relatives has falsely implicated the appellantin the crime in question. 12.0n the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposed jthe appeal andsubmitted that evidence relatingto other co-accused persons was not sufficient for their Gommission and, therefore, the trial Court tjias acquittedthem, but evidence adduced on behalf of the proseculion relating to the appellant herein was sufficient for drawing definite conclusion that the appellant hereih along with ptherfour person? has committed dacoity, murder at the time of daeoity, gang rape ^nd dacoity by using deadly weapons. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly eonvicted & sentenced the appellant and while convicting & sentencingl appellant, thetrial Court has notcommitted any illegality. 13.1n order to appreciate theargumehtsadvanced bn behalf ofthe*[ wehaveexaminedtheevidenceaclducedonbehalfofthepaiities.i s ^ 14.1n the present case, homicidal death of deceased Domra Sahu as a result of fatal injuries found over his body has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant, otherwise alsp it is estabtished by evidence'of Dr. A.N. Mandal (PW-4), medical report Ex.P-4, autopsy report Ex.P-2 and evidence of Dr. A.K. Shukla (PW-3) that death of Domra Sahuwas homicidal in nature. 15.As regards complicity ofthe appellant in the crime in question, conviction of the appellant is substantially based on evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1), injured Ganesh Ram Sahu (PW-2), S.S. Dubey (PW-7) - Executive Magistrate, identification memo of the appellant Ex.P-2, Pawan Singh (PW-23) and identification memo Ex.P-24. 16.As per evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1), on the date of incident between 9 and 9.15 p.m. she alpngher husband Ganesh (PW-2) &her father-in-law Domra Sahu (since deceased) was returning back by two. bicycles from Mohtarai after getting her treatment from the doctor to her village Gatauri, she was sitting on the bieycle of her husband and her father-in-law was driving another bicycle. While they were crossing besides Koshtha pond, all ofa sudden,appellant Manoj, whomshe Kas named as Rakhi, stopped them and assaulted her husband by rod. Her father-in-law Domra Sahu intervened. At that time, three persons were present. Thereafter, all the three persons dragged her to the fiejd ^and after laying her on the field, they forcefutty removed her lact')ha & ear tops. They also compelled her husband to see towards the earth. They were using filthy language and were threatening them. Thereafter, they dragged her and her husband to another field and also draggedher father-in-law to another field. They badly and merdlessly assaulted her husband and her father-in-law. Thereafter, all the accused person|s| 1- :i • US—»';^-T 1^*>^- .,f6^u<H ^;'^-/; committed rape on her one by one. She has further deposed that appellant Manoj has committed rape on her and at the time of commission of rape by accused Ditip Vishwakarma, other accused were lighting torch on her body and were laughing & enjoying. After removing her garments they have commifted rape on her. Out of five persons one was wearing langot. She has also deposed that at the time of commission of rape they have roped her husband and father-in-law. Her husband and father-in-law were semi-conscious, but some show she opened the rope and after correcting hersetf she went to the house of Raj Kumar and requested for help, at that time, she told Raj Kumar that the assailants had assaulted and committed robbery. Thereafter, relatives and villagers came and shifted them from the place of incident. 17.Ashok Kumar (PW-13) has lodged FIR vide Ex.P-27 at the instance of Raj Kumar (PW-18) and Manoj Kumar Sahu (PW-12) in which only the factum of robbery has been mentioned. In his detailed cross- examination, Ashok Kumar (PW-13) has admitted that the Station House OfRcer instead of recording the FIR proceeded for the spot and after observation he recorded the FIR. As per his evidence, Sahu was the Inspector, but as per Ex. P-27, S. Kerketta (PW-22) who has recorded FIR Ex.P-27 is not Sahu by caste. In hiscross-examination S. Kerketta (PW-22) has admitted that Ashok Kumar has lodged report after ma^ing / !' enquiry frpm the prosecutrix and the injured, but the prosecutrix has not told him about commission of rape by unknown persons. He has also said relating to Investigating Officer Anil Tiwari (PW-20) that on the ground of suspicion Anil Tiwari has called 4-5 persons from the village whom he has produced before the prosecutrix, but the prosecutrix has denied commission of offence by them. ^fe ^"1 •,^ '•y 10 IS.Evidence of S. Kerketta (PW-22) though he is responsible officer i.e. Sub Inspector, does not appear to be naturat. He has only registered FIR vide-Ex.P-27 in which it has been specifically mentioned that Ashok Kumar is lodging FIR Ex.P-27 at the instance of Raj Kumar i.e. what Raj Kumar has informed him. Ex.P-27 also reveals that S. Kerketta (PW-22) has lodged FIR to the extent what was stated to him by Raj Kumar. However, S. Kerketta (PW-22) has not mentioned the fact that after making necessary enquiry from the prosecutrix and other injured, Ashok Kumar has lodged the report. Cross-examination of S. Kerketta (PW-22) is contrary to Ex.P-27, even it would not be possible for him to remember these details after lapse of more than one year of the incident. As per para 7 of his evidence, Investigating OfficerAnil Tiwari (PW-20) called4- 5 persons for interrogation for 3-4 days and thereafter, he released them. But as per recovery ofarticles and medical examination reports of the accused persons Exs.P-32, P-33, P-34 & P-35, the accused persons were examined by the doctor on 26-1-2004 i.e. on same day of lodging report that too relating to commission of the offence of rape. It appears that only with a view to help the accused persons, S. Kerketta (PW-22) has deposed the aforesaid statement contrary to the documentary evidence. 19.As per evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1), she has stated abqut the / f incident in detail to thelnvestigating Officer when she was int'errogated. She was examined by the doctor on 26-1-2004, the Executive Magistrate has accorded permission for her examination on 26-1-2004 and the Investigating Officer has obtained consent from her on the same day. These documentary evidence are sufficient for drawing inference that the prosecutrix has narrated the incident in detail to the Investigatihg Officer at the first instance when she was interrogated by the Investigating 6 ^••a.<|. 11 Officer vide Ex.D-2 on 26-1-2004. As per her evidence, she was having sufficient opportunity to identify the accused persons and she has identified on the basis of aforesaid opportunity. She has also identified the appellant at the time of test identification parade inside the jail vide Ex.P-2. As per her evidence, she has also identified her ornaments viz., one pair of golden top and one pair of lachha vide Ex. P-24. -ft 20.Ganesh Ram Sahu (PW-2) - injured witness and husband of the prosecutrix, has duly corroborated the evidence of'the prosecutrix (PW- 1). In his detailed evidence, Ganesh (PW-2) has deposed that dacoity and murder have been committed by the appellant and other accused persons and they have also committed rape. As per his evidence, he was badly assaulted by the accused persons on which he became unconscious, thereafter he was informed by his wife PW-1 that five persons have committed rape on her. 21.As regards the question of identification of accused and articles, as per evidence of S.S. Dubey (PW-7) - Executive Magistrate, he has conducted identification parade of the appellant herein & other co- accused persons inside the jail and the prosecutrix has identified appellant Manoj Giri vide Ex.P-2. Identification parade has been conducted on 5-2-2004 i.e. within twelve days of the incident. / ? 22.Defence has cross-examined these witnesses in detail. In her detailed cross-examination, the prosecutrix (PW-1) has categorically and specifically deposed that appellant Manoj Giri along with other accused persons has committed the aforesaid offences. Defence has also cross- examined Ganesh (PW-2) in detail. He has also categorically deposed thatfive persons committed the offence. •/, —-"s,— iio 'f;\, /': iy\ 12 23.Evidence ofthe prosecutrix (PW-1) & Ganesh (PW-2) whose statements under Section 161 of the CrPC have been recorded promptly vide Exs. D-2 & D-1, respectively, reveal that the prosecutrix has been subjected to rape by five persons, they have lavishly committed rape on her, they have assaulted her, her husband and her father-in-law who died as a result of aforesaid fatal injuries sustained by him and that they have also committed robbery by using deadly weapons. The accused persons were subjected to test identification and in the test identification parade, the prosecutrix has identified appellant Manoj Giri. - 24.After appreciating the evidence available on record, well corroborated by the test identification, while acquitting other accused persons on account ofinfirmity relating to theiridentification, the trial Court has convicted the appellant under Sections 395, 396, 397, 397, 398 & 376 (2) (g) of the IPC and sentenced him accordingly. Although other accused persons have been acquitted of the charges, but as per evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, five persons including the appellant herein have committed the aforesaid offences. Therefore, conviction of the appellant for commission of robbery, dacoity and murder during the course of dacoity are sustainable under the law. Offence punishable under Sections 397 & 398 of the IPC are abbreviated form of robbery or dacoity and, therefore, separate conviction & sentence is not legally possible. f f 25.Evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1), Ganesh RamSahu (PW-2) ahd.S.S. Dubey (PW-7) are sufficient for drawing inference that the appellant herein along with other four accused persons has committed the offence of dacoity by using deadly weapons, attempted to commit dacoity by using deadly weapons, during the course of dacoity out pf five persons one or all have jointly caused murder of Domra Sahu and the aforesaid persons have also committed gang rape. Consequently, conviction of ^ the appellant under Sections 395 read with Section 397, 395 read with Section 398 and 376 (2) (g) of the IPC is sustainable. While convicting & sentencing the appellant under Sections 395,397,397,398 & 376 (2) (g) ofthe IPC, the trial Court has committed technical illegality. 26.For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed for technical purpose. > Separate conviction & sentences of fhe appellant under Sections 395, 397, 397 & 398 of the IPC is modified into Sections 395 read with Section 397, 395 read with Section 397 and 395 read with Section 398 of the IPC. Sentences of Rl for seven years imposed upon the appellant on each count under Sections 397, 397 & 398 with the aid of Section 395 of the IPC i.e. under Sections 395 read with Section 397, 395 read with Section 397 and 395 read with Section 398 ofthe IPC, are hereby maintained. > As regards the question of sentence, considering brutal and merciless act and merciless commission of gang rape to satisfy their lust, even by lighting torch upon the prosecutrix at the time of commission of rape, enjoying and laughing, the appellant does not deserve any sympathy in sentence. Conviction under Sections 396 & 376 (2) (g) of the IPC and sentences of imprisonment for life & Rl for ten years, respectively, are hereby maintained. > Consequently, separate sentence of Rl for five years under Section 395 ofthe IPC is set aside. ^l- Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge _^-— Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge . Soma