//
you're reading...
legal issues

Penal Code, 1860: s.498A – Suicide by married woman – Allegation of maltreatment and cruelty against husband on account of demand of dowry – Victim-deceased had left matrimonial home just after one year of marriage and stayed with her parents for 14 months continuously – She rejoined matrimonial home only at the assurance given in the panchayat by accused and his family members that she would not be humiliated and subjected to cruelty – Three years after marriage, she committed suicide – Conviction of husband u/s.498A – Challenged – Held: While considering the case u/s.498-A, cruelty has to be proved during the close proximity of time of death and should be continuous making life of the deceased miserable forcing her to commit suicide – In the instant case, there was demand of scooter by the accused in the close proximity of the death – The demand was consistent and persistent as the father and the brother of the deceased had specifically deposed that the demand was only in respect of scooter and nothing else – Both these witnesses were subjected to long cross-examination, however, nothing could be elicited from them to show that the allegations made by the prosecution could be false – Conviction upheld – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113B. Evidence Act, 1872: s.113A and s.113B – Distinction between. s.113B – Necessary ingredients – Discussed. Evidence: Suicide note – Evidentiary value of – On facts, held: The authorship of the suicide note was not proved by producing witnesses nor the said document was sent to handwriting expert along with the admitted signature of the deceased for comparison – Prosecution could not establish nexus of the deceased with the said note – Onus was on the accused to establish his defence by sufficient evidence to rebut presumption that he had caused the dowry death, which he failed to discharge – Courts below were right in ignoring the said note – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.304B, 498A. The prosecution case was that the victim-deceased was married to the appellant on 4th April, 1988. After one year of marriage, the deceased came and stayed with her parents for about 14 months and after convening a panchayat of close relatives, she returned to her matrimonial home. On 25th June, 1991, the father of the deceased lodged an FIR that the deceased had committed suicide, making allegations that the deceased was consistently harassed by the appellant and was maltreated and harassed for bringing dowry. The trial court convicted the appellant and his mother under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306, IPC. The High Court acquitted appellant’s mother but dismissed the appeal of the appellant. In the instant appeal, the defence raised by the appellant was that there was no demand of scooter or dowry and that the deceased wanted to marry some other person and her marriage with the appellant was against her will, due to which she felt suffocated and committed suicide, leaving a suicide note (Ex P-2) to that effect. =Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The theory of love affair of the deceased was disbelieved by the courts below. Ex.P-2, the note allegedly recovered by the Investigating Officer was totally rejected from consideration in evidence for the simple reason that no nexus of the deceased could be established with this document. There was no evidence worth the name from the side of the prosecution or from the defence to indicate that the writing Ex.P-2 was, in fact, in the hand of the deceased. The father and the brother of the deceased when stepped into the witness-box did not say even a word that the document Ex.P-2 was written in the hand of the deceased. Even the defence counsel did not put any specific question/suggestion to these witnesses about authorship of this document, knowing very well that the Investigating Officer had taken it into possession from the almirah of their house. The Investigating Officer (PW6) in his cross-examination stated that the diary, letter and ball-pen were lying in the room and he enquired about the author of the said letter Ex.P-2 and it was revealed that the same was written by the deceased. This statement could be termed as a hear say evidence, having no legal sanctity when the main witnesses were not asked about the authorship thereof. A mere suggestion was put to the father and the brother of the deceased to the effect that the deceased had left a suicide note regarding her relations with some other person. The authorship of this letter could be proved either by producing some witness who had seen the deceased writing and signing or the said document could be sent to some handwriting expert alongwith the admitted writing of the deceased for comparison. Both the situations were missing. Even the Investigating Officer did not say a word as to from whom he had verified about authorship of the said letter. In case this document is taken to be a proved one, this would amount to bye-passing the provisions of the Evidence Act. The witnesses of panchnama of recovery of this letter were not examined. The father and the brother of the deceased both had denied the suggestion of recovery of any such letter nor the letters had been shown to them for identifying the handwriting of the deceased. More so, there was nothing on record to show that she was educated. The Investigating Officer had not stated anywhere that he knew the handwriting of the deceased nor he has disclosed on whose information he had inferred that the letter had been written by the deceased. In such a fact situation, the recovery of such letter is to be disbelieved and the letter is required to be ignored totally. More so, it has no probative value because it is no body’s case that the alleged suicide note is in the handwriting of the deceased. Evidently, the suicide note, Ext.P-2 purported to have been written by the deceased had been taken by appellant as his defence while making his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the onus was on him to establish his defence by leading sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that he has caused the dowry death. The appellant miserably failed to discharge that onus. The defence of the appellant, thus, was very weak and fragile. In view of that, there is no cogent reason to take a view contrary to the view taken by the courts below that Ex.P2, the suicide note was not worth consideration. [Paras 11, 12, 13, 19] ] [734-H; 735-G-H; 736- A-H; 737-A-F; 738-A-B] 2.1. The demand of scooter had been consistent and persistent as the father and the brother of the deceased had specifically deposed that the demand was only in respect of scooter and nothing else. Had this allegation been false, the said witnesses could have also mentioned other articles purported to have been demanded by the appellant or his other family members. Therefore, the veracity of the evidence of these two witnesses on this issue cannot be doubted. Both the witnesses were subjected to long cross- examination at the behest of the appellant, however, nothing could be elicited from them to the extent that the allegations made by the prosecution could be false. [Para 14] [737-G-H; 738-A-B] 2.2. While considering the case under Section 498-A, IPC, cruelty has to be proved during the close proximity of time of death and it should be continuous and such continuous harassment, physical or mental, by the accused should make life of the deceased miserable which may force her to commit suicide. In the instant case, the conduct of the accused forced the deceased to leave her matrimonial home just after one year of marriage and stay with her parents for 14 months continuously. It was only at the assurance given by the panchayat that the accused or his family members would not humiliate or subject the deceased with cruelty, that she rejoined her matrimonial home. It was specific evidence of the brother of the deceased that just few days before her death, when he went to see his sister, there was a demand of scooter by the appellant. In such a fact situation, it cannot said that there was no demand of scooter in the close proximity of the death. [Paras 15] [738-B-E] 2.3. In the provision of Section 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872, the legislature in its wisdom has used the word “shall” thus, making a mandatory application on the part of the court to presume that death had been committed by the person who had subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with or demand of dowry. It is unlike the provisions of Section 113A of the Evidence Act where a discretion has been conferred upon the court wherein it had been provided that court may presume to abatement of suicide by a married woman. Therefore, onus lies on the accused to rebut the presumption and in case of Section 113B relatable to Section 304B IPC, the onus to prove shifts exclusively and heavily on the accused. The only requirement is that death of a woman has been caused by means other than any natural circumstances; that death has been caused or occurred within 7 years of her marriage; and such woman had been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with any demand of dowry. Therefore, in case the essential ingredients of such death have been established by the prosecution, it is the duty of the court to raise a presumption that the accused has caused the dowry death. The expression shown before her death has not been defined in either of the statutes. Therefore, in each case, the court has to analyse the facts and circumstances leading to the death of the victim and decide if there is any proximate connection between the demand of dowry and act of cruelty or harassment and the death. [Paras 16 to 18] [738-F-H; 739-A-G] T. Aruntperunjothi v. State through S.H.O., Pondicherry AIR 2006 SC 2475; Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2008 SC 332; State of Rajasthan v. Jaggu Ram AIR 2008 SC 982; Anand Kumar v. State of M.P., AIR 2009 SC 2155; Undavalli Narayana Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2010 SC 3708 – referred to. Case Law Reference: AIR 2006 SC 2475 referred to Para 18 AIR 2008 SC 332 referred to Para 18 AIR 2008 SC 982 referred to Para 18 AIR 2009 SC 2155 referred to Para 18 AIR 2010 SC 3708 referred to Para 18 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1322 of 2004. From the Judgment & Order dated 05.04.2004 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appeal No. 708-SB of 1998. Mahabir Singh, Rishi Malhotra, Prem Malhotra for the Appellant. Manjit Singh, AAG, Rao Ranjit, Harikesh Singh, Kamal Mohan Gupta for the Respondent.

Death and the Maiden #2

Image by CapCat Ragu via Flickr

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1322 OF 2004
Bansi Lal …Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana …Respondent

JUDGMENT
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment

and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh dated

5th May, 2004 in Criminal Appeal No. 708-SB of 1998, by which the

conviction of the appellant by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon,

vide judgment and order dated 22nd August, 1998 and 25th August,

1998 for offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 of Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as `IPC’) and awarding the

sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a

fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo

1
rigorous imprisonment for two months, has been upheld. However, for

the offence under Section 304-B IPC sentence to undergo for ten

years and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of payment of fine, to

further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, has been

reduced to seven years with fine.
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the

appellant was married to Sarla (deceased) on 4th April, 1988. An FIR

was lodged by Shyam Lal (PW.4) father of Sarla (deceased) on 25th

June, 1991 making allegations that the appellant, his mother, brother

and sister-in-law had consistently harassed his daughter Sarla

(deceased) by making dowry demand i.e. a scooter. She had been

maltreated by them. After one year of marriage, Sarla (deceased)

came and stayed with her family for about 14 months. It was only

after convening a panchayat of close relatives, she had returned to her

matrimonial home. Again they maltreated and insisted for the

demand of a scooter, thus, she had been subjected to cruelty,

harassment by demand of dowry to the extent that she committed

suicide on 25th June, 1991, at her matrimonial home.
2
3. After investigation of the case, the prosecution filed the

chargesheet against the appellant and his mother Smt. Shanti Devi and

charges were framed against them under Sections 498-A, 304-B and

306 IPC. The said two accused pleaded not guilty, thus, they were put

on trial. It was on 17th May, 1995, that in view of the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge in exercise of his

power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(hereinafter called Cr.P.C.) summoned the other two accused Ashok

Kumar, brother and Smt. Shakuntala, sister-in-law of the appellant

and charges were reframed against all the four accused under Sections

498-A, 304-B and 306 IPC vide order dated 6th July, 1995.
4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined

several witnesses including complainant Shyam Lal (PW.4), Gulshan

(PW.5), brother of Sarla (deceased), Dr. B.B. Agarwal (PW.1), Shri

Arjun Singh Yadav, ASI, (PW.6), Constable Jai Pal (PW.2), Shri

Mool Chand Punia, Draftsman (PW.3), and other formal witnesses.
5. While making their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the

accused persons denied all the allegations against them and set up the

defence as under:

3
“Sarla was in love with some other person. She
was forced to marry with accused Bansi Lal
against her will, due to which she felt suffocated
and committed suicide, leaving a suicide note to
that effect. There was no demand of Scooter.”
Further, accused Ashok Kumar (A.3) and Shakuntala (A.4)

pleaded that they had been living separately from the appellant and his

mother and they had no involvement so far as the demand of dowry

was concerned. In defence only three witnesses i.e. Bal Kishan, an

official of HSEB (DW.1), Vidya Nand, an Inspector of Food and

Supplies Department (DW.2) and Surender Singh, Sarpanch of the

village Gram Panchayat (DW.3) were examined only to prove that

accused Ashok Kumar (A.3) and Shakuntala (A.4) were living

separately from the appellant and his mother Smt. Shanti Devi.
6. After considering the entire evidence on record and the

submissions made by the prosecution as well as defence, the trial

court convicted the appellant and his mother Smt. Shanti Devi under

Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 IPC and awarded the sentences as

referred to hereinabove. The court acquitted Ashok Kumar and

Shakuntala of all the charges against them. The Trial Court did not

award any separate sentence under Section 306 IPC.

4
7. Being aggrieved, the appellant and his mother Smt. Shanti Devi

preferred Criminal Appeal No. 708-SB of 1998 which has been

disposed of by the impugned judgment and order dated 5th May, 2004,

acquitting Smt. Shanti Devi, not being beneficiary of the demand of

dowry, as only scooter had been demanded but dismissed the appeal

so far as the present appellant is concerned. However, considering the

facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence under Section 304-B

IPC has been reduced from 10 years to 7 years. Hence, this appeal.
8. Shri Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the

appellant, has submitted that no charge could be brought home against

the appellant under any of the penal provisions as there was no

demand of dowry by the appellant. The harassment was not in close

proximity of time of death. The prosecution itself had submitted that

Sarla (deceased) wanted to marry one Shiv Parkash Singh and thus,

she was not happy with the appellant. She had left a suicide note to

that effect and the said note had been exhibited before the trial court

as Ex.P2. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
9. On the contrary, Shri Rao Ranjit, learned advocate appearing

for the State, has vehemently opposed the appeal contending that the

5
facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant interference with

the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the courts below. The

suicide note Ex.P2 has to be ignored as it has not been proved as per

requirement of law. No witness has been examined for comparing the

handwriting of the deceased nor it has been signed by the deceased. It

had not even been shown to father of the deceased i.e. Shyam Lal

(PW.4), complainant or her brother Gulshan (PW.5). More so, it had

been the defence of the appellant while making his statement under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thus, he should have led evidence to

substantiate the defence. Thus, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to

dismissed.

10. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned

counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

The admitted facts of the case remain as under:

(i) There was no demand of scooter at the initial stage of

marriage in 1988.

(ii) Complainant Shyam Lal (PW.4) and Gulshan (PW.5)

had deposed that there had been consistent and persistent

demand of scooter by the appellant.

6
(iii) After one year of the marriage, when Sarla (deceased)

came to the house of her parents, she stayed with them

for a period of 14 months.

(iv) During this period of 14 months, no attempt had been

made by the appellant to call her newly wedded wife

back to the matrimonial home.

(v) A Panchayat of very close relatives was convened and

they had assured the parents and family members of Sarla

(deceased) that appellant and his other family members

would behave properly with Sarla (deceased) and she

would not be maltreated or humiliated or subjected to any

kind of cruelty for demand of dowry.

(vi) It was on this assurance that Sarla (deceased) came back

to stay with the appellant at her matrimonial home.

(vii) Sarla committed suicide by hanging herself on 25th June,

1991.

(viii) The appellant or any of his family members did not

inform Shyam Lal, (PW.4), complainant or any of his

family members about the death of Sarla (deceased).
7
(ix) Shyam Lal (PW.4) and Gulshan (PW.5) reached her

matrimonial home alongwith others getting information

from other persons.

(x) Shyam Lal (PW.4) immediately lodged the FIR against

the appellant and other family members and, set the law

in motion.

(xi) Sarla (deceased) was found dead at her matrimonial

home when she stayed with the appellant and other

family members. They had not furnished any satisfactory

explanation as for which reason and under what

circumstances she had committed suicide.

11. So far as the theory of love affair of Sarla (deceased) is

concerned, it has been disbelieved by the courts below. The Trial

Court dealt with the issued observing as under :

“If the husband was doubting her fidelity towards
him there was no reason for him to have come
with his father and other relatives to the parents of
the deceased to take her back after 14 months of
her stay with her parents. It also cannot be said
that the deceased was not having any liking for her
husband and was frustrated because she allegedly
could not marry the person of her choice. Rather
the circumstances are otherwise. Had she
developed hatred for her husband, there was no
8
reason for her to join him after 14 months of her
staying away from the matrimonial home. There
was every reason for her to believe the husband
and his relatives that demand of dowry and other
torture and maltreatment would not be there.
Better sense definitely, after such a lapse of time,
was naturally to be expected to have dawned on
them. Parents of the deceased also did not create
any hassles as they felt satisfied from the
assurance of the accused on this score. At any
rate melodramatic story of her love affairs with
some one and her frustration in her married life
with accused Bansi Lal can hardly be taken as
genuine. If it was so, she could not have continued
to wait to die for her alleged lover for three long
years, having consummated the marriage with her
husband and having cohabited with him all-
through she was with him in the matrimonial
home.”
12. Again, the High Court has dealt with the issue elaborately and

recorded the following findings:
“Much has been said by the learned counsel about
Ex.P-2, the note allegedly recovered by the
Investigating Officer. In my considered view, this
document has to be totally rejected from
consideration in evidence for the simple reason
that no nexus of the deceased has been established
with this document. There is no evidence worth
the name from the side of the prosecution or from
the defence, which may indicate that the writing
Ex.P-2 was, in fact, in the hand of Sarla deceased.
Shyam Lal and Gulshan PWs when stepped into
the witness-box do not say even a word that the
document Ex.P-2 is written in the hand of Sarla
deceased. Even the defence counsel did not put
9
any specific question/suggestion to these witnesses
about authorship of this document, knowing very
well that ASI Arjun Singh Yadav, Investigating
Officer had taken it into possession from the
almirah of their house. The Investigating Officer
(PW6) in his cross examination has stated that the
diary, letter and ball-pen were lying in the room
and he enquired about the author of the said letter
Ex.P-2 and it was revealed that the same was
written by the deceased. This statement can be
termed as a hear say evidence, having no legal
sanctity when the main witnesses were not asked
about the authorship thereof. A mere suggestion
put to Shyam Lal and Gulshan PWs to the effect
that Sarla had left a suicide note regarding her
relations with some other person, takes us no
where. The authorship of this letter could be
proved either by producing some witness who had
seen the deceased writing and signing or the said
document could be sent to some handwriting
expert alongwith the admitted writing of Sarla
deceased for comparison. Both the situations are
missing. Even the Investigating Officer does not
say a word as to from whom he had verified about
authorship of the said letter. In case this
document is taken to be a proved one, this would
amount to bye-passing the provisions of the
Evidence Act. The Investigating Officer cannot be
all and all. The irresistible conclusion, thus, is
that the document Ex.P-2, the so-called suicide
note has to be taken out of the zone of
consideration. The defence of the Bansi Lal
appellant thus becomes very weak and fragile.”
13. In view of the above, we do not see any cogent reason to take

a view contrary to the view taken by the courts below that Ex.P2, the
1
suicide note was not worth consideration. It has rightly been held by

the courts below that it was to be ignored.

Ext.P.2, the so-called suicide note disclosing that Sarla

(deceased) committed suicide as she developed love affair with Shiv

Parkash has been referred to by the Investigating Officer Arjun Singh,

ASI (PW.6) where in his cross-examination he has stated as under:-

“The diary, letter, and ball pen were lying in a
window of the room. He had enquired about the
author of the letter Ext.P.2 and it was revealed
that it is written by Sarla, deceased.”
The witnesses of panchnama of recovery of this letter had not

been examined though they had been Mahabir Singh, Chowkidar of

village Shiwari and Hoshiar Singh, Ex. Sarpanch of Shiwari. Shyam

Lal (PW.4) and Gulshan (PW.5) both have denied the suggestion of

recovery of any such letter nor the letters had been shown to them for

identifying the handwriting of Sarla (deceased). More so, there is

nothing on record to show that she was educated. Arjun Singh, ASI

(PW.6) has not stated anywhere that he knew the handwriting of Sarla

(deceased) nor he has disclosed on whose information he had inferred

that the letter had been written by Sarla (deceased). In such a fact

situation, the recovery of such letter is to be disbelieved and the letter

1
is required to be ignored totally. More so, it has no probative value

because it is no body’s case that the alleged suicide note is in the

handwriting of Sarla (deceased).
14. The demand of scooter had been consistent and persistent as

Shyam Lal (PW.4) and Gulshan (PW.5) had specifically deposed that

the demand was only in respect of scooter and nothing else. Had this

allegation be false, the said witnesses could also mention other articles

purported to have been demanded by the appellant or his other family

members. Therefore, the veracity of the evidence of these two

witnesses on this issue cannot be doubted. Both the witnesses had

been subjected to long cross examination at the behest of the

appellant, however, nothing could be elicited from them to the extent

that the allegations made by the prosecution could be false.
15. While considering the case under Section 498-A, cruelty has to

be proved during the close proximity of time of death and it should be

continuous and such continuous harassment, physical or mental, by

the accused should make life of the deceased miserable which may

force her to commit suicide. In the instant case, the conduct of the

accused forced the deceased Sarla to leave her matrimonial home just

1
after one year of marriage and stay with her parents for 14 months

continuously. It was only at the assurance given by the panchayat that

the accused or his family members would not humiliate or subject the

deceased Sarla with cruelty, that she rejoined her matrimonial home.

It is specific evidence of Gulshan (PW.5) that just few days before her

death, when he went to see her sister, there was a demand of scooter

by the appellant. In such a fact situation, we do not find any force in

the submission made on behalf of the appellant that there was no

demand of scooter in the close proximity of the death.
16. In such a fact situation, the provisions of Section 113B of the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 providing for presumption that accused is

responsible for dowry death, have to be pressed in service. The said

provisions read as under:-
“Presumption as to dowry death.–When the
question is whether a person has committed the
dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon
before her death such woman had been subjected
by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry, the court
shall presume that such person had caused the
dowry death.” (emphasis supplied)
1
It may be mentioned herein that the legislature in its wisdom

has used the word “shall” thus, making a mandatory application on the

part of the court to presume that death had been committed by the

person who had subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection

with or demand of dowry. It is unlike the provisions of Section 113A

of the Evidence Act where a discretion has been conferred upon the

court wherein it had been provided that court may presume to

abatement of suicide by a married woman. Therefore, in view of the

above, onus lies on the accused to rebut the presumption and in case

of Section 113B relatable to Section 304 IPC, the onus to prove shifts

exclusively and heavily on the accused.

17. The only requirement is that death of a woman has been caused

by means other than any natural circumstances; that death has been

caused or occurred within 7 years of her marriage; and such woman

had been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any

relative of her husband in connection with any demand of dowry.

18. Therefore, in case the essential ingredients of such death have

been established by the prosecution, it is the duty of the court to raise

1
a presumption that the accused has caused the dowry death. It may

also be pertinent to mention herein that the expression shown before

her death has not been defined in either of the statutes. Therefore, in

each case, the court has to analyse the facts and circumstances leading

to the death of the victim and decide if there is any proximate

connection between the demand of dowry and act of cruelty or

harassment and the death. (vide: T. Aruntperunjothi v. State

through S.H.O., Pondicherry, AIR 2006 SC 2475; Devi Lal v. State

of Rajasthan, AIR 2008 SC 332; State of Rajasthan v. Jaggu Ram,

AIR 2008 SC 982; Anand Kumar v. State of M.P., AIR 2009 SC

2155; and Undavalli Narayana Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh,

AIR 2010 SC 3708).

19. In the instant case, evidently, the suicide note, Ext.P-2

purported to have been written by Sarla (deceased) had been taken by

appellant as his defence while making his statement under section 313

Cr.P.C. Therefore, the onus was on him to establish his defence by

leading sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that he has

caused the dowry death. The appellant miserably failed to discharge

that onus.

1
20. In view of the above, the submissions advanced on behalf of

the appellant are rejected. The appeal does not have any special

features warranting interference by this court. The appeal lacks merit

and stands dismissed.

…………………………….J.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
……………………………..J.
(Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

New Delhi,
January 14, 2011.
1
1

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,891,077 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,906 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: