Akeel Azhar @ Rinku v. State (NCT of Delhi)

15. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the conviction entered and sentence passed against the appellants/A[1] and A[2] by the trial court are sustainable or not.

16. I shall briefly refer to the oral and documentary evidence relied on by the prosecution in support of the case. Ext. PW1/B FIS/FIR of PW[1] recorded in Hindi on 10.08.2018, translated reads thus: “I reside along with my three sisters, mother, and father. My bua’s son (A[1]) also lives in our house, whom we address as bhaiya. Ever since I was studying in the second grade, bhaiya (A[1]), who lives with us, would take off my pajamas and lie on top of me, touching my private part with his hand (हाथ मेरी शू-शू पर लगाते थे). Whenever I tried to tell my mother (A[2]) about this, she would dismiss my concerns by saying that he was my brother and that I should not say such things (ऐसे नहीं कहते वो भैया है). Then one day, bhaiya (A[1]) took off his clothes as well as my clothes, lay on top of me, and inserted his private part into mine (मेरे ऊपर लेट गए और अपनी सु-सु मेरी सु-सु मे डाल िदया). I cried a lot. My mother (A[2]) had gone to the toilet at that time. When she returned, I told her about it, but she dismissed it by saying that I should not say such things about bhaiya (A[1]) and that I was lying. Bhaiya (A[1]) has done this to me four times, and he does the same with my mother as well. Today, when my father left at 05:00 a.m. and my mother went to the toilet, bhaiya (A[1]) again inserted his private part into mine, after which I left for school. I told this incident to my teacher, Ayesha Khan Madam. Bhaiya (A[1]) behaves inappropriately with my sister as well.”

17. In Ext. PW1/C 164 statement of PW[1] recorded on 14.08.2018, she has stated thus: Bhaiya (A[1]) behaves inappropriately with us. He removes his pants and touches us with his hand. He lies on top of us. He puts his private part into our private part and moves back and forth (अपना सुसु हमारे ऊपर डाल कर आगे पीछे होते है). He tells us not to tell anyone. She told her mother (A[2]), but her mother (A[2]) did not say anything and said that it was okay. Bhaiya (A[1]) also beats us. He beats us with a stick. We told Ma'am who brought us there. Bhaiya (A[1]) said that if we told anyone about the incident, he would beat us severely. He also kisses us. He did the same to her sister also. He forces us by beating (मारकर करवाता है).

18. In Ext. PW2/A 164 statement of PW[2] recorded on 14.08.2018, she has stated thus:- Bhaiya (A[1]) talks of bad things (भैया न गंदी बात करते थे). He touches us and puts his hand where we urinate (हाथ डालते थे। यहाँ पर सुसु करते है न, वहाँ डालते थे।). He used to do this to all three sisters. He also used to beat all three of us. He used to put his private part into her mouth, as well as into her sister’s (PW[1]) mouth. Fufu had sent him there. He is not our biological brother. He sleeps at fufu’s house.

19. In Ext. PW3/A 164 statement of PW[3] recorded on 14.08.2018, she has stated thus:- When Rinku bhaiya (A[1]) bathes her, the former removes her underwear and clothes. After that, he touches her private parts with his hand.

20. PW[1] when examined before the trial court, stood by her version in the FIS/FIR and the 164 statement. She deposed that Rinku (A[1]) is the son of her fufu. She used to call him bhaiya. Rinku (A[1]) used to reside in their house and was working as a computer mechanic. On being asked as to what Rinku (A[1]) had done to her, she answered that he raped her. When she was asked what she meant by rape, answered that - “Rinku (A[1]) used to remove my pajami and used to insert the finger inside my vagina.” The trial court has noted thus – “victim demonstrated by putting finger towards her utaras [sic] portion”. PW[1] further deposed that Rinku (A[1]) also inserted his private part (susu wali jagah) inside her private part (susu wali jaga) and committed rape (wo apna neeche wala part mere under daak kar aage peeche karata thaa). Rinku (A[1]) also committed the aforesaid acts with her younger sisters also. Rinku (A[1]) did the aforesaid acts when she was in second, third and fourth grade. She did not disclose the act to anyone. One day, after everyone had eaten and were asleep, she heard a noise which woke her up. Her younger sister also woke up. She noticed that Rinku (A[1]) was having sexual intercourse with her mother. On noticing her, A[1] went under the bed. She questioned the act of the accused. Rinku (A[1]) then put a towel around his lower portion as he was naked and stated that he pays money for it and that he does the same with her as well (Main paise de kar karta hoon, main tere saath bhi kartaa hoon). Despite hearing A[1], her mother (A[2]) did not respond or confront him. Rather, her mother (A[2]) told her that the former raises them using the money given by A[1] (Inhi paison se to main tumhe paalti hoon). Rinku (A[1]) threatened her with a belt and told her that he would beat her if she disclosed the incident to anyone. Thereafter, they all went to sleep. In the morning when they woke up, her mother (A[2]) told her that it was okay and that people do such things (Koi nahi aise karte hain). Then life went on.

20.1. One day at school, when she was in the fifth standard, her class teacher (PW[6]) was teaching them about good and bad touches and advising that if any wrong act is committed against children, they should report the matter to their parents and near ones. In the said class, her cousin sister (the daughter of her bua) who is also her classmate, asked her to disclose the sexual assault committed by Rinku (A[1]) to the teacher. After the awareness program, she told her class teacher (PW[6]) that she wanted to discuss certain facts with her. Thereafter, while the class was going on, her teacher called her and asked what she wanted to disclose. She then disclosed the entire incident to her teacher. Her teacher told her that she would get the perpetrator punished and also asked her not to tell anyone that she had disclosed the incident to her. One day, while she was in class, her class teacher took her to the Principal’s room, where police officers were already present. She narrated the entire incident to the police. Thereafter, the police took her to the hospital, where her medical examination was conducted. The police also recorded her statement. From the hospital, she was taken to Sanskar Ashram.

20.2. The prosecutor sought permission of the trial court to put leading questions to PW[1]. The same was allowed. On being asked if she knew Alina Khan, PW[1] answered that when she had told her class teacher about the incident, her class teacher called Alina Khan Madam, who also made inquiries with her.

20.3. PW[1] in her cross-examination, deposed that Rinku (A[1]) used to give his salary to her mother (A[2]). She denied the suggestion that her grandmother and her mother (A[2]) used to quarrel often. Once, she had told her buaji about the assault by Rinku (A[1]), but her buaji never confronted Rinku (A[1]) about it. PW[1] denied frequent quarrels between her parents. She had once noticed a quarrel between them. She had not told her father about the incident. The quarrel between her parents took place when the police had been called to the school (Jab bhaiya karte they tab mere saath tab jhagada hua thaa). She denied the suggestion that she complained against Rinku (A[1]) as tutored by her father and dadi. PW[1] admitted that, on one occasion, a quarrel had taken place between Rinku (A[1]), her mother (A[2]), and her father over money, as her mother (A[2]) had kept as savings the money given to her by Rinku (A[1]), while she gave a portion of the money received from her father to Rinku (A[1]). PW[1] further deposed that her father is “slightly mentally weak”. According to PW[1], she had witnessed Rinku (A[1]) sexually assaulting her younger sisters (PW[2] and PW[3]). She denied the suggestion that as her father did not want to return Rinku’s (A[1]) salary, the false implication has been made. PW[1] admitted that neither of her sisters had complained to their mother (A[2]) regarding the sexual assault by A[1]. When she had informed her mother (A[2]) about the sexual assault committed by A[1], her youngest sister (PW[3]) was asleep, but her younger sister (PW[2]) was awake. Her buaji showed no reaction and kept mum when the assault was disclosed to her. She told her buaji’s daughter, who was her classmate, about Rinku’s (A[1]) actions after the first incident of sexual assault. Her cousin sister then disclosed Rinku’s actions to her dadi.

21. PW[2] when examined before the trial court, deposed that AkilAzhar @ Rinku (A[1]), son of her phuphu used to do bad things to her. On being asked what bad things he had done, she answered that A[1] used to touch her inappropriately / put his hands on her. The trial court recorded its observation thus - “At this stage, witness (PW[2]) pointed towards her lower private part in order to show where the accused (A[1]) used to put his hand”. Rinku (A[1]) used to remove her clothes, and then touch her. Rinku (A[1]) used to hit her on the head with a pan used for making rotis and threatened to break her head. Rinku (A[1]) used to do the same acts on both her sisters as well as her bua’s daughter. Rinku (A[1]) used to put his private part into their mouths. Rinku (A[1]) did the aforesaid acts several times during night while they were asleep. When she and her sister initially informed their dadi and mother (A[2]) about the assault, her dadi dismissed it as a joke while her mother (A[2]) remained silent and took no action. They disclosed the incident to a teacher in their school. The teacher called the police, after which a female police officer took them for medical examination. Thereafter, they were taken to ashram, where they have been residing since.

21.1. PW[2] in her cross-examination, deposed that Rinku (A[1]) used to give ₹10/- to ₹20/- to her younger sister (PW[3]). Rinku (A[1]) also used to give money to her mother (A[2]), while her father saved money in a piggy bank rather than handing it directly to her mother. She denied frequent quarrels between her father and Rinku (A[1]). Her mother met their school expenses. PW[2] denied having complained to her teacher as instructed by someone else and clarified that they had complained voluntarily, without being instructed by anyone. PW[2] admitted that her mother (A[2]) loved her.

22. PW[3] deposed that Rinku bhaiya (A[1]) did not do anything inappropriate to her or touch her private parts. She admitted that she used to bathe with Rinku bhaiya (A[1]) and that the latter lived in their house. The police took Rinku bhaiya (A[1]) away. She denied that she was taken to the hospital by the police. While she admitted appearing before a judge, she denied the judge asking her as to what had happened or having told the judge about the incident. She denied disclosing the incident to her mother (A[2]). She denied having been instructed by her dadi not to say anything against Rinku bhaiya (A[1]).

23. PW10, then Senior Resident, Gynaecology Department, LBS Hospital, deposed that on 10.08.2018, she conducted medical examination of the victims (PW[1] to PW[3]). On obtaining consent, an internal examination of PW[1] was conducted which revealed the tear on the hymen was old. There was slight tenderness. She had examined the other victims (PW[2] and PW[3]) also. But their bua refused internal medical examination. On local examination of the genitals of both the victims (PW[2] and PW[3]), the hymen was found intact.

23.1. PW10 in her cross-examination, admitted that hymen can be torn due to reasons other than sexual assault. PW10 admitted that tenderness could be caused by an injury but no physical injury was visible on local examination. She denied the suggestion that she had prepared the MLCs at the instance of the Investigating Officer (PW[9]).

24. I will also refer to the testimony of the defence witness examined on behalf of A[1]. DW[1] deposed that Akeel Azhar (A[1]), his cousin brother, was residing with his family at the time of the incident. DW[1] in his cross-examination, denied the suggestion that A[1] was residing with co-accused (A[2]). He admitted that he possessed no documentary proof to establish his relationship with A[1] or proof that A[1] had ever resided with him.

25. A[1] stands convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2), 323 and 506(1) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The principal question that arises for consideration is whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution establishes these offences against A[1] beyond reasonable doubt.

26. The prosecution case substantially rests upon the testimony of PW[1] and PW[2] as well as the medical evidence. Section164 statements of PW[1], PW[2] and PW[3] are substantially consistent and corroborate each other on the material particulars of the prosecution case, particularly with regard to the repeated acts of penetrative sexual assault committed by A[1], criminal intimidation and causing hurt to them. PW[1] and PW[2] entered the box and reiterated all the material particulars and the allegations made in their Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements. But, PW[3], the youngest of the sisters, did not support the prosecution case during trial. However, this fact does not dilute the evidentiary value of the testimony of PW[1] and PW[2]. The absence of corroboration from PW[3] also does not affect the credibility of PW[1] and PW[2] regarding the offences committed against them or the incidents witnessed by PW[1]. Further, it is settled law that the sole testimony of a victim can be relied upon to decide a case of sexual assault, provided it is clear, trustworthy and reliable. As held in Ganesan v. State, (2020) 10 SCC 573 and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary, (2019) 11 SCC 575, a conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence, and there is no rule of law or practice that the evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be relied upon without corroboration. The testimony of PW[1] and PW[2] is clear, cogent and corroborates each other. I, therefore, find no reason to reject or discard the testimony of PW[1] and PW[2].

27. The inconsistencies highlighted by the learned counsel for A[1], namely, whether A[1] used to sleep in the house of PW[1] or at the house of the bua, and whether the incident occurred when PW[1] was in second grade or whether it continued for three years from the second standard till fourth standard, are not such that would strike at the root of the prosecution case or that would affect the core allegation of aggravated penetrative sexual assault. These discrepancies are natural, considering that the incidents had occurred when PW[1] to PW[3] were between 5 and 10 years of age and the testimony was recorded after almost an year from the date of registration of the FIR. It would be unrealistic to expect a child witness to recollect every date, the sequence and details with mathematical precision after a lapse of time. Moreover, in the FIS/FIR, PW[1] has stated that since the time she was in the second standard, the accused had been assaulting her (जब म दू सरी ास म पढ़ती थी तो तब से जो भैया घर म रहते ह मेरी पाजामी उतारकर अपने आप मेरे ऊपर लेट जाते थे…….). So, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for A[2], that there is inconsistency between the versions of PW[1] in the FIS/FIR and in the box is incorrect. On the other hand, the case of PW[1] is that the accused has been sexually assaulting her from the time she was in the second standard.

28. Ext. PW1/A MLC of PW[1] also supports the prosecution case. On examination, no fresh injury was noticed over the external genitalia. It is true that the tear in the hymen was found to be old. But tenderness was seen. This supports the version of PW[1] that on the date of reporting also she had been sexually assaulted. It is true that PW10, the doctor in the cross-examination admitted to a suggestion put on behalf of the defence that hymen can be torn for reasons other than sexual assault. Suggestions made to the doctor and admissions made thereon are not proof of a fact and based on that admission, the court cannot arrive at a conclusion. Over dependence on such opinion evidence, even if the witness is an expert in the field, to checkmate the direct testimony given by an eyewitness is not a safe modus adoptable in criminal cases. It has now become axiomatic that medical evidence can be used to repel the testimony of eyewitnesses only if it is so conclusive as to rule out even the possibility of the eyewitness's version to be true. A doctor usually confronted with such questions regarding different possibilities or probabilities of causing those injuries or post-mortem features which he noticed in the medical report may express his views one way or the other depending upon the manner the question was asked. But the answers given by the witness to such questions need not become the last word on such possibilities. After all he gives only his opinion regarding such questions. But to discard the testimony of an eyewitness simply on the strength of such opinion expressed by the medical witness is not conducive to the administration of criminal justice. Similar view has also been expressed in Mange v. State of Haryana (1979) 4 SCC 349; State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal, AIR 1988 SC 2154; Ram Dev v. State of U.P. (1995) Supp. (1) SCC 547; State of U.P. v. Harban Sahai, (1998 6 SCC 50 and Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha (2003) 12 SCC 606 and Ram Swarup vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2008 SC 1747.

29. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/A[1] that the absence of detection of male DNA on the clothes of PW[1] as recorded in Ext. A[7] FSL report, despite the prosecution allegation that PW[1] had been subjected to penetrative sexual assault by A[1] on the very same morning, is inconsistent with the prosecution case and creates reasonable doubt. The nondetection of male DNA by itself does not demolish the prosecution case. As pointed by the learned APP, possibility of degradation or loss of biological material as noted in the report, cannot be ruled out.

29.1. Further, the medical and forensic evidence admissible under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 can only corroborate the testimony of the witness. The purpose of an expert opinion is primarily to assist the court in arriving at a final conclusion. Such report is not binding upon the court. The court is expected to analyse the report, read it in conjunction with the other evidence on record and then form its final opinion as to whether such report is worthy of reliance or not. The assistance and value of expert opinion is indisputable, but there can be reports which are, ex facie, incorrect or deliberately so distorted as to render the entire prosecution case unbelievable. But if the eyewitnesses and other prosecution evidence are trustworthy, have credence and are consistent with the eye-version given by the eyewitnesses, the court will be well within its jurisdiction to discard the expert opinion. An expert report, duly proved, has its evidentiary value but such appreciation has to be within the limitations prescribed and with careful examination by the court. A complete contradiction or inconsistency between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence on the one hand and the statement of the prosecution witnesses between themselves on the other, may result in seriously denting the case of the prosecution in its entirety but not otherwise (See Dayal Singh v. State of Uttaranchal, (2012) 8 SCC 263).

30. I have also gone through paragraphs 6 and 7 of the order on sentence dated 14.02.2025 wherein PW1/victim is stated to have expressed that she had made the allegations under the influence of her class teacher. During the course of oral arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the victim/PW[1] submitted that the counsellor had tutored the victim/PW[1] to speak against her mother (A[2]) and brother (A[1]).

31. The class teacher of PW[1] was examined as PW[6]. PW[6] deposed that in August 2018, an MCD counsellor visited the school to conduct a session, during which PW[1] disclosed that she was being sexually harassed at home by a relative. The counsellor subsequently informed her department regarding the harassment. On 10.08.2018, the police officers visited the school and recorded the statements of the victim (PW[1]) and her two younger sisters (PW[2] and PW[3]), who were studying in the third class and nursery respectively. She had accompanied the victims and the police to the LBS Hospital, where the medical examinations were conducted in the presence of the children’s dadi. PW[6] in her crossexamination admitted that the victims (PW[1] to PW[3]) had not disclosed anything to her prior to the counselling session and that the session had not been conducted to investigate sexual harassment among students.

32. A careful perusal of the testimony of PW[6] shows that no case of tutoring PW[1] to PW[3] was ever put to her during her examination. Not even a suggestion was put to her on behalf of either A[1] or A[2] that she had tutored, influenced or prompted the victims to falsely implicate A[2], their mother, or A[1]. On the contrary, her testimony indicates that PW[1], the eldest child among the three victims, disclosed the incident after attending the counselling/awareness sessions. This is not an unnatural circumstance, considering that the victims were of tender age and may not have fully understood the nature of the acts committed upon them or that such acts constituted offences. This is especially so in the case on hand because PW[1] and PW[2] despite informing A[2], who is none other than their own mother, as well as their dadi of the sexual assaults, the latter dismissed the complaints of the young girls as a joke. Infact, according to PW[1], her mother (A[2]) responded by saying that it was okay and that people do such things. PW[1], a girl of tender age at the time of the incident seemed to have had the misfortune of seeing the intimate scenes between her mother (A[2]) and A[1], the person who abused her. The girls never realised that they were being abused by A[1] until PW[1] attended the awareness classes. They must have thought that the acts were normal when their own mother responded by saying – “Koi nahi aise karte hain”. The contention that the victims were tutored, having never been put to PW[6] during trial, appears to be a clear afterthought. Such a case is not put forward even when A[1] and A[2] were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Further, a subsequent retraction at the stage of sentencing, unsupported by any materials on record, cannot demolish the substantive evidence recorded during trial. The correctness of the conviction has to be examined on the basis of the evidence or materials adduced during trial. Accepting the statement of PW[1] as seen recorded in paragraph 6 of the order on sentence, would amount to making a mockery of the criminal justice system, which cannot be allowed at any cost. The trial court has rightly rejected the same. I refrain from taking or recommending any action against PW[1] in the light of her young age. A[2] is none other than her mother. Her father is no more. According to PW[1], it is her grandmother and bua who are taking care of her as well as her sisters. Therefore, one can certainly understand the pressure PW[1] must have been put to by the family members to retract her earlier statement.

33. Further, the testimony of DW[1] does not advance the defence case in any material particular. At best, it seeks to establish that A[1] was residing with DW[1] and that he was apprehended from the factory instead of the place alleged by the prosecution. The place of arrest is not a fact in issue nor does it have any bearing on whether the offences alleged against A[1] were committed. Even assuming his version regarding the place of arrest to be correct, it does not affect the prosecution evidence concerning the commission of the offences. Consequently, the evidence of DW[1] does not create any reasonable doubt in the prosecution case and is of no material assistance to the defence. Accordingly, the conviction of A[1] for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2), 323 and 506(1) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act warrants no interference.

34. Coming to the conviction of A[2] under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the PoCSO Act and Section 376(2) read with Section 109 IPC. The primary argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/A[2] is that mere knowledge of the commission of an offence would not attract either Section 17 of the POCSO Act or Section 109 IPC and that there must be evidence of intentional aid, instigation or active facilitation.

35. Section 16 of the POCSO Act which defines abetment says that a person abets an offence if he or she (i) instigates any person to commit the offence; (ii) engages in a conspiracy for the commission of the offence, followed by an act or illegal omission in pursuance thereof; or (iii) intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the commission of the offence. Explanation II to Section 16 further clarifies that a person who, either prior to or at the time of the commission of the act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates its commission, is said to aid the doing of that act. The prosecution seeks to bring the conduct of A[2] within the ambit of clause thirdly of Section 16, namely, intentional aid by illegal omission. According to the learned counsel for A[2], the prosecution in order to succeed under clause (iii) of Section 16 of the PoCSO Act must prove that A[2], the mother, had intentionally aided the commission of the offence by A[1], which has not been done in this case. Reliance has been placed on the dictum in State v. XXX (supra) in support of the argument.

36. In the aforesaid case, the accused persons were the father (A[1]) and mother (A[2]) of the victim. The prosecution case was that on several occasions A[1] had committed penetrative sexual assault on his minor daughter ever since she was 7 years old. When the victim informed the assault to her mother (A[2]), the latter did not care to take any action. Due to repeated penetrative sexual assault, the victim child became pregnant. The victim informed her teacher about the incidents and thereafter, the law was set into motion. The trial court convicted and sentenced A[1] under Section 6 of the PoCSO Act, Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, whereas A[2] was convicted and sentenced under Section 6 read with Sections 17, 21 of the PoCSO Act and Section 75 of the JJ Act.

36.1. The judgment of conviction and sentence was challenged before the High Court. Upon reappreciation of the evidence, the High Court affirmed the conviction of A[1] for the offences punishable under the aforementioned Sections. However, insofar as A[2] was concerned, the High Court observed that the evidence on record did not show that A[2] had any intention to aid A[1] in committing the sexual offences. Infact, it was found that A[2] had protested at every stage, and A[1] had abused and beaten A[2], besides intimidating her with dire consequences. Therefore, it was held that her knowledge of the illegal acts and her omission to prevent it or complain about it would not amount to “intentional aiding”. It was thus held that the prosecution had failed to establish the ingredients of abetment as contemplated Section 17 of the PoCSO Act. Nevertheless, the High Court found that A[2] had failed to report the commission of the offence despite being aware of it and had exposed the child to mental and physical suffering. Accordingly, her conviction under Section 21(1) of the POCSO Act and Section 75 of the JJ Act was upheld.

37. The present case stands on an entirely different footing. A[2] is not a stranger, acquaintance or any family member, but the mother of the victims who had the parental and legal duty to protect her children. According to PW[1], the repeated acts of penetrative sexual assault were committed by A[1] while he was residing in their house. PW[1] deposed that she had informed her mother (A[2]), about the acts committed by A[1]. Instead of protecting her minor daughters or taking any preventive or remedial steps, A[2] dismissed the complaints, told PW[1] not to make such allegations against A[1] and continued permitting A[1] to continue residing in the house, thus exposing the minor children to further abuse. PW[1] has further deposed that A[2] justified the conduct of A[1] and did not intervene despite being repeatedly informed. The continued omission of A[2] cannot be viewed as mere passive knowledge but would certainly come within the expression “intentionally aids by illegal omission” coming in clause (iii) of Section 16 of the PoCSO Act.

38. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the findings of guilt recorded by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2), 323, 506 IPC and Section 6 of the PoCSO Act against A[1] and Section 6 read with Section 17 of the PoCSO Act and Section 376(2) read with Section 109 IPC against A[2], are proved beyond reasonable doubt and suffer from no infirmity warranting an interference by this Court.

39. The appeals, sans merit, are dismissed.

40. Application(s), if any, pending, shall stand closed.

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA (JUDGE) JULY 28, 2026 rs/p’ma