R. v. Layman, 2022 NLSC 98

court crest IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR GENERAL DIVISION Citation : R. v. Layman , 2022 NLSC 98 Date : June 13, 2022 Docket : 201901G3429 Her Majesty The Queen v. Robert Layman Restriction on Publication: By court order made under subsection 539(1) of the Criminal Code , the evidence taken at the preliminary inquiry shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way until the accused is discharged after the preliminary hearing, or, if the accused is committed to stand trial, until the end of the trial.

Before: Justice Vikas Khaladkar Reasons for Judgment Given Orally Place of Hearing: St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador Dates of Hearing: May 9-20, 2022 Date of Oral Judgment: June 13, 2022

Summary: The Accused was acquitted of a charge of sexual assault because the evidence was insufficient to convince the Court that he had committed the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. Appearances:

Renée A. Coates Appearing on behalf of the Crown Robert B. Hoskins Appearing on behalf of the Accused Authorities Cited: CASE CONSIDERED: R. v. W. (D.), (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 STATUTE CONSIDERED: Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Khaladkar, J.: INTRODUCTION Evidence Of The Complainant [1] On June 1, 2017 the Complainant, a person with disabilities suffering from Mitochondria, with mobility and speech issues,was at St. Clare’s Mercy Hospital (“St. Clare’s”) in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador.

She had attended the Emergency Wardbecause she was having difficulty breathing and had chest pains. After spending several hours at the hospital she was discharged. Anurse wheeled her out of the hospital in a wheel chair and saw to it that she was located in the back of a taxi that the nurse had called forher. [2] The Complainant was released at around 3:00 in the morning. She was placed in the rear passenger seat of the Accused’s taxi.The Complainant described the taxi driver as an old man with black/grey hair. She said that he had a dark complexion and glasses.

Shealso said that he had a foreign sounding accent. By “foreign accent” the Complainant explained that anyone who didn’t sound like her, abayman, would in her opinion be deemed to have a foreign accent. There is no question of identity in this case. The Accused hasadmitted that he was the driver of the taxi in question, and that the Complainant was his fare from the hospital to her home during theearly morning hours of June 1, 2017. [3] The Complainant said that she asked the Accused how busy it was and he replied that he had just started his shift.

He said thathe liked driving late because of the lack of traffic and the numbers of people coming from downtown. The Complainant said that heasked her whether she lived alone. [4] When reaching her residence she paid for her $13.00 fare with a $20.00 bill and told the Accused to keep the change. [5] The Complainant said that the Accused got out of the car and opened the door for her. She told him that she could make it onher own but he insisted on walking her to her door. [6] The Complainant said that the Accused held her hand and guided her to her door.

He had parked on the street and they had totraverse a driveway about two car lengths long, then negotiate three steps down to the door of the Complainant’s basement apartment. [7] Up to this point the evidence of both the Complainant and the Accused are fairly similar. [8] The Complainant said that when she opened her door the Accused stuck his foot in and pushed his way into the apartment. Shesaid that she yelled at him to leave, but he said he just wanted to make sure she was okay. She said she went over and sat on her couch,and he came and sat down beside her.

He took off her coat and her purse and started putting his hands down her top and rubbing herbreasts. She said she got up again and told him to get out of her house and started to walk towards her bedroom – thinking that he wouldleave. She closed her bedroom door, but he came into her bedroom, grabbed her and put her on the bed. He took off her top and startedsucking on one of her breasts. [9] She said that she then began to panic. She pleaded with him to stop, but she could not move. She tried to get up but hewouldn’t let her.

She said that she knew that she couldn’t hurt him because that would be an assault on a taxi driver. She said that he thenhauled down his pants, took out his penis and rubbed it on her face. She said that he tried to get her to suck on it but she made up anexcuse that her mouth was too small. She said that he kissed her and put his tongue in her mouth. He then rubbed his penis all over herface again and got on top of her again while sucking her breasts. [10] She said that he put all of his weight on her and tried to haul down her pants but was not able to because she was still wearing

her leg braces. He managed to get one leg of her pants off over her brace. She said that he then put his fingers inside of her vagina and told her that she was tight. Then he put his penis in her vagina and had sexual intercourse with her until he ejaculated inside of her. [ 11 ] She testified that he then got off, told the Complainant that it felt so amazing and went into the bathroom to wash up. When he came out of the bathroom, she said that he told her that he would be coming back.

The Accused then left. [ 12 ] In cross-examination the Complainant was asked if it would surprise her to learn that the Accused was medically unable to have sexual intercourse. She responded by saying that someone who could ejaculate inside of her could not have had erectile difficulties. [ 13 ] The Complainant testified that she took sleeping pills after the incident and informed her mother and her home care worker what had happened. The following morning she attended at St. Clare’s to be examined relating to what had transpired the evening before.

Evidence Of Melissa Short (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner) [ 14 ] The Complainant went to the hospital after the incident and was examined by Melissa Short, who testified that she took several swabs for forensic examination. She indicated that she took swabs of the Complainant’s left breast, her pubic area, vagina and her cervix. The swabs were turned over to the investigating officer for the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary (“RNC”). [ 15 ] Ms. Short performed a head to toe assessment of the Complainant.

She noted an abrasion below the Complainant’s chin, a bruise on the left upper buttock, an abrasion on the inner thigh, tenderness of the labia majora, an abrasion on the posterior fourchette. [ 16 ] No evidence was given with respect to recency of any of those injuries. [ 17 ] Ms. Short noted that the Complainant had some bruising from a Vitamin B-12 injection she had received on the right, lower abdomen. There was, as well, bruising from an intravenous and redness from an electrocardiogram on the Complainant’s right and left upper chest.

These bruises were attributable to the Complainant’s attendance in the Emergency Ward of the hospital the night before. Evidence Of Sergeant Cynthia Crocker [ 18 ] There is no issue in this case with respect to the continuity of the exhibits. I was satisfied that all of the exhibits were properly collected and managed. [ 19 ] A process of negotiation ensues between the police investigators and the Forensics Assessment Centre (“FAC”) with respect to the analysis of exhibits.

The decision as to which swabs and/or exhibits will be tested is made by the FAC. [ 20 ] It is possible for the police to attempt to have more analyses done than approved by the FAC, but in this case only one swab – from the Complainant’s cervix was tested for deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”) and semen. There were no other samples tested for DNA, semen or blood.

The Complainant’s clothing, bed sheets where the alleged assault occurred, and the hand towel – which the Complainant testified the Accused used after he had cleaned himself up in the bathroom – were not tested for DNA or any other bodily fluids, although the investigating officer requested that these items be analyzed. [ 21 ] The police obtained a warrant to obtain a sample from the Accused suitable for DNA analysis. It was forwarded to the National Crime Laboratory. Evidence Of Christie Sanderson [ 22 ] Christie Sanderson was qualified, by consent, as an expert in: • The

interpretation of bodily fluids, identification and test results; •

Interpretation of DNA typing profiles; • Application of statistical significance to DNA typing results; and • Formulation of conclusions and issuing reports. [ 23 ] She testified that the DNA extracted from the cervical swab taken from the Complainant matched both the Complainant and the Accused. The chances that there is another person with the same DNA profile as the Accused is 1:6.5 trillion. [ 24 ] Ms. Sanderson indicated that no semen was found on the cervical swab. [ 25 ] Ms.

Sanderson indicated that while she can say who matched the DNA profile that was obtained from the cervical swab, she cannot say how the material got there. She testified that DNA can be transferred directly or indirectly. In the process of holding hands, for example, the DNA of one person will transfer to another. That is an example of a direct transfer. If one of those persons handled an object, the DNA on their hands belonging to themselves and the other person could also transfer onto that object. That is an example of an indirect transfer.

DNA can be transferred indirectly in such manner multiple times. [ 26 ] In this case, Ms. Sanderson could not say whether the DNA belonging to the Accused was found in the cervical swab because of sexual intercourse. Ms. Sanderson also could not say whether the DNA was attributable to the bodily fluids of the Accused – meaning semen, sweat, blood or saliva. She testified that there were no tests available to determine the source of the DNA sample – meaning that there was no way of telling whether it was attributable to semen, sweat, blood or saliva or some other source. [ 27 ] Ms.

Sanderson stated that DNA is highly mobile and can be easily transferred. The extent to which it does so is factor dependent. She said that a DNA sample as small as .15 nanograms, or .15 billionths of a gram, will yield DNA results. The DNA profile obtained by Ms. Sanderson cannot identify whether the sample arrived at its eventual location by means of a direct or an indirect

transfer. [ 28 ] This concluded the case for the Crown. Evidence Of Derek Haytor [ 29 ] Derek Haytor is the manager of Newfound Cabs – where the Accused worked in 2017. He was also the manager in 2017. He was one of the Accused’s supervisors. [ 30 ] Mr. Haytor was contacted by the RNC in the summer of 2017 by telephone. This was not unusual, he sometimes gets two or three calls a week from the RNC. However, this call was different. It wasn’t one of the run of the mill calls relating to fraud that he usually receives. This was a call concerning the location of one of their taxis at a certain time and place. Mr.

Haytor testified that this made the call memorable. [ 31 ] Mr. Haytor recalled that the police officer gave him a date, time and location and wanted to know if any of Newfound’s taxis were at that location and, if so, for how long. [ 32 ] Newfound Cabs, at the time, used a geo-sensing software application. Each taxi was equipped with a device that, every 20 seconds, would transmit the location, direction and speed of the taxi to the home base computer.

The software allowed Newfound Cabs to track the location of each of their taxis and is an aid to the business for a variety of reasons including dispatching, driver safety, monitoring driver performance, calculating mileage and maintenance. The device continued to monitor the taxis even when the car was turned off. [ 33 ] Mr. Haytor indicated that the taxi driven by the Accused was in the area of the Complainant’s residence on June 1, 2017 at 3:15 a.m. for approximately five minutes.

It was the only Newfound taxi in that area at that time. [ 34 ] The interaction with the police stood out for him, he said, because it was one of Newfound’s employees who was involved in the query. [ 35 ] He testified that Newfound Cabs was bought last year and the system was replaced with an alternative tracking system. He no longer has the system on which the Accused’s taxi was tracked on June 1, 2017.

He stated that, apart from the telephone call, he was not asked by the RNC to give a statement, and no one from the police service came to look at his software system or to obtain any reports from it. [ 36 ] In cross-examination Mr. Haytor stated that the time set out in the software program was based upon an international time signal. He indicated that the distances measured by the Global Positioning System (“GPS”) were accurate within 10 feet. [ 37 ] In cross-examination Mr. Haytor recalled telling the police officer that the taxi had been at the Complainant’s residence for five minutes.

When pressed by Crown counsel in cross-examination, Mr. Haytor indicated that maybe it could have been 10 minutes. In fairness, he was being asked to testify to something that had happened some five years previously and, in respect of which, he had given no statement and kept no notes. Evidence Of Robert Layman [ 38 ] The Accused is now 73 years of age. He has no criminal record. He has been married for 53 years. He has been a taxi driver since 1975. [ 39 ] On June 1, 2017 the Accused was dispatched to the Emergency entrance at St. Clare’s in the City of St. John’s. He noted an employee of St.

Clare’s with a patient in a wheelchair. He pulled the front passenger seat ahead, opened the back door of the car and the St. Clare’s employee wheeled the chair to the rear passenger door of the car. He stayed by the door, the employee put up the foot rests of the wheel chair, and the passenger got into the back seat of the taxi. [ 40 ] While the passenger was transferring into the taxi, she stumbled. The Accused asked her if she needed any help and got no response. The passenger got into the taxi by herself as the St. Clare’s employee was holding the wheelchair.

The Accused closed the doors to the taxi and the St. Clare’s employee returned to the hospital. [ 41 ] The Accused asked the passenger where she was going. He indicated that it took her a few minutes to “get out” the address. He drove to that address. It took about 10-15 minutes to arrive. [ 42 ] The Accused parked the taxi on the street. He didn’t want to drive into the driveway because he said that the headlights from the taxi would then shine on the windows of the house, and he didn’t want to wake up anyone. [ 43 ] The Accused went around and opened the door to the taxi.

He testified that the Complainant reached out and took his hand. They walked from the taxi to the door of her basement apartment. He held her hand the entire way to prevent her from falling. On the way to the house he said that she stumbled a couple of times. They had to go down two or three steps to the front door of the apartment. He remembered that there was one more step inside immediately after opening the door. [ 44 ] The Accused indicated that it was his practice to offer to help. If his passenger did not accept the help, it was his custom to stay in his vehicle until the passenger got inside their door.

In this case he said that he offered assistance and the Complainant accepted it. [ 45 ] The Accused estimated that it took about five minutes to get the Complainant up the driveway and to open her door. He noted that there was a chesterfield immediately on the side of the front door. She sat down on the chesterfield, but her purse was hanging over her neck. The Accused said that he asked her to remove her purse – which she did – and he then walked out. The Accused said that he asked the Complainant to remove her purse because of the way that it was positioned around her neck.

[ 46 ] The Accused indicated that there were no vehicles in the driveway, which was 25-30 feet in length. He indicated that you may have squeezed two smaller vehicles into the driveway. [ 47 ] The Accused testified that after leaving her front door he went back to his taxi to wait for the dispatcher to give him a call. He stated that he did not go into any of the rooms in the Complainant’s apartment and that he did not use her bathroom. [ 48 ] He estimated that the time it took from pulling over to leaving was about five to six minutes.

In cross-examination he admitted that he had given a statement to the police in which he estimated the time that he had been at the Complainant’s address as being between 10 to 15 minutes. He explained the difference on the basis that he wasn’t really keeping track of the time, and that he had the benefit of hearing Mr. Haytor’s evidence and felt that might be more accurate. [ 49 ] The Accused denied having any sexual relations with the Complainant. [ 50 ] The Accused testified that he had a routine run that he used to do with the Health Sciences Centre.

He would pick up a package from the Health Science Centre at 3:45 a.m. and deliver it to the airport hangar for Provincial Airlines at 4:00 a.m. He did that every Tuesday and Thursday. [I took judicial notice of the fact that June 1, 2017 was a Thursday]. [ 51 ] On June 14 or 15, 2017 the Accused received a call from Cst. Picco concerning this matter. He went into the police station and gave a statement. The parties agreed that the interview with the police was conducted on June 14, 2017. [ 52 ] The Accused testified that he had medical issues commencing on Labour Day in 2015.

From that date forward he had four different surgeries until October, 2016. After these medical interventions he testified that his ability to have sexual relations ceased. He indicated that there was neither desire nor ability to have sex. He stated that it was something that became more noticeable after his last surgery. He attempted to have sexual relations with his wife, but to no avail. [ 53 ] The Accused related this to the officers who interviewed him. They obtained his consent, in writing, to obtain his medical records. [ 54 ] The Accused saw his family doctor, Dr.

Porter, on January 12, 2017 about his erectile dysfunction. He was prescribed Viagra. He testified that it had no effect. [ 55 ] The Accused went to see his family doctor again on June 8, 2017. Dr. Porter then prescribed Cialis. Exhibit RL-2 contained a note from Dr. Porter to the effect that, for all the good it did, the Accused might as well have been eating peppermint knobs. He was prescribed Cialis. The Accused testified that he was informed that Cialis was a stronger drug than Viagra. [ 56 ] The Accused testified that Cialis was equally ineffective.

He was referred by his family physician to an urologist, Dr. Organ.

The urologist advised that he could prescribe injections – which the Accused would have to self-administer immediately before sexual activities. [ 57 ] The Accused testified that he and his wife discussed this course of action and concluded that they would forego this treatment option. [ 58 ] The Accused testified that he was completely incapable of engaging in sexual intercourse before June 1, 2017 and on June 1, 2017. the crown argued [ 59 ] The Crown’s position was that the Accused, a sexual predator, preyed upon a vulnerable, young woman with disabilities who could not defend herself against his advances.

The Crown argued that the Complainant was credible and believable, and that her evidence was supported by the laboratory findings of DNA material belonging to the Accused on her cervix. [ 60 ] The Crown took exception to Mr. Haytor’s testimony. It argued that Mr. Haytor’s evidence had to be fabricated because of the time that had elapsed from the time that Mr. Haytor was contacted by police until the time that he testified in Court (almost five years). Mr.

Haytor had not kept any notes of his interaction with the police in this matter and no report had been generated from the dispatch system used by him to show where the Accused’s taxi was located in the early morning hours of June 1, 2017. The Crown’s view was that Mr. Haytor had motive to fabricate his evidence – to bolster his company’s image. [ 61 ] With respect to the possibility that DNA could be transferred to the Complainant’s cervix without sexual intercourse, the Crown’s position was that this was not only unlikely but also impossible.

The Crown indicated that in order for DNA to arrive indirectly at the Complainant’s cervix by means of masturbation, the Complainant’s finger would have to reach all the way to her cervix. [ 62 ] With respect to the evidence of the Accused’s visit to his family physician in January, 2017 the Crown took the view that the fact that the Accused sought out help for erectile dysfunction is proof contrary to the Accused’s assertion that he had no urge/was not interested in having sex. [ 63 ] The Crown argued that the medical documentation outlines that the Accused was able to attain an erection but was not able to maintain it.

In any event, the Crown argued that the medical documentation is only indicative of self-reported problems and should receive little or no weight. the deence argued [ 64 ] The Defence cited nine reasons for acquitting the Accused: i. The Accused was cooperative with the RNC;

ii. The Accused is credible. He is 73 years of age and has no prior convictions; iii. The Accused denied the sexual assault; iv. The Accused proferred medical proof that he is unable to maintain an erection; v. Mr. Haytor testified that the Accused was only at the Complainant’s house for a short period of time – five minutes. The RNC could have obtained this information from Mr. Haytor and exonerated the Accused, but they did not attempt to get any further information from Mr. Haytor or his dispatch software program; vi.

The RNC questioned the FAC’s insistence that only one sample be analyzed but were denied; vii. The Complainant’s evidence was inconsistent; viii. Relying solely upon the DNA evidence creates a real possibility of a wrongful conviction. We don’t know how it got there; and ix. The Accused was direct, consistent, honest, open and forthcoming and should be believed. analysis [ 65 ] I have been presented by two very different versions of what transpired during the early morning hours of June 1, 2017. I must remind myself that criminal trials are not contests of credibility, with the winner taking all.

That is not how our system of justice operates. [ 66 ] The accused person in every criminal trial has the right against self-incrimination. In everyday terms, this is the right to silence. The right to insist that the Crown prove the charges to the criminal level of culpability – proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Crown bears the onus of proving the accused’s guilt and that onus never shifts to the accused. It remains upon the Crown throughout the proceedings. [ 67 ] The Complainant testified by typing her responses to questions on a screen on the Courtroom wall.

She did so because her speech has been affected by her Mitochondria, and this was the best means of making her evidence intelligible. [ 68 ] There was nothing in the Complainant’s evidence that gave me pause. I did not disbelieve her. [ 69 ] However, I find that the Crown has not proven its case to the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The following are my reasons for coming to that conclusion. Evidence Of Mr. Haytor [ 70 ] The evidence of Mr. Haytor is a bit of a red herring. The taxi was parked in front of the Complainant’s house from five to 10 minutes according to Mr. Haytor.

That is enough time to sexually assault the Complainant in the manner that she described. Mr. Haytor gave his evidence as well as he could given the passage of time. In my opinion the RNC should have interviewed Mr. Haytor when they first contacted him. They should have obtained his statement, reviewed the company’s GPS dispatch software program and obtained such reports as it could generate about the whereabouts of the Accused’s taxi on the morning in question. It was an oversight not to do so. However, the oversight was not fatal to the prosecution.

Evidence Of Christie Sanderson [ 71 ] Christie Sanderson was qualified as an expert, by consent, in four areas: (

a) the

interpretation of bodily fluids, identification and test results; (

b) the

interpretation of DNA typing profiles; (

c) the application of statistical significance to DNA typing results; and (

d) the formulation of conclusions (regarding (

a) to (c)) and the issuance of reports. [ 72 ] Ms. Sanderson is employed as a biology forensic specialist through the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Surrey, British Columbia. She testified by video link. [ 73 ] Ms. Sanderson has occupied her current position for five years and has been working for the biology

section for the past 19 years.

[74] Ms. Sanderson indicated that DNA is what is known as the “building blocks of life”. It contains the blueprint for all cells. It isfound in blood, semen, saliva, skin cells, sweat, hair, muscle, bone and other bodily components. [75] Each person’s DNA is unique (except in the case of identical twins). DNA typing refers to the action of comparing a DNAprofile with the profile obtained from a known sample. Certain sections of the DNA profile are compared with a view to determiningwhether there is a match.

The extent to which the sequences are similar informs the probability that the sample could come from anotherperson – expressed as a ratio. In this case the chances that the DNA found in the cervical swab obtained from the Complainant camefrom a person other than the Accused was 1:6.5 trillion. [76] Ms. Sanderson indicated that the FAC has standard operating procedures for the approval of submissions of samples to the lab.In this case, although multiple samples were sought to be submitted to the FAC, only the cervical swab was tested for DNA and thepresence of semen. [77] Ms.

Sanderson indicated that DNA cells can be transferred directly or indirectly. A direct transfer can occur, for example, whentwo people hold hands and each person’s DNA is deposited on the other person’s hand. An indirect transfer, on the other hand, can occurif DNA from another person acquired, for example, through direct contact, is deposited on another person or object. [78] In the case before the Court Ms. Sanderson cannot say how the DNA of the Accused was deposited on the Complainant’scervix. Nor can the DNA profile tell us whether the DNA was deposited by primary transfer or secondary transfer.

Evidence Of The Accused [79] The Accused denied sexually assaulting the Complainant. [80] The Accused testified that he held the Complainant’s hand while assisting her in getting out of his taxi, and that he continued tohold it until they arrived at the Complainant’s door. [81] The Accused said that after seeing to it that the Complainant was in her apartment, he left. [82] The Accused gave a full statement to the police.

He did not exercise his rights to counsel. [83] While the Court did not have the benefit of what the Accused divulged to the police, I suspect that it would not be muchdifferent than what he said on the stand – that he held the Complainant’s hand up to the door, saw her into her apartment and left. conclusion [84] The Complainant said that the Accused ejaculated in her vagina and that it made its way onto her bedsheets. The Complainantsaid that the Accused washed up in her bathroom afterwards and used her hand towel. [85] Both of these items were seized by the police and Cst.

Dillon attempted to have FAC provide an analysis. Had FAC providedthe requested analyses the Court would be in a much better position to make findings of fact. Instead, I must juggle the Complainant’stestimony and a DNA result, on the one hand, with evidence that the Accused was unable to be involved in a sexual encounter, bolsteredby medical reports that appear to corroborate his testimony, on the other hand. [86] I am left in a terrible quandary, but the law is clearly set out in R. v. W. (D.), (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742.According to that case, if I believe the Accused I must acquit him.

If I don’t believe the Accused, if the evidence led on his behalf leavesme with a reasonable doubt, I must acquit. And, lastly, if on an overall view of the evidence I am not convinced beyond a reasonabledoubt, I must acquit. [87] There is no magic to the Supreme Court’s direction in R. v. W. (D.).

It is the Court’s way of reminding trial judges that theconcept of reasonable doubt applies at all stages of the analysis, and that unless the Crown meets the high burden of proof with which itis encumbered, the Accused is entitled to be acquitted. [88] The Crown could have met its onus in this case if it were able to lead evidence to show that the Accused’s DNA was alsofound on the Complainant’s bedsheets, or on her hand towel. [89] But in the absence of that evidence I am left with a she said/he said case in which I have doubts about the Accused’s ability tophysically engage in the conduct complained about, and additional doubts about how the Accused’s DNA could have ended up on acervical swab.

While, as Crown counsel suggested, the Complainant’s fingers were probably not long enough to deposit the Accused’sDNA on her cervix, that is not to say that a secondary transfer could not have been effected by the use of other means. [90] The ability to analyze DNA has provided law enforcement with a mighty weapon. It is not, however, a replacement for goodold fashioned police work and it does not provide every answer that one would wish for. [91] I do not fault Cst. Dillon in the execution of her duties. She did what she could to properly investigate this matter. However, theFAC could have done more.

The performance of the analyses of the two pieces of evidence I mentioned – the bedsheet and the handtowel – would have elevated this case to one where reasonable inferences could be drawn about what happened on June 1, 2017. [92] The charge against the Accused is dismissed. _____________________________ Vikas Khaladkar Justice