Sign in / Join   

HOME BLOG ACTS CAREERS LAW NOTES  WEEKLY COMPETITION  

Home  Criminal Law  All about the Hathras case

Criminal Law rape cases

All about the Hathras case

November 25, 2023  358  0

   

This article is written by Nimisha Dublish. This article discusses various nuances of the
Hathras case that took place in the year 2020. The case is a landmark and a reminder that
our justice system needs many updates and reforms to tackle sensitive matters like gang
rape and the murder of women, especially those who belong to marginalised groups of
people.

It has been published by Rachit Garg.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Facts of the Hathras case
2.1. The incident – 14th September 2020
2.2. Critical condition – 15th September 2020
2.3. Statement recorded – 19th September 2020
2.4. Supplementary statements recorded – 21st September 2020
2.5. First swab test – 22nd September 2020
2.6. Victim shifted to Delhi – 28th September 2020
2.7. Victim’s death – 29th September 2020
2.8. Victim’s body cremated – 30th September 2020
2.9. Section 144 of the CrPC imposed – 1st October 2020
2.10. Suo moto cognisance taken by the Allahabad High Court – 1st October 2020
2.11. UP government files an affidavit – 6th October 2020
2.12. Letter by Sandeep – 8th October 2020
2.13. Police and security deployed – 9th October 2020
2.14. CBI’s involvement – 11th October 2020
2.15. Victim’s family before the court – 12th October 2020
2.16. CBI carries on the investigation – 13th October 2020
2.17. Allahabad High Court monitors the CBI probe – 27th October 2020
2.18. Questions raised on cremation – 4th November 2020
2.19. Status report from CBI – 6th November 2020
2.20. Brain mapping and polygraph tests – 23rd November 2020
2.21. State Counsel appears – 25th November 2020
2.22. Chargesheet filed by CBI – 18th December 2020
2.23. Battle ends – 2nd March 2023
3. Brief background of the accused in Hathras case
3.1. Sandeep Sisodia (Chandu)
3.2. Ravi
3.3. Ramu
3.4. Lavkush
4. UP government and its administration in the Hathras case
4.1. Cremation
4.2. Media restrictions
4.3. Restricting politicians
4.4. Challenging court orders
4.5. Compensation
4.6. Intimidation and lack of empathy
5. Analysis of Court’s judgement in the Hathras case
5.1. Conviction
5.2. Acquittal
5.3. Factual examination
5.4. Charges and proofs
5.5. Principle of Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus
5.6. Intentions
5.7. Mishandling by police
5.8. CBI arguments
6. Reforms and afterthoughts for the Hathras case
7. Conclusion
8. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
8.1. What was the decision in the Hathras case?
8.2. Which state in India has the highest rape statistics?
8.3. References

Introduction
It was September 2020, the month that shook the whole nation with the spine-chilling
crime committed in Hathras, Uttar Pradesh The nation, which was trying to recover from
various rape and murder cases like Nirbhaya’s case (2012), witnessed another traumatising
and heart-shaking crime. The crime was not only committed against a young Dalit girl but
also against the women of India. The girl was brutally raped and left to die in the fields of
Hathras, Uttar Pradesh. The people are dependent on the police authorities as they play a
crucial role in the justice delivery system. They are responsible for our protection. They are
the ones through whom one can feel safe and believe that justice will be delivered to them
one day. Police officers are the carriers and bearers of justice. They investigate wrongs
committed in society and deliver information regarding the same to the justice authorities
of the country. But here, in this case, the police yet again failed to do so. The crime in itself
was not enough; police officers in Uttar Pradesh burned the body of the dead young girl
while the family was locked in their house. There are many questions that arise in our
minds. What if the girl was from the upper caste? Would the police have done the same
with her in that case? And why did the police try to remove the evidence, i.e., the dead
young Dalit girl’s body? It’s normal to have these questions raised in your mind. There
were many rumours and debates all over the country regarding the case, but there were
very few people who bothered to find out the real story and waited for justice to be
delivered.

After almost 2.5 years of fighting between the young girl’s parents and the accused, the
judgement was passed on 2nd March 2023. The Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Court
acquitted three out of four accused, and none of them was found guilty of gang rape. The
accused were of a higher caste, and there were many questions in the air about the caste
system and the injustice due to it. The investigation was then handed over to the Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and only Sandeep, who is 20 years old, was found guilty of
culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.
The accused have been charged with certain offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act of 1989. The other three accused, Luv Kush (23 years old), Ramu (26 years
old), and Ravi (35 years old), were found not guilty by the Court.

Facts of the Hathras case

The incident – 14th September 2020

A 19-year-old Dalit girl was gang raped by upper-caste men in the village of Hathras, Uttar
Pradesh. The event took place in the morning at 9.30 a.m. The victim, along with her
mother, went to the field to cut the grass. The victim was then raped by the four accused
men and left to die in the fields. Her mother discovered her body after hearing her scream.
She was taken to the police station, where the police allegedly refused to report the case.
Later, she named one of the accused, Sandeep Sisodia, and the FIR was then registered
under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. This Section deals with the assault or criminal
force of a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty.

Later the same day, she was taken to the local primary health centre by the police. They
referred her to the Aligarh Muslim University’s Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College. She was
admitted at 4.30 P.M. The total travel time was supposed to be two hours, but she was
admitted in the evening, i.e., more than the actual time that would have been taken to
admit her. The delay was caused because the police authorities refused to file an FIR in the
beginning.

Critical condition – 15th September 2020

The victim’s condition worsened, and she regained consciousness to talk to her family.

Statement recorded – 19th September 2020

The victim’s statement was taken, in which she mentioned the name of the accused. The
police added Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for attempt to murder. Sandeep was
arrested after recording the statement of the victim. She mentioned that she was attacked
because she resisted the sexual advances of the accused.

Supplementary statements recorded – 21st September

2020
Supplementary statements were made by the victim in front of the magistrate. She names
Sandeep, Ravi, Ramu, and Luvkush as the assailants. She accused them of sexual assault,
and the police charged all four of them with gang rape and murder. The medical reports
showed that there was some use of force, but the doctors waited for the forensics report to
confirm the penetrative sexual abuse.

First swab test – 22nd September 2020

The very first swab test was performed to ascertain the sexual assault. But the point to be
noted is that this was conducted after a week. Thus, it was nearly impossible to find any
evidence regarding the sperm trace. The remaining accused were also arrested, and the
victim’s condition began to worsen.

Victim shifted to Delhi – 28th September 2020

The victim was shifted to the Safdarjung Hospital in Delhi. Her condition was continuously
deteriorating, and the chances of her survival were decreasing. AMU doctors claimed that
they had referred her to AIIMS, but she was shifted to the Safdarjung Hospital.

Victim’s death – 29th September 2020

The victim succumbed to her injuries and subsequently died on the morning of 29th
September 2020. Protests by the political parties erupted in the hospital. An attempt to
secretly cremate the victim’s body took place. Later, the victim’s body was taken to
Boolgarhi village.

Victim’s body cremated – 30th September 2020

As per the allegations put forth by the victim’s mother, the body was forcibly taken from
them by the police and they cremated her at 2.30 A.M. The officials denied the allegations
and said that it was consensual.

The state government formed a Special Investigation Team to investigate the matter. Many
protests and criticisms were faced by the government and the administrative system due to
the event that took place. The UP ADG, Prashant Kumar, claimed that the reports confirm
that the victim was not raped. He was also criticised for passing such statements because
the swab test was done more than a week after the assault took place. Post-mortem
reports mentioned that she suffered severe injuries in her spine and that there were
several marks on her neck, which were a result of attempted strangulations.

Section 144 of the CrPC imposed – 1st October 2020

Section 144 of the CrPC was imposed in Boolgarhi village. The Section deals with the
prohibition of the assembly of more than four people in the village. This prevented many
leaders from entering the village and meeting the victim’s family.

Suo moto cognisance taken by the Allahabad High Court

– 1st October 2020
The Allahabad High Court took suo moto cognisance in the case and issued summons to
the administrative authorities to be present at the hearing of the case. The Court was upset
by the fact that the authorities allegedly cremated the body of the victim without any
consent.

UP government les an a davit – 6th October 2020

The UP government filed an affidavit justifying the act of the police authorities. The
government claimed in front of the Supreme Court that the crime was registered
immediately by the police. There was a necessity to cremate the body to avoid the chaos.
The victim’s family was also present during the cremation.

Letter by Sandeep – 8th October 2020

A letter is written by Sandeep to the police, claiming that he was friends with the victim.
They used to talk over phone calls once in a while. He accused the victim’s mother and
brother of torturing her. He indicated that there were chances of honour killing. The call
history shows that there were 104 calls made between them.

Police and security deployed – 9th October 2020

Personnel have been deployed by the authorities for the safety of the family. CCTV cameras
were also installed to monitor the area and ensure safety.

CBI’s involvement – 11th October 2020

The CBI took over the investigation immediately after registering the FIR. The need to
investigate the matter was felt due to increasing protests and demands for justice. Also,
they received wide criticism for cremating the victim’s body in the middle of the night.

Victim’s family before the court – 12th October 2020

The victim’s family appears before the Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow Bench amidst high
security. The Court adjourned the matter till 2nd November 2020. The District Magistrate
mentioned that the decision to cremate was taken after considering the law and order of
the situation.

CBI carries on the investigation – 13th October 2020

The CBI met the family and collected evidence from the cremation spot. The local police
were also questioned and asked to give all the information and evidence that was collected
during the case. The local hospital where the victim was taken after the incident didn’t have
the CCTV footage of that day. They said that they only kept the backup for 7 days.

Allahabad High Court monitors the CBI probe – 27th

October 2020
The Allahabad High Court was ordered to monitor the CBI probe and provide CPRF security
and protection to the victim’s family and all the witnesses. The said order was given by the
Supreme Court of India.

Questions raised on cremation – 4th November 2020

The SIT report raises several questions on the cremation of the victim’s body. Further
actions were to be taken by the authorities against those who were involved in the
cremation, which was done without the family’s consent.

Status report from CBI – 6th November 2020

The Allahabad High Court sought a status report from the CBI and asked how much more
time they would need to complete the investigation of the case. They were directed to file a
status report before 25th November 2020, which was also the next hearing date.

Brain mapping and polygraph tests – 23rd November

2020
The four accused underwent Brain Electrical Oscillation Signature tests (BEOS), which are
non-invasive in nature. They were taken to Gujarat for BEOS and polygraphic tests.

State Counsel appears – 25th November 2020

The state counsel appears to justify the hasty cremation of the victim. The Court heard the
counsel. The counsel narrated the facts and contended that the District Magistrate did not
commit any wrong. Submissions were given by the victim’s family, the state of Uttar
Pradesh, and the CBI.

Chargesheet led by CBI – 18th December 2020

The CBI filed a chargesheet in the Court of Special Judge BD Bharti against the accused.
They were charged for the provisions under the IPC and SC/ST Act. They also mentioned
that there were lapses on the part of the UP police.

The charge sheet was filed against the four accused. The Sections that were invoked by the
CBI were as follows-

1. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the punishment for murder.

2. Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code for the punishment of rape.

3. Section 376A of the Indian Penal Code for the punishment for inflicting injury upon the
victim (while committing rape) and resulting in the death of the victim.

4. Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code for the commission of gang rape.

5. Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for the protection of the
victim’s rights as a Dalit girl.

Battle ends – 2nd March 2023

After almost 2.5 years of battle, the Court passed its verdict on 2nd March 2023. The
decision convicted one out of the four accused. Sandeep was convicted of offences under
Section 304 of the IPC and provisions of the SC/ST Act. He was not held guilty of rape and
murder. He was punished with life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 50,000. The police
authorities were widely criticised for the delayed collection of samples, which eventually led
to the botching up of the investigation.

Brief background of the accused in Hathras case

Sandeep Sisodia (Chandu)

Sandeep Sisodia was the main and primary accused in the Hathras gang rape case. He was
initially charged with many offences. These offences included rape, an attempt to murder,
and offences under the SC/ST Act. His name was heavily highlighted in the victim’s
statement, and his arrest was made soon after the incident.

Ravi
Ravi was one of the other three accused. He also faced charges of gang rape, murder, etc.
Ravi was mainly accused of assault, as per the victim’s statement.

Ramu
Ramu was also one of the other three accused, who were charged with gang rape, murder,
and other offences. He was also implicated for assault, as per the victim’s statement.

Lavkush
He was the fourth accused named by the victim and was charged with assault, gang rape,
and murder.

All four accused belonged to the same village but were of different caste groups.

UP government and its administration in the Hathras

case
There were several concerns raised by the public about the justice system in India. After
the tragedy of the Hathras case took place, the UP’s administration came under intense
scrutiny for suppressing and destroying the facts and information. They also undermined
the victim’s family and challenged the relief granted by the court orders to provide help and
compensation to the victim’s family. They tried to justify the event of cremation as a
strategy suggested by intelligence to avoid mass violence. Some of the actions taken by
the administration and government are as follows-

Cremation

The police officers cremated the bodies of the dead in a hasty manner, which in turn raised
many questions about them. The victim’s body was cremated without even the consent of
the victim’s family. They were not able to justify properly why they did so, and there were
no reasonable justifications given by them to prove the cause of action taken by them. The
family was requesting the administration allow them to cremate their daughter and
complete her last rites. But the administration didn’t allow them and cremated her on their
own in the middle of the night at around 2:30 A.M. This act of the administration was seen
as an attempt to dispose of the evidence and prevent the protests that might occur due to
the caste system and the girl being from a Dalit family. The acts of the administration were
widely criticised and later on, the government took some appropriate actions, setting up a
team to investigate the matter properly, but some things cannot be undone.

Media restrictions
The government of Uttar Pradesh imposed media restrictions, and the victim’s family was
not allowed to meet anyone. The step taken by the government was to maintain the
secrecy of the case. However, it was said that the security given to the family was to
prevent them from any harm; it was to limit the flow of information regarding the case to
the general public via media houses. This act of government gave rise to concerns relating
to transparency and accountability in the investigation.

Restricting politicians
Many political leaders were restricted from meeting the family. The act was done to prevent
the manipulation of the family against the system, but critics say that the act was done to
prevent the victim’s family from getting any support from people. Also, the act was done to
prevent scrutiny of the case and to find the facts from the family itself.

Challenging court orders

Court orders in favour of the family were challenged by the administration and
government. When the Allahabad High Court passed an order for a special investigation by
the CBI, it was challenged by the government. However, later on, this appeal was
withdrawn by them, seeing the condition of the case.

Compensation
Initially, the government denied compensation to the victim’s family. This act of the
government was also widely criticised, citing the insensitivity of the government towards
the rape case. Such reluctance on the part of the government increased the distress of the
victim’s family. Compensation is something that is given to the victims of crimes, especially
sexual violence cases.

Intimidation and lack of empathy

The administration was criticised for intimidating the family to change their statements,
and they were under pressure as they were not allowed to speak freely. Especially in the
initial stages of the investigation, the police officers were insensitive towards the case and
failed to understand the trauma that the family was going through.

Analysis of Court’s judgement in the Hathras case

Here’s the breakdown of the judgement given by the Allahabad High Court.

Conviction
Sandeep Sisodia (Chandu) was found guilty by the Court. He was found guilty under
Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act. This deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Court said
that Sandeep was involved in the incident, and there’s no question about that, but the act
done by him was not a premeditated murder. The victim died as a result of getting dragged
by her dupatta. This made her unconscious, and later she died during the treatment.

They found Sandeep guilty by relying on evidence such as the post-mortem medical reports
and the mother’s testimony in Court. The key factors were the ligature marks and the
testimony given by the victim and her mother. However, the Court ruled that though the
death of the victim was a result of her getting dragged, there was no clear intent to murder
her.

Acquittal
Ravi, Ramu, and Lavkush were acquitted in this case. Three out of the four accused were
released by the court. The dying declaration and evidence were not able to conclusively
establish their involvement in the case. All the charges, including those of rape and murder,
were withdrawn. There was no sufficient evidence found by the court to prove them guilty
of murder and gang rape. There were several uncertainties and ambiguities in the victim’s
statement, due to which a clear conviction was not proved against these three. There was a
remote possibility that the victim might be tutored by the political influence of the leaders
who met her. It was also noted that the principle of ‘Falsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus’ is
not applicable in India. This maxim means that what is false in one thing is false in
everything. This means that just because there were inconsistencies in the victim’s
statement doesn’t mean that her whole statement is not true.

Factual examination
The court went into the depths of the case and conducted a detailed examination of the
facts involved. The fact that the girl is from a Dalit family was highlighted as one of the
circumstances that led to the heartbreaking incident on 14th September 2020. It was
observed by the court that the family faced problems while registering the FIR at the initial
stages. The police were also insensitive to the case, which led to widespread criticism of
India’s administrative system. There were several criticisms received by the police because
of their handling of the case.

Charges and proofs

Charges were framed against the accused under

1. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the punishment for murder.

2. Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code for the punishment of rape.

3. Section 376A of the Indian Penal Code for the punishment for inflicting injury upon the
victim (while committing rape) and resulting in the death of the victim.

4. Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code for the commission of gang rape.

5. Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for the protection of the
victim’s rights as a Dalit girl.

The statement made by the victim while she was counting her last breath in the hospital
was considered a dying declaration under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act. This
piece of evidence served as a crucial part of the case. The conviction of Sandeep Sisodia
(Chandu) heavily relied on the dying declaration and the statements given by the victim’s
mother.

Post-mortem report corroborated the injuries suffered by the victim. It proved that the
ligature marks on her neck were due to the dupatta and her being dragged by Sandeep
Sisodia by that dupatta.

Principle of Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus

It was noted by the court that the principle of ‘Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus’ is not
applicable in India. This principle means false in one thing, false in everything. There are
chances that the victim’s statements might be an unnecessary exaggeration of facts and
events. The question raised in the statement might have some element of falsehood in the
testimony. The Court said that it is the duty of the court to identify the credible part of the
evidence, and analyse it with the utmost care, and separate it from unreliable portions.
However, it cannot be said that the statement by the victim is false in its entirety.

Intentions
The Court observed that the evidence did not establish a clear intent to murder the victim.
Since the victim died after a battle eight days after the incident took place, no clear motive
for murder can be established in this case.

Mishandling by police
Even after getting circumstantial evidence, the local police didn’t frame charges for rape at
the initial stage. In the initial FIR, no charges of rape or gang rape were mentioned. It
contained Section 354 of the IPC, which deals with a milder provision. The rape charges
were added after a week. After the CBI took over the investigation, it registered an FIR
invoking the IPC sections and the SC/ST Act. However, there were several pieces of
evidence that were lost in the initial phase of the investigation. They also declared that, as
per the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, the girl was not raped because no semen
was found. The medical experts criticised the idea that the samples should be collected
within 72-90 hours of the commission of the actual crime/offence. It is also preferred that
the victim not have ideally urinated, defecated, or bathed. The court noticed that in cases
of rape and murder, the investigation heavily depends on the physical evidence. The
incompetence of the police authorities can be seen in this case due to the mishandling of
evidence and delayed collection.

CBI arguments
The CBI filed a charge sheet in a special court in Hathras and invoked the provisions of
gang rape and murder along with the SC/ST Act. They contended that if the police had
properly conducted the investigation, the victim would have been able to speak about it in
the initial stage itself. They also stated that the victim and her family were not given
attention and respect by the police authorities because of their Dalit identity. The verdict
could have been different if the case had been properly investigated by them in the initial
stage itself.

Reforms and afterthoughts for the Hathras case

After the Nirbhaya case took place in 2012, the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 was
introduced in India. It is also known as the Nirbhaya Act. It came into being to provide
strict penalties to the perpetrators of sexual offences. It also includes the death penalty in
certain cases. Despite these changes and provisions, there still exists a lack in the
procedural part of the law. The perpetrators succeed in finding loopholes in the procedural
aspect of the case and manage to get away with minimal or no penalty at all.

Looking at the historical backdrops of caste-based discrimination and gender-based sexual

violence, one must understand the nuances and seriousness that these sensitive matters
carry with them. Going back several thousands of years, one can appreciate the fact that
caste-based discrimination is rooted in the nerves of India. It is a system where a person is
judged based on his/her societal hierarchy and the category in which he or she stands. The
hierarchy indicates the ‘Brahmins’ to be on top and the ‘Dalits’ to be at the bottom of the
societal hierarchy. Historically, Dalits were subjected to caste-based discrimination, social
exclusion, economic marginalisation, etc. Hathras vase showed the vulnerabilities faced by
the girl for belonging to this community. They are more vulnerable to violence, exploitation,
and abuse.

Gender-based violence has been persistent in India. This includes rape, domestic violence,
acid attacks, and other forms of abuse. The Hathras case triggered memories of past
heartbreaking cases of sexual violence like that of Nirbhaya. This case led to nationwide
protests and demands for justice, along with changes in the legal framework. Despite all
these protests and demands for reforms, the cases kept on happening one after the
other.

Conclusion
The Hathras gang rape raises many deep questions and concerns about the state of the
justice system in India. Special concerns are raised for the marginalised communities of
India. There were several complexities in the case, and it was quite difficult to prove guilt
due to the nature of the evidence and its delayed collection. The judgement created
significant scepticism and disappointment. The acquittal of the three accused highlights the
deficiencies within the justice system. Despite having the evidence and dying declaration,
the three accused were acquitted with a clear chit.

The verdict points towards the shortcomings of the current justice system and requires
major and effective reforms for the police and administrative systems to promote unbiased
investigations. The case points to the fact that the battle for justice, equality, and caste
discrimination is far from over. There’s still a dire need for change in society to lead a safe
and unbiased life. However, the Hathras case is a stark reminder to address the gender-
based violence and caste-based discrimination in India. Along with the legal reforms, there
is a need for society to change its mindset. The issues are somewhere or other deeply
connected to each other and need comprehensive action to be taken along with sustained
efforts to fight the setbacks effectively and ensure a more just and equitable society.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What was the decision in the Hathras case?

Sandeep Sisodia, one of the four accused, was convicted of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Court and Section 3(2)(v) of
the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Which state in India has the highest rape statistics?

As per the report, Rajasthan has the highest number of rape cases across India in 2021. It
is followed by Madhya Pradesh. Overall, 31 thousand cases of rape came out that year.

References
https://lawbeat.in/sites/default/files/2023-03/Hathras%20Case%20judgment.pdf

https://www.livemint.com/news/india/anantnag-encounter-asaduddin-owaisi-hits-out-
at-govt-says-and-we-are-playing-cricket-vs-pakistan-11694880912503.html

https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/hathras-case-no-medical-evidence-gang-rape-
victim-possibly-tutored-cant-say-prime-accused-intended-kill-up-court-223036

https://theleaflet.in/hathras-rape-case-three-steps-india-should-take-to-ensure-that-
rape-survivors-actually-get-justice/

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical
exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and
various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal
content.

TAGS Criminal Law Hathras case indian penal code rape case

   

Previous article Next article

Understanding compulsory licences in India : an All you need to know about the concept of
overview of patent regulations trading on trademarks

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

All about criminal pro ling Navtej Singh Johar v. UOI : Section 156 CrPC
decriminalized homosexuality

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Comment:

Name:*

Email:*

Website:

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Post Comment

© Copyright 2016, All Rights Reserved. | Powered by iPleaders