Delhi District Court
State vs Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu And Others. -:: Page 14 ... on 13 December, 2017
-:: 16 ::-
IN THE COURT OF MS. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01, WEST,
SPECIAL COURT UNDER THE POCSO ACT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
New Sessions Case Number : 57609/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 56/2013.
State
versus
1) Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu
Son of Mr.Shamsher Singh,
Resident of House Number D-36,
Nawada Housing Complex,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
2) Mr. Jaiveer @ Bholu
Son of Mr.Shamsher Singh,
Resident of House Number D-36,
Nawada Housing Complex,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
3) Mr.Rishi @ Joginder
Son of Mr. Kartar Singh ,
Resident of House Number 28,
Vipin Garden Extension, Gali No.18,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
4) Mr.Mandeep @ Jaswant
Son of Mr.Satish Kumar,
Resident of House Number RZ 31,
Vijay Block, Vipin Garden,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
5) Mr.Naveen @ Meenu @ Dibba
Son of Mr.Dharam Raj,
Resident of House Number 72,
New Sessions Case Number : 57609/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 56/2013.
First Information Report Number : 381/2011.
Police Station: Uttam Nagar.
Under sections 342/365/ 376 (2) (g)/506/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code
State versus Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu and others. -:: Page 14 of 16 ::-
-:: 16 ::-
Village Neelwal, Police Station Mundka,
New Delhi.
First Information Report Number : 381/2011.
Police Station: Uttam Nagar.
Under sections 342/365/ 376 (2) (g)/506/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Date of filing of the charge sheet in the : 28.11.2011.
Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate
Date of case received on assignment :14.12.2011.
in the Court of the learned predecessor
Arguments concluded on : 13.12.2017.
Date of judgment : 13.12.2017.
Appearances: Ms.Nimmi Sisodia, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
Ms.Shradha Vaid, counsel for Delhi Commission for
Women.
Accused Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu, Mr.Rishi @ Joginder, Mr.Man-
deep @ Jaswant, Mr.Jaiveer @ Bholu and Mr.Naveen @
Meenu are present on bail.
Mr.Rambir Singh, counsel for accused Mr.Jasvir Singh @
Jassu and Mr.Jaiveer @ Bholu.
Ms.Kiran Singh, counsel for accused Mr.Naveen @ Meenu.
Mr.Anuj Kumar Garg, counsel for accused Mr.Mandeep.
Mr.Rajiv Kumar Rai, counsel for accused Rishi @ Jogin-
der.
Parents of the prosecutrix are present.
**********************************************************
JUDGMENT
1. At the outset, it may be mentioned that this case is one of oldest cases pending in this Court. It is listed at serial number seven (07) in the list of more than five years old cases and at serial number 09 in the list of 20 oldest cases pending in this Court and a sincere New Sessions Case Number : 57609/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 56/2013.
First Information Report Number : 381/2011. Police Station: Uttam Nagar.
Under sections 342/365/ 376 (2) (g)/506/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code State versus Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu and others. -:: Page 14 of 16 ::-
-:: 16 ::-
endeavor has been made to dispose the same expeditiously. It pertains to the alleged offences committed by all the accused persons in the year 2001 regarding which the First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as the FIR) 381 of 2001 was registered.
2. Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu, Mr.Jaiveer @ Bholu, Mr.Rishi @ Joginder, Mr.Mandeep @ Jaswant and Mr.Naveen @ Meenu @ Dibba, all the accused persons, have been charge sheeted by Police Station Uttam Nagar for the offences under sections 342 / 365 / 376 (2)
(g) / 506 / 511 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC).
3. The name and address of the prosecutrix are mentioned in the file and are withheld to protect her identity and she is referred to as Ms.X in the judgment, a fictitious identity given to her. Fictitious identities of Ms.Y and Mr.Z are given to the mother and father of the prosecutrix respectively in order to protect the identity of the prosecutrix.
4. Accused Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu, Mr. Jaiveer @ Bholu, Mr. Rishi @ Joginder, Mr. Mandeep @ Jaswant and Mr. Naveen @ Meenu have been prosecuted on the allegations that on 28.08.2011 at about 01:35 pm, they had wrongfully confined the prosecutrix and her friend, kidnapped the prosecutrix, aged about 13 years, with the New Sessions Case Number : 57609/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 56/2013.
First Information Report Number : 381/2011. Police Station: Uttam Nagar.
Under sections 342/365/ 376 (2) (g)/506/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code State versus Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu and others. -:: Page 14 of 16 ::-
-:: 16 ::-
intent to cause prosecutrix to be secretly and wrongfully confined; criminally intimated by threatening the prosecutrix with injury to her person, if she happens to disclose the facts of rape committed upon her to any person.
5. Accused Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu has been prosecuted on the allegations that on 28.08.2011 at about 01:35 p.m, he had attempted to commit rape upon the prosecutrix, aged about 13 years, and in such attempt a certain act towards the commission of the said offence i.e. putting off the jeans of the prosecutrix and also by putting of his pant and underwear and by laying her down for the purpose of committing rape.
6. Accused Mr.Jasvir @ Jasu and Mr. Naveen @ Meenu have been prosecuted on the allegations that on 28.08.2011 at about 01.:35 pm abetted the commission of offence of rape by their co-accused Mr.Jasvir Singh @ Bholu, Mr.Mandeep @ Jaswant and Mr.Rishi @ Joginder which was committed in consequence of an abetment.
7. Accused Mr. Jaiveer @ Bholu, Mr. Rishi @ Joginder and Mr. Mandeep @ Jaswant have been prosecuted on the allegations that on 28.08.2011 at about 3:00 pm in an empty house, at some distance from Najafgarh Bus stand, all of accused had committed gang rape upon prosecutrix.
New Sessions Case Number : 57609/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 56/2013.
First Information Report Number : 381/2011. Police Station: Uttam Nagar.
Under sections 342/365/ 376 (2) (g)/506/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code State versus Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu and others. -:: Page 14 of 16 ::-
-:: 16 ::-
8. After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 28.11.2011 and on 14.12.2011, the matter was received by assignment by the Court of the learned predecessor.
9. After hearing arguments, charge for offences under sections 511/376 IPC was framed against accused Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu vide order dated 04.04.2012 by the learned predecessor of this Court, to which the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
10.After hearing arguments, charge for offences under sections 342/34 IPC, 365/34 IPC and 506/34 IPC was framed against accused Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu, Mr.Jaiveer @ Bholu, Mr.Rishi @ Joginder, Mr.Mandeep @ Jaswant and Mr.Naveen @ Meenu @ Dabba vide order dated 04.04.2012 by the learned predecessor of this Court, to which they had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
11.After hearing arguments, charge for offences under section 109/34 IPC was framed against accused Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu and Mr.Naveen @ Meenu @ Dabba vide order dated 04.04.2012 by the learned predecessor of this Court, to which they had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
12. After hearing arguments, charge for offences under section 376 (2)
(g) IPC was framed against accused Mr.Jaiveer @ Bholu, Mr.Rishi New Sessions Case Number : 57609/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 56/2013.
First Information Report Number : 381/2011. Police Station: Uttam Nagar.
Under sections 342/365/ 376 (2) (g)/506/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code State versus Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu and others. -:: Page 14 of 16 ::-
-:: 16 ::-
@ Joginder and Mr.Mandeep @ Jaswant vide order dated 04.04.2012 by the learned predecessor of this Court, to which they had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
13.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as (08) witnesses i.e. ASI Mahender Singh, the Duty Officer who had recorded the formal FIR of the case, as PW1; HC Ratan Lal, MHC(M) who had made entry in the register no. 19 and 21 regarding the exhibits of the case, as PW2; ASI Nawal Singh, the Duty Officer, who had received an information from wireless operator regarding rape with a girl, as PW3; the prosecutrix Ms. X as PW4; Mr. Akshay, who is friend of the prosecutrix, as PW5; ASI Sushma, Investigation Officer of this case, as PW6; HC Rajender Kumar who had got conducted medical examination of accused Mandeep and Rishi, as PW7 and Ms. Y, who is the mother of the prosecutrix, as PW8.
14.The evidence of the prosecutrix Ms.X as PW4 has been recorded in camera. Her mother Ms.Y as PW8 has also been examined in camera.
15.The prosecutrix Ms.X as PW4 has deposed that "I do not know the persons standing in the dock. They are not the persons who committed rape upon me. I do not identify them." New Sessions Case Number : 57609/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 56/2013.
First Information Report Number : 381/2011. Police Station: Uttam Nagar.
Under sections 342/365/ 376 (2) (g)/506/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code State versus Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu and others. -:: Page 14 of 16 ::-
-:: 16 ::-
16.As the prosecutrix Ms.X (PW4) was hostile and had retracted from her earlier statement, the Additional Public Prosecutor has cross- examined her. She has been cross examined but nothing material for the prosecution has come forth. She has denied the suggestion that "It is wrong to suggest that the persons standing in the dock, are the same persons who committed rape upon me or that I am not identifying accused Jasbir, Rishi, Mandeep, Jaiveer @ Bholu, Naveen @ Dibba deliberately as I have been won over by them after taking amount from them. I do not know any of the accused. It is wrong to suggest that I know all the accused persons. I came to know regarding the name of the accused persons through police officials. It is wrong to suggest that all the accused persons, standing in the dock are known to me by names and faces or that I am not identifying them deliberately."
17.In her cross examination on behalf of the accused Naveen @ Meenu @ Dibba, Mandeep, Rishi @ Joginder, Jasbir @ Jassu and Jaiveer @ Bholu, counsel for accused had not cross examined the prosecutrix despite opportunity given.
18.The mother of the prosecutrix Ms.Y (PW8) has also not deposed anything incriminating against the accused. She was declared hostile by the prosecution but nothing material for the prosecution came forth in his lengthy cross examination. In her cross New Sessions Case Number : 57609/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 56/2013.
First Information Report Number : 381/2011. Police Station: Uttam Nagar.
Under sections 342/365/ 376 (2) (g)/506/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code State versus Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu and others. -:: Page 14 of 16 ::-
-:: 16 ::-
examination on behalf of the accused Mr.Jasvir Singh @ Jassu and Mr.Jaiveer @ Bholu, she has admitted that the accused persons have not committed any offence against her daughter and accused Mr.Jasvir Singh @ Jassu was not arrested in her presence. In her cross examination on behalf of the accused Naveen @ Meenu @ Dabba, Mr.Rishi @ Joginder and Mr.Mandeep @ Jaswant, she has admitted that they are innocent and they have not committed any offence against her daughter.
19.Even Mr.Akshay (PW5), friend of the prosecutrix, resiled from his earlier statement and did not support the prosecution case. Nothing material for the prosecution came forth in his cross examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
20.The prosecution witnesses i.e. the prosecutrix Ms.X as PW4 and Ms.Y, mother of the prosecutrix PW9 as well as Mr. Akshay as PW5 have not deposed an iota of evidence of accused Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu had committed rape upon the prosecutrix or that accused Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu, Mr.Jaiveer @ Bholu, Mr.Rishi @ Joginder, Mr.Mandeep @ Jaswant and Mr.Naveen @ Meenu @ Dabba had committed the offences of confinement, kidnapping and threatened the prosecutrix or that accused Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu and Mr.Naveen @ Meenu @ Dabba had abetted the commission of offence of rape by their co-accused Mr.Jasvir Singh @ Bholu, Mr.Mandeep @ Jaswant and Mr.Rishi @ Joginder or that accused Mr.Jaiveer @ New Sessions Case Number : 57609/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 56/2013.
First Information Report Number : 381/2011. Police Station: Uttam Nagar.
Under sections 342/365/ 376 (2) (g)/506/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code State versus Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu and others. -:: Page 14 of 16 ::-
-:: 16 ::-
Bholu, Mr.Rishi @ Joginder and Mr.Mandeep @ Jaswant had committed gang rape upon the prosecutrix.
21.In the circumstances, as the prosecutrix Ms.X (PW4), who is the star witness, has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case and more importantly has not assigned any criminal role to the accused persons as well as mother (PW8) and Mr.Akshay (PW5) have not deposed anything incriminating against the accused persons, the prosecution evidence is closed, declining the request of the Additional Public Prosecutor for leading further evidence, as it shall be futile to record the testimonies of other witnesses, who are formal or official in nature. The evidence of the other prosecution witnesses is insufficient to incriminate the accused persons The precious Court time should not be wasted in recording the evidence of formal or official witnesses when the prosecutrix Ms.X (PW1), her mother, Ms.Y (PW8) and Mr.Akshay (PW5), who are the star witnesses and the most material witnesses of the prosecution, have not supported the prosecution case. In the circumstances, the father of the prosecutrix is discharged unexamined and the prosecution evidence is closed.
22. The statements under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) of all the accused persons are dispensed with as there is nothing incriminating against them as the prosecutrix Ms.X (PW4) is hostile and nothing material has come New Sessions Case Number : 57609/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 56/2013.
First Information Report Number : 381/2011. Police Station: Uttam Nagar.
Under sections 342/365/ 376 (2) (g)/506/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code State versus Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu and others. -:: Page 14 of 16 ::-
-:: 16 ::-
forth for the prosecution in her cross examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and her mother (PW8) and Mr.Akshay (PW5) have also not deposed anything incriminating against all the accused persons.
23.I have heard arguments at length. I have also given my conscious thought and prolonged consideration to the material on record, relevant provisions of law and the precedents on the point.
24.In the light of the aforesaid nature of deposition of the prosecutrix Ms.X (PW4), her mother (PW8) and Mr.Akshay (PW5), who are the star witnesses and the material witnesses of the prosecution, I am of the considered view that the case of the prosecution cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable as the witnesses have retracted from their earlier statements and turned hostile. Nothing material for the prosecution has come forth in their cross examination on behalf of the State. They have, in fact, deposed that all the accused persons have not committed any offence against the prosecutrix. Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment reported as Suraj Mal versus The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 S.C. 1408, wherein it has been observed by the Supreme Court as:
"Where witness make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special New Sessions Case Number : 57609/2016. Old Sessions Case Number : 56/2013. First Information Report Number : 381/2011. Police Station: Uttam Nagar. Under sections 342/365/ 376 (2) (g)/506/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code State versus Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu and others. -:: Page 14 of 16 ::-
-:: 16 ::-
circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witness."
25.Similar view was also taken in the judgment reported as Madari @ Dhiraj & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2004(1) C.C. Cases 487.
26.In the judgment reported as Namdeo Daulata Dhayagude and others v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 381, it was held that where the story narrated by the witness in his evidence before the Court differs substantially from that set out in his statement before the police and there are large number of contradictions in his evidence not on mere matters of detail, but on vital points, it would not be safe to rely on his evidence and it may be excluded from consideration in determining the guilt of accused.
27.If one integral part of the story put forth by a witness was not believable, then entire case fails. Where a witness makes two inconsistent statements in evidence either at one stage or both stages, testimony of such witness becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances, no conviction can be based on such evidence. (Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the hon'ble Delhi High Court reported as Ashok Narang v. State, 2012 (2) LRC 287 (Del).
28.Crucially, the materials and evident on the record do not bridge the New Sessions Case Number : 57609/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 56/2013.
First Information Report Number : 381/2011. Police Station: Uttam Nagar.
Under sections 342/365/ 376 (2) (g)/506/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code State versus Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu and others. -:: Page 14 of 16 ::-
-:: 16 ::-
gap between "may be true" and must be true" so essential for a Court to cross, while finding the guilty of an accused, particularly in cases where once the witnesses have themselves not deposed anything incriminating against all the accused persons. Even otherwise, no useful purpose would be served by adopting any hyper technical approach in the issue.
29.Consequently, no inference can be drawn that the accused Mr. Jasvir @ Jassu is guilty of the charged offences under sections 511/376 of the IPC. Further, no inference can be drawn that the accused Mr. Jasvir @ Jassu, Mr.Jaiveer @ Bholu, Mr.Rishi @ Joginder, Mr. Mandeep @ Jaswant and Mr. Naveen @ Meenu @ Dabba are guilty of the charged offences under sections 342/34 IPC, 365/34 IPC and 506/34 of the IPC. Further, no inference can be drawn that the accused Mr. Jasvir @ Jassu and Mr. Naveen @ Meenu @ Dabba are guilty of the charged offences under section 109/34 of the IPC. Further, no inference can be drawn that the accused Mr. Jaiveer @ Bholu, Mr. Rishi @ Joginder and Mr. Mandeep @ Jaswant are guilty of the charged offences under section 376 (2) (g) of the IPC.
30.There is no material on record to show that on 28.08.2011 at about 01:35 pm, accused Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu, Mr. Jaiveer @ Bholu, Mr. Rishi @ Joginder, Mr. Mandeep @ Jaswant and Mr. Naveen @ Meenu had wrongfully confined the prosecutrix and her friend, New Sessions Case Number : 57609/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 56/2013.
First Information Report Number : 381/2011. Police Station: Uttam Nagar.
Under sections 342/365/ 376 (2) (g)/506/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code State versus Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu and others. -:: Page 14 of 16 ::-
-:: 16 ::-
kidnapped the prosecutrix, aged about 13 years, with the intent to cause prosecutrix to be secretly and wrongfully confined; criminally intimated by threatening the prosecutrix with injury to her person, if she happens to disclose the facts of rape committed upon her to any person.
31.There is no material on record to show that on 28.08.2011 at about 01:35 pm, accused Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu had attempted to commit rape upon the prosecutrix, aged about 13 years, and in such attempt a certain act towards the commission of the said offence i.e. putting off the jeans of the prosecutrix and also by putting of his pant and underwear and by laying her down for the purpose of committing rape.
32.There is no material on record to show that on 28.08.2011 at about 01:35 pm, accused Mr.Jasvir @ Jasu and Mr. Naveen @ Meenu had abetted the commission of offence of rape by their co-accused Mr.Jasvir Singh @ Bholu, Mr.Mandeep @ Jaswant and Mr.Rishi @ Joginder which was committed in consequence of an abetment.
33.There is no material on record to show that accused Mr. Jaiveer @ Bholu, Mr. Rishi @ Joginder and Mr. Mandeep @ Jaswant on 28.08.2011 at about 03:00 pm in an empty house, at some distance from Najafgarh Bus stand, all of accused had committed gang rape upon prosecutrix.
New Sessions Case Number : 57609/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 56/2013.
First Information Report Number : 381/2011. Police Station: Uttam Nagar.
Under sections 342/365/ 376 (2) (g)/506/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code State versus Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu and others. -:: Page 14 of 16 ::-
-:: 16 ::-
34.From the above discussion, it is clear that the claim of the prosecution is neither reliable nor believable and is not trustworthy and the prosecution has failed to establish the offences against accused Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu for the offence of committing rape;
Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu, Mr. Jaivir @ Bholu, Mr. Rishi @ Joginder, Mr. Mandeep @ Jaswant and Mr. Naveen @ Meenu for the offences of committing confinement to the prosecutrix and her friend, kidnapping and threatening of the prosecutrix with injury to her person; Mr. Jasvir @ Jassu and Mr. Naveen @ Meenu @ Dabba for the offences of abetting the commission of offence of rape by their co-accused (Jasvir Singh @ Bholu, Mr.Mandeep @ Jaswant and Mr.Rishi @ Joginder) and Mr. Jaiveer @ Bholu, Mr. Rishi @ Joginder and Mr. Mandeep @ Jawant for the offence of gang rape upon the prosecutrix. The evidence of the witnesses makes it highly improbable that such incidents ever took place. The witnesses have not deposed an iota of evidence that all the accused persons have committed any of the charged offences.
35.Therefore, in view of above discussion, the conscience of this Court is completely satisfied that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against accused Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu for the offences under sections 511/376 of the IPC; the charges against accused Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu, Mr. Jaiveer @ Bholu, Mr. Rishi @ Joginder, Mr. Mandeep @ Jaswant and Mr. Naveen @ Meenu New Sessions Case Number : 57609/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 56/2013.
First Information Report Number : 381/2011. Police Station: Uttam Nagar.
Under sections 342/365/ 376 (2) (g)/506/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code State versus Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu and others. -:: Page 14 of 16 ::-
-:: 16 ::-
@ Dabba for the offences under sections 342/34 of the IPC, 365/34 of the IPC and 506/34 of the IPC; the charge against accused Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu and Mr. Naveen @ Meenu @ Dabba for the offences under sections 109/34 of the IPC; and the charge against accused Mr. Jaiveer @ Bholu, Mr. Rishi @ Joginder and Mr. Mandeep @ Jaswant for the offences under section 376 (2)
(g) of the IPC.
36.Consequently, accused Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu is hereby acquitted of the charges for the offences of committing rape upon the prosecutrix punishable under sections 511/376 of the IPC.
37.Accused Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu, Mr. Jaiveer @ Bholu, Mr. Rishi @ Joginder, Mr. Mandeep @ Jaswant and Mr. Naveen @ Meenu @ Dabba are hereby acquitted of the charges for the offences of confinement of the prosecutrix and her friend, kidnapping and threatening the prosecutrix with injury to her person under sections 342/34 of the IPC, 365/34 of the IPC and 506/34 of the IPC.
38.Accused Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu and Mr. Naveen @ Meenu @ Dabba are hereby acquitted of the charges for the offences of committing rape by their co-accused (Mr.Jasvir Singh @ Bholu, Mr.Mandeep @ Jaswant and Mr.Rishi @ Joginder) punishable under sections 109/34 of the IPC. New Sessions Case Number : 57609/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 56/2013.
First Information Report Number : 381/2011. Police Station: Uttam Nagar.
Under sections 342/365/ 376 (2) (g)/506/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code State versus Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu and others. -:: Page 14 of 16 ::-
-:: 16 ::-
39.Accused Mr.Jaiveer @ Bholu, Mr. Rishi @ Joginder and Mr. Mandeep @ Jaswant are hereby acquitted of the charges for the offences of committing gang rape upon the prosecutrix punishable under section 376 (2) (g) of the IPC.
COMPLAINCE OF SECTION 437-AOF THE CR.P.C. AND OTHER FORMALITIES
40.Compliance of section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. is made in the order sheet of even date.
41.Case property be confiscated and be destroyed after expiry of period of limitation of appeal.
42.One copy of the judgment be given to the Additional Public Prosecutor, as requested.
43.After the expiry of the period of limitation for appeal and completion of all the formalities, the file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on (NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA) this 13th day of December, 2017. Additional Sessions Judge-01, West, Special Court Under the POCSO Act, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
New Sessions Case Number : 57609/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 56/2013.
First Information Report Number : 381/2011. Police Station: Uttam Nagar.
Under sections 342/365/ 376 (2) (g)/506/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code State versus Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu and others. -:: Page 14 of 16 ::-
-:: 16 ::-
******************************************************** New Sessions Case Number : 57609/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 56/2013.
First Information Report Number : 381/2011. Police Station: Uttam Nagar.
Under sections 342/365/ 376 (2) (g)/506/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code State versus Mr.Jasvir @ Jassu and others. -:: Page 14 of 16 ::-