Delhi District Court
State vs . Bharat Kumar @ Manoj @ Mannu, on 11 November, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT, A.S.J. (SPECIAL
FAST TRACK COURT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
SC No. 46/13.
Unique Case ID No. 02405R0109072011.
State Vs. Bharat Kumar @ Manoj @ Mannu,
S/o Sh. Chaggan Lal,
R/o H. No.107, 108,
Manglapuri Phase-I,
New Delhi.
Date of Institution : 16.2.2011.
FIR No.230 dated 16.11.2010.
U/s. 363 IPC.
P.S. Palam Village.
Date of reserving judgment/Order : 29.10.2011.
Date of pronouncement : 11.11.2013.
JUDGMENT
1. The prosecution has chargesheeted above named accused for the offences punishable u/s.363/366/376/302/201 IPC. It is alleged that the accused kidnapped, raped and murdered an infant girl namely 'K' (real name withheld in order to conceal her identity) aged just 6 years.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, as is unfolded in the Charge Sheet, the prosecutrix 'K' had gone missing in the late hours of 15.11.2010. Information about her disappearance was received in the police station and recorded as DD No.41A at 11.45 SC No.46/13. Page 1 of 37 p.m. on the same day. It has been mentioned in the DD entry that the prosecutrix was wearing a red colour Salwar and white colour upper garments and has been missing since 8.30 p.m. The contents of the DD were intimated to ASI Ranvir Singh on telephone with direction to take suitable action. Accordingly, ASI Ranvir Singh alongwith one Constable reached the spot i.e. House No.101, Manglapuri Phase-I, New Deli, and met the complainant Bhupender Podar, the father of the prosecutrix. His statement was recorded wherein he stated that his daughter 'K' was wearing a white flowered shirt and a black coloured jeans pant when she was playing outside her house at 8.30 p.m. and disappeared. On the basis of his statement, ASI Ranvir prepared rukka and got the FIR registered. Investigation was entrusted to SI Chand Singh, who also reached the spot. It was concluded that the prosecutrix has been kidnapped by somebody. SI Chand Singh alongwith the complainant made search for the prosecutrix in the homes and streets of the neighbourhood but could not find her. In the meanwhile, one Rozy @ Kaka met him and stated that she had seen accused Bharat Kumar @ Manoj residing in their neighbourhood, taking away the prosecutrix by holding her finger. SI Chand Singh prepared rough site plan of the spot at the instance of Rozi, filled PCR form and sent wireless messages to NCRB, CBI and Door Darshan. Information was also uploaded on Zipnet. Intense efforts were made to trace the prosecutrix 'K', however, no clue could be found about the prosecutrix or accused Bharat.
3. It is further case of the prosecution that the information was received in the police station on 18.11.2010 at SC No.46/13. Page 2 of 37 1.45 p.m. from the Control Room to the effect that a dead body of a child aged 5 - 6 years wearing black colour jeans pant, is lying near DAV School, Sector-6, Dwarka. The information was recorded as DD No.16A and its contents were intimated to SI Chand Singh and Inspector Satyavir Singh. Inspector Satyavir Singh alongwith HC Surender left for the aforesaid spot where dead body was lying and directed SI Chand Singh to reach there alongwith the family members of the prosecutrix. PCR officials, SHO P.S. Dwarka South, Inspector S.S. Rathi alongwith ASI Dharampal and other staff as also Crime Team were already present at that spot. SI Chand Singh also reached there alongwith the complainant and his family members, who identified the dead body to be that of prosecutrix 'K'. Thereafter, further investigation was entrusted to Inspector Satyavir Singh. He got the spot around the dead body photographed from various angles by Crime Team photographer and inspected the spot. He prepared the rough site plan of the spot and recorded the statement of Crime Team members. He seized seven exhibits from the spot after putting up those in a sealed pullinda having the seal of SSK. He prepared the inquest papers and instructed SI Chand Singh to remove the dead body to DDU Hospital. He alongwith the complainant and his family members reached the house of the complainant and started intensive search for the accused Bharat Kumar @ Manoj. On the same day at about 11.45 p.m. accused Bharat Kumar was arrested from Bus Stand Manglapuri at the instance of a secret informer. He is stated to have made disclosure statement admitting his guilt. He is alleged to have stated in his disclosure statement that on 15.11.2010 he had consumed three quarters of liquor and a strong sexual desire arose in him, on account of which he kidnapped the SC No.46/13. Page 3 of 37 prosecutrix on the pretext of giving her Kurkure, took her to a secluded and dark place in DDA park, Sector-6, Dwarka, where he committed rape upon her and thereafter killed her by hitting her head on a stone about three to four times as she knew him very well and would have exposed his evil deeds. He also stated that after having committed the crime, he had gone to the house of his maternal uncle in village Jhawali, District Alwar, Rajasthan, where he kept the clothes which he was wearing at the time of incident in a plastic bag and washed his underwear. He remained in village Jhawali till 18.11.2010 and returned to Delhi on that day as he came to know that his neighbours were quarrelling with his family members. Thereafter accused led the police party to the house of his maternal uncle in village Jhawali, District Alwar, and got recovered a plastic bag from the house which contained his jeans pant having blood spots as well as other spots and one underwear also having blood spots visible on it. A T-shirt was also contained in the plastic bag. These were seized by Inspector Satyavir. On return to Delhi, the accused pointed out the spot in a gali in Manglapuri Phase-I wherefrom he had kidnapped the prosecutrix, the spot wherefrom he as well as prosecutrix had boarded a TSR, the shop wherefrom he had purchased a packet of Kurkure and the spot in DDA park, Sector-6, Dwarka, where he had raped and killed the prosecutrix.
4. The accused was got medically examined in DDU Hospital and the exhibits handed over by the doctor were seized. On 19.11.2010 SI Chand Singh got the postmortem examination of the dead body conducted in DDU Hospital and thereafter the dead body was handed over to the legal heirs of the deceased. The SC No.46/13. Page 4 of 37 exhibits handed over by autopsy doctor were seized.
5. After the completion of the investigation, Charge Sheet was prepared and submitted to the concerned Ld. Magistrate. Upon committal of the case to the court of Sessions, Charges u/s.363 IPC, u/s.376 IPC, u/s.302 IPC and u/s.201 IPC were framed against the accused on 29.3.2011. The prosecutrix has examined following 36 witnesses to prove the charges against the accused:
(1) PW1 Rozy @ Kaka - She had seen the accused taking away the prosecutrix on 15.11.2010. At about 7.30 p.m. - 8.00 p.m. (2) PW2 SI Virender Kumar - He had reached DDA Park Sector-6, Dwarka, on 18.11.2010 at 11.25 a.m. where Const. Praveen Kumar of Crime Team had been taking photographs of the spot in his presence.
(3) PW3 Sh. Bhupender Poddar - He is the father of the prosecutrix. His deposition would be dealt in detail later on.
(4) PW4 Sh. Devender Kumar Poddar - He is the uncle of the prosecutrix and had identified the dead body of the prosecutrix in DDU Hospital.
(5) PW5 Sh. Narayan Poddar - He is the grandfather of the prosecutrix and had received the dead body of the prosecutrix from DDU Hospital on 19.11.2010. (6) PW6 Const. Arun Kumar - He is the photographer in Crime Team, South West and had taken photographs of the dead body and the spot around it SC No.46/13. Page 5 of 37 in DDA Park, Sector-6, Dwarka, on 18.11.2010. (7) PW7 Sh. Raghuvinder - He was having the contract of levelling and dressing the DDA parks. He alongwith his workers had found the dead body of a girl child aged 6 to 7 years lying in DDA Park, Sector-6, Dwarka, while they were working there. He had informed PCR about the same.
(8) PW8 HC Rajender Singh - He was posted in PCR South West zone and alongwith PCR staff had reached the house of complainant on 15.11.2010 after receipt of call about missing of prosecutrix. (9) PW9 HC Mahender Singh - He had deposited the exhibits of the case in FSL.
(10)PW10 Babloo - The police party had gone to Alwar in his taxi and he was witness to the recovery of clothes by the accused from the house of his maternal uncle.
(11)PW11 Dr. Alok Kumar - He had conducted medical examination of the accused.
(12)PW12 ASI Kamlesh - She was the Duty Officer in P.S. Dwarka South on 18.11.2010 and had recorded DD No.15A regarding discovery of a dead body of a girl child near Ganga Apartments, Sector-6, Dwarka. (13)PW13 ASI Dharam Pal Singh - He had reached DDA Park on 18.11.2010 where dead body of the girl child was lying.
(14)PW14 Const. Vijay Singh - He was posted in Police Control Room on 18.11.2010 and had received telephonic all to the effect that the dead body of a SC No.46/13. Page 6 of 37 girl child was lying in the park, behind petrol pump, Sector-6, Dwarka, near Ganga Apartments. He had filled up PCR form.
(15)PW15 SI Madan Pal - He is Draftsman and had prepared scaled site plan of the spot where the dead body of the prosecutrix was found lying.
(16)PW16 ASI Beg Raj - He was posted in PCR South West zone on 18.11.2010 and was Incharge, PCR Van Zebra 62. He had reached the spot where dead body was lying on 18.11.2010 at about 11 a.m. (17)PW17 ASI Maan Singh - He was the Duty Officer in P.S. Palam Village on 15.11.2010 and had recorded DD No.41A.
(18)PW18 Dr. Yogesh Tyagi - He had conducted postmortem examination of the prosecutrix.
(19)PW19 SI Shanti Parkash - He was the Duty Officer in P.S. Palam Village on 16.11.2010 and had registered FIR in this case.
(20)PW20 HC Vijay Singh - He was the Duty Officer in P.S. Palam Village on 18.11.2010 and had recorded DD No.16A.
(21)PW21 Dr. Rachna Pandey - She had examined the dead body of the prosecutrix when it was brought to DDU Hospital. She had declared her brought dead.
(22)PW22 Const. Om Prakash - He had gone to village Jhawali, District Alwar, alongwith IO for recovery of clothes of the accused.
(23)PW23 Const. Anil - he had taken sealed exhibits SC No.46/13. Page 7 of 37 of this case to FSL on 02.2.2011.
(24)PW24 Const. Rakesh Kumar - He had taken the Rukka from the house of complainant to the police station on the direction of ASI Ranbir Singh and had got the FIR registered.
(25)PW25 Const. Madan Gopal - He alongwith the IO had made search for missing girl on 18.11.2010. He alongwith IO had also reached DDA Park, Sector-6, Dwarka, on receipt of a call from SHO that a dead body of a girl child was lying there.
(26)PW26 HC Surender Singh - He alongwith SHO Inspector Satbir Singh and Const. Suraj Bhan reached DDA Park Sector-6, Dwarka, on 18.11.2010 and had seen the dead body of a six years old girl child lying there. The exhibits lifted from the spot by the IO were seized in his presence. He is also witness to the arrest of the accused and his disclosure statement. He had also gone to village Jhawali, District Alwar, alongwith police officials for recovery of clothes of the accused.
(27)PW27 SI Chand Singh - He had prepared the rough site plan of the spot wherefrom the prosecutrix was kidnapped and had flashed wireless messages regarding her disappearance. He alongwith the complainant had also reached DDA park, Sector-6, Dwarka, on 18.11.2010 and the complainant had identified the dead body of his daughter in his presence. Inspector Satbir Singh had seized the clothes of the dead body and also seized SC No.46/13. Page 8 of 37 the exhibits from the spot in his presence. He also got the postmortem of the dead body conducted in DDU Hospital on 19.11.2010 and had seized the exhibits given by the doctor after the postmortem. (28)PW28 SI Ranvir Singh - DD No.41A was handed over to him for suitable action. He had recorded the statement of the complainant Sh. Bhupender Poddar and had made efforts to trace the missing girl. He also had prepared rukka and got the FIR registered. (29)PW29 Lady Const. Anu Kumari - She was the Computer Operator in Police Headquarter on the night intervening between 15.11.2010 and 16.11.2010 and had received call from mobile no. 9716811943 regarding missing of prosecutrix girl namely 'K'. She passed on the information to South West Control room and to Zebra 70 PCR van.
(30)PW30 Inspector Satyavir Singh - He was the IO of the case till the end.
(31)PW31 Dr. Dhruw Sharma - He had conducted the DNA fingerprinting and comparison of vaginal swab of the prosecutrix and blood sample of the accused and had submitted his report Ex.PW31/A. (32)PW32 Const. Sushil Kumar - He had taken 11 sealed pullindas from MHC(M) on 07.12.2012 and deposited those in FSL Rohini vide RC No.142/21/12 and obtained acknowledgment Ex.PW32/B from FSL. (33)PW33 HC Nihal Singh - He alongwith Inspector Sunder Singh had taken out the accused from jail on 05.12.2012 and produced him in DDU Hospital SC No.46/13. Page 9 of 37 where his blood sample was obtained.
(34)PW34 HC Ram Phool - He was MHC(M) in P.S. Palam Village and had received various exhibits deposited by the IO in Malkhana in this case.
(35)PW35 Inspector Sunder Singh - He was the SHO P.S. Palam Village in November, 2012 and pursuant to order dated 16.11.2012 of Sh. Vijay Kumar Dahiya, Ld. ASJ, had produced two sealed pullindas containing samples of prosecutrix before the concerned Ld. Magistrate where they were resealed by the Ld. Magistrate and were seized by him vide memo Ex.PW34/A. He had also taken permission from the Ld. ASJ to obtain fresh blood sample of the accused for DNA profiling and comparison. He alongwith HC Nihal Singh had taken the accused from Tihar jail to DDU Hospital on 05.12.2012 where his fresh blood sample was obtained. On his direction, 11 sealed pullindas and 3 sample seals were taken by Const. Sushil to FSL Rohini on 07.12.2012 and deposited those in FSL Rohini. (36)PW36 Dr. Vinal Sharma - He had come to depose in place of Dr. Meenal and proved handwriting and signature of Dr. Meenal on the MLC of the accused Ex.PW35/A.
6. Ld. APP has also tendered in evidence the FSL result dated 20.7.2011 and the same is Ex.PXY.
7. The accused has been examined u/s.313 Cr.PC twice, SC No.46/13. Page 10 of 37 firstly on 18.9.2012 and secondly on 27.8.2013. He has denied all the incriminating facts and circumstances put to him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case by Rozi @ Kaka as she was his friend and was insisting him for marriage but he refused to same and a quarrel had taken place between the two.
8. The accused examined his father as DW1 in his defence, who stated that on 15.11.2010 when he returned home after day's work after 6 p.m., he found his son Bharat present in home and having fever. He brought two Crocine tablets from a nearby medical shop and administered the same to him. At about 6.45 p.m. or 7 p.m. they heard a commotion in the gali and came to know that a minor girl, the daughter of Sh. Bhupender, has gone missing. He alongwith two neighbours Sohan Lal and Roshan Lal has set out in search of missing girl but could not find her. He also deposed that on 18.11.2010 police officials came to their house and took him and the accused Bharat to the police station. They both were detained in the police station. He was released after six days but his son Bharat was not released and is still in custody.
9. I have heard Ld. APP, Ld. Counsel for the accused and have perused the entire documentary as well as oral evidence on record.
10. Ld. APP submitted that the evidence lead by the prosecution establishes beyond doubt that accused is guilty of kidnap, rape and murder of the minor girl i.e. the prosecutrix. She submits that prosecutrix was last seen by PW1 in the company of the accused and soon thereafter she was raped and killed even SC No.46/13. Page 11 of 37 though her dead body could be discovered after three days. According to her, accused has failed to explain the blood spots o0n his clothes which he had hidden in the house of his maternal uncle in village Jhawlli. She further submitted that last and clinching piece of evidence against the accused is the DNA report, as per which the DNA extracted from the blood sample of the accused has matched with the DNA extracted from vaginal swab of the prosecutrix which conclusively establishes that it is only the accused who raped and killed her. She also argued that the testimony of DW1 is not trustworthy as the same is in total contradiction to what the accused stated in his examination u/s. 313 Cr.PC.
11. Per Contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that there is no legally admissible evidence on record to connect the accused with the rape and murder of the prosecutrix. His first contention is that the mandatory provision of law enshrined in section 157 Cr.PC has not been complied with in this case as the copy of FIR has not been sent to the concerned Magistrate which shows that the FIR is ante timed and was recored on the basis of a story concocted by the police in collusion with the complainant. According to him, the non compliance of this mandatory provision of law nullifies the whole investigation conducted by police and points towards the false implication of the accused. He next submitted that the statement of PW1 appears to have been recorded by police on 16.11.2010 but even then the name of accused does not find mention in the crime team report Ex.PW2/A, inquest papers etc. which were prepared on 18.11.2010, thereby implying that either the police itself didn't believe the statement of SC No.46/13. Page 12 of 37 PW1 or her statement was not recorded by that time and she was planted as a witness later on and hence she is not a reliable witness. He further argued that even otherwise also, deposition of PW1 does not link the accused with the crime as she had seen the accused taking away the prosecutrix on 15.11.2010 at 7.30/8.00 p.m. but the exact time of death of the prosecutrix has not been mentioned in the postmortem report and hence there is no evidence on record that the prosecutrix was raped and killed in close proximity of the time when she was seen with the accused by PW1. The Ld. Counsel assailed the DNA report also as being manipulated and concocted. He submits that initially the police did not request FSL officials to conduct DNA fingerprinting of the samples of the deceased with those of the accused. It is when the case was listed for final arguments that prosecution came up with an application u/s.311 Cr.PC in this regard. He further submits that even then the court directed only exhibit nos.7 and 11 be sent to FSL, however, the IO sent all the 11 exhibits to FSL. The IO made an application to the court for permission to obtain fresh blood sample of the accused, as required by the FSL officials, which was granted and fresh blood sample of accused taken and sent to FSL but strangely the DNA was extracted from the previous blood sample of the accused. The Ld. Counsel would submit that all this only points to the manipulation of the DNA report as the prosecution had realised by then that it has failed to adduce any conclusive evidence against the accused. He also argued that as per FSL result Ex.PXY dated 20.7.2011, the semen stains found in the vaginal swab of the prosecutrix did not exhibit any reaction, how could DNA be extracted from the same later on.
SC No.46/13. Page 13 of 3712. The Ld. Counsel for the accused relied upon the three judgments of the Supreme Court reported as Shivlal & anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, JT 2011 (13) SC 309, Bhera Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and Rajesh Kumar Raju Vs. State of Delhi, 2011 (4) JCC 3055 to canvass importance of compliance of section 157 Cr.PC; on judgments of the High Court reported as Riaz Ali vs. State (Govt. of NCT) of Delhi, 194 (2012) DLT 706 (DB), Mahadev vs. State, 191 (2012) DLT 309 (DB), Mahesh & anr. vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2012 III AD (Delhi) 443 and Sahadevan & anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, JT 2012 (5) SC 151 to convey the principles to be kept in mind while evaluating circumstantial evidence as well as last seen evidence. He also relied upon the literature contained in the book (DNA Technology in Administration of Justice) by Jyotirmoy Adhikari to convince the court that the DNA report is not always a reliable and trustworthy piece of evidence. He pleaded for acquittal of the accused.
13. In rebuttal, Ld. APP submitted that copy of FIR had been duly sent to the concerned Illaqa Magistrate in consonance with the provisions of section 157 Cr.PC, though this fact has remained to be proved by the prosecution. She submits that though there is no endorsement of Ld. M.M. on the FIR that he has seen the same yet the FIR register maintained in P.S. Palam Village duly contains the signature of the Ld. M.M. showing that he had seen and received copy of the FIR in this case. She further submitted that it is not necessary that DNA cannot be extracted from an article which does not exhibit any reaction when it is sought to know it is group.
SC No.46/13. Page 14 of 3714. By now it is clear that there is no ocular version of the incident and the prosecution case hinges on the circumstantial evidence including the last seen evidence of PW1 and the forensic evidence. In cases based upon circumstantial evidence the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The same should be of a conclusive nature and exclude all possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. The facts so established must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and the chain of evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused.
15. In Krishan vs. State represented by Inspector of Police (2008) 15 SCC 430, the Supreme Court after considering a large number of its earlier judgments observed that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests :
(i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established;
(ii) those circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(iii)the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that with all human probability the crime SC No.46/13. Page 15 of 37 was committed by the accused and none else; and
(iv)the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
16. Further it has been consistently held by the High Court and the Supreme Court that the last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of the other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases. (See 2005 (3) SCC 114 State of U.P. vs. Satish).
17. Keeping the aforesaid basic principles governing circumstantial evidence and last seen evidence in mind, let me now proceed to scrutinize the evidence lead by the prosecution.
18. At the outset, let me deal with the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the accused regarding non compliance of section 157 Cr.PC. It is true that prosecution has not produced any SC No.46/13. Page 16 of 37 evidence to show that copy of FIR has been sent to the concerned Illaqa Magistrate. But I consider that accused cannot derive any benefit from that. FIR has been recorded on the missing information given by the father of prosecutrix. He has not suspected the name of offender in his FIR statement. Infact, he never knew who the offender was. He had just given to police the information about the missing of his daughter, which fact is not disputed from the side of the accused. Undoubtedly, there has been breach of provisions of section 157 Cr.PC, but that alone cannot be made ground for throwing out the prosecution case. Such breach cannot be read in isolation but has to be read together with other evidence lead by the prosecution in order to ascertain whether it infact creates a dent in the prosecution case and falsifies the same. In this regard, I am fortified by the observations of the Supreme Court in Munshi Prasad and others vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2001 SC 3031, wherein it was held :
"While it is true that section 157 of the Code makes its obligatory on the officer Incharge of a police station to send a report of the information received to a Magistrate forthwith but that does not mean and imply to denounce and discard an otherwise positive and trustworthy evidence on record. Technicalities ought not to out way the course of justice - if the court is otherwise convinced and has come to a conclusion as regards the truthfulness of the prosecution case, mere delay, which can otherwise be ascribed to be reasonable, would not by itself demolish the SC No.46/13. Page 17 of 37 prosecution case."
19. There is no dispute from the side of the accused to the fact that the minor girl 'K' has been murdered and her dead body was found in DDA park, Sector-6, Dwarka, on 18.11.2010. The dead body was first seen by PW7 on 18.11.2010 at about 11 a.m. and he made a call at telephone no.100. As per the deposition of PW3 and IO (PW27) they had reached the DDA park, Sector-6, Dwarka, when PW3 identified the dead body to be that of his daughter 'K'. PW4, the uncle of the deceased also identified her dead body in the mortuary of DDU Hospital on 19.11.2010. After the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to PW4 and PW5. There is no cross examination of these witnesses on this aspect and it stands established that the dead body found by PW7 in DDA park, Sector-6, Dwarka, was that of prosecutrix 'K'.
20. It is also evident from the postmortem report Ex.PW18/A and the testimony of PW18 that the death of prosecutrix was a homicidal one and that she had been raped before put to death. Following external injuries were seen on the body of the prosecutrix during the postmortem examination :
(1) Fresh abrasions are present over (a) back of left hand, vertically placed 3x2 cms. (b) Right hypochondrial region 3x1 cms. (c) Midline front of neck of size 2x1 cms., 1.0 cms above suprasternal notch.
(2) Fresh lacerated wounds over (a) right index finger SC No.46/13. Page 18 of 37 distal phalanx 1x0.5x0.5 cms. (b) Left great toe, 4th and 5th toes, and 1x0.5x0.5 cms. each. (c) Right small toe 0.5x0.5x0.5 cms. (d) middle of forehead, vertically placed, 2.5x0.5xbone deep (e) Left eyebrow, horizontally placed, 2.5x0.5x0.4 cms. (f) Right forehead 5x3x bone deep, skin and soft tissue is missing (g) Left forehead 7x5x bone deep, skin and soft tissue is missing. (h) Vertically placed over left upper lip and left side nose, 4x0.5x bone deep. (i) right side of chin of size 3x2x cms bone deep, horizontally places with fracture of mandible. (j) Left chin 3x2 cms x bone deep. (k) Tip of chin of size 1x1x0.5 cms.
(3) Fresh contusion of (a) right eye with hemorrhage of conjunctiva (b) Right angle of mandible 5x5 cms with fracture of right ramus of mandible with extravasations of blood.
21. Besides these external injuries, a fresh tear was present in vaginal opening at 6'O Clock positions of size 1.5X0.5X1.0 cms. Multiple customs and multiple tears were present all around on vaginal walls and few maggots were present around vaginal opening. The autopsy doctor (PW18) has given his opinion as :
"The cause of death is shock due to injuries to head and face produced by multiple blunt force impacts. All injuries are antemortem in nature. Injuries over head and face are individually and collectively sufficient to SC No.46/13. Page 19 of 37 cause death in ordinary course of nature. Injuries present in vagina are suggestive of sexual intercourse. Time since death is 3 - 4 days"
22. The findings contained in postmortem report and the opinion of PW18 has remained unchallenged from the side of the accused. Nothing has been brought to my notice by the Ld. Counsel for the accused to disbelieve the opinion of PW18. Therefore, it is established beyond doubt that the little girl was raped and then killed.
23. The moot issue which now arises for determination is who did it. According to the prosecution, the accused has done it but the accused claims false implication.
24. PW3, the father of the prosecutrix, has deposed that on 15.11.2010, when he was present at his workplace in Domestic Airport at about 10.30/11 p.m., he received a call from his wife informing him that their daughter 'K' was not traceable at home. He immediately reached home and searched for his daughter but could not find her. He made call at telephone no.100 at about 11.45 p.m. and also went to the police station where he met SI Ranvir Singh. His statement Ex.PW3/A was recorded. Next morning he alongwith SI Chand again made search for the little girl in their neighbourhood and made inquiries from the neighbours. One lady Rozy residing in his neighbourhood told SI Chand that she had seen 'K' going alongwith accused Bharat (also a neighbour) on 15.11.2010 at about 8.30 p.m. Thereafter, SI Chand recorded her statement and made inquiries from parents of SC No.46/13. Page 20 of 37 accused but they did not give any definite answer. Accused could not be found on that day.
25. The exact time when the girl 'K' had gone missing has not been given by PW3. However, in his call to PCR, which has been recorded in the police station at DD No.41A Ex.PW17/A, he has mentioned that 'K' is missing since 8.30 p.m.
26. PW1 has deposed that on 15.11.2010, when she was cleaning the floor of her house at about 7.30 p.m./8 p.m., she saw the girl 'K' playing in the gali and then accused took her alongwith him towards the main road. Police made inquiries from her on the next day and recorded her statement. In the cross examination, she stated that she did not ask the accused why he was taking 'K' as her family was not on talking terms with the family of accused. She did not find it strange when she saw accused taking 'K' with him as she had earlier also seen accused talking to her many times. She also deposed that sometime before, accused had assaulted her brother-in-law (Jija) due to which her Jija had sustained head injury. She further stated that police had made general inquiries from her on 16.11.2010 and till that time she did not have any suspicion on the accused.
27. It is evident that PW1 neither told the parents of 'K' nor anybody else that she had seen accused taking her away till police made inquiries from her on 16.11.2010. Obviously, there would have been a lot of commotion in the gali on 15.11.2010 when it was noticed that 'K' has disappeared. Everybody including police was searching for her but PW1 remained silent and did not SC No.46/13. Page 21 of 37 inform anybody about what she had seen. Her long eerie silence raises doubts about her credibility and trustworthiness. Moreover, it is not clear when exactly her statement was recorded by police. She says that her statement was recorded on 16.11.2010. PW3 also, in his examination in chief, has stated that SI Chand (PW27) recorded statement of PW1 on 16.11.2010 but in his cross examination stated that PW1 informed him and PW27 on 18.11.2010 between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. that she had seen 'K' with the accused in the late evening on the date of incident. PW27 does not state anything in this regard in his examination in chief. In cross examination, he deposed that he had inquiries from PW1 Rozy on 17.11.2010 for the first time and on the same day, she told him that she had seen 'K' in the company of the accused. He further deposed that he suspected accused being the assailant in the case when the neighbours informed him on 18.11.2010 at about 12 noon that accused was missing since the night of 15.11.2010. Prior to 18.11.2010 he had some suspicion on the accused but was not sure.
28. The deposition of PW27 shows that either he had not recorded the statement of PW1 till 18.11.2010 or he did not take her seriously. Otherwise, he would have concluded on 17.11.2010 itself that accused is the suspected offender. His deposition, if read in juxtaposition with that of PW3, suggests that statement of PW1 was recorded on 18.11.2010 and not on 16.11.2010 or 17.11.2010.
29. Coming back to the testimony of PW1, it appears to be neither totally acceptable nor wholly unacceptable. She knew both SC No.46/13. Page 22 of 37 the prosecutrix as well as the accused very well as both were her neighbours. So it can't be said that she did not have any opportunity to see the prosecutrix playing in the gali or the accused taking her away. She has been candid enough to state that there were hostilities between her family and the family of the accused and has explained that because of these hostile relations, she did not ask the accused why he was taking the prosecutrix with him. However, her silence over the matter till 17.11.2010 or 18.11.2010, not getting alarmed soon after becoming aware about the missing of the little girl and her Jija having suffered injuries at the hands of the accused, on account of which she may have enwombed a feeling of revenge against the accused, convey an impression that she may not telling truth and may be a planted witness.
30. The Supreme Court in Vadivelu Thevar vs. State of Madras (AIR 1957 SC 614) classified witnesses into three categories namely (i) those that are wholly reliable, (ii) those that are wholly unreliable and (iii) who are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the case of first category the courts have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion either way. It can convict or acquit the accused on the deposition of a single witness if it is found to be fully reliable. In the second category also, there is no difficulty in arriving at an appropriate conclusion for there is no question of placing any reliance upon the deposition of a wholly unreliable witness. It is only in the case of witnesses who are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable that the courts have to be circumspect and have to look for corroboration in material particular by reliable testimony direct or circumstantial.
SC No.46/13. Page 23 of 3731. In my opinion, it would be against the canons of the justice to rely upon the testimony of PW1 unless it is corroborated in material particulars from the other evidence on record.
32. I may also note that even if the testimony of PW1 is found reliable, then also it would not lead the court anywhere as there is no evidence on record to show that prosecutrix had been raped and killed soon after she was seen with accused by PW1. The only evidence in this regard is postmortem report Ex.PW18/A, according to which the prosecutrix may have been killed either on 15.11.2010 or on 16.11.2010. Therefore, it can't be said with certainty that the prosecutrix was raped and killed in close proximity to the time when PW1 had seen the accused taking her with him.
33. The accused has been arrested by the IO Inspector Satyavir Singh (PW30) on 19.11.2010 at 12.20 a.m. vide arrest memo Ex.PW26/A. In his disclosure statement Ex.PW26/C, he stated that after committing the crime, he slept in his house, rose up at 4 a.m. the next morning and left for the house of his maternal uncle in village Jhavli, Alwar as he feared that somebody may have seen him committing the crime and he may be apprehended. He stayed in the house of his maternal uncle till 18.11.2010 and had kept his blue colour jeans, T-shirt and underwear, which he was wearing at the time of commission of offence, in a plastic bag in that house. He had washed his underwear while bathing on 16.11.2010.
SC No.46/13. Page 24 of 3734. The deposition of PW22, PW26 and PW30 evidences that they alongwith the accused had gone to the village Jhawli, Alwar, in the taxi of PW10 in the night of 19.11.2010 where the accused recovered a polythene bag from the house of his maternal uncle which contained a blood stained jeans of blue colour, a striped T-shirt and one underwear. These were put in a pullinda, sealed with seal of SSK and seized by PW30 vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A. There is nothing in the cross examination of these witnesses which may shatter their testimony in this regard. PW10 too appears to be a genuine witness and not a planted or a stock witness.
35. Therefore, it is proved that the accused had concealed his blood stained clothes in the house of his maternal uncle in village Jhawli, Alwar, Rajasthan. Thus the corresponding portion of his disclosure statement becomes relevant and admissible in evidence in view of section 27 of the Evidence Act. Hence it gets established that the accused had visited the house of his maternal uncle at Alwar between 16.11.2010 and 18.11.2010 and had concealed his blood stained clothes there.
36. The accused has failed to explain the purpose of his visit to the house of his maternal uncle between 16.11.2010 and 18.11.2010, the presence of blood stains on his clothes and why he had concealed his clothes in a polythene bag in the said house at village Jhawla.
37. From the deposition of PW3, PW6, PW13, PW26, PW27 and PW30 (IO), it comes out that they had reached the DDA Park, SC No.46/13. Page 25 of 37 Sector-6, Dwarka, on 18.11.2010 and had seen the dead body of the prosecutrix lying there which was in semi nude condition. All of them have testified that the deceased was wearing only a printed frock and her lower portion was naked. A pair of yellow colour slippers, a black colour jeans, a piece of broken bangle, a packet of 'Kurkure' was found lying near the dead body. The photographs Ex.PW6/A1, Ex.PW6/A2 and Ex.PW6/A3 taken by PW6 show a pair of yellow colour slippers and a black colour jeans lying near the dead body. These witnesses have further deposed that all these articles were lifted from the spot by PW30, sealed in separate pullindas and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A. These articles have been identified by them in court and are Ex.P1, Ex.P2, Ex.P5 and Ex.P6. Nothing contrary has been elicited in the cross examination of these witnesses in this regard.
38. PW30 had then sent the dead body to DDU Hospital where its autopsy was conducted by PW18 who had sealed the clothes, vaginal swabs and blood on gauze of the deceased and handed over those to the PW30 alongwith postmortem report on 24.12.2010.
39. These exhibits alongwith the clothes, blood sample, semen sample and pubic hair sample of the accused were sent to the FSL Rohini for biological examination. As per the FSL report Ex.PXY, human semen was detected in the vaginal swabs of the deceased and human blood was found on the clothes of deceased as well as those of the accused. Since the IO had not made any request for DNA profiling & comparison of the exhibits, the FSL officials conducted only biological examination of the exhibits sent SC No.46/13. Page 26 of 37 to them.
40. It appears that when the case was listed for final arguments on 16.11.2012, the prosecution, after realizing its negligence in not requesting the FSL for a DNA fingerprinting & comparison of the exhibits, filed an application u/s.311 Cr.PC for permission to send samples of deceased as well as accused again to FSL for DNA fingerprinting report. The application was allowed and the IO was directed to send vaginal swabs of the deceased and semen sample of the accused (Ex.7 and Ex.11 as mentioned in FSL report Ex.PXY) to FSL for DNA profiling. PW31, PW32, PW33, PW34, PW35 and PW36 have been examined in this regard.
41. Before discussing the testimony of these witnesses, it may be noted that on 30.11.2012, the IO Inspector Surender Singh again filed an application before the court stating that FSL officials have advised him that a fresh blood sample of the accused would be required for DNA analysis and hence the court allowed him to take the accused to the hospital for obtaining his fresh blood sample. In this regard, PW35 (IO) has deposed that he had visited FSL on 27.11.2012 to enquire what samples would be needed for DNA profiling and he was advised that a fresh blood sample of the accused would be required for the same.
42. As per the testimony of PW33, he had received the custody of accused from Tihar jail on 15.12.2012. He alongwith IO (PW35) took the accused to DDU Hospital where the doctor obtained his fresh blood sample, handed over the same to PW35 in sealed condition who seized it vide seizure memo Ex.PW33/A. SC No.46/13. Page 27 of 37
43. PW34 and PW35 have deposed that on 26.11.2012, they took two sealed pullindas containing the samples of the prosecutrix to the court of Sh. Pankaj Sharma, Ld. M.M. The sealed pullindas were resealed before the Ld. M.M. with the seal of Ld. M.M. (i.e. PS) and the pullindas were seized by PW35 vide memo Ex.PW34/A and were brought back to the police station and deposited in Malkhana. Their testimony further shows that on the directions of PW35, PW32 took 11 sealed pullindas and three sample seals from the Malkhana on 07.12.2012 and deposited those in FSL Rohini vide RC No.142/21/12. PW32 proved the photocopy of the RC as Ex.PW32/A and photocopy of the acknowledgment as Ex.PW32/B. PW34, the MHC(M), proved the entry made in the Malkhana register in this regard as Ex.PW34/A.
44. The exhibits were subjected to DNA profiling and comparison in the FSL by PW31 Dr. Dhruw Sharma. He proved his report as Ex.PW31/A, according to which the vaginal swabs of the deceased and blood sample of accused (Ex.7 and Ex.10 mentioned in earlier FSL report Ex.PXY) were subjected to DNA isolation and male DNA was extracted from both. The allelic data of Ex.10 were found to be similar to allelic data of Ex.7 which implies that semen of the accused was present inside the vagina of the deceased/ prosecutrix.
45. PW31 has been cross examined in detail by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. The answers given by him to the questions put to him by the Ld. Counsel in cross examination go on to add to the authenticity, reliability and credibility of his report SC No.46/13. Page 28 of 37 and do not contain anything which may give a contrary impression. I find it unnecessary to reproduce here the entire cross examination. He has described the process and the kit used by him in arriving at the conclusion regarding the exhibits in question. I do not find anything in his cross examination which may advance the defence of the accused that his report is not a genuine but a procured one.
46. One thing, which is noticed from the report of PW31, is that he subjected the earlier blood sample of the accused to DNA analysis and not his fresh blood sample which had been obtained on 15.12.2012. However nothing much can be read into it. He found the earlier blood smaple of the accused capable of DNA analysis and accordingly used the same. So there was no necessity to conduct DNA analysis of the fresh blood sample. It would be ridiculous and preposterous to say that the old blood sample of the accused had been tampered with by the police to strengthen its case against the accused. This is simply for the reason that the vaginal swabs of the prosecutrix had not been subjected to DNA profiling earlier and hence police was totally unaware whether it contained any male DNA and if so, of what type of allelic data. The vaginal swabs of the prosecutrix were subjected to DNA profiling by PW31 simultaneously alongwith the blood sample of the accused and only then it could be found that male DNA was present in vaginal swabs, which was of same allelic data as that of the DNA extracted from blood sample of the accused. Hence, in my opinion, the report Ex.PW31/A of PW31 cannot be faulted with or attacked in any respect and same be absolutely genuine and trustworthy.
SC No.46/13. Page 29 of 3747. The argument of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the DNA report Ex.PW31/A cannot be relied upon and seems to the manipulated as how could DNA be extracted from the vaginal swab of the prosecutrix when on earlier examination, as contained in FSL result Ex.PXY, it did not show any reaction, cannot be countenanced. At the time of earlier examination, only grouping of the semen found in vaginal swab was sought to be detected and it showed no reaction. The report does not mention that the sample was found to be putrified. Had the sample (vaginal swab) been putrified, then it could not have been known that semen was present in it. ABO grouping and the extraction of DNA are two different processes. DNA can be extracted even from highly degraded samples by employing mini STR process, which has been created lately and enables the forensic scientists to capture genetic data from DNA samples of marginal and extremely low quality and quantity. PW31 has deposed in his cross examination that he had used STR amplification kit for amplification of the 16 STR locus profile and had used genes mapper IDX software for analysis of the results obtained. He has also deposed that he has given his report Ex.PW31/A after isolating the DNA from Ex.4 (vaginal swab) and Ex.7 (the blood gauze of the accused) which he had earlier also examined in the year 2011. No question has been put to him whether Ex.4 i.e. the vaginal swab of the prosecutrix was in good condition for isolation of DNA or had it become putrified. In fact, there is no cross examination of PW31 regarding the condition of Ex.4. If the accused intended to challenge the DNA report Ex.PW31/A on the ground that the SC No.46/13. Page 30 of 37 sample Ex.4 (vaginal swab of the prosecutrix) was not in such a condition that DNA could be extracted from it, questions should have been put to PW31 in this regard as he was the best person to answer those questions. The only question regarding Ex.4 specifically which was put to PW31 was if he had generated any female DNA profile also from the said exhibit to which he replied that in case of vaginal swab mixed with semen, DNA isolation is made by a differential technique so that only male DNA can be isolated if present and its profile be prepared to compare with the that of the DNA profile of the accused and the same was done in this case also. Therefore, I find nothing on record to suggest that the sample Ex.P4 (vaginal swab of the prosecutrix) was not in such a good condition that it could be subjected to DNA profiling.
48. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has failed to point out anything in the testimony of PW31 which would make his report unreliable. The court cannot substitute its own opinion in place of the opinion of an expert on a technical subject like DNA profiling. In Bhagwan Das vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1957 SC 589, the Supreme Court held that it would be dangerous doctrine to lay down that report of an expert witness could be brushed aside by making reference to some textbooks without such textbooks put to the expert.
49. Thus the report of PW31 conclusively proves that the semen of the accused was found in the vagina of the deceased prosecutrix indicating that the accused had raped her. This gives rise to the presumption that accused killed her thereafter unless the accused shows that he did not kill her and it was somebody SC No.46/13. Page 31 of 37 else who killed her. The accused had failed to rebut the said presumption. He has neither cross examined the prosecution witnesses in this regard nor produced any evidence in his defence. Further I see no reason why would somebody else kill the minor girl when she had been raped by the accused.
50. It is now clear that there is no other clinching evidence on record linking the accused to the kidnap, rape and murder of the prosecutrix except the DNA fingerprinting report Ex.PW31/A. The last seen evidence in the nature of testimony of PW1 is not reliable and does not advance the case of prosecution against the accused. The prosecution has proved no other circumstance pointing towards the guilt of the accused except the recovery of blood stained clothes by the accused from his maternal uncle's home, which is a very weak circumstance and does not point unerringly towards the only hypothesis i.e. the guilt of the accused. The question, therefore, arises whether the accused can be held guilty only on the basis of DNA profiling report of PW31.
51. In my opinion, the answer should, undoubtedly, be in affirmative.
52. There cannot be any two opinions about the legal principle that an accused can be held guilty and convicted on the sole basis of DNA report which establishes his complicity in the offence alleged against him. It cannot be disputed that in the past 20 years, DNA typing has enhanced the ability of the forensic SC No.46/13. Page 32 of 37 scientists to characterize biological evidence and has greatly influenced the way the law enforcement community conducts criminal investigations.
53. DNA plays an important role in modern forensic science. Today, DNA fingerprinting has become one of the primary methods of identifying people and solving crimes. DNA stands for Deoxyribonucleic Acid. It is the genetic material of a human cell. It can also be described as the blueprint of an organism. DNA is contained in blood, semen, skin cells, tissues, organs, muscle, brain cells, bone, teeth, hair, saliva, mucus, perspiration, fingernails, urine, feces etc.
54. The chemical structure of everyone's DNA is the same. The only difference between people is the order of base pairs. There are so many millions of base pairs in each person's DNA that every person has a different sequence. From these sequences every person could be identified solely by the sequence of their base pairs. Instead, scientists are able to use a shorter method due to repeating patterns in DNA. These patterns do not, however, give an individual "fingerprint" but they are able to determine whether two DNA samples are from the same person, related people, or non related people. This is called DNA fingerprinting or profiling.
55. The process of DNA fingerprinting was developed by Professor Alec Jeffreys at Leicester University in 1984 as a form of genetic analysis. It was first used in the law courts of England in 1987 to convict a man in a rape case. It is now being used SC No.46/13. Page 33 of 37 successfully world over in many crime and paternity cases. It has been observed that no two people except identical twins, share the same set of DNA. At the worst, there is one in 50 billion chances of two DNA sequences being similar. Unlike a conventional fingerprint that occurs only on the fingertips and can be altered by surgery, a DNA fingerprint is the same for every tissue, and organ of a person. It cannot be altered by any known treatment.
56. Also known as DNA genetic typing or DNA profiling, DNA fingerprinting is simply collection, processing and analysis of VNTRs - unique sequences on the loci (area on chromosome). VNTR stands for variable number Tandem repeats - meaning that the tandem repeats, or pairs of nucleotides, vary in number. Most DNA sequences in different people look too similar to tell apart. After processing, however, VNTRs result in bands that are unique enough to be used for identification.
57. Hence the DNA report is very strong and reliable piece of evidence in a criminal case and carries as much weight as ocular testimony. The DNA profiling is used worldwide now for identification of the criminals, more particularly, in rape and murder cases. Scientific research has shown that that no two persons except the identical twins share the same pattern of DNA and the possibility of two persons having same DNA pattern is one in 50 billion whereas the world population as of now, according to United States Census Bureau, is just a little over seven billion. PW31 also has deposed in his cross examination that identifiler plus DNA - STR amplification kit has a discrimination power in the SC No.46/13. Page 34 of 37 order of 10 exp 18 (1018) which is far greater in proportion to the world population and it is for this reason this kit is used widely all over world today for DNA profiling. He has also deposed that all the 16 characters/allelic data of the two persons even brothers, sisters, parents, grandparents etc. cannot be similar.
58. Thus, in view of such unique characteristics of human DNA, the conviction of an accused can be based exclusively upon the DNA report only if found to be genuine and free from manipulation. DNA report cannot be ignored completely on mere surmises and conjectures. The Supreme Court also has in Santosh Kumar vs. State, (2010) 9 SCC 747 accepted DNA report as being scientifically accurate and an exact science.
59. In the present case, I have already held that DNA report Ex.PW31/A is absolutely reliable and genuine document and therefore, conviction of the accused can be based upon that alone.
60. Apart from the DNA report Ex.PW31/A, I also find that the stark contradictions in the explanation given by the accused in his examination u/s.313 Cr.PC and the deposition of his father DW1 too indicate that the accused is guilty of the offences with which he has been charged. The accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.PC firstly on 18.9.2012. He was again examined u/s.313 Cr.PC on 27.8.2013 after PW31, PW32, PW33, PW34, PW35 and PW36 were examined in the circumstances as mentioned hereinabove. In examination dated 18.9.2012, the accused stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case by PW1 Rozy as he had relations with her and she was insisting him for marriage but he SC No.46/13. Page 35 of 37 refused the same as he had seen her with two or three boys and then a quarrel had taken place between them. In examination dated 27.8.2013, he simply stated that he has been falsely implicated. However, DW1, the father of the accused has come up with a totally different alibi. According to his deposition, the accused was having fever in the evening of 15.11.2010 and he had administered a Crocine tablet to him. At about 7 p.m., they heard some commotion in the gali and on inquiries from the persons gathered there, came to know that a minor girl, daughter of Bhupinder has gone missing. He alongwith two other neigbours had also gone for search of the missing girl. He further deposed that on 18.11.2010, police officials came to their house, took him as well as accused to the police station and were detained there. He was released after six days but accused was not released at all.
61. The deposition of this witness ex-facie appears to be false and concocted. If infact the things had happened that way, as deposed by him, the accused would have certainly stated so in his examination u/s.313 Cr.PC, which was conducted not once but twice. Further when the accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.PC for the first time on 18.9.2012, he stated that he does not want to lead evidence in defence and the case was adjourned for final arguments. DW1 also did not come forward at that time for giving evidence. No reason has been given by DW1 which precluded him from appearing as witness at that time. Besides, the accused in answer to question no.36 put to him on 18.9.2012, has not denied that he was arrested on 18.11.2010 vide arrest memo Ex.PW26/A. He only stated that he was wrongly arrested in this case. There also he has exposed the lie stated by DW1 in his testimony in this SC No.46/13. Page 36 of 37 regard. The accused has nowhere stated that his father also was taken to police station alongwith him and detained there for 10 days.
62. Hence, the evidence of DW1, instead of suggesting the innocence of the accused, has added a circumstance which leads to the inference about the guilt of the accused.
63. I conclude by holding that the prosecution has been successful in establishing beyond doubt that it was the accused who had kidnapped, raped and murdered the deceased minor girl. However, prosecution has failed to prove the charge u/s.201 IPC against the accused as there is no evidence on record to show that the accused had washed his underwear, except his own disclosure statement which has no evidentiary value.
64. Thus the accused is convicted of having committed the offences punishable u/s.363 IPC, u/s.376 IPC and u/s.302 IPC.
Announced in open (VIRENDER BHAT)
Court on 11.11.2013. Addl. Sessions Judge
(Special Fast Track Court)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
SC No.46/13. Page 37 of 37