Delhi District Court
State vs (I) Raju @ Rajesh S/O Laxman Singh on 23 March, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. BRIJESH KUMAR GARG:
SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS)/ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE (NORTH
EAST) : KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
SC 21(I)/09
FIR 279/09
PS Gokal Puri
Under Section 302/34 IPC
ID 02402R0338102009
State Versus (i) Raju @ Rajesh S/o Laxman Singh
R/o B178, Gokalpuri, Delhi.
(ii) Suresh S/o Laxman Singh
R/o B178, Gokalpuri, Delhi.
(iii) Roshan S/o Laxman Singh
R/o B178, Gokalpuri, Delhi.
Date of Institution 17.11.2009
Date of hearing arguments 16.03.2012
Date of decision 23.03.2012
J U D G M E N T
1. In the present case, all the three accused are facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC, on the allegations, that on 07.09.2009 at about 10.00 P.M., at ABlock, Gokal Puri, Near post FIR279/09 PSGokal Puri Page 1/23 office Main Road, Delhi, withing the jurisdiction of PS Gokal Puri, all of them, in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily caused several injuries to Manoj Kumar S/o Kailash Rai, due to which, he succumbed to his injuries in GTB Hospital on 08.09.2009 at about 2.40 a.m.
2. In order to prove the charges against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses:
(i) PW1, Raj Kumar S/o Kailash Rai, the brother of deceased Manoj Kumar, who is the complainant and alleged eyewitness of the incident.
(ii) PW2, Kailash Chand Rai S/o Satya Narain Rai, the father of the deceased Manoj Kumar and another alleged eyewitness of the incident.
(iii) PW3, ASI Kali Ram, the Duty Officer, who received the rukka Ex.PW18/A sent by ASI Suraj Bhan through Ct. Ritesh and registered case FIR no. 279/2009 U/s 308/34 IPC and made the endorsement on the rukka. This witness has proved the FIR as Ex.PW3/B and his endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW3/A.
(iv) PW4, HC Rajender, who was posted at PS Gokal Puri as MHCM. This witness has proved various entries regarding the FIR279/09 PSGokal Puri Page 2/23 deposition of various articles in the Malkhana, during the investigation of this case.
(v) PW5, HC Pawan Kumar, who joined investigations of this case on 08.09.2009 and 10.09.2009 with IO Inspector Sushma Rawat. Accused Raju @ Rajesh was arrested in his presence. This witness has proved his arrest memo Ex.PW1/B, personal search memo Ex.PW1/C, disclosure statement Ex.PW1/D, pointing out memo Ex.PW1/E and seizure memo Ex.PW1/F. On 08.09.2009, Ct. Ritesh Kumar handed over a viscera box to Inspector Sushma Rawat, in his presence vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. This witness has also proved the recovery of Saria (iron rod) Ex.P1, from the room of accused Raju @ Rajesh.
(vi) PW6, Ct. Roop Singh, who joined the investigations with Inspector Sushma Rawat and HC Radhey on 23.10.2009, during the arrest of accused Roshan and Suresh. This witness has proved the recovery of two dandas Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, from their house vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/B. This witness has deposited the cloth parcel & blood gauze at FSL Rohini, for expert opinion.
(vii) PW7, HC Radhey Shayam, who joined investigations of this FIR279/09 PSGokal Puri Page 3/23 case with Inspector Sushma Rawat and Ct. Roop Ram on 23.10.2009.
(viii) PW8, SI Mukesh Kumar, Draftsman, who inspected the spot of crime on 23.10.2009 alongwith Inspector Sushma Rawat and prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PW8/A.
(ix) PW9, Ct. Dharam Pal Singh, who deposited the parcel containing viscera box of the deceased Manoj @ Chetu, at FSL Rohini.
(x) PW10, Dr. Sumit, who has proved MLC No. C4048/09 dated 07.09.2009, of deceased Manoj, prepared by Dr. Anupam, as Ex.PW10/A.
(xi) PW11, Ct. Hitesh, who went to the spot on 07.09.2009 with ASI Suraj Bhan, after receiving DD no. 32A at about 10.30 p.m. regarding a quarrel. This witness has remained in investigations with first IO ASI Suraj Bhan and second Investigation Officer Inspector Sushma Rawat on 07.09.2009 and 08.09.2009. This witness has taken the rukka from the GTB hospital to the police station for registration of the FIR and after registration of FIR, took the rukka, copy of FIR to the spot and handed over the same to the IO ASI Suraj Bhan. This FIR279/09 PSGokal Puri Page 4/23 witness has also proved the seizure of viscera box vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A and the request of the IO for conducting postmortem of the dead body as Ex.PW11/A.
(xii) PW12, Inspector Sushma Rawat, Addl. SHO, PSGokal Puri.
She is the second Investigating Officer of this case.
(xiii) PW13, Dr. Meghali Kelkar, who has conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and proved his report as Ex.PW13/A. He has also given the opinion regarding the cause of the death of the deceased. He has examined the Saria and two dandas and has given the subsequent opinion on the weapons of offence. He has also proved the subsequent opinion as Ex.PW12/B.
(xiv) PW14, Ct. Karamvir, who was posted at GTB Hospital as the Duty Constable. He has informed the Duty Officer at PS Gokal Puri, at about 2.40 A.M. regarding the death of injured Manoj @ Chetu at GTB Hospital.
(xv) PW15, Ct. Gambhir, who has taken the lathi (danda) and iron rod (Saria) from MHCM on 08.11.2009 and deposited the same at GTB Hospital, for opinion of the doctors.
(xvi) PW16, ASI Shankar Lal, who was posted as Duty Officer, on FIR279/09 PSGokal Puri Page 5/23 07.09.2009. This witness has recorded DD no. 30A and 32A, and has proved the same as Ex.PW16/A and Ex.PW16/B, respectively.
(xvii) PW17, Lady HC Neemo, who was posted as an Operator with PCR on 07.09.2009. She had received the information regarding the quarrel at 10.25 p.m. (xviii) PW 18, ASI Suraj Bhan, who is the first investigating officer of this case. He was on emergency duty at PS Gokal Puri on 07.09.2009 and he received DD no. 30A, Ex.PW16/A, regarding the quarrel and thereafter, he went to the spot with Ct. Hitesh and later on went to the GTB Hospital and collected MLC of the deceased and recorded the statement of complainant Raj Kumar Ex.PW1/A and prepared the rukka Ex.PW18/A and sent Ct. Hitesh to police station for registration of FIR. This witness has also prepared the site plan Ex.PW18/B. He has handed over the further investigations of the case, at the spot, to Inspector Sushma Rawat (PW12).
3. After completion of the prosecution evidence, statements of all the accused persons were recorded by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court on 14.12.2011, wherein, all the three accused have denied all FIR279/09 PSGokal Puri Page 6/23 the incriminating evidence against them and have deposed that they have been falsely implicated in this case. They have further deposed that the deceased was a BC of the area and as per the medical opinion on record, even on the date of the alleged incident, he was under the influence of liquor and while, driving his motorcycle he struck against two persons and thereafter, struck against a wall and fell down and thereafter, the public persons, who had gathered at the spot, after the accident, gave beatings to the deceased. They have further stated that they were not even present at the spot, at that time and they came to know about the incident later on, from the public persons, who had gathered at the spot, at the time of the motorcycle accident. But, the accused persons have not led any evidence in their defence, despite opportunity.
4. After completion of trial Sh. S.K. Dash, Ld. Addl. PP for the State, Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate for accused Suresh and Sh. Rakesh Kochar, Advocate for accused Raju and Roshan have addressed the final arguments.
5. During the final arguments, the Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that the investigating officers and the other prosecution witnesses have proved the prosecution case, but, he has conceded that FIR279/09 PSGokal Puri Page 7/23 the complainant PW1 Raj Kumar and PW2 Kailash Chand Rai, who are the real brother and natural father of deceased Manoj, respectively, have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. He has also argued that even if the testimony of these two witnesses is discarded, the remaining prosecution witnesses have succeeded in proving the prosecution case against the accused persons and therefore, all the three accused be held guilty for the offence U/s 302/34 IPC.
6. On the other hand, the Ld. Defence Counsel Sh. Rakesh Kochar, Advocate for accused Raju and Roshan has argued that the complainant, PW1, Raj Kumar and his father PW2, Kailash Chand Rai both have demolished the entire prosecution case as both these witnesses were the alleged eyewitnesses of the incident and both these witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case on any material point. He has also argued that these two witnesses have not reported about the threat received by them from the accused persons before their depositions in the Court, to any authority or any Court. They have even failed to lodge any complaint with any police official or the concerned SHO or the ACP/DCP of the area or to the Naib Courts attached to the Trial Court, prior to their FIR279/09 PSGokal Puri Page 8/23 deposition. He has also argued that even during their reexamination, these two witnesses were declared hostile by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and both of them were crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP at length. Even in their crossexaminations, a large number of improvements and material discrepancies have come on record, which makes their testimonies doubtful. He has relied upon the following judgments in support of his above contentions:
(i) Rakesh Kumar @ Mukri Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2007 (2) JCC 1636.
(ii) Samghaji Hariba Patil Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2007, Supreme Court, 28.
(iii) Tara Singh Vs. State of MP, AIR 1981, Supreme Court 50.
He has further argued that information was given by the complainant, to police regarding the quarrel on 07.09.2009, through his mobile phone, but, the complainant has failed to disclose the names of the accused persons in the said information and therefore, DD no. 32A (Ex.PW16/B) does not find mention the names of the accused. He has further argued that the deceased was a BC of the area and on the date of the alleged incident he had consumed liquor and under the influence of alcohol his motorcycle struck two persons and FIR279/09 PSGokal Puri Page 9/23 thereafter, struck against a wall, due to which he suffered injuries and he was given beatings by the public at the spot, due to which, he succumbed to his injuries. He has also argued that the motorcycle of the deceased has not been seized by the Investigating Officers to conceal all these facts.
7. Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate for accused Suresh has also argued that the two public witnesses, who are the alleged eye witness of the incident have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case and PW1 and PW2 have made a large number of improvements, even in their reexamination in the Court and there are a large number of contradictions in their depositions, which makes their testimonies doubtful.
8. He has further argued that there are a large number of other technical flaws also which makes the whole prosecution case doubtful. He has argued that PW3 Dr. Meghali Kelkar, who conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased Manoj @ Chetu, has opined that the cause of death was shock as a result of ante mortem injury to head, produced by blunt force impact and in his crossexamination he has admitted that the said injury was possible due to blunt force impact, resulting out of a motor accident. He has FIR279/09 PSGokal Puri Page 10/23 further pointed out that the MLC Ex.PW10/A, as well as, the FSL Report Ex.PW12/B, both indicate that the deceased had consumed liquor.
9. He has further argued that even the recovery of the weapons of offence, at the instance of the accused persons is doubtful, as no public person was joined as a witness to such recoveries and even the site plan of the place of recovery of weapon of offence was not prepared by the IO.
10. He has further argued that there are several discrepancies in the scaled site plan Ex.PW8/A and the unscaled site plan Ex.PW18/B. IO Inspector Sushma Rawat (PW12) has herself inserted the notes in the scaled site plan Ex.PW8/A, without the consent of the draftsman. He has also pointed out the contradictions regarding the date of visit of IO Sushma Rawat and the draftsman, for preparation of the site plan. He has further argued that all the documents have been prepared by Ct. Gambhir (PW15), as disclosed by IO Inspector Sushma Rawat, in her cross examination. But, PW15 Ct. Gambhir has not spoken a single word about these documents and he is not a witness to any of these document. He has argued that the large number of discrepancies, on record, makes the entire prosecution case doubtful and therefore, the FIR279/09 PSGokal Puri Page 11/23 benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused persons and they should be acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 302/34 IPC. He has also relied upon the following judgments, in support of his contentions:
(i) 1972 SCC (Crl.) 258 (ii) 2001 (3) RCR (Crl.) 766 SC (iii) 2011 (I) RCR (Crl.) 183 SC (iv) 1996 Cr.L.J. 506 Allahabad (v) 2011 (1) RCR (Crl.) 57 SC (vi) 1998 (1) JCC Delhi 94 (vii) 1996 (3) RCR (Crl.) 588 SC (viii) 1995 JCC 259 Delhi (ix) 2008 (IV) AD (Crl.) DHC 577.
11. I have carefully gone through the case file and I have given my considered thoughts to the arguments addressed by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsels and I have also gone through the various judgments cited by the Ld. Defence Counsels.
12. Perusal of the record shows that the prosecution has examined two alleged eyewitnesses of the incident. PW1 Raj Kumar is the complainant and and brother of deceased Manoj Kumar @ Chetu. FIR279/09 PSGokal Puri Page 12/23 PW2 Kailash Chand Rai is the father of deceased Manoj @ Chetu. Both these witnesses were firstly examined before the Court on 19.01.2010 and in their deposition on 19.01.2010, they both have deposed that on 07.09.2009 at about 10.00 to 10.30 P.M. they heard some noises and when they came to the spot they found that deceased Manoj @ Chetu was lying in injured condition and many persons were present there and thereafter they called the police and the PCR Van took injured Manoj to GTB Hospital, where injured Manoj expired. Both these witnesses have categorically stated that they have not seen anybody inflicting injuries to deceased Manoj and the incident has not occurred in their presence. Both these witnesses were crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State at length and in their crossexamination, they have denied all the suggestions of the Ld. Addl. PP for the State. Both these witnesses have even denied the fact of giving any statement to the police. Complainant has even denied the fact that he gave his statement Ex.PW1/A to the police, on the basis of which the rukka was prepared and FIR was lodged. Both these witnesses have denied the suggestion that the accused persons have inflicted injuries on the person of deceased Manoj @ Chetu. The complainant PW1 Manoj Kumar has even failed to identify the FIR279/09 PSGokal Puri Page 13/23 weapon of offence. He has also admitted that he was not present at the spot at the time of the incident.
13. Perusal of the record further shows that there is no other eye witness of the incident and the entire prosecution case is based upon the testimonies of these two eyewitnesses. The present prosecution case has not been investigated or developed on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, to prove the guilt of the accused persons and therefore, no circumstantial evidence has been lead by the prosecution, during the entire trial. After recording of the statements of complainant Raj Kumar (PW1) and Sh. Kailash Chand Rai, father of the deceased (PW2) on 19.01.2010, an application was moved by PW2 Kailash Chand Rai U/s 311 Cr.P.C. for their reexamination, and the same was allowed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 19.10.2010. Thereafter, both these witnesses were re examined by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court on 12.01.2011. In their reexamination on 12.01.2011, complainant Raj Kumar had deposed that on 19.01.2010, he was under the threat of the accused persons as they had threatened that they would get kidnapped and kill Rahul, son of deceased Manoj Kumar @ Chetu and now he was making the statement voluntarily. He has further alleged that on 07.09.2009 at FIR279/09 PSGokal Puri Page 14/23 about 9.45 p.m. he heard some noises and on hearing the noises he reached the spot and saw that the accused persons, alongwith another person, named, Suresh Gujjar, were giving beatings to his brother Manoj @ Chetu and when he tried to intervene, the accused persons tried to attack him and therefore, he ran away from the spot and told the incident to his parents. Thereafter, his parents came to the spot. He has further deposed that the accused persons, alongwith said Suresh Gujjar, also gave beatings to his parents and after the incident all the accused ran away from the spot and thereafter, injured Manoj was taken to GTB Hospital in an auto rikshaw, where the doctors declared him "brought dead". This witness was further reexamined on 18.01.2011 and even on 18.01.2011 he made a large number of improvements in his deposition. Even on 18.01.2011, the Ld. Addl. PP for the State had crossexamined this witness and in his cross examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, this witness has again made a large number of improvements. During his crossexamination before the Court, on oath, Sh. A. Ali Khan was his counsel and he was also present in the Court. He has also admitted that on 19.01.2010, his father was also present in the Court premises and on that day he had not stated to the Court about the threat extended by the accused FIR279/09 PSGokal Puri Page 15/23 persons to him. He has admitted that on 19.01.2010 they had not made any complaint to the Ld. Addl. PP for the State about threat. He has further admitted that no such complaint was made by him either to the Court staff or to the Naib Courts attached with the Court. He has further admitted that he has not made any written or oral complaint regarding the threat extended by the accused persons, at the police post at Karkardooma Courts. He has also admitted that no complaint was lodged by him at PSGokul Puri or with the IO of this case. During his crossexamination this witness has further admitted that the accused Roshan has filed a civil suit against his deceased brother Manoj, regarding a plot of land and the same was pending in the Court of Sh. G.N. Pandey, Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi and on 22.01.2010 he alongwith his father PW2 Kailash Chand Rai, alongwith their counsel A. Ali Khan, Advocate had appeared in the said suit and the said civil suit was disposed off by the said Court on 22.01.2010 itself. He has further admitted that no complaint of any threat was made, even to that Court on 22.01.2010. He has further admitted that no complaint was lodged by them to any authority, regarding the threats. He has further admitted that his deceased brother was involved in 67 criminal cases regarding rape, kidnapping, extending threats and cases FIR279/09 PSGokal Puri Page 16/23 under Arms Act were also registered against him, at PSGokal Puri. He has further admitted that the deceased was a BC of PSGokal Puri. He has further admitted that his deceased brother was having enmity with many persons of the area, as he used to extort money from the innocent persons, including the shop keepers & rehriwalas, of the locality.
14. Perusal of the record further shows that PW2 Kailash Chand Rai was also reexamined on 18.01.2011 and 25.01.2011. This witness has also deposed in a similar manner, as that of PW1 Raj Kumar. He has also deposed about the threats extended by the accused persons to him, prior to making of the statement on 19.01.2010. This witness was again crossexamined by the ld. Addl. PP for the State, as he was again resiling from his earlier statement. Even, in his crossexamination, a large number of contradictions and improvements have come on record.
15. Perusal of the testimonies of these two witnesses clearly indicate that these two witnesses have deposed in the Court, differently on several different occasions, as per their whims and fancies and they had given one statement on one day and another statement on another day. Both these witnesses are probating and FIR279/09 PSGokal Puri Page 17/23 reprobating, as per their liking.
16. It is relevant to mention here that as per the record, the accused persons were in judicial custody till 19.01.2010, when the first statements of these two witnesses were recorded by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court. The accused were granted bail by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court, only on 21.01.2010, after completion of the deposition of these two eyewitnesses on 19.01.2010, solely on the ground that both the alleged eyewitnesses of the incident have turned hostile. Till that time, no complaint was lodged by these two witnesses regarding receiving of any threat from the accused persons. It was only on 07.05.2010 that the complainant PW1 Raj Kumar and his father Kailash Chand Rai (PW2) chose to move an application U/s 311 Cr.P.C. and alleged the fact of threats, extended by the accused persons to them on 19.01.2010.
17. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Sambhaji Hindu Rao Deshmukh & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported as 2008 (I) JCC 542 that "If two versions are reasonably possible from the evidence on record, one favouring the accused and one against the accused, the High Court is not expected to reverse the acquittal merely because it would have taken the view FIR279/09 PSGokal Puri Page 18/23 against the accused had it tried the case. The very fact that two views are possible makes it clear that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and consequently, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt [vide G.B. Patel Vs. State of Maharashtra1978 (4) SCC 371, Babu Vs. State of U.P.1988 (2) SCC Page 21, Awadhesh Vs. State of M.P.1988 (2) SCC 557, Thanedar Singh Vs. State of M.P.2002(1) SCC 487 and State of Rajasthan Vs. Raja Ram2003 (3) JCC 1372: 2003 (8) SCC 180].
18. It is also held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in case titled as Rakesh Kumar @ Mukri Vs. State of NCT of Delhi (Supra) as under: "23. The learned trial court did not appreciate the oral as well as circumstantial evidence placed on the record by the prosecution. The court relied upon on the testimony of Constable Anant Ram and the CFSL report. It ignored the fact that the eye witnesses were hostile and the circumstantial evidence was weak in nature and was also incomplete. Where there is any doubt in the mind of the court and there are two possible views, the benefit of doubt should also go to the appellant/accused. If the evidence of circumstances is incomplete and other evidence is weak the appellant/accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.
24. To conclude, we are of the view that prosecution has not been able to establish its case either by way of FIR279/09 PSGokal Puri Page 19/23 testimony of eyewitnesses or from the circumstantial evidence as placed on the record that it was the appellant who had murdered Bale Ram. Where there is any doubt in the mind of the court and there are two possible view, the benefit of doubt should always go to the appellant."
19. Besides the fatal contradictions and improvements in the testimonies of these two alleged eyewitnesses, there are also a large number of other flows and discrepancies in the prosecution case. Perusal of the record shows that DD no. 32A was recorded at PS Gokal Puri, on the information of quarrel received from PW1 complainant Raj Kumar, through his mobile phone no. 9910108323 and the same has been proved as Ex.PW16/B. But, the complainant PW1 Raj Kumar has not disclosed the names of the accused persons to the police officials while, lodging the said complaint. The names of the accused persons were also not disclosed to the doctor on duty at GTB Hospital when the injured Manoj (since deceased) was taken to GTB Hospital by PW1 Raj Kumar and PW2 Kailash Chand Rai.
20. Perusal of the record further shows that there are several material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses regarding the arrest of the accused persons and the alleged recovery of the weapons of offence. Even, the site plan of the place, from where the FIR279/09 PSGokal Puri Page 20/23 weapon of offence was allegedly recovered, has not been prepared by the IO, during the investigation. No public witness has been joined by the IO to the alleged recovery, despite of the fact that several public persons were available to him at the time of recovery of the alleged weapons of offence.
21. Perusal of the record further shows the even the preparation of the scaled site plan by PW8 is doubtful as PW8 SI Mukesh Kumar has deposed before the Court that he visited the spot of the incident on 23.10.2009 alongwith Inspector Sushma Rawat, IO of the present case and inspected the spot at her pointing out and prepared the rough notes and thereafter, prepared the scaled site plan, Ex.PW8/A. He has also deposed that the notes encircled at point 'A' on Ex.PW8/A were written by the IO Sushma Rawat of her own and the same were written by Inspector Sushma Rawat without his consent. But PW12 Sushma Rawat has deposed that she called draftsman Mukesh Kumar Jain for preparation of the scaled site plan on 24.10.2009 and thereafter, she went to the spot with him, where he collected the rough notes and prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PW8/A.
22. Perusal of the record further shows that Inspector Sushma Rawat has conducted the entire investigations of this case, but, no FIR279/09 PSGokal Puri Page 21/23 documents have been prepared by her in her own handwriting. All these documents have been prepared by Ct. Gambhir PW(15), but, Ct. Gambhir (PW15) has not deposed even a single word in this regard, in his deposition before the Court on 21.09.2011.
23. Perusal of the record further shows that the MLC of injured Manoj @ Chetu (since deceased) Ex.PW10/A, as well as, the FSL report Ex.PW12/B, have both indicated that the deceased had consumed liquor on the date of incident. Furthermore, PW13 Dr. Meghali Kelkar, who has conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased has also note that "injury No. 4 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature". In his cross examination, he has disclosed "that the injury, like injury no. 4, is possible due to blunt force impact, resulting out of vehicle accident. Blunt force, for exampleimpact by any hard rod, stick, stone or by fall on hard projecting object like footpath."
24. All these contradictions, as discussed above, make the entire prosecution case doubtful. Therefore, in view of the settled legal position, and the above circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the accused are entitled for 'benefit of doubt' and accordingly, all the three accused are hereby acquitted for the offence punishable U/s FIR279/09 PSGokal Puri Page 22/23 302/34 IPC. The bail bonds of the accused persons, which have been submitted by them in the Court during trial, shall remain in force for a further period of six months, as per the provisions of Section 437A of the Cr.P.C. Accused persons are further directed to appear before the appellate court, as and when, the notices are issued to them by the appellate court, in any appeal, if preferred by the State. It is ordered accordingly. File be consigned to record room, after due compliance. Announced in the open court on this 23rd day of March, 2012.
Brijesh Kumar Garg Special Judge NDPS (NorthEast) ASJ, KKD Courts, Delhi.
FIR279/09 PSGokal Puri Page 23/23