Delhi District Court
State vs . Aditya @ Deepu on 16 May, 2014
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII
(NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No. 166/2013
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0046942013
State Vs. Aditya @ Deepu
S/o Late Sh. Krashan Kumar
R/o D353, WPIA,
Ashok Vihar, Delhi.
(Convicted)
FIR No.: 227/2012
Police Station: Ashok Vihar
Under Sections: 325 Indian Penal Code.
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 13.09.2013
Date on which orders were reserved : 04.04.2014
Date on which judgment pronounced : 16.05.2014
JUDGMENT (Oral)
Brief Facts:
(1) As per the allegations, on 02.05.2012 at 11:30 PM at near Kalu Ka Hotel, Wazirpur Village, Delhi, the accused Aditya @ Deepu, voluntarily caused hurt to Ram Kumar with a danda.
Brief case of Prosecution:
(2) The present case was registered on the complaint of Ram Kumar who alleged that on 02.05.2012 his tenant informed him that one Yogeeta State Vs. Aditya @ Deepu, FIR No. 227/12 PS Ashok Vihar Page 1 of 20 was using their staircase of house No. WP X 46 to enter the adjoining house and when they objected she threatened and abused them. He further stated that on coming to know of this, he went to his other House i.e. WP 387 and met said Yogeeta and told her to restrain herself from using his staircase for entering into her premises on which she got annoyed and started abusing her and also made a call to some person and thereafter she went to Kalu ka dhaba. He further stated that he also followed Yogita to Kalu ka dhaba where Aditya @ Deepu whom he knew previously because he was on visiting terms with Yogeeta, was already present. He further stated that there was some kahasuni between him on one side and Yogita and Aditya on the other side pursuant to which Aditya lifted a danda and tried to him on him (complainant) but he managed to save him and in that process he fell down on the ground after which Aditya gave danda blows upon him as a result of which he received injuries. He further stated that in the meanwhile his brother Krishan @ Lala came and tried to intervene in order to save him but he was also given beatings by the accused. He has stated that thereafter somebody made a call at 100 number and PCR came to the spot and took him to the hospital.
(3) On the basis of the aforesaid statement made by Ram Kumar, a rukka was prepared, FIR was registered and during investigation, the accused Aditya was arrested and after completing the investigations, the charge sheet was filed in the court.
State Vs. Aditya @ Deepu, FIR No. 227/12 PS Ashok Vihar Page 2 of 20
CHARGE (4) Charge under Section 325 Indian Penal Code was settled against the accused Aditya @ Deepu to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE (5) In order to discharge the onus upon it, the prosecution has examined as many as Seven Witnesses.
Public Witnesses:
(6) PW4 Ram Kumar has deposed that he was residing at WP X46 along with his family and he was a dhobi by profession doing the business of ironing the clothes. He further deposed that he is also the owner of house No. WP387, Wazirpur village which he has given on rent to various persons. He further deposed that on 02.05.2012 his tenant Thakur came to him and informed him that one lady by the name of Yogeeta normally uses their house No WP X 46 to enter the adjoining house and when they had tried to stop her from doing so, she threatened them. The witness further deposed that on coming to know of this, he went to his other house i.e. WP 387 and met Yogeeta who was resident of adjoining property and stopped her and restrained her from using his staircase for entering into her premises. He further deposed that on hearing this she started retorting back and insisted that she will use his staircase and while she was talking to him State Vs. Aditya @ Deepu, FIR No. 227/12 PS Ashok Vihar Page 3 of 20 she also started making calls to somebody and said "tum abhi thear jao, mein abi tumhe batati hu"(you wait I just tell you) and in the meanwhile the witness was talking to his tenant, 45 boys reached there with dandas and rods in their hands and started beating him on which he fell down. He further deposed that one of these boys was the accused Aditya @ Deepu, whom he knew previously because he was on visiting terms with Yogeeta and was using their staircase to enter her premises. He further deposed that in the meanwhile his brother Krishan @ Lala also tried to intervene in order to save him but these people also sustained injuries on his person. He has further deposed that somebody from his family made a call to the PCR and after some time the PCR official came to the spot and shifted him to BJRM Hospital where he was provided treatment. He further deposed that there was a fracture on his left leg on account of the danda blow given to him by the accused Aditya @ Deepu and plaster was put on his foot and thereafter he was discharged from the hospital and he went to the police station where his statement was recorded which is Ex.PW4/A. (7) Thereafter, on permission of the court this witness was cross examined who in his crossexamination by Ld. APP, he denied the suggestion that the police had prepared the site plan Ex.PW2/A at his instance or had searched for the accused Aditya @ Deepu. He further denied the suggestions that he had informed the police about the presence of accused Aditya at Lekh Ram Park on 16.09.2012 and on receipt of his information the IO met him at Deep Market and thereafter they reached State Vs. Aditya @ Deepu, FIR No. 227/12 PS Ashok Vihar Page 4 of 20 Lekh Ram Park where on his pointing out Aditya @ Deepu was apprehended by the police who interrogated him on which he confirmed his identity as Aditya @ Deepu and he was arrested vide memo Ex.PW4/B. His personal search memo was also prepared vide memo Ex.PW4/C. His disclosure statement was also recorded vide memo Ex.PW4/D. He admitted his signatures on all these documents.
(8) In his crossexamination of the witness, the witness admitted that his statement was recorded in the police station after about three months. He further deposed that Aditya @ Deepu and other persons also received injuries in the quarrel which took place after his brother Krishan @ Lala had come. The witness further admitted that the case of Aditya wherein he had received injuries was registered first but he denied that in connivance with the local police the present FIR was registered later. The witness further admitted that he is an accused in the cross case. He further deposed that he had told the IO that Aditya had been using staircase of his house earlier. The witness denied the suggestion that Yogeeta had not extended any threats to him or to others.
Medical Evidence:
(9) PW7 Dr. Gopal Krishna has deposed that on 03.05.2012, he was posted in the emergency ward of the BJRM hospital as CMO and on that day one patient Ram Kumar S/o Sh. Harish Chand, aged 45 years male was brought to emergency of BJRM Hospital by HC Om Prakash of PCR at State Vs. Aditya @ Deepu, FIR No. 227/12 PS Ashok Vihar Page 5 of 20 about 2.00AM (midnight) and the patient was examined by Dr. Subhash under his supervision vide MLC No. 40975 bearing E No. 44178 which is Ex.PW7/A and thereafter the patient was referred to the Department of Orthopaedic where he was examined by Dr. Manoj S. R.(Ortho) vide endorsement encircles at point X in the MLC Ex.PW7/A. He further deposed that on 14.06.2012 Dr. Manoj, SR (Ortho) opined the injuries as grievous vide his endorsement encircles at point Y in the MLC Ex.PW7/A. (10) In crossexamination of the witness, he denied the suggestion that he has not seen the patient personally and Dr. Subhash and Dr. Manoj examined the patient only under his supervision.
Police / Official Witnesses:
(11) PW1 W/HC Usha Rani has deposed that on 12.09.12, she was posted at PS Ashok Vihar and was working as duty officer and her duty hours were from 8:00 a.m to 4:00 p.m. She has further deposed that she received a rukka from ASI Om Pal Singh at around 10:00 a.m at PS Ashok Vihar for registration of case and endorsement on the rukka was made by her and thereafter the case was registered vide FIR No. 227/12, U/s 325 IPC at PS Ashok Vihar. She has further deposed that thereafter the copy of FIR and the original rukka was handed over to Ct. Khema Ram to deliver the same to the ASI Om Pal Singh. The witness has tendered her examination inchief by way of affidavit, which is Ex.PW1/1. She rely upon copy of FIR which is Ex.PW1/A and endorsement on rukka which is Ex.PW1/B. In State Vs. Aditya @ Deepu, FIR No. 227/12 PS Ashok Vihar Page 6 of 20 her crossexamination she has denied that the endorsement made on the rukka has been antedated and antetimed.
(12) PW2 Ct. Khema Ram has deposed that on 12.09.12, he was posted at PS Ashok Vihar, Delhi and on that day he got the copy of FIR and the original rukka from duty officer HC Usha Rani. He further deposed that thereafter he took the copy of FIR and the original rukka and he handed over the same to ASI Om Pal Singh and thereafter ASI Om Pal Singh prepared site plan of the scene of occurrence in front of him. The witness tender his examination in chief by way of affidavit, which is Ex.PW2/1 and has relied upon site plan of scene of crime which is Ex.PW2/A. (13) In his crossexamination, he has deposed that he reached the spot at around 10:40 AM and apart from ASI Ompal, the complainant Rampal and 23 public persons were also present. The witness further deposed that he remained at the spot along with ASI Ompal for about 20 minutes. The witness further deposed that he had gone with the IO to jhuggie No. 353 SS Nagar for search of accused Aditya where he was staying and did not go anywhere else.
(14) PW3 HC Om Parkash has deposed that on 02.05.12, he was on duty from 8:00 p.m to 8:00 a.m PCR Van Village Wazirpur. He further deposed that on that day, he received a call dt. 02.05.12 and taken the injured to BJRM Hospital. The witness has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit, which is Ex.PW3/1. The witness was not cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity given. State Vs. Aditya @ Deepu, FIR No. 227/12 PS Ashok Vihar Page 7 of 20 (15) PW5 HC Sunil Kumar has deposed that on 16.09.2012, he was posted at police station Ashok Vihar and on that day he had joined the investigations along with IO ASI Ompal Singh. He further deposed that he was present at Deep Market at around 1010:15 PM along with ASI Ompal and the complainant of this case Ram Kumar met ASI Om Pal and informed that the person whom he had a quarrel was present at Lekh Ram park and if they reached there, he could be apprehended and thereafter he and ASI OM Pal along with the complainant reached the Lekh Ram park. He further deposed that on the pointing out of complainant Ram Kumar one boy was apprehended and on interrogation, his name was confirmed as Aditya @ Deepu and IO then arrested the said person vide memo Ex.PW4/B and his personal search memo was also prepared vide memo Ex.PW4/C and his disclosure statement was also recorded vide memo Ex.PW4/D. (16) In cross examination, the witness deposed that he is aware that a cross case in this case has been registered in which Aditya is a complainant.
He further deposed that he remained at PS Ashok Vihar for about little less than two years and he is aware that Kishan @ Lala is the BC of the area. He further deposed that he is not aware if Kishan @ Lala is the brother of complainant Ram Kumar. The witness admitted that disclosure Ex.PW4/D only bears his endorsement but not his signatures. (17) PW6 ASI Om Pal Singh has deposed that on 02.05.2012 he was posted at police station Ashok Vihar and on that day he was on emergency duty from 8:00 PM to 8:00 AM. He has further deposed that at State Vs. Aditya @ Deepu, FIR No. 227/12 PS Ashok Vihar Page 8 of 20 about 11:55 PM he received DD No. 24A which is Ex.PW6/A, he reached the spot i.e. Ram Mandir, near Yadav hotel where they came to know that the injured had already shifted to BJRM Hospital. The witness further deposed that he reached the BJRM Hospital from where he obtained the MLC of injured Ram Kumar and also came to know that in respect of the same incident DD No. 23 A had been recorded which was entrusted to SI Ajay. He has further deposed that he returned to the PS after obtaining the MLC and in the PS he came to know that in respect of this incident an FIR has already registered against the person injured in the incident i.e. Ram Kumar and thereafter he again deposited the MLC in the hospital for obtaining the result / opinion on the same. He further deposed that after obtaining the result which was grievous injuries, he called Ram Kumar to the PS on 12.09.2012, recorded his statement which is Ex.PW4/A. He further deposed that he made his endorsement on the same vide Ex.PW6/B, after which he handed over the same to the DO and thereafter he along with the complainant went to the spot of the incident where he prepared the site plan at his instance which is Ex.PW2/A and in the meanwhile Ct. Khema Ram reached the spot along with the copy of the FIR and original rukka which he handed over to him and he put the FIR number on the site plan. He has also deposed that he then went in search of accused at SS Nagar jhuggie No. 353 but could not locate him on which they returned to the PS where he recorded the statements of various witness. He has further deposed that on 16.09.2012 he along with HC Sunil Kumar were going to State Vs. Aditya @ Deepu, FIR No. 227/12 PS Ashok Vihar Page 9 of 20 SS Nagar jhuggies for search of the accused and when they reached near Deep Market at around 10 AM the complainant of this case Ram Kumar met them there at the bus stand and informed that the person whom he had a quarrel was present at Lekh Ram park and if they reached there, he could be apprehended and thereafter he and HC Sunil Kumar along with the complainant reached the Lekh Ram park. He has further deposed that on the pointing out of complainant Ram Kumar one boy was apprehended and on interrogation, his name was confirmed as Aditya @ Deepu. He has further deposed that he then arrested the said person vide memo PW4/B and his personal search memo was also prepared vide memo Ex.PW4/C, his disclosure statement was also recorded vide memo Ex.PW4/D. (18) In crossexamination of this witness, he has deposed that he is aware that a cross case in this case has been registered in which Aditya is a complainant but he is neither the witness nor the IO of the cross case. He further deposed that he is also aware that Kishan @ Lala is the brother of complainant Ram Kumar and he is also aware that both Kishan @ Lala and Ram Kumar are having criminal cases registered in their PS against them. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED & DEFENCE EVIDNCE (19) Statement of accused Aditya under Section 313 Cr.PC was recorded wherein all the incriminating material which has come on record against him was put to him which he has denied.
State Vs. Aditya @ Deepu, FIR No. 227/12 PS Ashok Vihar Page 10 of 20 (20) According to the accused Aditya, he is innocent and falsely implicated in this case. He has stated that in fact in the incident he himself received injuries and he was taken to the hospital where he was treated and in this regard he had got registered a crosscase against the complainant and his associates who had physically assaulted him. The accused further stated that the brother of complainant namely Kishan Lala is the bad character of the area and he is involved in large number of criminal case. According to him he has been falsely implicated in this case in order to give benefit to Kishan Lala. He has stated that no disclosure statement was made by him and all all the proceedings against him are fabricated by the police at the instance of the complainant.
FINDINGS (21) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel and also considered the testimonies of various witnesses examined by the prosecution and the memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the accused. My findings are as under:
(22) At the very Outset, I may observe that in so far as the identify of the accused Aditya is concerned, the same is not disputed. He has been specifically named in the FIR and even otherwise the parties were known to each other prior to the incident.
State Vs. Aditya @ Deepu, FIR No. 227/12 PS Ashok Vihar Page 11 of 20 (23) Secondly it is an admitted case of both the parties that two crosscases were registered against both the parties i.e. present case against the accused Aditya and case FIR No. 93/012 against the accused Krishan @ Lala and Ram Kumar.
(24) Thirdly in so far as the medical evidence on record is concerned, Dr. Gopal Krishna (PW7) has proved the MLC of Ram Kumar Ex.PW7/A prepared by Dr. Subhash under his supervision. He has stated that after examination, the patient was referred to the Department of Orthopaedic where he was examined by Dr. Manoj S. R. (Ortho). The perusal of the record shows that initially no bony injury had been detected and the SR Ortho. had given his report as OK though later on 14.5.2012 the same patient again came and got himself examined from Dr. Manoj, SR (Ortho) and as per the Radiologist's report given by Dr. Shipra Rampal that hair line fracture was noticed on the left knee of Ram Kumar and the injury was opined as grievous. Here I mention observe that neither Dr. Shipra Rampal has been examined nor the Xray plate confirming the hair line fracture has been placed before this court and hence I may observe that the possibility of the said injury having suffered by Ram Kumar subsequently, cannot be ruled out. Under the given circumstances, the nonexamination of the Dr. Shipra Rampal (Radiologist) and Dr. Manoj (SR, Ortho), is fatal and I hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove that grievous injuries had been received by Ram Kumar.
State Vs. Aditya @ Deepu, FIR No. 227/12 PS Ashok Vihar Page 12 of 20 (25) Fourthly the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the testimony of Ram Kumar which does not find any corroboration from any other source. He himself is the accused in the cross case and hence an interested witness due to which reason his testimony is required to be read with caution.
(26) Fifthly it is not disputed by the parties that there was an issue between them with regard to the use of staircase. In the present case Ram Kumar who was injured in the incident is the victims / eye witness whereas in the cross case Yogita and Aditya are the injured / eye witnesses who had also received injury in the incident. The circumstantial evidence establishes the occurrence of the incident but does not establish beyond reasonable doubt that who was the first aggressor in the said incident. (27) Lastly the apprehension and arrest of the accused Aditya has been duly proved by the police / official witnesses and is not even disputed by the accused persons.
(28) In view of the above discussion, I hereby hold that in so far as the aspect of the quarrel and registration of crosscases in respect of same incident is concerned, the same is not disputed by the parties and the evidence on record is insufficient so as to establish this count to conclude as to who was the first aggressor. Further, the fact that the injuries sustained by the complainant (accused in crosscase) were grievous so as to bring the case within the ambit of Section 325 IPC, has also not been established. I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to successfully establish the State Vs. Aditya @ Deepu, FIR No. 227/12 PS Ashok Vihar Page 13 of 20 charges against the accused Aditya @ Deepu under Section 323 IPC but not under Section 325 IPC, for which he is held guilty.
FINAL CONCLUSION (29) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand SardavsState of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the 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.
(30) Applying the above principles of law to the facts of present case, it is evident that in so far as the identity of the accused Aditya is concerned, it has been established as the person who had assaulted the State Vs. Aditya @ Deepu, FIR No. 227/12 PS Ashok Vihar Page 14 of 20 victim / complainant Ram Kumar resulting into simple injuries on his person. It stands established that there was a dispute between the parties on account of use of staircase and on the date of incident i.e. 02.05.2012 initially there was a verbal altercation between the parties which led to the physical altercation wherein both the parties received injuries and cross cases were registered against both the parties. However, it does not stands proved and established from the evidence which has come on record that which of the parties was the first aggressor to the incident. (31) In view of the above and on the basis of the testimonies of the various witnesses examined by the prosecution particularly the victim Ram Kumar (PW4), the accused Aditya @ Dipu is hereby held guilty for the offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code (not U/S 325 IPC). (32) Be listed for arguments on sentence at 2:00 PM.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 16.05.2014 ASJ (NW)II: ROHINI
State Vs. Aditya @ Deepu, FIR No. 227/12 PS Ashok Vihar Page 15 of 20
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 166/2013 Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0046942013 State Vs. Aditya @ Deepu S/o Late Sh. Krashan Kumar R/o D353, WPIA, Ashok Vihar, Delhi.
(Convicted)
FIR No.: 227/2012
Police Station: Ashok Vihar
Under Sections: 325 Indian Penal Code.
Date of conviction: 16.05.2014
Arguments concluded on: 16.05.2014
Date of Sentence: 16.05.2014
APPEARANCE:
Present: Sh. Tofeeq Ahmed, Ld. Addl. PP for the State with Sh. R. D.
Sawhney, Advocate for complainant.
Convict Aditya @ Deepu along with Ms. Sadhna Bhatia, Amicus Curiae.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
(1) As per the allegations, on 02.05.2012 at 11:30 PM at near Kalu Ka Hotel, Wazirpur Village, Delhi, the accused Aditya @ Deepu, voluntarily caused hurt to Ram Kumar with a danda.
State Vs. Aditya @ Deepu, FIR No. 227/12 PS Ashok Vihar Page 16 of 20 (2) However, on the basis of the testimonies of the various witnesses examined by the prosecution particularly the victim Ram Kumar (PW4), this court vide a detailed judgment has held the accused Aditya @ Dipu guilty for the offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code (not U/S 325 IPC).
(3) Heard arguments on the point of sentence. The convict Aditya @ Deepu is aged about 32 years having a family comprising widow mother, one younger brother, two sisters (both married) and wife. He is 9th class pass and is working as Commission Agent with Property Dealers. He is a first time offender having no criminal background. (4) Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the convict has vehemently argued that the convict Aditya @ Deepu is a young boy having no previous involvement and any harsh view would be detrimental for his entire life and hence it is prayed that a lenient view be taken against the convict. Ld. Addl.
PP for the State does not oppose the same.
(5) I have considered the submissions made before me. In fact the present case is the cross case of FIR No. 93/2012 under Section 308/323/452 IPC Police Station Ashok Vihar arising out of the same incident. Further, this court has been informed that both the parties are residing in the same area and with the intervention of the respectables of the community they have settled all their disputes amicably. The victim Ram Kumar who is an accused in the cross case, has submitted that he does not want to pursue the litigation further and he has no objection of the court State Vs. Aditya @ Deepu, FIR No. 227/12 PS Ashok Vihar Page 17 of 20 taking a lenient view against the accused Aditya @ Deepu. (6) It is a settled law that in a case where the offences involved are non compoundable and a compromise was arrived at between the parties, the court can consider the compromise which has occurred between the parties while considering the quantum of sentence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ishwar Singh Vs. State of M.P. reported in AIR 2009 SC 675 under similar circumstances, considering the totality of facts and circumstances awarded sentence to the convict to the period already undergone. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court:
"....... Now, it cannot be againsaid that an offence punishable under Section 307, IPC is not a compoundable offence. Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 expressly states that no offence shall be compounded if it is not compoundable under the Code. At the same time, however, while dealing such matters, this Court may take into account a relevant and important consideration about compromise between the parties for the purpose of reduction of sentence.
In Jetha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan (2006) 9 SCC 255, Murugesan and Ors. Vs. Ganapathy Velar, (2001) 10 SCC 504 and Ishwarlal Vs. State of MP, J.T. 1988 (3) SC 366(1), this court while taking into account the fact of compromise between the parties, reduced sentence imposed on the appellantaccused to already undergone, though the offences were not compoundable.
But it was also stated that in Mahesh Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 SC 2111, such offence was ordered to be compounded.
In our considered opinion, it would be State Vs. Aditya @ Deepu, FIR No. 227/12 PS Ashok Vihar Page 18 of 20 appropriate to order compounding of an offence not compoundable under the Code ignoring and keeping aside statutory provisions. In our judgment, however, limited submission of the learned counsel for the appellant deserves consideration that while imposing substantive sentence, the factum of compromise between the parties is indeed a relevant circumstance which the Court may keep in mind........"
(7) The convict has no history of any previous involvement and is a first time offender. The convict is not hardened criminals and is not involved in any other case. Keeping in view the age of the convict and other family circumstances and also in view of the fact that the convict and the complainant are residing in the same area and the dispute was a chance happening and now they are residing peacefully in the area, any harsh view taken by this court at this stage would be prejudicial to the future of he convict and would take away the chances of reformation of the convict. Therefore, I hold that the interest of justice require that the convict Aditya @ Deepu should be given an opportunity to reform himself. (8) I, accordingly direct that the convict Aditya @ Deepu be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, for a period of Six Months on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/, with one local surety of the like amount. Convict is also directed to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. In case of any default or repetition of offence, the convict shall undergo State Vs. Aditya @ Deepu, FIR No. 227/12 PS Ashok Vihar Page 19 of 20 Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six Months.
(9) The convict is informed that he has a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. He has been apprised that in case he cannot afford to engage an advocate, he can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
(10) Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict free of costs.
(11) File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 16.05.2014 ASJ (NW)II: ROHINI
State Vs. Aditya @ Deepu, FIR No. 227/12 PS Ashok Vihar Page 20 of 20