Delhi District Court
State vs . Sumit @ Kallu & Ors. on 24 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-02,
NORTH EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
PRESIDED BY: SH. VIPUL SANDWAR
JUDGMENT
State Vs. Sumit @ Kallu & Ors.
FIR NO. : 284/2010, U/s 448/323/506/34 IPC PS : NEW USMANPUR A. CIS No. of the Case : 464097/2015 B. FIR No. : 284/2010 C. Date of Institution : 24.12.2011 D. Date of Commission of Offence : 23.12.2009 E. Name of the complainant : Amit S/o Chandra Prakash, R/o A-2/463, Gali No.4, South Gamri, Delhi F. Name of the Accused, his : (1) Sumit Kallu S/o Bijji Parentage & Addresses Singh, (2) Sachin S/o Bijji Singh, (3) Smt. Mukesh W/o Bijji Singh and (4) Bijji Singh @ Vijay Singh S/o Babu Lal Gujjar, all R/o H. No. A385, Gali no.20, 4 ½ Pushta, South Gamri, Delhi G. Offence complained of : U/s 448/323/506/34 IPC H. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
I. Order reserved on : 12.01.2023 J. Date of Order : 24.01.2023 K. Final Order : Acquitted
FIR No.284/10 State vs. Sumit @ Kallu & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.1 of 17 Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision of the Case
1. The present FIR was registered on the directions of Ms. Shivali Sharma, Ld. ACMM, Shahdara, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts vide order dated 09.08.2010. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 23.12.2009 at about 05:30 pm the accused persons forcibly entered the house of the complainant with deadly weapons and started using filthy language towards the complainant and forcibly pushed the complainant out of his house. Accused Sumit @ Kallu hit the complainant with hockey on both his legs and when the complainant tried to run accused Bijji Gujjar caught hold of him and hit him with danda. Accused Sachin also hit him on his legs by bat. Accused Mukesh beat the complainant with danda after which the complainant fell on the ground and became unconscious. The complainant suffered grievous injuries. Accused Sumit @ Kallu also damaged the mobile of the complainant and looted his wrist watch.
2. When the complainant raised alarm public persons gathered as intervened and got the complainant rescued from the clutches of the accused persons. The brother and uncle of the complainant called at 100 number and PCR van came at the spot. The complainant was taken to JPC hospital and was medically examined.
3. FIR was registered under section 448/323/506/34 IPC and has been investigated by the officials of Police Station New Usmanpur and IO/SI Sunil filed the charge sheet against the accused upon which cognizance was taken on 12.01.2012 by the FIR No.284/10 State vs. Sumit @ Kallu & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.2 of 17 learned Predecessor of this Court.
4. Accused appeared before the Court and copy of chargesheet along with other documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were supplied to them.
5. Charge was framed vide order dated 21.12.2012 for the offence punishable Under Section 448/323/506/34 IPC against accused persons by the learned Predecessor of this Court, to which, the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Thereafter, matter was listed for Prosecution Evidence. The Prosecution has examined 08 witnesses in support of its case. In nutshell, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses is as follows :-
(i) PW1 Sh. Ravi is the friend of Complainant Amit and did not support the case of the prosecution at all and stated that he was not a witness to the incident. The said witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for State after seeking permission from the Court. He was confronted with his statement given to the police i.e. Ex. PW1/A wherein he has stated that he had witness the incident of beating given to the complainant Amit by the accused persons. He stated that he gave the said statement at the request of father of his friend Amit under pressure. The said witness was cross examined by Ld. counsel for accused persons and re-affirmed the fact that he had not seen any incident.
(ii) PW2 Amit is the complainant and he deposed that on 23.12.2009 at about 05:30 pm, four accused persons Sumit @ Kallu, Sachin, Mukesh and Bijji came outside his house and started using filthy and abusive language towards him.
FIR No.284/10 State vs. Sumit @ Kallu & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.3 of 17 Thereafter, they forcibly entered in his house, caught hold of him and pushed him out of the house. Accused Sumit hit him with a hockey stick on both his legs and then he tried to ran away accused Bijji caught hold of him. Accused Sumit beat him with bats and accused Mukesh with danda where upon he fell on the ground and became unconscious. His family members raised an alarm and the neighbours intervened due to which he was rescued from the clutches of the accused persons. Thereafter, his brother and uncle called the police at 100 number and PCR van came to the spot. He was taken to the GTB hospital. The said witness was cross examined by Ld. counsel for the accused persons. He has stated in his cross-examination that at the time of incident he was working at Jindal Call Centre, Karampura and his duty hours were 09:00 pm to 09:00 am with Sunday being a holiday. He has deposed that prior to the incident there was no quarrel between him and accused persons, however, accused Sumit @ Kallu had misbehaved with his maternal sister Dolly on 21.09.2009 when she had come to attend the ring ceremony of his elder brother. He has also alleged in his cross examination that accused Sumit is a man of means and he is generally misbehaving with the people of locality.
(iii) PW3 Bhim Sen, friend of complainant Amit, also did not support the case of prosecution and stated that he did not know anything about the quarrel that took place between the accused persons and Amit. He stated that Amit's father made him signed some blank papers. The said witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State after taking permission of the Court. During his cross-examination the witness denied the suggestion of seeing the accused persons beating complainant Amit by dragging him FIR No.284/10 State vs. Sumit @ Kallu & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.4 of 17 out of his house. He was confronted with his earlier statement Ex. PW3/A and he stated that the same is not in his hand writing as he is uneducated. The said witness was not cross examined by the accused persons despite opportunity.
(iv) PW4 Madhur Saxena also resiled from his earlier statement and did not support the case of the prosecution. He denied knowing anything about the quarrel between the accused persons and Amit. He had stated that mother of complainant Amit namely Sadhana came to him and told about the quarrel between Amit and Sumit @ Kallu. The said witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State after taking permission of the Court. The said witness was confronted with his earlier statement Ex.PW4/A and he admitted his signature but denied giving any written statement to the police. He also denied the suggestion of the accused persons beating the complainant Amit by dragging him out of his house. The said witness was not cross examined by the accused persons despite opportunity.
(v) PW5 Rajesh Rajput, Ahlmad in the Court Sh. Devender Kumar, Ld. ACMM, Karkardooma Courts, produced the case FIR No.425/09. The said witness was not cross examined by the accused persons despite opportunity.
(vi) PW6 Dr. Khagen Ramchiary, CMO, JPC hospital had prepared the MLC No.1933/09 of complainant Amit. The said witness was cross examined by Ld. counsel for accused persons and has stated that the injuries found on the complainant could be either due to beating given by any person or it could be possible due to a fall.
(vii) PW7 Dr. Anil Kumar, CMO, JPC hospital prepared the MLC No.1938/09 of accused Sumit and opined the injuries to be FIR No.284/10 State vs. Sumit @ Kallu & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.5 of 17 simple. The said witness was not cross examined by Ld. counsel for accused persons despite opportunity.
(viii) PW8 SI Sunil Sharma is the IO and after getting the investigation handed over by SHO prepared tehrir on the basis of which present FIR was registered. He went to the spot and recorded the supplementary statement of the complainant. Three witnesses of the complainant was called by him at the PS after giving notice under section 160 Cr. PC and gave their duly signed statement as per section 160 Cr. PC. He received the MLC of the injured wherein doctor had opined that the nature of injury as simple. He also collected the DD entries from FIR No. 427/2009, under section 279/337 IPC. He did not recover any weapon of offence. He completed the investigation and filed the challan before the Court. The said witness was cross examined by Ld. counsel for accused persons. During his cross- examination he has deposed that he had interrogated SI Ram Kishore Tyagi who had told him that it was the case of accident and not a quarrel. He did not prepare any site plan. He has conceded that FIR under section 279/337 IPC had been registered against the complainant by SI Ram Kishore Tyagi.
7. PE was closed on 15.02.2020 and on 23.11.2022, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr. PC was recorded. The accused persons did not wish to lead any DE and the matter was thereafter, fixed for final arguments.
8. Final arguments heard. Case record perused meticulously.
9. This Court has thoughtfully considered the material on FIR No.284/10 State vs. Sumit @ Kallu & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.6 of 17 record and arguments advanced with due circumspection.
10. The offence under S. 452 IPC, the section reads as follows:
"452. House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint.--Whoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
The genus can be found in S. 441 IPC which defines the term criminal trespass. The succeeding sections are the variations of the criminal trespass defined in s. 441 and are punished as per the requirements of the sections. Section 441 IPC defines criminal trespass and is as under:
"441. Criminal trespass.--Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit 'criminal trespass'."
11. In Rajinder v. State of Haryana [(1995) 5 SCC 187 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 852], hon'ble Supreme Court Court observed as under: (SCC pp. 198-99, paras 21-22) "21. It is evident from the above provision that unauthorised entry into or upon property in the possession of another or unlawfully remaining there after lawful entry can answer the definition of criminal trespass if, and only if, such entry or unlawful remaining is with the intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession of the property. In other words, unless any of the intentions referred in Section 441 is proved no offence of criminal trespass can be said to have been committed. Needless to say, such FIR No.284/10 State vs. Sumit @ Kallu & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.7 of 17 an intention has to be gathered from the facts and circumstances of a given case."
12. Dealing with the issue of trespass, hon'ble Supreme Court in Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. v. Dundayya Gurushiddaiah Hiremath, (1991) 2 SCC 141 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 315 at page 147 has observed that:
"It is significant that when entry into or upon property in possession of another is lawful then unlawfully remaining upon such property with the object of intimidating, insulting or annoying the person in possession of the property would be criminal trespass. The offence would be continuing so long as the trespass is not lifted or vacated and intimidation, insult or annoyance of the person legally in possession of the property is not stopped. The authors of the Code had the following words to say:
"We have given the name of trespass to every usurpation, however slight, of dominion over property. We do not propose to make trespass, as such, an offence, except when it is committed in order to the commission of some offence injurious to some person interested in the property on which the trespass is committed, or for the purpose of causing annoyance to such a person. Even then we propose to visit it with a light punishment, unless it be attended with aggravating circumstances. These aggravating circumstances are of two sorts. Criminal trespass may be aggravated by the way in which it is committed. It may also be aggravated by the end for which it is committed."
13. In Matiullah Sheikh v. State of W.B., (1964) 6 SCR 978 :
AIR 1965 SC 132 : (1965) 1 Cri LJ 126, it has been observed that:
"5. It is worth noticing also that house trespass, apart from anything else is made punishable under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code the punishment prescribed being imprisonment which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or both.
FIR No.284/10 State vs. Sumit @ Kallu & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.8 of 17
6. Higher punishment is prescribed where house trespass is committed "in order to" the commission of other offences. An examination of Sections 449, 450, 451, 454 and 457 show that the penalty prescribed has been graded according to the nature of the offence "in order to" the commission of which house trespass is committed. It is quite clear that these punishments for house trespass are prescribed quite independent of the question whether the offence "in order to" the commission of which the house trespass was committed has been actually committed or not. In our opinion, there can be no doubt that the words "in order to" have been used to mean "with the purpose of". If the purpose in committing the house trespass is the commission of an offence punishable with death the house trespass becomes punishable under Section 449 of the Indian Penal Code. If the purpose in committing the house trespass is the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment for life the house trespass is punishable under Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly, Sections 451, 454 and 457 will apply the house trespass or lurking house trespass, or lurking house trespass by night or house breaking by night are committed for the purpose of the offence indicated in those sections. Whether or not the purpose was actually accomplished is quite irrelevant in these cases.
14. From the above discussion, it can be stated that every trespass does not amount to criminal trespass within the meaning of Section 441 IPC. In order to satisfy the conditions of Section 441 it must be established that the appellant entered in possession over the premises with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property.
15. In Rash Behari Chatterjee v. Fagu Shaw, (1969) 2 SCC 216, it was observed that:
"The correct position in law may, in our opinion, be stated thus: In order to establish that the entry FIR No.284/10 State vs. Sumit @ Kallu & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.9 of 17 on the property was with the intent to annoy, intimidate or insult, it is necessary for the Court to be satisfied that causing such annoyance, intimidation or insult was the aim of the entry; that it is not sufficient for that purpose to show merely that the natural consequence of the entry was likely to be annoyance, intimidation or insult, and that this likely consequence was known to the person entering; that in deciding whether the aim of the entry was the causing of such annoyance, intimidation or insult, the Court has to consider all the relevant circumstances including the presence of knowledge that its natural consequences would be such annoyance, intimidation or insult and including also the probability or something else than the causing of such intimidation, insult or annoyance, being the dominant intention which prompted the entry."
16. To prove the offence punishable under S. 448 IPC, it is mandatory that ingredients of criminal trespass as discussed above is to be proved. PW1, PW3 and PW4, the eye witness of the prosecution, have turned completely hostile and is of no use to prosecution. This court is mindful of the doctrine of Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, however, despite that nothing has come in the deposition of above mentioned PWs to support the case of the prosecution. PW2, complainant/Amit, has deposed that the accused persons forcefully entered into his house and caught hold of him and pushed him out of his house. This deposition of PW2 is not corroborated by testimonies of any other witness. There is no mention of accused persons entering in the house of complainant in S. 161 statement of the complainant recorded on 03.10.10. Nothing has been brought on by the prosecution to prove that the complainant Amit was in possession of the house A-2/463, Gali No. 4, South Gamri, Delhi - 110053 at the time of incident. Accordingly, no offence punishable under S. 448 IPC is made out.
FIR No.284/10 State vs. Sumit @ Kallu & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.10 of 17
17. S. 323 deals with Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt and reads as:
"Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. S 319 defines Hurt as--Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt."
18. In the present case, Complainant PW2 has deposed that accused Sumit @ Kallu hit him with a hockey stick on both his legs and when he tried to run away, accused Bijji caught hold of him. Thereafter, accused Sachin beat him with bats and accused Mukesh beat him with danda on which he fell on ground and became unconscious due to the beating. PW6, Dr. Khagen Ramchiary has deposed that he examined the patient Amit on 23.12.2009 and prepared his MLC 1933/09 Ex. PW6/A. During his cross examination he has been unsettled and has deposed that injuries of the complainant could be possible by falling down also. PW8 SI Sunil Sharma has deposed that no weapon of offence could be recovered.
19. Copy of DD entries of FIR 427/2009 PS New Usmanpur is also on record. The said FIR is dated 23.12.2009 and has been lodged by accused Sumit @ Kallu against the complainant Amit regarding a road accident on 23.12.2009 at around 5:00PM. Perusal of the FIR suggests that complainant Amit after the accident had a quarrel with the public and had sustained injuries. In the said FIR, though the incident pertains to 23.12.2009 at around 5:30 PM, medical examination of the injured Sumit was FIR No.284/10 State vs. Sumit @ Kallu & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.11 of 17 conducted only on 24.12.2009 at 2:23 PM. Medical examination of the complainant Amit, in the present case has been done on 23.12.2009 whereas the present FIR has been registered on 08.09.2010 pursuant to the orders of the court dated 09.08.2010. PW2 complainant in his deposition has stated the date and time of incident as 23.12.2009 at about 5:30 PM which is the time of the accident as reflected in FIR 427/2009. Therefore, a doubt has been created regarding the injuries suffered by the complainant Amit. The version as depicted in FIR 427/2009 PS New Usmanpur, suggesting that complainant Amit received injuries after the incident after being beaten by the public read with statement of PW6 that injuries of the complainant may be due to fall seems more plausible. Accordingly, no offence punishable under S. 323 IPC is made out.
20. Coming to offence punishable under S. 506 IPC. Section 506 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation. "Criminal intimidation" as defined in Section 503 IPC is as under:
"503.Criminal intimidation.--Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation.--A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section."
FIR No.284/10 State vs. Sumit @ Kallu & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.12 of 17
21. A reading of the definition of "criminal intimidation"
would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do.
22. In Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka, (2015) 7 SCC 423 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 132, it has been observed that:
"It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning of "criminal intimidation". The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section."
23. In his deposition, complainant PW2 Amit has stated that accused persons came outside his house and started using filthy and abusive language against him. Then they gave him beatings after which he became unconscious. Nothing has been deposed by him suggesting the he was intimidated. Nothing regarding criminal intimidation have been mentioned in the statement under S. 161 CrPC of the complainant. Therefore, no offence punishable under S. 506 IPC is made out.
24. In a criminal trial, the burden on the prosecution is beyond reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt is a rule of caution laid down by the Courts of Law in respect of assessing the evidence FIR No.284/10 State vs. Sumit @ Kallu & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.13 of 17 in criminal cases. In Awadhi Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1971) 3 SCC 116 at page 117, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:
"Before a person can be convicted on the strength of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances in question must be satisfactorily established and the proved circumstances must bring home the offence to the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If those circumstances or some of them can be explained by any other reasonable hypothesis then the accused must have the benefit of that hypothesis. But in assessing the evidence imaginary possibilities have no place. What is to be considered are ordinary human probabilities."
25. In State of Haryana v. Bhagirath, (1999) 5 SCC 96 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 658 : 1999 SCC OnLine SC 577 at page 99 Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:
"But the principle of benefit of doubt belongs exclusively to criminal jurisprudence. The pristine doctrine of benefit of doubt can be invoked when there is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. It is the reasonable doubt which a conscientious judicial mind entertains on a conspectus of the entire evidence that the accused might not have committed the offence, which affords the benefit to the accused at the end of the criminal trial. Benefit of doubt is not a legal dosage to be administered at every segment of the evidence, but an advantage to be afforded to the accused at the final end after consideration of the entire evidence, if the Judge conscientiously and reasonably entertains doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. It is nearly impossible in any criminal trial to prove all the elements with a scientific precision. A criminal court could be convinced of the guilt only beyond the range of a reasonable doubt. Of course, the expression "reasonable doubt" is incapable of definition. Modern thinking is in favour of the view that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the same as proof which affords moral certainty to the Judge."
FIR No.284/10 State vs. Sumit @ Kallu & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.14 of 17
26. Francis Wharton, a celebrated writer on criminal law in the United States has quoted from judicial pronouncements in his book Wharton's Criminal Evidence (at p. 31, Vol. 1 of the 12th Edn.) as follows:
"It is difficult to define the phrase 'reasonable doubt'. However, in all criminal cases a careful explanation of the term ought to be given. A definition often quoted or followed is that given by Chief Justice Shaw in the Webster case. He says:
'It is not mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs and depending upon moral evidence is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that consideration that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge."
27. In the treatise The Law of Criminal Evidence authored by H.C. Underhill it is stated (at p. 34, Vol. 1 of the 5th Edn.) thus:
"The doubt to be reasonable must be such a one as an honest, sensible and fair-minded man might, with reason, entertain consistent with a conscientious desire to ascertain the truth. An honestly entertained doubt of guilt is a reasonable doubt. A vague conjecture or an inference of the possibility of the innocence of the accused is not a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is one which arises from a consideration of all the evidence in a fair and reasonable way. There must be a candid consideration of all the evidence and if, after this candid consideration is had by the jurors, there remains in the minds a conviction of the guilt of the accused, then there is no room for a reasonable doubt."
28. In Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v.State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : (1974) 1 SCR 489 Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned that:
"the dangers of exaggerated devotion to the rule of FIR No.284/10 State vs. Sumit @ Kallu & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.15 of 17 benefit of doubt at the expense of social defence demand special emphasis in the contemporary context of escalating crime and escape. The judicial instrument has a public accountability. The cherished principles or golden thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs through the web of our law should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt."
29. The evidence brought on record by the prosecution, is not sufficient to link the accused to the commission of the crime. As discussed above, the prosecution has failed to proved the possession of the complainant. PWs 1, 3 and 4 have not supported the case of the prosecution at all. The testimony of the complainant PW2 has not been corroborated by any other witness. Nothing has been brought on record by the prosecution to suggest that complainant Amit was in possession of A-2/463, Gali No. 4, South Gamri, Delhi. The MLC of the complainant is ante-timed and cannot be relied. The simple injuries of the complainant, could be possible due to a fall as stated by PW6 in his cross examination. Nothing has been deposed regarding the offence punishable under S. 506 IPC.
30. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the Prosecution has not been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused persons Sumit @ Kallu, Sachin, Smt. Mukesh and Bijji Singh have committed offence under S. 448 IPC or S. 323 IPC, therefore, accused Sumit @ Kallu, Sachin, Smt. Mukesh and Bijji Singh are found not guilty in the present case and resultantly, they stand acquitted in the present case. Their bail bonds stand cancelled and sureties stand discharged.
FIR No.284/10 State vs. Sumit @ Kallu & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.16 of 17
31. Accused persons each are directed furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount u/s 437A Cr.P.C and directed to be present before the Ld. Appellate Court as and when directed.
Digitally signed by VIPUL VIPUL SANDWAR
SANDWAR Date:
2023.01.24
15:45:15 +0530
Announced in the open (VIPUL SANDWAR)
Court on 24th January, 2023 MM-02/NE/KKD COURTS
FIR No.284/10 State vs. Sumit @ Kallu & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.17 of 17