Delhi District Court
St. vs Anil Paruthy And Ors. on 22 March, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. J. R. ARYAN,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE; NEW DELHI
Date of Institution : 05/11/2004
Date of judgment reserved on : 14/03/2011
Date of decision : 22/03/2011
Sessions Case No. 91/04
St.Vs Anil Paruthy and ors.
FIR No.482/2004
U/s 498A/406/304B/34 IPC
P.S Lajpat Nagar
1. Anil Paruthy
S/o Labh Chand
R/o H. No. C113, IIIrd Floor,
Daya Nand Colony, Lajpat Nagar,
New Delhi
2. Manoj
S/o Labh Chand
R/o H. No. C113, IIIrd Floor,
Daya Nand Colony, Lajpat Nagar,
New Delhi
Sessions Case No. 91/04 Page 1 of 25
3. Anita
W/o Praveen Kumar
R/o H. NO. 6, Punjabi Colony
near Sangam Theatre, Barut (UP)
4. Asha Rani
W/o Pradeep Kumar
R/o H. No. 3/3, Ashandh, Distt. Karnal
(Haryana)
5. Labh Chand
S/o Naubat Ram
R/o H. No. 585/14
Ram Rai Gate Jind (Haryana)
6. Smt. Soma Rani
W/o Labh Chand
R/o H. No. 585/14
Ram Rai Gate Jind (Haryana)
J U D G M E N T : Anil Paruthy the husband, his brother Manoj, his father Sh. Labh Chand and mother Smt. Soma Rani have been tried for a charge of matrimonial cruelty and dowry death punishable u/s 498A and 304 B/34 IPC in this trial. Charge against these accused persons is that on and Sessions Case No. 91/04 Page 2 of 25 before 05/07/04 accused persons subjected Smt. Jolly w/o accused Anil Paruthy to cruelties on account of demand of property and Smt. Jolly was found dead on 05/07/04 in her matrimonial home C113, Dayanand Colony, Lajpat Nagar4, New Delhi. When she was found to have committed suicide and soon before her death accused persons were alleged to have subjected victim deceased to cruelty on account of demand of dowry. Accused persons claimed trial by pleading not guilty to charge.
Certain undisputed fats in this case are that victim deceased Jolly r/o Punjabi Colony, Barot, District Bagpad, UP was got married by her parents to accused Anil Paruthy r/o Jind, Haryana on 25/10/2001 and it was a marriage celebrated and performed in accordance with Hindu Customs and Rites. It is again an uncontroverted fact that while husband and wife were residing and living in a rented accommodation C113, Dayanand Colony, Lajpat Nagar4, 3rd Floor that victim Jolly committed suicide by hanging on 05/07/04 and accordingly death of the victim Jolly took place in about 2 years 9 months and a few days of her marriage with Anil Paruthy.
Sh. Harish Chand, father of the deceased Jolly lodged his complaint Sessions Case No. 91/04 Page 3 of 25 for offences of cruelty and dowry death with the police which is Ex.PW4/A. Complaint allegations are that complainant was father of the four children, one son and three daughters. Jolly aged 25 years was got married to Anil Paruthy on 25/10/2001 and that marriage was performed in Jind, Haryana. Anil Paruthy gave a telephone call to complainant after a month of that marriage that complainant had given less dowry in that marriage. Anita, sister of Anil who had been got married in Barot and who had mediated the marriage between Jolly and Anil also alleged that adequate dowry had not been given.
Further allegations in complaint are that Jolly when came to her parents house after a month of her marriage she told that Anil Paruthy was returning home after having consumed liquor and used to give her beatings. Complainant then came along with his daughter to her matrimonial home which was in Sarita Vihar. Anil's brother Manoj and their month were also living and residing in that house. Complainant leaving behind Jolly in her matrimonial home left the place after making Anil to understand the things. Thereafter again accused Anil gave a phone call to the complainant and asked him to take his daughter back. Complainant alongwith his family people came to Delhi and by that time Sessions Case No. 91/04 Page 4 of 25 accused Anil Paruthy had shifted his residence to C113, Dayanand Colony, Lajpat Nagar. Mother of Anil, sister Asha and Anita were also there and once again complainant made them to understand the things to ensure that jolly was settled in matrimonial home and he left and went back. Further allegations are that in between he used to receive phone calls regarding money demand and on account of those demands Jolly was being harassed by Anil and his brother Manoj.
Further allegations are that about a month before incident of this case Jolly came to her parents house for about 2022 days and she told complainant that her husband used to harass her. About 1516 days before the incident accused Anil called complainant on phone and put up a demand of Rs. 50,000/ as a precondition for taking Jolly back and he demanded money as he wanted an AC installed in his house. Complainant gave that amount of Rs. 50,000/ to Anil and Jolly was sent back with Anil to her matrimonial home.
Further allegations in complaint are that on 04/07/04, complainant received a phone call from Anil in the night wherein accused Anil told complainant that he wanted to buy ahouse and demanded Rs. 5 lacs and threatened that if money was not paid then he and his family members Sessions Case No. 91/04 Page 5 of 25 will kill his daughter. Finally on 05/07/04 at around 5 PM complainant came to know from the phone call that accused persons had killed his daughter and accordingly he reached Delhi and give this complaint.
DD 21 was recorded in PP Amar Colony on 05/07/04 at 5.15 PM on the basis of a message received from Police Control Room that a female has committed a suicide at C113, Dayanand Colony. SI Ramesh Dahiya in charge of Police Post alongwith police staff reached the place of incident. He found that dead body of female was lying on the floor of a bedroom which was also a temple room. Ligature marks were noticed on the neck and a Yellow Red colour dupatta cut from in between and a small size kitchen knife were there on a table in that room. Name of the deceased victim was known as Jolly D/o Sh. Harish Chand. Anil and his brother Manoj were present in the House. Crime Team and its Photographer arrived and photographs of the site were taken. Victim was got removed to AIIMS for its postmortem. Meanwhile Sh. Harish Chand, father of the deceased arrived and SI Ramesh Dahiya recorded statement of Sh. Harish Chand which is Ex.PW4/A. Offences u/s 498A, 406 and 304B/34 IPC were made out from complaint and accordingly rukka for those offences were issued as Sessions Case No. 91/04 Page 6 of 25 Ex.PW11/B. On that complaint Ex.PW4/A and FIR Ex.PW1/A was registered in PS Lajpat Nagar at 8.25 PM on 05/07/04. Accused Anil and his brother Manoj were arrested in this case. SI Ramesh Dahiya then prepared site plan Ex.PW11/C. Chunni Ex.P1 and knife Ex.P2 were seized through seizure memo Ex.PW4/B. Complainant Sh. Harish Chand and his wife Smt. Raj Rani appeared before SDM, Tuglakabad institutional area and they lodged their complaint with SDM also by getting their complaint statement recorded before him. These statements are Ex.PW5/C of Harish Chand and Ex.PW5/B of Smt. Raj Rani. Meanwhile body of the victim deceased was subjected to postmortem at AIIMS Mortuary on 06/07/04. Ligature marks was observed on the neck of the victim details of which are mentioned in this report. Cause of death was opined as asphyxia due to antemortem hanging by ligature. Report is Ex.PW9/A. Other two accused persons were arrested in accordance with the anticipatory bail order they had obtained and statement of other witnesses were recorded and finally five accused persons including Anita sister of accused Anil were charge sheeted u/s 498A, 406, 304B/34 IPC. Accused Anita was discharged vide order dated 08/04/05 and rest four accused persons were Sessions Case No. 91/04 Page 7 of 25 put on trial on the charge u/s 498A, 304B/34 IPC.
In all twelve prosecution witnesses have been examined in this trial & material witnesses are the Complainant Harish Chand, father of the deceased, Smt. Raj Rani PW8 mother of the deceased and finally PW10 the brother of the deceased. They all supported the prosecution case and deposed that victim deceased Jolly was being given cruel treatment and was being harassed and there had been a demand of dowry by accused persons and then victim committed suicide. Arguments by Ld. Defence Counsel Ashish Bhagat on behalf of four accused persons is that testimony of these witnesses cannot be believed that accused Anil Paruthy or other accused persons had ever demanded dowry or that for non fulfillment of any such demand for dowry that accused persons subjected victim deceased Jolly to any harassment and cruelty. Counsel submitted that in the cross examination PW4 SH. Harish Chand came out with admission of certain important facts which would not reconcile with his deposition in examination in chief that there was a demand of dowry. Accordingly analysis of evidence of these witnesses is to be taken up.
Offence of dowry death u/s 304B IPC is comprised in following ingredients: Sessions Case No. 91/04 Page 8 of 25
1. Death of a woman occurs by burns or bodily injury or takes place otherwise then under normal circumstances.
2. Such a death has taken place within seven years of her marriage.
3. Soon before death the victim must be shown to have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or relative of her husband.
4. Such a cruelty or harassment was in connection with any demand for dowry.
"Dowry has been defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and it means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given, directly or indirectly By one party to the marriage to the other party or By parents of either parties to the marriage or By any other person to either party of the marriage at or before or any time after marriage in connection with marriage. Section 113 B of Evidence Act has been brought on the statute and it provides for certain presumption as to dowry death. It says that where a question arises if a person has committed dowry death;
If it was shown that soon before her death the victim woman had been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand Sessions Case No. 91/04 Page 9 of 25 of dowry by that person.
The court shall presume that such person had caused that dowry death.
PW4, father of the deceased has deposed that he got his daughter Jolly married to Anil at 25.10.01. After one month of marriage when Jolly came to her parent's house she said that her husband used to taken liquor and beat her. Witness deposed that meanwhile Anil gave a telephone call that dowry given in the marriage was not sufficient. Anil's sister Anita who had got this marriage settled also asked this witness that dowry was insufficient. On that occasion Jolly came back to her matrimonial home after staying with her parents for 15 days.
Witness stated further that he alongwith his wife came to her daughters house at Sarita Vihar and found that other sister of Anil who was living in Asand was also present in house. Anil's brother Manoj and their mother were also present in the house. They all humiliated this witness by saying that he had not given sufficient dowry, witness deposed & insufficient was of gold, furniture and electronic items which had not been given in marriage.
In cross examination this witness admits as recorded at page 5 that Sessions Case No. 91/04 Page 10 of 25 Washing Machine, TV, Fridge, Cooler, Microwave Oven and jewellery were purchased by Anil after marriage. Witness however volunteered that those articles had been purchased by Anil afterh marriage only from money paid by this witness. Witness further explained reason that those articles were not given as accused wanted to shift his residence. The said volunteered part is none of the prosecution case either in the report or in the form of any other evidence or material. Witness further admitted in cross that Palio Car had been purchased by Anil before his marriage and he admitted that he had not paid any money for purchase of that car.
This witness then deposed further that Anil shifted his house to Dayanand Colony and 23 months thereafter Jolly telephoned to this witness that Anil, his brother and their mother and sister Asha used to harass her and beat her for not bringing dowry. About a month before her death, Jolly came to her parents house and she stayed there for about 15 days. On 15th day, witness deposed, he received a telephone call from Anil who told witness that he would take Jolly back only after he was paid Rs. 50,000/ for the installation of AC. Anil came to the house of this witness and witness paid that amount to Anil and Anil then took Jolly to her matrimonial home. Witness further deposed that on 04/07/04 at Sessions Case No. 91/04 Page 11 of 25 around 10 PM, he received a phone call from Anil where Anil told this witness that he wanted to buy a house and was in need of Rs. 5 lacs. Witness replied that he was unable to arrange that amount of Rs. 5 lacs and if he was able to arrange it he would give it to the accused and next day information of death of his daughter in her matrimonial home was received.
In cross examination witness admitted that Anil suffered a loss in business and this witness himself took Anil to hospital for treatment of his depression. He further admitted that Anil had taken his daughter Jolly to Laddakh. He further admitted that Anil was planning to go abroad with Jolly during vacations in June, 2004 ( It has come in defence evidence that Anil had got Passport of Jolly issued after their marriage ).
In further cross examination witness deposed that he do not know if accused Anil had got a house booked in the name of Jolly in Gurgaon Haryana or that in an Insurance Policy Anil had got name of Jolly as his nominee. Witness admitted that daughter was born to his daughter Jolly and all those delivery expenses were paid by Anil. He further admitted that Anil had arranged a function on the birth of his daughter at his native place Jind and this witness with his family members attended that Sessions Case No. 91/04 Page 12 of 25 function. He further deposed that he attended that function though relations were not normal. He further admitted that Anil and Jolly when visited Laddakh that was in June, 2003 and they went by air but then witness stated that Anil was to collect some payments.
Ld. Defence Counsel argued that where Anil was a kind of person maintaining his matrimonial life to the extent and effect that he took victim Jolly for a sight seeing to Laddakh by Air and had celebrated birth of his daughter bearing all expenses to himself then the evidence that he demanded Rs. 50,000/ for installing AC was unbelievable. Witness admitted that Anil had business in computers & computer parts being run from Nehru place and had a comfortable income from that business. Witness admits that in his cross examination at page 2 recorded on 14/10/05 that accused had ACs, Microwaves, Washing Machine, but volunteered that these articles were purchased only after the marriage. He also admitted that accused Anil once was treated for fear psychosis and the disease was diagnosed that Anil used to get afraid from anybody. Reason behind that problem was that accused Anil had some dispute with a person regarding his business and that person gave a threat to kill him. Counsel submitted that person of such a timid nature who suffered a Sessions Case No. 91/04 Page 13 of 25 problem of fear psychosis only by receiving a threat from a business rival, he was not expected to behave by cruelty or to cause harassment to his only wife. PW4 admits in cross examination that Jolly used to observe fast every Monday for the wellbeing of her husband and family members. Witness further admits that Anil used to share his sorrows with this witness and rather did not share his business affairs or his happiness with this witness. He further deposed that even his daughter Jolly also did not share her happiness with this witness. Witness deposed further that Anil used to go for his work at 10/11 AM and used to return by 10/11 PM. Witness expressed ignorance if Jolly also used to help him in business accounting work though he admitted that Jolly was operating some office work from her house. Such kind of testimony makes it very difficult to believe that Anil approached his in laws for insufficiency of dowry or subjected Jolly to any cruelty or harassment for fulfillment of any dowry demand.
Though PW4 expressed ignorance if Anil had booked a house in the name of Jolly in Gurgaon or that he had named her a nominee in his Insurance Policy, during defence evidence accused Anil produced the original receipt showing that a residential plot in sector 57, Gurgaon, Sessions Case No. 91/04 Page 14 of 25 Haryana was applied for in the name of Jolly in March, 2004 and initial booking amount of Rs. 92,400/ was deposited towards that allotment. Another original document was placed on record during defence evidence which was on application for allotment of importer/exporter code number applied for in Jolly's name in March, 2004 as appears from an acknowledgment of this form stamped by the concerned department. On this point accused examined a defence witness DW1 who was a family friend of accused Anil. This witness deposed that Anil was having a normal matrimonial life as he found whenever he visited Anil's house and he knew Anil for the last 15 years. He stated on oath that Anil applied for residential plot in Gurtaon, Haryana on the advice of this witness in the year 2004. On the advice and recommendation of this witness a proposal to take up garment export business was considered for Jolly and she showed a good response and accordingly registration with AEPC process was started. Witness further stated that somewhere in June, 2004 when he visited the house of Anil in Lajpat Nagar, he found Jolly in a depression state of mind and the reason Jolly explained to witness was that she had returned from her parents place about 15 days before and some money which had been kept as a safe custody with her father Sessions Case No. 91/04 Page 15 of 25 belonging to Anil was not being returned. This defence was also put to PW4 in the cross examination. It was suggested to witness that when Anil suffered fear psychosis problem and had gone in depression, an amount of Rs. 12 lacs was kept with this witness for safe custody. Witness denied and disputed this suggestion.
DW1 has deposed on this fact as told to him by Jolly. It was rightly argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that there was no reason to disbelieve DW1 particularly when nothing on record suggested if the witness was favourable to accused Anil or was against the family of the complainant. Witness appeared equally lovable to Jolly as equally inclined to Anil favourably.
Accused examined another defence witness DW2 Ashok Raj Gupta who is also a business person carrying business of newspaper print advertisement from a premises adjoining the computer shop premises of Anil in Nehru Place. Witness states on oath that he used to see Jolly visiting and attending business of Anil and they used to interact quite frequently and they were quite close in their relationship. Witness further deposed that in the year 2004 he was an attesting witness on the form submitted for change of Jolly's name in her Passport and he identified his Sessions Case No. 91/04 Page 16 of 25 signatures as a witness on the photocopy of sworn affidavit of Amit Paruthy. Witness further deposed that Anil applied for a plot in Gurgaon in the year 2004 but then from the business premises address of this witness i.e. 106, Sawarswati House, Nehru Place, Delhi, it being the permanent address of this witness as Anil's shop 105, Saraswati House was a rented accommodation. Witness further deposed that somewhere in October/November, 2003, Anil had suffered a problem of depression and during that period his shop business used to be attended by his wife alongwith her father.
This witness deposed further that ever since the death of Jolly, Anil was getting remembrances adds taken out in the leading newspapers through this witness and the witness then placed on record those newspapers "Hindustan Times, Delhi Edition as well as Time of India, Delhi Edition" wherein every year a remembrance for Jolly Pruthy had been published on behalf of Anil and their daughter Lakshita.
Defence Counsel did appear well founded in his submissions and arguments that accused Anil was a dedicated person towards his matrimonial life to ensure it a normal and happy life and if testimony of the defence witness was believed and there appeared no reason for not Sessions Case No. 91/04 Page 17 of 25 believing it, accused Anil had a consideration, compassion and a kind of harmony with his wife Jolly who even used to come and attend computer business of Anil. PW4 himself admitted that working hours of Anil in his business place used to be from 10 AM to 10 PM and Ld. Defence Counsel rightly submitted that accused a common person remaining busy in his work and dedicated to his matrimonial life showing his concerned towards wellbeing of his wife and family even by applying a plot for a residential house and nominating his wife Jolly in his Insurance Policy and is showing interest and enthusiasm to get her own business in shawls etc. as garment export business set was a behaviour which may not reconcile with the testimony of PW4 and other witnesses that accused demanded Rs. 50,000/ for buying an AC or that a day before incident he gave a call to his fatherinlaw PW4 that he wanted to buy a house and asked for an amount of Rs. 5 lacs.
A suggestion has been given to PW4 and he answered that he did not know if Jolly had a talk with Anil on telephone for one about hour before her death. Ld. Addl. PP put a stress on this point of evidence that where Anil had one hour talk on telephone with Jolly then he must have come out with a plea as to what that talk was about and how and why Sessions Case No. 91/04 Page 18 of 25 Jolly took a decision to end her life immediately after that talk.
Accused in his 313 CrPC statement has stated on 05/07/04, he himself as well Jolly were on fasting as it was the first Monday of Sawan. They both visited a temple in their colony in the morning and then he went to his business place in Nehru Place. At around 3 or 3.30 PM, he explains, that he received a telephone call on his landline phone in his office which was given by Jolly by her mobile phone and she told Anil that she was disturbed and was in depression. Accused asked about reason and she replied that when she was at her parents place, her father and brother Vishal had given her physical beating and the reason was that her younger sister Charu wanted to get into a love marriage and Jolly supported her whereas parents were against that. She further told Anil as explained by accused, he tried to console and support her. At that moment phone got disconnected. Accused further explained that he then gave a call on the mobile phone of Jolly to have a talk with her but then call went unattended and by around 4 PM he reached home as he was on fasting and was to take food & reached home & he found Jolly hanging by her neck from ceiling fan. Accused cut dupatta ligature and got the body on ground. He further explained that main entry of the door of the Sessions Case No. 91/04 Page 19 of 25 house had been bolted from inside and their infant daughter was crying. Accused managed to take entry inside the house from neighbour's house and found this unfortunate mishappening.
Ld. Defence Counsel referred to testimony of the Investigating Officer where he admitted that he did not collect phone call details of accused as well of the deceased victim. Investigating Officer further admitted that he had not examined any witness from the neighbouring house particularly regarding any incident if they ever saw and/observed to have happened between accused and his wife. Counsel appeared justified in his arguments that whether no efforts or attempts were made to collect the mobile phone call details of the victim and no witness from adjoining neighbouring house was examined then prosecution again ascert that even if a long duration talk took place between the accused and the deceased just before the incident, it was something only adverse against accused. Accused in his 313 CrPC examination has given an explanation on that point and their appear no reason to not to accept it.
IO Inspector Ramesh Dahiya PW11 in cross examination admitted that he did not enquire who were the persons residing on the ground floor, on the first floor and on second floor of that building and he did not Sessions Case No. 91/04 Page 20 of 25 record statement of any those occupants of those premises. Neither did he join any person from adjoining building or as to who those occupants were. Investigating Officer admitted that adjoining houses were in a row and balconies were quite adjoining. Ld. Defence Counsel appeared well justified and well founded in his arguments that any such person in adjoining premises or even the landlord of the premises wherein deceased and accused Anil Pruthy were residing as a tenant would have stated something regarding relations between the deceased and her husband, whether there happened any occasion where accused was seen committing any act of cruelty on deceased. Nonjoining of any public person from the residential vicinity of the couple would suggest in difference on the part of the Investigating Officer towards a fair investigation. Accused has examined DW2 an adjoining business shop occupant in the Nehru Place of the accused and the witness deposed about cordiality in the relationship between deceased and accused and that even deceased sometimes coming to the computer shop of accused and attending their business. There appeared no reason to disbelieve this defence witness. Remembrance got published by accused every year since death of deceased further makes a reflection of his conduct that he Sessions Case No. 91/04 Page 21 of 25 had love and compassion for deceased.
Ld. Defence Counsel argued that prosecution evidence as regards a demand of dowry was contradictory, non specific and inconsistent. PW4 deposed that once he visited house of accused in Delhi, accused persons humiliated him saying that he had not given sufficient dowry and that insufficiency was referred to Gold, furniture and electric items. Witness did not specify that incident either by a particular date nor did he specified that demand except by saying in sufficiency in Gold, furniture and electric items.
PW8 has then deposed that accused persons demanded Diamond Ring, money for car and Gold for entire family. The evidence is inconsistent and fails to inspire a confidence and credibility. PW10 has merely deposed that his sister was being tortured by accused persons as articles given at the time of marriage were not sufficient according to the accused and they were raising further demand. He did not state any particulars of such "further demand". Witness though repeated the prosecution story that Rs. 50,000/ was paid for purchase of AC and that part of the prosecution story has already been found unacceptable and unbelievable.
Sessions Case No. 91/04 Page 22 of 25
PW10 brother of the deceased had been shown certain greeting cards, during his cross examination which had been sent by his sister Charu as well sister Jolly addressed to Anil. One such greeting card is New Year greetings for the year 200203 from PW10 and his sister Charu addressed to accused and their sister Jolly. This card expressed all best wishes for Jolly and accused. There is another BirthdayCard addressed to Jolly in the year 2003. All this evidence suggest that there was no reason of any bitterness in the relationships between two families for any reason of victim deceased Jolly being harassed or tortured on account of non fulfillment of any demand.
Ld. Defence Counsel relied upon a judgment by Supreme Court in a case Tarsam Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 2009 SC 1454. It was appeal against conviction in an offencec of dowry death. After discussing the proposition of Law has to what are the essential ingredients of dowry death, it came to be observed finally that no evidence was found to have been brought on record showing that there had been any act of omission or commission on the part of the accused happened before the death of the deceased to demonstrate that appellant was responsible for the same. High Court for the first time in its judgment on a hypothesis was found to Sessions Case No. 91/04 Page 23 of 25 have observed that when father of the deceased came to see her he must have been insulted or felt hurt as she might have been subjected to harassment. No evidence whatsoever had been brought to sustain said findings. The conviction was accordingly set aside. Ld. Counsel also relied upon another Supreme Court judgment in a case Sunil Bajaj Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2001 Crml. Law Journal 4700 it was an appeal in a conviction for dowry death. It came to be found and observed that there was no concrete evidence of demand of dowry or subjecting deceased to cruelty for or in connection with dowry. Only vague and inconsistent statements of interested witnesses were on record and there was no evidence of any relative or neighbour of the parties about any cruelty committed to deceased by the accused. There was no evidence for mental cruelty to which deceased was subjected to by accused in relation to dowry. Conviction was held liable to be set aside.
Prosecution evidence when examined and analysed as discussed above, it fails to make out ef accused had committed cruelty to victim but further fails to prove if victim was subjected to cruelty on account of demand for dowry and because of non fulfillment of that demand she committed suicide. Prosecution charge both u/s 498A and 304B IPC fails Sessions Case No. 91/04 Page 24 of 25 and all four accused persons put to trial on these charges are entitled to be acquitted. All accused persons are accordingly acquitted.
Announced in the Open (J.R.ARYAN) court on 22/03/2011. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (01) NEW DELHI DISTRICT, NEW DELHI.
Sessions Case No. 91/04 Page 25 of 25