Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Sessions Case No: 25/ vs Sher Singh @ Sheru on 9 August, 2011

   IN THE COURT OF DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN  : ADDITIONAL 
         SESSIONS JUDGE­01 (OUTER), ROHINI,  DELHI


Sessions Case No:  25/10
FIR No                 :  63/10
Police Station      :  Bharat Nagar
U/s                        :  392/397/411/34 IPC &
                              U/s 27/54/57 Arms Act.
State 
                                   Versus
     1. Sher Singh @ Sheru,
        S/o Bhagwan Sigh,
        R/o N12C/331, Kabir Nagar,
        Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi.
     2. Harish @ Bunty,
        S/o Late Chittar Mal,
        R/o N12C/531, Kabir Nagar,
        Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi.
     3. Vinod @ Ajay,
        S/o Laxmi Chand,
        R/o N­12C/21, Kabir Nagar,
        Rana Pratap Nagar, Delhi.                             ... Accused

Date of Institution :  29.6.2010
Date of Decision     :  9.8.2011



State V  Sher Singh & Ors.
FIR no. 63/10 
PS   Bharat Nagar                                               Page No.   1   of  16    
 JUDGMENT

Brij Mohan on 5.3.2010 at about 3.30 pm had gone to purchase cigratte from a place situated in front of Ismail Khan Park from his shop situated near Singh Petrol Pump, GTK Road. Sher Singh @ Sheru, Harish @ Bunty and Vinod @ Ajay came there and grappled with Brij Mohan. Vinod @ Ajay put a knife on the back of Brij Mohan. Thereafter all of them robbed Rs.5600/­ from Brij Mohan and also taken out one purse containing passport size photograph, visiting cards and Rs.100/­. Brij Mohan raised alarm. Sher Singh @ Sheru was apprehended along with purse by the public. The police was informed.

2. HC Ajit Singh and HC Sudhir after receipt of DD no.23A reached at Ismail Khan Park, GTK Road where they met with Brij Mohan and other public persons. Sher Singh @ Sheru along with purse was handed over to HC Ajit Singh and HC Sudhir. HC Ajit Singh recorded the statement of Brij Mohan and seized the purse containing four visiting cards, photograph and one currency note of Rs.100/­. Rukka was prepared. FIR bearing no.63/10 u/s 392/397/411/34 IPC was got registered. Investigation was handed over to ASI Dharambir Singh. ASI Dharambir Singh prepared the site plan. The disclosure statement of Sher State V Sher Singh & Ors.

PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 2 of 16 Singh @ Sheru was recorded. Sher Singh @ Sheru led the police party to the jhuggi of Vinod @ Ajay from where Vinod @ Ajay was arrested and disclosure statement of Vinod @ Ajay was also recorded. One knife was recovered at the instance of accused Vinod @ Ajay. Thereafter Sher Singh @ Sheru and Vinod @ Ajay led the police party to the house of Harish @ Bunty from where he was arrested. Disclosure statement of accused Harish @ Bunty was recorded. Rs.400 in four currency notes of Rs.100/­ were recovered from accused Harish @ Bunty which are stated to be part of robbed amount of Rs.5600/­. The accused after completion of investigation were charge sheeted for the offence punishable u/s 392/397/411/34 IPC read with section 27 Arms Act, 1959. The charge sheet was submitted before the court of concerned Metropolitan Magistrate. The accused were put to trial.

3. The accused were supplied with the copies of charge sheet along with annexed documents u/s 207 Cr.P.C. The case was committed to the court of Sessions vide committal order dated 1.6.2010 and thereafter assigned to this court for trial in accordance with law.

4. The accused Sher Singh @ Sheru and Harish @ Bunty are charged for the offence punishable u/s 392/34 IPC vide order dated 21.7.2010. The accused Vinod @ Ajay was charged for the offence State V Sher Singh & Ors.

PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 3 of 16 punishable u/s 392/34 IPC, u/s 397 IPC and u/s 27 Arms Act, 1959, vide order dated 21.7.2010. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. The prosecution examined HC Sanjay Kumar as PW­1; Brij Mohan as PW­2; HC Ajit Singh as PW­3; HC Sudhir as PW­4; W/Ct. Sunita as PW­5; and ASI Dharambir Singh as PW­6.

PW­1 HC Sanjay Kumar being the duty officer on 5.3.2010 recorded DD no.23A and FIR no.63/2010 on the basis of rukka sent by HC Ajit Singh. PW­1 HC Sanjay Kumar also made endorsement on the rukka. PW­2 Brij Mohan is the complainant. PW­3 HC Ajit Singh and PW­4 HC Sudhir after receipt of DD no.23A went to the spot i.e Ismail Khan Park, GTK Road where PW­3 HC Ajit Singh conducted the initial investigation. PW­5 W/Ct. Sunita on 5.3.2010 recorded the information about the incident given from mobile no.9250137767 in PCR form. PW­6 ASI Dharambir Singh being the Investigating Officer conducted the investigation.

6. The prosecution proved the copy of DD no.23A as ExPW1/A; copy of FIR bearing no.63/10 u/s 392/397/411/34 IPC as ExPW1/B; endorsement on rukka made by PW­1 HC Sanjay Kumar as ExPW1/C; complaint made by PW­2 Brij Mohan as ExPW2/A; seizure memo of purse recovered from the accused Sher Singh @ Sheru as ExPW2/B; arrest State V Sher Singh & Ors.

PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 4 of 16 memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of accused Sher Singh @ Sheru as ExPW2/C, ExPW2/D and ExPW2/E respectively; arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of accused Vinod @ Ajay as ExPW2/F, ExPW2/G and ExPW2/H respectively; seizure memo of knife recovered at the instance of accused Vinod @ Ajay as ExPW2/I and its sketch as ExPW2/N; arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of accused Harish @ Bunty as ExPW2/J, ExPW2/K and ExPW2/L respectively; seizure memo of Rs.400/­ recovered from the possession of accused Hairsh @ Bunty and stated to be the part of robbed amount of Rs.5600/­ as ExPW2/M; rukka as ExPW3/A; computerized PCR Form as ExPW5/A; site plan as ExPW6/A. PWs also identified the purse as ExP1; four visiting cards, photographs and currency notes of Rs.100/­ contained therein as ExP2 to ExP4; four currency notes of Rs.100/­ (total Rs.400/­) recovered from the possession of accused Harish @ Bunty as ExP5; knife recovered at the instance of accused Vinod @ Ajay as ExP6. The prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 11.7.2011.

7. The respective statements of the accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they pleaded innocence and denied the incriminating evidence against them. The accused stated that they have been falsely State V Sher Singh & Ors.

PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 5 of 16 implicated in this case and nothing was recovered from them. The accused did not lead defence evidence.

8. Shri R.A. Yadav, APP for the State and Shri Ravinder Tyagi, Advocate for accused Harish @ Bunty and for accused Vinod @ Ajay as Amicus Curie; and Shri K.S. Chauhan for accused Sher Singh @ Sheru heard. Record perused.

9. Section 390 IPC deals with robbery. It provides that in all robbery there is either theft or extortion. Theft is robbery if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. Section 392 IPC provides punishment for robbery. Section 397 IPC deals with robbery or dacoity with attempts to cause death or grievous hurt. It provides that at the time of committing robbery, the offender uses any deadly weapon or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person shall liable to be punished for imprisonment which shall not be less than seven years.

10. Section 397 IPC attracts if, at the time of committing robbery or State V Sher Singh & Ors.

PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 6 of 16 dacoity, the offender uses a deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person. A deadly weapon must have been used at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, and not before its commission. The word 'uses' in should be given a wider meaning, and should not be confined merely to cutting, stabbing or shooting, as the case may be, but also to carrying the weapon for the purpose of overwhelming the victims of dacoity.

11. The accused Vinod @ Ajay, Sher Singh @ Sheru and Harish @ Bunty are charged with the allegations that on 5.3.2010 at about 3.30 pm near the gate of Ismail Khan park, GTK Road, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Bharat Nagar in furtherance of their common intention committed robbery and robbed purse containing Rs.100/­, photograph and visiting cards; and Rs.5600/­ from the complainant PW­2 Brij Mohan and the accused Vinod @ Ajay at the time of commission of robbery also used knife ExP6. The prosecution to prove its case examined complainant Brij Mohan as PW­2. PW­2 Brij Mohan supported case of the prosecution. PW­2 Brij Mohan was running a shop of building material near Singh Petrol Pumb, GTK Road and on the date of incident i.e 5.3.2010 at about 3.30 pm he had gone to purchase biri/cigarette from a place situated in front of Ismail Khan Park from his shop where the accused Vinod @ Ajay, State V Sher Singh & Ors.

PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 7 of 16 Sher Singh @ Sheru and Harish @ Bunty came and grappled PW­2 Brij Mohan. PW­2 Brij Mohan deposed that accused Sher Singh @ Sheru grappled with him and accused Vinod @ Ajay put a knife (chura) ExP6 on his back and asked him to hand over whatever he was having at that time. PW­2 Brij Mohan further deposed that he was having Rs.5600/­ which were robbed by the accused Vinod @ Ajay, Sher Singh @ Sheru and Harish @ Bunty and they also removed his purse ExP1 containing visiting cards ExP2, photograph ExP3 and currency note of Rs.100/­ ExP4. PW­2 Brij Mohan shouted for help and public persons gathered at the spot. PW­2 Brij Mohan with the help of public persons apprehended accused Sher Singh @ Sheru at the spot. The police was called from mobile no.9250137767 and said information was recorded by PW­5 W/Ct. Sunita. PW­5 W/Ct. Sunita recorded the information to the effect that "bank colony near Singh Petrol Pump, main road, Model Town Area mein caller ke Rs.5600/­ chheen liye hai, caller janta hai". The information was reduced into writing in computerized PCR form ExPW5/A and as per PCR form ExPW5/A said information was recorded at about 4.23 pm. As per the testimony of PW­2 Brij Mohan, the police came at the spot and the accused Sher Singh @ Sheru was handed over to the police. PW­2 Brij Mohan as per his testimony also participated in the State V Sher Singh & Ors.

PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 8 of 16 investigation including arrest of all the accused, recovery of case property and weapon of offence.

12. The testimony of PW­2 Brij Mohan reflects the following facts:­ i. PW­2 Brij Mohan on the date of incident i.e on 5.3.2010 had gone to purchase bidi/cigarette from the place situated in front of Ismail Khan Park from his shop situated near Singh Petrol Pump, GTK Road.

ii. The accused Vinod @ Ajay, Sher Singh @ Sheru and Harish @ Bunty came over there and grappled with PW­2 Brij Mohan.

iii. The accused Vinod @ Ajay put a knife (Chura) ExP6 on back of PW­2 Brij Mohan.

iv. The accused Vinod @ Ajay, Sher Singh @ Sheru and Harish @ Bunty robbed Rs.5600/­ from the front pocket of his shirt and one purse ExP1 containing visiting cards ExP2, photograph ExP3 and currency note of Rs.100/­ ExP4.

v. The accused Sher Singh @ Sheru was apprehended by the public persons at the spot.

The police was called.

vi. The information was given to the police was recorded by PW­5 W/Ct. Sunita in PCR form ExP5/A. vii. PW­2 Brij Mohan thereafter participated in the investigation at the time of arrest of accused Vinod @ Ajay and Harish @ Bunty and recovery of the part of the robbed amount i.e Rs.400/­ State V Sher Singh & Ors.

PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 9 of 16

ExP5 out of Rs.5600/­ and weapon of offence i.e the knife ExP6.

13. APP argued that the testimony of PW­2 Brij Mohan coupled with the testimonies of PW­3 HC Ajeet Singh, PW­4 HC Sudhir and PW­6 IO ASI Dharambir Singh are sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused in accordance with law and proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 5.3.2010, the accused Vinod @ Ajay, Sher Singh @ Sheru and Harish @ Bunty have robbed Rs.5600/­ along with purse ExP1 from the person of PW­2 Brij Mohan and during the commission of offence, the accused Vinod @ Ajay also used deadly weapon i.e knife ExP6.

The defence counsels attacked the prosecution case and argued that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as there are material contradictions in the respective testimonies of PW­2 Brij Mohan, PW­3 HC Ajit Singh, PW­4 HC Sudhir and PW­6 ASI Dharambir Singh regarding the preparation of documents, recovery of weapon of offence and the arrest of accused and such discrepancies are raising substantial doubts to the case of the prosecution case. The defence counsels argued that the prosecution has not proved the exact place of occurrence; and as the case is not proved in accordance with law against the accused Vinod @ Ajay, Sher Singh @ Sheru and Harish @ Bunty, State V Sher Singh & Ors.

PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 10 of 16 they be acquitted for the offence for which they have been charged.

14. The discrepancies pointed out by the defence counsels are appearing to be material on their face. PW­2 Brij Mohan is the star witness of the prosecution. As per the testimony of PW­2 Brij Mohan particularly the cross examination, the knife ExP6 was recovered at the instance of accused Sher Singh @ Sheru while as per the testimony of PW­6 ASI Dharamvir Singh the knife ExP6 was recovered at the instance of accused Vinod @ Ajay. As per PW­2 Brij Mohan he after the incident went to the police station where his statement ExPW2/A was recorded and the purse ExP1 containing the articles ExP2 to ExP4 was seized vide seizure memo ExPW2/B in the police station while as per the testimony of PW­4 HC Sudhir Kumar and PW­3 HC Ajit Singh, the purse ExP1 containing articles ExP2 to ExP4 was seized at the spot. As per the testimony of PW­2 Brij Mohan, the purse ExP1 was recovered at the instance of accused Vinod @ Ajay while as per the testimony of PW­4 HC Sudhir Kumar and PW­3 HC Ajit Singh the purse was recovered from the possession of accused Sher Singh @ Sheru when he was apprehended at the spot by the public persons. As per the testimony of PW­2 Brij Mohan nothing was recovered at the instance of accused Harish @ Bunty but as per the testimony of PW­4 HC Sudhir Kumar and PW­6 ASI Dharamvir State V Sher Singh & Ors.

PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 11 of 16 Singh Rs.400/­ were recovered from the possession of accused Harish @ Bunty. As per the testimony of PW­2 Brij Mohan the purse ExP1 and other articles ExP2 to ExP4 were converted into the pulunda in the police station by ASI Dharamvir Singh while as per the testimony of PW3 HC Ajit Singh the same were converted into pulunda at the spot and sealed with the seal of AS and seized vide seizure memo ExPW2/B. PW­2 Brij Mohan deposed that no document was prepared by PW­6 ASI Dharamvir Singh at the jhuggi of accused Vinod @ Ajay while as per the testimony of PW­4 HC Sudhir Kumar and PW­6 ASI Dharamvir Singh the documents pertaining to the arrest of accused Vinod @ Ajay and Harish @ Bunty, their disclosure statements etc. were prepared at the spot i.e at the place of their arrest. As per the testimony of PW­2 Brij Mohan, PW­6 ASI Dharamvir Singh prepared some documents and obtained his signatures on about 3­4 papers while as per the testimony of PW6 ASI Dharamvir Singh documents were prepared at the spot i.e place of occurrence and place of arrest of accused Vinod @ Ajay and Harish @ Bunty.

15. The issue needs consideration is whether the discrepancies pointed out by the defence counsels in the respective testimonies of PWs are material and go to the root of the case and are raising substantial doubts as to the prosecution case. The said discrepancies are required to State V Sher Singh & Ors.

PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 12 of 16 be considered in the light of Section 392/397 IPC.

16. As per section 390 IPC theft is robbery if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. Section 397 IPC is attracted that at the time of committing robbery, the offender uses any deadly weapon or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person.

17. What is proved from the testimony of PW­2 Brij Mohan is that all the accused have robbed Rs.5600/­ and one purse ExP1 containing articles ExP2 to ExP4. PW­2 Brij Mohan at that time was kept under wrongful restraint by the accused Vinod @ Ajay, Sher Singh @ Sheru and Harish @ Bunty as he did not allow him to move forward. All the accused in furtherance of their common intention have removed Rs.5600/­, purse ExP2 from the person of PW­2 Brij Mohan. PW­2 Brij Mohan also deposed that accused Vinod @ Ajay put a knife ExP6 on his back at the time of incident. As per Section 397 IPC what is material is the use of deadly weapon at the time of commission of offence and the knife ExP6 is State V Sher Singh & Ors.

PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 13 of 16 a deadly weapon. PW­2 Brij Mohan clearly identified the accused Vinod @ Ajay as the person who used the knife ExP6 at the time of commission of offence. PW­2 Brij Mohan also deposed that his statement ExPW2/A was recorded at the spot which is also reflecting from his cross examination as PW­2 Brij Mohan in cross examination deposed that his statement ExPW2/A was recorded near the petrol pump. PW­2 Brij Mohan also identified his signatures on the statement ExPW2/A at point A. PW­2 Brij Mohan also admitted that police came at the spot. PW­2 Brij Mohan was also a witness to the arrest of accused Vinod @ Ajay and Harish @ Bunty and identified them as the persons who participated in the commission of offence. The contradictions in the cross examination of PW­2 Brij Mohan on one hand and testimonies of PW­4 HC Sudhir Kumar and PW­6 ASI Dharamvir Singh regarding mode and manner of investigation conducted after apprehension of the accused Sher Singh @ Sheru do not effect the credibility of the prosecution case. The lapses of PW­6 ASI Dharamvir, the Investigating Officer do not effect the acceptability of the testimony of PW­2 Brij Mohan and is not fatal to the prosecution case. The testimony of PW­2 Brij Mohan is inspiring confidence and there is nothing which can dilute the credibility of testimony of PW­2 Brij Mohan. PW­2 Brij Mohan is the common man State V Sher Singh & Ors.

PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 14 of 16 and may not be aware of the legal complexity. The testimony of PW­2 Brij Mohan is reflective of the details of the incident.

18. The defence counsel also argued that there are contradictions regarding the place of incident/occurrence as such the accused Vinod @ Ajay, Sher Singh @ Sheru and Harish @ Bunty are entitled for the benefit of doubt. The defence counsel has referred the DD no.23A ExPW1/A. As per DD no.23A ExPW1/A, the place of occurrence is Bank Colony, near Singh Petrol Pump. As per PW­2 Brij Mohan, the incident occurred at the place situated in front of Ismail Khan Park, GTK Road where PW­2 Brij Mohan had gone to purchase biri/cigratte. PW­6 ASI Dharambir Singh during the investigation prepared the site plan ExPW6/A of the place of occurrence at the instance of PW­2 Brij Mohan. The site plan ExPW6/A is perused. As per site plan ExPW6/A, Singh Petrol Pump is shown to be situated near to the gate of Ismail Khan Park. The place of occurrence as shown at point A in site plan ExPW6/A is near to the Singh Petrol Pump. The Singh Petrol Pump is situated near to the gate of Ismail Khan Park. The argument advanced by the defence counsels is without any force.

19. In view of above discussion, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 5.3.2010 at about 3.30 pm, all the accused in furtherance of their common intention robbed Rs.5600/­ and purse ExP1 State V Sher Singh & Ors.

PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 15 of 16 containing articles ExP2 to ExP4 from PW­2 Brij Mohan and during the commission of offence accused Vinod @ Ajay used a knife. Accordingly the accused Sher Singh @ Sheru and Harish @ Bunty are convicted for the offence u/s 392/34 IPC. The accused Vinod @ Ajay is convicted for offence u/s 392/34 IPC and u/s 397 IPC. The accused Vinod @ Ajay is also charged for the offence u/s 27 Arms Act, 1959 but the accused Vinod @ Ajay is convicted for the offence u/s 397 IPC and as such, there is no need to convict accused Vinod @ Ajay u/s 27 Arms Act, 1959. Announced in open court (Dr.Sudhir Kumar Jain) on 9.8.2011. ASJ­01 (Outer) Rohini, Delhi.

State V Sher Singh & Ors.

PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 16 of 16 IN THE COURT OF DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE­01 (OUTER), ROHINI, DELHI Sessions Case No: 25/10 FIR No : 63/10 Police Station : Bharat Nagar U/s : 392/397/411/34 IPC & U/s 27/54/57 Arms Act.

State Versus

1. Sher Singh @ Sheru, S/o Bhagwan Sigh, R/o N12C/331, Kabir Nagar, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi.

2. Harish @ Bunty, S/o Late Chittar Mal, R/o N12C/531, Kabir Nagar, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi.

3. Vinod @ Ajay, S/o Laxmi Chand, R/o N­12C/21, Kabir Nagar, Rana Pratap Nagar, Delhi. ... Convicts ORDER ON SETENCE Shri R.A. Yadav, APP for the State and convict Sher Singh State V Sher Singh & Ors.

PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 17 of 16

@ Sheru, Harish @ Bunty and Vinod @ Ajay in JC heard on quantum on sentence.

2. The convicts stated that they are poor persons and belongs to lower strata of society; they are not a previous convict; and have to maintain their entire family comprising of many members. The convict Vinod @ Ajay stated that he is aged about 30 years and has to maintain his old aged mother and father and there is no other responsible person in his family to look after his old aged parents. The convict Harish @ Bunty stated that he is aged about 25 years and father of three children; his mother and father have already expired and there is no other family member to look after his entire family. The convict Sher Singh @ Sheru stated that he is aged about 26 years and his father has already expired. All the convicts stated that they were doing private job. All the convicts prayed for lenient view.

APP argued that the convicts have robbed Rs.5600/­ and one purse ExP1 from PW­2 Brij Mohan and during the commission of offence, the convict Vinod @ Ajay used a knife ExP6. APP stated that crimes are increasing in the society and in order to maintain law and order, the convicts be given sufficient punishment and do not deserve any leniency from this court. State V Sher Singh & Ors.

PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 18 of 16

3. PW­2 Brij Mohan had gone to the place of occurrence from the place of business to purchase biri/cigratte on the day of incident where he was grappled by the convicts. The convict Vinod @ Ajay put a knife on the back of PW­2 Brij Mohan and the convicts, thereafter, in furtherance of their common intention robbed Rs.5600/­ and other articles from the PW­2 Brij Mohan. The deadly weapon was also used during the commission of offence. The crimes are increasing in the society and it is very difficult for a commoner to live peacefully. The manner in which the offence was committed by the convicts demonstrated that convicts do not have any respect for law and order. The convicts desired to earn money through unlawful means. It is the duty of the court to award sufficient punishment so that the confidence of commoner be maintained in law enforcement mechanism of the State. The fact that the convicts are poor and belong to lower strata of society does not absolve them from their criminal act and do not make them entitled for leniency from this court.

4. After considering all facts, convict Vinod @ Ajay is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of seven years along with fine of Rs.3000/­ in default two months SI for offence u/s 392/397/34 IPC. State V Sher Singh & Ors.

PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 19 of 16

Convicts Sher Singh @ Sheru and Harish @ Bunty are sentenced to undergo RI for a period of five years along with fine of Rs.2000/­ in default two months SI for offence u/s 392/34 IPC separately. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. is given to the convicts. Case property is confiscated to the State. A copy of the judgment and order on sentence be supplied to the convicts free of cost. Committal warrants be issued. File be consigned to the record room. Announced in open court (Dr.Sudhir Kumar Jain) on 11.8.2011. ASJ­01 (Outer) Rohini, Delhi.

State V Sher Singh & Ors.

PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 20 of 16