Delhi District Court
State vs . Alok on 30 April, 2019
FIR NO. 381/13
PS Aman Vihar
u/S 307/341/34 IPC
State Vs. Alok
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARISH KUMAR : ADDITIONAL
SESSION JUDGE - 03 : NORTH WEST DISTRICT :
ROHINI : DELHI
SC No. 01/14
FIR NO. 381/13
PS Aman Vihar
u/S 307/341/34 IPC
State
Versus
Alok
S/o Sh. Arvind
R/o H No. A222, Gali no. 9,
Pratap Vihar III,
Kirari Suleman Nagar,
Delhi110086
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts leading to the trial of the accused person as disclosed in chargesheet are that SI Sandeep on receipt of information through DD No. 50B through PCR reached at the spot i.e. near Jeevan Public School, Pratap Vihar where he came to know that injured had been taken to some doctor in Gole Market. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Anoop reached Gole Market where they met one Sonu who informed that he had made call at 100 number and also informed that injured had been shifted to Page no. 1 of 22 FIR NO. 381/13 PS Aman Vihar u/S 307/341/34 IPC State Vs. Alok Brahm Shakti Hospital. Thereafter, SI Sandeep alongwith Ct. Anoop reached Brahm Shakti Hospital and met one Saurabh, who revealed himself to be the friend of injured. After reaching the hospital, SI Sandeep obtained the MLC bearing no. 599 of injured namely Ravi @ Anand, where patient was mentioned to be unfit for statement.
2. Saurabh got recorded his statement in the hospital to the effect that he was student of BTech 1 st year and on that day evening he alongwith his friend Ravi @ Anand were passing through in front of Gate of Jeevan Public Schoool, Pratap Vihar, PartII at about 6:30 PM when they were stopped by Alok, Anil and Salman @ Chikna and they asked them (Saurabh & Ravi) as to where they would get Chakde @ Pankaj of Nithari Village as they would not leave him (Chakde) alive. On this Ravi asked them as to what harm Chakde had caused to them that they were after his life. On this Alok took out knife from his pocket and said to him he (Alok) would first finish him (Ravi) as he was doing advocacy of Chakde @ Pankaj. Anil and Salman caught hold of him (Saurabh) and started beating him and Alok gave knife blow to Ravi many times saying that he would not be left alive. In the meanwhile Anil also took out a knife from his pocket and on seeing this he (Saurabh) somehow managed to free himself and ran away from the spot. Anil chased him for some Page no. 2 of 22 FIR NO. 381/13 PS Aman Vihar u/S 307/341/34 IPC State Vs. Alok distance but he (Saurbah) managed to run away saving his life. Thereafter he (Saurabh) reached house of Ravi and informed them everything whereafter brother of Ravi made call on 100 and took Ravi to Hospital. Alok had given knife blow many times to Ravi with intent to kill him and Anil chased him (Saurabh) with knife with intent to kill. He already knew Alok, Anil and Salman since before the incident.
3. From the statement of Saurabh, from the report of MLC and inspection of the spot, offence under section 307/341/34 IPC was found to have been committed by the accused person, accordingly, Ct. Anoop was sent with rukka to PS upon which FIR No. 381/13 was registered. SI Sandeep alongwith Saurabh reached at the spot and site plan of the spot was prepared at the instance of Saurabh. Accused Anil (JCL) and accused Salman @ Chikna (JCL) were arrested and accused Alok was arrested on 25.09.2013. Accused Anil and Salman were juvenile at that time, therefore a separate charesheet against them was filed before Juvenile Justice Board. On 16.10.2013 statement of complainant was recorded. Statement of the witnesses were recored under Section 161Cr.P.C. and chargesheet against accused Alok was filed but weapon of offense could not be recovered.
4. On the basis of chargesheet so submitted before Ld. Page no. 3 of 22 FIR NO. 381/13 PS Aman Vihar u/S 307/341/34 IPC State Vs. Alok Metropolitan Magistrate, cognizance of offense was taken by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and after compliance with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.PC, the case was committed to the court of sessions, whereafter it was assigned to this court.
5. After hearing arguments on point of charge and finding a prima facie case against accused Alok requisite charge was framed on 18.02.2014 against accused Alok under Section 307/341/34 IPC, which was read over to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Prosecution was thereafter called upon to substantiate its case by examining the witnesses listed in the "list of witnesses". Availing the given opportunities, prosecution had examined 10 witnesses.
7. Out of 10 witness injured PW1 and his friend Suarabh PW2 are the eye witness to the incident and Sh. Aman Kumar PW10 is the witness to the event connecting events immediately after incident to the taking of injured to the hospital. Sh. Nafe Singh PW4 is witness to age of the accused as he proved date of birth of the accused as given by him or his parents at the time of his admission in the school. Dr. R. B. Singh PW6 is the doctor and he proved the MLC Ex PW6/A of the injured.
Page no. 4 of 22 FIR NO. 381/13 PS Aman Vihar u/S 307/341/34 IPC State Vs. Alok
8. Remaining all other witnesses are police witnesses. PW4 SI Janak Raj was the duty officer and he proved the rukka, endorsement thereon Ex PW4/B and the FIR Ex PW4/A. PW5 Ct. Jitender was the DD writer who proved the DD No. 50B Ex PW5/A and copy thereof as Ex PW5/B. PW7 Ct Aman is witness to the arrest of accused Alok vide arrest Memo Ex PW7/A, his personal search vide personal Memo Ex PW7/B, his disclosure statement vide disclosure statement Ex PW7/C, his pointing out Memo Ex PW7/D and Pointing out cum Non recovery Memo Ex PW7/E. PW8 is Ct Anoop Singh who had accompanied the IO SI Sandeep Singh to the spot, then to Gole Market, then to hospital and was present when the statement of Saurabh was recorded, then taken rukka to PS and back to spot. PW10 SI Sandeep Singh is the investigating officer (IO) of the case
9. After completion of prosecution evidence, all incriminating substance as appearing against the accused was put to the accused and his statement under Section 313 CrPC was recorded and he was asked as to whether he wanted to lead evidence to which he replied in negative. Ld. APP for the State and Counsel for defense advanced their respective argument for and against the case of the prosecution.
Page no. 5 of 22 FIR NO. 381/13 PS Aman Vihar u/S 307/341/34 IPC State Vs. Alok
10. Ld. APP for State has argued that both Saurabh and injured have supported the case of the prosecution on material point and have also identified the accused in the court as the one who had injured Ravi. The manner in which giving of injury has been described by the Saurabh and injured finds due support from the medical evidence which has not been questioned by the accused. He has further argued that injured has categorically deposed that source of his injury on his person is the knife blow given by the accused person. He argues that in law the testimony of injured is given highest value as it comes with inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the spot and secondly he would not spare his actual assailant for some third person. He has further argued that non examination of Sonu will not affect the case of prosecution. He has further argued that accused has not led any evidence to show that there was any enemity between Sonu and him nor did he examine the Naina to show that Ravi and Sonu used to tease her. Thus, he submitted that prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
11. Per Contra Ld. Counsel for the accused have argued that accused Alok has been falsely implicated in the present case through planted witness Saurabh who was not even present at the spot but has been made eyewitness and was made to name Page no. 6 of 22 FIR NO. 381/13 PS Aman Vihar u/S 307/341/34 IPC State Vs. Alok the accused in the complaint at the instance of one Sonu, the cousin of the injured, as Sonu and the injured used to tease Naina, a friend of the accused. Saurabh even did not know accused prior to the incident as has been admitted by the Saurabh in his cross examination which go to show that name in the complaint Ex. PW 2/A was supplied by some other person.
12. He has further argued that there is not only contradiction but also improvement in the statement / testimony of Saurabh while giving detail account of the incident so much so that he cannot be relied upon even if it is believed that he was present at the spot. He has further argued that events immediately after following the incident has been described by PW1, PW2 and PW 10 in such a manner that happening of the incident has become unbelievable. He has argued that post incident events as described by all three witnesses are if taken together cannot lead us to believe that incident has taken place at the time and place where it is alleged or that it was effected by accused persons.
13. He has further argued that one of the important link i.e. Sonu has not been examined by the prosecution. He further argued that as per prosecution it was the Sonu who had given call at hundred number and it was Sonu who met the police Page no. 7 of 22 FIR NO. 381/13 PS Aman Vihar u/S 307/341/34 IPC State Vs. Alok officials at Gole Market and informed them that injured was taken to Brahm Shakti Hospital. He has further argued that conduct of Sonu is unnatural as though he was said to have taken the injured to Gole Market for first aid but he did not move ahead to take the injured to Brahm Shakti hospital and instead remained at Gole Market only and met police official. He further argued that as per DD entry the call was given to the effect that brother of the caller had been injured by 56 persons whereas complainant named only three persons and did not state that any other assailants were present/involved there. It was the Saurabh who ran to the house of injured and met his cousin Sonu who had given call to the police, thus, he argued that the first information which Sourav must have given to the Sonu was conveyed to the police vide DD number 50B which fact completely falsifies the case subsequently setup by the prosecution on the statement of Saurabh.
14. He further argued that statement of the injured was recorded only after 45 days without justifying the delay although injured was fit for statement after 3 days of the incident. He argues that no explanation has come as to why statement of injured was not recorded between 3.09.2013 to 16.10.2013. He argues that all this discrepancy and lacuna go to show that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt Page no. 8 of 22 FIR NO. 381/13 PS Aman Vihar u/S 307/341/34 IPC State Vs. Alok hence he has prayed for acquittal of the accused.
15. On thoughtful consideration of material and evidence on record and arguments put forth by the Counsel for parties it is found that injury on the person of the injured Ravi is not in dispute. PW6 Dr. R. B. Singh proved the MLC Ex PW6/A and he was not cross examined on any aspect. Following injury was found on the person of the injured:
(i) Contuse Lacerated Wound (CLW) one at lower abdomen wall measuring 3.5 x 3 cm,
(ii) CLW at right gluteal region measuring 2.5 x 2 cm and;
(iii) CLW at left forearm measuring 4 x 1.5 cm.
16. Now the question is who is the author of these injuries on the person of the injured Ravi and whether such injuries were caused with such intent or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if by that act death is caused, culprit would be guilty of murder. Prosecution has heavily relied upon testimonies of injured PW1 and complainant PW2 to prove that it was the accused who have caused injuries on the person of the injured in the manner stated/deposed by complainant Saurabh and injured Ravi. Thus, prosecution has got to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that accused Alok is the author of the Page no. 9 of 22 FIR NO. 381/13 PS Aman Vihar u/S 307/341/34 IPC State Vs. Alok injury caused on the person of the injured Ravi in the manner stated/deposed by complainant Saurabh and injured Ravi.
17. On analysis of record it is not in dispute that present FIR was registered on the statement of Saurabh which statement has been exhibited as Ex. PW2/A. In his statement to police Saurabh mentioned all three assailants by their name. He also described in detail how the incident took place which has already been noted above while noting brief facts of the case as disclosed from the chargesheet. He specifically stated in the said statement that accused Alok attacked Ravi with knife while saying that he would not spare him alive. He (Saurabh) somehow freed himself from the clutches of Anil and Salman and rushed to the house of Ravi where he met his (Ravi's) brother who dialed 100 and took Ravi to hospital. He then stated that Alok attempted to kill Ravi by attacking/inflicting injury with knife many times. He further stated that he knew all three accused beforehand.
18. So far as detail account of the incident is concerned Saurabh in his statement Ex PW2/A stated that when Ravi asked from all the three accused persons as to what wrong Chakde had done that they were willing to kill Chakde, accused Alok took out knife from his pocket saying that he would finish Ravi first since he (Ravi) was doing advocacy for Chakde. Upon this accused Anil Page no. 10 of 22 FIR NO. 381/13 PS Aman Vihar u/S 307/341/34 IPC State Vs. Alok and Salman caught hold of him (Saurabh) and started beating him and accused Alok attacked Ravi with knife many times saying that he would finish him first. When Anil also took out knife, he (Saurabh) somehow freed himself with difficulty and ran away from the spot and was chased by Anil for long distance but somehow he saved himself. Thereafter he came to the house of Ravi.
19. When he appeared in the court as PW2 he supported the prosecution version and narrated the first part of the incident upto having stopped by three accused persons, accused asking about Chakde, Ravi asking as to why they wanted to kill Chakde and that Alok telling Ravi that he would finish him first for he (Ravi) was doing advocacy for Chakde. He then went on to depose that accused Alok then caught hold of Ravi by his collar and his younger brother namely Anil caught hold of him. Accused Alok was fighting with Ravi and in the meantime Anil took out knife from his pocket and then he (Saurabh) told Anil to keep the knife in his pocket as that was not fight by knife. At that time he saw that accused Alok was also having knife in his hand and he was brandishing the same. He shouted towards Ravi about accused Alok having knife in his hand. Ravi got himself freed from the clutches of Alok and started running and while Ravi was running away accused Alok gave blow with knife on his hip. When Ravi Page no. 11 of 22 FIR NO. 381/13 PS Aman Vihar u/S 307/341/34 IPC State Vs. Alok managed to escape accused Alok shouted and directed his brother Anil not to spare him (Saurabh). He (Saurabh) got scared and gave jerk and freed himself somehow and managed to escape. He was chased by Anil for a long a distance and thereafter he reached the house of Ravi where he met parents of Ravi and his brother.
20. In cross examination he interalia deposed that on the day when he gave statement to the police he knew the name of Salman only as he was the conductor of the bus in which they (Suarabh and Ravi) used to travel and did not know the name of other assailants. He specifically deposed that he knew Salman only before the incident by face and name. He categorically deposed that he had not informed the name of any of the assailant who stabbed Ravi.
21. Thus, as per examinationinchief of PW2 injured Ravi was first to run away from the spot whereas as per his statement Ex PW2/A he was the first to run away from the spot. In cross examination also he deposed that he could not intervene to save Ravi from accused Alok as he was caught hold by Anil and by the time he got himself freed from Anil, Ravi had already run away from the spot. In his examinationinchief he talked of only one knife blow on the hip of Ravi whereas in his statement Ex PW2/A Page no. 12 of 22 FIR NO. 381/13 PS Aman Vihar u/S 307/341/34 IPC State Vs. Alok he stated about many attacks with knife but had not specified any specific part of the body. He was confronted with his previous statement Ex PW2/A where many of the description about the incident which he deposed in the court and about which he deposed to have told to the police, were not mentioned. He further stated that his statement was recorded on the day of incident at about 12.00 midnight. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by police in Police Station. In the scuffle he had not sustained injuries on his person but his clothes were torn. His clothes were not seized by police nor was he medically examined.
22. Injured PW1 Ravi in his statement under Section 161 CrPC Ex PW1/A recorded almost after 45 days of the incident, stated on the lines of contents of Ex PW2/A meaning thereby that he supported the version of the incident as noted above in the brief facts. He stated that Alok inflicted knife injuries on his stomach, hip and hand. Accused persons attacked him to kill him however he somehow escaped from there. He like Saurabh too in his statement under Section 161 had stated that he along with his friends Saurabh was coming from Computer class.
23. PW1 Ravi in his examinationinchief deposed that on 31.08.2019 in the evening time he along with Saurabh was Page no. 13 of 22 FIR NO. 381/13 PS Aman Vihar u/S 307/341/34 IPC State Vs. Alok coming to his residence after getting his computer system repaired from Pratap Vihar near Nithari village and then went on to narrate how accused persons accosted them and asked about Chakde saying that they would finish him (Chakde) and how he asked what wrong Chakde has done to them. He stated that when he tried to make them (accused persons) understand thereupon they all started beating both of them i.e. Ravi and Saurabh. Saurabh was caught hold of by accused Anil (JCL) and Salman (JCL) and started beating him and in the meanwhile accused Alok had taken out knife from his pocket and caused stab injuries on his stomach, left hand and his right hip with intention to kill him. The other accused Anil and Salman also tried to kill him but he managed to save himself and ran away from the spot and he reached at his another plot at Village Nithari where his cousin namely Pawan met him and taken him to Tomar Clinic, Pratap Vihar and from there he was referred to Brahm Shakti Hospital for his further treatment. He further said that accused Sourav (it is not clear whether it was typographical error or he named the accused as Sourav) is present in the court.
24. In cross examination he deposed that he had seen the accused for the first time and he had disclosed to the police that he had seen the accused for the first time, however, when he was Page no. 14 of 22 FIR NO. 381/13 PS Aman Vihar u/S 307/341/34 IPC State Vs. Alok confronted with his previous statement Ex PW1/A it was not found there. He further deposed that prior to the incident he never had any conversation/altercation with the present accused or with other accomplice. He further deposed that his friend could not intervene as his friend was caught hold of by Anil. He deposed that Saurbah after rescuing himself also ran away from the spot and while running Saurabh also warned him to escape from that place as accused was carrying a knife with him. He deposed that Saurabh apart from warning him had not tried to save him from the accused persons. He further deposed that after stab injury the blood was oozing out and it was falling on the ground. He was wearing Tshirt and lower and his both clothes including vest and underwear got blood stained. He volunteered that he had sustained stab injury on his hip and abdomen.
25. Thus, PW2 in cross examination deposed that Saurabh ran away from the spot after rescuing himself and while running away Saurabh also warned him (PW2) about to escape from the place as accused was holding knife in his hand. Above testimony of the PW2 is in conflict with the testimony of the PW1 where PW1 deposed that he was the first to run away from the spot. No doubt both witness named accused Alok as the author of stab injuries on the person of Ravi but they are also inconsistent with respect to number of stab injuries caused on Page no. 15 of 22 FIR NO. 381/13 PS Aman Vihar u/S 307/341/34 IPC State Vs. Alok the person of Ravi. As noted above Saurabh in his statement Ex PW2/A was silent as to number of injuries caused to Ravi by inflicting knife blow. He had only stated that Alok attacked Ravi with knife many times. In the Court he deposed that Alok inflicted knife injury on the hip of Ravi. He did not speak of any knife injury on abdomen or hand. Injured Ravi in his statement under Section 161 Ex. PW1/A stated of three stab injuries which he maintained in the court also but all of sudden volunteered that he had sustained injuries on his abdomen and hip. Be that as it may, MLC Ex PW6/A which has remained unquestioned shows that injured had sustained three Contuse Lacerated Wound (CLW) one at lower abdomen wall measuring 3.5 x 3 cm, another at right gluteal region measuring 2.5 x 2 cm and third one at left forearm measuring 4 x 1.5 cm.
26. Ld. Counsel for accused had strongly argued that present case would become an example of grave injustice if the consistency of the witness on the aspect of authoring injury is only taken into consideration and the inconsistencies, contradictions and improvements in the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 on other aspect of the incident is ignored or overlooked. Ld. APP had submitted that under the criminal jurisdiction what matters is the identification of the accused in Court where both injured and Saurabh had remained consistent and they have Page no. 16 of 22 FIR NO. 381/13 PS Aman Vihar u/S 307/341/34 IPC State Vs. Alok substantially remained consistent with the manner in which injuries were inflicted.
27. This Court has given due consideration to the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the accused and finds weight in his submission particularly when attention of this court goes to the testimony of PW2 in cross examination where he deposed that on the day of incident he knew only Salman by his name and face and did not know other accused persons. His statement given to the police became basis for registration of FIR in which all the three accused were named by their name. When Saurabh did not know the name of accused persons except Salman how the name of accused Alok came to be named in the statement and consequently in FIR, is an intriguing question which prosecution has to explain.
28. Injured PW2 also deposed in the Court that he had seen the accused for the first time. He also deposed that he had stated to the Police that he had seen the accused for the first time and he was confronted with his statement where it was not so recored there. He also deposed that prior to the incident he never had any conversation/altercation with the present accused or with other accomplice. Thus, even injured Ravi did know the accused Alok prior to incident as he had seen him for the first Page no. 17 of 22 FIR NO. 381/13 PS Aman Vihar u/S 307/341/34 IPC State Vs. Alok time on that day as deposed by him in the court. In any case he named the accused in his statement to Police almost after 45 days of the incident and by that time accused Alok was already arrested on 25.09.2013 and therefore his statement qua identification of the accused Alok does not assume importance in the absence of explanation as to how name of the accused Alok surfaced in the complaint Ex PW2/A when Saurabh did not know his name.
29. It is intriguing how name of Alok came to be mentioned in the complaint Ex PW2/A of Suarabh and in the FIR when Suarabh did not know the name of other two assailants. Who told the parentage and residential address of the accused Alok when Saurabh did not know of him. How the accused Alok of the statement Ex PW2/A became Alok S/o Arvind R/o A222, Gali No.9, Pratap Vihar PartIII, Kirari, Suleman Nagar? All these has not been explained by the prosecution. Further IO PW9 deposed that on that very day he went to the house of the accused Alok but how he reach there? He did not depose that he had gone there alongwith Saurabh nor did Saurabh depose that he knew residence of Alok and had taken the police to his house. Who told his address to IO, has also not been explained. It is not the case of the prosecution that accused Alok was searched and arrested with the help of and identification by Saurabh.
Page no. 18 of 22 FIR NO. 381/13 PS Aman Vihar u/S 307/341/34 IPC State Vs. Alok
30. This does indicate that "doctrine of feeding" was at play, as argued by Counsel for defense, from the day statement to the police was made by Saurabh till both witnesses were examined in the court. By "doctrine of feeding" is hereby meant that one person was targeted then he was named and then witnesses were tutored/prepared to name and identify the said person all throughout during the investigation and trial.
31. Ld. APP for the State had argued that accused did not lead any evidence to prove that there was any enmity between injured or Saurabh or Sonu, the cousin of Ravi and once there is no enmity between the two side, it cannot be believed that injured would spare the real culprit and falsely implicate the accused. Hence, he argued that witnesses cannot be doubted.
32. It is true that testimony of injured stands at higher pedestal and it is also true that defense did not lead any evidence to prove the enmity between accused on one hand and Sonu and Ravi on the other on account of their alleged teasing of Naina, the friend of accused and other girls but it cannot be lost sight of the fact that burden is upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and failure of the defense in proving its case will not fill the lacuna in or lend any support to the Page no. 19 of 22 FIR NO. 381/13 PS Aman Vihar u/S 307/341/34 IPC State Vs. Alok prosecution case.
33. Prosecution has to explain how the accused was named in the FIR when Saurabh PW2 did not know of him by his name and when injured had also seen the assailant for the first time (on that day). Neither Saurabh nor injured was associated with investigation in searching, pointing out and identifying the accused before or after his arrest. In the case titled as Om Prakash @ Babu v. The State (NCT of Delhi) 2012(3) JCC 1708 Hon'ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court in similar circumstance acquitted the accused holding therein as under: "13...........The question then is how, in the absence of any proof of PW2 being questioned, (and in the absence of PW4's knowledge about identity of the assailants on 26th August, 2005) their names could be mentioned as suspects. There is no explanation why PW2's statement was recorded after 3 days. This in the mind of the Court gives fatal blow to the prosecution story."
34. In the opinion of this Court since there is no explanation as to how one of the assailant came to be named as Alok, how the said Alok became Alok S/o Arvind R/o A222, Gali No.9, Pratap Vihar PartIII, Kirari Suleman Nagar, Delhi and how IO reached the house of Alok S/o Arvind on the said very day, prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Further, there is no explanation as to why Page no. 20 of 22 FIR NO. 381/13 PS Aman Vihar u/S 307/341/34 IPC State Vs. Alok statement of the injured Ravi was recorded on 16.10.2013 i.e. after 45 days of the incident whereas he was fit for statement on 3.09.2013 itself. These nonexplanations give fatal blow to the case of the prosecution.
35. Since the above nonexplanations on the part of the prosecution have given fatal blow to the case of prosecution this Court does not consider it necessary to discuss the other ambiguities/contradictions (pointed out by Ld. Defense Counsel and controverted by Ld APP) in the testimonies of witnesses particularly with respect to events immediately after the main incident of attack/inflicting of injury to the injured as that would neither further deteriorate the case of the prosecution nor would improve the same as they relate to subsidiary aspect of the main incident.
36. Accordingly, accused Alok is acquitted of all charges for which he was tried in the present case. His bail bond stands canceled and his surety stands discharged. Original documents of his surety, if deposited in Court, be released to his surety in accordance with rules.
37. In terms of Section 437A CrPC above named Alok shall furnish bond of Rs 20,000/ with one surety of like amount, Page no. 21 of 22 FIR NO. 381/13 PS Aman Vihar u/S 307/341/34 IPC State Vs. Alok which shall remain valid for six months, as assurance for his appearance before the Appellate forum in the event of his acquittal being challenged.
File be consigned to Record Room after
Digitally signed
HARISH by HARISH
necessary compliance. KUMAR
KUMAR
Date: 2019.04.30
16:26:18 +0530
(Harish Kumar)
Additional Session Judge - 03
Announced in the NorthWest District/Rohini
open Court Delhi/30.04.2019
(Judgment contains 22 pages)
Page no. 22 of 22