Delhi District Court
State vs Karan Girotra//Sc No.58068/16//Fir ... on 13 May, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SHRI UMED SINGH GREWAL:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE:SPECIAL FAST TRACK
COURT:ROHINI :DELHI
Sessions Case No : 58068/16.
STATE
V/S
KARAN GIROTRA
S/O. SH. PARVEEN KUMAR GIROTRA,
R/O. FLAT NO.11,
RAMA KRISHNA APARTMENT,
SECTOR9, ROHINI,
DELHI.
FIR No : 262/11.
Police Station : PRASHANT VIHAR.
Under Section : 376/355/420/328 IPC.
Date of Committal to Sessions Court: 22.12.2012
Date on which Judgment reserved: 30.04.2019
Date on which Judgment announced: 13.05.2019
Present: Shri Ashok Kumar, ld. Addl. PP for State.
Mr. B.S. Rana and Mr. Satyam Sisodia ld. Counsel for
accused.
JUDGMENT
1. The accused has been forwarded to face mainly rape and cheating trial.
2. Facts are that the prosecutrix was married to one Mr. Ishaan Nanda on 25.09.2009. But he was incapable to establish physical State vs Karan Girotra//SC No.58068/16//FIR No.262/11/PS - Prashant Vihar Pg.1 Of 19 relation and hence, both decided to obtain mutual divorce after one year of the marriage and started residing separately w.e.f. 01.10.2009. It was also decided that both were free to marry the person of their choice. She had come into contact with accused about six years prior to making of the complaint on 04.12.2010. He used to show sympathy towards her due to failed marriage with Ishaan Nanda. With the passage of time, both started liking each other. The accused disclosed her on 03.04.2010 that he had fallen in love with her and wanted to marry her. When she told him that she was already married, he expressed desire to marry after her mutual divorce. He invited her to his house on 15.05.2010 on the pretext of introducing her with his family members in Rohini and accordingly, when she reached there, she found none except his old bed ridden maternal grandmother. He gave her an open coke bottle at 8:00 P.M. after consuming of which she became unconscious and when she regained consciousness at 10:00 P.M., she found herself completely nude and realized that she had been sexually assaulted. When she started crying, accused consoled her saying that she should not worry as he would fulfill his commitment of marrying her. The accused sent her obscene messages on 16.05.2010 clicked by him when he was establishing physical relation with her on 15.05.2010. She got frightened and when she complained against the messages, the accused invited her to his house to talk. She visited his house on 18.05.2010 and he again raped her on the threat of exposing indecent messages and pictures. Her husband had also sensed her presence in the house of the accused and hence, he also reached there at about 10:00 P.M., and there was quarrel between him and accused. Police was also intimated by State vs Karan Girotra//SC No.58068/16//FIR No.262/11/PS - Prashant Vihar Pg.2 Of 19 dialing 100 number. Accused's neighbours had also come out of their houses after hearing the noise. As Ishan wanted to lodge adultery report against the accused. But, the accused begged apology saying that he would marry the prosecutrix after her mutual divorce. Her husband asked to perform a small function like roka ceremony etc. in order to show that he was willing to marry her. Accordingly, an engagement ceremony was held on 09.07.2010 at Pind Baluchi Restaurant, Pitampura, Delhi, which was attended by the parents, sisters and relatives of both sides and gifts including a santro car and jewellery etc. were given by her mother. Thereafter, she was sexually exploited several times on the threat of exposing obscene pictures. It was under
his threat and pressure that she had to shift to a rented house in Rohini and from there, it became easy for accused to take her to his house in the same colony to quench his lust. But, he informed her relatives and mother on 12.09.2010 that he was not going to marry her despite engagement.
3. Charge under section 328/366/376/420/506 IPC was framed against the accused on 13.05.2013 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate the case, the prosecuting agency examined as many as 15 witnesses.
PW14 prosecutrix deposed that she came into contact with accused Karan Girotra 67 years ago through internet. Talks between them started on phone as well as internet. Initially she was residing at Flat no. 120, Kripal Apartments, I. P. Extension, Patparganj, Delhi but later shifted to a rented flat in Gujrat Vihar, Delhi with the help of her State vs Karan Girotra//SC No.58068/16//FIR No.262/11/PS - Prashant Vihar Pg.3 Of 19 family friend Ishan. Due to continuous abusing and threat by accused, she alongwith family shifted from Gujrat Vihar to a rented flat in Sector3, Rohini on 20.06.2010, Delhi and about four years back, she shifted to present address. In family, she has only widowed mother. She further deposed that when she was residing in Gujrat Vihar, Delhi and many a times (kai baar), accused Karan Girotra used to come there. During her stay in Gujrat Vihar Ishan, proposed her marriage which was accepted by them. Both married as per the Arya Samaj rites and customs on 05.09.2009 and Ishan stayed in her house for 5/6 days and during that period, she came to know that he was not capable to establish physical relations and both decided that after one year of marriage, they would take mutual divorce. She told that fact on phone to accused who consoled her and disclosed that he liked her and wait her after divorce from Ishan. He put pressure for physical relations but she kept on refusing on the ground that they were still unmarried.
She further deposed that on 15.5.2010, accused invited her at his house to get her introduced with his family members and accused met her in PVR, Prashant Vihar where they remained from 1.00 PM to 7.00 PM. Thereafter, both reached to his house and none of his family members was present except his bed ridden maternal grandmother. At about 8.00 PM, accused gave her an open Coke bottle after drinking of which she became unconscious and when she regained consciousness at about 10:00 P.M, she found herself naked and that accused had raped her. When she started weeping, the accused consoled her saying that she should not worry as he would certainly fulfill the promise of marriage. She received obscene MMS in the late night of 16.05.2010 from State vs Karan Girotra//SC No.58068/16//FIR No.262/11/PS - Prashant Vihar Pg.4 Of 19 accused. The MMS was made while accused was raping her. When she complained to accused, he invited her to his house on 18.05.2010, as nobody from his family was present on that day. She went there and complained about the MMS and photographs saying that she would lodge a report. On this, he became angry and threatened that if she lodged any complaint and if she did not continue physical relation, he would post obscene photographs and MMSs to her relatives and family members. He attempted to rape her on that day also undressed her but was saved by the sudden arrival of Ishan and she disclosed everything to him due to which he slapped accused and made a complaint on 100 number. Accused apologized to Ishaan assuring that he would definitely marry her. Ishaan asked accused to arrange a small function like roka , if his intention was pure, to which the accused had answered in affirmative. While leaving, Ishaan told accused if he ever exploited her sexually, he would get him arrested in adultery case. They shifted to Sector3, Rohini due to pressure mounted by the accused and thereafter, he kept on raping her on the threat of making obscene photographs viral.
She was engaged with accused in Pind Baluchi, Pitampura on 07.07.2010 but accused refused to marry her after engagement and she filed complaint Ex.PW14/A at Mahila Thana, Nanak Pura, Delhi. She admitted that at the time of engagement and her relationship with accused, she was already married with Ishaan and at the time of engagement, only the first motion of mutual divorce with Ishaan was allowed.
6. PW8 Dr. Bhavana Jain examined accused medically on State vs Karan Girotra//SC No.58068/16//FIR No.262/11/PS - Prashant Vihar Pg.5 Of 19 22.05.2011 and prepared the MLC Ex.PW8/A. PW9 Dr. Kuldeep Singh alongwith Dr. Shakeel A. Khan examined accused on 21.05.2011 and found no fresh injury. He prepared MLC Ex.PW9/A, bearing his signature at point A and that of Dr. Shakeel A. Khan at point B. PW7 Dr. Vijay Dhankar deposed that after examining the accused on 27.07.2011 he opined that there was nothing to suggest that he was incapable of performing sexual intercourse.
PW6 Ct. Jagroop deposed that he alongwith Inspector Ram Avtar (IO) got the accused medically examined on 07.07.2011 and doctor handed over him a sealed pullanda containing his exhibits which he handed over to IO who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A. He further deposed that on on 30.09.11, on the instruction of IO, he took sealed pullandas alongwith sample seal and FSL Form to FSL Rohini vide RC No.85/21/11 and after deposit, handed over receipt acknowledgment to MHC(M).
PW12 W/Ct. Ritu got prosecutrix examined in BSA Hospital on 07.06.2011 and the doctor handed over pullandas and sample seal which she handed over to IO who took the same into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A.
6. PW15 SI Adith Lily deposed that when she was posted as SI CWC Nanakpura on 04.12.2010 the prosecutrix had filed a complaint which was assigned to her. She called both parties for mediation but the same failed and hence, prepared report Ex.PW15/A, bearing her signature at point A and sent to DCP for approval for registration of FIR.
State vs Karan Girotra//SC No.58068/16//FIR No.262/11/PS - Prashant Vihar Pg.6 Of 19 PW1 SI Jagpreet Singh registered case FIR Ex.PW1/A on 02.06.2011 at 6:30 P.M., and handed over copy of FIR and original complaint to SHO for further investigation. He also made endorsement Ex.PW1/B on the complaint.
7. PW2 HC Ganesh, the MHC(M) deposed that on 07.06.2011, 27.07.2011 and 02.08.2011, Inspector Ram Avtar had deposited sealed pullandas with sample seals and he made relevant entries in register No.19 at serial nos.3442, 3575 & 3594 respectively which are Ex.PW2/A (collectively). On 8.8.2011 and 30.9.11, he sent exhibits to FSL through Ct. Naveen and Ct. Jagroop vide RC Nos. 61/21/11 & 85/21/11 respectively which are Ex.PW2/B (Colly).
PW3 HC Karan Singh deposed that on 04.12.2011, IO Inspector Ram Avtar deposited one sealed pullanda in the malkhana and he made entry at serial no.4298 Ex.PW3/A in register no.19. A sealed pullanda containing mobile was sent to FSL through Ct. Vijender vide RC No.106/21/11 Ex.PW3/B on 08.12.2011.
PW4 Ct. Naveen Kumar deposed that he deposited one pullanda sealed with the seal of RA to FSL on 08.08.2011 vide RC No.61/21/11.
PW5 Ct. Vijender Singh deposed that on 8.12.2011, he took one sealed pullanda alongwith FSL form from MHC(M) vide RC No.106/21/11 and deposited the same with FSL.
8. PW10 Dr. Virender Singh, Assistant Director, FSL, Rohini deposed that a parcel, which was found containing a NOKIA mobile phone model E63 having IMEI No.351502046674891, was marked to him to retrieve relevant data. He examined the mobile phone and State vs Karan Girotra//SC No.58068/16//FIR No.262/11/PS - Prashant Vihar Pg.7 Of 19 retrieved two sheets of relevant data, which are Ex.PW10/A1 & Ex.PW10/A2. He prepared the detailed report Ex.PW10/B, bearing his signature at point A. PW11 Ms. Manisha Upadhyaya, Senior Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL, Rohini deposed that on 30.9.11, two sealed parcels were received in FSL and the same were marked to her for analysis. She examined exhibits biologically and prepared report Ex.PW11/A. She had examined the exhibits serologically also and prepared report Ex.PW11/B. PW13 HC Ramesh deposed that on 4.12.11, he was posted in PS Prashant Vihar and on that day, Ishan Nanda came to PS and met IO Inspector Ram Avtar. Ishan Nanda produced one mobile Nokia E63 light white coloured and told that on 24.11.10, accused had sent two SMS messages on his above mobile phone which were saved. IO kept the mobile phone in a separate pullanda, sealed with the seal of RA and took into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/A, bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that on 21.05.12, he joined the investigation alongwith Inspector Rajender Bhati, Inspector O.P. Sinha and other police staff and went to Rama Krishna Apartments, Sector9, Rohini where mother of accused met them and IO inquired from her about the whereabouts of accused and she told that he had left the house a little while ago. He alongwith other staff started searching accused and reached at Metro Station West near Mini bus stand and apprehended accused. He was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW13/B and personally searched vide memo Ex.PW13/C, bearing his signatures at points A and thereafter his disclosure statement Ex.PW13/D was recorded.
State vs Karan Girotra//SC No.58068/16//FIR No.262/11/PS - Prashant Vihar Pg.8 Of 19
9. Ld. Defence counsel argued that the first incident of rape is said to have occurred on 15.05.2010 in the house of the accused where the prosecutrix had gone with her driver. On that day, the location of her mobile phone from 7:00 P.M. to 10:30 P.M. was found nowhere near the house of the accused. The second incident, as per complaint, is said to have taken place on 18.05.2010 but in evidence, she deposed that there was a mere attempt to rape. The next argument is that before registration of FIR, the Additional DCP 2, Outer District had conducted a thorough inquiry and gave detailed report against the prosecutrix and yet the police registered FIR and filed chargesheet. That report has been annexed with the chargesheet and hence, can be read against the prosecution, though the Additional DCP has not been examined. He submitted that the report proves that no sexual intercourse in the name of false promise of marriage had ever taken place between accused and prosecutrix. Last argument is that the accused had done roka ceremony with the prosecutrix but when he came to know later that the lady was already married with a person, namely, Ishan Nanda and was himself incapable to marry him, only then he refused to marry her. He submitted that sexual intercourse, if any, was due to the mutual consent of both parties and the prosecutrix was not prompted for the same on the promise of marriage as she was already knowing that she herself was incompetent to marry the accused as her first marriage was still subsisting.
Ld. Addl. PP argued that just after after residing 56 days with her husband Ishan Nanda, the prosecutrix had come to know that he was incapable to establish physical relations and hence, both decided State vs Karan Girotra//SC No.58068/16//FIR No.262/11/PS - Prashant Vihar Pg.9 Of 19 to end the marriage by filing mutual divorce petition after one year of their marriage and started residing separately w.e.f. 01.10.2009. Finding very opportune moment, the accused came into contact with prosecutrix and he promised to marry her after divorce. He invited her to his house on 15.05.2010 for introducing with his family members. Only his old bedridden maternal grandmother was at home when she reached there. He gave her a soft drink after consuming of which the prosecutrix became unconscious and accused raped her. When she went to his house to complain of indecent message sent by him on 16.05.2010, accused again raped her on 18.05.2010. Thereafter, the rape became a routine. The accused had done engagement with the prosecutrix and despite it, he refused on 12.09.2010 to marry her.
10. The typed complaint Ex.PW14/A was sent by the prosecutrix to SHO, PS - Mahila Thana, Nanakpura, which was received by police on 04.12.2010. Instead of registering the FIR immediately, a detailed inquiry was conducted by Additional DCP - 2, Outer District and his detailed report dated 16.03.2011 has been annexed with the chargesheet. As the prosecution is relying upon that inquiry report by annexing with the chargesheet, it can be held safely that same can be read against the prosecution. In that report the Additional DCP had come heavily against the the prosecutrix by observing following points: i. The prosecutrix had claimed that she had visited the house of the accused in Ram Krishna Apartments, Sector9, Rohini on 15.5.2010 on his invitation. She reached there at State vs Karan Girotra//SC No.58068/16//FIR No.262/11/PS - Prashant Vihar Pg.10 Of 19 7:00 P.M. and remained upto10.30 /10.45 P.M., and in between, she was raped by the accused.
But the location of her mobile phone number 98114XXXX suggested that during that period she was not present in the vicinity of Rohini.
ii. During crossexamination in CAW Cell, she corrected her statement saying that a considerable time had elapsed since 15.05.2010 and since she had visited the house of the accused several times and hence, she was confused at the earlier time and stated that when she visited the house of the accused on 15.05.2010, it was around 1:00 P.M. and she remained there upto 6:006:45 PM and during that period she was raped. It has been observed that call detail record of her mobile phone suggested that though she was present in the vicinity of Sector9, Rohini but she was regularly making and attending calls on her phone. During that period maximum phone calls were made between her mobile phone number 98114XXXXX and her husband Ishan Nanda's Cell phone number 9899881421. If She was under the influence of any drug at that time then how she was continuously making and receiving the calls.
State vs Karan Girotra//SC No.58068/16//FIR No.262/11/PS - Prashant Vihar Pg.11 Of 19 iii. Before filing divorce petition in the Court, the prosecutrix performed Roka ceremony with the accused on 9.7.2010. At that time, she was still in the wedlock with the Ishan Nanda.
iv. The prosecutrix and her mother Madhu Saxena concealed from Vivek Saxena (cousin of prosecutrix) the fact that the prosecutrrix was already married with Ishan. Mr. Vivek Saxena had helped the mother and daughter in roka ceremony. Additional DCP observed that it cannot be ruled out that mother and daughter had concealed the same fact from accused and his family members also.
v. Mr. Vivek Saxena stated that the prosecutrix and her mother told him that if the accused and his family members did not agree for his marriage with the prosecutrix, they would implicate the accused in a rape case. He had further told that accused's family had requested him several times to collect the articles/items given by them at the time of roka ceremony. But Madhu Saxena was not in favour of it. The Additional DCP concluded that the accused's family was always ready to return the articles gifted to them by the family of the prosecutrix at the time of roka ceremony.
State vs Karan Girotra//SC No.58068/16//FIR No.262/11/PS - Prashant Vihar Pg.12 Of 19 vi. The photographs produced by prosecutrix and accused suggested that they were having intimate relations. None of the photograph suggested that those were clicked against the wishes of the prosecutrix.
vii. If the motive of the accused had been to exploit the prosecutrix sexually, he would not have agreed for roka ceremony.
viii. The prosecutrix neither provided address and contact number nor produced her driver Hira Singh for statement. She had gone to the house of the accused on 15.05.2010 in the company of Hira Singh.
ix. The PCR call register of PS Prashant Vihar was checked but no PCR call, as claimed by Ishan Nanda and prosecutrix, was received in that police station on 18.05.2010.
x. The complainant had moved the
present complaint before CAW Cell on
04.12.2010 but the accused had already moved a complaint to DCP, Outer District against her for threat to his life and mental torture caused by the prosecutrix on 15.09.2010 itself.
xi. It was very strange that husband Mr. Ishan Nanda of the complainant, who was residing separately and had decided to divorce State vs Karan Girotra//SC No.58068/16//FIR No.262/11/PS - Prashant Vihar Pg.13 Of 19 her, traced her in the house of accused in Sector 9, Rohini on 18.05.2010.
xii. Mr. Vinod Nanda, father of Ishan Nanda told police that due to blackmailing and constant pressure of prosecutrix and her mother Madhu Saxena, his son Ishan Nanda had sold out his car accessories shop and gave amount to mother and daughter.
xiii. It was not confirmed that the
accused was having knowledge that the
prosecutrix was already married but the
prosecutrix, while making physical relations with him, was very much aware that her marriage with Ishan Nanda was still subsisting.
11. The prosecutrix deposed in detail that she alongwith her driver went to accused's house on his invitation on 15.05.2010. The accused met her at PVR, Prashant Vihar, where they remained from 1:00 PM to 7:00 PM. During that period, she received a call from her mother that she was in the need of vehicle and driver on which she sent the car and driver to her but before it, she was dropped to the house of the accused at about 7:30 PM. In order to prove that she had gone to the house of the accused on 15.05.2010, the prosecution did not examine the driver of the prosecutrix.
It is mentioned in para 12, 13, 14 and 15 of her complaint Ex.PW14/A that when she went to the house of the accused on 18.05.2010 after receipt of obscene message on 16.05.2010, she was State vs Karan Girotra//SC No.58068/16//FIR No.262/11/PS - Prashant Vihar Pg.14 Of 19 again raped. Her husband Ishan Nanda happened to be there and there were heated exchange between both due to which Ishan Nanda had called police on 100 number. The neighbours of accused had also come out of their house after hearing roar. But her examinationinchief shows that she was only undressed and that accused had not raped her. In order to prove her presence in the house of accused on 18.05.2010, the prosecution neither examined husband of the prosecutrix nor any neighbor of accused.
12. The prosecutrix deposed in crossexamination dated 23.09.2017 that she was friendly with accused. She had not told him about her marriage with Ishan Nanda during friendship with him. She had affair with him. She next deposed that physical relations developed between them with her consent because he had promised to marry her. When the accused did not marry her even after roka ceremony, she snapped her relationship with him. She next deposed that at the time of roka ceremony, only first motion of her mutual divorce was allowed and second motion was pending. She next deposed that she had not told him about her earlier marriage, as she was under the impression that because of affair, he must be knowing the same. She next deposed that when accused refused to marry her on the pretext of her being already married, then she lodged FIR in annoyance.
From above crossexamination, it becomes clear that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was aware at the time of roka ceremony with the prosecutrix that she was a married lady. It is also proved from above crossexamination that till that ceremony, divorce between prosecutrix and her husband had not taken place. So, at State vs Karan Girotra//SC No.58068/16//FIR No.262/11/PS - Prashant Vihar Pg.15 Of 19 the time of roka ceremony, it was complainant who was herself incapacitated to marry with accused due to her earlier subsisting marriage. It means that her consent for sexual intercourse, if any, was not prompted by any promise of marriage. It becomes further clear that the accused refused to marry prosecutrix despite roka ceremony only when he came to know that she was already a married lady. On this score, the case of the accused is well covered by Prashant Bharti Vs. State of NCT of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.176 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.1800 of 2009), decided on 23.01.2013, in which following was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India: "16. The factual position narrated above would enable us to draw some positive inferences on the assertion made by the complainant/prosecutrix against the appellant accused (in the supplementary statement dated 21.2.2007). It is relevant to notice, that she had alleged, that she was induced into a physical relationship by Prashant Bharti, on the assurance that he would marry her.
Obviously, an inducement for marriage is understandable if the same is made to an unmarried person. The judgment and decree dated 23.09.2008 reveals, that the complainant/prosecutrix was married to Lalji Porwal on 14.6.2003. It also reveals, that the aforesaid marriage subsisted till 23.9.2008, State vs Karan Girotra//SC No.58068/16//FIR No.262/11/PS - Prashant Vihar Pg.16 Of 19 when the two divorced one another by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. In her supplementary statement dated 21.2.2007, the complainant/prosecutrix accused Prashant Bharti of having had physical relations with her on 23.12.2006, 25.12.2006 and 1.1.2007 at his residence, on the basis of a false promise to marry her. It is apparent from irrefutable evidence, that during the dates under reference and for a period of more than one year and eight months thereafter, she had remained married to Lalji Porwal. In such a fact situation, the assertion made by the complainant/prosecutrix, that the appellant - accused had physical relations with her, on the assurance that he would marry her, is per se false and as such, unacceptable. She, more than anybody else, was clearly aware of the fact that she had a subsisting valid married with Lalji Porwal.
Accordingly, there was no question of anyone being in a position to induce her into a physical relationship under an assurance of marriage. If the complainant/prosecutrix herself is taken into consideration alongwith the factual position depicted in the supplementary statement dated 21.2.2007, it State vs Karan Girotra//SC No.58068/16//FIR No.262/11/PS - Prashant Vihar Pg.17 Of 19 would clearly emerge, that the complainant/prosecutrix was in a relationship of adultery on 23.12.2006, 25.12.2006 and 1.1.2007 with the appellantaccused, while she was validly married to her previous husband Lalji Porwal. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we are satisfied that the assertion made by the complainant/prosecutrix, that she was induced to a physical relationship by Prashant Bharti, the appellant - accused, on the basis of a promise to marry her, stands irrefutably falsified".
13. The case of the accused is well covered by (1) Golbar Hussein and Ors Vs. State of Assam and Ar. 2015 VII AD (S.C.) 445 & (2) Upend Adhara Vs. State of Corissa, in Criminal Appeal No.2174 of 2009, date of decision 28.04.2015 by Hon'ble Apex Court, in which it was held that, 'in case there were two views, which can be culled out from the perusal of evidence and application of law, the view which favors the accused should be taken'. It is pertinent to mention that in the present case, in examinationinchief, the prosecutrix deposed that accused was well aware at the time of roka ceremony that her marriage with Ishan Nanda was still subsisting. She deposed in crossexamination that she had not told accused about her first marriage at that time. So, two views are possible. The first is that she had told the accused at the time of roka ceremony about her first subsisting marriage and second is State vs Karan Girotra//SC No.58068/16//FIR No.262/11/PS - Prashant Vihar Pg.18 Of 19 that she might not have told that fact to accused.
14. In view of above discussion, the accused is acquitted of the offences, he was charged with.
15. The personal and surety bonds of the accused are hereby canceled. Surety is hereby discharged. The endorsement made, if any, on any document of soundness of surety, be canceled and the document be returned to surety.
16. However, in terms of Section 437(A) Cr.PC., accused has furnished the fresh personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/ with one surety of like amount, which are accepted with the directions to appear before higher court, in the event, he receives any notice of appeal or petition against the Judgment.
File be consigned to record room.
UMED Digitally signed by
UMED SINGH GREWAL
SINGH Date: 2019.05.15
GREWAL 17:13:45 +0530
Announced in the open Court (Umed Singh Grewal)
on this 13th May, 2019 ASJ : Spl. FTC (North)
Rohini Courts : Delhi
State vs Karan Girotra//SC No.58068/16//FIR No.262/11/PS - Prashant Vihar Pg.19 Of 19