Delhi District Court
State vs Anil Mandal on 25 January, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03: WEST DISTRICT,
THC, DELHI.
CNR No. DLWT01-004290-2018
SC No. 437-2018
State Vs. Anil Mandal & Ors.
FIR No. 442-2017
U/s. 370/342/401/506/34 IPC
PS: Kirti Nagar
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No. of the case : 437-2018
2. Date of Committal to Sessions : 14.05.2018
3. Name of the complainant : ASI Harish
Chander
4. Date of Commission of Offence : 15.12.2017
5. Name and Parentage of Accused : 1. Anil Mandal
S/o Sh. Ram
Prasad R/o ViII,
Meena Bazar,
Maharajpur, PS
Tiljhari, Sahibganj,
Jharkhand.
2. Sandeep Kumar
@ Rohit @ Sunnu
S/o Sh. Vidur
Mandal R/o ViII
Rampur, PS
Kahalgaon Distt
Bhagal Pur Bihar
and Meena Bazar,
Maharajpur PS
Tiljhari, Sahibganj,
Jharkhand. (He
expired and
proceedings qua
him were abated
SC No. 437-2018 State Vs. Anil Mandal Etc. FIR No. 442-2017 Page no.1/19 vide order dated 16.05.2023).
3. Chander Shekhar Aggarwal S/o Late Sh.
Sanjay Aggarwal R/o Maharajpur Bazar PS Tiljhari, Sahibganj, Jharkhand.
4. Sanjay Mahto S/o Late Sh.
Vishwnath Mahto R/o Maharajpur PS Tiljhari, Sahibganj, Jharkhand (He was declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 10.05.2018).
6. Offence complained of : U/s.
370/342/401/506/34 IPC
7. Offence Charged : U/s.
370(5)/342/506/34 IPC, Section 401 IPC and Section 5 JJ Act.
8. Plea of Guilt : Not guilty.
9. Final Order : Accused persons namely Anil Mandal and Chander Shekhar SC No. 437-2018 State Vs. Anil Mandal Etc. FIR No. 442-2017 Page no.2/19 are acquitted for the offences charged against them.
Accused Sanjay Mehto is already declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 10.05.2018 and Accused Sandeep @ Rohit @ Sunnu had already expired and proceedings qua him were abated vide order dated 16.05.2023.
10. Date on which Order Reserved : 10.01.2024
11.Date on which Order Announced : 25.01.2024 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The case of the prosecution is that in the month of December, 2017, accused Anil Mandal, Sandeep Kumar @ Rohit @ Sunnu, accused Chander Shekhar along with co-
accused Sanjay Mehto (since PO) in furtherance of their common intention and for the purpose of exploitation transported more than one minor from Jharkhand to Delhi SC No. 437-2018 State Vs. Anil Mandal Etc. FIR No. 442-2017 Page no.3/19 and thereby committed the offence of trafficking punishable u/s 370(5)/34 IPC. They also assaulted and abused the said CCLs thereby committing offence u/s 75 of JJ Act. With these allegations and after recovery of the minor children, present FIR was registered u/s 370 IPC and 75/78 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as JJ Act)
2. During investigation, it was found that the accused persons had also wrongfully confined the said minor children and threatened them with injury thereby committing offences u/s 342/506/34 IPC. They were also found belonging to a wandering gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing theft thereby committing offence u/s 401 IPC.
3. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against accused Anil Mandal, Sandeep @ Rohit @ Sunnu and Chander Shekhar Aggarwal for offences u/s 370/342/401/506/34 IPC and Section 75 JJ Act.
4. However, accused Sanjay Mehto could not be apprehended and was declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 10.05.2018.
5. During trial, accused Sandeep @ Rohit @ Sunnu expired and after verification of his death, proceedings qua him were abated vide order dated 16.05.2023. CHARGE:
6. Detailed arguments on charge were heard from Ld. Defence counsel and Ld. Additional PP for State. Vide order dated 06.07.2018, the Court charged accused Anil SC No. 437-2018 State Vs. Anil Mandal Etc. FIR No. 442-2017 Page no.4/19 Mandal, Sandeep @ Rohit @ Sunnu and Chander Shekhar Aggarwal for the offences U/s. 370(5)/342/506/34 IPC, Section 401 IPC and Section 75 JJ Act. Accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
7. The prosecution led evidence and examined 15 witnesses in all to bring home the guilt against the accused.
8. PW-1 Ms. Nisha Devi deposed that his son child "An" had come to Delhi in December, 2017 along with accused Anil Mandal and Chander Shekhar for visiting Delhi with her permission. She also came to know that his son was taken to the house of accused Sanjay Mehto (since PO) who used to sell vegetables in Delhi and from his rented accomodation, his son and other boys were taken to PS.
9. She did not make any allegations against accused persons and stated that her son was taken by them to Delhi with her permission. She was declared hostile. She was cross- examined by Ld. Additional PP for State but he denied that she had sent her son with accused Sanjay Mehto (since PO).
10. In her cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, she admitted that real brother of accused Sanjay Mehto (since PO) namely child "B" had also come to Delhi with her son for sight seeing and some other children had also visited Delhi with them.
11. PW-2 Smt. Kavita Devi is the mother of minor Child "As" who deposed that in December, 2017, his son Ashu @ Badiya was taken to Delhi for visiting by his real SC No. 437-2018 State Vs. Anil Mandal Etc. FIR No. 442-2017 Page no.5/19 brother Child "B".
12. She was also cross-examined on behalf of the State but she denied the suggestion that accused Sanjay Mehto (since PO) had taken her son to Delhi.
13. In her cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, she admitted that accused Sanjay Mehto (since PO) was his real brother who resided in Delhi and also stated that accused Anil Mandal, Sandeep Kumar and Chander Shekhar Aggarwal had not taken away his son Child "As" from village, rather he was taken to Delhi for visit by her brother Child "B".
14. PW-3 Smt. Sandhya is the mother of accused Sanjay Mehto(since PO) and one Child "B". She deposed that his son was residing in Nangloi and selling vegetables. His other son Child "B" was willing to visit Delhi to see Red Fort. His son Child "B" came to Delhi with other children in 2017 along with accused Anil Mandal, Sandeep Kumar (since deceased) and Chander Shekhar Aggarwal.
15. In her cross-examination by Ld. Additional PP for the State, she denied that her son Sanjay Mehto (since PO) had taken Child "B" to Delhi.
16. In her cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, she stated that her son was brought to Delhi with her consent and was not enticed or allured by any person.
17. PW-4 is the minor child "An" who deposed that he had come to Delhi with his maternal uncle Child "B"/PW-5 to visit Red Fort, Zoo etc after taking permission from his mother. In Delhi, he stayed at the residence of his elder SC No. 437-2018 State Vs. Anil Mandal Etc. FIR No. 442-2017 Page no.6/19 maternal uncle Sanjay Mehto (since PO) who was selling vegetables in Delhi. He knew accused Anil Mandal, Sandeep @ Rohit (since deceased) and Chander Shekhar Aggarwal who were from his village but they have never beaten or threatened him or asked him to commit theft. He was threatened and beaten by policemen because of which he had given a false statement before the court.
18. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by Ld. Additional PP for the State. Despite cross-examination and confrontation with his statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC Ex. PW-4/A and u/s 164 CrPC Ex. PW-4/B, he denied the entire case of the prosecution.
19. PW-5 is the minor child Child "B" who deposed that in December, 2017, he visited Delhi with other children namely Child "An"and Child "As" to see Red fort, Zoo, Etc. after taking permission from his mother. After reaching Delhi, he stayed at the residence of his elder brother Sanjay who was selling vegetables at Delhi. He knew the accused persons Anil Mandal, Sandeep @ Rohit (since deceased) and Chander Shekhar as they were residents of their village but they had not visited his brother Sanjay Mehto (since PO) at Delhi in his presence. They had also never threatened or beaten him or asked him to commit theft.
20. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by Ld. Additional PP for the State. Despite cross-examination and confrontation with his statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC (Ex. PW-5/A) and u/s 164 CrPC (Ex. PW-5/B), he denied SC No. 437-2018 State Vs. Anil Mandal Etc. FIR No. 442-2017 Page no.7/19 the entire case of the prosecution.
21. PW-6 is the minor Child "As" who deposed that he had come to Delhi with his maternal uncle Child "B"/PW-5 to visit Red Fort, Zoo etc after taking permission from his mother. In Delhi, he stayed at the residence of his elder maternal uncle Sanjay Mehto (since PO) who was selling vegetables in Delhi. He knew accused Anil Mandal, Sandeep @ Rohit (since deceased) and Chander Shekhar Aggarwal who were from his village but they have never beaten or threatened him or asked him to commit theft.
22. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by Ld. Additional PP for the State. Despite cross-examination and confrontation with his statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC (Ex. PW-6/A) and u/s 164 CrPC (Ex. PW-6/B), he denied the entire case of the prosecution.
23. PW-7 is the minor child "Ad" who deposed that he had come to Delhi for sight seeing with his jija Rohit Mandal. It was the occasion of New year. He was alone with his jija Rohit Mandal when a policeman took him to a place where there were various police officials. He was told by police officials to make statement in view of his release and he complied.
24. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by Ld. Additional PP for the State. Despite cross-examination and confrontation with his statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC (Ex. PW-7/D2) and u/s 164 CrPC, he denied the entire case of the prosecution. He identified accused Sandeep @ Rohit @ Sunnu (since deceased) as his jija.
SC No. 437-2018 State Vs. Anil Mandal Etc. FIR No. 442-2017 Page no.8/19
25. PW-8 is the minor Child "R" who deposed that he had come to Delhi for sight seeing with his Mama Ladoo and was living at Nangloi when police caught them and sent him to Children Jail. He had not made any statement to the police.
26. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by Ld. Additional PP for the State. Despite cross-examination and confrontation with his statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC (Ex. PW-8/D2) and u/s 164 CrPC (Ex. PW-8/D1), he denied the entire case of the prosecution.
27. PW-9 Smt. Urmila is the mother of minor Child "Ad" /PW-7 who deposed that she had sent her son to Delhi with accused Sandeep Kumar (since deceased) who is her son in law.
28. PW-10 is the minor "Child Ro" who deposed that he had come to Delhi for sight seeing with his Rohit Bhaiya. He identified accused Sandeep @ Rohit @ Sunnu (since deceased) as the person with whom he had come to Delhi. He also deposed that Child "Ad" had also come to Delhi with him and they stayed at Nangloi with accused Sandeep @ Rohit. Police had apprehended them.
29. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by Ld. Additional PP for the State. Despite cross-examination and confrontation with his statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC (Ex. PW-10/B) and u/s 164 CrPC (Ex. PW-10/A), he denied the entire case of the prosecution.
30. PW-11 Rita Devi is the mother of Child "Ro"/PW-10 who deposed that Romio had come to Delhi with Sandeep SC No. 437-2018 State Vs. Anil Mandal Etc. FIR No. 442-2017 Page no.9/19 @ Rohit (since deceased).
31. PW-12 Chander Prakash is the owner of a house at Shiv Baksh Park, Rao Bihar, Nangloi, Delhi near Nala No.
4. He deposed that it is a three storeyed property having many rooms which are let out by him. In the year 2017, one person namely Sanjay had come to him and said that some persons alongwith some poor children wanted to stay in his premises on rent. He asked ID proof from him but Sanjay informed him that his ID proof was at his native village and he shall provide the same later. He gave one room at second floor on rent to Sanjay. After some days, 2- 3 adult persons along with 3-4 children came and started residing in the said room. After about two-two and a half months, he came to know that the said adult persons were arrested and children were recovered by the police as they used to commit theft. He identified accused Anil Mandal, Sandeep Kumar @ Rohit (since deceased) and Chander Shekhar as the same persons who were residing in the rented room.
32. PW-13 HC Vicky deposed that on 15.12.2017, he was on patrolling duty in the area of PS Kirti Nagar with HC Vinod, Ct. Vipin and Ct. Sanjeev. At about 03:30 PM, when they reached at Ramesh Nagar, Gol Chakkar Park, they found three minor children sitting on a bench who appeared to be scared. On enquiry, they did not tell anything. On suspicion, HC Manoj informed the PS and ASI Harish Chander came to the spot. The children disclosed their names as Child "An", "Ro" and "Ad", all SC No. 437-2018 State Vs. Anil Mandal Etc. FIR No. 442-2017 Page no.10/19 residents of Jharkhand and informed that one person namely Sanjay had brought them to Delhi on the allurement of giving them money and kept them in a house at Nala No. 4, Nangloi, Delhi. They also informed that other children were also brought to Delhi. Sanjay had made a gang with Anil, Rohit and Chander Shekhar who used to threaten the children and made them commit theft of mobile phones. They further disclosed that on that day, accused Sanjay and Anil had brought them to commit theft at Moti Nagar area and had gone to hire TSR. At about 04:20 PM, accused Anil Mandal came to the park and was apprehended at the instance of the children. Upon strict enquiry, he admitted his guilt. ASI Harish Chander prepared a rukka and got the FIR registered through HC Manoj. He also prepared the site plan Ex. PW-13/A. Accused Anil was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW-13/B and Ex. PW-13/C and his disclosure statement Ex. PW-13/D was recorded by the IO.
33. He further deposed that thereafter, accused Anil Mandal along with three children were taken to second floor of a house at Nala no. 4, Rao Vihar, Nangloi, Delhi where accused Chander Shekhar opened the gate and three other minor children namely Child "B", "As" and "R", all residents of Jharkhand along with accused Sandeep @ Rohit (since deceased) were found present. The said three children also told the facts in line with the statement of the earlier three children. Thereafter, accused Chander Shekhar and Sandeep @ Rohit (since deceased) were SC No. 437-2018 State Vs. Anil Mandal Etc. FIR No. 442-2017 Page no.11/19 arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW- 13/E to Ex. PW-13/H. The accused persons got recovered one red colored cloth bag which was found containing 10 stolen mobile phones. The same were seized vide memo Ex. PW-13/I. All the children and accused persons were taken for medical examination. Thereafter, the accused persons were sent to lockup while the rescued children were admitted at Don Bosco Ashalayam at Palam, Delhi.
34. He identified accused Anil Mandal, Sandeep Kumar @ Rohit (since deceased) and Chander Shekhar and was duly cross-examined on their behalf.
35. PW-14 SI Rohit Gahlot is the third IO to whom the investigation was marked on 13.02.2018. During investigation, he had recorded the statements of child victims, prepared the chargesheet and filed the same. He had also conducted further investigation and tried to search accused Sanjay Mehto. Accused Sanjay Mehto was got declared a proclaimed offender and he filed PO chargesheet qua him.
36. PW-15 SI Pankaj Kumar is the second IO to whom further investigation of the case was marked on 05.01.2018. During investigation, he tried to search for accused Sanjay Mehto, obtained his NBWs, recorded the statement of his landlord and was thereafter, transferred.
37. He also deposed that he had worked with IO/SI Harish Chander and had seen him writing and signing during the ordinary course of his duties. He identified signatures of IO/SI Harish Chander on site plan Ex. PW-15/A. SC No. 437-2018 State Vs. Anil Mandal Etc. FIR No. 442-2017 Page no.12/19
38. Unfortunately, IO/SI Harish Chander could not be examined in this case as summons sent to him were received back with the report that he was suffering from Mouth cancer (stage-IV), was hospitalised and not in a position to speak or come to the court.
39. In addition to the above evidence, accused persons admitted the statement u/s 164 CrPC of the children, original record of Don Bosco Ashyalam, Palam, Dwarka in respect of the rescued children, DD entry no. 18A and 26A, both dated 15.12.2017, registration of the present FIR and order dated 10.05.2018 passed by the then Ld. CMM declaring accused Sanjay as a PO u/s 294 CrPC and accordingly, relevant witnesses were dropped by Ld. Additional PP for the State.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED:
40. All the incriminating evidence that came on record in the deposition of prosecution witnesses was put in detail to the accused Anil Mandal and Chander Shekhar and their statements were recorded U/s. 313 CrPC on 10.10.2023. In explanation to the incriminating evidence, the accused persons refuted all the evidence recorded against them stating that a false case had been registered against them. The children allegedly rescued in the present matter were relatives of accused Sanjay Mehto (since PO), child "B" being his real brother, child "Ro" being his brother in law, child "Ad" being son of his Mama and child "An" being son of his real sister. Child "Ra" was relative of accused Chander Shekhar, being son of his brother in law (Saadu).
SC No. 437-2018 State Vs. Anil Mandal Etc. FIR No. 442-2017 Page no.13/19 All these children had come to Delhi on Christmas with the permission of their parents. They and their parents had stated these facts before the Court. They have not made any such allegations against accused Anil Mandal and Chander Shekhar regarding any inducement or promise made by them nor had made any allegations of threatenings or beatings against the accused persons. DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
41. Accused Anil Mandal and Chander Shekhar did not examine any witness in support of their defence.
42. Final arguments have been heard and record carefully perused.
JUDICIAL RESOLUTIONS:
43. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on the judicial file by leading cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy evidence beyond reasonable doubts. The case of the prosecution has to fall or stand on its own legs and it cannot derive the benefit from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. It is not for the accused to disprove the case of the prosecution and the onus to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts never shifts and always remains on the prosecution. Further, benefit of doubt in the prosecution story always goes to the accused and it entitles the accused to acquittal.
44. In the present case, the accused persons are charged with the offences u/s 370(5)/342/506/34 IPC, Section 401 IPC and Section 75 JJ Act.
SC No. 437-2018 State Vs. Anil Mandal Etc. FIR No. 442-2017 Page no.14/19
45. Section 370 IPC deals with the offence of trafficking of human beings. Sub Section 5 provides punishment for trafficking of more than one minor. As per sub-Section 1 whoever, for the purposes of exploitation, recruits, transports, harbours, transfers or receives a person by using threat, force, coercion, abduction, practicing fraud or deception, abuse of power or inducement commits the offence of trafficking. As per explanation 2 to Sub-Section 1, the consent of the victim is immaterial in determination of the offence of trafficking.
46. Section 342 IPC provides punishment for wrongful confinement. The offence of wrongful confinement is defined in Section 340 IPC to mean wrongful restraint of a person in such a manner so as to prevent him from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits.
47. Section 506 IPC provides punishment for criminal intimidation. The offence of criminal intimidation is defined in Section 503 IPC as threatening another with any injury to his person, reputation or property or that of another person in whom he is interested.
48. Section 34 IPC provides exception to the general rule that no man can be held responsible for an independent act and wrong committed by another. It lays down the principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The essence of that liability is to be found in the existence of common intention, emanating from the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. It deals with doing of separate acts, similar or adverse by several SC No. 437-2018 State Vs. Anil Mandal Etc. FIR No. 442-2017 Page no.15/19 persons, if all are done in furtherance of common intention, each person is liable for the result thereof as if he had done the act himself. The soul of Section 34 IPC is the joint liability of doing a criminal act. This section only provides a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. Two elements are necessary to fulfil the requirement of Section 34 IPC. One is that the person must be present on the scene of occurrence and the second is that there must be a prior concert or a pre-arranged plan. Unless these two conditions are fulfilled, a person cannot be held guilty of an offence by operation of Section 34 IPC.
49. Common intention implies a pre-arranged plan and acting in concert pursuance to that plan. Common intention comes into being prior to the commission of act in point of time which need not be a long gap. The common intention to give effect to a particular act may even develop at the spur of the moment between a number of persons with reference to the facts of a given case. Where there is no direct evidence of common intention, it has to be inferred from circumstantial evidence.
50. Section 401 IPC provides punishment for belonging to a gang of thieves.
51. Section 75 JJ Act provides punishment for cruelty to a child.
52. Now, let us apply the above discussed definitions of the offences with which accused has been charged on the facts and evidence in the present case.
SC No. 437-2018 State Vs. Anil Mandal Etc. FIR No. 442-2017 Page no.16/19 APPRECIATION OF FACTS, EVIDENCE & LAW:
53. I have heard the arguments at length, perused the record and given my thoughtful considerations to the submissions made and the overall evidence produced on record.
54. As per the case of the prosecution, there were six minor children who were rescued by the investigating agency from the clutches of the accused persons. It is the case of the prosecution that these 6 minor children were trafficked by the accused persons from Jharkhand and brought to Delhi for the purpose of involving them in the offences of theft, they were confined by the accused persons and trained and threatened to commit mobile theft. It is also the case of the prosecution that the accused persons were found to be members of a gang of thieves. With these allegations, chargesheet was filed against the accused persons. The six minor children that are child "An"/PW-4, child "B"/PW-5, child "As"/PW-6, child "Ad"/PW-7, child "R"/PW-8 and child "Ro"/PW-10 have been examined by the prosecution. However, none of them had supported the case of the prosecution. As per the testimony of these minor children, they were either relatives of accused Sanjay (since PO); or that of accused Sandeep @ Rohit(since deceased) and had come to Delhi to visit Delhi along with their relatives. They were neither induced by any of the accused persons in any manner nor confined or threatened by them. They have also specifically testified that none of the accused persons had asked them to SC No. 437-2018 State Vs. Anil Mandal Etc. FIR No. 442-2017 Page no.17/19 commit any theft. Child "B"/PW-5 is the real brother of accused Sanjay Mehto (since PO); child "An"/PW-4 and child "As"/PW-5 are nephews of accused Sanjay Mehto (since PO); Child "Ad"/PW-7 is brother in law (saala) of accused Sandeep @ Rohit(since deceased) and Child "Ro"/PW-10 referred to accused Sandeep @ Rohit (since deceased) as Rohit Bhaiya in his testimony. Child "R"/PW-8 stated that he had come to Delhi with his Mama Ladoo and had nothing to do with the accused persons. Thus, none of these children have supported the case of the prosecution regarding these allegations.
55. The parents of these children have also been examined by the prosecution. PW-1 Smt. Nisha Devi is the mother of the child "An" ;PW-2 Kavita Devi is the mother of child "As"; PW-3 Smt. Sandhya is mother of child "B"; PW-9 Smt. Urmila is mother of child "Ad" and PW-11 Smt. Rita Devi is mother of child "Ro". The depositions of all these witnesses is to the effect that their children had come to Delhi with their permission for visiting Delhi only and were neither induced nor threatened by any of the accused persons. In the light of testimony of the above mentioned witnesses, the offences u/s 370(5)/342/506/34 IPC and Section 75 JJ Act cannot be held to have been proved against any of the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt.
56. As regards the offence u/s 401 IPC, there is no evidence on record to give a finding that the accused persons belonged to a gang of thieves. 10 allegedly stolen mobile SC No. 437-2018 State Vs. Anil Mandal Etc. FIR No. 442-2017 Page no.18/19 phones are stated to have been recovered from the room of the accused persons, however, there has been no investigation to connect the said phones to any previous FIR of theft. The said allegedly recovered stolen mobile phones have also not been produced before the court during evidence. In these circumstances, the evidence on record is highly insufficient to give a finding of guilt for offence u/s 401 IPC against the accused persons.
57. In view of the reasons given above and considering the overall evidence on record, I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offences charged against the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt. Accused persons namely Anil Mandal and Chander Shekhar are accordingly, acquitted for the offences charged against them on account of insufficient evidence.
58. Accused Sanjay Mehto is already declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 10.05.2018 and accused Sandeep @ Rohit @ Sunnu has already expired and proceedings qua him have already been abated vide order dated 16.05.2023.
59. Copy of the judgment be given free of cost to the accused persons.
60. File be consigned to Record Room u/s 299 CrPC as accused Sanjay Mehto is a PO.
Digitally signed bySHIVALI SHIVALI SHARMA Announced in the open court SHARMA Date: 2024.01.25 14:14:51 +0530 Dated 25.01.2024 (SHIVALI SHARMA) ASJ-03/WEST/THC/DELHI/25.01.2024 SC No. 437-2018 State Vs. Anil Mandal Etc. FIR No. 442-2017 Page no.19/19