Delhi District Court
State vs . Ajeet Biswas Page No. 1/20 on 31 August, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJIV JAIN,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE SPECIAL. FAST TRACK
COURT : SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI.
Unique Case ID No. 02406R0302402010
SC No. : 67/13 and 2682/16
FIR No. : 237/09
U/s. : 376(2)(g)/342/506/34 and 174A IPC
PS : C.R. Park, New Delhi.
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ................... Complainant
Versus
1) Ajeet Biswas
S/o Shri Dashrath Biswas
R/o Gali no. 8, Village Tuglakabad Extn.
New Delhi.
Also at: Village Mubarakpur, District Nadiya,
West Bengal. .........................Accused
Date of Institution : 10.08.2010 and 23.09.2016
Judgment reserved for orders on : 29.08.2017
Date of pronouncement : 31.08.2017
J U D G M E N T
Facts
1. On 07.09.2009, the prosecutrix (name withheld to protect her identity) with her sister came at the police station C.R. Park and got recorded her statement through the interpretor Mrs. Kakuni from NGO conversant with Bengali language alleging therein that she had been living with her sister at Kalkaji, New Delhi. Her sister got her employed as maid in the house of Samir Kumar Roy two months ago. She used to stay at night in his house. After about 15 -
FIR No. : 237/09 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Ajeet Biswas Page No. 1/20 20 days, one day at night, Samir Kumar Roy alongwith Dalip Biswas and Ajeet Biswas @ Doctor came inebriated and forced her to consume liquor. On her refusal, Samir beat her and made her consume liquor. He thereafter committed sexual intercourse with her against her wishes. Thereafter, Dalip Biswas and Ajeet Biswas committed sexual intercourse with her one by one. They threatened her to kill her if she would disclose the incident to anyone. She alleged that they confined her in the house, did not allow her to go out and they used to commit sexual intercourse with her against her wishes. When she told Samir Kumar Roy that she would disclose the incident to her sister, Dalip Biswas proposed to marry her. Samir Kumar Roy and Ajeet Biswas also affirmed it. She alleged that Dalip Biswas is the brotherinlaw (sala) and Ajeet Biswas @ Doctor is Sandu of Samir Kumar Roy. She alleged that Pinky Roy wife of the Samir was aware of the incidents.
Investigation
2. On her statement, the case was registered u/s 376(g)/342/506/34 IPC. The prosecutrix was taken to AIIMS for her medical examination. She gave the brief history of incidents to the doctor. She was 1½ months pregnant. Three slides of her vaginal swab were taken. On 08.09.2009, Samir Kumar Roy and Ajeet Biswas were arrested. They were got medically examined. Their exhibits were collected. Statement of the prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded. On 10.09.2009, accused Dalip Biswas was arrested . He was got medically examined. The bony X ray report of FIR No. : 237/09 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Ajeet Biswas Page No. 2/20 prosecutrix was collected and her age was found to be 19+. The exhibits of prosecutrix and accused persons were sent to FSL. After the investigation, the accused persons were sent for trial. Charge
3. After complying with the requirements contemplated u/s 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court. During inquiry, accused Dalip Biswas absconded and was declared proclaimed offender on 12.04.2012. Vide order dated 14.05.2012, prima facie case was made out against the accused Ajeet Biswas and Samir Kumar Roy u/s 376(g)/342/506/34 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial, accused Ajeet Biswas also absconded and was declared proclaimed offender on 25.11.2014. Vide order/judgment dated 14.05.2016, Samir Kumar Roy was acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 376(2)(g)/342/506/34 IPC. Accused Ajeet Biswas was thereafter arrested on 14.09.2016. Supplementary charge sheet was filed. Additional charge u/s 174A IPC was framed against the accused Ajeet Biswas. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution Evidence
4. To substantiate its allegations against the accused Ajeet Biswas, prosecution examined as many as thirteen witnesses.
PW1 Ct Birender had taken the coaccused Dalip Biswas to AIIMS and got him medically examined. He also collected the exhibits of the accused from the doctor in sealed condition and handed over to HC Ishwar Singh who deposited FIR No. : 237/09 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Ajeet Biswas Page No. 3/20 them in the malkhana.
PW2 Tarini Sonwani proved the MLC of the prosecutrix Ex. PW 2/A prepared by Dr. Praveen Kumar on which history of the incident was recorded from Point A to A. She stated that the hymen of the prosecutrix was not intact. Her UPT was positive. Her uterus was 68 weeks of size. PW3 ASI Jitender proved the recording of the FIR Ex. PW 4/A. PW4 HC Mukesh Kumar had gone with the IO to House No. 52/56, C R Park and witnessed the arrest of the accused Dalip Biswas vide arrest memo Ex. PW 5/A. PW5 Mamta Dass was the sister of the prosecutrix. She deposed that about 67 years ago, the prosecutrix, her younger sister, had come to Delhi from West Bengal. She got her employed with Samir Kumar Roy in his house No. 52/56, C R Park, New Delhi as maid. She knew Samir Kumar Roy from before. The prosecutrix used to live in the house of Samir. After about 20 days, she went to her native place. However she used to talk to the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix used to say that she is fine. She stated that after a week when she returned to Delhi, prosecutrix came to FIR No. : 237/09 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Ajeet Biswas Page No. 4/20 meet her and told her that Samir, Ajeet and Dalip made her consume liqour forcibly and they established physical relations with her without her consent. She also told her that Samir and his wife did not allow her to talk to her and asked her not to tell the incident to her. She stated that she did not know the accused Ajeet. She then took the prosecutrix to the police station where she gave her statement. She stated that the police took the prosecutrix for her medical examination. She was pregnant at that time. The police had shown her some photographs. She stated that the prosecutrix also told her that they used to lock her in the house and threaten her to kill if she disclosed it to anyone.
On being crossexamined, she stated that the prosecutrix was using mobile phone at that time. She however denied that the prosecutrix was habitual drinker. She admitted that wife of Samir had filed a criminal case against her. She denied that the prosecutrix is married to Dalip and she (PW5) had instigated the prosecutrix to make false complaint against the accused.
PW6 Ms Surya Malik Grover, Ld MM recorded the statement of the prosecutrix u/s 164 CrPC FIR No. : 237/09 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Ajeet Biswas Page No. 5/20 with the help of the Interpretor Ex. PW 2/C. PW7 is the prosecutrix. She deposed that her sister/ PW5 had got her employed in the house of Samir as maid. There she worked for two months. After about 1520 days, on one night, accused Ajeet, Samir and Dalip took liqour and also made her consume liqour. They committed sexual intercourse with her without her consent one by one. Samir also slapped her when she refused to take liqour. They all threatened her not to tell the incident to her sister lest they would kill her. Thereafter, they committed sexual intercourse with her forcibly 23 times. Accused Dalip used to threaten her and commit sexual intercourse with her. When she told them that she would tell it to her sister, Dalip promised to marry her. They did not allow her to go outside and confined her in the house. She stated that the Dalip is the brother inlaw and Ajeet is the son of sister of Samir. She stated that she used to call her sister but every time, Samir and Ajit used to be present and her phone used to be on speaker mode and due to fear she did not tell the incident to her sister. She stated that once Dalip was alone in the house and was sleeping. She came out of the house and went FIR No. : 237/09 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Ajeet Biswas Page No. 6/20 to the house of her sister and told her the entire incident. Her sister then took her to the police station. She proved her statement Ex. PW 2/A, her MLC Ex. PW 2/B and her statement given to the Magistrate Ex. PW 2/C. She stated that they had brought 34 boys in the house and forced her to have sexual intercourse with them after taking money. She stated that she also became pregnant but her pregnancy was terminated.
On being crossexamined, she stated that she cannot tell the date when the accused committed sexual intercourse with her forcibly however they did it after 1520 days when she started working in the house of Samir. She stated that no neighbour/relative came in the house during her stay. However, friends of Samir used to come there. She stated that she never complained to the friends of Samir about the incident. She stated that she had told about the incident to the wife of Samir but she consoled her and said that she would get her married with Dalip. She denied that she married to Dalip on 16.08.2009. She then volunteered that one day she was made to wear saree for the marriage and a party was organized but no marriage took place. There were 1015 FIR No. : 237/09 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Ajeet Biswas Page No. 7/20 persons in the marriage. They were their relatives and friends. She however admitted her photographs Ex. PW1/DA1 Ex. PW 1/DA7. She stated that during that period, her sister used to call her and she had also talked to Amina in her native place. She stated that Rinki had got conducted her pregnancy test. However she did not allow her to tell it to anyone. She admitted that a quarrel had taken place between her sister and Rinki, wife of Samir after she left the house. She admitted that she did not receive any injury when the accused persons committed sexual intercourse with her.
PW8 HC Neeraj Kumar arrested the accused Ajeet Biswas on 14.09.2016 at about 12.30 a.m from his native place on a secret information vide arrest memo Ex. PW 8/A, got him medically examined vide MLC Ex. PW 8/C and prepared a Kalandara Ex. PW 8/G. He gave information of the arrest of the accused at the police station C R Park.
PW9 Dr Laxmikant Gupta proved the bone age report of the prosecutrix Ex.PW 7/A as per which the prosecutrix was above 19 years of age. PW10 SI Rajiv Ranjan had executed the process FIR No. : 237/09 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Ajeet Biswas Page No. 8/20 u/s 82 CrPC against the accused Ajeet Biswas and got his proclamation published in the newspaper Times of India vide Ex. PW 10/D. PW11 ASI Hoshiyar Giri had executed the process u/s 83 CrPC against the accused Ajeet Biswas and gave his report Ex. PW 11/A. He stated that no movable or immovable property was found in the name of the accused.
PW12 ASI Vedvir was with the IO during investigation of this case. He witnessed the arrest of the Samir Kumar Roy. He also got the accused persons medically examined.
PW13 ASI Sushma was the investigating officer of this case. She deposed on the lines of the investigation. She stated that on 14.09.2009, the pregnancy of the prosecutrix was terminated. The doctor handed over her sealed exhibits of the fetus of the prosecutrix which she deposited in the FSL, Rohini. She also produced accused Ajeet Biswas in the FSL for his DNA. She proved the DNA report Ex. PW 11/B. On being crossexamined, she admitted that by the order of the court, she had verified the contents of the CD and the photographs given by Dalip and as per the CDR, the location of the FIR No. : 237/09 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Ajeet Biswas Page No. 9/20 prosecutrix used to be changed on each and every day after 8.00 p.m, sometimes at Noida or Gurgaon and sometimes in Delhi/NCR. She also admitted that she had recorded the statement Arpana, Rano Biswas, Rinku and Bharti Bano Ex. PW 11/DA to Ex. PW 11/DD. She stated that she did not notice any external injury on the person of the prosecutrix when she met her for the first time.
Statement of Accused u/s 313 CrPC
5. After the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused Ajeet Biswas u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He denied all the incriminating evidence against him and stated that he never made physical relations with the prosecutrix. He was friend of Samir. A quarrel had taken place between Rinki and sister of the prosecutrix/PW5. She was nursing a grudge against Rinki and Samir. She falsely implicated him because she knew that he was known to Samir. He stated that he never committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix nor threatened her.
Arguments
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Legal Counsel Sh. Raj Singh for the accused and Sh. Mohd Iqrar, Ld Addl. PP for the State.
7. Ld. Counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the testimony of the prosecutrix is in complete variance with her FIR No. : 237/09 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Ajeet Biswas Page No. 10/20 complaint and the statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. The call details record shows that the prosecutrix and her sister used to talk to each other. The prosecutrix had married to Dalip Biswas which fact is evident from the photographs and other documents. When it came to the notice of the sister of the prosecutrix, a quarrel resulted and she forced the prosecutrix to lodge complaint against the accused persons. The DNA report negates the involvement of the accused in the alleged incident. The IO had examined Aparna, Rano Biswas, Rinku and Bharti during the investigation but did not make them witness since they had not supported the prosecution case. Ld. Counsel stated that the investigation was not conducted fairly and accused has been falsely implicated.
8. Ld. Addl. PP on the contrary argued that it is a case of gang rape. The prosecutrix has categorically stated that accused Ajeet with Dalip and Samir committed rape upon her one by one number of times. The presumption u/s 114A of the Evidence Act is in favour of the prosecution. The accused failed to rebut the presumption. Ld. Addl. PP stated that prosecutrix used to work in the house of the Samir where all of them confined her in a room and committed rape upon her number of times. They also threatened her to kill if she would disclose the incident to anyone. One day when accused Dalip was alone and sleeping, the prosecutrix ran away from the house and went to her sister's house and told her the incident. Ld. Addl. PP stated that from the relations made by the accused, the prosecutrix became pregnant which is evident from the medical record. Ld. Addl.
FIR No. : 237/09 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Ajeet Biswas Page No. 11/20 PP stated that the prosecutrix has denied her marriage with the accused Dalip and the photographs were clicked after the prosecutrix was made to wear the sari.
Findings
9. I have considered the arguments and gone through the entire material available on record.
10. Section 375 defines rape. It reads as:
"Rape A man is said to commit "rape" who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions: First: Against her will.
Secondly: Without her consent.
Thirdly: With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt.
Fourthly.......
Fifthly..........
Sixthly: With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age.
Explanation: Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.
Exception.......
11. Testimonies of the prosecutrix/PW7 and her sister/PW5 would show that PW5 knew Samir from before. She got the prosecutrix employed in his house as maid where she worked for about two months. PW7 and PW5 were using the mobile phones and they used to talk with each other regularly. Although the prosecutrix FIR No. : 237/09 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Ajeet Biswas Page No. 12/20 has stated that she was confined in the house and was not allowed to go anywhere but the call details analyzed by PW13 would show that the location of her mobile phone used to be changed on each and every day after 8.00 p.m, sometimes at Noida, sometimes at Delhi and sometimes at Gurgaon. It is not the case that the accused persons used to keep the mobile phone of the prosecutrix. The prosecution offered no explanation how the location of the mobile phone of the prosecutrix used to be changed. It is pertinent to mention that when the accused Ajeet was declared Proclaimed Offender, statement of the sister of the prosecutrix was recorded and she was examined as PW1. She had stated that whenever she tried to contact the prosecutrix from her native place, Samir used to say that the prosecutrix has not been working with him. After about 15 days, she returned to Delhi and went to his house. She tried to contact the prosecutrix but Samir did not allow her to enter and said that the prosecutrix has not been working in his house. She made search for the prosecutrix in her relations but did not find her. The call details record of the prosecutrix for the period from 01.07.2009 to 03.11.2009 on the other hand shows that the prosecutrix had talked to her sister/PW1/PW5 number of times from 20.07.2009 to 06.09.2009. The call details record is contrary to their depositions and the location of the prosecutrix during that period.
6. In the instant case, when the accused Ajeet was declared Proclaimed Offender, the evidence of the prosecutrix was recorded and she was examined as PW2. She had stated that after about 15 / FIR No. : 237/09 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Ajeet Biswas Page No. 13/20 20 days, at night, all the accused persons took liquor and also made her consume liquor and they committed rape upon her one by one. They threatened her not to disclose it to anyone otherwise they would kill her. They established physical relations with her forcibly after a gap of 3 - 4 days. They confined her in the house and did not allow her to go out. The house used to remain locked. She had narrated the entire incident to Rinky, wife of Samir but she told her not to worry and she would marry her with her brother Dalip. Her testimony shows that the family of Samir used to live there. So how can it be said that the house used to remain locked. Further, no wife would allow her husband to indulge in such an act that too in her house.
7. In the instant case, prosecutrix/PW7 was confronted with the photographs Ex.PW1/DA1 to Ex.PW1/DA8 in which PW7 is there. In the photographs, the prosecutrix has been sitting with the accused Dalip and his family members. She has been wearing wedding sari and she has vermilion on her parting. She has been dancing with the family members of the accused. I do not agree with PW7/prosecutrix that the said photographs were clicked forcibly. In the photographs, the prosecutrix is looking normal.
8. These photographs rather support the case of the accused that Dalip had married to the prosecutrix and thereafter, a small party was organized. Her testimony when examined as PW2 also reveals that the accused Dalip had put vermilion on her parting and the sister of the accused Dalip and many persons from his native place had attended the marriage. She had stated that the accused Dalip used to FIR No. : 237/09 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Ajeet Biswas Page No. 14/20 establish physical relations with her daily as he used to live with her and remain with her all the time.
13. In the instant case when the prosecutrix was taken for her medical examination, she was pregnant of about 1½ months. Her vaginal smear was taken. Her MTP was conducted on 10.09.2009 in AIIMS. The sealed exhibits of the fetus were handed over to the police. The blood samples of the accused persons for DNA finger printing were taken. The exhibits and samples were sent to the FSL. As per the report Ex.PW11/D, the alleles as from the source of exhibit '3', '4' and '5' (Blood samples of the accused persons) were not accounted in the alleles as from the source of exhibit 'la' (piece of fetus), exhibit '1b' (blood of fetus in card) and exhibit '1c' (blood of fetus in gauze). It was concluded that DNA profiling performed on the exhibits shows that none of the accused was the biological father of fetus. PW2/prosecutrix had stated that she did not establish physical relations with anyone prior to this incident. The DNA report is contrary to the testimony of the prosecutrix / PW2. Further, the call details record of the mobile phone of the prosecutrix shows that she moved to many places during the period she allegedly remained in the house of Samir.
14. In the instant case during investigation, PW13 had recorded the statements of Smt. Rano Biswas, Smt. Rinku and Bharti Bano Ex.PW1/DB to Ex.PW1/DD who had stated that accused Dalip Biswas has married with the prosecutrix. She had met Dalip on the birthday of son of Rinku. She had come with her sister Mamta and FIR No. : 237/09 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Ajeet Biswas Page No. 15/20 brotherinlaw Dharoli Dass. On 17.08.2009, a party was organized. Statement of Aparna Ex.PW11/DA shows that on 03.09.2009, accused Dalip and prosecutrix had come in her house and told that they have married to each other. They had food in her house and went away. Although the prosecution did not examine them in the witness box but it has come in the testimony of PW13 that she had recorded the statement of above witnesses.
15. The prosecutrix in her earlier statement when examined as PW2 had deposed that two days prior to lodging of report, a quarrel had taken place between her sister PW1 and the accused persons. Although, the prosecutrix has denied that because of the quarrel, she falsely got registered the case but looking into the facts and circumstances, this possibility can not be ruled out.
16. The logical conclusion which can be drawn in this case is that the prosecutrix who was about 19 years of age had married with the accused Dalip. A small party was organized by Samir in his house who is the brotherinlaw of the accused Dalip. The accused Dalip and the prosecutrix lived as husband and wife and made physical relations. Their relations were with the consent of the prosecutrix. When the factum of marriage came to the notice of PW1/PW5, the elder sister of the prosecutrix, a quarrel ensued which made the prosecutrix lodged the complaint. The story of the prosecutrix that she was confined in the room and all the accused persons committed rape upon her one by one number of times and threatened her to kill in case she would lodge the report does not FIR No. : 237/09 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Ajeet Biswas Page No. 16/20 inspire confidence. The testimony of the prosecutrix does not find support from the DNA finger printing report Ex.PW11/D. Looking into the testimony of the prosecutrix which is inconsistent and not cogent and the other material on record, no presumption can be drawn u/s 114A of the Evidence Act as to the involvement of the accused Ajeet Biswas in the alleged offence.
17. I am conscious of the legal proposition that the conviction in such like cases can be made on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix even without any medical corroboration and the version of the victim in rape commands great respect and acceptability but if there are some circumstances which cast doubts in the mind of the court of the veracity of the victim's evidence then it is not safe to rely on the uncorroborated version of the victim of rape. It was held in case of Rajoo Vs. State of MP, AIR, 2009 SC 858 : "It cannot be lost sight that rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication".
18. In Ashish Batham Vs. State of MP, (2002), 7 SCC 317), it was held :
"Realities or Truth apart, the fundamental and basic presumption in the administration of criminal law and justice delivery system is the innocence of the alleged accused and till the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of clear, cogent, credible or unimpeachable evidence, the question of indicting or punishing an accused does not arise, merely carried away by heinous nature of the crime or the gruesome FIR No. : 237/09 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Ajeet Biswas Page No. 17/20 manner in which it was found to have been committed. Mere suspicion, however, strong or probable it may be is no effective substitute for the legal proof required to substantiate the charge of commission of a crime and grave the charge is greater should be the standard of proof required. Courts dealing with criminal cases at least should constantly remember that there is a long mental distance between `may be true' and `must be true' and this basic and golden rule only helps to maintain the vital distinction between `conjectures' and `sure conclusions' to be arrived at on the touch stone of a dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case as well as quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record"
Conclusion
19. In the light of what has been stated above, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish its case qua his committing the offences punishable u/s 376(2)(g)/342/506/34 IPC against the accused Ajeet Biswas beyond reasonable doubt. I therefore, acquit the accused Ajeet Biswas of the offences punishable under section 376(2)(g)/342/506/34 IPC.
20. Now coming to the offence punishable u/s 174A IPC, perusal of the record would show that the accused absconded during the trial and the processes u/s 82 and 83 CrPC were issued against the accused vide order dated 23.04.2013 and 06.06.2013 respectively Again the processes u/s 82 and 83 CrPC were issued against the accused on 30.11.2013 at the address mentioned in the bail bond. The publication was ordered. PW10 has stated that he had received the order of the DCP Ex. PW 10/A and Ex. PW 10/B and requested PRO, Head Quarters, New Delhi vide Ex. PW 10/C to get the proclamation FIR No. : 237/09 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Ajeet Biswas Page No. 18/20 published. He stated that the proclamation of the accused was published in the newspaper " Times of India " Ex. PW 10/D. His statement to that effect was also recorded. PW12 had executed the process u/s 83 CrPC against the accused. He has stated that no movable or immovable property was found in the name of the accused. He had pasted the copy of the process at the corner of Gali No. 8. He proved his report Ex. PW 11/A in this respect. The court after going through the reports and statements, declared the accused Ajeet Biswas Proclaimed Offender on 25.11.2014. The accused has also admitted that during that period he did not appear in the court nor sent any information as to his absence. Although he stated that he suffered a major heart attack and for his treatment, he had gone to his native but he did not prove any record to substantiate this fact. PW8 has stated that on 12.09.2016 he with his team went to West Bengal Nadiya District to apprehend the accused. On 14.09.2016, he received the information about the accused that he was sleeping in his house. He took the local police with him and went to his house and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex. PW 8/A. He got him medically examined vide MLC Ex. PW 8/C, took his transit remand vide order Ex. PW 8/E and produced him in the court on 15.09.2016. He prepared the Kalandara Ex. PW 8/G and informed at the police station C R Park. The testimony of the above witnesses and the record clearly prove that the accused failed to appear at the specified date as required by the proclamation published u/s 82(1) CrPC and a declaration u/s 82(4) CrPC was made in this effect whereby he was declared as FIR No. : 237/09 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Ajeet Biswas Page No. 19/20 Proclaimed Offender. The very act committed by the accused amounts to commission of offence punishable u/s 174A IPC. I therefore hold the accused guilty of the offence punishable u/s 174A IPC and convict him thereunder. Let he be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open court today i.e. 31.08.2017 ( Sanjiv Jain) ASJSpl. FTC / Saket Courts New Delhi FIR No. : 237/09 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Ajeet Biswas Page No. 20/20