Delhi District Court
3.Title State vs . on 6 April, 2013
THE COURT OF SH. SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA :
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
1.FIR No. 47/09
2.Unique Case ID No. 02401R0377612009
3.Title State Vs.
1. Ashok @ Pakoda
2. Balram
3(A).Name of complainant Sh. Yogesh, s/o Sh. Prabhu Narain Gupta, r/o
H.no. D-28, Tagore Garden Ext., New Delhi.
3(B).Name of accused 1. Ashok @ Pakora s/o Sh. Raju, r/o H.no. B2/550, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi.
2. Bal Ram s/o late Sh. Raju, r/o B-
2/51 Raghubir Nagar, Delhi.
4.Date of institution of challan 25.04.2009
5.Date of Reserving judgment Pronounced on the same day
6.Date of hearing the final 06.04.2013 arguments
7.Date of pronouncement 06.04.2013
8.Date of commission of offence 11.03.2009
9.Offence complained of Under Section 394/427/34 IPC
10.Offence charged with Under Section 394/427/34 IPC
11.Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
12.Final order Both the accused viz. Ashok @ Pakora and Balram are convicted for the offence punishable Under Section 394/427/34 IPC
13. Date of receiving of judicial 13.10.2010 file in this court FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.1/44 BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE:-
1. Every criminal trial is primarily a voyage of discovery in which the truth is the quest. Truth and Justice are the two most reverent values apotheosized by mankind since time immemorial. Law acts as a conjunction between the two aforementioned venerable streams of human values. However, in a criminal trial there are situations when Truth seems to be obscure and Justice appears to be obfuscated under the mist of chicanery and mendacity. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Zahira Habib ullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2006) 3SCC 374 also remind the courts and judges of their sacrosanct duty to purge the sublime values and vindicate the triumvirate of Truth, Law and Justice.
2. The criminal law was set into motion in the present case by complainant Sh. Yogesh Kumar Gupta s/o Prabhu Narayan by making a complaint Ex. PW2/A in PS Khyala regarding the commission of the robbery of Rs. 5,000/- from his shop by the accused Ashok @ Pakora and Balram. It FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.2/44 is also reported that the said accused had also inflicted the injuries on the person of the complainant and damaged the main gate glass of his shop at the time of the commission of the said offence. It is alleged by the prosecution that both the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention on 11.03.2009 at about 09.30 PM at B-2/17, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Khyala, had robbed a sum of Rs. 5,000/-
along with certain documents from the shop of the complainant and caused hurt to the complainant by means of a glass piece and damaged the glass of the main gate of the complainant's shop while committing the said robbery and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 394/427/34 IPC.
3. The charge sheet against the accused persons was accordingly filed, copies were supplied to both the accused persons in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. and on the basis of the material on record, the charge for the offence punishable u/s 394/427/34 IPC was framed against both the accused persons on 22.07.2010, to which they pleaded not guilty and FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.3/44 claimed trial.
4. Prosecution for proving its case against the accused persons had examined as many as six witnesses.
1. PW-1 HC Brijesh Kumar Duty Officer.
2. PW-2 Yogesh Kumar Gupta, the complainant.
3. PW-3 HC Ram Avatar, Investigating witness.
4. PW-4 Ct. Suresh Kumar, Investigating witness.
5. PW-5 Dr. Avinash Bhargav, Medical Witness.
6. PW-6 SI Narayan Singh, Investigating Officer.
PW-1 HC Brijesh Kumar is the duty officer and has proved the FIR Ex. PW1/A and also made endorsement on rukka Ex. PW1/B. PW-2 Sh. Yogesh Kumar Gupta is the complainant and the star prosecution witness and has deposed that the incident pertains to 9.30 PM of 11.03.2009 when he was present on his medical shop "Aggarwal Medicals". He has deposed that the accused Balram and Ashok with whom FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.4/44 he was previously acquainted and present in the court today (correctly identified) visited his shop for demanded a sum of Rs. 500 from him and extended to face the dire consequences including the closure of his shop if he refused to pay the said money. He refused to give the money and suddenly the Balram gave a blow on his face and Ashok started abusing him. He immediately went inside the glass door of his shop stating that he will call the police. Both the accused persons came near to the glass door and started to hammer it. Suddenly the Balram broke the glass and assaulted on his left hand with the broken glass. Balram also opened the door by inserting his hands in the door as the glass was already broken. Both the accused entered in his shop and opened the cash counter of the shop and took away near about Rs. 5,000/- and some documents from the counter. Thereafter, both the accused run away from the spot, shouting to kill my family if he informed the incident to the police. Police was called. His statement Ex. PW2/A was recorded. The IO prepared the site plan Ex. FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.5/44 PW2/B at his instance. The IO collected the broken and scattered pieces of the glass in an empty box of sweets and seized the same vide memo Ex. PW2/C. The police officials try to search the accused persons but none of the accused could be traced on that day. On 13.03.2009 he joined the investigation with the IO and went to the Ghodewala Mandir and found the accused Ashok who was arrested at his instance vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/D. The personal search memo of the accused is Ex. PW2/E. The IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW2/F wherein the accused disclosed regarding the commission of the robbery. The accused also produced three currency note of Rs. 100/- each (total Rs. 300/-) which were seized vide memo Ex. PW2/X. On 14.03.2009 the complainant informed the police regarding the missing of his pass book of SBI Account no. 3000587669. His statement to this effect was also recorded. The police came to his shop on 17.03.2009 along with accused Balram and he joined the investigation. He along with the IO and the FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.6/44 accused went to the house of the Balram which is near to his house. The IO conducted the search. Thereafter, the accused Balram took them to the Chameli Park near to the house. The passbook of SBI account along with two bills was recovered at the instance of the accused from behind the bushes . His passbook bearing his photograph is Ex. PW2/G and the recovered bills are Ex. PW2/H and PW2/I. The same are seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/J. The accused was taken by the police and he came back to his house. The recovered currency notes are exhibited as Ex. P1, Ex. P2 and Ex. P3. Although the witness has specifically stated that he cannot identify the said currency notes to be the one recovered from the possession of the accused Ashok as all the currency notes look likes the same. The case property i.e. the broken glass pieces along with the storage box of Gopalji are correctly identified by the witness and the same are collectively exhibited as P4.
The witness was not cross examined despite opportunities. FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.7/44 The witness was recalled for cross examination at the request of the accused persons and was cross examined, re examined and further cross examined at length on 15.02.2011 by the counsel for both the accused persons as well as the Ld. APP for the state.
PW-3 HC Ram Avatar is the Investigating witness and has deposed that on 11.03.2009 on receipt of DD no. 58A he along with SI Narayan Singh went to the place of the occurrence at Aggarwal Medical and found the glasses of the door in a broken condition and met with the complainant having the injury in his left arm. The complainant Yogesh was medically examined by him at the instance of the IO from DDU hospital. The complainant was examined and rukka was prepared by the IO. The same was handed over to him for registration of the FIR. He accordingly went to the PS, got the FIR registered and came back on the spot and handed over the copy of FIR, rukka to the IO. The IO prepared the site plan, took the photographs of the place of the occurrence and seized the small FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.8/44 pieces of the glasses from the spot and kept the same in a box which was sealed with the seal of MS. The same was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/C. The IO made the efforts for search of the accused persons named in the FIR but none of them could be traced. His statement was recorded by the IO. The witness has correctly identified the broken glass pieces which are already exhibited as P4.
The witness was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Ashok and was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Balram despite opportunities.
PW-4 Ct. Suresh Kumar is also the Investigating witness and has deposed that on 13.03.2009 he joined the investigation along with IO and went to the house no. B-2/17, Raghubir Nagar i.e. at the shop of the complainant. The complainant also joined the investigation with them. The accused Ashok was found present at Ghodewala Mandir and was arrested upon the identification and instance of the complainant vide memo Ex. FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.9/44 PW2/D. The personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo Ex. PW2/E. The accused made a disclosure statement Ex. PW2/F and also produced a sum of Rs. 300/- being the remaining money out of the robbed money. The same was seized after sealing with the seal of NS vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/X. The accused also pointed out the place of the commission of the offence. The IO recorded the statement of the witnesses including himself. The witness has further deposed regarding the joining of the investigation by him on 17.03.2009 and had stated that the accused Balram was arrested consequent to his surrender in the court. The PC remand of the accused was granted and in the police custody the accused let them to the place of the occurrence. The IO prepared the pointing out memo Ex. PW4/A. The complainant also joined the investigation. The accused was taken to his house at B-2/51 , Raghubir Nagar from the first floor of the same. The old clothes of the accused were recovered. Thereafter the accused took them to the Chameli Park. One SBI passbook FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.10/44 in favour of AS Trading Company was got recovered from the bushes in the west side of the park which was seized vide memo Ex. PW2/J and the documents are already exhibited as Ex PW2/G,H and I. His statement was recorded.
The witness has correctly identified the matchbox containing Rs. 300/- and the currency notes as Ex. P1,P2 and P3 respectively.
The witness was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Ashok and was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Balram despite opportunities.
PW-5 Dr. Avinash Bhargav is the Medical Witness and has proved the MLC of the injured/complainant Yogesh as Ex. PW6/A stating that the MLC shows that the injuries was caused by the sharp weapon and the same are opined as simple. The witness has deposed that the injured Yogesh was examined under his supervision by Dr. Thumason. The said doctor had already left the said hospital.
FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.11/44
PW-6 SI Narayan Singh is the Investigating Officer and has deposed that on 11.03.2009 on receipt of DD no. 58A he along HC Ram Avatar went to the place of the occurrence i.e. B2/17 Raghubir Nagar and found the glasses of the door in a broken condition and the complainant was found in an injured condition. The complainant Yogesh was medically examined from DDU hospital. He recorded the statement Ex. PW2/A made by Yogesh on the spot and on the basis of contents of MLC and statement made by Yogesh and after inspecting the place of occurrence he prepared rukka which is Ex. PW6/B and the same was handed over to HC Ram Avatar who accordingly went to PS, got the FIR registered, came back on the spot and handed over the copy of FIR, rukka to him. He took the photographs of the place of the occurrence with his digital camera and the photographs are Ex. PX and PY. Thereafter, he seized the broken glass pieces and kept the same in a card box and the said box was sealed with the help of a cloth pullanda with the seal of the NS and seized the same FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.12/44 vide seizure memo which is already Ex. PW2/C. He also prepared the site plan Ex. PW2/B. Thereafter, he made efforts for the search of the offenders but in vain.
Thereafter, on 13.03.2009 he along with Ct. Suresh Kumar went to the house no. B-2/17, Raghubir Nagar i.e. at the shop of the complainant. The complainant also joined the investigation with them and thereafter they went for the search of the accused persons and the accused Ashok was found present at Ghodewala Mandir and was arrested upon the identification and instance of the complainant vide memo Ex. PW2/D. The personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo Ex. PW2/E. The accused made a disclosure statement Ex. PW2/F and also produced a sum of Rs. 300/- being the remaining money out of the robbed money. The same was seized after sealing with the seal of NS vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/X. The accused also pointed out the place of the commission of the offence. The IO recorded the statement of the witnesses. The case FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.13/44 property was deposited in the Malkhana and accused was sent to lock up. The witness has further deposed regarding the joining of the investigation by him on 17.03.2009 and had stated that the accused Balram was arrested consequent to his surrender in the court. The PC remand of the accused was granted and in the police custody the accused led them to the place of the occurrence. He prepared the pointing out memo Ex. PW4/A. The complainant also joined the investigation. The accused was taken to his house at B-2/51 , Raghubir Nagar from the first floor of the same the old clothes of the accused were recovered. Thereafter the accused took them to the Chameli Park. One SBI passbook in favour of AS Trading Company was got recovered from the bushes in the west side of the park which was seized vide memo Ex. PW2/J and the documents are already exhibited as Ex PW2/G,H and I. He recorded the statement of the witnesses.
The witness has correctly identified the matchbox containing Rs. 300/- and the currency notes already exhibited as Ex. P1,P2 and P3 FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.14/44 respectively. The witness has correctly identified the box along with the glasses which is already exhibited as Ex. P4. The witness has also identified the documents recovered at the instance of the accused Balram i.e. the passbook as Ex. PW2/G and the two bills as Ex. PW2/H and I. The witness was cross examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Balram and was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Ashok despite opportunities.
5. No other prosecution witness was examined and the prosecution evidence was closed. Both the accused persons were examined u/s 281 read with Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 10.06.2011 wherein both the accused persons have stated that they are innocent and have been falsely and wrongly implicated in this case. The accused Ashok further stated that he only tried to mediate between the complainant Yogesh and co accused Balram who were involved in an altercation and were found exchanging the words with each other. Similarly, the accused Balram had stated that no FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.15/44 such incident ever took place and only the altercation took place between the complainant Yogesh and himself after the exchange of some words. However, both of them have denied to lead any evidence in their defence.
6. In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
7. Reverting back to the facts of the case in hand for the sake of brevity and convenience I propose to make an endeavor to find an answer to the question as to what penal offence is allegedly committed in the present case and who committed the same. Admittedly, both the accused persons had not disputed their presence on the shop of the complainant at the time of the alleged incident the accused persons have further admitted the exchange of the words and the incident of FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.16/44 altercation with the complainant.
8. It is alleged that both the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention have committed an offence punishable u/s 394/427/34 IPC. The offence of the robbery is defined under section 390 IPC and section 394 IPC provides punishments for aggravated form of robbery wherein the hurt is caused to the victim in committing or attempting to commit the same.
9. The essential ingredients of offence of robbery punishable u/s 392 IPC are laid down in section 390 IPC. According to which all the robberies includes within themselves either the theft or the extortion as the said section starts with the wording that in all the robberies there is either theft or extortion and subsequently defined as to when the theft amounts to the robbery and goes to say that Theft is 'robbery' if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.17/44 that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint".
The second portion of the section also defines as to when the extortion tantamounts to a robbery and it goes to say that the extortion is robbery if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.
10. The offence of robbery is punishable u/s 392 IPC and if the hurt is caused in committing or attempting to commit the robbery the same is punishable with the imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment which may extent to 10 years and also with fine u/s 394 IPC.
FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.18/44
The essential ingredients of the same are as under:-
1. Accused committed theft and thereby dishonestly removed the property without the consent of its owner/possessor;
2. Accused caused or attempted to cause some persons -
(a) death, hurt or wrongful restraint;
(b) fear of death or of instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint;
3. Accused did either act-
(a) in committing such theft, or
(b) in order to commit theft, or
(c) in carrying away or attempting to carry away the property obtaining by such theft;
4. Accused acted voluntarily.
11. It is also alleged that the accused had also damaged the glass of the shop of the complainant at the time of the commission of the offence and are also liable for the offence of mischief which is punishable u/s 427 IPC FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.19/44 and is defined u/s 425.
The elements necessary for constituting an offence of mischief are as follows:-
(a) The accused must have caused the destruction of some property or some change in it or its situation;
(b) Such change must have destroyed or diminished the value or utility of the property or affected it injuriously;
( c) Destruction or change in the property or situation thereof must have been done with the intention of causing or with the knowledge that it is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person.
12. To prove the offence punishable u/s 394/34 IPC the prosecution was required to prove that the accused persons had committed the robbery as defined u/s 390 IPC i.e. they have dishonestly removed the property of the complainant without his consent and the same was done by voluntarily causing or attempt to cause the death, hurt or wrongful FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.20/44 restrain or the fear of instant death or instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint of the complainant/victim. For bringing the alleged offence within the four corners of section 394 IPC the prosecution was also required to prove that the accused persons had also voluntarily caused the hurt to the victims in committing or in their attempt to commit the said robbery. The prosecution was also under an obligation to prove the meeting of the mind i.e. consensus on the part of both the accused for committing aforesaid offence against the complainant to show that the offence was committed by both the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention.
13. Now the stage has been set to appreciate the entire evidence on record in the light of essential ingredients of offence of the robbery defined in section 390 IPC and punishable u/s 394 IPC and the offence of mischief as defined u/s 425 IPC and punishable u/s 427 IPC alleged to be committed by the accused persons and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.21/44 The next question which arises for the consideration is that whether the prosecution has been able to produce such evidence on record which warrants the conviction of the accused on the touch stone of the golden principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
14. The prosecution has examined six witnesses in support of its case against the accused person including the victim / the complainant as PW-2 Yogesh Kumar Gupta.
15 I proceed to test the probative value of the material prosecution witness.
16. Ld. Counsel Sh. Deepak Ghai for the accused Ashok @ Pakora has submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused as the complainant Yogesh Kumar Gupta has turned hostile during his cross examination and has not at all supported the case of the prosecution vis-a-vis the accused Ashok @ Pakora. The complainant has FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.22/44 categorically admitted that the accused Ashok @ Pakora never demanded any monthly amount from the complainant and the accused had not quarreled with him at the time of the commission of the alleged offence rather the witness has turned hostile to the prosecution case and have disowned the prosecution version in the witness box due to which the entire prosecution case crumbles and nothing survives.
17. It is further submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused as no independent public witness is examined by the prosecution except the complainant and the same cannot form the basis of conviction of the accused.
18. Ld. Counsel Sh. Yogender Chaudhary for the accused Balram had also submitted that there are material contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses particularly in the testimony of PW-2 Yogesh Kumar Gupta as the witness has deposed contradictory not only regarding the place of the arrest of the accused Balram but is also contradicted by the FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.23/44 other witnesses regarding the time of the arrest of the accused Balram. The same puts a question mark not only regarding the veracity of the version of the prosecution case but is also sufficient to impeach the credit worthiness of the complainant Yogesh Kumar Gupta. The seized articles are not identified by the complainant. The complainant has not signed any memo except the arrest memo of the accused and the same proves that the complainant had never joined the investigation with the IO. Both the Ld. Counsels had alleged that the prosecution has failed to examine any public witness except the complainant despite their availability and the fact that the alleged incident took place in a busy market and same cannot form the basis of conviction of the accused persons.
19. Both the Ld. Defence Counsels has further attacked the testimony of complainant Yogesh Kumar Gupta stating that the same is highly inconsistent and the same deserves to be discarded in totality. It is argued that the complainant had completely disowned the prosecution case FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.24/44 in his cross examination and his testimony cannot be acted upon. The entire prosecution case crumbles and nothing survives against the accused.
20. Per Contra Ld. APP for the state had submitted that the complainant / victim has not only supported the prosecution case in totality but have also described the role played by each of the accused at the time of the commission of the alleged offence. The other witness examined by the prosecution have also deposed in corroboration with the testimony of the other prosecution witnesses. The prosecution witnesses had not only supported the prosecution case but had also identified both the accused persons and the case property in the course of the trial in the court. Ld. Prosecutor Sh. B.B. Bhasin submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond the shadow of the reasonable doubt and even if the complainant has not supported the prosecution case to certain extent in his cross examination still his testimony cannot be discredited in totality as the legal maxim falsus in uno falsus in omni bus is not applicable in India FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.25/44 and the witnesses cannot be branded as liar.
21. This court finds force in the submission of the Ld. APP vis a vis his submission regarding the hostility of a witness is concerned as the testimony of such witnesses cannot be discarded in totality. It is always open to the court to separate the grain from the chaff rather the same is the solemn duty of the court as pointed out by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh's case (Supra). Falsity of particular material witnesses or the material particulars would not ruin it from the beginning to the end. In the case of State of UP v. Anil Singh AIR 1988 SC 1998 it has been observed by the Ld. Apex Court that :-
"it is also experienced that invariably the witnesses add embroidery to the prosecution story perhaps for the fear of being disbelieved. But that is no ground to throw the case overboard, if true, in the main. If there is a ring of truth in the main, the case should not be rejected. It is the duty of the court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the evidence unless there is a FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.26/44 reason to believe that the inconsistencies of the false hood are so glaring as utterly to destroy the confidence in the witnesses. It is necessary to remember that a judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent person is punished. A judge also presides to see that the guilty man does not escape. One is as important as the other. Both are the public duties which the judge has to perform.
22. In the light of the aforesaid observation by the Ld. Apex Court it would be worthwhile to test the intrinsic value of the testimony of the complainant Yogesh Kumar Gupta, PW-1.
23. The essential ingredients of the offence allegedly committed by the accused persons as detailed above shows that the prosecution case primarily depends upon the testimonies of the complainant Sh. Yogesh Kumar Gupta who is examined on 01.09.2010 by the prosecution as PW-2. It is pertinent to mention that none of the accused person preferred to cross examine the witness at the time of his examination in the court however, in FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.27/44 the interest of justice the witness was recalled for cross examination and was cross examined at length on 15.02.2011 by the Ld. Counsel for both the accused persons.
24. Admittedly, the star prosecution witness i.e. the complainant Yogesh Kumar Gupta is examined by the prosecution as PW-2 on 01.09.2010 and has deposed that "... the incident pertains to 9.30 PM of 11.03.2009 when he was present on his medical shop "Aggarwal Medicals". He has deposed that the accused Balram and Ashok with whom he was previously acquainted and present in the court today (correctly identified) visited his shop and demanded a sum of Rs. 500/- from him or to face the dire consequences including the closure of his shop if he refused to pay the said money. He refused to give the money and suddenly Balram gave a blow on his face and Ashok started abusing him. He immediately went inside the glass door of his shop stating that he will call the police. Both the accused persons came near to the glass door and started to hammer it. Suddenly FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.28/44 the Balram broke the glass and assaulted on his left hand with the broken glass. Balram also opened the door by inserting his hands in the door as the glass was already broken. Both the accused entered in his shop and opened the cash counter of the shop and took away near about Rs. 5,000/- and some documents from the counter. Thereafter, both the accused run away from the spot, shouting to kill his family if he informed the incident to the police. Police was called. His statement Ex. PW2/A was recorded. The IO prepared the site plan Ex. PW2/B at his instance. The IO collected the broken and scattered pieces of the glass in an empty box of sweets and seized the same vide memo Ex. PW2/C. The police officials tried to search the accused persons but none of the accused could be traced on that day. On 13.03.2009 he joined the investigation with the IO and went to the Ghodewala Mandir and found the accused Ashok who was arrested at his instance vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/D. The personal search memo of the accused is Ex. PW2/E. The IO recorded the disclosure statement of FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.29/44 accused Ex. PW2/F wherein the accused disclosed regarding the commission of the robbery. The accused also produced three currency note of Rs. 100/- each (total Rs. 300/-) which were seized vide memo Ex. PW2/X. On 14.03.2009 the complainant informed the police regarding the missing of his pass book of SBI Account no. 3000587669. His statement to this effect was also recorded. The police came to his shop on 17.03.2009 along with accused Balram and he joined the investigation. He along with the IO and the accused went to the house of the Balram which is near to his house. The IO conducted the search. Thereafter, the accused Balram took them to the Chameli Park near to the house. The passbook of SBI account along with two bills was recovered at the instance of the accused from behind the bushes . His passbook bearing his photograph is Ex. PW2/G and the recovered bills are Ex. PW2/H and PW2/I. The same are seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/J. The accused was taken by the police and he came back to his house. The recovered currency notes are exhibited as FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.30/44 Ex. P1, Ex. P2 and Ex. P3. Although the witness has specifically stated that he cannot identify the said currency notes to be the one recovered from the possession of the accused Ashok as all the currency notes look likes the same, the case property i.e. the broken glass pieces along with the storage box of Gopalji are correctly identified by the witness and the same are collectively exhibited as P4".
25. The same shows that PW-2, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Gupta has not only identified both the accused namely Ashok @ Pakora and Balram being the perpetrator of the crime but have also explained the role played by each of them in furtherance of their common intentions for the commission of the alleged offence of robbery and mischief against his body and property. The testimony of the complainant also proves the common intention of the accused persons which makes them liable for the acts of each other. The witness has also proved his complaint Ex. PW2/A, the site plan as Ex. PW2/B, the seizure memo as Ex. PW2/C, the personal search memo and FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.31/44 arrest memo of accused Ashok @ Pakora as Ex. PW2/E and PW2/D respectively and the recovered currency notes as Ex. PW2/X. The complainant has also deposed that his pass books and certain bills were recovered from behind the bushes of the Chameli park at the instance of the accused Balram in the course of investigation and the same were exhibited as PW2/G, PW2/H, and Ex. PW2/I. The complainant has also identified both the accused persons as well as the case property. The witness was not cross examined despite opportunities by the accused person on the aforesaid date of his examination in the court. But the witness was recalled for cross examination on the applications of the counsels for both the accused and was cross examined at length on 15.02.2011 by both the Ld. Counsels i.e. after the lapse of approximately 4 ½ months. In his cross examination the witness has tried to exonerate only one of the accused namely Ashok @ Pakora by admitting that the accused Ashok @ Pakora never demanded any FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.32/44 monthly amount from him and has also stated that he informed the IO that it was only accused Balram who opened the cash counter and pick up the money and the other documents. He further stated that the accused Ashok had not quarreled with him. He cannot say whether at the time of the incident accused Ashok was dragging the another accused Balram outside his shop as he was injured. The witness had stated that he made a call to PCR regarding the quarrel and beating by the accused persons and had also admitted that he made the complaint on 14.03.2009 to the SHO which is Ex. PW2/DA wherein he had not alleged anything against accused Ashok. He had further stated that he do not remember as to after 11.03.2009 when and where he saw accused Ashok and the arrest memo of the accused Ashok was signed by him at his shop. He further stated that the seizure memo as well as disclosure of the accused was signed by him at police station. However, the witness has in the same breath denied the suggestions of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.33/44 nothing happened in the manner as deposed by him in his examination in chief on 01.09.2010. He had further denied that the said deposition was made by him at the instance of the IO and the Ex. PW2/A was signed by him mechanically at the instance of the IO. He had further stated that he do not remember the place of the arrest of the accused Balram.
26. The same compels me to analyze the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Khuji @ Surender Tiwari v. State of MP AIR 1991 SC 1853 regarding the wavering mind of a witness wherein while upholding the findings of the Hon'ble High Court regarding the creditability of the testimony of PW-1 Komal Chand the Hon'ble High Court has observed that there is a time gap of approximately one month between the examination in chief and cross examination and in between the witness seemed to have been won over or had scummbed the threats. The Apex Court concluded that during the one month period that elapsed since the recording of examination in chief of the witness something transpired which made him FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.34/44 shift his evidence on the question of the identity to help the Appellant and expressed its satisfaction stating that "on a reading of his entire evidence that his statement in the cross examination on the question of the identity of the Appellant and his companion is a clear attempt to wriggle out what he had stated earlier in his examination in chief".
27. The aforesaid observation becomes more important in the present case as although the witness in his subsequent cross examination admitted that he made the present complaint Ex. PW2/A against both the accused persons and vehemently refuted the suggestion that the said complaint was signed by him without reading and going through its contents or at the instance of the investigating officer. The witness is trying to exonerate only one of the accused viz. Ashok @ Pakora by deposing that the said accused did not quarrel with him but in the same breath refuted the suggestion of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the complaint was signed by him without going through its contents. The subsequent testimony of the complainant FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.35/44 cannot be read in isolation but has to be read in the light of the admission by both the accused persons in their statement u/s 281/313 Cr.P.C. regarding their presence on the spot and exchange of the words and altercation with the complainant. Further the time gap of approximately 4 ½ months between the unchallenged and uncontroverted testimony of the complainant and his subsequent cross examination cannot be ignored. In the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Khuji's case (supra) this court is of the considered opinion that the initial uncontroverted deposition dated 01.09.2010 of the witness inspires the confidence of this Court and can be acted upon. The same also shows that something must have happened between the initial deposition and the deviation of the witness from his initial testimony can be attributed to the reasons pointed out by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Khuji's case (supra).
28. The same not only explained the mental conditions of the witness but also reflects the waves of the fears traveling in his mind and also exposes FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.36/44 the vulnerability of a witness in a Criminal Administration of the Justice. Apart from it the Ex. PW2/A which is the foundation of the present FIR shows that the alleged incident took place around 09.30 PM. The police was immediately informed and reached on the spot vide DD no. 58A dated 11.03.2009 Ex. PW6/A and DD no. 59A dated 11.03.2009. The said DD entries shows the time of the registration as 10.20 PM and 10.40 PM respectively. The injured/complainant got medically examined at 11.30 PM on the same date vide Ex. PW6/A. Rukka Ex. PW1/B was prepared at about 01.05 AM and the FIR was registered at about 01.20 AM. The same reflects the promptness in the registration of the FIR by the investigating agency and rules out the possibility of any concoction or tutoring.
29. It is true that the first information report is not a substantive piece of evidence but the FIR being the first version of the incident, the statement made herein must be given a due weight. Reliance is placed upon Kalyan v. State of UP (2001) 9 SCC 632. FIR in a criminal case is a vital and FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.37/44 valuable piece of evidence for appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution in a trial. The statement of a complainant which form a subject matter of the instant FIR can be used for the purpose of corroboration or contradiction of the witness as per section 157 and section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. The statement Ex. PW2/A in the instant matter was recorded at about 01.05 AM and the alleged incident took place at about 09.30 PM. The police was immediately informed and reached on the spot vide DD no. 58A dated 11.03.2009 Ex. PW6/A and DD no. 59A dated 11.03.2009. The said DD entries shows the time of the registration as 10.20 PM and 10.40 PM respectively. The injured/complainant got medically examined at 11.30 PM on the same date vide Ex. PW6/A. The FIR in the instant case is an embryonic document which leaves no scope for embellishment and rules out the possibility of any concoction. The statement Ex. PW2/A very elaborately describes the entire incident and duly corroborates the testimony of the complainant elicited out in his FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.38/44 deposition on 01.09.2010 and also during his cross examination and re examination on 15.02.2011. The entire testimony of the complainant not only remain intact on 01.09.2010 but the defence also could not dislodge the credibility of the complainant even during his cross examination on 15.02.2011. However, the court would be failing in its duties of separating the grain from the chaff if it does not penetrates through the negotiated attempt of the complainant for screening the accused Ashok @ Pakora. The detailed narration about the incident in his deposition duly corroborated with the first information report Ex. PW-1/A goes to show that the subsequent attempt of the complainant to screen the co accused Ashok @ Pakora is a shift from the truth for the reason best known to the complainant himself.
30. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in Khuji @ Surender Tiwari v. State of MP AIR 1991 SC 1853 (Supra) "It is true that a first information report is not substantive evidence but the fact remains that after the incident and before there was any extraneous FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.39/44 intervention PW-4 went to the police station and narrated the incident. The first information report is a detailed document and it is not possible to believe that the IO imagined those details and prepared the Ex. P3. The detailed narration about the incident in the first information report goes to show that the subsequent attempt of PW-4 to disown the document, while admitting his signatures thereon, is a shift best known to PW4. We are therefore not prepared to accept the criticism that the version regarding the incident is the result of some fertile thinking on the part of investigating officer. We are satisfied, beyond any manner of doubt, that PW-4 had gone to the Police Station and had lodged the first information report to the extent he has been contradicted with the facts stated in the first information report shows that he has tried to resile from his earlier version regarding the version.
31. The testimony of PW-2, complainant is duly corroborated by the other FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.40/44 prosecution witnesses namely PW-3 HC Ram Avatar, PW-4 Ct. Suresh and PW6 SI Narain Singh.
32. The testimony of the above mentioned witnesses shows that the witness have materially corroborated each other not only regarding the manner of the commission of the offence but also regarding the identity of the case property and the accused persons. On the basis of the same I do not have any hesitation in holding that on the fateful day the complainant Yogesh Kumar Gupta was robbed of his hard earned money and assaulted by the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention at his medicine shop. The injuries suffered by the complainant in the incidence are also got corroborated from the testimony of PW-5 Dr. Avinash Bhargava who has proved the MLC of the injured / complainant as Ex. PW6/A by categorically deposing that the injuries were inflicted by a sharp edge weapon which goes to prove the version of the complainant regarding the infliction of injuries on his left hand by a piece of the broken glass by the FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.41/44 accused Balram.
33. Apart from it I do not find any force in the submissions of the Ld. Counsel that material contradictions exists in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses as the contradictions regarding the time and place of arrest and the presence of the witness on the spot are amply negated in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses. There are bound to be some discrepancies between the narration of the different witnesses where they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of the material dimensions the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety.
34. The remaining discrepancies regarding the non signing of the papers / memos prepared by the IO in the course of the investigation relates to the manner in which the case is investigated and pertains to the stage of post commission of the offence. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of the decisions had laid down that the error in conducting the FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.42/44 investigation or the defective investigation can never be the ground for the acquittal of the accused.
35. In the light of the aforesaid findings although there are minor discrepancies in the testimony of PW-2 Yogesh Chand Gupta, regarding the signing of the documents prepared by the IO in the course of the investigation but the testimony of the witness in its totality is reasonably reliable as the same is also corroborated by the remaining prosecution witnesses which also lends credence to the prosecution case.
36. It is settled law that the court has to see the quality of the evidence and not quantity. Similarly when the witnesses are examined in the court after a long gap minor contradictions, omissions and discrepancies are bound to occur in the testimony of the witness. Hardly, one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or an exaggeration, embroideries or embellishments. Merely because in one respect it is unsafe to rely on the testimony of a witness it does not FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.43/44 necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be discarded in all other respects also. Reliance is placed upon Sukhdev Yadav & Others Vs. State of Bihar (2001) 8SCC 86 wherein it has been held 'Once the trustworthiness of evidence stated in a case stands satisfied, the court should not hesitate in accepting the same. If the evidence in its entirely appears to be trustworthy, it cannot be discarded merely on the ground of presence of minor variations in evidence. When the witnesses are examined after a long gap minor contradictions omissions and discrepancies are bound to occur in the testimony of witnesses' . Relying upon an earlier decision in Leela Ram Vs. State of Haryana (1999) 9 SCC 525 it was observed that there are bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirely. Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.44/44 criminal cases. Minor embellishments, there may be, but variations by reason therefore should not render the evidence of eyewitnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence. Relying upon an earlier decision in Ramani Vs. State of M.P. (1999) 8 SCC 649, it was also observed that when an eye witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non-discrepant. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witnesses is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny. It was also held FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.45/44 that it is a common practice in trial courts to make out contradictions from the previous statement of a witness for confronting him during cross- examination. Merely because there is inconsistency in evidence it is not sufficient to impair/impeach the credit of the witness. No doubt section 155 of the Evidence Act provides scope for impeachment the credit of a witness by proof of an inconsistent former statement. But a reading of the Section would indicate that mere inconsistent statements are not sufficient to impeach the credit of the witness.
37. It is submitted by the counsel that despite the apprehension of the accused in a public place no public witness is joined by the IO which casts a shadow on the entire prosecution case. In the present case the arguments of the Ld. Counsel does not inspire the confidence of the Court as in the present case the prosecution has examined six witnesses in support of their case against both the accused persons viz. Ashok @ Pakora and Balram including the complainant PW-2 Yogesh Kumar Gupta FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.46/44 whose creditworthiness could not be impeached by the defence. Apart from that as far as the arguments raised in respect of non-joining of public witnesses, it is well-settled law that the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown away merely on the ground that public witnesses have not been joined. Reliance is placed upon the judgment titled Ambika Prasad & Anr Vs. State reported in 2002(2) Crimes 63 SC wherein it has been held ' Independent persons are reluctant to be a witness or to assist the investigation. In any case if independent persons are not willing to cooperate with the investigation, prosecution cannot be blamed at and it cannot be a ground for rejecting the evidence of injured witnesses.
38. Reliance is also placed upon judgment titled Appa Bhai Vs. State of Gujrat reported in AIR 1988 SC 696 wherein it has been held 'These days people in the vicinity where the occurrence took place avoid to come forward to give evidence and civilized persons are insensitive when crime is committed even in their presence and they withdraw both from the FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.47/44 victim and vigilance'.
39. In view of the above settled law it is clear that the prosecution case can not be thrown away merely on the ground that no public witnesses have been joined and it is also settled that the testimonies of police officials could be believed if the same have some reliability and inspires the confidence of the court particularly when the complainant has duly proved his complaint ExPW2/A against the accused and have also identified the accused and the case property in the course of his deposition in the Court.
40. The accused Ashok @ Pakora and Balram as well as the case property were not only duly identified by the complainant and the prosecution witnesses in the course of their testimony in the court but the complainant have also explained the role played by the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention in committing the alleged offence against the complainant's body and the property. In view of the well settled law discussed above there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.48/44 prosecution witnesses examined during the trial as nothing favourable to the accused could be extracted by the defence from the detailed cross examination of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses. The witness have been able to correctly identified not only the case property but also the accused in the court.
41. Therefore, in the light of the uncontroverted and unchallenged testimony of the prosecution witnesses this court has no hesitation in holding that on 11.03.2009 at 09.00 PM both the accused persons viz. Ashok @ Pakora and Balram in furtherance of their common intention robbed a sum of Rs. 5,000/- along with certain documents from the shop of the complainant. The injuries were also inflicted on the person of the complainant and the main gate glass of his shop was also broken in the course of the commission of the said offence by the accused persons. Therefore, both the accused persons are liable for commission of the offence punishable u/s 394/427/34 IPC.
FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.49/44
42. Accordingly, both the accused viz. Ashok @ Pakora and Balram are convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 394/427/34 IPC.
43. Be heard separately on the point of sentence.
44. Copy of judgment be supplied to both the convict free of cost.
Announced in the (Sunil Kumar Sharma)
Open Court on 06.04.2013 Metropolitan Magistrate
(West-10), THC,-Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains 44 (forty four) pages and each page bears my signature.
(Sunil Kumar Sharma) Metropolitan Magistrate (West-10), THC,-Delhi/06.04.2013 FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.50/44 THE COURT OF SH SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI STATE VERSUS ASHOK @ PAKORA AND BALRAM F.I.R. No. 47/09 U/s 394/427/34 IPC P.S. Khyala 06.04.2013 Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused Ashok @ Pakora in person with Ld. Counsel.
Accused Balram produced from JC (on bail in this case) with Ld. Counsel.
Final arguments heard today.
Vide separate judgment dictated and announced in the open court today, accused Ashok @ Pakora and Balram stands convicted for the offence punishable U/sec 394/427/34 IPC.
Put up for arguments on sentence on 15.04.2013.
(Sunil Kumar Sharma) MM-10 (West) Delhi/06.04.2013 FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.51/44 THE COURT OF SH SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI ORDER ON SENTENCE State Vs. Ashok @ Pakora and Balram FIR No.47/09 U/s- 394/427/34 IPC P.S. Khyala 13.05.2013 Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Both the convict viz Ashok @ Pakora and Balram produced from JC (on bail in this case) with their respective Ld. counsels. It is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the convict Ashok @ Pakora that the convict is a young person of 28 years and is the sole bread earner of his family. He has to support his ailing and old parents and his two children. He is not previous convicted by any court of law. He has also remained in judicial custody for more than one month in the present case. He undertakes not to repeat the offence in future.
It is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the convict Balram that the convict is a young person and is the sole bread earner of his family consisting of three children. He is not previous convicted by any court of law. He has also remained FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.52/44 in judicial custody for more than two years in the present case. He undertakes not to repeat the offence in future.
The Ld. APP for the State has vehemently argued that in view of the gravity of offence, maximum sentence be inflicted upon both the convicts.
In a criminal trial sentencing of the accused is a sensitive exercise of discretion and cannot be pronounced in a ritualistic manner and it cannot be a mechanical prescription.
The imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the court responds to the society's cry for justice against the criminal. Justice demands that the court should impose punishments befiting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The court must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but also the rights of the victim of the crime and the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment.
The Hon'ble Apex court in Ravi Ji Vs. State of Rajasthan (1996) to SCC 175 has observed that "it is the nature and gravity of the crime but not the criminal, which are germane for the consideration of appropriate punishment in a criminal trial. The court will be falling in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual but also against the society to which the criminal and criminal belongs. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and the consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.53/44 perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should " respond to the society's cry or justice against the criminals".
The nature of offence committed by the convicts is of grave nature. At the same time the age of the convict and his family circumstances are equally important and are to be considered.
Having regard to facts, of the case, aggravating and mitigating circumstances, I am of the considered view that both the convicts deserves some leniency and infliction of maximum punishment shall not meet the ends of justice.
Keeping the facts and circumstances of the case, both the convicts viz Ashok @ Pakora and Balram are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable U/sec 394 IPC in default of the payment of fine both the convicts shall be liable to undergo simple imprisonment of two months each. Both the convicts are also sentenced to under go simple imprisonment of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.2500/- each for the offence punishable U/sec 427 IPC in default of the payment of fine the convict shall be liable to under go simple imprisonment for 15 days.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
Both the convicts will be entitled for the benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C. Copy of judgment and copy of order on point of sentence be provided to both the convicts / Ld. Counsels for both the convicts free of cost.
Both the convicts submitted an application for suspension of the FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.54/44 sentence U/s 389 Cr.P.C. for enabling them to file the appeal against this order. Considering the submissions and the quantum of sentence pronounced today both the convicts are admitted on bail subject to furnishing of personal bonds and surety bonds of Rs.20,000/- each till the expiry of the limitation period for filing the appeal.
Bail bond furnished and accepted.
File be consigned to Record room.
Announced in the open court (Sunil Kumar Sharma)
on 13.05.20013 Metropolitan Magistrate
(West )-10, Delhi
13.05.2013
FIR No. 47/09 State v. Ashok @ Pakora & Balram Page No.55/44