Delhi District Court
State vs Meera W/O Vijay on 18 September, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF MS.DEEPA SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : DELHI
SC No. 59/04
FIR No. 144/04
PS Sabzi Mandi
U/s 195/384/193 IPC
State Versus Meera W/o Vijay
R/o Village Dadri,
Basti, U.P.
JUDGMENT
1. A high drama had unfolded itself on 13.04.04 in the Court of Ms. Swaran Kanta Mehra, Ld. ASJ, in the proceedings conducted in her Court in FIR No. 298/03 PS Pahar Ganj State Vs. Sunil Kumar u/s 365/376/506 IPC wherein the persons, namely Sunil Kumar S/o Gurditta Mal, Surinder Kumar S/o Mahender Kumar, Sandeep Bajaj S/o Shanti Swaroop, Hari Om S/o Batta Ram were facing trial for committing rape, etc. on the person of Meera, wife of Vijay Kumar, the prosecutrix of that case. Her deposition was to be recorded on 13.04.04 and when she was giving her statement. These persons gave a written complaint to Ld. ASJ that their family members and themselves were being asked by prosecutrix, Meera to pay a sum of Rs. 60,000/- if they (accused) wanted to avoid conviction. On that day, the lawyers were on strike and so the accused persons, outside the Court gave a cash sum of Rs. 30,000/- to Meera (prosecutrix) in 2 order to bring the fact to the notice of that Court. Upon this information from the accused persons which was also in writing, Ld. ASJ asked her lady Naib Court posted in her Court HC Munish No. 620 N to take search of Meera (prosecutrix). Upon this prosecutrix agreed to voluntarily hand over the money to the Court and stated that she had not counted the amount. When the lady HC was going to take her search, Meera took out a bundle of notes from inside her blouse and it was found to be Rs. 10,000/- on counting. She (Meera) had stated on oath that she had no other money paid by the accused but the accused persons insisted that Rs. 20,000/- were also on her person. Meera deined the same. Upon that, Ld. ASJ again asked the lady HC to take search of Meera and upon that Meera took out another bundle of notes from under her arm pit from inside the blouse and on counting, it was found to be Rs. 10,000/-. Meera again stated that she had no other money and accused persons, again insisted that she still had Rs. 10,000/- on her person. Meera was taken behind the almirah on the instructions of Ld. ASJ and her search was conducted by lady HC Munish and another Rs. 10,000/- were taken out from under the left arm pit from inside the blouse of Meera. Ld. ASJ has observed that this time Meera had stated that this amount was forcibly inserted at these places by two men outside the Court. Upon that, Ld. ASJ had asked her as to why she did not inform the 3 Court about the same but had stated that she was making her statement voluntarily which was recorded in camera and Meera did not offer any answer. Ld. ASJ recorded the entire proceedings and made a formal complaint u/s 195 Cr.PC to Ld. CMM and the Ld. CMM issued directions u/s 156(3) Cr.PC. Thereafter, the FIR of this case was registered and accused was arrested on 21.04.04. The recovered amount of Rs. 30,000/- alongwith a memo was deposited in the malkhana of PS Sabzi Mandi immediately after recovery and after completion of the investigation, the challan was filed for the offences u/s 193/195/384 IPC.
2. On these facts, charges u/s 384 IPC and u/s 193 IPC were framed against the accused by my predecessor to which she has pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined 19 witnesses. All the prosecution witnesses have been duly cross- examined by the Ld. counsel for the accused and all of them have supported the prosecution case.
4. PW1 is wife of Hari Om, accused in case FIR No. 298/03 PS Pahar Ganj and she has stated that Meera had lodged a rape 4 case against her husband and she used to demand Rs. 60,000/- from the relatives of all the accused persons of the rape case whenever they used to attend the hearing of the case. She has further stated that Meera also used to threaten that she would depose against them if the amount is not paid to her. She has stated that on 13.04.04, she had paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to Meera and that she had collected the said amount from her Dewar. She has further stated that Rs. 10,000/- were given by mother of accused Surender and Rs. 5,000/- were given by Sandeep, brother of accused Sudhir.
5. Sudhir Bajaj has been examined by the prosecution as PW2. He has stated that Sandeep Bajaj, his brother, had been facing trial in a rape case filed by Meera against his brother with three more persons. He has also stated that Meera used to harass him on the dates of hearing and used to demand money for giving deposition in favour of Sandeep Bajaj (accused). He has further stated that on 13.04.04, the date when Meera had come for her deposition, he paid Rs. 5,000/-. He has further stated that a total sum of Rs. 30,000/- was paid to Meera out of which Rs. 15,000/- was paid by Sushma, wife of Hari Om and Rs. 10,000/- were paid by Sushila, mother of accused Surender.
5
6. Sushila has been examined by the prosecution as PW4 and she has also corroborated PW1 and PW2 and has stated that her son was facing trial in a rape case filed by Meera and she paid Rs. 10,000/- to Meera outside Court Room No. 25 on 13.04.04, on demand of Meera, otherwise she threatened she would depose against her son.
7. PW3 Ms. Neelam had been working as Ahlmad in the Court of Ms. Swaran Kanta Mehra, Ld. ASJ since 1998. She has stated that on 13.04.04, statement of Meera was being recorded in the Court in case FIR No. 298/03 u/s 365/376/34 IPC and all the four accused persons namely Surender, Sandeep, Sunil and Hari Om gave an application in the Court and told that lawyers were on strike and the complainant Meera (accused in the present case) was demanding money from their relatives and that she was demanding Rs. 60,000/- and had also threatened that if the amount was not paid to her, she would get them convicted and that accused persons told the Court that they had paid Rs. 30,000/- to the accused on that day. The witness has further deposed that on this, the Ld. ASJ, Ms. Swaran Kanta Mehra asked lady HC Munish who was Naib Court, to take search of accused and the accused told the Court that she would produce the amount on her own as she had not counted the money 6 before her and before her search could be taken by WHC Munish, accused produced a bundle of notes from her blouse and on counting, it was a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and on producing the sum she said that she had no other amount given by the accused persons. The accused persons insisted that she was having Rs. 20,000/- notes and Ld. ASJ again directed WHC Munish to take search of the accused and the accused again produced another bundle of currency notes of Rs. 10,000/- and stated that she had no other amount with her but the accused persons again insisted that she had Rs. 10,000/- more but the accused refused about the money. On this, Ld. Judge asked WHC Munish to take the accused aside near the almirah of the Court and asked her to search the accused and a bundle of Rs. 10,000/- was recovered from her. Thereafter, Ld. Judge asked the accused as to from where she had received the amount of Rs. 30,000/- and the accused told the Court that two persons, who were standing outside the Court had forcibly put this amount in her blouse. The Court then asked her as to why she did not disclose this fact to the Court when she entered the Court room and upon that the accused kept mum. She has further stated that Rs. 30,000/- contained currency notes of Rs. 1,000/-, Rs. 500/-, Rs. 100/- and Rs. 50/-. She has stated that there were four notes of Rs. 1,000/-, twenty-eight notes of Rs. 500/-, fifty-nine notes of Rs. 100/- and 122 notes of Rs. 50/-. She has proved 7 the currency notes as Ex.P1 collectively.
8. PW5 Subhash Chand was working as a Peon in the Court of Ms. Swaran Kanta Mehra, Ld. ASJ on 13.04.04 and he has also corroborated the testimony of the Ahlmad of the Court Neelam(PW3).
9. PW6 HC Raj Kumar has deposed that he was working as a Naib Court in the Court of Ms. Swaran Kanta Mehra, Ld. ASJ on 13.04.04 and he has also corroborated the testimonies of PW3 and PW5. He has also proved on record the recovery memo of Rs. 30,000/- as Ex.PW6/D bearing his signature at Point A and has stated that he handed over this memo to HC Sanjay Bhardwaj.
10. WHC Munish has been examined as PW15 and she has also fully corroborated the testimonies of PW's 3, 5 and 6 and has stated that the entire recovery had been done in her presence and that she also took the accused Meera by the side of the almirah lying near the seat of the Ahlmad and a bundle was recovered from the left side of inside her blouse. The recovered amount of Rs. 30,000/- was handed over to HC Raj Kumar, Naib Court who prepared a seizure memo Ex.PW6/B which was signed at Point C. She has also identified the currency notes as Ex.P1 collectively.
8
11. PW7 Constable George is a formal witness who has deposed that he produced accused Sunil in case FIR No. 298/03 u/s 376 IPC PS Pahar Ganj in the Court of Ms. Swaran Kanta Mehra, Ld. ASJ on 13.04.04.
12. Constable Jagbeer is also a formal witness who has deposed that he had produced accused Hari Om in case FIR No. 298/03 u/s 376 IPC PS Pahar Ganj in the Court of Ms. Swaran Kanta Mehra, Ld. ASJ on 13.04.04.
13. PW13 has deposed about production of accused Surinder Kumar in case FIR No. 298/03 u/s 376 IPC PS Pahar Ganj in the Court of Ms. Swaran Kanta Mehra, Ld. ASJ on 13.04.04.
14. PW19 has deposed about production of accused Sandeep in case FIR No. 298/03 u/s 376 IPC PS Pahar Ganj in the Court of Ms. Swaran Kanta Mehra, Ld. ASJ on 13.04.04.
15. PW18 HC Ami Chand has produced the Rojnamcha Register of lock-up of Tis Hazari Court and has prayed the photocopy of the entry No. 5 dated 13.04.04 as Ex.PW18/A and has proved that 9 accused Hari Om, Sunil, Sandeep and Surinder were brought to Tis Hazari Court in Room No. 25 on 13.04.04 and has also got the relevant entries in the Goshwara Register as Ex.PW18/B.
16. PW Sandeep is one of the accused in case FIR No. 298/03 u/s 376 IPC PS Pahar Ganj in the Court of Ms. Swaran Kanta Mehra, Ld. ASJ and he has stated that his family members came to meet him in jail and told that the prosecutrix had been demanding Rs. 60,000/- from them and family members of other accused. He has also stated that they had been in judicial custody for 2 1/2 years and that Meera, the prosecutrix in case FIR No. 298/03 u/s 376 IPC PS Pahar Ganj did not appear in the Court for her evidence for thirteen months as she wanted money before deposing in the Court. He has further stated that on 13.04.04 he alongwith his other co-accused attended the Court proceedings and outside the Court Room, Meera told them that if money is not given to her, she will not depose in Court and under compelling circumstances, their family members had paid her Rs. 30,000/- which were brought by them. An application was moved when the statement of Meera was being recorded and all the facts were mentioned in the application. The Court ordered to stop the evidence of prosecutrix Meera and asked from Meera if she had taken any money. The accused has also corroborated the other prosecution 10 witness of recovery of money from the person of Meera.
17. Accused in case FIR No. 298/03 u/s 376 IPC PS Pahar Ganj, Hari Om has also been examined by the prosecution in this case as its witness as PW10 and he has also fully corroborated the statement of other prosecution witnesses and has stated that besides him, Sandeep, Sunil and Surinder were co-accused and the case was fixed for the evidence of Meera. During her statement, a written application was filed by all the accused stating that Meera had been demanding Rs. 60,000/- and that their relatives had paid her Rs. 30,000/- which were in her possession. Court made the enquiries from Meera but she denied and when the Court asked its Naib Court to take the search, Meera took out Rs. 10,000/- from her blouse and said she did not have any other money. They insisted that she had Rs. 20,000/- more with her and the Ld. Court again asked Meera and then she took out Rs. 10,000/- from her blouse and again said that she did not have any money with her. On the insistence of all the accused persons, the Court directed the lady Naib Court to take personal search of Meera and she was taken behind the almirah and on personal search, Rs. 10,000/- were also recovered from her person. Court asked Meera about the money and she said that two persons had forcibly put the money in her blouse. The Court inquired 11 from Meera as to why she did not disclose this fact before her deposition but Meera did not reply. He has further stated that money was seized by the Police.
18. PW11 Surinder Kumar and PW12 Sunil Kumar were also the co-accused in case FIR No. 298/03 u/s 376 IPC PS Pahar Ganj and they have also deposed the same facts.
19. PW14 SI Sanjay Bhardwaj has stated that he had lodged DD No.21 regarding deposit of Rs. 30,000/- in the malkhana of PS Sabzi Mandi and has proved the copy of the same as Ex.PW14/A. He has also stated that he recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.PC and prepared the site plan at the instance of Naib Court of the Court of Ms. Swaran Kanta Mehra, Ld. ASJ which is Ex.PW14/B. He has further stated that he formally arrested accused Meera in this case from Court Room No. 232 with the permission of the Court when she was produced in the Court from JC vide arrest memo Ex.PW14/C. He has further stated that on 23.04.04, he formally recorded the statement of PW's Sunil, Sandeep, Hari Om and Surender with permission of Court when they were produced in the Court on his application for their production. He has further stated that on 26.05.04, he obtained the certified copies of order sheet dated 12 13.04.04 of the Court of Ms. Swaran Kanta Mehra, ASJ and also certified copy of statement of accused Meera who was prosecutrix in case FIR No. 298/03 u/s 376 IPC PS Pahar Ganj and the same are Ex.PW/D and Ex.PW14/E. He has stated that after completing the investigation, he filed the challan.
20. PW16 has stated that on 16.04.04 at about 8.30 p.m. SI Sanjay Bhardwaj handed over one rukka to him and on the basis of the same he recorded the FIR 298/03 Ex.PW16/A and made the endorsement Ex.PW16/B on the rukka.
21. PW17 Ms. Reena Singh Nag, ASJ has stated that on 13.04.04, she was working as CMM, Tis Hazari Court. On that day, she received a complaint u/s 195 Cr.PC from Ms. Swaran Kanta Mehra, ASJ alongwith accused Meera who was forwarded in judicial custody. The complaint was sent to SHO, PS Sabzi Mandi for investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.PC and recovered amount of Rs. 30,000/- which was sent with the complainant.
22. It was handed over by the Ahlmad of her Court to SI Sanjay Bhardwaj, Police Post Tis Hazari with copy of seizure memo and she has proved her order Ex.PW17/A. She has also proved on record her 13 order dated 16.05.05 Ex.PW17/B.
23. On 15.02.07, statement of Shri A.K. Sharma, counsel for the accused was recorded. He has given his no objection in exhibiting the complaint filed by the judicial officer in the course of judicial proceedings and the same is exhibited as Ex. Cx.
24. Statement of Meera u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded. She has admitted that she was prosecutrix in case FIR No. 298/03 u/s 376 IPC PS Pahar Ganj in the Court of Ms. Swaran Kanta Mehra, Ld. ASJ on 13.04.04. She has also admitted that on 13.04.04 her evidence was being recorded in camera in the said FIR and she has also admitted her statement Ex.PW14/D and Ex.PW14/E dated 13.04.04. She has, however, shown her ignorance about the application Ex.PW10/A moved by the accused persons. She has denied the recovery of Rs. 30,000/- from her person. She has admitted that Ms. Swaran Kanta Mehra, Ld. ASJ had asked lady Naib Court, namely HC Munish to take her search. She has also admitted that she had stated in the Court that she had no other money paid by accused persons, namely, Sunil, Surender, Sandeep and Hari Om and has also admitted having stated that she had not counted the amount and had taken out a bundle of notes from inside her blouse which on counting was found 14 to be Rs. 10,000/-. She has also admitted that the accused persons insisted that she had a balance sum of Rs. 20,000/- on her person and that she denied and when the lady Constable was asked to take her search, and when she tried to take her search, she took out another bundle of Rs. 10,000/- from under her arm pit from inside the blouse. She has also admitted that she had stated that she had no money but the accused persons insisted that she had Rs. 10,000/- more in her possession. She also admitted that lady HC Munish took her behind the almirah and took her search and bundle of Rs. 10,000/- was taken out from under the arm pit inside her blouse. She has also admitted that the amount of Rs. 30,000/- was seized vide memo Ex.PW6/A (Ex.PW6/B) original. She has also admitted the recording of FIR No. 298/03 Ex.PW16/A against her arrest vide memo Ex.PW14/C. She has stated that it is a false case against her and has stated that accused persons wanted her to change her statement in case FIR No. 298/03 u/s 376 IPC PS Pahar Ganj and when she refused, she was implicated in this case. She has stated that she had brought the sum of Rs. 30,000/- from her house. Part of the money was withdrawn by her from the Bank and part of that money was borrowed by her from the neighbours and she had brought the same with the intention of buying a jhuggi.
15
25. The accused has examined one defence witness who has stated that in the moth of April, three years back, Meera came to her house and he had given Rs. 10,000/- to her which she wanted to send to her house for release of her agricultural land and that Meera had not returned that money to him till date. He has been duly cross examined by the Ld. APP.
26. I have heard the arguments of Ld. counsel for the accused and of Ld. APP. My findings are as under :
27. In the present case, FIR 144/04 Ex.PW16/A was registered for the offences u/s 195 IPC and u/s 384 IPC. The Ld. MM had committed the case vide its order dated 27.07.04 since the offences u/s 195 IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. After receiving the case on committal from the Court of Ld. MM, my Ld. predecessor framed the charges against the accused for the offences u/s 384 IPC and u/s 193 IPC on the ground that counsel for the accused concedes the charges. Thereafter, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence and after completion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded and the accused had also examined one witness in defence. Final arguments 16 were also heard and the matter is reserved for orders. Till this time, nobody has raised the plea that the offences u/s 384 IPC and u/s 193 IPC, under which provisions of law, the charges have been framed against the accused, are exclusively triable by Court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate as per the Schedule given in Cr.PC. It is only at this stage when the Court had started dictating the orders that this Court realised that both the offences are triable by the Court of Ld. Magistrate. The trial of this case had been completed and none seems to be aggrieved and prejudiced by the trial conducted by Court of Sessions and that is why at no stage either of the party raised any objection and made a request for sending the case back to the Court of Ld. Magistrate for trial. Section 26 Cr.PC confers power and jurisdiction upon a Sessions Court to hold trial of any offence under IPC. Section 26 of Cr.PC reads as under :
26. Courts by which offences are triable - Subject to the other provisions of this Code,--
(a) any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) may be tried by---
(i) the High Court, or
(ii) the Court of Session, or
(iii) any other Court by which such offence is shown in the First Schedule to be triable; 17
28. The provision confers jurisdiction upon the Court of Session to proceed with the trial of any offence under IPC. This court, therefore, has the power to dispose of the present matter after holding a trial and the trial does not stand vitiated.
29. The story of this case was unfolded during the trial in case FIR No. 298/03 u/s 376/365 IPC of PS Pahar Ganj wherein four accused persons namely, Sandeep, Sunil, Surender and Hari Om were facing trial upon a complaint filed by Meera, the prosecutrix of that case. On 13.04.04, Meera had come in the witness box to depose and during the recording of her deposition which was held in camera, four accused persons moved an application levelling allegations that Meera had demanded a sum of Rs. 60,000/- for not deposing against them and that the relatives of accused persons had given Rs. 30,000/- to her with the intention to bring this fact to the notice of Ms. Swaran Kanta Mehra, Ld. ASJ who was holding trial of that case. The proceedings of that Court has been duly proved on record and the application of the accused persons is also proved on record as Ex.PW10/A.
30. PW1, PW2 and PW4 who are the relatives of the accused 18 persons in that case, have clearly stated that they had paid money to Meera on 13.04.04 outside the Court, on her demand. There is nothing in the cross-examination of these witnesses which can discredit their testimony. The four accused persons in that case namely, Sandeep, Sunil, Surender and Hari Om have also been examined as PW9 (Sandeep), PW10 (Hari Om), PW11 (Surinder) and PW12 (Sunil). All the four accused persons in that case were in judicial custody and they have also clearly stated that they were told by their relatives that Meera had taken Rs. 30,000/- from them for giving statement in the Court in their favour.
31. Subsequent events which had taken place before the Court further proves the truthfulness of the statement of these witnesses. The said sum of Rs. 30,000/- was recovered from the possession of Meera in the presence of Ld. ASJ for which she had made a complaint u/s 195 Cr.PC Ex. Cx to Ld. CMM and also sent the recovered sum of Rs. 30,000/- alongwith the recovery memo to the then Ld. CMM who issued the order u/s 156(3) Cr.PC for registration of the FIR. The complaint is Ex. Cx and the order of Ld. CMM is Ex.PW16/B. Besides the accused persons who are the witness to the recovery of Rs. 30,000/- from Meera, other witnesses includes Neelam (PW3), Ahlmad of the Court of Ms. Swaran Kanta Mehra, Ld. 19 ASJ, HC Raj Kumar (PW6), Naib Court in the Court of Ms. Swaran Kanta Mehra, Ld. ASJ and HC Munish (PW15), Naib Court in the Court of Ms. Swaran Kanta Mehra, Ld. ASJ have clearly proved the recovery of Rs. 30,000/- from the person of Meera. All these witnesses PW3, PW6 and PW15 are the Government officials and were duly posted in the Court of Ms. Swaran Kanta Mehra, Ld. ASJ and have no relation with either accused of that case or with Meera and no motive could be imputed on them for making a false testimony. The testimony of these witnesses also proves that when Ld. ASJ asked HC Munish, Naib Court, who is a lady, to take search of accused, the accused on her own produced Rs. 10,000/- from her blouse and upon that, the accused persons insisted that she was also having Rs. 20,000/- on her person. Ld. ASJ again asked for the search and the accused again produced Rs. 10,000/- from her blouse. The matter did not stop here but the accused went on insisting that Meera was having Rs. 10,000/- more on her person. Meera refused that she had any money on her person and upon that Ld. ASJ asked her Naib Court, WHC Munish to take search of Meera and she took Meera by the side of the almirah lying near the seat of Ahlmad and recovered a bundle containing Rs. 10,000/- from the left side of her blouse under her arm pit. Testimony of all these witnesses conclusively proves the recovery of a sum of Rs. 30,000/- from the 20 person of Meera which witnesses PW 9, PW10, PW11 and PW12 have stated were given by their relatives and which PW1, PW2 and PW4 have stated that they had themselves handed over this money to Meera. Meera, in her statement u/s 313 Cr.PC has also admitted the recovery of Rs. 30,000/- from her possession but she has taken up the defence that she had brought that sum from her house and part of that money had been withdrawn by her from the bank and part she had borrowed from her neighbour. Meera, however, has not produced any bank record to prove that she had taken out part of Rs. 30,000/- from the bank. She has examined one witness Ram Bachan who has stated that he had given Rs. 10,000/- to Meera because she wanted to send the money to her house for release of her agricultural land and that Meera had not returned the said sum. The witness of accused Meera has contradicted her defence. Meera has stated in her statement u/s 313 Cr.PC that she had brought the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with her from her house because she wanted to buy a jhuggi while DW1 has stated that Meera wanted to send this money to her village for the release of her agricultural land. The defence of the accused Meera, therefore, does not inspire any confidence. The accused on 13.04.04 had taken up the stand that this money had been inserted forcibly in her blouse by two persons outside the Court while in this Court, she had taken up the defence 21 that she had herself brought the said money for buying a jhuggi. It is also clear from the file of case FIR No. 298/03 u/s 376 IPC PS Pahar Ganj that the attendance of Meera as a witness in that case could be procured only after issuance of bailable warrants. She had been avoiding to attend the proceedings of the Court. From the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and from the admissions of the accused in her statement u/s 313 Cr.PC, it stands proved that a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was recovered from Meera, the accused in this Court and witness in case FIR No. 298/03 u/s 376 IPC PS Pahar Ganj when she was deposing as a prosecutrix in that case and that she had also made false statements in the Court regarding said amount. She had also deposed falsely that she had no sum on her person and it was only upon the insistence of accused persons of that case and upon the asking of Ld. ASJ for the search that she on her own produced Rs. 20,000/- and still continued denying the possession of any further sum and it was only when the search was conducted by the Naib Court that another sum of Rs. 10,000/- was recovered from her blouse. The prosecution has successfully proved that Meera had extorted the sum from the relatives namely, Smt. Sushila, Sushma and Sudhir of Hari Om, Sunil, Sandeep and Surender, accused in case FIR No. 298/03 u/s 376 IPC PS Pahar Ganj for not giving evidence against Hari Om, Sunil, Sandeep and Surender, and that 22 she also made false statement before the Court of Ms. Swaran Kanta Mehra, Ld. ASJ on 13.04.04 in case FIR No. 298/03 u/s 376 IPC PS Pahar Ganj.
32. I hereby convict the accused Meera for the offences u/s 384 IPC and u/s 193 IPC.
Announced in Open Court on this 18th day of September,2007 (DEEPA SHARMA) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : DELHI