Delhi District Court
State vs Jeevan Rao S/O Govind Rao on 29 October, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR - II,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 01 : North East /
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
Case ID Number. 02402R0032562010
Sessions Case No. 10/2010
Assigned to Sessions. 16.03.2010
Arguments heard on 18.10.2011
Date of order. 29.10.2011
FIR No. 379/2009
State Vs Jeevan Rao s/o Govind Rao
r/o House No.177/224, Double Story,
New Seelampur, Delhi.
Police Station Seelampur
Under Section 392/394/397/34 IPC
JUDGEMENT
1. Station House Officer of Police Station Seelampur had filed a challan vide FIR No.379/2009 dated u/s 394/397/34 IPC for the prosecution of accused Jeevan Rao in the court of ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and Ld. MM after compliance of section 207 Cr. PC committed this case for trial before this court.
2. In brief, case of prosecution is that on 20.10.2009 DD No.61B Ex.PW9/A was recorded at police station Seelampur, Delhi in connection of robbery at the point of knife by some boys at G.T. Road, Near Gurudwara, Seelampur, Delhi and same State Vs. Jeevan Rao SC No.10/2010 1/20 DD was marked to ASI Jagdish Narayan. On receipt of DD, ASI Jagdish Narayan along with Ct. Omender Singh reached at the aforesaid spot where they came to know that injured had been shifted to GTB Hospital. Thereafter, I.O. reached at hospital and collected MLC of injured Ex.PW7/A and GTB Hospital staff had handed over one sealed parcel containing pant of injured having blood stains etc. along with sample seal which were seized by the I.O. vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C.
3. One robber i.e. accused Jeevan Rao was handed over by public persons to the police at the spot who was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/A and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW5/B.
4. On the statement of injured Shahid Ex.PW3/A, FIR No.379/2009 u/s 394/397/34 IPC Ex.PW2/A was registered against the accused Jeevan Rao.
5. On the basis of material available on record ld. predecessor of this court vide order dated 01.04.2010 framed a charge against accused Jeevan Rao for the offences punishable u/s 392/394/397/34 IPC to which accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined 09 witnesses namely PW1 Ct. Omender Singh, PW2 HC Kiran Pal, PW3 Shahid injured/complainant, PW4 HC Md. Rahisuddin, PW5 HC Tarsem Lal, PW6 SI Fateh Singh, PW7 Dr. State Vs. Jeevan Rao SC No.10/2010 2/20 Lawish, PW8 Ct. Mukesh Kumar and PW9 ASI Jagdish Narayan.
7. PW1 Ct. Omender Singh. This is the witness of arrest, disclosure and recovery of weapon of offence from accused. In his presence accused Jeevan Rao along with one blood stained knife was produced by HC Tarsem at police station. This witness had proved sketch of the knife vide Ex.PW1/A and its seizure memo vide Ex.PW1/B. In his presence, I.O. had recorded statement of complainant Shahid and I.O. had seized a sealed pullanda containing the clothes of injured vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. In his presence, I.O. had recorded disclosure statement of accused Jeevan Rao vide Ex.PW1/D. This witness had correctly identified the knife as Ex.P1. In his cross examination by Ld. Legal Aid Counsel, this witness has deposed that no other person met them in the hospital except the injured. This witness has further deposed that when the sketch was prepared, Shahid (injured) was present in the police station and when the knife was taken into possession it was having blood stained.
8. PW2 HC Kiran Pal is a formal witness being duty officer. This is the witness of recording the FIR of the present case. This witness has proved FIR No.379/2009 vide Ex.PW2/A.
9. PW3 Shahid is a material witness being complainant. This witness has deposed that on 20.10.2009 he was coming from Rampur, U.P. to his house at Seelampur, HBlock and he got down from bus at red light, Seelampur. This witness has State Vs. Jeevan Rao SC No.10/2010 3/20 further deposed that when he was passing through under flyover, four boys were standing there and all of them had apprehended him and told him to hand over whatever money he had with him. This witness has further deposed that one person had stabbed him on his left side thigh and they had tried to snatch his bag which was containing Rs.50,000/ and three pairs of clothes and he shouted for help. This witness has further deposed that public persons came to help him and one person whose name was revealed in the course of investigation, Jeevan Rao was apprehended by public person. Thereafter, police had reached at the spot and public persons had handed over Jeevan Rao to police and this witness was taken to hospital by police officials.
10.This witness has further deposed that police had reached at hospital and recorded his statement vide Ex.PW3/A and he was discharged from hospital at about 3:00 a.m. This witness after seeing the knife Ex.P1 has deposed that this may be the same knife.
11.This witness was cross examined by Ld. Legal Aid Counsel and at length. In his cross examination, this witness has deposed that his house is about 50 steps from the spot. This witness has further deposed that place where accused persons had apprehended him was a dark place and there was dark when he was apprehended by accused persons and one could have seen the face of other at that place. This witness has further deposed that police had not taken anything in possession in his presence.
State Vs. Jeevan Rao SC No.10/2010 4/20
12.PW4 HC Md. Rahisuddin. This is the witness of arrest of accused Ashfaq @ Guddu (since discharge). This witness has proved arrest memo of accused Ashfaq vide Ex.PW4/A, his personal search memo Ex.PW4/B and his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW4/C. This witness has also proved pointing out memo Ex.PW4/D.
13.PW5 HC Tarsem Lal. This witness has deposed that on 20.10.2009 he was on patrolling duty from 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. in the area of police station Seelampur and at around 10:30 p.m. he was passing from Seelampur flyover, GT Road and this witness saw a gathering of public persons under flyover and public was beating one person. This witness has further deposed that he went there and one public person had handed over a bloodstained knife to him. This witness has further deposed that injured Shahid was also standing there and he had informed him that associates of accused had escaped along with his bag containing Rs.50,000/ in cash as well as his clothes. Thereafter, this witness along with accused and knife had reached at police station and handed over accused as well as knife to ASI Jagdish Narayan. In his presence accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/A and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo vide Ex.PW5/B. This witness has identified the long knife vide Ex.P1. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Legal Aid Counsel at length. In his cross examination, this witness admits that he did not ask any public person to accompany him to the police station and give his statement and he did not enquir the name and address of the person who had handed over knife to him. State Vs. Jeevan Rao SC No.10/2010 5/20
14.PW6 SI Fateh Singh. This witness is 2nd Investigating Officer of the present case. On 05.01.2010 this witness had collected case file from ASI Jagdish Narayan. This witness had got extended judicial custody remand of accused persons time to time from the concerned court. On completion of investigation, he had prepared chargesheet.
15.PW7 Dr. Lawish. This witness has proved the MLC Ex.PW7/A of patient Shahid s/o Sh. Noor Mohammad prepared on behalf of Dr. B.K. Baranwal.
16.PW8 Ct. Mukesh Kumar. This is the witness of arrest of accused Nasir Khan (since discharged). This witness has proved arrest memo of accused Nasir Khan vide Ex.PW8/A and his personal search memo vide Ex.PW8/B.
17.PW9 ASI Jagdish Narayan is a material witness being Investigating Officer. This witness along with Ct. Omender Singh on receipt of DD No.61B, Ex.PW9/A, which was in connection of robbery at the point of knife by some boys at G.T. Road, Near Gurudwara, Seelampur, Delhi had reached at the spot where it came into his notice that injured had already been removed to GTB Hospital by his brother and PCR officials. Thereafter, they had reached at GTB Hospital and collected MLC Ex.PW7/A of injured Shahid.
18.This witness had received one sealed parcel containing pant of injured having blood stains etc. along with sample seal from GTB Hospital staff and took into State Vs. Jeevan Rao SC No.10/2010 6/20 possession aforesaid seal parcel along with sample seal vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. This witness has deposed that HC Tarsem Lal had produced accused Jeevan Rao along with weapon of offence i.e. one chhura before him and this witness had interrogated accused Jeevan Rao and took custody of weapon of offence.
19.This witness had arrested accused Jeevan Rao vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/A and his personal search was conducted vide Personal Search Memo vide Ex.PW5/B. This witness had recorded disclosure statement of accused vide wherein he had disclosed names of his two associates i.e. Nasir @ Kankata and Asfaq @ Guddu.
20.This witness had recorded statement of injured Shahid vide Ex.PW3/A and made endorsement Ex.PW9/B upon the same for registration of FIR Ex.PW2/A.
21.This witness had taken measurement of Chhura. Total length of Churra was 29cms. The length of its blade was about 18/19cms. This witness had prepared the sketch of Churra Ex.PW1/A.
22.During the course of investigation, this witness had filled up FSL form and inspected the place of occurrence and prepared site plan Ex.PW9/C. This witness had arrested two coaccused persons of this case.
23.This witness had identified pant belonged to injured Shahid as Ex.P2. State Vs. Jeevan Rao SC No.10/2010 7/20
24.After prosecution witness, statement of accused Jeevan Rao u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein accused denied all circumstances and evidence were put to him and claimed to be innocent and have been implicated falsely. He had not preferred to lead any defence evidence. Hence, D.E. was closed.
25.Thereafter, this case was fixed for arguments.
ARGUMENTS:
26.Ld. APP for the state submits that since this is the case of robbery which took place on 20.10.2009. In that incident accused Jeevan Rao along with his associates had robbed amount of Rs.50,000/ from the possession of injured Shahid and the accused had given stab injury on the left thigh of injured Shahid. Matter was reported to the police and accordingly MLC of injured was prepared at GTB Hospital. MLC contains the name of injured Shahid. Complainant who is PW3 in the present case support the case of prosecution as amount of Rs.50,000/ has been robbed by causing injury by knife upon him. Hence, case under section 394 IPC is made out and accused had used knife in commission of crime hence offence u/s 397 IPC has also been made out against accused.
27.Ld. APP for state further states that PW3 Shahid has support the case of prosecution as he had deposed before this court that accused had inflicted injury upon his left thigh with knife and also snatched Rs.50,000/ from him. This State Vs. Jeevan Rao SC No.10/2010 8/20 witness has correctly identified the accused in the court. Further, it is argued by Ld. counsel for state that PW HC Tarsem Lal is the witness of arrest and recovery. PW1 Ct. Omender has deposed on the same facts as deposed by HC Tarsem Lal and I.O. PW6 SI Fateh Singh has prepared challan in respect of present accused.
28.Ld. APP for the State has further argued that there is recovery of knife from accused. PW8 Mukesh Kumar is a formal witness. PW4 has deposed on the same fact as deposed by PW8. On these grounds, Ld. APP for the State has prayed for maximum sentence to the accused.
29.On the other hand Ld. Legal Aid Counsel, Sh. K.N. Sharma submits that PW1 Ct. Omender Singh has deposed that PW4 HC Tarsem Lal had produced knife before I.O. and he identified the knife which was recovered from accused whereas knife was handed over to HC Tarsem Lal. Evidence of recovery of knife is hearsay. In his cross examination, this witness has deposed that no public person had joined the investigation at spot. No person met him in hospital except injured. According to the injured he had not met him in hospital. Infact, injured had left the hospital prior to his arrival in hospital.
30.Ld. Legal Aid Counsel further submits that statement of PW9 IO ASI Jagdish Narayan is self contradictory. There is no signature of HC Tarsem Lal on the seizure memo of knife who has produced the same before Investigating Officer. Neither signature of complainant/injured on seizure memo while identifying. State Vs. Jeevan Rao SC No.10/2010 9/20
31.Ld. Legal Aid Counsel further submits that injured Shahid had discharged at 3:00 a.m. from hospital as per PW2 HC Kiran Pal ASI Jagdish Narain had produced rukka at 1:30 a.m. when the injured was discharged at 3:00 a.m. from hospital then how rukka was sent to police station at 1:35 a.m.
32.Ld. Legal Aid Counsel further submits that Ct. Mukesh Kumar who had recorded the FIR in the Computer has not been cited as witness.
33.Ld. Legal Aid Counsel further submits that PW Shahid has deposed that person who had apprehended the accused has not been cited as witness. Neither he has inquired by PW HC Tarsem Lal. PW Shahid has further deposed that he was treated and his statement was recorded in the hospital. No blood stained pant had been produced in the court before injured which had been taken by doctor in the hospital. Injured Shahid has deposed that 20 persons were gathered there but no one is witness and Injured Shahid has further deposed that one cannot see the face of other at that place when person come out then face can be seen.
34.PW4 states that no one except injured met them in hospital where two cousins of injured were in the hospital. Police has not taken anything in possession in his presence. One paper was prepared at the spot.
35.Ld. Legal Aid Counsel further argued that PW5 has deposed that at around 10:30 p.m. the PCR took the injured to hospital how the other PWs seen the accused. Why accused was not sent to hospital for medical examination whereas accused State Vs. Jeevan Rao SC No.10/2010 10/20 was beaten by public and sustained injury in beating by public. This witness had left his motorcycle at the spot for what purpose. This witness had not signed any memo prepared by IO.
36.PW7 has stated that public had handed over him accused but no such public person has been named as witness. Knife having blood have not been sent to FSL. Hence, it cannot be presumed that accused had committed any offence.
37.Ld. counsel for accused further argued that PW1 states that sketch of chhura was identified by injured at police station whereas he was in the hospital. Hence, his version is not reliable.
38.Ld. counsel for accused further argued that in cross examination, IO has neither admits nor denies the fact whether knife having blood or not. Knife or Chhura were not sent to FSL. Site plan and sketch does not bear the signature of complainant/HC Tarsem Lal. IO could not told the clear date of incident.
39.Ld. counsel for accused further argued that in cross examination IO states that injured was discharged from hospital and he had not met him there. In his chief he states that injured had not made any statement in the hospital as he was suffering from pain. Sketch of chhura and statement of injured was recorded by Ct. Omender. Site plan bears signature of Jagdish instead of Jagdish Narayan.
40.On these grounds, Ld. counsel for accused has prayed that accused is innocent and State Vs. Jeevan Rao SC No.10/2010 11/20 implicated in the present case, hence he be acquitted from the charges.
41.Arguments heard. Record perused. On perusal of record it is revealed that present case was registered on the statement of complainant PW Shahid Ex.PW3/A, FIR Ex.PW2/A was recorded against accused Jeevan Rao. Accordingly, accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/A, his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW5/B and his disclosure statement was recorded vide ExPW1/D.
42.On perusal of record, statement of PW Shahid shows that he had been apprehended by four persons under flyover. All four persons had snatched his bag containing Rs.50,000/ and one person was apprehended by public persons and three had managed to flee away. This witness further stated that one persons had inflicted him stab injury upon his left thigh with knife. On his shouting 10 20 persons had gathered at the spot. The name of apprehended person during the investigation came to his notice as Jeevan Rao. This witness further states that place of where accused person was apprehended was a dark place and no one could see the face of other person at that place. But none of public persons had been made as a witness by the police officials.
43.It is further revealed that this witness had not identified the knife used in commission of offence which was handed over to PW HC Tarsem Lal by public persons.
State Vs. Jeevan Rao SC No.10/2010 12/20
44.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that I.O. had taken measurement of Chhura and its total length was 29cms and the length of its blade was about 18/19cms. I.O. had prepared the sketch of Churra vide Ex.PW1/A and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B.
45.Further perusal of record reveals that accused was produced by PW HC Tarsem Lal along with knife in the police station and he was arrested by ASI Jagdish Narayan.
46.Further on perusal of record, MLC Ex.PW7/A of injured Shahid shows that injury was simple in nature which was proved by PW7 Dr. Lawish on behalf of Dr. Munish and Dr. B.K. Baranwal. Further, on perusal of record, it is also revealed that weapon i.e. knife used in commission of crime was also handed over to police by public persons.
47.During the course of investigation, I.O. had filled up FSL form and inspected the place of occurrence and prepared site plan Ex.PW9/C. This witness had arrested two coaccused persons of this case.
48.On perusal, it is further revealed that I.O. ASI Jagdish Narayan had arrested accused Nasir Khan vide arrest memo Ex.PW8/A and his personal search memo was prepared vide Ex.PW8/B.
49.On perusal, it is further revealed that I.O. ASI Jagdish Narayan had arrested State Vs. Jeevan Rao SC No.10/2010 13/20 accused Ashfaq Khan @ Guddu vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/A and his personal search memo was prepared vide Ex.PW4/B. (Both since discharged.)
50.On perusal, it is further revealed that accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C. has deposed that he is innocent.
51.Before reaching at any conclusion let the relevant sections of 392/394/397 IPC be reproduced which are as under: Section 392 IPC "Punishment for robbery Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to then years, and shall also be liable to find; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years."
Section 397 IPC "Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt - If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years."
Section 394 IPC "Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery." If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robber, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
State Vs. Jeevan Rao SC No.10/2010 14/20
52.Since in the present case was registered on the statement of injured PW Shahid in pursuance to his statement police has registered the present case and had arrested the accused in police station along with blood stained knife (chhura) Ex.PW1/B on being produced by PW HC Tarsem Lal which does not bear the signature of complainant. PW HC Tarsem Lal did not record name and address of public persons to be a witness who were present at the spot at the time of recovery of knife from public persons.
53.Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as 'Pawan Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration, 1989 Cri.L.J.127', has held that large number of people were present at the time of recovery No independent witness produced and no attempt made to join independent witness Statement of official witnesses could not be relied.
"6.On the second aspect also, Miss Khanna has something to say, PW11, ASI Jagbir Singh is the person who in the company of PW 15, Kalam Singh and PW21 Kanchan Dev, HC apprehended accused Pawan Kumar and from his possession the knife (Ex.P1) was recovered. On the recovery memo, Jagbir Singh obtained the signatures of Kalam Singh and Jai Bhagwan constables. Jai Bhagwan has not been produced. Kalam Singh had to admit that at the time of the arrest and recovery of the knife, there was a lot of rush of public at busstop near Subhash Bazar. According to Jagbir Singh, he did not join any public State Vs. Jeevan Rao SC No.10/2010 15/20 witness in the case while according to Kalam Singh no public person was present there. It hardly stands to reason that at a place like a busstop near Subhash Bazar; there would be no person present at. A crucial time like 7.30 p.m. when there is a lot of rush of commuters for boarding the buses to their respective destinations. Admittedly, there is no impediment in believing the version of the Police officials but for that the prosecution has to lay a good foundation. At least one of them should have deposed that they tried to contact the public witnesses or that they refused to join the investigation. Her is a case where it re no efforts was made to join any public witness even though number of them were present. No plausible explanation from the side of the prosecution is forthcoming for not joining the independent witnesses in a case of a serious nature like the present one. It play be that there an apathy on the part of the general public to associate themselves with the Police raids or the recoveries but that apart, at least the I should have an earnest effort to join the independent witnesses. No attempt in this direction appears to have been made and this, by itself, is a circumstances throwing doubt on the arrest or the recovery of the knife from the person of the accused."
54.Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as 'Sans Pal Singh Vs. State of Delhi 1999 Cri. L.J.19' wherein it has held that :
"Recovery of country made pistol and live cartridge from the pocket of the accused based only on evidence of police - No public witnesses, even though available, associated to witness recovery Conviction Cannot be maintained. Inter alia, it has been urged by learned counsel for the appellant that it would not be safe to maintain the conviction because the recovery of the illicit arms did not inspire confidence, supported as it is, by the evidence of two police officials alone, unassociated by the testimony of any independent witness. It has also been urged that witnesses of the public were available and neither were they associated nor was any explanation given at the trial as to why they were not associated. From the evidence of PW5 HC Sat Pal singh, it is clear that the police party did not ask any public witness to be witness at the time of search of State Vs. Jeevan Rao SC No.10/2010 16/20 the accused. Likewise, PW6 SI Mahipal Singh has also stated that no public witness was joined at the time of the search of the accused even though a number of persons were passing through at the time when the recovery was being effected. It is thus evident that public witnesses were available and could have been associated to witness the recovery. It would have been a different matter altogether had there been no public witness available or none was willing to associate. Here, as said before, public witnesses were available but no explanation on these lines is forthcoming. Thus, we got to the view that it would be unsafe to maintain the conviction of the appellant for the offence charged. We, therefore, order his acquittal. He is in jail. He be set at liberty forthwith."
55.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that on seeing the knife Ex.P1 in the court, after showing the knife complainant Shahid had deposed that this may be the same knife. Hence, as to the matter of presumption no fact on record could be brought by prosecution to presume certain facts regarding identity of knife used in commission of crime.
56.Moreover, fact of journey and robbed amount of Rs.50,000/ has not been corroborated by any other evidence available on record. Even complainant/injured Shahid did not point out towards the accused that he had robbed or inflicted any stab injury upon him. On the fact of recovery of knife he simply says that this may be the same knife.
57.Injured Shahid in his statement states that till his presence at the spot police officials had come and he had been removed by them to GTB Hospital by police van. This witness further states that his two cousin brothers had come State Vs. Jeevan Rao SC No.10/2010 17/20 in the hospital in the presence of police officials. On perusal of record, it is revealed that no such police officials of police van and cousin brothers of injured had been examined by police or by I.O.
58.On further perusal of record, it is revealed that PW5 HC Tarsem lal had stated that the day of incident he was on patrolling duty in the area of Seelampur and when public persons handed over accused to him, he had taken accused to police station on foot while leaving his motorcycle on the spot. Leaving the motorcycle by PW HC Tarsem Lal is a very unusual practice. Generally police official is not to suppose to leave abandoned any Govt. property. This act of PW5 HC Tarsem Lal throw doubt upon the case of prosecution.
59.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that complainant and accused are the resident of the same area around the Seelampur which creates doubt. Mere statement of complainant cannot be reliable unless same is corroborated by independent ocular evidence.
60.Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as 'Syam Sunder and others Vs. State, CRL. A. 233/2008', wherein it has held that :
In order to prove the offence under Section 397 IPC the prosecution must establish:
i) commission of robbery or dacoity;
State Vs. Jeevan Rao SC No.10/2010 18/20
ii) that the accused used the deadly weapon; or caused grievous hurt; or attempted to cause death or grievous hurt and
iii) the above acts were done during the commission of robbery or dacoity.
61.Since testimonies of complainant and other official witnesses are not corroborative and recovery are also not matched with the identity of the complainant. Complainant in his statement regarding identity of knife stated that this may be the same knife which means identity of knife is not clear. Hence, this court comes to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to lead any evidence to show that accused had used the "deadly weapon" while committing robbery, thus, in view of this court, ingredients of offence under Section 397 IPC are not attracted in this case. In the absence of necessary ingredients that have not been established by the prosecution, conviction of accused under Section 397 IPC cannot be awarded.
62.Moreover, there is no public witnesses to any of the recovery except official witnesses and complainant. Therefore, conviction for the offences u/s 392, 394, and 397 IPC on the testimony of police officials will result in to miscarriage of justice.
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case 'Pritam Singh Vs. State cited as 1998(1) JCC (Delhi) 94' where it has been observed that: "the recovery should be made in presence of independent witnesses if available and the search and seizure in compliance of section 100(4) of Cr. P. C., would vitiate the trial."
State Vs. Jeevan Rao SC No.10/2010 19/20
63.After taking into consideration facts and circumstances of this case and arguments, this court comes to the conclusion that prosecution has been failed to prove its charges u/s 392/394/397/34 IPC against accused Jeevan Rao beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, in the absence of sufficient evidence against the accused this court acquit accused Jeevan Rao from the charges u/s 392/394/397/34 IPC by giving him benefit of doubt. Accused be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
64.In terms of Section 437 (A) Cr. P.C. accused Jeevan Rao is directed to execute bail bond in sum of Rs.20,000/ with one surety in the like amount for the period of six months. Order accordingly.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 29.10.2011 (RAMESH KUMARII) ASJ01/ North - East Karkardooma Courts, Delhi State Vs. Jeevan Rao SC No.10/2010 20/20