Delhi District Court
22. Further, In Sunil Kumar vs . State Of Govt. Of Nct on 28 November, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUBY NEERAJ KUMAR, ACMM (WEST), WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI State v. Sanjay Kumar FIR No. 53/2018 u/s 392/394/411 IPC PS Ranjit Nagar Unique Case I.D No. DLWT02-018161-2018 JUDGMENT
Serial No. of the case 9327/2018
Date of commission of offence 10.02.2018
Date of institution of case 03.12.2018
Name of the complainant Sh. Lekhraj
Name of Accused, parentage Sanjay Kumar
& Address S/o Raj Kumar
R/o H.No. F-1/236, Sultanpuri, Delhi
Offence complained Section 392/394/411 IPC
Plea of Accused Pleaded not guilty
Date of arguments 07.11.2022
Final Order Convicted u/s 392 IPC
Date of Judgment 28.11.2022
BRIEF FACTS
1. Facts of the case in nutshell as enunciated by the prosecution are that on 10.02.2018 at about 01:00 pm at Shadipur Bus Stand, Main Patel Road, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS- Ranjit Nagar, accused committed robbery of one mobile phone make MI (CE 1317) (black colour) belonging to Complainant/PW-1 Lekhraj S/o Puran Chand when he was FIR No.53/2018 State v. Sanjay Kumar PS - Ranjit Nagar Page 1 of 18 boarding a bus and while doing so, accused voluntarily caused hurt to the Complainant/PW-1. It is alleged that on alarm being raised by the Complainant/PW-1, the accused was apprehended by PW-2 Constable Rakesh & PW-3 Constable Anil who, were on bus checking duty alongwith PW-4 Constable Sharad Yadav and PW-5 IO/ASI Gajender Singh. The stolen mobile was recovered from the possession of the accused and the same was seized by PW-5/IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/C. PW-5 IO/ASI Gajender Singh recorded the statement of the Complainant/PW-1, which is Ex.PW-1/A, prepared rukka, on the basis of the same and handed it over to PW-4 for registration of FIR. On the basis of the rukka, PW ASI Ratan Singh (since dropped from the list of witnesses) registered the present case FIR against the accused under section 392/394/411 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). Allegedly, PW- 5/IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo, which is Ex. PW- 1/D, conducted his personal search vide personal search memo, which is Ex. PW-1/E and recorded his disclosure statement, which is Ex. PW-2/A. PW-5/IO prepared the site plan at the instance of the Complainant/PW-1, which is Ex. PW-1/B and conducted further investigation.
2. Investigation was concluded and chargesheet was filed in the court. Cognizance of the offence was taken and copy of chargesheet was supplied to the accused in compliance of section 207, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C').
FIR No.53/2018 State v. Sanjay Kumar PS - Ranjit Nagar Page 2 of 183. Arguments on charge were heard and vide order dated 07.05.2019, charge for offence under section 392/394/411 IPC was framed against the accused by the Ld. Predecessor. The accusation was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE RECORDED DURING TRIAL
4. The prosecution has examined five witnesses to substantiate the allegations leveled against the accused.
5. PW-1 Lekhraj is the Complainant. He has deposed that on the date of incident, for going to Karol Bagh, he boarded a crowded DTC bus from Shadipur Bus stand. He has deposed that when he boarded the bus, he felt that someone from behind was trying to snatch his mobile phone on which, he tightly held it. He has further deposed that he turned towards the person, who was trying to snatch his mobile phone and resisted the same but the accused managed to snatch his mobile phone. He has further deposed that the accused gave a fist blow on his chest and deboarded from the bus but while trying to escape, accused lost his balance and fell down on the road. He has stated that on alarm being raised by him, police officials reached at the spot and apprehended the accused. He has further deposed that his mobile phone was recovered from the possession of the accused and it was seized by PW-5/IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/C. He has stated that he narrated the entire incident to the police officials and PW-5/IO recorded his statement, which is Ex. PW-1/A. He has deposed that PW-5/IO prepared the site plan at his instance, FIR No.53/2018 State v. Sanjay Kumar PS - Ranjit Nagar Page 3 of 18 which is Ex. PW-1/B. PW-5/IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW-1/D and conducted his personal search vide personal search memo Ex. PW-1/ E. He has stated that he also handed over the photocopy of the invoice of his mobile phone i.e. 'Mark D' to the police official and the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/F. PW-1/ Complainant produced the alleged mobile phone before the court during his deposition.
6. In his cross-examination, PW-1/Complainant could not tell the Registration No. or the Route No. of the bus boarded by him. He admitted that few public persons had gathered at the spot. He further stated that he does not know whether the police officials had enquired any public person with respect to the incident.
7. PW-2 Constable Rakesh & PW-3 Constable Anil had apprehended the accused. They both have deposed that on the day of incident, they along with PW-4 Constable Sharad were on bus checking duty. They have deposed that they heard alarm of 'chor chor pakdo pakdo' from one of the bus going towards Karol Bagh. They have deposed that at the same time, they saw the accused deboarding from the bus and trying to escape. They have deposed that they chased and apprehended the accused. They have further stated that the accused had one mobile phone in his hand. They have stated that the Complainant also came there and told them that the accused has snatched his mobile phone. They have deposed that PW-5 IO/ASI Gajender Singh came at the spot and carried out the Investigation of the case.
FIR No.53/2018 State v. Sanjay Kumar PS - Ranjit Nagar Page 4 of 188. PW-4 Constable Sharad has deposed that on the day of incident, he alongwith PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5/IO was on bus checking duty at Shadipur bus stand. He has further deposed that PW-2 & PW-3 had apprehended the accused when he was deboarding from the bus. He has depsoed that PW-5/IO had prepared the rukka and handed over the same to him for the registration of FIR. He has further deposed that he took the rukka at Police Station concerned and got the present case FIR registered and came back at the spot alongwith the rukka and copy of FIR.
9. PW-5 ASI Gajender Singh is the Investigating Officer of the instant case. He has supported the case put forward by the prosecution.
10. It is pertinent to mention here that the accused did not dispute the registration of present case FIR, however, he disputed its content. His statement to this effect u/s 294 Cr.P.C was recorded on 01.05.2019. In view thereof, Duty Officer ASI Atar Singh was dropped from the list of witnesses.
11. PE was closed on 16.09.2022. Statement of accused under section 313 r/w 281 Cr. P.C was recorded on 15.10.2022 wherein, all the incriminating evidence were put to the accused. In his statement recorded under section 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C, accused has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and nothing was recovered from his possession.
FIR No.53/2018 State v. Sanjay Kumar PS - Ranjit Nagar Page 5 of 1812. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the accused as well as Ld. APP for the State and perused the record carefully.
13. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that despite the place of apprehension being a public place not a single public person has been examined by the prosecution to corroborate the testimony of PW-1/ Complainant and recovery of the stolen mobile phone from the possession of accused or to prove the case of the prosecution. He has further argued that there are material discrepancies in the testimony of PW-1/ Complainant and other prosecution witnesses which strikes at the veracity and credibility of the prosecution's case. Ld. Counsel for the accused has further argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused deserves to be acquitted of the alleged offence.
14. Ld. APP for the State has submitted that the Complainant/PW-1 has correctly identified the accused and his testimony stands corroborated by testimony of PW-2, PW-3, PW- 4 & PW-5/IO. He has argued that combined reading of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses unmistakably points towards the guilt of the accused. Ld. APP for the State has contended that all the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused deserves to be convicted and sentenced as per law. He has further argued that the discrepancies pointed out by the defence counsel in the testimony of prosecution witnesses are minor in nature having FIR No.53/2018 State v. Sanjay Kumar PS - Ranjit Nagar Page 6 of 18 occurred due to lapse of time and does not strike at the root of the prosecution's case.
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION
15. In the instant case, the accused has been charged for offence punishable under section 392/394/411 IPC. Section 392 IPC specifically provides punishment for the offence of 'robbery' defined under section 390 IPC. Section 390 IPC defines robbery as under:-
"390. Robbery.- In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.
When theft is robbery.-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 theft, the offender, for 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.
When extortion is robbery.- 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, 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. Explanation.-The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint."
16. Bare perusal of the said provision would show that either theft is robbery or extortion is robbery. In the facts & FIR No.53/2018 State v. Sanjay Kumar PS - Ranjit Nagar Page 7 of 18 circumstances of the instant case, we are only concerned with when the theft is robbery. An analysis of section 390 IPC would show that in order that theft may constitute robbery, prosecution has to establish:-
(a) if in order to the committing of theft; or
(b) in committing the theft; or
(c) in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by theft;
(d) the offender for that end i.e. any of the ends contemplated by (a) to (c)
(e) 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 instant wrongful restraint.
17. In other words, theft would only be robbery if, for any of the ends mentioned in (a) to (c) the offender 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 instant wrongful restraint. Reliance in this regard could be placed upon the judgment in case titled as State of Maharashtra v. Joseph Mingel Koli; (1997) 2 crimes 228 (Bom).
18. Section 394 enunciates punishment for aggravated form of the robbery. It provides as under:
"394: Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery- If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."FIR No.53/2018 State v. Sanjay Kumar PS - Ranjit Nagar Page 8 of 18
19. Adverting to the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, the case of the prosecution primarily hinges upon the testimony of Complainant/PW-1 Lekhraj. Testimony of the Complainant/PW-1 is paramount for proving the prosecution's case. Complainant/PW-1 has categorically deposed that on the date of incident, when he boarded the Bus going towards Karol Bagh at Shadipur Bus Stand, accused forcefully snatched his mobile phone, gave him a fist blow on chest and tried to escape from the spot. However, accused is stated to have been apprehended by the police officials, on bus checking duty i.e. PW-2 & PW-3. During cross- examination of the Complainant/PW-1 nothing material could be elicited to raise doubt on his credibility as a witness. Complainant/PW-1 has correctly identified the accused as well as produced the case property during the trial. Moreover, the testimony of Complainant/PW-1 has been corroborated in material particulars by the other prosecution witnesses. Thus, from testimony of the Complainant/PW-1, it is amply clear that the accused took away mobile phone of the Complainant/PW-1 from his possession without his consent and thereby committed theft and in doing so, he gave fist blow on the chest of the Complainant/PW-1 causing hurt. The testimony of the Complainant/PW-1 does not leave any scope for any inference to the contrary. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that there is nothing on record to suggest that the Complainant/PW1 knew the accused prior to the incident. Thus, the question of false implication does not hold any credibility as the Complainant/PW-1 has no motive to do the same.
FIR No.53/2018 State v. Sanjay Kumar PS - Ranjit Nagar Page 9 of 1820. As regards the argument advanced by Ld. Counsel for the accused that in the absence of any other eyewitness, sole testimony of the Complainant/PW-1 can not be relied upon, it is well settled principle of law that conviction can be based on the solitary testimony of the complainant, if it's reliable, trustworthy and free from blemishes. Further, it is well settled position of law that it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence that is necessary for the prosecution to prove its case. The principle as enunciated under section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is that the evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The legal system has laid emphasis on value provided by each witness rather than the multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. Reliance in this regard could be placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases titled as Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras; AIR 1957 SC 614.
21. In Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra; (2007) 14 SCC 150, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is necessary for proving or disproving a fact. The legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence.
22. Further, in Sunil Kumar vs. State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi; (2003) 11 SCC 367 the Hon'ble Supreme Court FIR No.53/2018 State v. Sanjay Kumar PS - Ranjit Nagar Page 10 of 18 observed that as a general rule, the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the courts will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time- honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise.
23. Further, non-joining of the public witness is not fatal to the case of the prosecution as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported as Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2003) 1 SCC 240:-
"As regards the examination of independent persons or witnesses, we would do well to note a decision of this Court in Ambika Prasad and Anr. v. State (Delhi Admn.) (2002) 2 SCC 646, wherein this Court in paragraph 12 observed:
"12. It is next contended that despite the fact that 20 to 25 persons collected at the spot at the time of the incident as deposed by the prosecution witnesses, not a single independent witness has been examined and, therefore, no reliance should be placed on the evidence of PW5 and PW7. This submission also deserves to be rejected. It is known fact that independent persons are reluctant to be witnesses or to assist the investigation. Reasons are not far to seek. Firstly, in cases where injured witnesses or the close relative of the deceased are under constant threat and they dare not depose the truth before the court, independent witnesses believe that their safety is not guaranteed. That belief cannot be said to be without any substance. Another reason may be the delay in recording the FIR No.53/2018 State v. Sanjay Kumar PS - Ranjit Nagar Page 11 of 18 evidence of independent witnesses and repeated adjournment in the court. In any case, if independent persons are not willing to cooperate with the investigation, the prosecution cannot be blamed and it cannot be a ground for rejecting the evidence ...."
24. Also, in State of U.P v. Anil Singh, 1988 Supp SCC 686, the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with similar contention observed as under:
"In some cases, the entire prosecution case is doubted for not examining all witnesses to the occurrence. We have recently pointed out the indifferent attitude of the public in the investigation of crimes. The public are generally reluctant to come forward to depose before the Court. It is, therefore, not correct to reject the prosecution version only on the ground that all witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined. Nor it is proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable.
The test of creditworthiness and acceptability in our view, ought to be the guiding factors and if so the requirements as above, stand answered in the affirmative, question of raising an eyebrow on reliability of witness would be futile. The test is the credibility and acceptability of the witnesses available - if they are so, the prosecution should be able to prove the case with their assistance."
25. From the afore-noted judicial decisions, the legal position which can be culled out is that the factum of non- examination of public/independent witnesses is not fatal to the case of the prosecution in every case. It depends upon the additional factor whether the evidence led by the prosecution inspires confidence or not. If the evidence led by the prosecution is otherwise credible and trustworthy, the non-examination of FIR No.53/2018 State v. Sanjay Kumar PS - Ranjit Nagar Page 12 of 18 independent/public witness is of no consequence. There is no mandatory rule or law that non examination of public witness in all circumstances would vitiate the trial.
26. In the instant case Complainant/PW-1 was cross examined at length but nothing material could be elicited therefrom which could cast a doubt on his veracity and thus, there is no reason to discard the testimony of the Complainant/PW-1 Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid authorities, it can safely be stated that in the case at hand there is no reason to hold that non- examination of the independent witnesses affect the prosecution's case.
27. Another argument advanced by Counsel for the accused is that there are material discrepancies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the apprehension of the accused.
28. Before dealing with the said argument of Ld. Defence Counsel, it would be apropos to refer to the following observations passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and Anr., (1981) 2 SCC 752:
"In the depositions of witnesses there are always some normal discrepancies however honest and truthful they may be. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of the occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal FIR No.53/2018 State v. Sanjay Kumar PS - Ranjit Nagar Page 13 of 18 person. As indicated above we have not found any material discrepancies in the evidence of the PW-1."
29. Further, in Rammi Alias Rameshwar v. State Of Madhya Pradesh; AIR 1999 SC 3544, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
" When 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 witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.
It is a common practice in trial courts to make out contradictions from previous statement of a witness for confronting him during cross- examination. Merely because there is inconsistency in evidence it is not sufficient to impair the credit of the witness."
30. Also, it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State Of Gujarat; 1983 SCR (3) 280:
"We do not consider it appropriate or permissible to enter upon a reappraisal or reappreciation of the evidence in the context of the minor discrepancies painstakingly highlighted by learned counsel for the appellant. Over much importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies. The reasons are obvious:
(1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to re-
call the details of an incident. It is not as if a FIR No.53/2018 State v. Sanjay Kumar PS - Ranjit Nagar Page 14 of 18 video tape is replayed on the mental screen. (2) ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so of- ten has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
(3) The powers of observation differ from per- son to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might em-
boss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another. (4) By and large people cannot accurately re- call a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the con-
versation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
(5) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment 1.1 at the time of in-
terrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time- sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
(6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
(7) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination made by coun- sel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub-conscious mind of the wit-
ness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him-Perhaps it is a sort of a psychological de- fence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment.
Discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses therefore cannot be annexed with undue importance. More so when the all im-
FIR No.53/2018 State v. Sanjay Kumar PS - Ranjit Nagar Page 15 of 18portant "probabilities-factor" echoes in favour of the version narrated by the wit-
nesses."
31. In view of the above mentioned dictums, it cannot be said that the said discrepancy in the testimony of prosecution witnesses has created a doubt on their credibility and veracity of their evidence. The discrepancy/ contradiction in the testimony of prosecution witnesses pointed out by Ld. Counsel for the accused are, in my opinion, minor, insignificant, natural & does not have any bearing on the merits of the case and can be safely ignored. It is well settled legal position that the discrepancy, which does not affect the prosecution case materially, does not create infirmity. Meaning thereby, minor contradictions which do not hit at the root of the case of the prosecution are to be ignored by the courts.
32. Having dealt with the objections raised by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and reverting back to the testimony of Complainant/PW-1, I am of the opinion that in the facts & circumstances of the instant case, Complainant/PW-1 is a material as well as the only eye witness to the alleged offence of robbery and therefore, his testimony cannot be discarded unless it is inconsistent and doubtful. Further, bare perusal of the testimony of PW-1 shows that the accused took away his mobile phone from his possession without his consent and in doing so, he used criminal force and caused hurt to the Complainant. The Complainant/PW-1 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused but nothing material could be elicited therefrom, which could cast a doubt on the veracity of his statement. Moreover, cumulative and harmonious reading of the testimony of all the FIR No.53/2018 State v. Sanjay Kumar PS - Ranjit Nagar Page 16 of 18 prosecution witnesses manifestly, point towards the guilt of the accused.
33. The arrest memo and personal search memo of the accused i.e. Ex. PW-1/D and Ex PW-1/E respectively, have been duly proved by PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3 and the accused has been duly identified in the court by the Complainant/ PW-1 as well as the other witnesses. Furthermore, the stolen mobile phone was recovered from the possession of the accused and the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/C. The seizure memo bears signature of the Complainant/ PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3. The site plan of the place of occurrence i.e. Ex.PW-1/B has been duly proved by the prosecution through testimony of PW-1 & PW-5. Consequently, the explicit and unequivocal testimony of Complainant/PW-1 and evidence brought on record by the prosecution unmistakably points towards the guilt of the accused qua offence under section 392 IPC.
34. As regards offence under Section 394, if any person while committing or attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt then he is liable to be punished under this Section. In the instant case apparently, no injury has been caused to the Complainant/PW-1 by the accused while committing robbery or in attempting to commit robbery. Thus, ingredients of offence under section 394 IPC are not attracted in this case.
35. Thus, keeping in view the above discussed facts, circumstances and evidence adduced in the instant case, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has FIR No.53/2018 State v. Sanjay Kumar PS - Ranjit Nagar Page 17 of 18 successfully proved all the ingredients of the offence under section 392 IPC against the accused. In view thereof, accused Sanjay Kumar S/o Raj Kumar is convicted for offence under section 392 IPC.
36. As the accused has been convicted for offence under section 392 IPC, no separate order or conviction is required for offence under section 411 IPC.
37. Accused be heard separately on the point of sentence. RUBY Digitally signed by RUBY NEERAJ NEERAJ KUMAR Date: 2022.11.28 Announced in open court KUMAR 17:36:42 +0530 on this 28th day of November, 2022 (Ruby Neeraj Kumar) ACMM/West/THC FIR No.53/2018 State v. Sanjay Kumar PS - Ranjit Nagar Page 18 of 18