Delhi District Court
State vs . Manoj Singh on 21 October, 2011
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 77/2011
Unique Case ID: 02404R0139062010
State Vs. Manoj Singh
S/o Shiv Nandan
R/o Village Madhayaa,
Padhidhari Tola, PS Meenapur
Mujaffarpur, Bihar
(Convicted)
FIR No. : 49/2010
Under Section : 363/365/366 Indian Penal Code.
Police Station : Bhalaswa Dairy
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 7.7.2010
Judgment reserved on : 21.10.2011
Judgment pronounced on : 21.10.2011
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts:
As per the prosecution case the allegations against the accused Manoj Singh are that on 4.4.2010 in the night at B6/58, JJ Colony, Bhalaswa Dairy, Delhi, he kidnapped the prosecutrix 'A' (name of the girl withheld because this is a case under Section State Vs. Manoj Singh, FIR No. 49/2010, PS Bhalaswa Dairy Page 1 of 22 363/365/366 IPC), aged 15 years, out of the lawful guardianship of her parents and taken her away and wrongfully confined her in the house of his friend at Kanpur with the intent that she may be compelled to marry him.
Case of prosecution in brief:
The case of the prosecution is that on 8.4.2010 the complainant Smt. Santosh came to the Police Station Bhalaswa Dairy and gave her statement to the Duty Officer wherein she has stated that she was running a tea shop in front of Bara Hindu Rao Hospital on a patri. She further stated that out of five children, she has two girls and three sons and the prosecutrix 'A' (name of the girl withheld because this is a case under Section 363/365/366 IPC), was her youngest daughter aged about 15 years who also used to help her at the shop. She has further told the police that the accused Manoj Singh who used to work as a driver on the Ambulance of one Pradeep Kumar @ Bitoo used to visit her tea shop and on one or two occasions he also visited her house also at Bhalaswa Dairy. She further told the police that on 4.4.2010 at about 11.00 PM she was sleeping in her house when her daughter 'A' went outside for a natural call and thereafter she did not return back. She tried to search for her daughter but could not trace her and thereafter she went to the police station and got the case registered regarding missing of her State Vs. Manoj Singh, FIR No. 49/2010, PS Bhalaswa Dairy Page 2 of 22 daughter. On the basis of this statement, the present FIR was registered and the investigation was initiated. During investigation the police has recovered the prosecutrix along with the accused from Kachchi Colony Bigapur, Kanpur, and the accused as arrested. After completing the investigations, charge sheet was filed in the court. CHARGE:
Ld. Predecessor of this court settled the charges under Section 363/365/366 Indian Penal Code against the accused Manoj Singh to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. EVIDENCE:
In order to discharge the onus upon it, the prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses.
Public Witnesses:
PW2 is the prosecutrix 'A' who has deposed that she was residing with her mother and during the time of present incident she used to sell tea at Bara Hindu Rao Hospital on patri outside the gate of the hospital and she also used to help her mother at tea work. According to her the accused Manoj (correctly identified by the witness in the court) was driver of the ambulance of the hospital and he used to visit their patri tea shop for taking the tea and since he was known to them as he purchased tea from their temporary tea shop at State Vs. Manoj Singh, FIR No. 49/2010, PS Bhalaswa Dairy Page 3 of 22 hospital hence he visited their house on one or two occasions. She has further deposed that on 04.04.2010 at about 11 PM accused Manoj came to their house by the ambulance and at that time she came out from her house for natural call, then accused came to her and asked her to sit in the ambulance as he wanted to talk about some matter with her. Witness has also stated that prior to 04.04.2010 accused Manoj used to propose to her for marriage but she refused as she had not attained age of marriage. She has further deposed that at the instance of the accused she boarded the ambulance, when Manoj took her to his employer and collected some money from him and left the ambulance to the house of employer and took her in a bus to Kanpur and he threatened her or else he would kill her and therefore due to fear of the accused she accompanied him up to Kanpur. According to the prosecutrix, Manoj took her to the house of his friend in a kacchi colony and he kept her in the house of his friend where they lived as family member but accused did not commit any wrong act with her, though he proposed to her for marriage. She has further deposed that on 13.04.2010 her mother reached there with the police and she was recovered by the police and police obtained her signatures on recovery memo which is Ex.PW2/A and accused Manoj was also apprehended by the police and after that she was brought to Delhi on 14.04.2010 and was taken to the hospital for medical examination but she refused for medical examination. State Vs. Manoj Singh, FIR No. 49/2010, PS Bhalaswa Dairy Page 4 of 22 Thereafter she was sent in Nari Niketan and on 15.04.2010 she was produced before Ld. Magistrate and her statement was recorded which is Ex.PW2/B. According to the prosecutrix, does not remember her date of birth and she never attended school but she know only signing her name in Hindi.
In her cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel witness has deposed that she knew accused Manoj for about two months prior to the incident and she had never gone with the accused prior to incident and her statement was recorded by the police at the police station in which she had stated that accused met her when she had gone for attending the call of nature. However when confronted with her statement Ex.PW2/DX it was not found so recorded. According to the prosecutrix her house is situated at corner of the gali and at the time of incident her mother, elder sister and brother were present in her house. She has stated that and they are five brother and sisters and she is the fourth child and her elder sister was married prior to the incident. She has further deposed that at the house of employer she kept sitting in the vehicle but she does not recollect how she reached bus stand along with the accused. Witness has admitted that there were several passengers in the bus in which they went to Kanpur and admits that she does not tell to any bus passenger or driver or conductor that accused was forcibly taking her to Kanpur. According to the prosecutrix she reached Kanpur after 78 hours and State Vs. Manoj Singh, FIR No. 49/2010, PS Bhalaswa Dairy Page 5 of 22 during the journey bus had stopped at one place but she did not eat any food and she also did not raise any hue or cry at that place. She also admits that they went to the house of friend of accused in a local bus and even there she does not tell any person how the accused brought her at Kanpur. Witness has further deposed that there were houses at Kacchi colony Kanpur though at a distance and the friend of the accused was living along with parents and his wife but she had not told the friend of accused and his family members how accused brought her to Kanpur. According to her, she used to go in jungle for attending call of nature during her stay of 78 days at Kanpur but she did not tell any person in the kacchi colony to inform the police and stated she used to help in preparing food in the house of the friend of the accused and she never went for stroll with accused at Kanpur. She has further deposed that she used to wear a saree belonging to the wife of accused's friend. Witness has denied the suggestion that she knew accused for about one and a half years prior to the incident or that she was in love with accused and also roam around in Delhi as lovers or that at the time of incident she was more than of 18 years and wanted to marry accused or that the accused used to deposit money with her mother. She has also denied that when accused demanded his money, her mother refused to pay and falsely implicated accused in this case. She has also denied that she was deposing falsely at the instance of her mother or that she wanted to State Vs. Manoj Singh, FIR No. 49/2010, PS Bhalaswa Dairy Page 6 of 22 marry with the accused but due to difference in caste her mother did not permit the same.
PW3 Santosh has deposed that she was running a tea shop at Hindu Rao hospital on the patri and she has five children out of which two are girls and three are boys but prosecutrix "A" is her youngest daughter and at the time of the incident, her age was 15 years. According to her accused Manoj (correctly identified by the witness) used to visit her tea shop and prosecutrix "A" used to help her at tea shop and accused Manoj was driving the ambulance of the hospital and one or two occasion accused Manoj also visited their house. Witness has further deposed that on 04.04.2010 at about 11 PM she was sleeping in her house, prosecutrix "A" went outside for natural call and thereafter she does not return back when tried to search for her daughter and thereafter she went to police station and got the case registered about missing of her daughter and also put her thumb impression on the document regarding registration of the FIR at police station. Witness has further deposed that on 08.04.2010 he came to know that accused Manoj kidnapped her daughter and took her to Kacchi colony, Bigapur, Kanpur, UP then he along with police officials went on13.04.2010 to Kanpur and accused Manoj along with her daughter "A" were apprehended there and accused Manoj was arrested vide memo Ex.PW3/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW3/B, the recovery memo of her State Vs. Manoj Singh, FIR No. 49/2010, PS Bhalaswa Dairy Page 7 of 22 daughter is Ex.PW2/A. Thereafter accused and her daughter were brought to Delhi and her daughter was taken to BJRM Hospital for medical examination and she had also produced the original birth certificate of her daughter "A" issued by Sub Registrar MCD showing her date of birth as 15.06.1995. Witness has also correctly identified the accused Manoj who was present in the court.
During her cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel witness has deposed that she was running tea shop for about seven years prior to the incident and she was married about 30 years back, her eldest son is aged 26 years, younger to him is daughter named Pooja aged 22 years, then son Vinod is aged 19 years, fourth is her son Rahul who is approximately four years younger to Vinod and thereafter prosecutrix "A". Witness has denied the suggestion that "A" never worked with her at tea shop or that in the birth record she does not got mentioned the correct date of birth and her daughter was 18 years of age on the day of incident or that she does not go to Kanpur along with police or that her daughter was recovered from Kanpur or that she signed all the documents at the instance of investigating officer at police station or that her daughter is more than 18 years old and wanted to marry with accused or that accused used to deposit money with them or that the accused demanded money from her and she refused to pay and falsely implicated him in this case in connivance with the police or that due to difference in State Vs. Manoj Singh, FIR No. 49/2010, PS Bhalaswa Dairy Page 8 of 22 caste she did not allow her daughter to marry with accused or that she was deposing falsely.
Medical Evidence:
PW5 Dr. Meenu has proved the MLC of prosecutrix "A" which was prepared by Dr. Ekta. Dr. Meenu has also identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Ekta. During her cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has denied the suggestion that she had not worked with Dr. Ekta in the hospital or that she was not conversant with handwriting and signatures of Dr. Ekta or that she was unable to identify handwriting and signatures of Dr. Ekta or that she had deposed falsely.
PW6 Dr. R.S. Mishra has also proved the MLC of prosecutrix and thereafter she was referred to SR Gynae and also for XRay bone age determination if UPT negative. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel witness has denied the suggestion that he did not conduct the medical examination of patient and he formally prepared the MLC or that he had deposed falsely. Police Witnesses:
PW1 HC Narayan has proved the FIR, copy of which is Ex.PW1/A and also the DD No. 20B, copy of which is Ex.PW1/B. He has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused. State Vs. Manoj Singh, FIR No. 49/2010, PS Bhalaswa Dairy Page 9 of 22
PW4 Ct. Satish has deposed that she was posted at Bhalswa Dairy and on that he joined the investigations of this case and he along with W/Ct. Mamta and complainant Santosh and the investigating officer went to Kanpur in the investigations of this case, then they reached at Bighapur Kacchi colony and at the instance of complainant Santosh, one girl and accused Manoj Singh was recovered from the house on 13.04.2010. According to him investigating officer prepared recovery memo of girl "A" vide Ex.PW2/A and accused Manoj was interrogated and arrested vide Ex.PW3/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW3/B and after interrogation accused made his disclosure statement which is Ex.PW4/A. Witness has also correctly identified the accused Manoj who was present in the court today. Witness has further deposed that accused and prosecutrix were brought to Delhi and investigating officer recorded his statement and thereafter accused was medically examined and sent to judicial custody.
In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel witness has deposed that they left Delhi in the evening hours of 12.04.2010 and reached at Kanpur at about 11AM on 13.04.2010 and they made their departure entry while leaving Delhi but they did not go to the local police station. Witness has denied the suggestion that they did not go to the local police at Kanpur because no such recovery or prosecutrix was effected from Kanpur or that accused was falsely State Vs. Manoj Singh, FIR No. 49/2010, PS Bhalaswa Dairy Page 10 of 22 implicated in the present case at the instance of complainant Smt. Santosh or that he had signed all the documents while sitting in the police station and never visited Kanpur or that he was deposing falsely.
PW6 SI Rajender Singh has deposed that on 08.04.2010 he was posted at police station Bhalswa Dairy and on that day complainant Smt. Santosh had come to the police station and has given her statement to the duty officer on the basis of which HC Narayan Singh recorded the FIR which is Ex.PW1/A and after registration of the case, the investigations of this case was handed over to him and the WT message was got flashed and he filled in the missing persons form. According to him he made efforts to trace the prosecutrix "A" and accused Manoj Singh and during the interrogation, he came to know that prosecutrix "A" and the accused Manoj were residing in Kacchi Colony, Bighapur, Kanpur in a rented premises. After taking permission from the competent officer, he along with mother of the prosecutrix and L/Ct. Mamta went to Kacchi Colony, Bighapur, Kanpur where mother of the prosecutrix identified her daughter "A" and the accused Manoj Singh in a house and after being satisfied with the identity of accused, he was arrested in this case vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/A, his personal search is Ex.PW3/B, seizure memo of prosecutrix "A" is Ex.PW2/A. Witness has further deposed that accused Manoj Singh was State Vs. Manoj Singh, FIR No. 49/2010, PS Bhalaswa Dairy Page 11 of 22 interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded separately vide Ex.PW4/A and thereafter both the prosecutrix and the accused were also brought to Delhi and both were got medically examined, the medical examination of prosecutrix "A" is Ex.PW5/A. Thereafter both the accused and the prosecutrix were produced before Ld. MM and Ld. MM has sent the accused to JC whereas the prosecutrix "A" was sent to Child Welfare Committee, Tihar. Witness had also proved having moved an application before Ld. MM for getting the statement of prosecutrix recorded U/S 164 Cr. P.C. Vide Ex.PW6/A pursuant to which the Ld. MM recorded the statement of the prosecutrix U/S 164 Cr. P.C. Ex.PW2/B which proceedings are Ex.PX1 and the application for obtaining the copy of the proceedings is Ex.PW6/B which was allowed after which he collected the copy of the proceedings. He has also proved having collected the birth certificate of the prosecutrix "A" in which her date of birth is 15.06.1995 which birth certificate is Ex.PW6/C. He thereafter recorded the statement of witnesses U.S 161 Cr. P.C and thereafter he had prepared the charge sheet.
In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that mother of the prosecutrix had come to the police station at about 6 PM on 12.04.10 and they left the police station at about 8 PM and they reached at the aforesaid village on 13.04.2010 but they did not get their arrival in the local police station State Vs. Manoj Singh, FIR No. 49/2010, PS Bhalaswa Dairy Page 12 of 22 entered on that day and went there in a private vehicle. According to him he cannot give the number, make and color of that private vehicle since at that time, only Manoj and the prosecutrix "A" were present in the house. He has admitted that he did not call the Pradhan or any respected person from the village and has voluntarily added that it was Kacchi colony and the villagers had collected there of their own. Witness has admitted that he does not cite any of them as a witness in this case. Witness has denied the suggestion that he did not made any entry regarding their arrival as they did not go there or that he does not cite the public witnesses in the village at the time of proceedings because the accused was not arrested from that place and the prosecutrix was not recovered from there. Witness has further deposed that the mother of the prosecutrix was having a tea stall and the accused was driving an ambulance of the hospital and it has not came to his knowledge that the accused has been depositing the money with the mother of the prosecutrix. Witness has denied the suggestion that when the accused had demanded his money from the mother of the prosecutrix, she made false complaint against the accused and thereafter, he was falsely implicated in this case.
Witness has further deposed that he does not cite any official as a witness from the office of SubRegistrar (Birth and Death), MCD, Civil Line Zone, Delhi and has voluntarily added that there was no dispute since the certificate was handed over to him by the mother of State Vs. Manoj Singh, FIR No. 49/2010, PS Bhalaswa Dairy Page 13 of 22 the prosecutrix. Witness has denied the suggestion that he does not conduct the investigations properly or that the aforesaid birth certificate was false and fabricated one. Witness has admitted that he does not verify the contents of the said birth certificate from the concerned office.
Statement of accused and Defence Evidence:
After completing the prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure wherein all the incriminating evidence / material was put to him which he has denied. According to him he is innocent and falsely implicated in this case by the mother of prosecutrix. He has stated that the prosecutrix was having a love affair with him and has voluntarily accompanied him with her free will and consent and when her mother came to know about their love affair, she opposed the same and threatened to implicate him. He has further stated that at the time of incident the prosecutrix was more than 18 years of age. According to him he did not commit any wrong with her. FINDINGS:
I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the accused. I have also considered the testimonies of the State Vs. Manoj Singh, FIR No. 49/2010, PS Bhalaswa Dairy Page 14 of 22 various witnesses examined by the prosecution and have gone through the written memorandum of arguments filed by the parties.
Firstly, in so far as the identity of the accused is concerned, the same has not been disputed. He has been specifically named in the FIR and also duly identified by the prosecutrix and her mother in the court.
Secondly, it is evident from the testimony of the complainant who is the mother of the prosecutrix that at the time of the incident the prosecutrix was hardly 15 years of age and in this regard the only evidence on record is the oral testimonies of the mother of the prosecutrix and the statement of prosecutrix where she claims that she was 15 years of age. The prosecutrix in her cross examination has denied that she was 18 years of age on the date of incident. However as per the date of birth certificate the date of birth of the prosecutrix is mentioned as 15.6.1995 showing that at the time of incident she was about 15 years of age.
Thirdly, it is evident that there are no allegations of rape. Further, the MLC of the prosecutrix also reveals that she refused to the medical examination which MLC has been duly proved by PW5 Dr. Meenu showing that there was no external injuries.
Fourthly, the investigation regarding recovery of prosecutrix has been proved by investigating officer and the mother of the prosecutrix which has not been controverted by the accused. State Vs. Manoj Singh, FIR No. 49/2010, PS Bhalaswa Dairy Page 15 of 22
Lastly, the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.PC has not been disputed wherein she has told the Ld. MM that she had been taken away by the accused Manoj, but during the period she stayed with him he did not make any physical relation with her since he wanted to marry her.
FINAL CONCLUSION:
In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and State Vs. Manoj Singh, FIR No. 49/2010, PS Bhalaswa Dairy Page 16 of 22
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
Applying the above principles of law to the facts of present case, it is evident that the investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present case have been substantially proved by the police witnesses including the investigating officer. The identity of both the accused stand established. It has been proved that at the time of incident the prosecutrix was aged 15 years. Further, the recovery of the prosecutrix from the possession of the accused has been established. There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or has not been proved in evidence at trial, the question which arise is whether it would absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is obviously in negative, since any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence. The prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or State Vs. Manoj Singh, FIR No. 49/2010, PS Bhalaswa Dairy Page 17 of 22 contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by the circumstantial and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link.
In view of the above, I hold that the prosecution has been successfully able to prove the allegations under Section 363 read with 365 Indian Penal Code but has failed to prove and substantiate the offence under Section 366 Indian Penal Code since it is evident that despite having taken the prosecutrix and wanting to marry her, the accused did not apply any force upon her. Further, the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC tantamounts to his admission for the offence and therefore it stands established that he had taken away the prosecutrix, who was below 18 years of age on the date of incident, from the lawful custody of her parents.
In this background, the accused Manoj Singh is hereby acquitted from the offence under Section 366 Indian Penal Code but is held guilty for the offence under Section 363 read with Section 365 Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted.
Be listed for arguments on sentence at 2: PM.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 21.10.2011 ASJ (NW)II: ROHINI State Vs. Manoj Singh, FIR No. 49/2010, PS Bhalaswa Dairy Page 18 of 22 IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Sessions Case No. 77/2011 Unique Case ID: 02404R0139062010 State Vs. Manoj Singh S/o Shiv Nandan R/o Village Madhayaa, Padhidhari Tola, PS Meenapur Mujaffarpur, Bihar (Convicted) FIR No. : 49/2010 Under Section : 363/365/366 Indian Penal Code. Police Station : Bhalaswa Dairy Date of Judgment : 21.10.2011 Arguments heard on : 21.10.2011 Date of Sentence : 21.10.2011 APPEARANCE: Present: Sh. Taufiq Ahmed, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
Convict in JC with Ms. Sadhna Bhatia, Advocate / Amicus Curiae.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
Vide may detailed judgment, the accused Manoj Singh has been acquitted of the charge under Section 366 Indian Penal State Vs. Manoj Singh, FIR No. 49/2010, PS Bhalaswa Dairy Page 19 of 22 Code but is held guilty for offence under Section 363 read with Section 365 Indian Penal Code.
As per the prosecution case the allegations against the accused Manoj Singh are that on 4.4.2010 in the night at B6/58, JJ Colony, Bhalaswa Dairy, Delhi, he kidnapped the prosecutrix 'A' (name of the girl withheld because this is a case under Section 363/365/366 IPC), aged 15 years, out of the lawful guardianship of her parents and taken her away and wrongfully confined her in the house of his friend at Kanpur with the intent that she may be compelled to marry you. However, on the basis of the testimonies of various witnesses particularly the prosecutrix 'A', this court vide a separate detailed judgment has acquitted the accused Manoj Singh from the charges under Section 366 Indian Penal Code but held him guilty for the offence under Section 363 read with Section 365 Indian Penal Code, since it is evident that despite having taken away the prosecutrix he had not applied any force upon the prosecutrix.
I have heard the arguments on the point of sentence. The convict is the young boy of 23 years, unmarried having a family comprising of two married sisters. He is 8th class pass and is driveer by profession. He is first time offender and has no criminal background and has already remained in judicial custody for a period of one ear Six Months Seven days.
State Vs. Manoj Singh, FIR No. 49/2010, PS Bhalaswa Dairy Page 20 of 22
Ld. Amicus Curiae for the convict has vehemently argued that the a lenient view be taken against the convict keeping view his young age and the fact that he is not a habitual criminal. Addl. PP for the State on the other hand has argued that keeping in view the nature of offence, strict punishment may be awarded to the convict.
I have considered the rival contentions. The convict is a young boy with no criminal background. The only crime he has committed was of taking away the prosecutrix from the lawful guardianship of her mother as he wants to marry her but there is nothing to prove that during the period the girl stayed with him she was subjected to any pressure or any kind of mental / physical force. This being the background, I am not inclined to take any harsh view against the convict who has already sufficiently suffered physically and emotionally. In view of the above, in the interest of justice a lenient view is taken against the convict Manoj Singh who is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of One Year Six Months Seven Days (i.e. period already undergone by him) and fine to the tune of Rs.500/ for the offence under Section 363 read with Section 365 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three days.
State Vs. Manoj Singh, FIR No. 49/2010, PS Bhalaswa Dairy Page 21 of 22
Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to the convict for the period already undergone by him during the trial as per rules.
The convict has been informed that he has a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. He has been apprised that in case he cannot afford to engage an advocate, he can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict free of costs and another be attached along with his jail warrants.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 21.10.2011 ASJ (NW)II: ROHINI
State Vs. Manoj Singh, FIR No. 49/2010, PS Bhalaswa Dairy Page 22 of 22