Delhi District Court
State vs . Raj Kumar @ Raju S/O Sagar Sharma, on 28 February, 2009
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. DILBAG SINGH PUNIA: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE01(E) :
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI :
Sessions Case No. 419/06
Date of Institution : 30.10.2006
Date on which reserved for order : 25.02.2009
Date of Delivery of Judgment : 25.02.2009
State Vs. Raj Kumar @ Raju S/o Sagar Sharma,
R/o 113A, Gopal Park, Chander Nagar,
Delhi.
FIR No. 195/05
PS Krishna Nagar
U/s 307 IPC
J U D G E M E N T : Case of the prosecution as disclosed from the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., is to the effect that on 11.5.2005, on receipt of DD NO.8A, SI Rajender Singh alongwith Const. Ramdhan, reached at the place of occurrence i.e. C27, Hazara Park, Delhi, where he came to know that one boy namely Mannu had sustained knife blows and was removed to LBS Hospital by PCR Van. He also came to know that a quarrel had taken place. He reached house No.A113, where HC Vijay Shanker met him. He noticed that blood was lying at the spot. Crime Team was summoned and the spot was got photographed through Const. Satya Parkash. SI Rajender Singh left H.C.Vijay Shanker to guard the spot and went to LBS Hospital alongwith Const. Ram Dhan and collected the MLC of the injured Mannu Sharma, who was declared fit for statement. He recorded the statement of injured Mannu Sharma, the crux of which is being given infra.
2. Mannu Sharma stated that Raj Kumar Sharma is the brother of his brother in law Ramesh and he knew him for the last 2/3 years. That accused Raj Kumar had borrowed a sum of Rs.3,000/ from him one month prior to the incident. That when he demanded his 2 money back from Raj Kumar, Raj Kumar promised him to return his money on 10.5.2005. That on 10.5.2005, Raj Kumar Sharma did not return the money. That he went to the house of Raj Kumar Sharma, but Raj Kumar could not meet him. That next day, around 8.30 a.m., Raj Kumar Sharma came to his house and started beating him in the presence of his mother. That his mother intervened in the matter and made the accused to go. That while leaving his house, Raj Kumar Sharma told him to come at Hazara Park to settle the accounts. That he went to Gopal Park That he found Raj Kumar in drunken condition. That Raj Kumar Sharma abused him and took out a dagger from his back and and wielded stab blows on his chick, head, hands and thighs. That he ran towards his house. That someone had telephoned the police, PCR van arrived and removed him to hospital.
3. On the above discussed statement which was later on exhibited as Ex.PW5/A, SI Rajender Singh prepared ruqqa and sent the same to P.S. and got the case registered through Const. Ramdhan. SI Rajender Singh returned to the spot, lifted blood samples and earth control and converted the same into cloth parcel, prepared the site plan at the instance of witness Ramesh Sharma and recorded the statements of the witnesses. SI Rajender Singh arrested the accused Raj Kumar from House No.113A, Gopal Park, Chander Nagar, Delhi, conducted his personal search, recorded his disclosure statement and collected the result of MLC of Mannu. After completion of investigation, the challan was got filed through SHO,
4. Ld. M.M.after compliance of requirements of Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Ld. Sessions Judge and it was ultimately allocated to my Ld. Predecessor.
3
5. My Ld. Predecessor on 17.11.2006, framed charge against the accused u/s 307 IPC, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. To substantiate the charge, prosecution has examined PW1 ASI Asha Sharma, PW2 Ms.Arti, PW3 Ramesh, PW4 H.C. Vijay Shanker, PW5 Sh.Mannu Sharma, PW 6 Dr. Ramesh Sharma, PW7 H.C.Ram Dhan,PW8 Const. Satender and PW9 S.I.Rajender Singh.
7. PW1 ASI Asha Sharma has testified that on 11.5.2005, around 8 a.m., she was working as duty officer at PS Krishna Nagar and around 12.30 p.m., on receipt of rukka through Const. Ramdhan sent by SI Rajender Singh, she recorded the formal FIR No.195/05 u/s 307 IPC. She has proved copy of the same as Ex.PW1/A.
8. PW2 Ms.Arti and PW3 Sh.Ramesh, have not supported the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile. They denied that on11.5.2005, around 8.30 a.m., they heard noise of commotion. They further denied that Mannu was stabbed by the accused.
9. PW4 H.C. Vijay Shanker, has testified that on 11.5.2005, DD NO.7A, copy of which is Ex.PW4/A, was assigned to him for action in the matter. That he reached house no.113A, Gopal Park and came to know that injured has been shifted to a hospital. He further testified that SI Rajender Singh also reached the spot with Const. Ramdhan and thereafter he left the spot. He further testified that SI Rajender proceeded from the spot and after sometime he returned to the spot with photographer and spot was got photographed.
10. PW5 Mannu Sharma is the main star witness of the case who has testified about the manner in which incident had occurred. He has testified that accused Raj Kumar is 4 his brother in law. That on 10.5.2005, he had gone to the house of accused Raj Kumar during evening hours. That accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.3000/ from him on 15.4.2005. That he had gone to the house of accused to demand his money back. That accused had not met him. That Kajal , his cousin sister met him there. That on 11.5.2005, during morning hours, accused came to his house. That he was sleeping at that time. That he made him to awake and grappled with him. That his mother intervened and made the accused to go for his house. That while leaving, accused told him that he (Mannu) should come to his house to settle his accounts. That he went to the house of accused at Gopal Park, Ram Nagar, Delhi, but accused was not present at his house at that time. That he waited for him. That accused reached there alongwith a boy on a motorcycle and he was smelling of alcohol from his mouth. That accused started abusing him and he also retorted. He further testified that he and accused grappled there. That accused took out a dagger from his back and wielded stab blows on his chick, head, right hand and left thigh. He further testified that thereafter accused ran away. That he went towards his house. That someone from the locality had telephoned the police. PCR van arrived and removed him to LBS Hospital, Khichripur. That he was medically examined in the hospital. That police reached in the hospital and recorded his statement Ex.PW5/A. He also testified that T shirt and jeans pant which he was wearing at the time of incident, were taken away by the police.
11. PW6 Dr. Parmesh Sharma has testified that on 11.5.2005, injured Mannu s/o Jugal Kishore was brought in the hospital by HC Rajender around 9.55 p.m. with alleged history of assault. That he examined the patient, prepared his MLC. He proved the same as Ex.PW6/A. 5
12. PW7 H.C. Ram Dhan has testified about the manner in which the investigation was conducted. He has testified that on 11.5.2005, around 9 a.m., on receipt of a call in the PS to the effect that there was a quarrel at C27, Chander Nagar, Hazara Park, Delhi, he alongwith SI Rajender went to the spot where they came to know that a quarrel had taken place at A113, Gopal Park, Delhi. Accordingly, they reached there and came to know that one person namely Mannu had sustained knife injuries and was removed to LBS Hospital by PCR Van. That they had reached LBS Hospital. That SI Rajender recorded the statement of Mannu in the hospital, prepared the ruqqa which was given to him for getting the case registered. That he went to PS and got the case registered. That he reached the spot and handed over the copy of the FIR and ruqqa to SI Rajender Singh, That site plan of the spot was prepared by the IO, blood samples were lifted from the spot and seized vide memo Ex.PW7/A. He further testified that search for accused was made, but he was not found at given address.
13. PW8 Const. Satender has testified that on 19.5.2005, he accompanied SI Rajender Singh to B43, New Loyal Pur, Delhi, in pursuance of information regarding presence of accused. That accused was arrested from his house vide arrest memo Ex.PW8/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW8/B.
14. PW9 SI RajenderSingh is the I.O.of the case and has testified about the manner in which the investigation took place. He alongwith Const. Ram Dhan reached at premises No.C27, Hazara Park, Preet Vihar, where he came to know that a quarrel had taken place in front of House no.113A, Gopal Park. H.C. Vijay Shanker was found present there. That blood was found lying at the spot and he came to know that injured has been removed to LBS Hospital by PCR Van. He further testified that he alongwith 6 Const. Ram Dhan reached LBS Hospital, collected the MLC of injured Manu Sharma, recorded his statement Ex.PW5/A, came back to the spot, lifted blood samples and earth control, got the spot photographed, prepared the ruqqa Ex.PW9/B, sent the same for registration of the case through Const. Ram Dhan, obtained the copy of FIR Ex.PW1/A and ruqqa at the spot, prepared the site plan Ex.PW9/C, recorded the statements of witnesses , seized the parcels of blood samples vide memo Ex.PW7/A, seized the blood stained clothes of the injured which were preserved by the doctor vide memo Ex.PW9/D and deposited the case property in the malkhana. He further testified that on 19.5.2005, he arrested accused Raj Kumar vide arrest memo Ex.PW8/A, conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW8/B, recorded the statements of police officials, collected the result of MLC and after completion of investigation, got the accused challaned.
15. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. without oath in order to give an opportunity to the accused to explain the circumstances appearing in evidence against him. Accused has denied the case of the prosecution in its entirety and submitted that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police at the instance of injured.
16. Arguments were heard at the bar. Sh. Bhoodutt Sharma, Ld. Defence counsel has argued that prosecution has failed to establish its case under section 307 IPC. He has argued that PW2 and PW3 have not supported the case of the prosecution and accused is entitled for benefit of doubt for the same. He has submitted that testimony of PW5 Mannu Sharma cannot be made the basis of the conviction particularly when he is an interested witness. Sh. Bhoodutt Sharma has argued that accused was in love with wife of PW5 and this was the reason of false implication of accused on the part of PW5. He 7 has submitted that testimony of PW5 Mannu Sharma should not be made the basis of conviction for the above mentioned reasons. That a person who can cut his veins can cause self inflicted injuries also. He has argued that in this case FIR is disputed and link evidence is missing. That Pws have given different versions with respect to recording of FIR. That link evidence in the shape of blood control, earth control has not been lifted. That weapon of offence has not been recovered. That case property was not produced and exhibits were not sent to CFSL for examination and all these facts entitle the accused for an acquittal. He argued in the alternative that at the maximum, an offence under section 324 IPC is made out against the accused.
17. Ld. Public Prosecutor on the other hand has refuted the arguments advanced by Ld. Defence counsel and has submitted that the arguments advanced by Ld. Defence counsel are not tenable in the light of testimony of PW5. He has argued that even the testimony of a single witness can be made the basis of conviction, if it is credit worthy. He has argued that PW5 has given a true eye account of the incident, which is supported by the medical evidence and therefore, court should believe him.
18. I have carefully perused the records of the case and considered the submissions. Section 307 and 308 under the Indian Penal Code are the sections, which make the attempt punishable separately. Scheme of the Penal Code goes to show that where the offence is very serious, its attempt has been made separately punishable by way of incorporation of a separate section despite the fact that section 511 as well could have dealt with the situation. It has been so done, in my view where dealing with section 511 was not found perfectly suitable. Under section 307 IPC, punishment upto life has been prescribed. Under section 308 IPC punishment upto 7 years has been prescribed. If the 8 punishment angle is seen from the point of it being half in case of attempt as is the case in most of the cases, then section 307 & 308 IPC provide comparatively more sentence as would have been available under section 511 IPC.
19. Section 308 IPC is being reproduced for the sake of convenience.
"Section 308. Attempt to commit culpable homicide whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
20. A bare perusal of the section goes to show that it requires doing of any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if it would have caused death, it would have resulted into culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It means that offender was not having the intention to murder the victim, but can be presumed to be having either the intention or knowledge, that his acts may result into the death of a person. It means that likely hood of death is the deciding factor. Intention and knowledge are to be gathered from the actions of the offender prior to the commission of offence, at the time of commission of offence and after the commission of the offence. Intent, knowledge and circumstances have to be determined in each case on the basis of its individual facts and no straight jacket formula can be evolved or has been evolved. It will not be evolved in future as well as human mind cannot be confined in defined situations.
21. Let the facts of the case be tested on the touchstone of the ingredients of section 9 307 IPC. I am of the considered view that prosecution has failed to bring on record the ingredients of section 307 IPC in this case. The reason for saying so is that intention and knowledge in this regard on the part of the accused to commit murder have not been brought on record. As per testimony of PW5, accused was not found present at his home and PW5 had waited for him. Accused had reached there along with a boy on a motorcycle. It has also come in the testimony of PW5 that accused was smelling of alcohol from his mouth. It has also come that accused started abusing PW5 and PW5 also retorted. It has also come that PW5 and accused grappled with each other. It was at this stage that accused had taken out a dagger from his back, which was hidden underneath his clothes. It has also come that accused wielded stab blows on the chin, head and right hand of PW5. It has also come that PW5 sustained injuries on his left thigh also. In first page of examinationinchief in 3rd line from bottom to top, it has come in the testimony of PW5 that accused ran away from his house. Running away of the accused from his house in the absence of any intervening factor, takes the case out of purview of section 307 IPC. Retorting and grappling on the part of PW5 with the accused also takes the case out of purview of section 307 IPC. Section 307 requires that accused did everything within his power to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder and intervening circumstances prevented it. Intervening circumstances include medical aid, arrival of police etc. etc.
22. 'Intend' according to Oxford concise English dictionary means: (1) ' have as one's aim or plan, intend something as/ to do something, (2) plan that something should be or act as something, (3) design or destine for a purpose etc. The word 'intend' has originated from the word ' entend' which means 'direct the attention to'. Thus taking it in 10 the simplest form it means that accused must have directed his attention to committing of murder, if the act was to fall under section 307 IPC. 'Knowledge' is noun of verb know. 'Know' according to oxford concise English dictionary means: (1) be aware of through observation, inquiry or information, (2) have knowledge or information concerning, (3) be absolutely sure of something.
23. Coming to section 308 IPC. Section 308 IPC requires that accused did everything within his power to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder and intervening circumstances prevented it. Intervening circumstances include medical aid, reaching all other persons, arrival of police etc. etc. For the same reason which have been given with respect to section 307 IPC, offence under section 308 IPC cannot be said to have been made out. The reason for saying so is that as per testimony of PW5, PW5 had retorted on abusing by the accused. PW5 had also grappled with accused. Accused had ran away from the scene of occurrence without any intervening circumstances. Injuries sustained by PW5, although being on vital parts, are simple ones and prosecution has not brought on record anything from which it cannot be said that injuries were such which endanger life. Injuries as per MLC are simple ones. Nothing prevented accused from causing more serious injuries. Thus, I have no hesitation in observing that offence under section 308 IPC is also not made out.
24. The next question which arises is as to which offence is made out against the accused. I am of the considered view that offence under section 324 IPC is made out accused the accused. There can be no two opinions that knife is a dangerous weapon. Section 324 IPC requires proving of causing of injuries voluntarily. Prosecution has categorically proved the voluntarily causing of injuries on the person of PW5 Mr. Mannu 11 Sharma. I deem it pertinent to place on record that Ld. Counsel for the accused had very fairly conceded that offence under section 324 IPC is made out against the accused although in subdued voice. Act of the accused when examined in the light of the injuries caused, goes to establish beyond reasonable doubt that offence under section 324 IPC has been proved by the prosecution and accordingly I have no hesitation in convicting the accused under section 324 IPC.
25. Version of PW5 is supported by medical evidence. It is trite law that when evidence of a witness is corroborated by medical evidence, then it gets credibility and becomes believable and safe for recording a conviction. In the present case testimony of PW6 Dr. P. Sharma fully supports the version of PW5. Doctor has opined in his testimony on 31.05.2008 that injured Mannu Sharma had sustained (1) incised wound over left parietal reason 2.5 x 1 cm in size, (blood oozing out from the would), (2) incised wound over right wrist 4x1 cm in size, muscles deep with oozing of blood, (3) incised wound over left cheek 8 cm x 1 cm in size (blood oozing out from the would) and (4) incised wound over left thigh 2 x 1 cm in size (blood oozing from the would).
26. Testimony of PW6 has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted. All the injuries given by PW6 are inconsonance with the version of PW5. Thus version of PW5 gets credibility and becomes safe for relying. At this juncture itself, I deem it expedient to mention that suggestion concerning injuries being selfinflicted was not given to this witness. PW6 was the best person to opine as to whether the injuries could have been selfinflicted or not.
27. I am of the considered view that injuries in this case were not self inflicted at all. The reason for saying so is that Mannu Sharma was removed to the hospital at about 12 9:55 am (wrongly recorded as 9:55 pm) and his wounds were bleeding. One cannot cause such serious selfinflicted injuries on head and chest at the least which are vital organs. Moreover, PW5 has denied the suggestion and in this regard, version of PW5 gets support from medical evidence. So the arguments with respect to injuries being self inflicted are rejected.
28. Arguments advanced by Ld. Defence counsel are not tenable in view of the facts of the case. The fact that PW2 and PW3 have not supported the case of the prosecution is of no help for the reason that PW2 and PW3 were having reasons not to support the case. PW2 has admitted that accused is her brotherinlaw (dewar) in second line of her examinationinchief. Similarly PW3 is the husband of PW2 and both had reasons not to support the case of the prosecution. In Praveen Singh Vs. State of Haryana (1996) 3 SCJ 540, four public witnesses were hostile and complainant had supported the case of the prosecution. Conviction in this case was upheld. Accordingly, argument of Ld. Defence counsel in this regard are is not tenable.
29. Similarly, argument concerning there being discrepancies regarding time of recording of FIR is of no help as the same is not enough to castigate the testimony of PW5, who is the complainant injured and has not been shaken during his lengthy cross examination. Reliance in this regard is placed on State of Rajasthan Vs. Ani @ Hanif, reported AIR 1997 SC 1023.
30. The arguments that link evidence is missing is of no help as in a case under section 324 IPC, testimony of the complainant is the guiding factor. Non recovery of weapon of offence cannot be taken as a ground to give the benefit of the same to the accused. Argument that according to version of complainant, his Tshirt and jeans were 13 seized, whereas in the evidence only jeans has been produced is of no help as perusal of records of the case reveals that only jeans was taken into possession. This fact is evident from MLC Ex.PW6/A. In Ex.PW6/A, it is mentioned that blue colour jeans with tag "TAG HEUER" sealed and handed over to I.O. So, there is no discrepancy on this aspect. Even if some discrepancy is there, complainant cannot be faulted with respect to the same.
31. I deem it pertinent to mention with respect to FIR aspect also. I have no hesitation to observe that in the MLC, time of 9:55 pm has been recorded inadvertently, whereas it should have been 9:55 am. The reason for saying is that this fact is born out from the records of the case. Perusal of rukka reveals that Ct. Ram Dhan took the rukka at 12:00 noon for getting the case registered. Time of incident in this case is given as 9:00 am on 11.05.2005. Rukka was given after recording of the statement of Mannu Sharma as is evident from its bare perusal. In the rukka, it stands mentioned that I.O had been to the hospital and had recorded the statement of Mannu Sharma in the hospital prior to 12:00 noon of 11.05.2005. DD No.7A goes to show the time as 9:04. DD No.8A also goes to show the time as 9:10 am. FIR goes to show the time of its recording as 12:40 hours vide DD No.12A. A bare perusal of rukka Ex.PW9/B, DD No.7A, DD No.8A in juxta position with Ex.PW1/A goes to demolish the argument of Ld. Defence counsel concerning FIR being managed. So the argument is rejected.
32. The arguments that PW Mannu Sharma is an interested witness is not tenable for the simple reason that merely because a witness is interested, his testimony cannot be discarded. The correct legal position is that testimony of an interested witness has to be perused with more care and caution. I have perused the testimony of PW5 Mannu Sharma with more care and caution and have found his testimony as reliable. So, the 14 arguments in this regard are rejected. The arguments that accused was in love with wife of PW5 and this was the reason of false implication is not tenable as PW5 Mannu Sharma has refuted this aspect. Moreover, even if it is assumed for the sake of assuming that accused was in love with wife of PW5, this does not give a licence to accused to cause injuries to PW5. The arguments that a person who can cut his veins can cause self inflicted injuries is not tenable as it was not put to the doctor that injuries were self inflicted. Arguments concerning link evidence being missing is also of no help as from the testimony of PW5 ingredients of the offence have been proved. Similarly, the arguments that weapon of offence has not been recovered is not tenable for the reason that recovery is not a sine quanon for proving an offence. Similarly, the argument concerning sending of exhibits to CFSL is not tenable. No other argument was advanced.
33. In view of the above going discussion, accused is convicted for the offence punishable under section 324 IPC and is accordingly convicted. Let he be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open court (DILBAG SINGH PUNIA)
Dated: 25.02.2009 ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE01E)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
15
IN THE COURT OF SH. DILBAG SINGH PUNIA: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE01(E) :
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI :
Sessions Case No. 419/06
State Vs. Raj Kumar @ Raju S/o Sagar Sharma,
R/o 113A, Gopal Park, Chander Nagar,
Delhi.
FIR No. 195/05
PS Krishna Nagar
U/s 307 IPC
ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE:
1. I have heard Sh. Bhudutt Sharma on the point of sentence. Sh. Bhudutt Sharma has submitted that convict has realised his mistake and has moved an application for taking a lenient view. He has submitted that convict had not admitted his guilt earlier due to misguidance as well as due to the case being under section 307 IPC, having been instituted by the police against him despite his request to the effect that offence made out against him was not such a grave one. Sh. Bhudutt Sharma has submitted that convict now admits voluntarily without any threat, pressure, coercion, undue influence etc. that on 11.05.2005, he had caused injuries to PW Mannu Sharma. Sh. Bhudutt Sharma has submitted that reason for inflicting the injuries was actuated from the fact that Mannu Sharma was having illicit relations with the wife of the convict and he wanted to teach Mannu Sharma a lesson. That wife of the convict, namely, Kajal has left him due to her illicit relations with PW5 Mannu Sharma. That PW5 Mannu Sharma had written a letter with his blood from which he had concluded conclusively that PW Mannu Sharma and Ms. Kajal were involved in illicit sexual relations. Sh. Bhudutt Sharma submitted that case requires leniency as the facts are peculiar. Sh. Bhudutt Sharma submits that convict had become drug addict due to the relationship of his wife with Mannu Sharma. That 16 now he has reformed himself and has remarried recently. That custodial sentence will ruin the convict who has been a victim of circumstances. That convict was of young age when he committed the offence and must be given one chance to reform. That he has started doing the work of 'Aadhati'. That his father is no more and his mother is old aged.
That despite all the above mentioned peculiar facts and circumstances, convict is prepared to bear the financial pinch also and has requested for grant of benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. Ld. Public Prosecutor in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case has not opposed the request of Sh. Bhudutt Sharma for release on probation.
2. I have carefully perused the records of the case and considered the submissions. The submissions made by the convict and his counsel are not disputed by the state. In view of this, the facts and circumstances become peculiar and convict becomes entitled for a lenient view in my considered view. Convict requires to be given a chance for reformation. Custodial sentence in this case in my considered view will not serve useful purpose as it will mar the chance of reformation and will also ruine the family of the convict. It will be also a burden on State exchequer. Convict has been a victim of circumstances, in this case.
3. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it expedient to allow the request of Sh. Bhudutt Sharma for award of benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. Convict be released on probation subject to furnishing of an undertaking as per provisions of Probation of Offenders Act to be of good behaviour and to keep peace for a period of three years and in case of violation he shall appear before the court to receive the sentence. Convict is also burdened with payment of costs of Rs. 20,000/ out of which 17 a sum of Rs. 10,000/ shall be paid to the injured after prescribed period of limitation. Remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/ shall go to the state being the cost of proceedings. Convict shall furnish a surety bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/, who shall be having a permanent abode in Delhi. Convict shall also undertake that he shall keep a permanent place of abode in Delhi during the period of three years. A copy of judgment and order on sentence be provided to the convict free of cost.
Announced in the open court (DILBAG SINGH PUNIA)
on 28.02.2009 ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE01(E)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI