Delhi District Court
Fir No.71/18, Ps : Ndrs State vs Naru Narayan on 17 May, 2019
FIR No.71/18, PS : NDRS State Vs Naru Narayan
IN THE COURT OF MM08 (CENTRAL DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI.
Presiding Officer: Dinesh Kumar, DJS.
IN THE MATTER OF :
State Vs. Naru Narayan
FIR No. 71/2018
PS : NDRS
U/s : 392/394/34, IPC, and Section 141, the Railways
Act,1989 (IR Act)
Date of Institution : 11.09.2018
Date of reserving of order : 08.05.2019
Date of Judgment : 17.05.2019
JUDGMENT
CNR No. DLCT020285792018
1. Serial No. of the case : 12124/18
2. Name of the Complainant : Satish
3. Date of incident : 12.07.2018
4. Name of accused person :
Naru Narayan S/o Sh. Ochan Ji R/o H.No. 548, Road No. 6, Malusar road, Police Chowki Osari Gate, Ajmer, Rajasthan.Page 1 of 24 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/17.05.2019
FIR No.71/18, PS : NDRS State Vs Naru Narayan
5. Offence for which chargesheet was filed : S.392/394/34, IPC, and Section 141 IR Act.
6. Offence for which charge has been framed : As above
7. Plea of accused : Not guilty
8. Final Order :
Convicted for the offence punishable under Section 394/34 IPC and acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 141 IR Act.
9. Date of Judgment : 17.05.2019 BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1. Mr. Naru Narayan, the accused herein, has been chargesheeted for committing offences punishable under Section 392/394/34, Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and Section 141, the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the IR Act).
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.07.2018, complainant Satish was traveling in a Ambala passenger train from Shahranpur to Nizamuddin. When the train crossed Tilak Bridge Railway Station, one boy Page 2 of 24 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/17.05.2019 FIR No.71/18, PS : NDRS State Vs Naru Narayan who was already sitting in the coach had pulled the chain of the train. Therefore, the train was stopped. Immediately 23 boys boarded the train. They were carrying sticks in their hands. They started threatening the passengers and snatching the valuables of the passengers including money. They were also beating the passengers who were objecting to their acts. They had snatched Rs. 5000/ from the complainant. When the speed of the train became slow before Hazarat Nizamuddin Station, those boys jumped from the train and ran away. On the basis of statement of the complainant, present FIR was registered. The accused was apprehended later on at the instance of a secret informer. His judicial TIP was got conducted. The complainant identified the accused in TIP proceedings.
During PC remand proceedings, the accused also got recovered the bamboo stick which he was holding at the time of incident in question. After completion of investigation 'final report' was filed by the Investigation Officer (IO) in the Court and the accused was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 392/394/34, Indian Penal Code and Section 141 of the IR Act.
Page 3 of 24 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/17.05.2019FIR No.71/18, PS : NDRS State Vs Naru Narayan
3. After perusing the record, cognizance was taken by the Court. Accused was produced in the Court. Compliance of Section 207, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.) was done. After hearing the parties, charge for the offence punishable under Section 392/394/34 IPC and Section 141 of IR Act was framed against the accused. It was read over to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as 05 witnesses to prove its case against the accused.
5. PW1 Satish Kumar is the complainant. He has deposed that on 11.07.2018, he was coming from Dehradun and traveling in train Ambala Passenger. He was going to Nizamudin. He was lying on a seat in the coach. When the train reached at Tilak Bridge, Delhi, two persons had come in the coach near him. One of them had hit him on his head by using a stick. Due to that he became unconscious. Thereafter, they had taken his purse. When he gained consciousness, he found police officials in the train. He was taken to the hospital. His statement was recorded which is Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter, he was discharged. The witness has submitted that it was accused Page 4 of 24 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/17.05.2019 FIR No.71/18, PS : NDRS State Vs Naru Narayan Naru who had hit him on his head with the stick.
6. Ld. APP had asked some leading questions from the witness with the permission of the Court. The witness has stated that he did not know whether the train was stopped at Tilak Bridge as one of the boy sitting in the train had pulled the chain. However, he admitted that 34 persons had boarded the train at Tilak Bridge who were having sticks in their hands and they were threatening the passengers and that they had started snatching the money from the passengers. He also admitted that those persons were hitting the passengers with sticks who were not giving the money. He has stated that he did not know who had removed his money as he was unconscious. However, amount of Rs. 5000/ was missing from his pocket when he gained consciousness.
7. The witness was shown the recovered bamboo stick. However, he would say that he could not identify whether he was hit by the said bamboo stick.
8. PW2 HC Rajbir Singh is the police official who has participated in the investigation with the IO. He has deposed that on 19.07.2018, he had joined the investigation with IO ASI Yadram. The accused was on PC Page 5 of 24 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/17.05.2019 FIR No.71/18, PS : NDRS State Vs Naru Narayan remand. Thereafter, he alongwith IO and the accused went to the place between Tilak Bridge Station and Nizamuddin Railway Station. The accused had searched in bushes and shown one Danda which was used by him to commit the offence. Thereafter, the IO had prepared the pointing out memo of the place and seized the Danda vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A. Before seizure of the case property, the IO had measured the length of the Danda which was found to be 2 feet and 20 centimeter and had prepared pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of YR.
9. PW3 ASI Yad Ram was the IO. He has deposed that on 11/12.07.2018, he was on emergency duty. On that day, in the morning of 12.7.2018, some public persons had come at the PS and informed about robbery in Ambala Passenger train. He recorded statement of complainant Satish which is Ex.PW1/A. On the basis of said statement, he prepared the rukka which is Ex.PW3/A from point X to X1. He got recorded the present FIR. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of Anand Babar. Other passengers had left the PS without making any statement. He had also issued notices to them. However, they did not come to make their statements. He had made Page 6 of 24 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/17.05.2019 FIR No.71/18, PS : NDRS State Vs Naru Narayan efforts to trace the culprits and the weapon of offence by taking the complainant with him. However, nothing could be traced. The victim was asked to get himself medically examined as he had suffered injuries. However, he refused for the same as he was repeatedly receiving the phone calls from his home. On 14.07.2018, ASI Anuj Tomar had arrested the accused in the present case. One application for TIP of the accused was moved which was allowed. On 17.07.2018, he got conducted the TIP of the accused through Ld. MM. The accused was identified by the complainant in the TIP proceedings which are Ex. PW 3/B. The application for obtaining the copy of the TIP proceedings is Ex. PW3/C. He recorded supplementary statement of the complainant. He obtained one day PC remand of the accused. He had recorded the supplementary disclosure statement of the accused which is Ex. PW3/D. On 19.07.2018, during PC remand, the accused got recovered the weapon of offence i.e., bamboo stick (Baans ka danda) from the bushes near the railway track ahead of Tilak Bridge and before Nizamuddin Railway Station. He had also taken the photographs of the recovered items alongwith the place where the item was Page 7 of 24 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/17.05.2019 FIR No.71/18, PS : NDRS State Vs Naru Narayan recovered from. The photographs are Ex.PW3 (colly five photographs). He checked the danda, however, no blood stains were found on the same. He measured the said danda. It was 2 feet 20 Cms long. The said danda was kept in a white clothe and pullanda was prepared with the seal of YR. He seized the said danda vide the memo Ex.PW2/A. HC Rajbir was also with him during those proceedings. The accused was again medically examined. The case property was deposited in Malkhana. He was produced in the Court and sent to J/C. He prepared the challan and filed in the Court. The danda is Ex. P1.
10. PW4 Sh. Anand Babar is one of the victim. He has deposed that on 11.07.2018, he was traveling in Ambala Passenger Train from New Delhi Railway Station to Nizamuddin Station. He was sitting in a coach of the said train alongwith various other passengers. The police officials had asked all the passengers to sit in one coach and told that no one would open the door of the said coach in between. At about 12:0012:30 a.m., on 12.07.2018, the train had crossed Tilak Bridge Railway Station. At that time, one of the passenger had pulled the chain of the train and opened the door of the coach.
Page 8 of 24 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/17.05.2019FIR No.71/18, PS : NDRS State Vs Naru Narayan Thereafter, 23 persons had entered in the coach. One of them was holding a stick. They started beating them. They also started threatening them and snatching the money and mobile phone etc. They had snatched his mobile phone make Huaewi and Rs.2000/. After sometime those boys left the train. The train reached at Nizamuddin Railway Station. They went to the police station Nizamuddin. They informed the police official about the said fact. Thereafter, the police officials brought them to PS : NDRS in government vehicle. His statement was recorded there. The witness however failed to identify the accused as one of the person who had robbed the passengers in the train. He would state that he could not say whether the accused was one of those persons who had entered in the coach on the relevant day and who had beaten the passengers and snatched their valuables.
11. PW5 Ct. Rahul is the police official who had joined the investigation with ASI Anuj Tomar. He has deposed that on 14.07.2018, he was on patroling duty with ASI Anuj Tomar at platform No. 1, NDRS. The intimation was received from secret informer regarding accused Naru who had committed robbery in Ambala Page 9 of 24 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/17.05.2019 FIR No.71/18, PS : NDRS State Vs Naru Narayan Passenger Train in the night of 11/12.07.2018. The accused was apprehended. He was arrested vide memo Ex. PW5/A. He was personally searched vide memo Ex. PW5/B. The IO had recorded the disclosure statement of accused which is Ex. PW5/C.
12. ASI Anuj Tomar was examined as a witness. However, inadvertently, he was also given number PW5. He has deposed similar to PW5 Ct. Rahul regarding the secret information, apprehension of the accused, his arrest, personal search and disclosure statement. He has also stated that on 14.07.2018, he was the IO of the present case as IO ASI Yadram was on leave on that day. He has also stated that the accused was brought to the PS in muffled face and he was produced before Ld. MM. He had also moved an application for TIP of the accused. He had recorded the statement of Ct. Rahul. The intimation of arrest of the accused was given to his brother of the accused.
13. All the witnesses were crossexamined. The accused admitted, under Section 294 Cr.P.C, the registration of FIR, copy of which is Ex. A1, the certificate under Section 65B, Indian Evidence Act, which is Ex. A2.
Page 10 of 24 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/17.05.2019FIR No.71/18, PS : NDRS State Vs Naru Narayan
14. The prosecution evidence was closed. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating evidence was put to him. He would state that he was falsely implicated. He had not committed any such crime. He was taken to the PS after arrest. He was beaten. The police officials had taken his signatures on some cloth. They had also taken his photographs. Nothing was recovered at his instance. The police officials had planted the danda at the spot. He was innocent.
15. The accused did not lead any defence evidence. Therefore, matter was fixed for final arguments.
16. Ld. APP for the State would argue that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The testimonies of the eye witnesses have proved that it was the accused who had caused hurt to the complainant while committing robbery alongwith his associates. It has also been proved that he had pulled the chain of the train and allowed his associates to enter into the train to commit the robbery. The accused also got recovered the weapon of offence during his police custody remand. Hence, the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of Page 11 of 24 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/17.05.2019 FIR No.71/18, PS : NDRS State Vs Naru Narayan the offence punishable under Section 394/34 IPC, and Section 141 IR Act. The guilt of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, it is prayed, the accused may be convicted.
17. Ld. Defence counsel, on the other hand, would argue that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. There are various contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution. The witness Anand Babar has failed to identify the accused. Therefore, his identity has come under the clouds of reasonable doubts. PW1 has also stated that he was unconscious at the relevant time and therefore, he did not know who had stolen his money. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused has moved the money from his pocket. The alleged recovery of stick has been planted to create evidence. Further the photographs of the accused were taken in the PS which must have been shown to the witness and therefore, the witness had identified the accused during TIP proceedings. There is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubts.
Page 12 of 24 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/17.05.2019FIR No.71/18, PS : NDRS State Vs Naru Narayan Hence, it is prayed that benefit of doubts may be given to the accused and he may be acquitted.
18. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record.
19. It is trite that in criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution is under an obligation to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof to be adopted in criminal cases is not merely of preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubts on the basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. It is also well settled that in case of doubt, the benefit must necessarily be given to the accused. It is also settled position of law that whenever there are two views possible, the view which favours the innocence of the accused is to be accepted by the Court.
20. In the present case, the accused has been charged for committing offences punishable under Section 392/394/34 IPC and Section 141 IR Act.
21. Section 392 IPC provides punishment for robbery. Section 390 defines robbery. The Section reads as under :
Page 13 of 24 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/17.05.2019FIR No.71/18, PS : NDRS State Vs Naru Narayan " 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 the 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 or 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".
22. In Braham Singh vs State (NCT of Delhi), Crl. A. no. 28/2008, decided on 23/11/2009, has discussed the distinction between theft and robbery. It has held as under:
"14. The line of distinction between "robbery" as defined under Section 390 of the IPC and "theft" as defined in Section 378 of the IPC is thin but nevertheless distinct. Theft becomes robbery if in the process of committing the theft the offender causes or attempts to cause either death or hurt or a wrongful restraint....Page 14 of 24 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/17.05.2019
FIR No.71/18, PS : NDRS State Vs Naru Narayan "15. Section 390 of the IPC in fact contemplates that the accused should have from the very start the intention to deprive the complainant of the property and should for that purpose either hurt him or place him under wrongful restraint. Where A and B were stealing mangoes from a tree, C surprised them, on which A knocked him down senseless with a stick; where a person, in snatching a nosering, wounded the woman in the nostril and caused her blood to flow, this offence was committed. Where the accused slapped the victim after dispossessing him of his watch in order to silence him an offence under Section 390 was made out. These are instances of robbery for which the accused stood convicted. See Husrut Sheikh (1866) 5 WR (Cr) 85, Teekai Bheer (1866) 5 WR (Cr) 95 and Harish Chandra AIR 1976 SC 1430."
23. Section 394 IPC provides punishment for voluntarily causing hurt to another in committing or in attempting to commit robbery. Section 34 IPC provides that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such person is liable for that act in the same manner as it were done by him alone. Section 141 IR Act provides punishments for making use of, or interfering with, without reasonable and sufficient cause, any means provided by a railway administration in a train for communication between passengers and the railway Page 15 of 24 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/17.05.2019 FIR No.71/18, PS : NDRS State Vs Naru Narayan servant incharge of the train. Thus, pulling the chain of a running train, without reasonable and sufficient caused, to stop the train, is an offence under the said Section.
24. In the present case, the prosecution has alleged that the accused alongwith his associates (not arrested), in furtherance of their common intention, had committed robbery of various items belonging to various passengers in the train. It has also been alleged that they had committed robbery of Rs. 5000/ belonging to the complainant Satish and a mobile phone and Rs. 2000/ belonging to witness Anand Babar. It has also been alleged that for the purpose of committing robbery, they had voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant by hitting him on his head by a stick. It is also case of the prosecution that the said wooden stick was recovered at the instance of the accused.
25. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused had got recovered the wooden stick which was used by him to cause hurt to the complainant. However, as the record would reveal, neither PW1 nor PW4 has identified the said stick Ex. P1 in the Court. The IO himself has stated in the examination that no blood stains Page 16 of 24 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/17.05.2019 FIR No.71/18, PS : NDRS State Vs Naru Narayan were found on the stick at the time of its recovery. There is no material on record to establish that this stick Ex.P1 was used in committing the offence. The stick is such an item which is easily available in the market. Further, the recovery of the stick is not shown to be made from such a place which was in the knowledge of the accused only. Therefore, this alleged recovery is not covered under the proviso as mentioned under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. In any case, Ex. P1 in no manner can be connected with the case in question.
26. The complainant PW1, Satish, in his testimony has deposed that the accused alongwith his associates (not arrested) was present in the train at the relevant time. He has also deposed that the accused alongwith his associates were threatening the passengers and snatching money from them. He has also identified the accused who had hit him on his head by wooden stick due to which he had become unconscious. The witness has also deposed that when he gained consciousness he found that his Rs. 5000/ were missing from his pocket.
Page 17 of 24 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/17.05.2019FIR No.71/18, PS : NDRS State Vs Naru Narayan
27. The witness was crossexamined. However, nothing contradictory has come in his crossexamination so as to doubt his testimony.
28. The accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C has stated that he had not committed any such crime and that he was falsely implicated. However, no reason has come on record as to why the complainant would falsely implicate an innocent person. The law is settled that testimony of an eyewitness and an injured should be believed unless there is specific reason on record to disbelieve him. In Abdul Sayeed vs State of M.P, (2010) 10 SCC 259, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, while dealing with the reliability of testimony of injured witness, has held as under:
"The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his Page 18 of 24 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/17.05.2019 FIR No.71/18, PS : NDRS State Vs Naru Narayan evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein."
29. In the present case also, I am of the opinion that there is no material brought by the accused on Court record to doubt the testimony of the complainant. The defence that his photographs were taken by the IO in the PS which might have been shown to the witness is also without any merits. It is natural that a person would easily identify another person who had caused injury to him. Therefore, the identification of the accused during TIP proceedings is in the normal course of circumstances.
30. In the light of discussion hereinabove, I hold that that the identity of the accused has been established by PW1 beyond reasonable doubts. It has been proved through the testimony of PW1 that the accused alongwith his associates (since not apprehended) had entered in a running train with their common intention to rob the passengers. It has also been proved beyond reasonable doubts that all of them, in furtherance of their common intention, had started threatening the passengers to hand over their valuables to them. The testimony of PW1 has also proved beyond reasonable doubts that the accused Page 19 of 24 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/17.05.2019 FIR No.71/18, PS : NDRS State Vs Naru Narayan and his associates had snatched the valuables belonging to the passengers. No doubt the PW1 has stated that he had not seen as to who had removed his money. However, his testimony has proved that the accused and his associates had robbed the passengers in the train.
31. PW4 Anand Babar has also corroborated the testimony of the complainant PW1. As stated hereinabove the identity of the accused has been established by PW1. PW4 has specifically deposed that 23 perons who had enered in the train had started beating them and snatched their money and mobile phones etc. They had also snatched his mobile phone and amount of Rs. 2000/. in these circumstances, the testimoney of PW4 has also proved beyond reasonable doubts that the accused and his associates had committed robbery of the valuables belonging to PW4 and other passengers.
32. After going through the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, I hold that it is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts, through the testimonies of the public witnesses, that the accused alongwith his associates (since not apprehended) had prepared a plan to rob the passengers of the train. It has Page 20 of 24 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/17.05.2019 FIR No.71/18, PS : NDRS State Vs Naru Narayan also been proved on record that there was a prior conspiracy of premeditation between the accused and his associates to commit the said offence.
33. As per the definition of robbery mentioned in Section 390 IPC, even an attempt to cause hurt, wrongful restraint or fear of death would also constitute the offence of robbery. The public witnesses PW1 and PW4 have also proved beyond reasonable doubts that the accused alongwith their associates had, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, had voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant and other passengers in the train. These facts are sufficient to prove the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC.
34. Further, the complainant has identified the accused as the person who had caused hurt to him by hitting him on his head with a wooden stick. No doubt that the complainant did not get himself medically examined. Further, the recovery of wooden stick has also come under the clouds of reasonable doubts. However, the testimony of PW1 which is corroborated by the testimony of PW4 also is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the accused, while committing theft, had caused hurt to Page 21 of 24 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/17.05.2019 FIR No.71/18, PS : NDRS State Vs Naru Narayan the complainant. Thus, all the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 394 IPC are also proved beyond reasonable doubts by the prosecution.
35. Accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, has stated that he was innocent. His photographs were taken by the IO in the PS. However, the accused has not led any evidence to prove this fact. Statement made during examination under Section 313 Cr. PC is not evidence. It has not been made on oath. Nor it has been tested on the touch stone of crossexamination. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in V.S.Yadav vs Reena, Crl. A. no. 1136/2010, decided on 21/09/2010, has discussed the scope of examination of accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. It has held as under:
"5. It must be borne in mind that the statement of accused under Section 281 Cr. P.C. or under Section 313 Cr. P.C. is not the evidence of the accused and it cannot be read as part of evidence. The accused has an option to examine himself as a witness. Where the accused does not examine himself as a witness, his statement under Section 281 Cr. P.C. or 313 Cr. P.C. cannot be read as evidence of the accused and it has to be looked into only as an explanation of the incriminating circumstance and not as evidence.Page 22 of 24 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/17.05.2019
FIR No.71/18, PS : NDRS State Vs Naru Narayan There is no presumption of law that explanation given by the accused was truthful...."
36. In the present case, the accused has failed to show any previous enmity or dispute between him and complainant or PW4. There is no reason on the Court record to show that the complainant had a motive to falsely implicate the accused.
37. However, there is nothing on record to show that it was the accused who had pulled the chain of the train. Neither PW1 nor PW4 has stated that it was the accused who had pulled the chain of the train on the relevant date, time and place. It is possible that some other associate of the accused might have pulled the chain. The accused is entitled to benefit of reasonable doubts in this regard.
38. In the light of the discussions hereinabove, I hold that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused alongwith his associates (not apprehended), in furtherance of their common intention, had committed offence of robbery by stealing the money belonging to the complainant, PW4 Anand Babar and other passengers and by causing hurt to the complainant Page 23 of 24 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/17.05.2019 FIR No.71/18, PS : NDRS State Vs Naru Narayan while committing the theft. Thus, all the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 394/34 IPC have been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts. The accused is found guilty and he is accordingly convicted for the offence punishable under Section 394/34 IPC. He is acquitted qua the offence punishable under Section 141 IR Act.
39. Let the parties be heard on the quantum of sentence.
40. Copy of the judgment given free of cost to the convict.
Pronounced in the open Court on (Dinesh Kumar) this 17th Day of May 2019 MM08 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Page 24 of 24 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/17.05.2019