Delhi District Court
(Judgment) State vs Rajesh Sahni & Ors. on 20 July, 2018
(Judgment) State Vs Rajesh Sahni & Ors.
FIR no. 20/2011
U/s 186/353/333/325/34 IPC
PS: North Rohini
IN THE COURT OF SHRI PANKAJ GUPTA: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)
(NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No.53650/16
CNR No. DLNW010093122016
State
Vs.
1.Rajesh Sahni S/o Sh. Balo Sahni R/o C108, J.J. Colony, Sector24, Rohini, Delhi.
2. Pawan Kumar Sahni S/o Sh. Chote lal Sahni R/o C108, J.J. Colony, Sector24, Rohini, Delhi.
FIR No. : 20/2011 Police Station : North Rohini Under Section : 186/353/333/325/34 IPC Date of committal to Sessions Court : 19.11.2016 Date on which judgment reserved : 20.07.2018 Date on which judgment pronounced : 20.07.2018 JUDGMENT
1. This is a case under section 186/353/333/325/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
Page no.1/ 16(Judgment) State Vs Rajesh Sahni & Ors.
FIR no. 20/2011U/s 186/353/333/325/34 IPC PS: North Rohini CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
2. On 22.01.2011 at about 8:15am, PW1, an employee of Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) was driving the DTC bus no. DL 1PC 9616 (the bus) on the route no.879. While returning from Janakpuri to Shahbad Dairy, when the bus reached at Madhuban Chowk, PW1 blew the horn to turn the bus towards the left side towards Rithala as Gramin Sewa tempos were standing but the same did not move. That time, the bus touched one Gramin Sewa tempo no. DL 2W 3742 (the said tempo) of which the accused no.1 was the driver and the accused no.2 was the conductor. On that, both the accused got agitated and inflicted injuries upon PW1.
CHARGES
3. Charges under sections 186/353/333/34 were settled against both the ac cused. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To discharge its onus, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses.
PUBLIC WITNESSES
5. PW1 Sandeep Kumar (the complainant) deposed that he was working as the driver in DTC. On 22.01.2011, he was on duty and was driving the bus on route no. 879 from Shahbad Dairy to Janakpuri. At the time of return journey from Janak Puri to Shahbad Dairy, the bus had reached at Madhuban Chowk at about 8.15 a.m. via outer ring road and when he took turn towards left side for going towards Rithala, various Gramin Sewa tempos were parked on the road. He blew the horn to have enough space to take turn. However, the concerned drivers did not move Page no.2/ 16 (Judgment) State Vs Rajesh Sahni & Ors.
FIR no. 20/2011U/s 186/353/333/325/34 IPC PS: North Rohini their tempos. While taking turn, the bus touched the said tempo. On that, the ac cused no. 1 alongwith the accused no. 2 started abusing and quarreling with him. The accused no. 1 had brought one tyre lever rod (the rod) from the said tempo and hit him with the same on his back and on left temporal region. When the ac cused no. 1 attempted to give one more blow on his head, he saved himself by putting his right hand behind the head and the rod hit on his hand. Conductor of the bus namely Dinesh (PW6) made a call to police at phone no.100. PCR came at the spot and took him and the accused no. 1 to BSA hospital. The police recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A. Both the accused were arrested vide arrest memos Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E. Police had prepared site plan Mark X. He proved the seizure memo of the bus Ex.PW1/B and that of the rod Ex.PW1/C. PW1 identified the rod Ex.P1.
6. PW6 Dinesh Kumar (conductor of the bus) deposed on the lines of PW1. He also deposed that the accused no. 2 brought the rod from the said tempo and the accused no. 1 took the said rod from him and started beating PW1 with the said rod. He intervened in the matter and caught hold of the accused no. 1. PW1 sus tained injuries on his head and hand. During quarrel, the accused no. 2 had also beaten PW1 with fists and kicks. He made the police call at 100 number. PCR van reached at the spot and the accused no. 1 was handed over to the police. However, before the arrival of PCR van, the accused no. 2 had run away from there. PCR van took PW1 and the accused no.1 to the hospital. PW6 identified the accused no. 1 as the driver of the said tempo and the accused no. 2 as helper. PW6 relied upon the seizure memo of the rod Ex.PW1/C, arrest memo Ex.PW1/D, seizure memo of the bus and the said tempo Ex.PW1/B. He also deposed that he handed over photo copy of his official ID card Mark PW6/A. PW6 identified the rod Ex. P1.
Page no.3/ 16(Judgment) State Vs Rajesh Sahni & Ors.
FIR no. 20/2011U/s 186/353/333/325/34 IPC PS: North Rohini POLICE WITNESSES
7. PW8 W/Ct. Shivani deposed that on 22.01.2011, at about 8.18 am, she re ceived information that there was a quarrel regarding an accident at Madhuban Chowk red light. She reduced the said information in daily diary register vide DD No. 15B Ex. PW8/A.
8. PW4 W/ASI Krishna proved copy of FIR Ex.PW4/A, endorsement on rukka Ex.PW4/B and certificate under section 65B Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW4/C.
9. PW9 SI Dharambir deposed that on 22.01.2011, on receipt of DD no. 15B, he alongwith PSI Rajeev reached at the spot where the bus and the said tempo were parked. PW1 had caught hold of the accused no. 1 and told him that he was the driver of the said tempo who alongwith the accused no. 2 had beaten him. The ac cused no. 2 had run away from the spot. PW1 was sent to BSA hospital in PCR van. He took the accused no. 1 in custody and took him to BSA hospital. He obtained MLC of PW1 from BSA hospital. Thereafter, he alongwith PW1 and the accused no. 1 came back to the spot and recorded the statement of PW1 Ex.PW1/A. He pre pared the rukka Ex.PW9/A got the FIR registered. The bus and the said tempo were taken into possession vide seizure memos Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW9/B respec tively.
10. PW9 deposed that the rod was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. He also seized the driving license of the accused no.1 vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/C and proved the said driving license Ex.PW9/D. He also deposed that at the instance of PW1, he prepared the site plan Ex.PW9/E. He seized copy of insurance papers of the said tempo vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/F. Meanwhile, the accused no. 2 came Page no.4/ 16 (Judgment) State Vs Rajesh Sahni & Ors.
FIR no. 20/2011U/s 186/353/333/325/34 IPC PS: North Rohini back at the spot. He arrested the accused no. 1 vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/D and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW9/G. The accused no. 2 was ar rested vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/E. Personal search of the accused no.2 was con ducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW9/H.
11. PW9 also deposed that he got conducted the mechanical inspection of the bus through Sajjan Kumar, Assistant Foreman (DTC) vide report Ex.PW2/A. He also got conducted the mechanical inspection of the said tempo through ASI Devender Kumar vide report Ex.PW9/I. He obtained the opinion on the MLC of PW1. He recorded the statement of PW6 u/s 161 Cr.PC. He collected copy of Icard of PW6, the driver duty memo of the bus and Icard of driver PW1 Mark PW6/A, Mark PW3/A and Mark PWS/B respectively. He identified the rod Ex.P1.
12. PW5 SI (Retd) Anil Kumar deposed that on 24.08.2011, further investigation of the case was handed over to him. After going through the record, section 279 IPC was struck off and sections 186/353/333 IPC were added in the chargesheet. He obtained the complaint under section 195 Cr.P.C from Sh. V.S. Tevatia, Depot Man ager, DTC Ex.PW5/A. Both the accused were formally rearrested for the said of fences vide memos Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C and then were released on bail. After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was prepared and was filed in the Court.
OFFICIAL WITNESSES
13. PW10 Retd. ASI/Tech. Devender Kumar deposed that on 25.01.2011, he in spected the Vehicle no. DL2W3742 Tata Magic-Gramin Sewa and proved his re port Ex.PW9/I. Page no.5/ 16 (Judgment) State Vs Rajesh Sahni & Ors.
FIR no. 20/2011U/s 186/353/333/325/34 IPC PS: North Rohini
14. PW2 Sajjan Kumar, Assistant Foreman, GTK Depot OTO, Delhi deposed that on 25.01.2011, he had carried out the mechanical inspection of the bus at PS North Rohini. During the mechanical inspection of the bus, he found that there was minor touching in the rear passenger gate and minor panel touching at rear passenger gate (front). The bus was fit for the road test. He proved his report Ex.PW2/A.
15. PW12 Sh. Vijay Singh Tewatia Retd. Depot Manager, DTC deposed that the accused had beaten the DTC Staff who were on duty on the bus on the route no. 879 and therefore, he, on behalf of department, filed the complaint u/s 195 Cr.PC in the court of Ld. ACMM, Rohini, Delhi i.e. the complaint Ex.PW5/A.
16. PW3 Ram Kishan, Retired Traffic Inspector, DTC relied upon copy of the driver memo which indicated the duty of the driver and the conductor on the bus Mark PW3/A. As per the slip, the concerned driver was having badge no. 21924. Later on, he got the bus released on superdari vide superdarinama Ex.PW3/C. MEDICAL EVIDENCE
17. PW7 Dr. Bhavana Jain proved MLC of PW1 Ex.PW7/A and deposed that as per the said MLC, nature of injury was grievous. He also deposed that PW1 was referred to Senior Resident, Ortho for further examination and opinion.
18. PW11 Dr. Rajeev Ranjan from BSA Hospital proved the photocopy of the X Ray Requisition Form in the name of PW1 (complainant) Ex.PW11/A. As per re port, number of Xray film was 177/22.01.2011 and the said film was 12x15. As re ported, fracture in the second metacarpal bone in right hand of PW1 was seen.
Page no.6/ 16(Judgment) State Vs Rajesh Sahni & Ors.
FIR no. 20/2011U/s 186/353/333/325/34 IPC PS: North Rohini
19. PW9 SI Dharambir proved MLC of the accused no. 1 Ex.PW9/DA perusal of which reveals that the accused no.1 had abrasion of around 1.5 x 1.5 centimeter over upper forehead and the injury was simple in nature.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
20. After completing the prosecution evidence, statement of both the accused was recorded under section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) in which all the incriminating evidence/material were put to them which they have denied. Both the accused have stated that they are innocent and have been falsely impli cated in this case.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
21. The accused have examined Rajbir Singh DW1 and Mahesh Chaurasia DW2 in their defence who deposed that once the bus was taking turn, it hit the said tempo. The bus driver got down from the bus and some confrontation between the driver and the accused no.1 took place which broke into a fight. The bus driver hit the rod on the head of the accused no.1.
22. I have heard the ld. APP for the State and counsel for both the accused and have perused the material available on record.
Page no.7/ 16(Judgment) State Vs Rajesh Sahni & Ors.
FIR no. 20/2011U/s 186/353/333/325/34 IPC PS: North Rohini DATE, TIME AND PLACE OF INCIDENT
23. It is evident from the testimony of PW1 and PW6 that the incident took place on 22.01.2011 at about 8:15am, at Near Madhuban Chowk, Delhi (the scene of crime). The accused have not disputed the said facts. Further, in cross examination, PW1 admitted one suggestion that the accused no.1 had sustained the injury in the subject incident and was taken for medical examination to BSA hospital. As such, the date, time and place of incident stands proved.
IDENTIFICATION AND PRESENCE OF BOTH THE ACCUSED AT THE SCENE OF CRIME
24. PW1 and PW6 identified both the accused in the court and deposed about their presence at the scene of crime on 22.01.2011 at about 8:15am.
25. Regarding presence of the accused no. 1, in cross examination, PW1 admit ted one suggestion that the accused no.1 had sustained the injury in the subject in cident and was taken for medical examination to BSA hospital. However, he denied the suggestion that there was only a scuffle between him and the accused no1. The said suggestions prove the identity of the accused no. 1 and his presence at the scene of crime.
26. Regarding presence of the accused no. 2, counsel for the accused pleaded that the accused no. 2 was not present at the spot at the time of incident. He also pleaded that the accused no.1 was the maternal uncle of the accused no. 2 and once the police took the accused no. 1 to BSA Hospital, the accused no. 2 had also reached at the said hospital to make inquiries to that effect.
Page no.8/ 16(Judgment) State Vs Rajesh Sahni & Ors.
FIR no. 20/2011U/s 186/353/333/325/34 IPC PS: North Rohini
27. PW1 deposed that both the accused had beaten him at the spot; and he & PW6 had caught hold of the accused no.1 at the spot while the accused no.2 man aged to escape. In cross examination, he denied a suggestion that the accused no.2 was not present at the spot.
28. PW6 also deposed that the accused no.2 had beaten PW1 and he made a call at phone no.100. In response thereto, PCR van reached at the spot, however, before that the accused no.2 had ran away from there. In his cross examination, he denied a suggestion that accused no.2 was not present at the spot. He also deposed that the accused no.2 did not receive any injury.
29. PW9 deposed that PW1 handed over the accused no.1 to him and informed that the accused no.2 had run away from the spot. From the hospital, he along with PW1 and the accused no.1 came back to the spot and recorded his statement. Meanwhile, the accused no.2 came back at the spot and was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/E.
30. It is evident from the testimony of PW1, PW6 and PW9 that PW 6 made a police call and before reaching the PCR van, the accused no. 6 ran away from the spot. It implies that the said police call was made in the presence of the accused no. 2 and to save himself, he ran away from the spot. If that was so, then it is not be lievable that the accused no. 2 would have come back at the spot to facilitate his identification and the arrest.
31. PW1 deposed that the accused no.1 brought the rod Ex.P1 from the said tempo and hit him. On the contrary, PW6 deposed that the accused no.2 brought the rod from the said tempo and the accused no. 1 took the rod from him and then hit the same on PW1. As such, there exists material contradiction as to whether the accused no.2 had brought the rod or not. Further, it is evident from the record, Page no.9/ 16 (Judgment) State Vs Rajesh Sahni & Ors.
FIR no. 20/2011U/s 186/353/333/325/34 IPC PS: North Rohini that PW1 and the accused no. 1 sustained injuries in the subject incident. However, the accused no. 2 who also actively participated in the incident as alleged by PW1 & PW6 has not received any injury in the subject incident which is very surprising.
32. In view of the foregoing discussions, it can be held that the identity and presence of the accused no. 1 at the spot stands proved. However, presence of the accused no. 2 at the spot is doubtful.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
33. PW7 proved MLC of PW1 Ex.PW7/A and deposed that the injuries sustained by PW1 was grievous in nature. In his cross examination, he deposed that as per the report of the Radiologist, the fracture was found and on that basis, he had given his opinion that nature of injury was grievous. In his cross examination, no sugges tion was given that the opinion given by him was incorrect or was without any ba sis. In reply to a question put in his cross examination, PW7 deposed that the injury in question was possible by fall on the blunt object also. As such, the accused no.1 though admitted that PW1 sustained injuries but raised plea that he was not re sponsible for the same and it was a result of fall on blunt object. However, in cross examination PW1, no suggestion was given that he sustained hand injury due to fall on the ground.
34. PW11 in his testimony deposed that as per the Xray, the fracture was seen in the second metacarpal bone in right hand and relied upon the report Ex.PW 11/A to this effect. However, counsel for the accused objected to the mode of prof of the said document because it was a photocopy. However, in his cross examination, counsel for the accused examined the witness regarding the injury mentioned in the said report and its cause. In cross examination, PW11 deposed Page no.10/ 16 (Judgment) State Vs Rajesh Sahni & Ors.
FIR no. 20/2011U/s 186/353/333/325/34 IPC PS: North Rohini that there could be many reasons for the fracture mentioned in the report and such kind of fracture i.e. fracture in the second metacarpal bone in right hand of a person may be caused due to fall. Firstly, no such suggestion was given by the accused in cross examination of PW1. Secondly, in his reexamination, PW11 clarified that such kind of fracture may be sustained by a person if he is trying to save himself from the attack by a rod.
35. In view of the foregoing discussions, it can be held that PW1 sustained injury in the subject incident and the same was grievous in nature.
36. PW9 proved the MLC of the accused no. 1 Ex.PW9/DA perusal of which re veals that he had abrasion of around 1.5 x 1.5 centimeter over upper forehead and the injury was simple in nature.
37. Ld. APP for the State pleaded that on 22.01.2011 at about 8:15am, PW1, an employee of DTC was driving the bus on the route no.879. While returning from Janakpuri to Shahbad Dairy, when the bus reached at Madhuban Chowk, PW1 blew the horn to turn the bus towards the left side towards Rithala as Gramin Sewa tempos were standing but the same did not move. That time, the bus touched the said tempo of which the accused no.1 was the driver and the accused no.2 was the conductor. On that, both the accused got agitated and inflicted injuries upon PW1.
38. On the contrary, counsel for the accused pleaded that PW1 was the aggressor and started the fight with the accused no.1 in which he sustained injury. Even otherwise, the accused no.1 has not voluntarily caused grievous injury to PW 1 but it was a result of sudden fight.
39. It is evident from the testimony of PW1 which is not disputed by the accused also that the bus touched the said tempo, due to which the scratch marks came on Page no.11/ 16 (Judgment) State Vs Rajesh Sahni & Ors.
FIR no. 20/2011U/s 186/353/333/325/34 IPC PS: North Rohini the bus as well as the said tempo.
40. It is also evident from the testimony of PW2 and his report Ex.PW2/A that there was touching in the rear passenger gate and minor penal touching at the rear passenger gate (front). The said testimony of PW2 remained unrebutted.
41. It is also evident from the testimony of PW10 and his report Ex.PW9/I that he inspected the said tempo and found fresh damage on the front side extra fitted bodyguard and right side corner was slightly scratched.
42. In view of the following discussions, it stands proved that the bus had touched the said tempo due to which touching marks came on both the vehicles.
43. PW1 in his examination in chief specifically deposed that he was the driver in DTC and on 22.01.2011, he was on duty and was driving the bus from route Janak Puri to Shahbad Dairy. In cross examination, PW1 deposed that he was working as a permanent employee of DTC since 29.12.2008. In his cross examination, no suggestions to the contrary were given by counsel for the accused. PW1 in his cross examination denied a suggestion that he, being the DTC driver, influenced the police to register a false case against both the accused or that in order to save his job in DTC, he has deposed falsely.
44. PW12 proved the complaint under section 195 CrPC Ex.PW5/A and deposed that the accused persons had beaten the DTC Staff who was on duty on the bus. In his cross examination, no suggestion was given that the said report was incorrect or that PW1 was not the employee of DTC or was not on duty at the time of incident.
45. In view of the foregoing discussions, it can be held that PW1 was the Page no.12/ 16 (Judgment) State Vs Rajesh Sahni & Ors.
FIR no. 20/2011U/s 186/353/333/325/34 IPC PS: North Rohini permanent employee of DTC and was on duty while driving the bus on 22.01.2011 at the relevant time.
46. Regarding the incident, PW1 deposed that once the bus touched the said tempo, both the accused started quarreling with him and came towards his window and started abusing him. When he got down from the bus, they manhandled him. That time, the accused no.1 brought the rod Ex. P1 from the said tempo and hit him at his back and on left temporal region. While saving himself, he sustained injury on his right hand also. The accused no.1 also sustained some injury.
47. To this effect, PW6 deposed that both the accused started quarreling with PW1 and had beaten him. Accused no.2 brought the rod Ex.P1 from the said tempo. Accused no.1 took the rod from the accused no.2 and started beating PW1. He intervened in the matter and caught hold of the accused no.1. He made call at 100 number. As such, the testimony of PW6 corroborated the testimony of PW1 in material particulars.
48. As held above, presence of the accused no.2 at the scene of crime at the rele vant time is doubtful. Hence, the involvement of the accused no.2 in the subject in cident is also doubtful.
49. As held above, both PW1 and the accused no. 1 sustained injuries in the subject incident.
50. In cross examination of PW1, one suggestion was given that when the said tempo did not give way to him, he started hurling abuses at the accused no.1. It implies that it was the accused no. 1 who had not given the way to the bus.
Page no.13/ 16(Judgment) State Vs Rajesh Sahni & Ors.
FIR no. 20/2011U/s 186/353/333/325/34 IPC PS: North Rohini
51. In cross examination, PW6 deposed that both the accused came towards the driver side of the bus and started abusing PW1. No suggestion to the contrary was given by counsel for the accused. In his cross examination, he denied one sugges tion that PW1, if wanted, could have saved himself by locking the driver side door from inside. This suggestion suggests that it was the accused no. 1 who was the ag gressor as he had approached the driver of the bus i.e. PW1, otherwise, there was no occasion for PW1 to save himself from him.
52. PW1 in his testimony deposed that the accused no.1 brought the rod and had beaten him with it on his back and once, to save himself, he put his right hand behind the head and the said rod hit his hand. The accused no. 1 has not disputed the injuries sustained by PW1 and their nature. No suggestion was given to PW1 that the injuries sustained by him were self inflicted injuries or the accused no.1 was not responsible for the same. Further, it is evident from the nature of the injuries sustained by PW1 and their location, that the same cannot be the self inflicted injuries.
53. It is evident from the record that the accused no.1 also sustained injuries as mentioned in his MLC Ex.PW9/DA perusal of which reveals that he had abrasion of around 1.5 x 1.5 centimeter over upper forehead and the same was simple in nature. In cross examination of PW1, one suggestion was given that he firstly gave a blow on the head of the accused no.1. However, the accused no. 1 has not disclosed as to what object was used by PW1 to give a blow on his head. On the contrary, as per MLC Ex. PW9/DA, the accused no. 1 had abrasion on upper forehead only and there is no mention of any injury which could correlate with hitting of the rod.
54. DW1 and DW2 deposed that the bus driver i.e. PW1 hit the rod on the head of the accused no.1. However, in cross examination of PW1, no suggestion was Page no.14/ 16 (Judgment) State Vs Rajesh Sahni & Ors.
FIR no. 20/2011U/s 186/353/333/325/34 IPC PS: North Rohini given that the driver hit the rod on the head of the accused no.1 due to which he sustained injuries. The accused no. 1 in his statement u/s 313 CrPC has also not stated so.
55. In view of the foregoing discussions, it can be held that PW 1 was not responsible for the injury sustained by the accused no.1.
56. The accused tried to build up a case the rod seized was used in the bus and not in the said tempo. However, no suggestion was given to PW1 that it was he (PW1) who had brought the rod and tried to inflict the injuries upon the accused no.1 with it. Hence, if PW1 intended to cause any harm to the accused no.1 then he must have used the said rod against the accused no.1.
57. There is contradiction in the testimony of PW1 and PW6 as to whether the accused no.1 himself had brought the rod or it was the accused no.2 who had brought the rod. PW1 in his cross examination denied a suggestion that the rod Ex. P1 belonged to the bus. Vide the said suggestion, the accused no. 1 admitted the in cident and usages of the rod as a weapon of offence in the said incident. Therefore, this contradiction is not the material contradiction to this effect.
58. It is evident from the record that PW6 made a call at 100 number. It is no where the case of accused no.1 that it was he who made the police call at 100 number. The accused no. 1 has failed to explain if he was not at fault and had not sustained the serious injury then why he had not made a police call.
59. In view of the foregoing discussions, it can be held that it was the accused no.1 who was responsible for initiating the fight. It was he who brought the rod and also used the same against the PW1 and thereby caused injuries to him. Hence, it can be held that the accused no. 1 was the aggressor and not PW1.
Page no.15/ 16(Judgment) State Vs Rajesh Sahni & Ors.
FIR no. 20/2011U/s 186/353/333/325/34 IPC PS: North Rohini
60. PW1 in his cross examination deposed that the weight of the rod was about 1 kg; and its length was 19.6 inches and circumference was about 2 cm. PW1, being the driver, must be knowing the weight and dimensions of the said rod and the consequences of hitting the same on the body of some person. In view thereof, it can be held that the accused no.1 was fully aware about the nature of the rod and consequences of hitting the same on the person of PW1. Hence, being fully aware of the said facts, he inflicted injury on the body of PW1 with the rod.
61. According to MLC of PW1, he sustained injuries at two different places. In other words, PW1 was hit by the said rod at least twice which resulted in the said injuries at two different place. If the accused no.1 had no intention to cause the injury, then he must not have used the same twice against PW1.
62. In view of the foregoing discussions and on perusal of record, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused no.1. Accordingly, the accused no.1 is held guilty for the offences under sections 186/353/333 IPC. However, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused no.2. Accordingly, the accused no.2 is held not guilty for the offences under sections 186/353/333 IPC.
63. Accordingly, the accused no.1 is convicted for the offences under sections 186/353/333 IPC. Accused no.2 is acquitted for the offences under sections 186/353/333 IPC.
Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ GUPTA
Announced in the open court GUPTA Date:
2018.07.21
10:21:49 +0530
on this 20th day of July, 2018.
(Pankaj Gupta)
ASJ, FTC, NorthWest
Rohini: Delhi
Page no.16/ 16