Delhi District Court
Fir No. 772/05; State vs . Ramesh Page 1 Of 42 on 30 March, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR : ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE03:NW:ROHINI:DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO. 10/08
FIR No. 772/05
P.S. Nangloi
U/S: 186/353/307 IPC &
78/61/1/14 Excise Act
STATE
Versus
RAMESH
s/o Sh. Raghubir Singh
r/o village Dehkora,
PS Bahadurgarh,
Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana
J U D G M E N T
1. The Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 01082005 at about 10:35 pm, a maruti car no. DL2C6394 came from the side of Bahadurgarh. HC Subhash Chander gave signal to the driver / accused to stop the car by torch but instead of stopping the car, the driver sped fast and tried to run over PW3/ HC Bijender Kumar, SI Arvind, HC Subhash, HC Surender, HC Amar Pal and Ct. Bal Kishan who were present at Nakabandi near DTC Depot red light, police picket Nangloi on the road which comes from FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 1 of 42 Bahadurgarh. While getting back, PW3/ HC Bijender Kumar fell on nd the patri and sustained injuries. The car hit the 2 barricade and got stopped. SI Ravinder Verma apprehended the accused Ramesh. On checking, 15 cartons of liquor were recovered from the car on which Bonny Scot Whiskey for sale in Arunachal Pradesh was written. Each carton was containing 48 quarters of liquor of 180 ml. each. The car and liquor cartons were seized. Rukka was prepared, thereafter FIR was registered u/s 186/353/307 IPC and u/s 78 and 61/1/ 14 Excise Act, PS Nangloi, Delhi. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused Ramesh u/s 186/353/307 IPC and u/s 78 and 61/1/ 14 Excise Act.
2. After compliance of Section 207 Cr. PC, the case was committed to Sessions Court. Charge under Section 186/353/307 IPC and also u/s 61 and 78 of the Punjab Excise Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty.
3. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 11 witnesses. PW1 is HC Subhash Chand deposed in his examination in chief that on 01082005, he was posted at PS Nangloi and on that day, he along with SI Arvind Verma, HC Surender, Ct. Bal Kishan, Ct. Bijender and HC Amar Pal were on patrolling duty. At about 10 pm, a secret informer gave an FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 2 of 42 information to the SI that a Maruti car no. DL2C6394 shall come from the side of Bhahadurgarh towards Punjabi Bagh and that the car was having illicit liquor. SI requested 45 persons to join the raiding party but they refused expressing their inability. SI then organized a raiding party with the help of police staff. Nakabandi was done near DTC depot red light police picket Nangloi on the road going from Bahadurgarh to Punjabi Bagh. Two barricades were put up at the distance of ten meters from each other. PW1 was standing near the first barricade with Ct. Bijender and HC Surender. At about 10:35 pm a Maruti car no. DL2C6394 came from the side of Bahadurgarh. PW1 gave the signal by lighting the torch to stop the car but instead of stopping the car, the driver of the car tried to run over them. They pushed back immediately and in the process, Ct. Bijender fell down on the patri and sustained injuries. The car hit against the second barricade and was stopped. The driver was overpowered with the help of police staff. On checking, 15 cartons of liquor were recovered from the car. "Bonnie Scot Whisky for sale in Arunachal Pradesh" were written on the cartons. On opening the cartons, it was found that there were 48 quarters of 180 ml liquor each in each of the carton. The cartons were given Sl. no. 1 to 15. One quarter sample was taken out from each of the cartons. The FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 3 of 42 samples were given corresponding Sl. no. S1 to S15 respectively. The sample bottles were sealed with the seal of AKV. All the cartons were separately tied across with cloth patti and were sealed with the seal of AKV. The seal after use was handed over to HC Amar Pal and Excise form was filled up. The car, liquor cartons and samples were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A.
4. PW1 further deposed that SI then prepared the rukka and sent the same at PS through Ct. Bal Kishan. After registration of FIR, SI Raghubir Singh along with Ct. Jagdish and Ct. Bal Kishan came at the spot. Accused Ramesh, driver of Maruti car (accused exempted at the time of recording of the statement of this witness and identity not disputed by the defence counsel) along with case property were handed over to SI Raghubir Singh. SI recorded the disclosure statement of accused Ramesh Kumar which is Ex. PW1/B. Accused Ramesh Kumar was arrested vide arrest memo and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW1/C. SI Raghubir Singh prepared the site plan on the pointing out of SI Arvind Kumar (it was objected to by the defence counsel on the ground that regarding site plan the witness has given the answer in response to the leading question put by the Ld. APP). PW1 also deposed that accused then took the police party at godown at 22, FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 4 of 42 Amar Colony and pointed out the place. The search of the godown was taken and 135 cartons of liquor were recovered from the godown from Surender, cousin of accused Ramesh. Surender was also arrested. PW1 further deposed that while trying to fled away, accused Ramesh hit against the second barricade where SI Arvind Kumar along with HC Amar Pal and Ct. Bal Kishan were standing. 15 cartons having broken seals and tied with cloth patti were produced from Malkhana of the PS and were shown to the witness. (Court also made an observation that two of the cartons were in such a condition that the bottles can be taken out or kept without even opening the carton or removing the seal. In carton bearing no. 11, only 44 quarter bottles were recovered, in cartons no. 15, 9, 1, 4, 8 and two more cartons not having Sl. no. were found to be containing 48 quarter bottles each. One bottle in carton bearing Sl. no. 3 was found broken.) "Bonnie Scot Whisky" with other description was written in each of the cartons. "Bonnie Scot Whisky for Sale in Arunachal Pradesh State Only" was written on each quarter bottle. The witness identified the cartons with liquor quarter bottles as Ex. PW1 to Ex. PW15 (collectively). Car no. DL2C6394 was not produced from Malkhana. The same was produced on 19072010 and was identified by PW3 HC Vijender Kumar as Ex. FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 5 of 42 P16. The Ld. counsel did not dispute the identity of the car in view of the fact that same had already been shown to one of the witnesses and exhibited.
5. PW2 is ASI Amar Pal. He deposed that on 01082005, he was posted at PS Nangloi as HC. On that day, he along with SI Arvind Verma, HC Surender, HC Subhash, Ct. Bal Kishan and Ct. Bijender were on patrolling duty. At about 10 pm near Landmark, a secret information was received by SI Arvind Verma that a car No. DL2C6394 shall come from the side of Bahadurgarh and shall go towards Punjabi Bagh and that the car was having illicit liquor. SI requested 45 persons to join the raiding party but they refused expressing their inability. Nakabandi was made near DTC depot red light police picket Nangloi on the road. Two barricades were put up at a distance of ten meters from the each other. HC Surender, HC Subhash and Ct. Bijender were standing at the first barricade. SI Arvind, Ct. Bal Kishan and PW2 were standing at the second barricade. At about 10:35 pm, a Maruti car no. DL2C6394 came from the side of Bahadurgarh. HC Subhash gave the car driver to stop by lighting the torch but the driver did not stop the car and hit the first barricade and then stopped. The police staff standing at the first barricade pushed themselves back but the car hit Ct. Bijender FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 6 of 42 due to which, he fell on the patri and sustained injuries. The driver of the Maruti car was overpowered by the staff. On checking, 15 cartons of liquor were recovered from the car. "Bonnie Scot Whisky for Sale in Arunachal Pradesh" was written on the cartons. On opening, 48 quarters of 180 ml liquor each were found in each of the cartons. The cartons were given Sl. No. 1 to 15. One quarter was taken out from each carton as sample. The sample bottles were kept in two separate cartons which were given Sl. no. S1 to S2. All the quarter bottles in each of the cartons were sealed with the seal of AKV after putting cloth on their lids. PW2 deposed that he does not remember whether the cartons were also sealed. The car, cartons and the sample bottles were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A. Rukka was then sent at PS through Ct. Bal Kishan. SI Raghubir Singh along with Ct. Jagdish and Ct. Bal Kishan came at the spot. SI Raghubir Singh prepared the site plan at the pointing out of SI Arvind Verma. The accused Ramesh, driver of Maruti car (exempted through counsel at the time of recording of the statement of this witness whose identity was not disputed by the Ld. Defence counsel present in court) was arrested. The car, cartons and the samples were handed over to SI Raghubir Singh. The personal search of accused Ramesh Kumar was conducted vide memo Ex. FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 7 of 42 PW1/C. Accused Ramesh then led the police party at 22 no. godown at Amar Colony from where he got recovered 135 cartons of liquor from Sanjay. The case property produced from the Malkhana of PS was shown to the witness who identified the cartons with quarter liquor bottles as Ex. P1 to P15 collectively. Car No. DL2C6394 not produced from Malkhana. The same was produced on 19.07.2010 and identified by PW3 HC Bijender Kumar as Exbt. P16. (The learned counsel did not dispute the identity of the car in view of the fact that the same had already been shown to one of the witnesses and duly exhibited).
6. PW3 is HC Vijender Kumar. He deposed that on 01082005, he was working as Ct. at PS Nangloi and on that day, he along with SI Arvind, HC Subhash, HC Surender, HC Amarpal and Ct. Bal Kishan were on patrolling duty. At about 10 pm when they reached at Peera Gardh Chowk, a secret information was received by SI Arvind that a Maruti Car bearing no. DL2C6394 shall come from the side of Bahadurgarh towards Punjabi Bagh and that the car was full of liquor cartons and that the driver can be apprehended. SI requested 5/6 passersby to join the raiding party but they refused and went away expressing their inability. SI then organized a raiding party with the help of police staff. Nakabandi FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 8 of 42 was made near DTC depot red light police picket Nangloi on the road which comes from Bahadurgarh from Punjabi Bagh. Two barricades were put up at a distance of ten meters from each other. He along with HC Subhash and HC Surender were on duty at the first barricade. SI Arvind Kumar along with HC Amarpal and Ct. Bal Kishan were on duty on the second barricade. At about 10:35 pm, a maruti car no. DL2C6394 came from the side of Bahadurgarh. HC Subhash Chander gave signal to the driver to stop the car by lighting the torch but instead of stopping the car, the driver sped fast and in fact tried to run over us. While getting back, PW3 fell on the patri and sustained injuries. The car hit the second barricade and got stopped. SI Arvind Verma apprehended the accused Ramesh, (correctly identified by the witness at the time of recording of statement) who was driving the car. On checking, 15 cartons of liquor were recovered from the car on which Bonnie Scot Whisky for sale in Arunachal Pradesh was written. Each carton was containing 48 quarters of liquor of 180 ml each. The cartons were given Sl. no. 1 to 15. One quarter sample was taken out from each carton and were given corresponding Sl. Numbers. The sample bottles were sealed with the seal of AKV. The seal after use was handed over to HC Amarpal. The car, the liquor cartons were seized vide memo FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 9 of 42 Ex. PW1/A. Form 29 was filled up.
7. PW3 further deposed that Ct. Bal Kishan was sent with rukka to PS. After registration of FIR, SI Raghubir Singh and Ct. Jagdish came at the spot. Accused was handed over to SI Raghubir Singh. Accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW1/C. SI Raghubir Singh then prepared the site plan. On interrogation, accused gave a disclosure statement Ex. PW1/B. Accused then took the police party at godown no 22, Rajdhani Park. On the search of the godown, 135 cartons of liquor were recovered. Sanjay, cousin of accused Ramesh met us in the godown. He was arrested. PW3 was got medically examined from SGM Hospital. Accused were taken to the lock up and the case property was deposited in the Malkhana. On 24082005, at the instructions of IO, SI Raghubir Singh, PW3 took the samples from the Malkhana of PS in a sealed condition and deposited them at Excise Office, ITO, Vikas Bhawan and deposited them vide RC no. 317/21/05. As long as the sample remained in his custody, no one interfered or tempered with the same. PW3 deposed that after drawing the samples, the remaining 47 quarter bottles of each carton were kept back in their respective cartons and were tied with the help of cloth patii and were sealed with the seal of FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 10 of 42 AKV. The case property produced from the Malkhana was shown to the witness who identified the cartons with quarter liquor bottles as Ex. P1 to P15. Car bearing no. DL2C6394 produced from Malkhana of PS and shown to the witness who identified the car Ex. P16.
8. PW4 is HC Suresh Kumar. He deposed that on 01.08.2005, he was posted at PS Nangloi and was working as Duty officer between 5.00 pm to 1.00 am next morning. On receipt of Rukka from Constable Bal Kishan, he recorded the FIR bearing No. 772/05 under Section 186/353/307 IPC and under Section 78 & 61/1/14 Excise Act which is in his handwriting and bears his signatures. He brought the original FIR, carbon copy of which is Exbt. PW4/A (original seen and returned).
9. PW5 is Inspector Arvind Verma. He deposed that on 01.08.2005, he was posted at PS Nangloi as an SI and on that day, he along with HC Amar Pal, HC Subhash, Constable Bal Kishan, Head Constable Surender and Constable Vijender were on patrolling duty. At about 10.00 on reaching the Landmark, near Peera Garhi Chowk, a secret information was received by him that a car bearing No. DL2C6394 which is used for the purpose of transportation of liquor, shall come from the side of Bahadur Garh FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 11 of 42 and would go towards Punjabi Bagh. PW5 requested 45 persons to join the raiding party but they refused expressing their inability. They put two barricades at a distance of ten meters from each other at DTC bus depot at red light police picket Nangloi. HC Surender, HC Subhash and Constable Vijender were standing on the first barricade while he himself, Constable Bal Kishan and HC Amar Pal were standing on the second barricade. They started checking the vehicles. At about 10.35 pm, a Maruti car No. DL2C6394 came from the side of Bahadur Garh. HC Subhash lighted the torch on the car driver signalling him to stop the car but the driver did not stop the car and hit the first barricade. Constable Vijender who was standing on the first barricade, had to push himself back to save himself and in the process fell down on the Patri and sustained injuries. The vehicle then came to stop. Accused Ramesh, (correctly identified by the witness at the time of deposition) who was the driver of the car, was overpowered. On checking, 15 cartons of the liquor were recovered from the car on which "Bonnie Scot Whisky for Sale in Arunachal Pradesh" was written. On opening the cartons, 48 quarters of 150 ml liquor each were found in each of the cartons. Cartons were given serial No. 1 to 15. One quarter was taken out as sample from each carton. The samples FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 12 of 42 were given serial numbers S1 to S15. The samples were kept in separate cloth pullandas and sealed with the seal of AKV. All the cartons were sealed with the help of a cloth Patti with the seal of AKV. From M29 was filled up. Seal after use was handed over to HC Amar Pal. Case property was seized vide seizure memo Exbt. PW1/A. He then prepared the Rukka Exbt. PW5/A and sent the same at police station through Constable Bal Kishan. After registration of the FIR, SI R.S. Dahiya came at the spot with Constable Jagdish and took up further investigation of the case. Case property was handed over to him. Car was also handed over to SI R.S. Dahiya who prepared the site plan on his pointing out. IO seized the car and arrested the accused Ramesh. Case property produced from the Malkhana was shown to the witness who identified the liquor cartons Exbt. P1 to Exbt. P15. (Court Obsered that one of the cartons contained 48 quarter bottles while the other carton contained 41 cartons and the seal was also not legible). The learned Additional PP stated that the car bearing No. DL2C6394 was not produced from the Malkhana but the learned defence counsel did not dispute the identity of the car as the same was already shown to PW1 to PW3 and got exhibited. PW5 deposed that recovered liquor and the Maruti car were seized by him vide FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 13 of 42 seizure memo Exbt. PW1/A.
10. PW6 is HC Bal Kishan. He deposed that on 01.08.2005, he was posted at PS Nangloi and on that day, he along with SI Arvind Kumar, HC Amar Pal, HC Surender, HC Subhash and Constable Vijender were on patrolling duty. At about 10.00 pm when they reached near Landmark, a secret information was received by SI Arvind Kumar that a car bearing No. DL2C6394 containing illicit liquor shall come from the side of Bahadurgarh to go towards Punjabi Bagh. SI briefed them about the information and then requested some public persons to join the public party but they refused expressing their inability. Nakabandi was made near DTC Bus Depot Nangloi. Two barricades were put at a distance of ten meters from each other for checking the vehicles. HC Surender, HC Subhash and Constable Vijender were standing on the first barricade while he along with SI Arvind and HC Amarpal were standing at the second barricade. At about 10.35 pm, a Maruti Car No. DL2C6394 came from the side of Bahadurgarh. HC Subhash gave the signal to the driver to stop the car by lighting the torch but instead of stopping the car the driver tried to run over him and thereafter hit the second barricade due to which the car stopped. Constable Vijender while trying to save himself, fell down and FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 14 of 42 sustained injuries. Accused Ramesh (correctly identified by the witness at the time of deposition in court) who was the driver of the car was overpowered. On checking the car, 15 cartons of Bonnie Scot Whisky of Arunachal Pradesh were recovered. On opening the cartons, 48 quarters of 180 ml liquor each were found in each of the cartons. One quarter was taken out from each carton as sample. The cartons were given serial number from 1 to 15. The sample quarter bottles were sealed with the seal of AKV. Form 29 was filled up.
11. PW6 further deposed that he was then sent with Rukka to the police station by SI Arvind Kumar and after registration of the FIR, he came back at the spot with SI Raghubir Singh and constable Jagdish. SI Arvind Kumar handed over the accused, Maruti car and the recovered liquor cartons and the sealed sample bottles to SI Raghubir Singh. SI Raghubir Singh prepared the site plan on the pointing out of SI Arvind Kumar. Statement of SI Arvind Kumar was recorded and he was relieved from the spot. Accused Ramesh was arrested and his personal search was conducted. The car and the recovered liquor was seized vide memo Exbt. PW1/A. Accused was got medically examined and brought to the police station and the case property was deposited in the Malkhana. PW6 further FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 15 of 42 deposed that the samples drawn from each carton were given serial No. S1 to S15. The sample bottles were sealed with the help of cloth. After drawing the samples, the remaining 47 bottles of each carton were kept in their respective cartons and the cartons were then tied with the help of cloth strip/Patti and were then sealed with the seal of AKV. Seal after use was handed over to HC Amar Pal. Case property produced from the Malkhana of the police station was shown to the witness who identified the cartons of quarter liquor bottles as Exbt. P1 to Exbt. P15. The learned Additional PP stated that the car was not produced from the Malkhana but the identity of the car was not disputed by the learned defence counsel as the same had already been produced in court and identified by PW3 HC Virender as Exbt. P16.
12. PW7 is Constable Jagdish Singh. He deposed that on 02.08.2005, he was posted as Constable at PS Nangloi and on that day, he joined investigation of the present case with SI Raghubir Singh and he accompanied him to Delhi Rohtak Road near bus depot. SI Arvind Kumar Verma met them there. SI Arvind Kumar produced accused (correctly identified by the witness at the time of deposition in court) along with one Maruti car and 15 cartons of liquor make Bonnie Scot which were recovered from accused before FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 16 of 42 SI Raghubir Singh who took possession of the case property and the custody of accused also. Thereafter, they came back to the police station. The witness again said that the police team went to the godown of accused Ramesh and 135 cartons were recovered from the godown and same were sealed with the seal of RSD. The seizure memo of the recovered liquor cartons were prepared. Cartons of Serial No. 50 and 100 were kept for sample. Thereafter, the case property was brought to the police station and deposited in the Malkhana. In the morning, the accused was got medically examined and he was brought to police station. On being cross examined by Ld. APP for State, PW7 deposed that IO had recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr. PC in the present case and accused Ramesh was interrogated and his disclosure statement already exhibited as Exbt. PW1/B was recorded which bears his signature at point A. The accused was arrested vide arrest memo Exbt. PW7/A and his personal search memo Exbt. PW1/C was also prepared and both the memos bear his signatures at point A. SI Raghubir Singh prepared the site plan of the place of incident on the pointing out of SI Arvind Kumar. Seal after use was handed over to Head Constable Subhash by the IO.
13. PW8 is Dr. Binay Kumar, Medical Officer, SGM FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 17 of 42 Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi. He deposed that on 02.08.2005, he was working as Casualty Medical Officer in SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi. Vijender Kumar, son of Rishi Pal Singh aged about 34 years male was brought by Jagdish No. 2118/W with the alleged history of loss of consciousness (as told by patient). He was examined vide MLC Exbt. PW8/A which bears his signatures at point A. On local examination, no fresh external injury was seen and patient was referred to surgery SR for further opinion and management.
14. PW9 is the Retd. SI Raghubir Singh. He deposed that on 02082005 he was posted as SI at PS Nangloi and on that day, the investigation of the present case was marked to him after registration of FIR. He along with Ct. Jagdish Singh reached at the place of occurrence i.e. DTC Depot, Nangloi where SI Arvind Kumar met him with police staff. He handed over custody of accused Ramesh, (correctly identified by the witness during his deposition in the court) to him along with one Maruti Car no. DL2C6394. SI Arvind Kumar also handed over to him seizure memo of 15 cartons of liquor, samples of liquor, and Form no. M29 which were already prepared by him. PW9 interrogated the accused and recorded his disclosure statement already Ex. PW1/B. Thereafter, he prepared FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 18 of 42 site plan Ex. PW9/A at the instance of SI Arvind Kumar. Accused was arrested in the present case vide arrest memo already Ex. PW7/A and his personal search memo Ex. PW1/C was also prepared. Accused was got medically examined from SGM hospital. The medical examination of Ct. Bijender was also got conducted as he was having injuries received in the incident. PW9 recorded statement of witnesses. Accused was brought to PS along with case property and aforesaid vehicle. Case property was deposited in Malkhana. On the same day, he also arrested other accused namely Sanjay @ Surender in the present case. He obtained complaint u/s 195 Cr. P. C. Marked PW9/A against accused Ramesh from ACP Sh. J. S. Deswal and same was filed in the court of Ld. ACMM, Rohini Court, Delhi. The samples were sent to excise office and he collected the result of the same. He collected the result from the excise office and same is Ex. PW9/B and recorded statement of witnesses. After completion of investigation, file was put up before SHO who filed the same in the court. A separate challan was prepared under Excise Act against accused Sanjay @ Surender which was filed before the concerned court of Ld. MM.
15. PW10 is Jagjit Singh Deswal, SO to CP, Delhi. He deposed that on 15022006 he was posted as ACP, Punjabi Bagh FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 19 of 42 SubDivision. On that day, the case file of the present case was produced before him by the IO and he examined the case file. He made complaint u/s 195 Cr. P. C. against accused Ramesh s/o Raghubir Singh for prosecution u/s 186/353/307 IPC and 78/61/1/14 Excise Act. The accused had assaulted the police team and obstructed the police officials in the discharge of their official duty. The complaint is Ex. PW10/A bearing his signature at point A.
16. PW11 is Mrs. Madhu Shukla, Chemical Examiner, Excise Control Lab, LBlock, Vikas Bhawan, ITO, N. Delhi. She deposed that she is posted as Chemical Examiner at Excise Control Laboratory, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. In the year 2005, she was working as Dy. Chemical Examiner in the aforesaid office. PW11 further deposed that she has seen the reports dated 26082005 and 09092005 prepared by Dinesh Kumar Punj (Dy. Chemical Examiner) and other report prepared by Sh. Bijender Singh Tomar duly countersigned by Dinesh Kumar Punj. 111 samples were received in the laboratory with the seal of AKV and RSD in case FIR no. 772/05 of PS Nangloi. All the samples which were examined in the lab found containing whiskey. The report dated 26082005 already Ex. PW9/B and report dated 09092005 is Ex. PW11/A upon which she identified signature of Dinesh Kumar Punj at point A FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 20 of 42 and B on the report Ex. PW9/B and signature of Asstt. Chemical Examiner Sh. Bijender Singh Tomar at point A on Ex. PW11/A duly countersigned by Sh. Dinesh Kumar Punj at point B. The report Ex. PW11/A also having whiskey. Sh. Dinesh Kumar Punj has since been retired from the job whereas Bijender Singh Tomar is still in service. PW11 also deposed that she has seen both the officials while signing and writing in her course of duty and hence she identified their signatures on the reports.
17. Statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr. P. C. where he denied all the allegations made against him. The accused did not lead any defence evidence.
18. I have heard the Ld. Defence counsel and the Ld. APP of the State and have perused the entire records.
19. The Ld. Defence counsel has argued that there is clear cut contradictions in the testimony of PWs and therefore they are not trustworthy witnesses. In this regard, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has referred the examination in chief of PW5 and specifically mentioned a portion of the chief that "HC Subhash lighted the torch on the car driver signalling him to stop the car but the driver did not stop the car and hit the first barricade. On this aspect, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has relied upon the FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 21 of 42 judgement reported as P. Ramarao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1984 CRI. L. J. 27 therein the police officer asked the accused to stop his car, the accused fleeing away causing hit to motorcycle whereupon a police officer was sitting. It was held that no offence of assault on public servant on using criminal force so as to deter him from discharging his duty as public servant was made out. The Ld. APP for the State has argued that there is no contradiction in the testimony of PWs. If it is presumed for the sake of arguments that there are contradictions then only major contradictions can be considered and the accused cannot get the benefit of the minor contradictions in the statement of PWs. In my view, this is not a material contradiction as it does not shake the basis version of Prosecution case. This could be due to lapse of memory and therefore undue importance to such a minor contradiction cannot be given if the other materials and evidence are there on record to corroborate the testimony of the witnesses on behalf of Prosecution.
20. The Ld. Counsel for the accused referred the further chief of PW5 as "Ct. Vijender who was standing on the first barricade had to push himself back to save himself and in the process fell down on the patri (pavement) and sustained injuries"
and argued that the words "in the process" do not attract the word FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 22 of 42 "intention" as per the provisions u/s 307 IPC. The Ld. Defence Counsel has also referred the MLC Ex. PW8/A therein it is written as "RTA" and "physical assault over head" has been cancelled. According to the Ld. Counsel for the accused, RTA means road side accident which attracts the provisions under different sections and not the section 307 IPC as the accused in the present case has been charged with this section 307 IPC. Therefore, the Ld. Defence counsel has argued that there is no attempt to murder in this case. According to the Ld. Counsel for the accused neither any intention or mens rea of the accused for commission of offence in question nor any evidence in this regard proved by the Prosecution. The Prosecution has to stand on its legs which it has failed to do so. In support of his arguments, the Ld. Defence counsel has relied upon the judgements reported as P. Rama Rao. Petitioner Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. Respondent, 1984 CRI. L.J. 27. In this case police officer asked the accused to stop his car. Accused flew away causing hit to motorcycle whereupon police officer was sitting. It was held by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court that no offence of assault on public servant for using criminal force so as to deter him from discharging his duties as public servant was made out. The Ld. Defence counsel further relied upon the judgement reported FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 23 of 42 as Kush Hori & Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2006 (3) JCC 1921, in this case the petitioners were present in the dharna and that in a Lathi charge, they were injured. There was no statement of any of the witnesses which shown that these persons i.e. accused were responsible for any specific acts of assault or use of criminal force. In fact, no specific overt act had been ascribed to the petitioners. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that if the Prosecution case is taken to be proved and established, all that is proved, is that the petitioners were present at the scene and that they received injuries. From what is available on the record, it cannot be established that it is the petitioners who caused injuries to the 6 police personnel. Neither can it be established that they were responsible for any overt act which would amount to an assault or use of criminal force. Therefore, petitioners are entitled to be discharged of all the offences.
21. Whereas the Ld. APP for State has argued that the complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C. has been proved by PW10 as Ex. PW10/A bearing his signature at point A. The accident was not mentioned by HC Vijender Kumar at the time of preparation of MLC. So far as correction made for "physical assault over head" is concerned, the same was clarified by the doctor examined as PW8 FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 24 of 42 in his crossexamination. The Ld. APP for the State in support of his arguments has relied upon the judgement reported as State of Madhya Pradesh, appellant Vs. Saleem alias Chamaru and another, respondents 2005 CRI. L. J. 3435 (SC), it was held that it is sufficient to justify a conviction under section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. Therefore, an accused charged u/s 307 IPC cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt. In this regard, the Ld. APP for the State has further relied upon judgement titled Rattan Singh Vs. State of MP & Anr. decided on 24042009 in Crl. A. no. 825 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 732 of 2008 delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
22. In order that section 307 should be attracted, it is necessary to establish that if the victim would have met his death, the offence would have been one under section 302. There must be FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 25 of 42 some overt act combined with evidence of mens rea. The burden is always on the Prosecution to prove, first the actus reus i.e. the accused had done something which in point of law marked the commission of offence and secondly the mens rea i.e. in taking this step, he was inspired by the intention to go on to reach a definite objective which would constitute a specific offence. The accused must do an act with such a guilt intention and knowledge and in such circumstances that but for some intervening fact the act would have amounted to murder in the normal course of events. The intention or knowledge must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. Without this, there can be no attempt to murder. The section may apply even if no hurt is caused. The causing of hurt is merely an aggravating circumstance and it cannot, therefore, be reasonably argued that unless an injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death is inflicted on the victim, the intention contemplated by this section cannot be presumed. All that is necessary to be established is that intention with which the act is done and if once that intention is established, the nature of the act will be immaterial. There must be some change in the act to produce a different reason and the extent to which the act done must be supposed to be varied to produce the hypothetical death FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 26 of 42 referred to in section 307 is merely a question of degree. For instance, where persons, pursued by the police, turned round and fired but nobody was hit as the revolver misfired, the offence would be one under section 307. If a man fires off a fireman while police officer is attempting to arrest him, the natural conclusion is that he is attempting to shoot the police officer. If the defence is that he had merely the intention of frightening the police officer by firing in the air, then the burden of proving that fact is on the defence. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether the accused had the intention to cause death or knew in the circumstances that his act was going to cause death. The nature of the weapon used, the intention expressed by the accused at the time of the act, the motive for commission of the offence, the nature and size of the injuries, the parts of the body of the victim selected for causing the injuries and the severity of the blow are important factor that may be taken into consideration in coming to a finding whether in a particular case the accused can be convicted of an attempt of murder. In the case of Sarju Prasad Vs. State of Bihar 1975 (1) Crl. LJ 766, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "Penal Code (1860), Ss. 307 and 324 - Accused FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 27 of 42 causing injury to A in a vital region with a knife - Fact that no vital organ of A has been cut would not by itself be sufficient to take the act of accused out of the purview of S. 307 - But in order to bring the offence home to accused the prosecution must establish that his intention was one of the three kinds mentioned in S. 300 - State of mind of accused has to be deduced from surrounding circumstances and motive would be a relevant circumstance."
23. During examination in chief, PW3 HC Vijender Kumar deposed that at about 10:35 pm, a maruti car no. DL2C6394 came from the side of Bahadurgarh. HC Subhash Chander/ PW1 gave signal to the driver to stop the car by lighting the torch but instead of stopping the car, the driver sped fast and in fact tried to run over them. While getting back, PW3 fell on the patri and sustained injuries. PW1, PW5, and PW6 in their examination in chief have corroborated the above testimony of PW3. The driver/ accused was overpowered with the help of police persons. During cross examination, PW3 deposed that the maruti car approached them at a speed of 60/70 kmph. PW3 further deposed that he had left the spot at about 3:004:00 am for SGM Hospital. Ct. Jagdish had also accompanied him to SGM hospital. PW3 remained at the hospital for about one hour and thereafter he came to the PS. PW8 Dr. Binay Kumar deposed in his examination in chief that Vijender FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 28 of 42 Kumar/ PW3 was examined vide MLC Ex. PW8/A bearing his signature at point A. Perusal of MLC Ex. PW8/A reveals that it is mentioned in the column of particulars of injuries of symptoms in case of poisoning as "RTA" after cutting over the words "physical assault" over head. During crossexamination, PW8/ doctor Binay Kumar has also admitted that there is cutting on the MLC which was attested by him. The alleged history recorded in the MLC was given by the patient / PW3 himself. It is further mentioned upon the MLC Ex. PW8/A that the injury is simple and the patient / PW3 was fit for statement. In the present case, the impact of the speed of the vehicle due to which PW3 fell down on the patri was not in such a way that the victim / PW3 would have met his death. Secondly, the act of the accused was not with such a guilt intention and knowledge that would have amounted to murder in the normal course of events. Thirdly, the nature and size of the injuries and the parts of the body of PW3 causing the injuries are not over the vital parts of the body of PW3 but it was simple injury which is reflected in the testimony of PW3 that he sustained injuries at about 10:35 pm and had left the spot after a long gap of time i.e. at about 34 am for hospital. Moreover, PW3 only remained at the hospital for about one hour. No other piece of evidence has been placed on record to show that FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 29 of 42 conduct of the accused or other circumstance led to intention or knowledge to cause death of PW3/ Bijender Kumar.
24. The Ld. Defence counsel has also argued that no cogent explanation given by the Prosecution as to why the public witness was not joined. During crossexamination, PW9/ IO deposed that he made requested to the public persons to join investigation but they refused without disclosing their names and addresses. No public person stopped his vehicle to join the proceedings. It is pertinent to mention here that the public persons are reluctant to become witnesses of criminal trial. Therefore, law is not that testimony of police officers is absolutely untrustworthy or that it can never be acted upon. It has been held in a catena of judgements by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that merely because public witnesses are not joined in a case, the Prosecution case cannot be thrown out. In such circumstances, no benefit can be given to the accused for not joining of independent public witnesses. In this context, a reliance can be had upon the judgements reported as State of UP Vs. Anil Singh AIR 1988 SC 1998; Ambika Prasad & Anr. Vs. State 2002 (2) Crimes 63 (SC); Dr. Krishna Pal & Anr. Vs. State of UP 1996 (7) SCC 194.
25. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has further argued that accused is neither the owner nor the driver of the car in question. FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 30 of 42 Even otherwise, there is no damage on the car, therefore, it is a clear hypothetical, false and planted case made out against the accused. The Prosecution has failed to prove as to who is the owner of the car and how the car came into possession of the accused. Owner of the vehicle has not been examined. In this regard, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has relied upon the judgement reported as Mohd. Alam Khan, appellant Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau & Anr., respondents I (1996) CCR 190 (SC).
26. During crossexamination, PW3 deposed that SI Arvind Verma apprehended the accused Ramesh who was driving the car. At the time of examination in chief of PW3, car bearing no. DL2C6394 produced from Malkhana of PS and shown to the witness/ PW3 who identified the car as Ex. P16. PW5 Inspector Arvind Verma deposed in his examination in chief that accused Ramesh (correctly identified) was the driver of the car and was overpowered. PW5 denied the suggestion that accused was neither driving the maruti car nor he had hit the barricade. PW6 HC Balkishan also denied the suggestion that neither the accused was driving the car or that no recovery was effected from him. However, PW9 deposed in his crossexamination that no investigation was carried out by him regarding ownership of the vehicle and who was FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 31 of 42 in possession of the said vehicle from the owner of the vehicle. It emerges from the testimony of the aforesaid PWs that the accused was driving the car and the car was produced in the court which was identified by PW3 as Ex. P16 but the owner of the car has not been examined by the Prosecution.
27. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has further argued that there is no damage to car and barricade and barricade was not seized. During crossexamination, PW3 deposed that there is no damage on the car which had hit the barricade. The barricade which was hit by the maruti car was not taken into possession by the IO. PW3 denied the suggestion that accused was neither driving the maruti car nor he had hit the barricade or that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. During crossexamination, PW5 deposed that the barricades were put on one side of road which were arranged from police picket. PW5 also denied the suggestion that accused was neither driving the maruti car nor he had hit the barricade. It also emerges from the above testimony of PWs that the maruti car hit the barricade but it was not taken into possession but it does not mean that accused was not apprehended with the car at the spot.
28. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has further argued that FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 32 of 42 there is no entry in the register no. 19 regarding the Form M29 which is an Excise Form. Malkhana Moharar has also not been examined with regard to the said form M29. Duty Officer of Malkhana, as per Punjab Rules, has not been examined by the Prosecution. The case property was produced with the broken seal. In this regard, the Ld. Counsel for the accused had relied upon the judgements reported as Pradeep Kumar Vs. State 1997 JCC 476; Prem Pal Singh Vs. State of Delhi 2000 (2) JCC 521 (Delhi); Rajender Kumar @ Titoo Vs. State (Delhi Administration) 1998 (1) JCC 20 (Delhi) and Matloob Vs. State (Delhi Administration) 1997 JCC 418.
29. PW3 in his examinationinchief has categorically deposed that on checking the car, 15 cartons of liquor were recovered from the car on which Bonny Scot Whiskey for sale in Arunachal Pradesh was written. Each carton was containing 48 quarters of liquor of 180 ml. each. The cartons were given Sl. no. 1 to 15. One quarter sample was taken out from each carton and were given corresponding Sl. Nos. The sample bottles were sealed with the seal of AKV. PW2, PW3 and PW6 deposed that after drawing the samples, the remaining 47 bottles of each carton were kept back in their respective cartons and were tied with the help of FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 33 of 42 strip/ patti and were sealed with the seal of AKV. The seal after use was handed over to HC Amar Pal. PW2/ Amar Pal also deposed in his examinationinchief that seal after use was handed over to him. The car, the liquor cartons were seized vide memo Ex. PW1/A. Form no. 29 was filled up. PW2 also deposed that the Excise Form was also filled up at the spot. PW2 denied the suggestion that no Excise Form was filled up in his presence. PW6 deposed that three copies of Form 29 were prepared. PW6 further deposed that Form no. 29 was prepared just after preparing seizure memo. Upon disclosure statement Ex. PW1/B, the accused took the police party at godown no. 22, Rajdhani Park and after search of the godown, 135 cartons of liquor were recovered. The case property was deposited in the Malkhana. PW1, PW2, PW3, PW5 and PW6 identified the cartons with liquor quarter bottles as Ex. P1 to P15 collectively which were produced in the court. PW5 deposed that recovered liquor and the maruti car were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A. PW5 also denied the suggestion that no liquor was recovered from the car. PW9/ IO of the case deposed that he along with Ct. Jagdish Singh reached at the place of occurrence i.e. DTC Depot, Nangloi where SI Arvind Verma met him and handed over to PW9 seizure memo of 15 cartons of liquor, samples of liquor FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 34 of 42 and Form no. M29 which were already prepared by him. PW9 further deposed that he recorded the statement of witnesses, accused was brought to PS along with the case property and the said vehicle. Case property was deposited in Malkhana. PW9 denied the suggestion that SI Arvind did not hand over seizure memo of 15 cartons and sample of liquor and Form M29.
30. PW11, Chemical Examiner, Excise Control Lab, Govt. of NCT of Delhi categorically deposed that 111 samples were received in the laboratory with seal of AKV and RSD in case FIR no. 772/05 of PS Nangloi. All the samples which were examined in the lab, were found to containing whiskey. In this regard, the report dated 26082005 already Ex. PW9/B and report dated 09092005 Ex. PW11/A upon which PW11 identified the signature of Dinesh Kumar Punj at point A and B on the report Ex. PW9/B and signature of Asstt. Chemical Examiner Sh. Bijender Singh Tomar at point A on Ex PW11/A duly countersigned by Dinesh Kumar at point D. PW11 further deposed that report Ex PW11/A also having whiskey. From the testimony of above PWs, it has been proved on record that 15 cartons of liquor were recovered from the car, each carton was containing 48 quarters of Bony Scot Whiskey of 180 ml. each which was for sale in Arunachal Pradesh, cartons were given Sl. no. 1 to FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 35 of 42 15, samples were taken out from the cartons, sample bottles were sealed with the seal of AKV, cartons were seized, Form No. M29 was prepared at the spot, upon disclosure statement of accused, 135 cartons with liquor bottles were also recovered from the godown, sample received in the Excise Lab which were examined and found containing whiskey vide reports Ex. PW9/B and PW11/A.
31. Thus, in view of my above findings, I am of the considered opinion that accused cannot be convicted u/s 307 IPC. However, it has been proved on record in evidence that PW3/ Bijender Kumar while getting back, fell down and sustained simple injury which was caused due to the act of the accused i.e. driving the car at fast speed which also hit the second barricade. Further, the act of the accused was also in such a way that it was an assault upon the police officers in the execution of their duties and obstructed the police officers in discharge of their public functions. Accordingly, I hold the accused guilty and convict him u/s 323/186/353 IPC and u/s 61 and 78 of Punjab Excise Act.
(YASHWANT KUMAR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:NW03:ROHINI:DELHI.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25022012 FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 36 of 42 IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR: ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE03: NW : ROHINI : DELHI Sessions Case No. 10/08 FIR No. 772/05 PS Nangloi U/s: 186/353/307 IPC & 78/61/1/14 Excise Act STATE Versus RAMESH s/o Sh. Raghubir Singh r/o village Dehkora, PS Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana Order on Sentence
1. Arguments have been heard from Ld. Defence counsel as also from Ld. APP for State. Ld. Defence counsel has argued that convict has been contesting this case for the last seven years, there has been a good conduct of the convict during trial of the case, the convict has to look after his oldaged parents, the convict is the bread earner of the family, there is no criminal record against the convict. Therefore, it has been prayed to take a lenient view for releasing him on FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 37 of 42 probation. In support of his argument, the Ld. Counsel for convict has relied upon the judgement reported as Commandant 20 BN. ITB Police Vs. Sanjay Banjola 2001 (2) JCC (SC) 21, Pawan Kumar and others, petitioners Vs. State, Respondent 2004 CRI. L. J. 2310; Ajmer Singh Vs. State of Punjab Crl. Revision no. 202/1990 date of decision 20072005; Labh Singh Vs. State of Punjab Crl. Revision no. 283/1990 decided on 07051990; Bhim Sen Vs. State of Punjab, Crl. Revision No. 740/1998 decided on 27081998; Nand Singh Vs. State of Punjab Crl. Revision No. 973/1998 decided on 17091997; and Baldev Singh Vs. State of Haryana Crl. Revision no. 1585/1984 decided on 22111994.
2. The Ld. APP for the State has argued that accused has attacked the police team who was performing their official duty and he caused injury to Ct. Vijender Kumar. Accused also tried to run over the vehicle upon the police team. He has already been given sufficient benefit as he has been convicted u/s 323 IPC whereas he has been charged u/s 307 IPC. Besides this, accused was apprehended along with 15 cartons of liquor make Bony Scot Whiskey for sale in Arunachal FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 38 of 42 Pradesh. The accused should be given proper punishment as per law.
3. In view of the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the convict, judgements relied upon by him and the arguments led by the Ld. APP, I am of the considered opinion that the convict tried to run over the police officials at the time of stopping him at Nakabandi due to which one of the police officials sustained injury. A public servant is a servant of the society and needs social protection so that he is not demoralized in the performance of his duties and allowed to serve free. Moreover, the convict was apprehended and 15 cartons of liquor were recovered from his car and each carton was containing 48 quarters of liquor of 180 ml. each on which Bony Scot Whiskey for sale in Arunachal Pradesh was written. Further, the convict also gave disclosure and after search of the godown no. 22 Rajdhani Park, 135 cartons of liquor were also recovered for which a separate case was registered by the police against the cousin of the convict namely Sanjay. The huge quantity of liquor found in the possession of the convict. In this context, I would place a reliance upon the FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 39 of 42 judgement in the case of Dara Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1997 (4) RCR (Criminal) 681 (P&H), there was a large quantity of illicit liquor and a working still. Occurrence happened 13 years back. Accused was 35 years of age. It was held that no ground to release the accused on probation. Accused indulged in commercial production of liquor. 1980 PLR 585 (FB). In Kartar Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1997 (1) RCR 195 (P&H), the accused was first offender. There was recovery of huge quantity of Lahan and Running still. It showed that accused was running a minor distillery which affected State exchequer and the illicit liquor produced by him affected the health of general public. It was held that such boot leggers are to be dealt with deterrent punishment. The accused were not entitled to be released on probation. In Pragat Singh @ Pagga Vs. State of Punjab 1997 (3) RCR (Criminal) 677 (P&H), there was a recovery of 30 bottles of illicit liquor. It was held that the benefit of probation could not be given in view of heavy recovery. In Dalel Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1983 (1) RCR 335, heavy quantity of Lahan and bottles of liquor recovered from the accused. It was held that it is not a fit case go give benefit under probation of Offenders act. In Kashmir FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 40 of 42 Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1990 (2) RCR 570 (P&H), there was a recovery of 100 bottles of liquor. Accused was convicted. It was held that there is no ground to release the accused on probation in view of huge quantity of recovery of illicit liquor. It was further held that it is a great imperative of social defence that such activities are curbed with a strong hand in a view of hooch tragedies.
4. Such kind of offences are on increase in our social system which is also resulting in loss of public exchequer and such offenders should not be taken with a lenient view. The judgements relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the convict are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, the convict is not entitled to be released on probation.
5. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the convict is sentenced with three months Rigorous Imprisonment u/s 186 IPC; six months Rigorous Imprisonment u/s 323 IPC; and one year Rigorous Imprisonment u/s 353 IPC along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/, in default of payment of which FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 41 of 42 he shall undergo 6 months SI. Further, the convict is also sentenced with six months Rigorous Imprisonment u/s 61 of the Punjab Excise Act and fine of Rs. 5,000/ in default of payment of which he shall undergo 6 months SI. The recovered 15 cartons of liquor are confiscated u/s 78 of the Punjab Excise Act. All the sentences shall run concurrently. Convict shall get benefit of section 428 Cr. P. C. for the period during which he remained in custody during investigation/ trial. Copy of judgement and order on sentence be given to the convict free of cost. File be consigned to Record Room.
(YASHWANT KUMAR) ASJ/NW03/ROHINI/DELHI ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30032012 FIR No. 772/05; State Vs. Ramesh Page 42 of 42