Delhi District Court
State vs . Shri Jitendra Prakash Shrivastava And ... on 11 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF Ms. HARSHITA VATSAYAN, MM, MAHILA COURT-01,
EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
State v. Jitendra Prakash Shrivastava and Another
FIR No.1198/2014
P.S. Shakarpur
U/s 354/354A/509/34 IPC
Date of institution of the case: 02.07.2015
Date on which judgment is delivered: 11.07.2018
JUDGMENT
1. Unique ID of the case : 1190/2016
2. Name of the complainants : Miss X (name withheld)
3. Date of commission of offence/
registration of FIR : 16.06.2014
4. Names of the accused persons
and addresses : 1) Shri Jitendra Prakash Shrivastava
S/o Shri SN Lal Shrivastava,
House No. 196F, Pocket 4, Phase-1,
Mayur Vihar, Delhi.
2) Shri Narayan Mishra,
S/o Shri Ram Bhajan Mishra,
House No. 196F, Pocket 4, Phase-1,
Mayur Vihar, Delhi.
Permanent Address at:-
House No. 268/635/1, Tilak Nagar- 01,
PS Bazaar Khala, District Lucknow,
UP- 226004.
(Accused no.2 was discharged vide
order dated 03.03.2016.)
5. Offence complained of : 354/354A/509/34 IPC
6. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order : Acquittal
8. Date of such order : 11.07.2018
FIR No. 1198/2014
P.S. Shakarpur
State Vs. Shri Jitendra Prakash Shrivastava and Anr. Page No.1 of 18
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment I shall dispose of the FIR bearing no. 1198/2014 which was registered at PS Shakarpur on the complaint filed by Ms. X.
2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are as under:-
3. The complainant had lodged an FIR against two accused persons namely Shri Jitendra Prakash Shrivastava @ Shri R. Shrivastava and Shri Narayan Mishra for harassment and illegal withholding of salary dues. In her complaint, the complainant had stated that she was working in a company called Elite India Pvt. Ltd. Company since May, 2013. According to her everything was smooth in the initial days of her service there. However, soon thereafter, the Director of the said Company, Shri R. Shrivastava, gradually started sexually exploiting her by taking advantage of the fact that the complainant was the only employee left there. The complainant has alleged in her complainant that the said Director of the company repeatedly asked her for sexual favours and when she refused to accede to his demands of sexual gratification, the Director took umbrage at her refusal and withheld her salary as a means of punishing her and forcing her to toe his line. The complainant has alleged that she was not the only one who was subject to this harassment by the Director. According to her, another colleague of her in the office, Ms. Anjali Mishra was also being harassed and sexually exploited in a similar manner. The complainant has cited a few instances where the Director allegedly FIR No. 1198/2014 P.S. Shakarpur State Vs. Shri Jitendra Prakash Shrivastava and Anr. Page No.2 of 18 called her as well as Ms. Anjali Mishra to restaurants on the pretext of official work and forced them to consume liquor much against their wish. Accordingly, an FIR under Section354A/509 IPC was registered by the police on the basis of a handwritten complaint filed by the complainant Ms. X. Thereafter, the statement of Ms. Y and Ms. Anjali Mishra was recorded under Section 161 CrPC by the police. Their statements under Section 164 CrPC were also recorded on 19.06.2014. During the course of investigation, the IO of the case also recorded the statements of Shri Anurag Awasthi, another employee of ELI Technical Economic Services India Pvt. Ltd. (ELITE India Pvt. Ltd), who had worked with the complainant Ms. X and Ms. Anjali Mishra. According to him, the complainant and Ms. Anjali Mishra were not very efficient in work and didn't take much interest in the job. According to him, the accused Shri JP Shrivastava would occasionally come to office for some time and would leave thereafter. According to him, he had never seen the accused Shri JP Shrivastava talk to or indulge in any kind of sexual misdemeanor with the complainant. The IO also served notice under Section 41A CrPC on the accused Shri JP Shrivastava, who joined the investigation as and when called upon to do so. During investigation, it came to light that he was a government servant and his wife was the Director of Elite India Private Ltd. and not him. He stated that he would go to the office of this Company very occasionally and had no links or communication with its employees. He stated that his wife, who was the Director of the company, had told him that the complainant Ms. X and her friend Ms. Anjali Mishra had left FIR No. 1198/2014 P.S. Shakarpur State Vs. Shri Jitendra Prakash Shrivastava and Anr. Page No.3 of 18 the company and all their dues had been paid. However, after leaving the office, they were harassing her and trying to extort money from her. According to him, his wife had already lodged a complaint against them on 15.06.2014 at PS Shakarpur. According to the accused, all allegations leveled against him were false and fabricated and had flowed out of the nefarious designs of the complainant Ms. X and her friend Ms. Anjali Mishra to extort money from him and his wife. A similar notice under Section 41A CrPC was also served on the accused Shri Narayan Mishra who also joined investigation as and when called upon to do so. He admitted that the complainant Ms, X and her friend Ms, Anjali Mishra were employees of Elite India Pvt. Ltd. However, they had left the company after taking their salary dues. He stated that Ms, Rekha Shrivastava was the Director of the company and he was staying in her house on a temporary basis. He also stated that the accused Shri Jitendra Prakash Shrivastava would occasionally go to the office of the said company. He denied allegations of having taken Ms. Anjali Mishra with him for any meeting or official work. The IO Of the case also examined/ interrogated Ms. Rekha Shrivastava, the Director of the Company, who deposed on similar lines as the two accused. She also furnished the photocopy of the Memorandum of Association of the Company to show that she was the Director of the Company and not the accused Shri JP Shrivastava as alleged. She also reiterated the allegation that the complainant and her friend had been trying to extort money from her and that she had already lodged a complaint against them on 15.06.2014 in this regard. FIR No. 1198/2014 P.S. Shakarpur State Vs. Shri Jitendra Prakash Shrivastava and Anr. Page No.4 of 18
4. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet/ challan for the commission of offences punishable u/s 354/354A/509/34 IPC was filed on 02.07.2015. The copies of the chargesheet/ challan were supplied to both the accused persons.
5. Arguments on the point of charge were heard on 03.03.2016. The Ld. Predecessor deemed it fit to discharge the co- accused Shri Narayan Mishra as she was of the opinion that there is not even a whisper of any allegation against him in the complaint. She also observed that the complainant Ms. X had not made any allegations against him in her statement under Section 164 CrPC. Further, the Ld. Predecessor opined that in the statement of Ms. Anjali Mishra, only a cursory remark was made against him and nothing specific was alleged. Hence, for these reasons Shri Narayan Mishra stood discharged.
6. Charges under Sections 354A/ 509 IPC were framed against the accused Shri JP Mishra, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Matter was thereafter posted for recording of Prosecution Evidence (PE).
7. In order to substantiate the allegations against the accused person Shri JP Shrivastava, the complainant and her friend Ms. Anjali Mishra were sought to be examined by the prosecution. Since, Ms. Anjali Mishra remained unserved and her whereabouts were not traceable, her name was dropped from the list of witnesses by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 04.07.2017.
8. The prosecution has examined Ms. X on 09.07.2018. The witness at the FIR No. 1198/2014 P.S. Shakarpur State Vs. Shri Jitendra Prakash Shrivastava and Anr. Page No.5 of 18 very outset stated that she didn't recall the incidents at all. She did not support the prosecution case in respect of the occurrence and was ultimately declared hostile. The relevant extract of the examination of PW1/ complainant is as follows:-
"09.07.2018 PW-1: Statement of Mrs. X ( name withheld)/ complainant.
( In Camera Proceedings) ON SA I am presently residing in a village namely Bakharwa, Modinagar, Ghaziabad,UP.
At this stage, when Ld. APP for the State put questions to the witness and asked her to elaborate on the incident, the witness has stated that she does not recall anything that had happened on the date of the incident. She submits that she is having a disturbed personal life and hence, she cannot recollect the facts of the case.
Ld. APP for the State has asked the witness to identify the accused from amongst the people standing in the Court room. The witness submits that she cannot identify the accused as considerable time has lapsed.
At this stage, The Ld. APP for the State has sought a declaration to the effect that the witness has turned hostile and now seeks liberty to cross-examine her.
Submissions heard, request allowed.
XXXX By Ld. APP for the State.
I do not distinctly recall whether I have ever worked at M/s. Elites India Pvt. Ltd. Vol. Since I have worked at many places, I do not recollect whether I worked there at any point of time. I have studied up to class 8th in a government school.
FIR No. 1198/2014P.S. Shakarpur State Vs. Shri Jitendra Prakash Shrivastava and Anr. Page No.6 of 18 It is wrong to suggest that I have lodged a complaint at PS Shakarpur against the accused persons namely Jitender Prakash Srivastava and Narayan Mishra for sexual harassment and withholding the salary dues illegally.
At this stage, attention of the witness is drawn towards her complaint mark Ex. PW-1/A and asked to identify her signature as well as handwriting. The witness says that the same is not in her writing and does not bear her signature at point A as well. She has also denied that the mobile number at point B in document Ex. PW-1/A does not belong to her. Vol. Document mark Ex.PW-1/A is not in my handwriting.
It is wrong to suggest that though I had lodged a complaint against the accused persons Jitender Prakash Srivastava and Narayan Mishra, I am deliberately resiling from the contents of my complaint.
It is wrong to suggest that I was working at the above said office since 7th May'2013 and everything was normal in the initial few months. It is further wrong to suggest that all the staff members had been removed gradually and I was made to work there alone. It is further wrong to suggest that taking advantage of me being the sole employee there, Mr. R. Srivastava ( who was director of the above named entity), had asked me for sexual favours on multiple occasions and when I refused to accede to his request, he withheld my salary for two months. It is further wrong to suggest that accused used to harass me daily. At this stage, witness is confronted with the portion mark A to A-1 in already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A, where it is so recorded.
It is wrong to suggest that my colleague Ms. Anjali Mishra was also working in the said office and even she was sexually FIR No. 1198/2014 P.S. Shakarpur State Vs. Shri Jitendra Prakash Shrivastava and Anr. Page No.7 of 18 exploited by the accused persons. At this stage, witness is confronted with the portion mark A-2 to A-3 in already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A, where it is so recorded.
It is wrong to suggest that accused persons used to tell us to work late night in the office and on the pretext of official business meetings, they used to send me to restaurants and would offer me beer and Vodka. At this stage, witness is confronted with the portion mark A-4 to A-5 in already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A, where it is so recorded.
It is wrong to suggest that accused persons tried to talk with Ms, Anjali Mishra by putting his hands on her cheeks and shoulder and also tried to kiss her. At this stage, witness is confronted with the portion mark A-6 to A-7 in already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A, where it is so recorded.
It is wrong to suggest that I know Ms. Anjali Mishra and I am deliberately concealing her identity.
At this stage, when the Court put certain queries to the witness, the witness has wavered from her initial stand of not having registered any FIR at any point of time as had been stated by her earlier in today's deposition before the Court. She has stated that she had filed an FIR long time back and she does not recall the particulars of the same. She submits that she had filed an FIR since her salary had been withheld and the dispute was primarily with a friend whose name she cannot recall at this stage. She submits that she was working in a call centre earlier.
At this stage, the witness is shown document marked as mark X ( Photocopy of the statement of the witness recorded under section 164 Cr. P. C.). She denies her signature on each of the pages so recorded.
FIR No. 1198/2014 P.S. Shakarpur State Vs. Shri Jitendra Prakash Shrivastava and Anr. Page No.8 of 18 Further cross-examination deferred as it is lunch time.
RO&AC (Harshita Vatsayan)
MM, Mahila Court-01 East, District,
KKD Courts,
Delhi,
09.07.2018
09.07.2018
PW-1: Statement of Mrs. X ( name withheld)/ complainant ( recalled for further cross-examination after lunch).
( In Camera Proceedings) ON SA XXXX By Ld. APP for the State.
It is wrong to suggest that I got recorded my statement under section 164 Cr. P. C. before the Court of Sh. Balwinder Singh, Ld. MM, KKD, Delhi, and I am deliberately denying the recording of the said statement.
The police had never recorded my statement under section 161 Cr. P. C. At this stage, attention of the witness is drawn towards her statement recorded by the police from portion A to A-1,marked as mark Y, and the same is read over and explained to the witness in Hindi on which witness submits that police had not recorded any statement at any point of time. It is wrong to suggest that police had recorded my statement under section 161 Cr. P. C. At this stage, attention of the witness is drawn towards the accused Jitender Prakash Srivastava who is present before the Court. On which, the witness states that the person standing in the Court is not the accused.
It is wrong to suggest that I am deliberately not identifying FIR No. 1198/2014 P.S. Shakarpur State Vs. Shri Jitendra Prakash Shrivastava and Anr. Page No.9 of 18 the accused before this Court as I have been won over by the accused. It is wrong to suggest that I am in collusion with the accused and is not inclined to tell the truth before this Court. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
XXXXX By Sh. Kuldeep Kumar Gaur, counsel for the accused.
Nil, opportunity given.
RO&AC (Harshita Vatsayan)
MM, Mahila Court-01 East
District,
KKD Courts,
Delhi,
09.07.2018"
9. PE was closed on 09.07.2018 itself as the Ld. APP stated that since the main/ star witness of the prosecution's case had herself turned hostile, no effective purpose would be served by examining the other witnesses. Since the main witness of the prosecution's case had turned hostile, the examination of the other formal witnesses was dispensed with.
10. As nothing incriminating against the accused Shri JP Shrivastava was stated by the PW1/ complainant in her deposition in court, the statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was also dispensed with.
11. The counsel for the accused person stated that he didn't wish to lead any evidence as nothing incriminating had come against the accused person in the testimony of the complainant.
FIR No. 1198/2014 P.S. Shakarpur State Vs. Shri Jitendra Prakash Shrivastava and Anr. Page No.10 of 18
12. The rival arguments were advanced by the Ld. APP for the State and the defence counsel. Matter was thereafter posted for pronouncement of judgment.
13. This Court has heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused persons at length and has also carefully perused the entire record.
14. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. In the case titled as Dr. S. L. Goswami vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 1972 Supreme Court Cases ( Cri) 258, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
" i) The onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does is shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less.
ii) The standard of proof to prove a defence plea is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution. Where the onus shifts to the accused, and the evidence on his behalf probabilizes the plea he will be entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt".
15. Keeping this legal position in mind, I am of the view that the FIR No. 1198/2014 P.S. Shakarpur State Vs. Shri Jitendra Prakash Shrivastava and Anr. Page No.11 of 18 prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case sought to be made out by it. The main witness of the prosecution has done a volte face and has even failed to recognize her signatures on the written complaint filed by her as also on the statement of hers recorded under Section 164 CrPC. Even the other purported victim of the offences alleged against the accused has not appeared in court to depose. Hence, there is absolutely nothing on record on the basis of which a conviction of the accused could be done. Though the statements under Section 164 CrPC do contain incriminating statements against the accused, since the PW1 has denied her signatures thereon, the said statement can also not be relied upon and the Accused becomes entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the accused person namely Shri Jitendra Prakash Shrivastava is hereby, acquitted for the offences punishable U/s 354A/509 IPC.
16. Having said that, this Court would like to reproduce certain relevant extracts from the judgment pronounced by the Hon' ble Supreme Court of India in "Ramesh and ors. v. State of Haryana" CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2526 OF 2014, decided on 22nd November, 2016, wherein the Hon' ble Judges recognised the problem that hostile witnesses pose to the prosecution of a case and went on to ruefully observe that:-
"We find that it is becoming a common phenomenon, almost a regular feature, that in criminal cases witnesses turn hostile. There could be various reasons for this behaviour or attitude of the witnesses. It is possible that when FIR No. 1198/2014 P.S. Shakarpur State Vs. Shri Jitendra Prakash Shrivastava and Anr. Page No.12 of 18 the statements of such witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the police during investigation, the Investigating Officer forced them to make such statements and, therefore, they resiled therefrom while deposing in the Court and justifiably so. However, this is no longer the reason in most of the cases. This trend of witnesses turning hostile is due to various other factors. It may be fear of deposing against the accused/delinquent or political pressure or pressure of other family members or other such sociological factors. It is also possible that witnesses are corrupted with monetary considerations. In some of the judgments in past few years, this Court has commented upon such peculiar behaviour of witnesses turning hostile and we would like to quote from few such judgments. In Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar, this Court observed as under:
"31. It is matter of common experience that in recent times there has been sharp decline of ethical values in public life even in developed countries much less developing one, like ours, where the ratio of decline is higher. Even in ordinary cases, witnesses are not inclined to depose or their evidence is not found to be credible by courts for manifold reasons. One of the reasons may be that they do not have courage to depose against an accused because of threats to their life, more so when the offenders are habitual criminals or high-ups in the Government or close to powers, which may be political, eco- nomic or other powers including muscle power."FIR No. 1198/2014
P.S. Shakarpur State Vs. Shri Jitendra Prakash Shrivastava and Anr. Page No.13 of 18 Likewise, in Zahira Habibullah v. State of Gujarat, this Court highlighted the problem with following observations:
"40. Witnesses, as Bentham said, are the eyes and ears of justice. Hence, the importance and primacy of the quality of trial process. If the witness himself is incapacitated from acting as eyes and ears of justice, the trial gets putrefied and paralysed and it no longer can constitute a fair trial. The incapacitation may be due to several factors like the witness being not in a position for rea- sons beyond control, to speak the truth in the court or due to negligence or ig- norance or some corrupt collusion. Time has become ripe to act on account of numerous experiences faced by the court on account of frequent turning of witnesses as hostile, either due to threats, coercion, lures and monetary con- siderations at the instance of those in power, their henchmen and hirelings, political clouts and patronage and innumerable other corrupt practices ingen- iously adopted to smother and stifle truth and realities coming out to surface. Broader public and social interest require that the victims of the crime who are not ordinarily parties to prosecution and the interests of State represent- ing by their presenting agencies do not suffer... there comes the need for pro- tecting the witnesses. Time has come when serious and undiluted thoughts are to be bestowed for protecting witnesses so that ultimate truth presented before the Court and justice triumphs and that the trial is not reduced to mockery. The State has a definite role to play in protecting the witnesses, to start with at FIR No. 1198/2014 P.S. Shakarpur State Vs. Shri Jitendra Prakash Shrivastava and Anr. Page No.14 of 18 least in sensitive cases involving those in power, who has political patronage and could wield muscle and money power, to avert trial getting tainted and derailed and truth becoming a casualty. As a protector of its citizens it has to ensure that during a trial in Court the witness could safely depose truth with- out any fear of being haunted by those against whom he had deposed. Every State has a constitutional obligation and duty to protect the life and liberty of its citizens. That is the fundamental requirement for observance of the rule of law. There cannot be any deviation from this requirement because of any ex- traneous factors like, caste, creed, religion, political belief or ideology. Every State is supposed to know these fundamental requirements and this needs no retaliation. We can only say this with regard to the criticism levelled against the State of Gujarat. Some legislative enactments like the Terrorist and Dis- ruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (in short the "TADA Act") have tak- en note of the reluctance shown by witnesses to depose against people with muscle power, money power or political power which has become the order of the day. If ultimately truth is to be arrived at, the eyes and ears of justice have to be protected so that the interests of justice do not get incapacitated in the sense of making the proceedings before Courts mere mock trials as are usual- ly seen in movies."
17. Adding on to what was observed by the Hon' ble Supreme Court of In- dia, I would like to mention here is that many a times witnesses also turn hostile as FIR No. 1198/2014 P.S. Shakarpur State Vs. Shri Jitendra Prakash Shrivastava and Anr. Page No.15 of 18 the FIR filed by them itself was actuated by malice just to extort money from the al- leged accused and once when the alleged accused have buckled under pressure of the FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, the purported vic- tims do not find it lucrative or meaningful to support the prosecution so as to bring the case to its logical conclusion. Of late there is a growing trend of false FIRs being filed by women alleging rape or other sexual misdemeanours. The alleged accused persons in such instances very often are compelled to compromise the matter with the complainant just to avoid the agony of long drawn trial. Hence, stereotyping complainants as innocent gullible victims is also not correct in all scenarios. One has to view the reasons for the witness turning hostile considering the factual matrix of the case. I am of the considered view that Courts cannot shut their eyes to the reality of false FIRs and witnesses turning hostile for this reason as well. If a witness be- comes hostile to subvert the judicial process, the Courts shall not stand as a mute spectator and every effort should be made to bring home the truth. Criminal judicial system cannot be overturned by witnesses who do an audacious somersault from their testimony in Court and also refuse to acknowledge that the complaint was lodged by them and the statement under Section 164 CrPC was recorded by them. Such witnesses ought to be dealt with sternly so that abuse of the criminal process is not done so blatantly and with such impunity as is seen very often these days. Sec- tion 193 of the IPC is a provision which ought to be brought into use in such cases FIR No. 1198/2014 P.S. Shakarpur State Vs. Shri Jitendra Prakash Shrivastava and Anr. Page No.16 of 18 and the judicial officers too should exercise their powers under this Section. This Section has till date remained unused and has atrophied on this count.
18. In the instant case, the complainant Ms. X has refused to admit her sig- natures on the FIR and the statement under Section 164 CrPC. When this Court di- rected her to give her sample signatures on a blank sheet of paper and also write a few lines, so that the Court could compare her signatures with those on the statement under Section 164 CrPC and the written complaint lodged by her at the police sta- tion, the witness has deliberately given signatures in shaky writing and the sample signatures themselves show considerable variations in the signature. Also, each sig- nature given by the complainant in her deposition recorded in Court are deliberately shaky as can be seen on a close scrutiny of her signatures. Further, the evasive re- plies of the complainant in Court show that she is deliberately lying before the Court. She has shown scant disregard for the legal obligation to speak the truth in Court. Hence, I deem it fit to exercise my powers under Section 195 CrPC and direct that an FIR be lodged in the police station of the area concerned against the com- plainant Ms. X. The SHO is directed to lodge an FIR against the complainant Ms. X in the present proceedings under Sections 177, 182, 193 and 211 IPC. Let a copy of this Order be sent to the SHO concerned alongwith the copy of the hand- written complaint of the complainant Ms. X; copy of her statement under Section 164 CrPC; deposition of complainant recorded on 09.07.2018; and sample signa- tures on document marked Exhibit Court Document-1. The SHO of the concerned FIR No. 1198/2014 P.S. Shakarpur State Vs. Shri Jitendra Prakash Shrivastava and Anr. Page No.17 of 18 police station is also directed to attach photos of the victims/ witnesses etc. whose statements are recorded under Section 164 CrPC alongwith the statements so rec- orded so that the said witnesses/ victims etc. cannot resile from their statement in Court at a later stage and say that they didn't get their statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC. Let copies of this judgment be also sent to all the police sta- tions falling in the jurisdiction of this Court for compliance of this directive.
19. With these directions, the present proceedings are disposed off and the accused is acquitted of all charges as already stated herein above.
20. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
(Harshita Vatsayan)
MM(Mahila Court-01/East/
KKD Courts/Delhi/11.07.2018
Digitally signed by HARSHITA
HARSHITA VATSAYAN
DN: c=IN, o=OFFICE OF THE
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
VATSAYA
2.5.4.20=0ed39c1a3bfaa3a1878a2e
5b1d2dfbdbeca9e16d4526c6efb2c
959f60424293d, ou=DELHI DISTT
COURTS,CID - 6543012,
N postalCode=110054, st=Delhi,
cn=HARSHITA VATSAYAN
Date: 2018.07.13 13:04:21 +05'30'
FIR No. 1198/2014
P.S. Shakarpur
State Vs. Shri Jitendra Prakash Shrivastava and Anr. Page No.18 of 18