Delhi District Court
Sh. Pawan S/O Sh. Kishan Kaushik vs The State on 16 October, 2021
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA:
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
I. CA NO. 08/2021
1. Sh. Pawan S/o Sh. Kishan Kaushik
R/o: 40/12, Lal Quarters,
Kidwai Nagar East, New Delhi
2. Sh. Sushil S/o Sh. P. C. Malik
R/o: 11-A, Amrit Nagar,
South Extension Part-I, New Delhi
3. Sh. Amit S/o Sh. Sushil Malik
R/o: 11-A, Amrit Nagar,
South Extension Part-I, .... Appellants/
New Delhi Accused Persons
Versus
The State
(GNCT of Delhi) .... Respondent
Date of filing of Appeal: 15.01.2021
Date of Order: 16.10.2021
II. CA NO. 49/2021
Sh. Sachin Mittal S/o Sh. Ved Prakash Mittal
R/: C-2/132, Janakpuri, .... Appellant/
New Delhi - 110058 Complainant
VERSUS
1. State (GNCT of Delhi)
2. Sh. Pawan S/o Late Sh. Krishan Kaushik
R/o: 40/32, Lal Quarters,
Kidwai Nagar East, New Delhi - 110023
I. CA No. 08/2021 Pawan & Others vs. State Page No. 1 of 17
2. CA No. 49/2021 Sachin Mittal vs. State & Others
3. Sh. Sushil S/o Sh. P. C. Malik
R/o: 11-A, Amrit Nagar,
South Extension Part-I,
New Delhi - 110049
4. Sh. Amit S/o Sh. Sushil Malik
R/o: 11-A, Amrit Nagar,
South Extension Part-I, .... Respondents No. 2
New Delhi - 110049 to 4 Accused Persons
Date of filing of Appeal: 30.03.2021
Date of Order: 16.10.2021
COMMON ORDER :
1. Vide this Common Order, I shall decide the Appeal under Section 374 (3) Cr. P. C. arising out of the Conviction dated 10.12.2020 under Sections 341/327/427/506/34 IPC and Sentence dated 11.12.2020 and Cross Appeal preferred by the Complainant against the acquittal of the Accused persons under Sections 394/323/34 IPC.
2. Facts in brief are that the Complainant Sh. Sachin Mittal gave a written complaint on 12.11.2008 to the SHO PS Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi, wherein it was stated that his father is running a wholesale crackers business at Shop No. 49, Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi, while the accused Pappu Malik was having a Tent House. Two days prior to 25.10.2018 accused Pappu Malik had demanded Rs. 2.5 lacs from his father and told him to arrange the money in two days. However, his father did not take the threat seriously and ignored his threat thinking that he was drunk. However, in order to achieve the illegal design, three days prior to Diwali at about 11.45 pm when he was also present in the shop, accused Pappu Malik along with his I. CA No. 08/2021 Pawan & Others vs. State Page No. 2 of 17
2. CA No. 49/2021 Sachin Mittal vs. State & Others son Amit illegally and forcibly entered into their shop armed with deadly weapons i.e. lathi, danda, belt, knife etc. They called his father outside the shop and again made demand of Rs. 2.5 lacs. When he resisted, accused Pappu Malik and his son Amit along with their associates started damaging the shop and gave lathi and fists blows to the Complainant and his father, his mother, his brother and one employee and told that they would return back in two minutes and a sum of Rs. 2.5 lacs may be arranged. The Complainant and his family members got scared and confused. In the meanwhile, accused Pappu Malik along with his associates again came with full preparation by carrying deadly weapons like lathi, belts and knife etc. and asked for money. When they refused, they started beating them with stools, lathi, fist blows and leather belts on the head, chest and other vital parts of the body with the intention to cause death. They trespassed into their shop and damaged the valuable property. They also beat their employee Deapak Arora badly and snatched his mobile phone bearing No. 9313613699, make Nokia 6275 and his gold chain. They also used abusive and filthy language and threatened that the matter be not reported to the police but despite the threat, Complainant called the police at No. 100 from his mobile phone and sought their help. After much request, they were taken for their medical examination. Accused Pappu Malik, his son Amit and their associates again visited their shop and started shouting at them. The Complainant further stated that feeling scared, his brother who was at the shop again called the PCR at No. 100. It I. CA No. 08/2021 Pawan & Others vs. State Page No. 3 of 17
2. CA No. 49/2021 Sachin Mittal vs. State & Others was further stated in the complaint that five other associates of the accused Pappu Malik and his son Amit were not known to him, but he could identify them if shown to him. It was further submitted that the entire incident had been recorded in the CCTV camera installed in their shop and CD of the criminal offence was annexed along with the complaint.
3. The initial action on the complaint was not taken and application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was filed. The FIR was registered under Sections 323/341/427/506/34 IPC on the directions of the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and investigation was conducted by IO SI Rajveer.
4. During the investigations, IO recorded the statement of the witnesses and seized the CCTV Footage. The accused persons were arrested, but since all the sections were bailable, they were admitted to police bail.
5. On the directions of the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate further investigation was carried out and offence under Section 327 IPC was added.
6. The Complainant Sh. Sachin Mittal informed the Investigating Officer that the matter was compromised amicably on 06.07.2009 and the copy of Compromise Deed was given to the IO. The petition for quashing the FIR was filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi wherein it was pending. On completion of the investigations, the charge-sheet was filed in the Court under Sections 323/341/427/506/327/34 IPC.
7. Charges under Sections 394/341/323/327/427/506/34 IPC were framed against all the three accused persons to I. CA No. 08/2021 Pawan & Others vs. State Page No. 4 of 17
2. CA No. 49/2021 Sachin Mittal vs. State & Others which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. PW-1 Sh. Sachin Mittal is the complainant, who had deposed, as narrated in his complaint Ex. PW-1/A.
9. PW-2 Sh. Ved Prakash Mittal is the father of the Complainant, who has corroborated and deposed on the similar lines as PW-1 Sh. Sachin Mittal.
10.PW-3 ASI Anil Kaushik has registered the FIR Ex. PW- 3/B.
11.PW-4 ASI Ram Chander Singh had reached the spot on 25.10.2008 on receipt of DD Entry No. 31-A about quarrel at Shop No. 49-A, E-Block, Central Market, Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi. He recorded the statement of the Complainant Ex. PW-2/D-1. He got the medical examination of the Complainant Sh. Sachin Mittal, Sh. Ved Prakash and Deepak done at AIIMS, New Delhi vide applications Ex. PW-4/A, Ex. PW-4/B and Ex. PW-4/C respectively. No MLC was prepared by the Doctor, as according to him no visible injury was caused to the Complainant Sh. Sachin Mittal and Sh. Ved Prakash and all the injured persons were declared fit for statement. No opinion was given in regard to the injuries received by Sh. Deepak and same was kept pending. He further deposed that the Complainant had stated that he and other injured persons would make statement after consulting their family members and DD No. 31-A was kept pending.
12.PW-5 IO Inspector Vijay Pal has deposed that during the investigations, he after perusal of the CCTV Footage and other evidence added Section 327/394/458 IPC against the accused persons. Thereafter, he obtained the Non-Bailable I. CA No. 08/2021 Pawan & Others vs. State Page No. 5 of 17
2. CA No. 49/2021 Sachin Mittal vs. State & Others Warrants against the accused persons as the serious offences have been added against them on 08.06.2009. During the course of investigation, settlement was arrived at between the parties and Settlement Deed was placed before him and the parties agreed for getting the FIR quashed. The petition was also filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for quashing.
13.The Statement of the Accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. in which they pleaded their innocence in their defence.
14.In their defence, accused DW-1 Sh. Amit Malik examined himself and deposed that there was a dispute between him and Sh. Ved Prakash Mittal, father of the Complainant, as they both had applied for temporary fire cracker Licence before the concerned Authority. On 25.10.2008 they were putting stalls in the premises marked by the Licensing Department, Delhi but suddenly Sh. Ved Prakash Mittal along with the Complainant Sh. Sachin Mittal reached to his premises and told him to remove the stall. However, he replied that this was the place marked by the Licensing Department and he cannot put his stall anywhere else. He also informed that he had invested huge amount in purchasing the cracker and by removing the stall, it would cause huge loss to him. Thereafter, the Complainant and his father left the shop. Sh. Ved Prakash Mittal and Sh. Sachin Mittal along with 4/5 persons came again to his shop and started abusing his father on which a verbal altercation took place. The Complainant Sh. Sachin Mittal made a call to the PCR and police reached the spot. I. CA No. 08/2021 Pawan & Others vs. State Page No. 6 of 17
2. CA No. 49/2021 Sachin Mittal vs. State & Others Written complaint was given by the Complainant Sh. Sachin Mittal to the Police. However, the matter was compromised and they also filed a petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for quashing. However, the Complainant Sh. Sachin Mittal did not appear before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and continued to pursue his complaint.
15.DW-2 Sh. Sushil Kumar Gandhi has deposed that he has a shop near the shop of the accused Amit Malik. A dispute took place between Sh. Amit Malik and Sh. Ved Prakash in regard to installation of the stall of crackers on 25.10.2008 and some quarrel happened between them. Police arrived and matter was compromised.
16.DW-3 Sh. Ajay Singh Rawat had also installed the shop of some decoration material and has deposed that some dispute took place between Sh. Ved Prakash and the accused persons.
17.Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate vide the impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons of the offences punishable under Sections 394/323/34 IPC but noted that the consistent testimony of the Complainant Sh. Sachin Mittal and his father Sh. Ved Prakash Mittal proved the offences under Sections 341/327/427/506/34 IPC and the accused persons were accordingly convicted and sentenced them as under:
S.No Section Sentence In Default
under IPC
1. Section 327 SI for a term of 01 year Further SI of 01 IPC and to pay fine of month Rs. 10,000/- each for offence I. CA No. 08/2021 Pawan & Others vs. State Page No. 7 of 17
2. CA No. 49/2021 Sachin Mittal vs. State & Others
2. Section 427 To undergo SI for a term SI for 15 days IPC of 06 months and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each
3. Section 341 Sentenced to pay fine of SI for 03 days IPC Rs. 500/- each
4. Section 506 Sentenced to a period of SI for 15 days IPC 06 months and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each
18.Aggrieved by the said Conviction and Sentence 341/ 327/427/506/34 IPC, the Appellants/Accused Pawan, Sushil and Amit filed the Criminal Appeal No. 08/2021. On the other hand, the Complainant Sh. Sachin Mittal being aggrieved by the acquittal under Sections 394/323/ 34 IPC filed the Criminal Appeal No. 49/2021.
19.I have heard the arguments and perused the record. My observations are as under:
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 08/2021 AGAINST THE CONVICTION UNDER SECTIONS 327/427/506/34 IPC
20.The Appellants/Accused persons have been charged for the offences under Sections 394/341/323/327/427/506/34 IPC. As per the case of the prosecution, the fight took place between the Complainant Sh. Sachin Mittal and the Appellants/Accused persons on 25.10.2008 at about 11.45 pm at Shop No. 49, Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi. DD No. 31-A which was recorded in regard to quarrel at Central Market, Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi, was marked to PW-4 IO ASI Ram Chander Singh who had deposed that he reached at the spot and met the complainant Sh. Ved Prakash, and recorded his statement Ex. PW-2/D-1. The Complainant requested for medical examination of I. CA No. 08/2021 Pawan & Others vs. State Page No. 8 of 17
2. CA No. 49/2021 Sachin Mittal vs. State & Others himself, Sh. Deepak and Sh. Sachin Mittal and accordingly he took all the three injured persons to AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi for their medical examination. He also moved applications vide Ex. PW-4/A, Ex. PW-4/B and Ex. PW-4/C. MLC of Sh. Deepak Arora was prepared but not of the other two injured persons namely Sh. Sachin Mittal and Sh. Ved Prakash Mittal as they had no visible injury. All the injured persons were declared fit for statement but the Complainant Sh. Sachn Mittal and Sh. Ved Prakash Mittal told that they would give their statements in the Police Station after consulting their family members.
21.The complaint Ex. PW-1/A was made on 12.11.2008 that is after about 17 days of the incident which happened on 25.10.2008.
22.The first reporting of the incident was done by PW-2 Sh. Ved Prakash as admitted by him in his cross- examination that his statement Ex. PW-2/ D-1 was recorded by the police on the date of incident i.e. 25.10.2018. It is most relevant being the first narration of the incident. The complaint Ex. PW-2/D-1 mentioned that at about 11.30 pm while Ved Prakash was standing outside his shop, Appellant/Accused Pappu Malik, who is also running a shop in the name of Jyoti Tent House, came there and threatened him by saying that since he has ruined his Diwali, he would not spare him and his family members. In the meantime Appellant/Accused Amit, son of Pappu Malik along with 4-5 persons also came and they all started giving him beatings. On hearing his voice, his son I. CA No. 08/2021 Pawan & Others vs. State Page No. 9 of 17
2. CA No. 49/2021 Sachin Mittal vs. State & Others Sh. Sachin Mittal and worker Sh. Deepak Arora came there and they were also beaten up by Appellants/ Accused persons and their associates.
23.The first complaint was only in regard to quarrel and beatings given to Sh. Ved Prakash Malik while he was standing outside the shop, his son Sachin and their employee Deepak by the Appellants/Accused Persons and their associates. There is not a whisper about they being armed with lathi, belt, knife etc. or they having forcibly entered into the shop of the Complainant or caused damage to the goods lying inside the shop.
24.The applications Ex PW4/A & PW-4/B moved by PW-4 ASI Ram Chander Singh for the medical examination of Sachin and Ved Prakash also mention that they both had no visible injury which is highly unlikely if infact they were beaten by lathis, belts, etc as claimed in the subsequent complaint Ex PW1/A. The medical record also does not corroborate the subsequent version as narrated in complaint Ex PW1/A and also deposed by PW-1 & PW-2 in their respective testimony.
25.Noticeably as per PW-4 ASI Ram Chander Singh the Doctor on conducting their medical examination had observed that they were fit to make the statement. Despite this Sachin Mittal told the IO that he would make a formal complaint after consulting the family members and accordingly the complaint was made after 17 days.
26.Another significant fact is that during the Investigations the matter was admittedly compromised between the parties and Compromise Settlement was submitted to the I. CA No. 08/2021 Pawan & Others vs. State Page No. 10 of 17
2. CA No. 49/2021 Sachin Mittal vs. State & Others IO, which fact is corroborated from the testimony of DW-1 Sh. Amit (Accused), who had deposed that after the Compromise Deed was signed by all the parties, they had moved application for quashing the FIR before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
27.Likewise, DW-2 Sh. Sushil Kumar Gandhi, who was having a shop in the neighbourhood, had also deposed that when the police arrived after the quarrel, the matter was sorted out through compromise on 06.07.2009.
28.What thus emerges is that the Complaint made immediately after the incident was a quarrel which was compromised with the intervention of the neighbours and even petition for quashing was filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It is admitted by the PW-1 Complainant Sh. Sathin Mittal that he did not sign or appear before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the quashing proceedings.
29.The exaggerated version came for the first time in the formal complaint Ex. PW-1/1 which was made after 17 days and has been proved by the Complainant PW-1 Sh. Sachin Mittal who deposed that his father Sh. Ved Prakash Mittal was having a permanent license of Fireworks issued by Central Government in the name of M/s Jaggu Mal Ved Prakash and they are doing this business for last 38 years. On account of Govt policy less Temporary Firecracker Licences were issued that year. Plaintiff has relied upon the CD, however, the same has not been proved in accordance with law and is even not supported by Certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. I. CA No. 08/2021 Pawan & Others vs. State Page No. 11 of 17
2. CA No. 49/2021 Sachin Mittal vs. State & Others Around Diwali time, the accused persons demanded Rs. 2.5 lacs from Sh. Ved Prakash Mittal as they suffered loss on account of not being able to make expected sale of fire crackers as temporary Licence was denied to them. His father initially ignored the demand of the accused persons. However, on 25.10.2008 at about 11.45 pm the Appellants/ Accused persons along with some other persons reached and shouted while his father, his mother, his brother and one employee were present at the shop. They called his father outside the shop and demanded a sum of Rs. 2.5 lacs and thereafter threatened that in case their demand was not fulfilled they would put the shop on fire and left by claiming that they would come again in two minutes and a sum of Rs. 2.5 lacs may be arranged. After sometime, the Appellants/Accused persons along with their associates again came with full preparation and were carrying deadly weapons like lathi, belts and knife etc. and demanded Rs. 2.5 lacs from his father. When he refused, they damaged the valuable property in the shop and also gave beatings with stools, lathi, fist blows and leather belts to PW-1 Sh. Sachin Mittal, Sh. Ved Prakash Mittal and their employee Sh. Deepak Arora. They also snatched the Nokia Mobile Phone of their employee Sh. Deepak. Not only this, they threatened the lady customers present in the shop. They also threatened the Complainant and his father by saying that Sallo Behn.......Aaj to Chod Diya Kal Fir Isi Samay Ayenge Paiso Ka Intejaam Kar Ke Rakhna Aur Agar Galti Se Bhi Police Ko Inform Karne Ki Koshish Ki To Tumhe Aur Tumhare Pure I. CA No. 08/2021 Pawan & Others vs. State Page No. 12 of 17
2. CA No. 49/2021 Sachin Mittal vs. State & Others Khandaan Ko Jaan Se Marwa Denge . The Complainant submitted that they got scared and called the police reached there. Due to fear, their employee Sh. Deepak left the shop and his medical examination could not be done. However, the Complainant and his father had gone for medical examination. The Appellant/Accused Pappu Malik along with his son Amit and other associates again visited the shop of the Complainant and started shouting Tum Mujhe Jante Nahi Ho Meri Pohch Upar Tak Hai.. Mere Sar Par Bahut Se Political Leader Ka Haath Hai Aur Humare Hi Dum Par Sarkar Raaj Karti Hai... Kitne Bhi Medical Karwa Le Saare Record Badalwa Doonga Aur Police To Waise Bhi Mera Kuch Nahi Biagaad Sakti... Police Walon Ko To Mein Apni Jeb Mein Rakhta Hu... Aur Haan Is Baar To Sab Bach Gae Agli Baar Moka Mila To Jaan Se Jayange Saare Ke Saare...... Isiliye Samjha Diya Ki Koi Action Lene Ki Jurrat Na Kare.... His brother Sh. Nitin Mittal, who was also present at the shop got scared and again called the police. The Complainant has submitted that the incident was captured in the CCTV Camera installed in the shop, of which he got prepared the CD and handed over the same to the police.
30.The testimony of PW-1 Sachin is fully corroborated by his father PW-2 Sh. Ved Prakash Mittal who has also deposed on similar lines.
31.It is quite evident from the two versions i.e. the complaint Ex. PW-1/1 dated 12.11.2008 and the statement Ex. PW- 2/D-1 dated 25.10.2008 that the Appellants/Accused I. CA No. 08/2021 Pawan & Others vs. State Page No. 13 of 17
2. CA No. 49/2021 Sachin Mittal vs. State & Others persons had done Maar Pitai with Sh. Ved Prakash Malik, his son/Complainant Sh. Sachin Mittal and his employee Sh. Deepak Arora. He neither stated about any forcible entry into the shop or damage to the goods lying in the shop. The testimony of two witnesses namely PW-1 Sh. Sachin Mittal and PW-2 Sh. Ved Prakash Mittal are an afterthought and an exaggeration of the small incident of quarrel which happened outside the shop of PW-2 Sh. Ved Prakash Mittal, father of the Complainant Sh. Sachin Mittal.
32.Thus, the offences under Sections 341/327/427/34 IPC are not made out against the Appellants/Accused persons.
33.The other offence for which the Appellants/Accused Persons have been convicted was Section 506 IPC.
34.According to PW-1 & PW-2 abuses were hurled at them by the appellants. It was also deposed that after they were taken to the Hospital by PW-4 ASI Ram Chander, the Appellants again came back and threatened Sh, Nitin, brother of Sachin, who got alarmed and called the PCR. There is no evidence whatsoever in this regard and Nitin has not even been examined as a witness. The simplicitor hurling of abuses does not come within the definition of criminal intimidation. As has been held in the case of Kanshi Ram vs. State (2000) 86 DLT 609 , there should be specific averments regarding the threat and unless such threat causes alarm in the mind of the victim/complainant, no offence under Section 506 IPC would be made out.
35.Thus, the offence under Section 506 IPC is also not I. CA No. 08/2021 Pawan & Others vs. State Page No. 14 of 17
2. CA No. 49/2021 Sachin Mittal vs. State & Others made out against the Appellants/Accused Persons.
36.In view of above, Criminal Appeal No. 08/2021 titled Pawan & Others vs. State is allowed and the Appellants/Accused Persons are acquitted of the offences under Sections 341/327/427/506/34 IPC.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 49/2021 AGAINST THE ACQUITTAL OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS UNDER SECTIONS 394/323/34 IPC
37.The Complainant Sh. Sachin Mittal has filed the Criminal Appeal No. 49/2021 titled Sachin Mittal vs. State & Others against the acquittal of the Accused Persons under Sections 394/323/34 IPC.
38.As per the Prosecution Case, Sh. Deepak Arora, employee of the Complainant had been robbed of his mobile phone and gold chain. However, Sh. Deepak Arora neither appeared as a witness nor any evidence whatsoever has been led by the prosecution to show that his mobile phone and chain was snatched by the accused persons. There is no evidence, whatsoever, to connect the accused persons that they snatched the mobile phone and gold chain of the Complainant. Hence, the accused persons have been rightly acquitted of the offence under Section 394/34 IPC.
39.The accused persons have also been acquitted for the offence under Section 323/34 IPC.
40.Both the witnesses i.e. PW-1 Sh. Sachin Mittal and PW-2 Sh. Ved Prakash Mittal have deposed that they were beaten up by the accused persons and they suffered injuries. Their I. CA No. 08/2021 Pawan & Others vs. State Page No. 15 of 17
2. CA No. 49/2021 Sachin Mittal vs. State & Others testimony has been fully corroborated by the testimony of PW-4 ASI Ram Chander Singh, who immediately reached at the spot on receipt of the information about quarrel vide DD No. 31-A dated 25.10.2008 and took them to AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi for their medical examination and proved the applications for their medical examination as Ex. PW-4/A, Ex. PW-4/B and Ex. PW-4/C respectively. The perusal of the three applications shows that Sh. Sachin Mittal and Sh. Ved Prakash Mittal were examined by the Doctor at AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi. It was observed that they did not have any visible injury. However, MLC of Deepak Arora was prepared but not proved.
41.Section 323 IPC reads as under:
Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt--Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
42.Section 319 IPC defines hurt as under:
Hurt --Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.
43.According to this Section, any bodily pain amounts to hurt which is punishable under Section 323 IPC. The testimony of PW-1 Sh. Sachin Mittal and his father PW-2 Sh. Ved Prakash Mittal coupled with applications for Medical Examination vide Ex. PW-4/A and Ex. PW-4/B respectively proves that they were beaten by the Appellants which amounts to causing bodily pain and thus I. CA No. 08/2021 Pawan & Others vs. State Page No. 16 of 17
2. CA No. 49/2021 Sachin Mittal vs. State & Others amounts to hurt as defined under Section 319 IPC.
44.Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate fell in error in acquitting the accused persons for the offence under Section 323/34 IPC. Thus, the Accused Persons are convicted for offence punishable under Section 323/34 IPC.
45.The Criminal Appeal No. 49/2021 titled Sachin Mittal vs. State & Others is partly allowed and the Appellants/ Accused Persons namely Pawan, Sushil and Amit are convicted for offence punishable under Section 323/34 IPC.
CONCLUSION:
46. Criminal Appeal No. 08/2021 titled Pawan & Others vs. State is allowed and the Appellants/Accused Persons Pawan, Sushil and Amit are acquitted of the offences under Sections 327/341/427/506/34 IPC.
47.The Criminal Appeal No. 49/2021 titled Sachin Mittal vs. State & Others is partly allowed and the Appellants/ Accused Persons namely Pawan, Sushil and Amit are convicted for offence punishable under Section 323/34 IPC.
48.Put up for arguments on the point of sentence on 22.10.2021.
49.Trial Court record be sent back along with the copy of this order.
50.Appeal Files be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open (NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA) Court on 16.10.2021 Principal District & Sessions Judge (KSR) South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi I. CA No. 08/2021 Pawan & Others vs. State Page No. 17 of 17
2. CA No. 49/2021 Sachin Mittal vs. State & Others